And for the automatic transmission guy, he should step out of the North America once in a while. The rest of the planet uses a clutch. It ain't fun to drive unless you have one foot less than the number of pedals.
I have a little society that grew in a glass of milk that I left on my desk for too long.
They built a little city and they almost succeeded in space travel, that is getting out of the glass.
If I let them evolve, they just might reach Mars before Nasa does.
French isn't simpler than english. It has many exceptions to just about every rule and its vocabulary is as large as the english language. It's much harder to learn than english.
I speak both, and anyone who does can agree with me.
I've had the same e-mail address for quite a few years now and I recieve more spam than actual messages I want/expect. Most of the spam I get is from accounts at hotmail or whatever simmilar service. Some spammers seem to have scripts to create multiple accounts on these sites and abuse them quite easily.
I was wondering, since Napster's been accused of knowingly providing technology that facilitates illegal activity, couldn't the same logic be applied to free e-mail services? I mean, spam is illegal right? Couldn't a lawsuit force them to enforce certain restrictions that would minimize the abuse of their systems, thus minimizing the overall quantity of junkmail we get...
Unfortunately, I can't submit a comment to the FCC since I'm not an american citizen, but I still would like to express my opinion.
I don't beleive that widespread filtering is a solution to anything. What would that filter would actually filter out? Has the image recognition software evolved so much that it can differenciate between porn and art?
For text recognition, how does a software make a difference between acceptable and acceptable? By using a vocabulary black-list? Does that mean that online dictionnairies will not be accessible from librairies because they contain words like "nazi", "devil", or "murder"? Will the words be taken out of context? If they're taken in context, how does the software draw the line between a site promoting hainous crimes and another simply relating to them in a journalistic fashion?
Will they filter out IP addresses? If so, who decides what's on the black list? Will Slashdot be on that blacklist??? (There was an article about virtual kiddie porn yesterday that contained some "bad" words).
What is scary about all this is that if the filtering is done by machine, there will be mistakes and "good" sites won't be available, while "bad" sites will be accessible. What is even scarier is if the filtering is done using a human generated blacklist of websites, the censure will actually be tainted and subjective, reflective of the censoring party's ideological, moral, religious and political beleifs, which is not democratic at all. And since america just "elected" a right-wing president, this can just go sour, IMHO.
I beleive in a free internet, where information flows freely, uncensored and unfiltered. Internet is not a babysitter nor an educator.
Nevertheless, are you happy working there? If so, stay there, if not, go elsewhere. I don't want to sound selfish, but your in it by yourself, and if your departure hurts the company, so be it. Sometimes what you need is just plain old change.
What you need to do is give a respectable notice when you leave, which is the right thing to do if they've been treating you fairly...
I'm pretty sure that there are ISP's out there who would participate in such a thing for free. It could be a tax write-off and it brings good publicity. Also, I doubt that a non-profit org's website would be a bandwidth hog, IMHO. Can't see why someone wouldn't do it...
I think suck a security scheme would need to be built in the HTTP protocol, and it would be really cool for some sort of non-profit org to help out the plaintiffs get their claims together, to form a class action or something like that...
I ain't no legal expert, but then again, there's no justice...
Technically, couldn't tracking be considered the same as cracking?
Why is it illegal for Joe Cracker to hack himself into a corp's website/intranet in order to get sensitive information while it's perfectly legal for that same corp to track the user's sensitive information?
I think that license agreement do too much for the big boys and not enough for the users. Wouldn't it be possible for a user to specify his own "license agreement", and then the sites could refuse/accept him as a viewer of that content? If such a mechanism could be put in place, the sites wouldn't have any choice but to agree with the most users, and if they fail to respect the surfers' "licence agreements", they would be liable, just as ordinary surfers are when they break a site's license agreement.
Actually, for those who still don't believe me, go to this site, as it explains the intrecacies of the complicated history of all the irish flags used troughout the years. May I remind some poeple that this is a forum, and if I want to post some shit, I can, and if it's not documented enough for you, well, don't read it. This ain't journalism, it's a round table where we exchange ideas and opinions.
I may be wrong, but A gold harp on a green field was the traditional Green Flag of Ireland before the tricolour became popular.
Actually, it's more something like this:
"the Guinness harp is based on the O'Neill clan harp, when the Irish State was formed in 1922 they had to reverse the harp because Guinness owned the copyright." -Some guy who read the book.
I own that book, but I don't have it with me:(
Actually, Guiness has been rather protective of their trademarks for a very long time. Useless factoid: Ireland had to reverse (horizontal flip) the harp on their flag because Guiness already used a harp as their logo(*).
They suck, but damn, their beer is really good.
(*)"Marks of Excellence", Per Mollerup, Phaidon press.
"As far as we can tell, it is indeed a bug that GIFs and code-generated color do not always get shifted to the same value at High Color depths. There doesn't seem to be a technical reason for this, since some of the browsers we looked at handled the situation perfectly fine.)"
There is a technical explanation for this:
In VGA 256 color mode on a PC (I don't know about Mac), you can define each of the 256 entries. In your article, you say that these 256 colors are chosen out of 16M (=2^24) colors. This is wrong. VGA adaptors enable you to choose from only 262144 colors (There are only 6 bits per channel, and not 8). So, for each of the 3 components (R, G & B), you may choose from 64 (=2^6)values. 64*64*64=262144. Only 18 out of 24 bits are actually used.
The reason why VGA cards are like this if probably because of the RAMDAC technology that was available back then. (Feel free to correct me on this one...).
Now, assuming I am right (which I am:), you can easily explain why the new web-safe palette is greenish:
The 16 bit color mode (65536 colors) uses 5, 6, and 5 bits for the Red, Green and Blue channels respectively. Since the 256 color mode and the 16bit mode both use 6 bits for defining the green component of a color, they match perfectely. Then, you can add pure Red & pure Blue. Also, mixes of the 3 primary colors match perfectly: Cyan, Magenta, Yellow, and White.
So your web-perfect palette is comprised of Black, 5 shades of green (including pure Green), pure Red & Blue, Cyan, Magenta & Yellow, and Last but not least, White. That's a grand total of 12 colors.
The reason that you have 22 is probably because you added 5 shades of near Green Cyan and 5 shades of near Green Yellow. These colors, If you check again, should not be a perfect match.
Of these 12 colors, only the pure colors (White, Black, R, G, B, C, M, K) can be rendered perfectly on a 24 bit output. The green ones however, can be considered close enough to be called a successful match. A 1 bit color fluctuation is hard enough to detect on my LCD...
On a finishing note, the reason why Green inherited the 16th bit in 16 bit (5-6-5) is because it's the color out of the 3 primitives that the eyes percieves better. Our eyes respond very sensitively to green. Probably because all the cavemen who didn't see green properly died in foot-powered car accidents involving trees, thus removing them from the gene pool...
Slashdot Mirror
making robots like this using 2 pieces. LEGO rules.
JP.
"[...] the first research lab by a software company."
That's true.
Apple is a computer company.
Xerox is an office equipment company.
Bell (AT&T) is a phone company.
IBM is an office equipment/computer company.
No wonder the new economy is going down, half of its workforce is modding other poeple down on Slashdot.
JP
I'm confused.
Ain't the purpose of going to remote places like the Sahara desert to be away from the comforts/stresses of the modern world?
If I go to the Sahara I sure has hell don't want to hear a fu**ing cell phone ring. They're so annoying.
Can't we spend 2 weeks a year without electricity?
I declare next weekend the "run to the woods" week end. Let's go breathe some fresh air.
JP
I'm confused.
Is it the Sicilians or the Yakuza?
And for the automatic transmission guy, he should step out of the North America once in a while. The rest of the planet uses a clutch. It ain't fun to drive unless you have one foot less than the number of pedals.
J:P
I have a little society that grew in a glass of milk that I left on my desk for too long. They built a little city and they almost succeeded in space travel, that is getting out of the glass. If I let them evolve, they just might reach Mars before Nasa does.
Does that mean I can't use my WinCE pocket pc to log on to my Microsoft HotMail account???
French isn't simpler than english. It has many exceptions to just about every rule and its vocabulary is as large as the english language. It's much harder to learn than english.
I speak both, and anyone who does can agree with me.
JP
You should start a car company, it's probably a less crowded market...
JP
of ordering my Nathalie Portman clone from www.clone-a-babe.com
We'll be bleeping rich!
This question is somewhat related to the subject.
I've had the same e-mail address for quite a few years now and I recieve more spam than actual messages I want/expect. Most of the spam I get is from accounts at hotmail or whatever simmilar service. Some spammers seem to have scripts to create multiple accounts on these sites and abuse them quite easily.
I was wondering, since Napster's been accused of knowingly providing technology that facilitates illegal activity, couldn't the same logic be applied to free e-mail services? I mean, spam is illegal right? Couldn't a lawsuit force them to enforce certain restrictions that would minimize the abuse of their systems, thus minimizing the overall quantity of junkmail we get...
?
to outrun Chinese fighter planes?
:)
Could be useful to avoid diplomatic disasters
J:P
So that's how that movie "Star Wars" got so popular!
J:P
That'll put a stop to the crumbling of the .COM economy!
J:P
Unfortunately, I can't submit a comment to the FCC since I'm not an american citizen, but I still would like to express my opinion.
I don't beleive that widespread filtering is a solution to anything. What would that filter would actually filter out? Has the image recognition software evolved so much that it can differenciate between porn and art?
For text recognition, how does a software make a difference between acceptable and acceptable? By using a vocabulary black-list? Does that mean that online dictionnairies will not be accessible from librairies because they contain words like "nazi", "devil", or "murder"? Will the words be taken out of context? If they're taken in context, how does the software draw the line between a site promoting hainous crimes and another simply relating to them in a journalistic fashion?
Will they filter out IP addresses? If so, who decides what's on the black list? Will Slashdot be on that blacklist??? (There was an article about virtual kiddie porn yesterday that contained some "bad" words).
What is scary about all this is that if the filtering is done by machine, there will be mistakes and "good" sites won't be available, while "bad" sites will be accessible. What is even scarier is if the filtering is done using a human generated blacklist of websites, the censure will actually be tainted and subjective, reflective of the censoring party's ideological, moral, religious and political beleifs, which is not democratic at all. And since america just "elected" a right-wing president, this can just go sour, IMHO.
I beleive in a free internet, where information flows freely, uncensored and unfiltered. Internet is not a babysitter nor an educator.
That will be all.
Sounds like your company is poorly managed.
Nevertheless, are you happy working there? If so, stay there, if not, go elsewhere. I don't want to sound selfish, but your in it by yourself, and if your departure hurts the company, so be it. Sometimes what you need is just plain old change.
What you need to do is give a respectable notice when you leave, which is the right thing to do if they've been treating you fairly...
I'm pretty sure that there are ISP's out there who would participate in such a thing for free. It could be a tax write-off and it brings good publicity. Also, I doubt that a non-profit org's website would be a bandwidth hog, IMHO. Can't see why someone wouldn't do it...
JP
I think suck a security scheme would need to be built in the HTTP protocol, and it would be really cool for some sort of non-profit org to help out the plaintiffs get their claims together, to form a class action or something like that...
I ain't no legal expert, but then again, there's no justice...
J:P
I read Slashdot, yet I still want to receive MS crap 'cause that's what I do for a living. The world ain't all black and white, my friend. J:P
Technically, couldn't tracking be considered the same as cracking?
Why is it illegal for Joe Cracker to hack himself into a corp's website/intranet in order to get sensitive information while it's perfectly legal for that same corp to track the user's sensitive information?
I think that license agreement do too much for the big boys and not enough for the users. Wouldn't it be possible for a user to specify his own "license agreement", and then the sites could refuse/accept him as a viewer of that content? If such a mechanism could be put in place, the sites wouldn't have any choice but to agree with the most users, and if they fail to respect the surfers' "licence agreements", they would be liable, just as ordinary surfers are when they break a site's license agreement.
Just my 2 cents.
J:P
We'll soon be seeing real Quake injuries...
JP
Actually, for those who still don't believe me, go to this site, as it explains the intrecacies of the complicated history of all the irish flags used troughout the years. May I remind some poeple that this is a forum, and if I want to post some shit, I can, and if it's not documented enough for you, well, don't read it. This ain't journalism, it's a round table where we exchange ideas and opinions.
I may be wrong, but A gold harp on a green field was the traditional Green Flag of Ireland before the tricolour became popular.
I need a beer.
Actually, it's more something like this: "the Guinness harp is based on the O'Neill clan harp, when the Irish State was formed in 1922 they had to reverse the harp because Guinness owned the copyright." -Some guy who read the book. I own that book, but I don't have it with me :(
Actually, Guiness has been rather protective of their trademarks for a very long time. Useless factoid: Ireland had to reverse (horizontal flip) the harp on their flag because Guiness already used a harp as their logo(*).
They suck, but damn, their beer is really good.
(*)"Marks of Excellence", Per Mollerup, Phaidon press.
Hi, I can explain this:
:), you can easily explain why the new web-safe palette is greenish:
"As far as we can tell, it is indeed a bug that GIFs and code-generated color do not always get shifted to the same value at High Color depths. There doesn't seem to be a technical reason for this, since some of the browsers we looked at handled the situation perfectly fine.)"
There is a technical explanation for this:
In VGA 256 color mode on a PC (I don't know about Mac), you can define each of the 256 entries. In your article, you say that these 256 colors are chosen out of 16M (=2^24) colors. This is wrong. VGA adaptors enable you to choose from only 262144 colors (There are only 6 bits per channel, and not 8). So, for each of the 3 components (R, G & B), you may choose from 64 (=2^6)values. 64*64*64=262144. Only 18 out of 24 bits are actually used.
The reason why VGA cards are like this if probably because of the RAMDAC technology that was available back then. (Feel free to correct me on this one...).
Now, assuming I am right (which I am
The 16 bit color mode (65536 colors) uses 5, 6, and 5 bits for the Red, Green and Blue channels respectively. Since the 256 color mode and the 16bit mode both use 6 bits for defining the green component of a color, they match perfectely. Then, you can add pure Red & pure Blue. Also, mixes of the 3 primary colors match perfectly: Cyan, Magenta, Yellow, and White.
So your web-perfect palette is comprised of Black, 5 shades of green (including pure Green), pure Red & Blue, Cyan, Magenta & Yellow, and Last but not least, White. That's a grand total of 12 colors.
The reason that you have 22 is probably because you added 5 shades of near Green Cyan and 5 shades of near Green Yellow. These colors, If you check again, should not be a perfect match.
Of these 12 colors, only the pure colors (White, Black, R, G, B, C, M, K) can be rendered perfectly on a 24 bit output. The green ones however, can be considered close enough to be called a successful match. A 1 bit color fluctuation is hard enough to detect on my LCD...
On a finishing note, the reason why Green inherited the 16th bit in 16 bit (5-6-5) is because it's the color out of the 3 primitives that the eyes percieves better. Our eyes respond very sensitively to green. Probably because all the cavemen who didn't see green properly died in foot-powered car accidents involving trees, thus removing them from the gene pool...
Over & out.
J:P