Let's not forget the dirtieness of fingers. I like to keep my hands clean for typing on my keyboard, but if I had to touch my screen it would really suck.
Also the actual quality of a topuch screen for anything except interactive clicky interfaces sucks. It would be nearly impossible to select text that was less then an inch high using my fat (relative to a mouse) fingers. Or imagine hitting the curser inbetween the correct two characters (of course new users already can't do that).
I really think the greasiness is the worse part though. If a touch screen interface as standard is being worked on by any of the usability experts, its release will mark the total overun of usability wiping out functionality (from what I've read here, XP marked the start, well, windows did before that, and so does gnome or WM, or WM over a console, or emacs over vi) but the touch screen is just sucky.
I would assume this is a high frequency electricity (10 mbits/second is a lot of info). High frequency electricity will travel over the surface without penatrating, so it should not be an issue.
National geographic had a guy standing on a charged plat, shooting electricity that went through (over) him into the rod, it was cool.
People with pacemakers don't die from static shocks, I find it hard to believe that people would use a technology that was more disruptive then that.
My lag on dial up is really good. For RTS games anyway. I lag behind far less often then when using broadband. My friend who has an ultra high speed connection at the university lags for about 10 seconds any given game, I do for about 2. you could 1 v 1 in duke nukem3D 9600 baud. I would imagine you could get a 4 or 5 way going with good 56k connections and suffer minimal lag (compression, since the prossessor can afford to now).
For games that strait up latency is all that matters (not bandwidth). A good modem connection can rip apart DSL any day.
My sister was using the running computer as a coffe table and spilled a glass of milk down the back. It bugged out and reset, but after draining the case into the sink it worked fine. Of course that is different then spraying the entire inside with water.
The thing is that you really would not make a copy if you had a printing press. To make a one off copy on a printing press would take hours of your time and cost 100's of dollors. Even doing so on a copier would cost more then a lot of books. I work at a copy shop and it costs us between 1.5 and 2 cents a copy, on a production maschine, a smaller business or personal copier will cost you up to 15 cents a copy.
$.02 * 300 =$6.00 on cheap paper. Then you nead to bind it somehow, and it takes your time. To scan an entire book you must either cut the spine off, or hand place each page, with would take about a half hour.
So if I owned a good copier it would cost me $11.50 to copy that book (I make $11.00 an hour. The fact that non perfect copies of books cost so much is why these types of laws were delayed.
All the links so far are about accidental deletion prevention. The real problem I think is most likly the accidental overwriting. The power to get your file from 15 minutes ago on Novell is awsome. Unless you have a utility that backs up files as they are overwritten, and then allows them to be retrieved you are not going to get the functionality needed. You need a trashcan far more advanced then either Linux or Win has given you.
Actually, there was a post when Nintendo annouced the new Zelda, Starfox, and Mario games a while back. Also Metal Gear Solid II got some front page treatment (though more geek stuff, then yeay it's out).
What dumbfounds me is that what they were doing was deamed illegal, so they cannot do it for seven years. What the fuck is that? How can it possible be acceptable 7 (5 now?) years from now to builk customers out of another $480,000,000
Funny, my friends X girlfriend was actually doing university work on the mid term effects of the surgery. Basically they were doing it to some animal then taking eye cells to look for pre cancerous mutations. That was the hypothosys anyway, they broke up before the stuff got really started.
Re:Recycle Bins - don't you just hate them?
on
Undelete In Linux
·
· Score: 1
That is probably the funniest thing I have read in a long time, it is truly amaizing how dumb people really are.
I like the recycle bin as a place to drag stuff I want to delete, the delete key just doesn't cut it for my left hand to reach, and I usually use a GUI to browse (I am so not 1337). I actually prefer to have the trash/recycle delete files, not put them in trash, but having a place to drag stuff to make it go away is great.
Actually a Panel icon that was always on top would be preferable to a desktop one, and it should be called the woodchipper with a good icon, or perhaps the incinerator.
It's kind of funny, because NT and 2K are both "professional" products you woluld think they would have the more savvy users (enthusiasts), but apperently not.
Software should be patentable or copyrightable, not both. And the government should pick one soon and stick with it. If it is patentable you MUST open the source, but can sue people for the sources use for 15 years. If it is copyrightable (which is what I think it is) then you can do whatever you want with it, but not sue people for doing the same thing another way. If, for example apple has some random transparencly patent (which they do, but I forget the spicifics) they must open (probably closer to "share") the code that implements it, and get the protection for 15 years, but then it is fair game. A patent on something like this is silly if combined with a copyright though.
If the publishing industry did the same it would be like someone patenting the concept of a plot twist at the end of a mystery novel, and writing a book to demonstrate. Then for 15 years nobody was aloud to use that plot device, after that it was open though, even their exact implimentation.
Of course in many ways closed source software is more like a vacuum then a book. To get to the meat of it requires disasembly which is fair less trivial then reading a book, so perhaps that is they way it should be looked at. But I absolutly do not think that you should get 15 years of protection from different implamentations of the same thing, and near infinate protection from exact implimentations of your software. It is an either or scenario.
I am just rambling here so you can probably ignore it, but here goes:
What this clause realy needs is to cover dirivitive works of OSI liscences also, then it could really reign in on software patent silliness. If a killer app (good IPv6 protocal stack?) was released BSDish, but anybody who used it or a derivitive (including non open proprietary derrivitives), like say MS needs a head start on something (which they have done with BSD liscenses). Then they could not sue any open implementations of all of their patents. This would benifit them and protect us from everyon who uses MS windows, not just MS. As it stands now if soemone were to release a closed derrivitive you are protected from them but not their users, because the closed derrivitive is not OSI. But if this ecomes widespread in BSD type liscences with the derrivitive work coverage it could effectivly eliminate the threat of patents to open source. I would have it work like this (in an ideal world):
Use of this software requires you not to sue any OSI liscenced software with this clause for patent infringement. This clause must be added to all derrivitive works.
"In that regard, if the idea is to protect the developer (and OSI / OSS / FS developers in general) from a lawsuite, why not just say "by accepting this license, you agree not to file lawsuites against any OSI / OSS / FS software developer?"
Because then you are not encouraging other liscences to add that clause, and the clause only has power if it is everywhere. So what if joe blow's homade app has the clause that protects all OSI/OSS/FS projects, what you need is all of these projects protecting eachother for it to be enough of a force to matter, so by encouraging other projects to protect to get their protection you are increasing the protection all around (I hope that makes sense).
It is not simply sueing another open source project. It is sueing them over a patent pertaining to the software that the project produces. It is soley to prevent software patents. If you sue said project over copyright or trade mark violations, you do not lose the liscence to run the software. All this does is prevent companies from enforceing unfair (that is the general consensus on software patents still I think) patents.
Really all it is doing is taking the GPL a step further though. There were no software patents when the GPL was first released, so no one even thought about it. Now there are, and a software patent can effectivly make software closed source (well non free anyway). This is just a viral clause that takes the GPL one step further and honestly would not shock me if it ended up in the GPL.
Software patents are far more damaging to OSS then nonpublished specs are, and this is a way to fight them.
You could even make a BSDish liscence, that said that only this clause must remain and allow closed source derrivitives. Protecting the rights of coders to code whatever they wanted.
I am sure that there are many of companies willing to take a head start in developement in exchange for not being able to patent the results. I say this because there are plenty of software companies without software patents.
Slashdot Mirror
What if it is friggen cold?
This is a real question, can all the kids wearing ski masks (balavlavas) in the winter be fined?
seams like a lame ass law that is totally un-enforcable.
Let's not forget the dirtieness of fingers. I like to keep my hands clean for typing on my keyboard, but if I had to touch my screen it would really suck.
Also the actual quality of a topuch screen for anything except interactive clicky interfaces sucks. It would be nearly impossible to select text that was less then an inch high using my fat (relative to a mouse) fingers. Or imagine hitting the curser inbetween the correct two characters (of course new users already can't do that).
I really think the greasiness is the worse part though. If a touch screen interface as standard is being worked on by any of the usability experts, its release will mark the total overun of usability wiping out functionality (from what I've read here, XP marked the start, well, windows did before that, and so does gnome or WM, or WM over a console, or emacs over vi) but the touch screen is just sucky.
I would assume this is a high frequency electricity (10 mbits/second is a lot of info). High frequency electricity will travel over the surface without penatrating, so it should not be an issue.
National geographic had a guy standing on a charged plat, shooting electricity that went through (over) him into the rod, it was cool.
People with pacemakers don't die from static shocks, I find it hard to believe that people would use a technology that was more disruptive then that.
Falcons eye looks good, but is still would classify as "dated" in my book.
I like konquorer with the x to clear the entry field. select, click x, middle click field works great.
Also any text entry widget in x lets you ctr-u to blank it. so you can select text, click field, ctrl-u, then ctrl-v or middle click.
But for fields that commonly nead to be rentered with text the x button is sweet.
sure, a line like
"Real Gforce technology, for all your 3D neads" doesn't help, sure.
Even the non geeks have probably heard of a Gforce by now, having the chip will help. An earlier poster even said it could be a Gforce 4MX.
So it could be "Uses the cutting edge Gforce 4 graphics core".
Thats gotta be worth 50 dollors anyway, so what is the OEM price difference?
next bullet point,you are a student that doesn't have a car, or want to ride te bus to the mall.
Or, the mall/EB/wherever is 15+ minutes away. That wastes a 1/2 hour + of your life. for what, 5 dollors and the game 3 days sooner?.
My lag on dial up is really good. For RTS games anyway. I lag behind far less often then when using broadband. My friend who has an ultra high speed connection at the university lags for about 10 seconds any given game, I do for about 2. you could 1 v 1 in duke nukem3D 9600 baud.
I would imagine you could get a 4 or 5 way going with good 56k connections and suffer minimal lag (compression, since the prossessor can afford to now).
For games that strait up latency is all that matters (not bandwidth). A good modem connection can rip apart DSL any day.
I'm from Delaware, and am deffinatly a gnome fan, but a switch with every release. Kde1, then gnome 1.4, then kde2, then kde3, now gnome 2.
My sister was using the running computer as a coffe table and spilled a glass of milk down the back. It bugged out and reset, but after draining the case into the sink it worked fine. Of course that is different then spraying the entire inside with water.
The thing is that you really would not make a copy if you had a printing press. To make a one off copy on a printing press would take hours of your time and cost 100's of dollors. Even doing so on a copier would cost more then a lot of books. I work at a copy shop and it costs us between 1.5 and 2 cents a copy, on a production maschine, a smaller business or personal copier will cost you up to 15 cents a copy.
$.02 * 300 =$6.00 on cheap paper. Then you nead to bind it somehow, and it takes your time. To scan an entire book you must either cut the spine off, or hand place each page, with would take about a half hour.
So if I owned a good copier it would cost me $11.50 to copy that book (I make $11.00 an hour. The fact that non perfect copies of books cost so much is why these types of laws were delayed.
I actually thought followups went in slashback.
Not yet stable code?
Does that mean that it is like ATI's supplied drivers have been?
All the links so far are about accidental deletion prevention. The real problem I think is most likly the accidental overwriting. The power to get your file from 15 minutes ago on Novell is awsome. Unless you have a utility that backs up files as they are overwritten, and then allows them to be retrieved you are not going to get the functionality needed. You need a trashcan far more advanced then either Linux or Win has given you.
Actually, there was a post when Nintendo annouced the new Zelda, Starfox, and Mario games a while back. Also Metal Gear Solid II got some front page treatment (though more geek stuff, then yeay it's out).
What dumbfounds me is that what they were doing was deamed illegal, so they cannot do it for seven years. What the fuck is that? How can it possible be acceptable 7 (5 now?) years from now to builk customers out of another $480,000,000
I am confused
Funny, my friends X girlfriend was actually doing university work on the mid term effects of the surgery. Basically they were doing it to some animal then taking eye cells to look for pre cancerous mutations. That was the hypothosys anyway, they broke up before the stuff got really started.
That is probably the funniest thing I have read in a long time, it is truly amaizing how dumb people really are.
I like the recycle bin as a place to drag stuff I want to delete, the delete key just doesn't cut it for my left hand to reach, and I usually use a GUI to browse (I am so not 1337). I actually prefer to have the trash/recycle delete files, not put them in trash, but having a place to drag stuff to make it go away is great.
Actually a Panel icon that was always on top would be preferable to a desktop one, and it should be called the woodchipper with a good icon, or perhaps the incinerator.
" 1. Physical access = full access anyway, even an encryptet harddrive can be "formatted" with a reasonably big hammer.
2. If they have access (local or otherwise)
3. No open ports = nothing to firewall.
4. Any remote-root exploits, or just the usual remote-BSOD exploits?"
there is a way to ignore file sharing passwords on 9x, though at the university I go to all shared stuff is just MP3's for no password anyway.
It's kind of funny, because NT and 2K are both "professional" products you woluld think they would have the more savvy users (enthusiasts), but apperently not.
Software should be patentable or copyrightable, not both. And the government should pick one soon and stick with it. If it is patentable you MUST open the source, but can sue people for the sources use for 15 years. If it is copyrightable (which is what I think it is) then you can do whatever you want with it, but not sue people for doing the same thing another way. If, for example apple has some random transparencly patent (which they do, but I forget the spicifics) they must open (probably closer to "share") the code that implements it, and get the protection for 15 years, but then it is fair game. A patent on something like this is silly if combined with a copyright though.
If the publishing industry did the same it would be like someone patenting the concept of a plot twist at the end of a mystery novel, and writing a book to demonstrate. Then for 15 years nobody was aloud to use that plot device, after that it was open though, even their exact implimentation.
Of course in many ways closed source software is more like a vacuum then a book. To get to the meat of it requires disasembly which is fair less trivial then reading a book, so perhaps that is they way it should be looked at. But I absolutly do not think that you should get 15 years of protection from different implamentations of the same thing, and near infinate protection from exact implimentations of your software. It is an either or scenario.
I am just rambling here so you can probably ignore it, but here goes:
What this clause realy needs is to cover dirivitive works of OSI liscences also, then it could really reign in on software patent silliness. If a killer app (good IPv6 protocal stack?) was released BSDish, but anybody who used it or a derivitive (including non open proprietary derrivitives), like say MS needs a head start on something (which they have done with BSD liscenses). Then they could not sue any open implementations of all of their patents. This would benifit them and protect us from everyon who uses MS windows, not just MS. As it stands now if soemone were to release a closed derrivitive you are protected from them but not their users, because the closed derrivitive is not OSI. But if this ecomes widespread in BSD type liscences with the derrivitive work coverage it could effectivly eliminate the threat of patents to open source. I would have it work like this (in an ideal world):
Use of this software requires you not to sue any OSI liscenced software with this clause for patent infringement. This clause must be added to all derrivitive works.
"In that regard, if the idea is to protect the developer (and OSI / OSS / FS developers in general) from a lawsuite, why not just say "by accepting this license, you agree not to file lawsuites against any OSI / OSS / FS software developer?"
Because then you are not encouraging other liscences to add that clause, and the clause only has power if it is everywhere. So what if joe blow's homade app has the clause that protects all OSI/OSS/FS projects, what you need is all of these projects protecting eachother for it to be enough of a force to matter, so by encouraging other projects to protect to get their protection you are increasing the protection all around (I hope that makes sense).
It is not simply sueing another open source project. It is sueing them over a patent pertaining to the software that the project produces. It is soley to prevent software patents. If you sue said project over copyright or trade mark violations, you do not lose the liscence to run the software. All this does is prevent companies from enforceing unfair (that is the general consensus on software patents still I think) patents.
Really all it is doing is taking the GPL a step further though. There were no software patents when the GPL was first released, so no one even thought about it. Now there are, and a software patent can effectivly make software closed source (well non free anyway). This is just a viral clause that takes the GPL one step further and honestly would not shock me if it ended up in the GPL.
Software patents are far more damaging to OSS then nonpublished specs are, and this is a way to fight them.
You could even make a BSDish liscence, that said that only this clause must remain and allow closed source derrivitives. Protecting the rights of coders to code whatever they wanted.
I am sure that there are many of companies willing to take a head start in developement in exchange for not being able to patent the results. I say this because there are plenty of software companies without software patents.