You don't need to fake an iCal server, you just set up WebDAV on whatever web server you have lying around. iCal doesn't care if you use.Mac or an in-house WebDAV sevrer.
pithhelmet strips out most adverts, pith gives me semi-tabbed browsing. It seems that Safari will be a lot better supported and is a lot more extensible than Omniweb. I love Safari's bookmark system, I'm particularly keen on the interface. Once you've enabled the debug menu, it has just about all of the features of Omniweb, and is fast and clean to boot.
Of course I'll keep an eye on Omniweb (I downloaded the latest version when it came out this week), but I can't see it getting as good as Safari for me.
Before Safari, I only used Omniweb (apart from banking sites and the like, for which IE was necessary). I even paid my $30 to support it. However, I haven't touched it since Safari came out, and I have no intention of going back. It's nice, but Safari has plenty more of an edge (speed and quality of render, interesting features) to keep me hooked.
The amusing thing is that CCTV is covered by the data protection act. So if you believe you're on CCTV footage anywhere (government or privately owned), you can wander in, hand over a tenner and get the footage.
Mark Thomas once ran a competition for making the best short movie using this method: ten pounds is cheaper than hiring a camera:)
If at any point they have to type "make," or even look at a CLI, forget about it.
Well, you say that... remember that sometimes it's necessary to go into the CLI in OS X to fix/enhance things. This doesn't seem to have harmed uptake too much... What I have seen happen is for a student to get a Mac to go to Uni, then send it back to Apple and get a PC because all their friends are using Kazaa (and no-one's told them that Carracho is 10x better...). That's probably a sounder lesson to learn:)
Yeah, noticed that about 10 seconds after posting. A slightly more subtle issue is that if you click on a link, but it doesn't load properly and you click "stop", the *link* address stays in the URL bar rather than reverting to the current page's address. I don't think the URL bar should change until it's at least connected to the server...
Right, nit-picking over and on with getting my bookmarks over from Omniweb.
1. It puts a very subtle grey dotted line round links that you click, rather than a hefty blue one. That's very nice.
2. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to tell you what a link is when you hover over it (e.g. like IE does down the bottom). There must be *some* way of fitting that into the wonderfully clean interface.
Yeah, I'd have thought that brute-forcing was the wrong way to go... what's wrong with good old social engineering? *Someone* at Microsoft must know the private key, just wardial them and blow your Cap'n Crunch whistle down the phone until they tell you:)
Oh, I wouldn't claim it's unbiased, not in the slightest. But it does seem to do a reasonable job, and stirs up less hatred against minorities than most other papers (except possibly the Independent, but that's just too boring to read). Let's just say it's the least damaging to society, which is a plus in my book.
Only "True Swiss" are allowed to vote in referenda. Since the criteria for being *really* Swiss are somewhat restrictive, it's a running joke there (at least amongst non-true Swiss) that within the next ten years, the only one left making the decisions will be an aging goat.
The US is not even what most people think of as a democracy. They are currently ruled by the leaders of a successful coup, not the rightfully elected president. Even ignoring the butterfly ballots, the number of votes that should have been discounted from the military overseas (spoilt or wrongly postmarked), but were ruled eligible by Bush's relatives would have let Gore won. Not that he'd have been much better, but at least he'd be able to read. Or think, for that matter.
Hey, hey... at least the Guardian tries to report *news* rather than pointless celebrity gossip. At least the Guardian tried to bring about (essentially) the fall of the monarchy under the EU equal rights act. Oh, and it felled Aitken (yay!). And, more to the point, the Guardian is the only UK newspaper to be legally owned by its readers, rather than some pillock with a load of cash (cf Murdoch, Maxwell, etc). Hence it doesn't wage wars against other newspapers, it just reports.
There is something I do not understand: if a vast majority of the public believes it is OK to copy software or electronic content, how can it be there exist laws to prohibit copying? I mean most of us live in democratic countries, don't we?
If absolutely every law was put to referendum, we'd essentially have mob rule. What "the majority" want and what's actually *good* for us/the country are not always the same thing. If it were, all you'd have to do in the UK is point at someone, shout "paedophile," and it would be legal to string them up from the nearest lamppost.
The problem with the DMCA, etc, etc, is that it tries to solve a problem by brute force. A bit like trying to bomb other countries to get them to do what you want *ahem*:) In the UK, drink-driving laws were doing very little until, over several years of solid campaigning, drink-driving was made totally socially unacceptable, and the problem is now under control. Similarly, the problem with, say, CD copy-protection is that because the RIAA and the record industry as a whole are seen as being rich and nasty, people don't care about copying CDs to give to their friends or share over the internet. Hence, copy-protection is introduced, along with laws to stop you circumventing it, which stops *any* fair use at all.
The problem is not that the majority want it but it's not happening. The problem is that there's nothing in place in corporate America (or most anywhere else) that makes people have a social conscience over screwing the companies (and hence, indirectly, those who depend on the companies' profits) around. Now there's a whole other debate about how we can change that, which I'm not going to get into here because I think 10 other people are going to do it further down...
To those who don't want to read the whole article, he sums up his feelings at the end. Note the absolutely acidic put-down of the film...
[Not karma whoring, I'm already at max]
"I have not seen the film... hence I cannot say anything about the movie itself except for what the reviews reflect, albeit unclearly - like a distorted picture of one's face in ripply water. However, to my best knowledge, the book was _not_ dedicated to erotic problems of people in outer space.... I shall allow myself to repeat that I only wanted to create a vision of human encounter with something that certainly exists... but cannot be reduced to human concepts, images, or ideas."
I think a lot of films can probably be summed up as "the erotic problems of x at y". And they're all crap. There are more interesting things to talk about...
If you look closely at the scans that the distributed proof-reading project give you to check for Project G, they're of far, far worse quality than the mangled letters that gimpy-r gives you. I've never programmed image-processing software before, but given what I do know of programming I'd say that it's a relatively simple task to untangle those 4 twisty letters than it is a lumpy, blurry scan. And OCR software usually does a pretty damn good job.
Hey, I'm using OS 9 because we still have a lot of people on 9 here at work. I'll be switching to X in a couple of weeks... And don't you try telling me OS X isn't a real OS...
I don't think Firefly made it to the UK, but I'll watch out for it...
Re:Event Horizon
on
Review: Solaris
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
OK, I'll forgo modding other comments in this article to reply...
by far the most effective use of sound for a horror movie that I've ever experienced
2001: the use of silence when the camera is in a vacuum. Genius. No-one has ever done it since (AFAIK), as it's just not clichéd enough. But it's definitely the most effective use of 'sound' I've ever come across.
The Shining (sorry, Kubrick again): Bartok's "Music for Strings, Percussion and Celeste". Way, way better and more frightening than Event Horizon.
And to stay vaguely on-topic, I can't imagine any film of Solaris getting within the same *universe* as Tarkovsky's original, let alone touching it. Although I do remember despairing when the University sci-fi society showed it, and just fast forwarded through the 'boring bits' of it. Aarrghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...
Yeah, surely it *can't* be hard to set up a system where an editor types in a few keywords for each story. Then, when posting a story, a script runs quickly, spots likely matches (based on the keywords of previous stories), and flags them up. Come on editors, this is getting beyond a joke.
Yes. They mention it in the article under the "innocuous uses of spyware" section, claiming that they only use it to see how long it takes for a page to load, and how long you look at it for.
They also imply that they don't sell on any of this information.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't need to fake an iCal server, you just set up WebDAV on whatever web server you have lying around. iCal doesn't care if you use .Mac or an in-house WebDAV sevrer.
pithhelmet strips out most adverts, pith gives me semi-tabbed browsing. It seems that Safari will be a lot better supported and is a lot more extensible than Omniweb. I love Safari's bookmark system, I'm particularly keen on the interface. Once you've enabled the debug menu, it has just about all of the features of Omniweb, and is fast and clean to boot.
Of course I'll keep an eye on Omniweb (I downloaded the latest version when it came out this week), but I can't see it getting as good as Safari for me.
Before Safari, I only used Omniweb (apart from banking sites and the like, for which IE was necessary). I even paid my $30 to support it. However, I haven't touched it since Safari came out, and I have no intention of going back. It's nice, but Safari has plenty more of an edge (speed and quality of render, interesting features) to keep me hooked.
Sorry, Omni Group, but that's how it is.
The amusing thing is that CCTV is covered by the data protection act. So if you believe you're on CCTV footage anywhere (government or privately owned), you can wander in, hand over a tenner and get the footage.
:)
Mark Thomas once ran a competition for making the best short movie using this method: ten pounds is cheaper than hiring a camera
Oh, for mod points... that's the funniest comment I've read on /. this year :)
Of course, the whole Libya-humanrights thing is deeply worrying. Ho-hum.
If at any point they have to type "make," or even look at a CLI, forget about it.
:)
Well, you say that... remember that sometimes it's necessary to go into the CLI in OS X to fix/enhance things. This doesn't seem to have harmed uptake too much... What I have seen happen is for a student to get a Mac to go to Uni, then send it back to Apple and get a PC because all their friends are using Kazaa (and no-one's told them that Carracho is 10x better...). That's probably a sounder lesson to learn
Yeah, noticed that about 10 seconds after posting.
A slightly more subtle issue is that if you click on a link, but it doesn't load properly and you click "stop", the *link* address stays in the URL bar rather than reverting to the current page's address. I don't think the URL bar should change until it's at least connected to the server...
Right, nit-picking over and on with getting my bookmarks over from Omniweb.
Yeah, using it now... 2 things:
1. It puts a very subtle grey dotted line round links that you click, rather than a hefty blue one. That's very nice.
2. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to tell you what a link is when you hover over it (e.g. like IE does down the bottom). There must be *some* way of fitting that into the wonderfully clean interface.
Yeah, I'd have thought that brute-forcing was the wrong way to go... what's wrong with good old social engineering? *Someone* at Microsoft must know the private key, just wardial them and blow your Cap'n Crunch whistle down the phone until they tell you :)
Oh, I wouldn't claim it's unbiased, not in the slightest. But it does seem to do a reasonable job, and stirs up less hatred against minorities than most other papers (except possibly the Independent, but that's just too boring to read). Let's just say it's the least damaging to society, which is a plus in my book.
Nearly...
Only "True Swiss" are allowed to vote in referenda. Since the criteria for being *really* Swiss are somewhat restrictive, it's a running joke there (at least amongst non-true Swiss) that within the next ten years, the only one left making the decisions will be an aging goat.
Also, I don't believe they vote on *every* law.
The US is not even what most people think of as a democracy. They are currently ruled by the leaders of a successful coup, not the rightfully elected president. Even ignoring the butterfly ballots, the number of votes that should have been discounted from the military overseas (spoilt or wrongly postmarked), but were ruled eligible by Bush's relatives would have let Gore won. Not that he'd have been much better, but at least he'd be able to read. Or think, for that matter.
Hey, hey... at least the Guardian tries to report *news* rather than pointless celebrity gossip. At least the Guardian tried to bring about (essentially) the fall of the monarchy under the EU equal rights act. Oh, and it felled Aitken (yay!). And, more to the point, the Guardian is the only UK newspaper to be legally owned by its readers, rather than some pillock with a load of cash (cf Murdoch, Maxwell, etc). Hence it doesn't wage wars against other newspapers, it just reports.
:)
Yes, I do eat muesli for breakfast
Thanks, you've just said everything I would have said in reply to that comment. Everyone browsing at +2... read the parent.
There is something I do not understand: if a vast majority of the public believes it is OK to copy software or electronic content, how can it be there exist laws to prohibit copying? I mean most of us live in democratic countries, don't we?
:) In the UK, drink-driving laws were doing very little until, over several years of solid campaigning, drink-driving was made totally socially unacceptable, and the problem is now under control. Similarly, the problem with, say, CD copy-protection is that because the RIAA and the record industry as a whole are seen as being rich and nasty, people don't care about copying CDs to give to their friends or share over the internet. Hence, copy-protection is introduced, along with laws to stop you circumventing it, which stops *any* fair use at all.
If absolutely every law was put to referendum, we'd essentially have mob rule. What "the majority" want and what's actually *good* for us/the country are not always the same thing. If it were, all you'd have to do in the UK is point at someone, shout "paedophile," and it would be legal to string them up from the nearest lamppost.
The problem with the DMCA, etc, etc, is that it tries to solve a problem by brute force. A bit like trying to bomb other countries to get them to do what you want *ahem*
The problem is not that the majority want it but it's not happening. The problem is that there's nothing in place in corporate America (or most anywhere else) that makes people have a social conscience over screwing the companies (and hence, indirectly, those who depend on the companies' profits) around. Now there's a whole other debate about how we can change that, which I'm not going to get into here because I think 10 other people are going to do it further down...
To those who don't want to read the whole article, he sums up his feelings at the end. Note the absolutely acidic put-down of the film...
[Not karma whoring, I'm already at max]
"I have not seen the film... hence I cannot say anything about the movie itself except for what the reviews reflect, albeit unclearly - like a distorted picture of one's face in ripply water. However, to my best knowledge, the book was _not_ dedicated to erotic problems of people in outer space.... I shall allow myself to repeat that I only wanted to create a vision of human encounter with something that certainly exists... but cannot be reduced to human concepts, images, or ideas."
I think a lot of films can probably be summed up as "the erotic problems of x at y". And they're all crap. There are more interesting things to talk about...
Good job we have the beeb, with zero ads to turn to ;-)
I dunno, Fame Academy's almost more annoying than an ad break...
If you look closely at the scans that the distributed proof-reading project give you to check for Project G, they're of far, far worse quality than the mangled letters that gimpy-r gives you. I've never programmed image-processing software before, but given what I do know of programming I'd say that it's a relatively simple task to untangle those 4 twisty letters than it is a lumpy, blurry scan. And OCR software usually does a pretty damn good job.
Hey, I'm using OS 9 because we still have a lot of people on 9 here at work. I'll be switching to X in a couple of weeks... And don't you try telling me OS X isn't a real OS...
This is obviously the type of "valid XHTML" that crashes Mac IE (OS 9). Hmmmmm......
I don't think Firefly made it to the UK, but I'll watch out for it...
OK, I'll forgo modding other comments in this article to reply...
by far the most effective use of sound for a horror movie that I've ever experienced
And to stay vaguely on-topic, I can't imagine any film of Solaris getting within the same *universe* as Tarkovsky's original, let alone touching it. Although I do remember despairing when the University sci-fi society showed it, and just fast forwarded through the 'boring bits' of it. Aarrghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...
Wow, so it does. Works fine in Omniweb though.
What's hard about png implementation again? I don't get it...
Yeah, surely it *can't* be hard to set up a system where an editor types in a few keywords for each story. Then, when posting a story, a script runs quickly, spots likely matches (based on the keywords of previous stories), and flags them up. Come on editors, this is getting beyond a joke.
Yes. They mention it in the article under the "innocuous uses of spyware" section, claiming that they only use it to see how long it takes for a page to load, and how long you look at it for.
They also imply that they don't sell on any of this information.
Not that I agree with the policy, of course...