AmigaDOS from the mid-80s was an OS that would fit on a 880K floppy, and didn't have to be written in assembly to do it.
Among the features were a Macish (unnecessarily so, IMHO) GUI, real-time multitasking, and... they hadn't invented the web browser yet, that came later. It would run in 256k of RAM but wasn't really happy with less than 512k. That's kilobytes, not megabytes.
That's why you have in-flight course corrections. I think Cassini made several burns on the way to Saturn, as well as the circularizing burn once it got to the system.
One million kilometers sounds like a big number, until you realize that 2,500 AU is 3.7 * 10^11 kilometers. So that error is one part in thirty seven million. I suspect that accumulated errors from variations in light intensity due to sunspots and flares will be a bigger problem.
The publisher's side is written as if Google is publishing the whole work, instead of merely providing a search engine. After finding the work you'll still have to locate a copy on the used books market, or public libraries.
Or even, if enough people are looking for the same book, it might be possible to do a new printing.
They're basically NATting the layer two protocols. Combined with a super spanning tree for the natted addresses they're practically boosting layer two into layer three.
Before I read the paper I was thinking that it would be easier to just run all your services NATted at layer three, even using something like PPPoE (which is how cable networks solve the same basic problem, with something like half a million end-points on the same subnet). I guess it's more efficient to work with the simpler layer two protocols instead.
Some of the advice is common sense still (like, don't use embarrassing names or misspelled ones), but it's from a different time, when having more than two or three computers serving any given role meant you were a REALLY BIG SITE. And you had to be important to have a domain:
Avoid domain names.
For technical reasons, domain names should be avoided. In
particular, name resolution of non-absolute hostnames is
problematic. Resolvers will check names against domains before
checking them against hostnames. But we have seen instances of
mailers that refuse to treat single token names as domains.
For example, assume that you mail to "libes@rutgers" from
yale.edu. Depending upon the implementation, the mail may go
to rutgers.edu or rutgers.yale.edu (assuming both exist).
Avoid domain-like names.
Domain names are either organizational (e.g., cia.gov) or
geographical (e.g., dallas.tx.us). Using anything like these
tends to imply some connection. For example, the name "tahiti"
sounds like it means you are located there. This is confusing
if it is really somewhere else (e.g., "tahiti.cia.gov is
located in Langley, Virginia? I thought it was the CIA's
Tahiti office!"). If it really is located there, the name
implies that it is the only computer there. If this isn't
wrong now, it inevitably will be.
There are some organizational and geographical names that work
fine. These are exactly the ones that do not function well as
domain names. For example, amorphous names such as rivers,
mythological places and other impossibilities are very
suitable. ("earth" is not yet a domain name.)
I used to take Apple's announcements at face value (or at least at the same level of face value as anyone else in the industry) but I learned better.
When Steve Jobs says "flash MP3 players are junk" or "no ugly monitors on nice macs" or any of those other announcements that they're going to turn around a year or three later when they release the iPod Shuffle or "bring your own display keyboard and mouse" Mac mini it's all part of their "never say anything meaningful about future product releases" policy. You can't tell ANYTHING about what Apple's going to release based on what they say. Jobs doesn't just play his cards close to his chest, they're surgically implanted.
Hey, Tesla was cool, I got a 100 dinar note right here just because it's got his picture on, but the guy who invented the induction coil was a regular geek named Stanley.
The best direction to go for a standard recharging interface is probably just to use USB, which is (ahem) universally available and already widely used for this task.
My understanding is that this system is based on work by Nikola Tesla who discovered that it was possible to magnetically transmit power using resonance.
It's also the basis of radio receivers and transformers. Yes, every radio set is also a wireless power receiver, so of course you can transmit power inductively... but it's terribly inefficient.
he researchers hope that studies such as these will be of help to law enforcement...
Best way to help law enforcement is to quit treating drug use as a law enforcement problem and start treating it as a public health problem, and release a bunch of resources back to enforcing laws that need enforcing. This kind of study can help that by demonstrating just how bad an idea treating it as a law enforcement problem is.
The statement that this casts even more doubt on the outsourcing model set up at Boeing under Alan Mullaly is most definitely not diminished by the inaccuracies in the reporting of these details.
Does this mean what it actually says or do you have an accidental double-negative there?
If you think the bulk of Chrome's innovation was in custom GUI features, you're just not paying attention.
That's what makes Chrome distinctive, that's what makes chrome chrome. Just about everything inside Chrome was already available in other browsers, like Opera or Safari... I'm pretty sure there was even already a webkit-based browser with separate processes for each tab, on the Mac at least.
But if I could get that stuff without the mandatory stupid skin and UI screwups, I'd probably be interested in trying it when it gets to the Mac, but I won't be able to, because that's the sizzle that Google thinks they have to put in there to sell the steak.
There are still tons of benefits, such as having the only auto-complete that doesn't suck, removing the search bar, tearing tab handles into new windows, etc.
Removing the search bar is just saving space, and I can do that on Safari, Firefox, or Camino.
Tearing tab handles into new windows is old hat on Safari.
I get the impression you haven't actually used Chrome much.
Of course I haven't you goon, I'm a Mac user. Sheesh.
One of the reasons I'm a Mac user is I don't have to fuck with every goddamn program inventing its own stupid "improved" UI.
The tab bar inhabits the space that the window decoration normally inhabits.
Not in the picture on Google's page it doesn't. Oh, I guess it does if you maximize it. I don't do that, so I don't get any benefits from Chrome. Next?
Safari had 6 buttons at one time, but it is down to three buttons on the main bar.
Merging two buttons into one widget with two active areas isn't "removing a button".
That is as simple as the design can get.
Oversimplifying the UI doesn't necessarily simplify the user experience. Even Apple has given up on the one button mouse, for example.
Minimalist UIs don't get out of the way, they get in the way, they scream "look at me, I'm minimalist, I don't work like any other program on my computer".
You should try maximizing Chrome, especially if you want the most viewable web space.
I never maximize any of my other browsers, why should I maximize Chrome? The only place I've ever found miself working in maximized windows is Windows, because the crappy window manager makes it pretty much unavoidable.
If I want Windows crappy window manager, I know where to get it.
Well I'm telling you, it is, especially if you are into minimalist design and function over form.
Function over form doesn't imply minimalist design. Sometimes it means following the same style guides as the rest of the UI. One thing I don't miss from X Windows was having every damn program using its own conventions and controls.
If I want Linux crappy UI frameworks, I know where to get them.
I think the only reason you think Safari is better
Safari isn't my favorite browser by any means. I happen to use it on occasion, I use Firefox and Camino as well. They all use the same controls, behave the same way.
And I don't *care* whether the search bar is merged with the address bar or not. I can take the search bar out on any Mac browser with one drag operation, and search on the address bar using some tweak or another... in most browsers just making sure the address is sufficiently unlike a URL does it. I don't bother. Saving that much horizontal space doesn't buy me anything.
Chrome is all about forcing one particular set of UI decisions on the users, and breaking look-and-feel consistency with the rest of the OS. That doesn't matter on Linux (look and feel consistency? what's that?) or Windows (Microsoft breaks the UI design with every release anyway), and if I want that kind of environment, I know where to get it. I'm not going to bring it here.
The difference in the number of buttons is, let's see... you have no home button, but you always have a tab bar, even if there's only one tab, even score there. You have refresh, back, forward, stop, address, and what... new page, configure? I have refresh, back, forward, address, and search. Oh, I suppose you've replaced the menu bar with those two extra buttons, so let's see, why, even including the menu bar, we have the same number of controls. And of course on a Mac I don't count the menu bar because it's always there... on Linux, I recall, there's a global menu on both Gnome and KDE taking up space, so no savings there. On Windows, the task bar. Honors are even.
With the fewest buttons, how are the controls more complex?
The simplest controls are those where the number of controls matches the number of operations. Every time you overload controls you add something the user has to remember. It's like Apple and the one-button mouse... with a single button for select and menu, they had to abandon pop-up menus and invent the menu bar, and double-clicking to both select and operate on an object. How do you distinguish between a URL and a search string in Chrome? I don't know, but I'll bet you have some kind of rule, something to remember.
I also like that the default "home" page isn't a traditional page, but rather thumbnails of the pages you go to most frequently.
Safari does that. I turned it off. My default page is a blank page. When I open a browser window I know where I'm going, I don't want to go somewhere else first, not even to Google.
Slashdot Mirror
AmigaDOS from the mid-80s was an OS that would fit on a 880K floppy, and didn't have to be written in assembly to do it.
Among the features were a Macish (unnecessarily so, IMHO) GUI, real-time multitasking, and ... they hadn't invented the web browser yet, that came later. It would run in 256k of RAM but wasn't really happy with less than 512k. That's kilobytes, not megabytes.
You mean one part in 370,000
Doh.
That's why you have in-flight course corrections. I think Cassini made several burns on the way to Saturn, as well as the circularizing burn once it got to the system.
One million kilometers sounds like a big number, until you realize that 2,500 AU is 3.7 * 10^11 kilometers. So that error is one part in thirty seven million. I suspect that accumulated errors from variations in light intensity due to sunspots and flares will be a bigger problem.
I don't think Google can obtain exclusive rights to public domain works through this maneuver.
They can't. Bringing up Gutenberg is a complete red herring.
Don't forget about second hand book sellers and public libraries.
The publisher's side is written as if Google is publishing the whole work, instead of merely providing a search engine. After finding the work you'll still have to locate a copy on the used books market, or public libraries.
Or even, if enough people are looking for the same book, it might be possible to do a new printing.
They're basically NATting the layer two protocols. Combined with a super spanning tree for the natted addresses they're practically boosting layer two into layer three.
Before I read the paper I was thinking that it would be easier to just run all your services NATted at layer three, even using something like PPPoE (which is how cable networks solve the same basic problem, with something like half a million end-points on the same subnet). I guess it's more efficient to work with the simpler layer two protocols instead.
Circular velocity is less than escape velocity.
Some of the advice is common sense still (like, don't use embarrassing names or misspelled ones), but it's from a different time, when having more than two or three computers serving any given role meant you were a REALLY BIG SITE. And you had to be important to have a domain:
No, the scurvy beggars sometimes tell the truth just to throw us off.
I used to take Apple's announcements at face value (or at least at the same level of face value as anyone else in the industry) but I learned better.
When Steve Jobs says "flash MP3 players are junk" or "no ugly monitors on nice macs" or any of those other announcements that they're going to turn around a year or three later when they release the iPod Shuffle or "bring your own display keyboard and mouse" Mac mini it's all part of their "never say anything meaningful about future product releases" policy. You can't tell ANYTHING about what Apple's going to release based on what they say. Jobs doesn't just play his cards close to his chest, they're surgically implanted.
because if you're going to rename a server, you might as well rebuild it
What, "hostname $new_name" is too hard to type? I mean, you don't hardcode the machine name in application config files and rc scripts, do you?
Do you?
Hey, Tesla was cool, I got a 100 dinar note right here just because it's got his picture on, but the guy who invented the induction coil was a regular geek named Stanley.
The best direction to go for a standard recharging interface is probably just to use USB, which is (ahem) universally available and already widely used for this task.
My understanding is that this system is based on work by Nikola Tesla who discovered that it was possible to magnetically transmit power using resonance.
It's also the basis of radio receivers and transformers. Yes, every radio set is also a wireless power receiver, so of course you can transmit power inductively... but it's terribly inefficient.
he researchers hope that studies such as these will be of help to law enforcement ...
Best way to help law enforcement is to quit treating drug use as a law enforcement problem and start treating it as a public health problem, and release a bunch of resources back to enforcing laws that need enforcing. This kind of study can help that by demonstrating just how bad an idea treating it as a law enforcement problem is.
The statement that this casts even more doubt on the outsourcing model set up at Boeing under Alan Mullaly is most definitely not diminished by the inaccuracies in the reporting of these details.
Does this mean what it actually says or do you have an accidental double-negative there?
If you think the bulk of Chrome's innovation was in custom GUI features, you're just not paying attention.
That's what makes Chrome distinctive, that's what makes chrome chrome. Just about everything inside Chrome was already available in other browsers, like Opera or Safari... I'm pretty sure there was even already a webkit-based browser with separate processes for each tab, on the Mac at least.
But if I could get that stuff without the mandatory stupid skin and UI screwups, I'd probably be interested in trying it when it gets to the Mac, but I won't be able to, because that's the sizzle that Google thinks they have to put in there to sell the steak.
There are still tons of benefits, such as having the only auto-complete that doesn't suck, removing the search bar, tearing tab handles into new windows, etc.
Removing the search bar is just saving space, and I can do that on Safari, Firefox, or Camino.
Tearing tab handles into new windows is old hat on Safari.
I get the impression you haven't actually used Chrome much.
Of course I haven't you goon, I'm a Mac user. Sheesh.
One of the reasons I'm a Mac user is I don't have to fuck with every goddamn program inventing its own stupid "improved" UI.
The tab bar inhabits the space that the window decoration normally inhabits.
Not in the picture on Google's page it doesn't. Oh, I guess it does if you maximize it. I don't do that, so I don't get any benefits from Chrome. Next?
Safari had 6 buttons at one time, but it is down to three buttons on the main bar.
Merging two buttons into one widget with two active areas isn't "removing a button".
That is as simple as the design can get.
Oversimplifying the UI doesn't necessarily simplify the user experience. Even Apple has given up on the one button mouse, for example.
Minimalist UIs don't get out of the way, they get in the way, they scream "look at me, I'm minimalist, I don't work like any other program on my computer".
You should try maximizing Chrome, especially if you want the most viewable web space.
I never maximize any of my other browsers, why should I maximize Chrome? The only place I've ever found miself working in maximized windows is Windows, because the crappy window manager makes it pretty much unavoidable.
If I want Windows crappy window manager, I know where to get it.
Well I'm telling you, it is, especially if you are into minimalist design and function over form.
Function over form doesn't imply minimalist design. Sometimes it means following the same style guides as the rest of the UI. One thing I don't miss from X Windows was having every damn program using its own conventions and controls.
If I want Linux crappy UI frameworks, I know where to get them.
I think the only reason you think Safari is better
Safari isn't my favorite browser by any means. I happen to use it on occasion, I use Firefox and Camino as well. They all use the same controls, behave the same way.
And I don't *care* whether the search bar is merged with the address bar or not. I can take the search bar out on any Mac browser with one drag operation, and search on the address bar using some tweak or another... in most browsers just making sure the address is sufficiently unlike a URL does it. I don't bother. Saving that much horizontal space doesn't buy me anything.
Chrome is all about forcing one particular set of UI decisions on the users, and breaking look-and-feel consistency with the rest of the OS. That doesn't matter on Linux (look and feel consistency? what's that?) or Windows (Microsoft breaks the UI design with every release anyway), and if I want that kind of environment, I know where to get it. I'm not going to bring it here.
The difference in the number of buttons is, let's see... you have no home button, but you always have a tab bar, even if there's only one tab, even score there. You have refresh, back, forward, stop, address, and what... new page, configure? I have refresh, back, forward, address, and search. Oh, I suppose you've replaced the menu bar with those two extra buttons, so let's see, why, even including the menu bar, we have the same number of controls. And of course on a Mac I don't count the menu bar because it's always there... on Linux, I recall, there's a global menu on both Gnome and KDE taking up space, so no savings there. On Windows, the task bar. Honors are even.
With the fewest buttons, how are the controls more complex?
The simplest controls are those where the number of controls matches the number of operations. Every time you overload controls you add something the user has to remember. It's like Apple and the one-button mouse... with a single button for select and menu, they had to abandon pop-up menus and invent the menu bar, and double-clicking to both select and operate on an object. How do you distinguish between a URL and a search string in Chrome? I don't know, but I'll bet you have some kind of rule, something to remember.
I also like that the default "home" page isn't a traditional page, but rather thumbnails of the pages you go to most frequently.
Safari does that. I turned it off. My default page is a blank page. When I open a browser window I know where I'm going, I don't want to go somewhere else first, not even to Google.
Don't worry, Google can feed you all the spyware they want completely painlessly via Google Updater when you install Chrome.