Winzip 10 is still unreliable since it still doesn't support Unicode filenames
I can remember having contacted them a year back and they said this was not a priority. Windows is now Unicode compliant, even if some programs still need to work on this (Firefox for example), but this is so stone age thinking of them.
I use the zip compressor on MacOS X and it creates the entries in Unicode. WinZip can't deal with these files. I have files, whoes filenames are in multiple languages, including Chinese and Russian, so these have be compressed without WinZip.
We'll see how it turns out. Google has respect, Skype has respect and Microsoft has sheep (it works though;) Truth is I almost like the way Google is working and would love to see Google, Skype and whoever else actually making it so their voice networks actually talk to each other, rather than being islands onto themselves. Then all we need is to add video into the fray and then here will be a product that would be a killer to any company who doesn't join it. - IMHO of course.
Truth is what the submitter suggests is probably not the EULA's intent.
On the other hand I would quite happily have a EULA on my computer targeted towards web developers: You may not run your CPU intensive, non-standard flash in my browser - if you can't do your site in HTML, I will quite happily avoid it.
I wasn't talking number transfer. I was talking about simply changing your phone because you wanted a new one, but with the same provider. In a GSM network you pop out the SIM and use it in the new one. With the CDMA networks you have nothing to pop out to transfer the account, so you have to contact your provider to get the account transfered to the new phone.
You're supposed to take the sim card out. That's what normally happens.
Yes but this is only valid for GSM phones. With CDMA phones there is no SIM card. This is the thing that makes changing a CDMA phone complicated, since you have to call up to transfer the account, and I know that phone company support lines have a great reputation;)
Yes but this is only valid for GSM phones. With CDMA phones there is no SIM card. This is the thing that makes buying a new CDMA phone complicated, since you have to call up to transfer the account.
Sounds like on hand we have companies talking in terms of marketing, and how it can save you money and on the other hand a tech guy using terms that Joe Average doesn't fathom the difference. A ladder falls into the realm of the non-abstract, where most people have a feeling for the limitations. VoIP is the technology abstraction, where most people don't understand the issues behind it and just want something that works.
Maybe what we need is information telling people that they must not replace their exist telephone solution with VoIP, otherwise they are up ships creak and without a paddle when things go wrong.
Take your average user and ask yourself what they would prefer: the "it just works" solution or the "it kinda works, but you are going to have to get off your lazy arse and RTFM".
Perhaps MY solution mix does not need to include E911, but rather it's more important to me to have call waiting, simultaneous ring, 3-way calling, voice mail that can email, call rejection, web configuration of my options, great rates, and local number portability.
Great, but short sighted. What do you do the day there is a fire, when you have replaced your regular phone service with this. What happens if all your neighbours did the same?
VoIP cannot be trusted for emergencies.. what if your DSL or cable modem goes out?
What if? The problem is that people have certain expectations of a communication service, whether they are realistic or not - they want their cake and to be able to eat it too. VoIP providers are either going to have to come up with solutions, or admit that they aren't ready to replace your current telephony service and hence can't claim to be a "Telephony solution".
They signed up for VOIP. They have no one to blame but themselves.
It all depends. Were they made clear ont the limitations of the service, in clear writing, ie not in the small print. For example Google Talk clearly states "Google Talk is not a telephony service and cannot be used for emergency dialing".
I think a distinction needs to be made between "internet telephony", which would require providing essential services and "voice chat", which would require people to maintain a standard line of communications.
Either way this distinction is likely to blur and it is going to be important to work out issues, such as the ability to recognise where you are dialing from. Maybe what we need are routers which support geolocation, by specifying a grid-ref?
What they can do is have a medium quality video that you can view online for free. Then have a link on the page where you can buy the DVD if you like it enough, and maybe even have a sponsor link on the page. The latter would be equivalent to the 'tipping' idea that some people have suggested several times.
Commercial companies could do the same, but with adverts thrown in with the online version.
AAC is not an Apple file format. It is owned by Dolby and is part of the MPEG4 spec. What is owned by Apple is the DRM, known as FairPlay, that is used by the AAC files from the iTunes store.
I think that if Sony is using AAC, it is because they are including support for MPEG video, so it is more of a side effect, rather than anything else. Now it would be nice to see Apple allowing Sony to use their DRM, but it is probably going to be a question of who is going to be more pig-headed.
It should also be noted that Sony Electronics and Sony Music often act as if they were two different companys doing things that conflict with the position of the other entity.
People are uncertain about sience and technology, so they move to a comfort zone. If a good level of education is not provided to everyone, then we will have two groups of people: those that understand technology and those who think that it is some sort of magic governing our toys. Maybe Terry Pratchet was right and there are imps inside our cameras painting pictures?
The other thing that gets me is "Intelligent Design", as a competitor to evolution. Sure evolution has not been proved 100%, but the only premise for wanting ID seems to be as a way of separating us from the animals and trying to say that we are the chosen ones - sounds like what the Jewish population in the old testment felt with regards to everyone else, instead now it expands to a larger religious group. I ask myself, if God acts in weird and ownderful ways, why can't he have made us in his image, through playing around with evolution? I m not against having both taught in schools, since it encourages people to evalate different view points, but am against removing evolution from the curiculem.
Another thing with evolution is that some people say it is not possible, because there is no way you can go from something as big as dinosaur, to something as small a mouse. Given that mutations can happen in short time periods, and this happened over a million years, and that all things start off small in an egg or a womb, I would have to say that the biggest issue is a failure of imagination. I should note that many reptiles sizes are directly related to the amount of food they eat (eat more, get bigger).
There appears to be a number of homebrew designs here. One other thing that I noticed from my hour of looking at the subject yesterday is that you need a dedicated computer to control the system. There appears to be Penguin CNC, which seems to do the job, using Realtime Linux.
I am happy to see the source code for Quake 3 released as open source, meaning that developers can compile it and tweak it to their hearts content.
I am now wondering whether anyone actually did something with the Quake 2 source code, other than compile it to get a free copy of Quake 2? For example did anyone build any mods or any other games using the open source code?
I reckon that the CDs provided enough of 'chaotic' sound pattern to test the idea out and it was quicker to put together than a piece of software to do the same job. This would probably also suggest more regular sounds waves, like sin-waves, just didn't achieve the expected results. The next step would be looking at the wave signals and understanding why one group works better than the other. Of course this is supisition based on the available information.
The problem is that this study is based on the current multistage shuttle design. The current shuttle design just doesn't hold up to the long term, or to the mid-term, for the reasons you cited. What I feel is that the concept of a reusable launch vehicle is a good one, just not with what we have now.
I am sure that the collection of the boosters, testing the o-rings, building a new fuel tank, checking the tiles are in order and mating the lot together are the elements are just some of the elements that create the outrageous costs. In this scenario a standard rocket is cheaper, since once you have taken into account the fuel tank and the boosters, you almost have all the necessary components to build the standard rocket.
A reuseable vehicle can provide many advantage if done right, but it is important to simplify the design so that it does not cost more than an average airliner to maintain. A single stage should reduce the costs to only making sure that the vehicle is fit to fly, than having to deal with all the extras.
NASA is on the road to fixing this. Griffin has a clear vision for the future launch platform; separate the cargo from the crew, put the payloads on top, reuse the high quality and well understood booster and shuttle main engine designs for propulsion, de-orbit the crew in a lifting body capsule, and do it quickly so we don't have to keep flying these space planes. It should be cheap, reliable and flexible.
But this fails to address the one place that the shuttle was good at: maintance of satellites. While for most mid-term projects we can get away without a shuttle, long term we need one, but only if we can get it to be single stage.
The problem at the moment is that we are having to build new launch vehicles for every satellite that is launched, and then we have problems when the satellites arrive at the end of their life. Also, without a way of maintaining them the satellites in some cases have to be decomissioned before their the end of the expected lifespan if just one thing fails. Maybe the ideal future shuttle would be a hybrid manned-unmanned vehicle, wherein a crew is not required for all flights.
We are starting to see more and more case of hash algorithms, such as MD5 and SHA-1, suffering from these type of exploits. Would it not be possible to simply have a key which is actually two keys, using two different algorithms? The idea being that it would be more difficult to get round exploit a key which is the result of two different algorithms. As computing power increases the ability to exploit hash-algorithms improves, but at the same time the effort required to generate multiple keys is reduced.
The interesting thing is that the top three results make no reference to the word failure. Of course it is probably based on pages linking to these three, but I wonder if they should even be included for the lack of the search term?
Slashdot Mirror
Just wanted to chime in with these two links, describing the architecture:
- Architecture of MacOS X
- XNU: The Kernel
and then some more from Apple on Darwin:
- Darwin Documentation
Since this site is down for the count, here are some more Mac related hardware mods:
AppleFritter
and some software ones too:
ResExcellence
Enjoy. Hopefully someone will post a mirror of the orginal.
Winzip 10 is still unreliable since it still doesn't support Unicode filenames
I can remember having contacted them a year back and they said this was not a priority. Windows is now Unicode compliant, even if some programs still need to work on this (Firefox for example), but this is so stone age thinking of them.
I use the zip compressor on MacOS X and it creates the entries in Unicode. WinZip can't deal with these files. I have files, whoes filenames are in multiple languages, including Chinese and Russian, so these have be compressed without WinZip.
We'll see how it turns out. Google has respect, Skype has respect and Microsoft has sheep (it works though ;) Truth is I almost like the way Google is working and would love to see Google, Skype and whoever else actually making it so their voice networks actually talk to each other, rather than being islands onto themselves. Then all we need is to add video into the fray and then here will be a product that would be a killer to any company who doesn't join it. - IMHO of course.
Truth is what the submitter suggests is probably not the EULA's intent.
On the other hand I would quite happily have a EULA on my computer targeted towards web developers: You may not run your CPU intensive, non-standard flash in my browser - if you can't do your site in HTML, I will quite happily avoid it.
I wasn't talking number transfer. I was talking about simply changing your phone because you wanted a new one, but with the same provider. In a GSM network you pop out the SIM and use it in the new one. With the CDMA networks you have nothing to pop out to transfer the account, so you have to contact your provider to get the account transfered to the new phone.
You're supposed to take the sim card out. That's what normally happens.
;)
Yes but this is only valid for GSM phones. With CDMA phones there is no SIM card. This is the thing that makes changing a CDMA phone complicated, since you have to call up to transfer the account, and I know that phone company support lines have a great reputation
Yes but this is only valid for GSM phones. With CDMA phones there is no SIM card. This is the thing that makes buying a new CDMA phone complicated, since you have to call up to transfer the account.
Sounds like on hand we have companies talking in terms of marketing, and how it can save you money and on the other hand a tech guy using terms that Joe Average doesn't fathom the difference. A ladder falls into the realm of the non-abstract, where most people have a feeling for the limitations. VoIP is the technology abstraction, where most people don't understand the issues behind it and just want something that works.
Maybe what we need is information telling people that they must not replace their exist telephone solution with VoIP, otherwise they are up ships creak and without a paddle when things go wrong.
Take your average user and ask yourself what they would prefer: the "it just works" solution or the "it kinda works, but you are going to have to get off your lazy arse and RTFM".
Perhaps MY solution mix does not need to include E911, but rather it's more important to me to have call waiting, simultaneous ring, 3-way calling, voice mail that can email, call rejection, web configuration of my options, great rates, and local number portability.
Great, but short sighted. What do you do the day there is a fire, when you have replaced your regular phone service with this. What happens if all your neighbours did the same?
VoIP cannot be trusted for emergencies.. what if your DSL or cable modem goes out?
What if? The problem is that people have certain expectations of a communication service, whether they are realistic or not - they want their cake and to be able to eat it too. VoIP providers are either going to have to come up with solutions, or admit that they aren't ready to replace your current telephony service and hence can't claim to be a "Telephony solution".
They signed up for VOIP. They have no one to blame but themselves.
It all depends. Were they made clear ont the limitations of the service, in clear writing, ie not in the small print. For example Google Talk clearly states "Google Talk is not a telephony service and cannot be used for emergency dialing".
I think a distinction needs to be made between "internet telephony", which would require providing essential services and "voice chat", which would require people to maintain a standard line of communications.
Either way this distinction is likely to blur and it is going to be important to work out issues, such as the ability to recognise where you are dialing from. Maybe what we need are routers which support geolocation, by specifying a grid-ref?
What they can do is have a medium quality video that you can view online for free. Then have a link on the page where you can buy the DVD if you like it enough, and maybe even have a sponsor link on the page. The latter would be equivalent to the 'tipping' idea that some people have suggested several times.
Commercial companies could do the same, but with adverts thrown in with the online version.
I thought aac stood for apple audio codec.
Try: Advanced Audio Coding
AAC is not an Apple file format. It is owned by Dolby and is part of the MPEG4 spec. What is owned by Apple is the DRM, known as FairPlay, that is used by the AAC files from the iTunes store.
I think that if Sony is using AAC, it is because they are including support for MPEG video, so it is more of a side effect, rather than anything else. Now it would be nice to see Apple allowing Sony to use their DRM, but it is probably going to be a question of who is going to be more pig-headed.
It should also be noted that Sony Electronics and Sony Music often act as if they were two different companys doing things that conflict with the position of the other entity.
People are uncertain about sience and technology, so they move to a comfort zone. If a good level of education is not provided to everyone, then we will have two groups of people: those that understand technology and those who think that it is some sort of magic governing our toys. Maybe Terry Pratchet was right and there are imps inside our cameras painting pictures?
The other thing that gets me is "Intelligent Design", as a competitor to evolution. Sure evolution has not been proved 100%, but the only premise for wanting ID seems to be as a way of separating us from the animals and trying to say that we are the chosen ones - sounds like what the Jewish population in the old testment felt with regards to everyone else, instead now it expands to a larger religious group. I ask myself, if God acts in weird and ownderful ways, why can't he have made us in his image, through playing around with evolution? I m not against having both taught in schools, since it encourages people to evalate different view points, but am against removing evolution from the curiculem.
Another thing with evolution is that some people say it is not possible, because there is no way you can go from something as big as dinosaur, to something as small a mouse. Given that mutations can happen in short time periods, and this happened over a million years, and that all things start off small in an egg or a womb, I would have to say that the biggest issue is a failure of imagination. I should note that many reptiles sizes are directly related to the amount of food they eat (eat more, get bigger).
There appears to be a number of homebrew designs here. One other thing that I noticed from my hour of looking at the subject yesterday is that you need a dedicated computer to control the system. There appears to be Penguin CNC, which seems to do the job, using Realtime Linux.
Don't tell me we've all forgotten AppleTalk so quickly?
Just curious, but what's your point here. AppleTalk is an Apple protocol completely, available since around 1986.
Microsoft is not the only one to embrace and extend. Apple seems to have done the same thing with the Podcast file spec (which is RSS based):
How To Publish a Podcast on the iTunes Music Store
I am happy to see the source code for Quake 3 released as open source, meaning that developers can compile it and tweak it to their hearts content.
I am now wondering whether anyone actually did something with the Quake 2 source code, other than compile it to get a free copy of Quake 2? For example did anyone build any mods or any other games using the open source code?
I reckon that the CDs provided enough of 'chaotic' sound pattern to test the idea out and it was quicker to put together than a piece of software to do the same job. This would probably also suggest more regular sounds waves, like sin-waves, just didn't achieve the expected results. The next step would be looking at the wave signals and understanding why one group works better than the other. Of course this is supisition based on the available information.
The problem is that this study is based on the current multistage shuttle design. The current shuttle design just doesn't hold up to the long term, or to the mid-term, for the reasons you cited. What I feel is that the concept of a reusable launch vehicle is a good one, just not with what we have now.
I am sure that the collection of the boosters, testing the o-rings, building a new fuel tank, checking the tiles are in order and mating the lot together are the elements are just some of the elements that create the outrageous costs. In this scenario a standard rocket is cheaper, since once you have taken into account the fuel tank and the boosters, you almost have all the necessary components to build the standard rocket.
A reuseable vehicle can provide many advantage if done right, but it is important to simplify the design so that it does not cost more than an average airliner to maintain. A single stage should reduce the costs to only making sure that the vehicle is fit to fly, than having to deal with all the extras.
NASA is on the road to fixing this. Griffin has a clear vision for the future launch platform; separate the cargo from the crew, put the payloads on top, reuse the high quality and well understood booster and shuttle main engine designs for propulsion, de-orbit the crew in a lifting body capsule, and do it quickly so we don't have to keep flying these space planes. It should be cheap, reliable and flexible.
But this fails to address the one place that the shuttle was good at: maintance of satellites. While for most mid-term projects we can get away without a shuttle, long term we need one, but only if we can get it to be single stage.
The problem at the moment is that we are having to build new launch vehicles for every satellite that is launched, and then we have problems when the satellites arrive at the end of their life. Also, without a way of maintaining them the satellites in some cases have to be decomissioned before their the end of the expected lifespan if just one thing fails. Maybe the ideal future shuttle would be a hybrid manned-unmanned vehicle, wherein a crew is not required for all flights.
We are starting to see more and more case of hash algorithms, such as MD5 and SHA-1, suffering from these type of exploits. Would it not be possible to simply have a key which is actually two keys, using two different algorithms? The idea being that it would be more difficult to get round exploit a key which is the result of two different algorithms. As computing power increases the ability to exploit hash-algorithms improves, but at the same time the effort required to generate multiple keys is reduced.
The interesting thing is that the top three results make no reference to the word failure. Of course it is probably based on pages linking to these three, but I wonder if they should even be included for the lack of the search term?