That's reason for mandating IE for your kiosks, not a reason for mandating it for the site. Or is the site only ever accessed from the kiosks?
Re:How about the route to Canada and Continental U
on
The World's Longest Tunnel
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Last I heard, the coast was the only way and it didnt go ALL the way for roads. So Russia just gets to trade with Alaska, not the entire North American continent.
I can only assume you think other people are that stupid because you are that stupid. If you'd read TFA you'd have seen that they have in fact considered transport links on the North American continent. It doesn't mention roads, only rail, but trucks are a pretty crappy way to move stuff thousands of miles anyway.
I'm surprised they are considering a highway in the tunnel itself. Putting vehicles on trains is faster and safer and ventilating a 65km tunnel full of vehicles would be a huge task, even compared to the scale of the project.
How do you log-in then? Visit a specific URL posted on the wall? What happens if you're not logged in? Free/open APs might be different, but most of the ones I use are subscription services. Free wireless isn't very pervasive round here (here being Sheffield, UK):( I've seen the same arrangement (redirect any http request to the login page) used by a few different providers.
The simple fact is that, as other people pointed out, IP is built around default acceptance. Request a page, you get it. Request an IP, you get it. You don't sign documents before going to cnn.com, do you?
In the case of using WiFi, if I go to my local cafe or pub and fire up my laptop and type in cnn.com, I do not get the CNN site. I get the site of the operator of the AP. If I want to use their network I do in fact have to agree to a contract. IP may be built around default acceptance, but plenty of networks and protocols are not.
Now that they have switched to Intel hardware, Macs shouldn't cost $1000 more than the equivlent windows machine, but they still do.
That's a popular opinion, but is quite simply not true. Go price up an equivalent (I mean equivalent - comparable CPU, GPU, screen, dimensions, mass, battery life, features - everything as close as possible) and you'll find you're completely and utterly wrong. I've never found a difference of more than $200 when trying to price up Windows equivalents to Macs. Sure, you can buy a Windows laptop for $1000 less than a Mac with a similar CPU, but that Windows machine will have an inferior GPU, inferior screen, will be larger, weigh more, have poorer battery life, no built-in webcam, no gigabit ethernet, no Firewire, no Bluetooth...
You're a soldier. You're ordered to turn your weapons on your friends, cousins, uncles, aunts, brothers, sisters, fathers, and mothers. Chances are that a good 90% of the military would refuse those orders, and a good percentage of that 90% would use their training to help the 299.9 million stand up against the 100,000.
Few people in such a situation buck the status quo. It's kind of nice to imagine that somehow Germans in the 30s and 40s were fundamentally different to us now, but they simply weren't. It's a scary thought but turning your average Joe into, say, a death camp guard who enjoys his work has been done many times in the past with a substantially higher sucess rate than 10%. Just look at virtually any civil war in history for an abundance of evidence. I have no doubt whatsoever that turning the US Army against its own population is perfectly possible. Not tomorrow, but by the time the situation arose where that might be considered there would have been plenty of propaganda to ensure the 'enemy within' had been suitably dehmanised.
I think the fact that computer security sucks implies that one of these is true:
1. It just isn't possible to make software ultra-secure and free of vulnerabilities. I.e. you cannot expect *any* piece to be 100% secure, ever.
2. It is possible, but the costs of making software ultra-secure is so high that it's not worth it. Customers would rather pay a lower price for a slightly less secure system than a much larger price for a 100% secure system.
1. is obviously not true. Of course you can make programs secure. The damn machines only do what we tell them to do after all.
2. Way to go with the blind faith in market economies meeting the desires of the consumer! Sadly, the computing market is not a healthy market; it is dominated by a single abusive monopolist. In such a situation, you cannot correlate the products available with the desires of consumers. If we had 4 or 5 major operating systems, office suites etc. and customers could switch between them reasonably easily that would be a healthy market and you could draw some inferences about consumer desires from the products on offer. In that situation, I believe we'd see the market converging on increasingly secure solutions.
All this free software, love and hugs and STILL nobody gets laid.
Speak for yourself, I get laid plenty... nah, wait. What's the point in pretending. I've not been laid in years. God I need a new career. And hobby. No, no, what I need is a fuck. Oh boy, do I ever need a fuck. It's been so long I'm worried I'll try and fast-forward the boring bits when I get the chance again IRL. I'll also be really surprised if they don't want me to shoot my load in their faces. Oh crap, I just remembered it's usually she not they. Damn.
Load a copy of Linux/*BSD and Samba [samba.org] on to a spare PC. There you go, all the power of a basic domain without all the costs associated with an M$ product.
You might as well suggest a 486 and a suitable assembler. You can get all the power of a basic domain with any modest hardware you can network if you can write code for it. My mum would have as much chance setting up a *nix server as she would writing one in x86 assembly, so the end result would be the same.
It never ceases to amaze me how many/. geeks just don't Get It. The fact that you or I may be able to make a *nix box dance on its hind legs while singing the Swiss national anthem does not make it a good choice for the average Joe looking for a dancing, singing machine. The majority can't make a *nix box walk, let alone dance and sing.
Yeah, because if they do change to license of Apache to something unacceptable to you, you're really likely to be the only person who wants a fork, so you will have to do it all yourself.
The fact that Google isn't designed to hide the fact that you were (and are still, judging by your attitude) an immature asshole does not make it unfair.
I don't even see why you are complaining about Google. Google have a usenet archive and their own forums, but they have a mechanism for removing posts from them, so you can't be complaining about that. Removing things from Google's web index is also very easy, in fact it's easier to do it from highly-ranked sites, because they are spidered more often and more thoroughly. Just remove the embarrasing stuff from where you posted it and it'll stop appearing in Google's search results automatically. Or are you actually upset at the sites where you posted this stuff for not letting you remove it?
She didn't "gack a nigga fo his nikes", she listened in on some phone conversations. She was prosecuted and convicted. Judges suspend sentences all the time.
TFA changed, so I'll let you off with the inaccuracy. The charges were dropped, she wasn't punished at all. The charges were dropped because she has cancer. She had cancer for five years before she decided to break the law in this case.
Every story has a moral. The moral of this story: get rich and get cancer; then you can do whatever the fuck you like.
What makes you think every PDF implementation is written by Adobe? I see no mention of that in the half dozen different PDF viewers I've seen (and there are more). PDF views consistently because that's what it's designed to do and it's reasonably well designed.
Isn't that just for use when converting documents from Word 5.0.3 format?
No, it's for use when not bothering to convert documents from Word 5.0.3 properly. If you were really converting a document, you'd implement the behaviour of Word 5.0.3 using the new tags. If Word 5.0.3 in double-line-spacing mode did 1.97x line spacing and added a 0.05 inch extra margin at the bottom of the page, you should code that, not just have flag which says "be like Word 5.0.3". The place for details of legacy file formats like that is in a conversion tool, not the specification.
The real problem is that even with (X)HTML/CSS it is not currently possible to take two different implementations and produce the same printed output from the same source material. This is a far, far simplier standard than anything being discussed as a word processing format, and yet there is no common implementation. I am not even sure there is today an accepted "correct" implementation for printing HTML.
HTML and CSS were never designed to display identically on different devices. In fact, they explicitly do exactly the opposite, by allowing clients to format the content the best way for their displays (or other output devices).
How are we going to have a multi-implementation standard for word processing that produces identical formatted documents? I would say it is clear we are not going to have this. This makes the "standards" process a joke.
PDF isn't a word processing file format, but it does demonstrate you can have open file formats which display correctly on different devices using different implementations.
MS's XML should be marked and tagged as standard ASAP -- that way, when Office 2010 rolls around, OpenOffice 3.0 can simply say "we put out docs according to MS's standard. If it doesn't work, it's THEIR fault."
The problem with Microsoft's "standard" is that in many places it says things like "do what Word 5.0.3 does in when in double-line-spaced mode" without saying just what that means. The specification for Microsoft's XML format is not in the standards documents, it exists in only one place - the source code for Microsoft Word. Making a fully compliant implementation of Microsoft's XML format when you haven't got access to the Word codebase is therefore virtually impossible.
Writing a decent game server when you don't have the details of the protocol is far from trivial. You might be able to reverse-engineer the protocol, till they start obfuscting or encrypting them.
/home is called/Users, which is pretty annoying. But everything else is no more bizarre than moving from Linux to Solaris or between any other two *nix-alikes. Is/tmp,/etc and/var being symlinks the end of the world? If I install *nix stuff from source it goes in/usr/local. Configuration files live in/etc. Log files are in/var/log. My NFS mounts go wherever the hell I want them to go. There's some other stuff cluttering up the root (/System,/Applications,/Library,/Network...) which you use when you're in pretty GUI mode, but none of it you use for *nix-type stuff so I don't find it gets in the way at all.
Look like you might be right. How incredibly misleading. I assumed it was the same kind of technology they used in video cameras, where they really do take multiple frames (which you do anyway with video, of course) and shift them in software.
I didn't think of a glass beer cooler, which would indeed change matters by allowing radiative heating rather than just conduction. Still, the beer cooler was an analogy for the Earth and we were talking about heating its core; the Earth's crust isn't transparent, even if the the atmosphere is. You'd still need to make the surface of the Earth hotter than the core to make the core hotter using solar radiation.
I was thinking about this recently, and I think what we need is a digital camera which can somehow take multiple short exposure shots one after the other and then combine them into a single photo. The algorithm would have to be smart enough to detect movement of both the camera and the scenery in-between frames, so we're talking advanced software, but it does seem possible.
Which incidentally is why I think MS is pulling the plug on the Mac Office suite: they do it while there's still time, before OOo gets good enough that Mac users would just say "good riddance" to MS. Right now, they can't, so MS plays its card.
Who sayd MS is pulling the plug on Mac Office? If you read TFA, you'd note the memo in question was a decade old.
I think the only reason they keep Mac Office going now is to keep the monopoly-abuse people happy. Perhaps Microsoft trying to gain standardisation for.doc is a prelude to ditching Mac Office. If Office uses an 'open' format it's no longer a monopoly, so they can ditch Mac Office and have half a chance of winning an anti-trust case. After Windows, Office is the cash-cow for Microsoft. Being forced to open up Office would be devastating to Microsoft's bottom line. Selling it on a platform (any platform) other than Windows is the best insurance against that.
Slashdot Mirror
That's reason for mandating IE for your kiosks, not a reason for mandating it for the site. Or is the site only ever accessed from the kiosks?
I can only assume you think other people are that stupid because you are that stupid. If you'd read TFA you'd have seen that they have in fact considered transport links on the North American continent. It doesn't mention roads, only rail, but trucks are a pretty crappy way to move stuff thousands of miles anyway.
I'm surprised they are considering a highway in the tunnel itself. Putting vehicles on trains is faster and safer and ventilating a 65km tunnel full of vehicles would be a huge task, even compared to the scale of the project.
How do you log-in then? Visit a specific URL posted on the wall? What happens if you're not logged in? Free/open APs might be different, but most of the ones I use are subscription services. Free wireless isn't very pervasive round here (here being Sheffield, UK) :( I've seen the same arrangement (redirect any http request to the login page) used by a few different providers.
In the case of using WiFi, if I go to my local cafe or pub and fire up my laptop and type in cnn.com, I do not get the CNN site. I get the site of the operator of the AP. If I want to use their network I do in fact have to agree to a contract. IP may be built around default acceptance, but plenty of networks and protocols are not.
That's a popular opinion, but is quite simply not true. Go price up an equivalent (I mean equivalent - comparable CPU, GPU, screen, dimensions, mass, battery life, features - everything as close as possible) and you'll find you're completely and utterly wrong. I've never found a difference of more than $200 when trying to price up Windows equivalents to Macs. Sure, you can buy a Windows laptop for $1000 less than a Mac with a similar CPU, but that Windows machine will have an inferior GPU, inferior screen, will be larger, weigh more, have poorer battery life, no built-in webcam, no gigabit ethernet, no Firewire, no Bluetooth...
Few people in such a situation buck the status quo. It's kind of nice to imagine that somehow Germans in the 30s and 40s were fundamentally different to us now, but they simply weren't. It's a scary thought but turning your average Joe into, say, a death camp guard who enjoys his work has been done many times in the past with a substantially higher sucess rate than 10%. Just look at virtually any civil war in history for an abundance of evidence. I have no doubt whatsoever that turning the US Army against its own population is perfectly possible. Not tomorrow, but by the time the situation arose where that might be considered there would have been plenty of propaganda to ensure the 'enemy within' had been suitably dehmanised.
Too rite. Te ome row iz uze1ezz, I never uze mine n everyone cn ree|) my writin o|<.
1. is obviously not true. Of course you can make programs secure. The damn machines only do what we tell them to do after all.
2. Way to go with the blind faith in market economies meeting the desires of the consumer! Sadly, the computing market is not a healthy market; it is dominated by a single abusive monopolist. In such a situation, you cannot correlate the products available with the desires of consumers. If we had 4 or 5 major operating systems, office suites etc. and customers could switch between them reasonably easily that would be a healthy market and you could draw some inferences about consumer desires from the products on offer. In that situation, I believe we'd see the market converging on increasingly secure solutions.
Speak for yourself, I get laid plenty... nah, wait. What's the point in pretending. I've not been laid in years. God I need a new career. And hobby. No, no, what I need is a fuck. Oh boy, do I ever need a fuck. It's been so long I'm worried I'll try and fast-forward the boring bits when I get the chance again IRL. I'll also be really surprised if they don't want me to shoot my load in their faces. Oh crap, I just remembered it's usually she not they. Damn.
You might as well suggest a 486 and a suitable assembler. You can get all the power of a basic domain with any modest hardware you can network if you can write code for it. My mum would have as much chance setting up a *nix server as she would writing one in x86 assembly, so the end result would be the same.
It never ceases to amaze me how many /. geeks just don't Get It. The fact that you or I may be able to make a *nix box dance on its hind legs while singing the Swiss national anthem does not make it a good choice for the average Joe looking for a dancing, singing machine. The majority can't make a *nix box walk, let alone dance and sing.
Yeah, because if they do change to license of Apache to something unacceptable to you, you're really likely to be the only person who wants a fork, so you will have to do it all yourself.
The fact that Google isn't designed to hide the fact that you were (and are still, judging by your attitude) an immature asshole does not make it unfair.
I don't even see why you are complaining about Google. Google have a usenet archive and their own forums, but they have a mechanism for removing posts from them, so you can't be complaining about that. Removing things from Google's web index is also very easy, in fact it's easier to do it from highly-ranked sites, because they are spidered more often and more thoroughly. Just remove the embarrasing stuff from where you posted it and it'll stop appearing in Google's search results automatically. Or are you actually upset at the sites where you posted this stuff for not letting you remove it?
I know addictions can be bad for your health, but decding to tackle them in the middle of a heart attack is a bit extreme.
TFA changed, so I'll let you off with the inaccuracy. The charges were dropped, she wasn't punished at all. The charges were dropped because she has cancer. She had cancer for five years before she decided to break the law in this case.
Every story has a moral. The moral of this story: get rich and get cancer; then you can do whatever the fuck you like.
What makes you think every PDF implementation is written by Adobe? I see no mention of that in the half dozen different PDF viewers I've seen (and there are more). PDF views consistently because that's what it's designed to do and it's reasonably well designed.
No, it's for use when not bothering to convert documents from Word 5.0.3 properly. If you were really converting a document, you'd implement the behaviour of Word 5.0.3 using the new tags. If Word 5.0.3 in double-line-spacing mode did 1.97x line spacing and added a 0.05 inch extra margin at the bottom of the page, you should code that, not just have flag which says "be like Word 5.0.3". The place for details of legacy file formats like that is in a conversion tool, not the specification.
HTML and CSS were never designed to display identically on different devices. In fact, they explicitly do exactly the opposite, by allowing clients to format the content the best way for their displays (or other output devices).
PDF isn't a word processing file format, but it does demonstrate you can have open file formats which display correctly on different devices using different implementations.
The problem with Microsoft's "standard" is that in many places it says things like "do what Word 5.0.3 does in when in double-line-spaced mode" without saying just what that means. The specification for Microsoft's XML format is not in the standards documents, it exists in only one place - the source code for Microsoft Word. Making a fully compliant implementation of Microsoft's XML format when you haven't got access to the Word codebase is therefore virtually impossible.
Four words: "Not releasing the server."
Writing a decent game server when you don't have the details of the protocol is far from trivial. You might be able to reverse-engineer the protocol, till they start obfuscting or encrypting them.
You're using Vista's speech recognition, right?
/home is called /Users, which is pretty annoying. But everything else is no more bizarre than moving from Linux to Solaris or between any other two *nix-alikes. Is /tmp, /etc and /var being symlinks the end of the world? If I install *nix stuff from source it goes in /usr/local. Configuration files live in /etc. Log files are in /var/log. My NFS mounts go wherever the hell I want them to go. There's some other stuff cluttering up the root (/System, /Applications, /Library, /Network...) which you use when you're in pretty GUI mode, but none of it you use for *nix-type stuff so I don't find it gets in the way at all.
Look like you might be right. How incredibly misleading. I assumed it was the same kind of technology they used in video cameras, where they really do take multiple frames (which you do anyway with video, of course) and shift them in software.
I didn't think of a glass beer cooler, which would indeed change matters by allowing radiative heating rather than just conduction. Still, the beer cooler was an analogy for the Earth and we were talking about heating its core; the Earth's crust isn't transparent, even if the the atmosphere is. You'd still need to make the surface of the Earth hotter than the core to make the core hotter using solar radiation.
Who sayd MS is pulling the plug on Mac Office? If you read TFA, you'd note the memo in question was a decade old.
I think the only reason they keep Mac Office going now is to keep the monopoly-abuse people happy. Perhaps Microsoft trying to gain standardisation for .doc is a prelude to ditching Mac Office. If Office uses an 'open' format it's no longer a monopoly, so they can ditch Mac Office and have half a chance of winning an anti-trust case. After Windows, Office is the cash-cow for Microsoft. Being forced to open up Office would be devastating to Microsoft's bottom line. Selling it on a platform (any platform) other than Windows is the best insurance against that.