Isn't this pretty much an old trick, similar to 'bumping'?
another opens the lock by putting a pin through the LED display light to ground a contact on the circuit board
This one's a lot more fun as you have to know where, approximately, that contact is - but then again, why is that contact accessible?
and a third uses a wire inserted in the lock's back panel to hit a switch that resets its software."
oh for pity's sake.
The first has already been solved by lockmakers, the second is solved by making the PCB reasonably inaccessible (an individual cover plate will do) which would also deal with the third, but then the third shouldn't be a switch anyway - it should be two distinct female header points on the PCB that can be bridged only with a length of wire; this is not a crappy home wireless router that actually needs a user-accessible reset button.
Whoever designed these $1k locks, electronically and mechanically, really need to go back to the drawing board... or school.
The problem is that you may say something that you have no reason to hide now, but every reason to hide in the future.
E.g. there may be no reason to hide the fact that you're not a big fan of Colonel X of the army now. But 3 months later, after a successful coup attempt, and rounding up of those critical of him, you may very well have every reason to want to hide it.
Anonymity means you don't have to worry about those future situations, be that an extreme such as the above, or something far more innocuous.
The down side is the 'greater internet fuckwad theory'.
I think Google+ is right in suggesting real names to keep out the fuckwads (even though there's plenty of pseudonyms already), who will still have their soapboxes on facebook, myspace, IRC, some random other forum, etc. Those who insist on anonymity whilst not being fuckwads may be condemned to those same places - that may be the price they pay.
I just visited the U.S. (came back last Tuesday) - I'm from the EU, so we get don't need a visa when just visiting, just the ESTA program stuff (where we pay $15 for the privilege of promoting tourism to the U.S.) - and just before entering the country, i.e. at the border checkpoint in the airport, the following were taken: left hand, fingerprints left hand, thumbprint right hand, fingerprints right hand, thumbprint mugshot from looking straight into a webcamera, no smiling
other security measures, while flying within the U.S., included the usual of taking off shoes, personal items go in a bucket, laptop out of bag, metal scanner. At DC I was additionally guided through an x-ray backscatter machine and had to fill out a little form (which was presented to me in the city from which my flight originated) which required me to fill in flight information, seat number, and full name, and optionally some emergency contact. The airlines of course already have this information but I'm guessing some left-over of privacy laws makes it so they can't hand this over to Uncle Sam, so filling out a separate form it is.
All in all, a hassle.. enough to make my eyes roll, but unfortunately I don't have the option of not going to the U.S., so I guess it's waiting to see if they finally end up crossing my personal line, or whether TSA gets reigned in.
I RTFA-announcement (There's no actual article yet, I guess, and even if there were, it'd be behind a paywall), but the only thing mentioned is indeed that search is text-based. Apparently, at least for mobile, we'll want voice-recognition, and something along the lines of that Jeopardy!-bot from IBM to give us the answer straight away.
While that's commendable, neither are particularly search-related. One is voice recognition, a well-understood problem, and I've had no problems telling Google Maps / Navigate on an Android phone a bunch of addresses/interests the past 2 weeks. The other is a less-understood problem, but it deals more with parsing search results than searching in the first place.
Maybe the eventual commentary thing will have more 'provocative' things.
If I were to go provocative with a search engine, I'd start ignoring robots.txt, flip off facebook and index the heck out of it, use the facial recognition tech I already have but beefed up a bit by a recent acquisition to do facial searches (privacy concerns be damned), allow a midomi-type search to not just find out about a song by humming it, but also pop up the lyrics (without a thousand ads, intentional mistakes, etc.) and links to actually download them (and I don't mean iTunes), index every leaked document (credit cards, medical records, etc.) and so forth and so on.
Basically, everything a lot of people take issue with for perfectly good reasons, but secretly wouldn't mind having at their fingertips, themselves.
Perhaps a simple analogy is the search for extrasolar planets.
Although recently some have been imaged directly, the way to usually find them is not to look for the planets themselves.. they tend to be too dim and small..but to look for the effect they have on their nearby star(s). Be it a periodic shifting in the star's velocity relative to Earth or a periodic dimming of its apparent output, etc. So we don't observe the planet directly, but by looking for the signs we'd expect a planet to have on something else, we can infer their existence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extrasolar_planet#Detection_methods
Apple has stated repeatedly that touch screen devices are fundamentally different than desktops/laptops. While they may borrow UI features back and forth they are never going to merge into one unified device or GUI.
While they are 'fundamentally different', that doesn't mean that they're not poking at the foundations.
You mention borrowing UI features, so you might be including the recent decision for the scrollbar direction reversal - defended (as usual, the shill that he is) by David Pogue as being far more natural.. slide down to make the page slide down, who could argue with that logic - for it applies to the real world and whaddayaknow touch devices, too.
This despite the fundamental point of a scrollbar, vs scrolling a page, being that it tells you where you are in a documen. It, in essence, defines the viewscreen's position, rather than the underlying page.. There's even extensions for FireFox that will put little markers near the scrollbar for search hits on a page ( https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/scrollbar-search-highlighter/ ).
All of those conventions, however.. thrown out in Lion. Yes, you can still change it back - and maybe if enough people do so, Apple will revert this change in the next OS X. But I wouldn't count no it.
That change, like many before it, most definitely point to a continued merger of OS X and iOS paradigms. Will they be merged into a unified GUI? Probably not. Most likely there will still be GUI- and input-related differences between a desktop and a tablet, just as there are between a tablet and a(n i)phone. But that doesn't mean the underlying OS can't be the result of a complete merger.
Re:This site works best with...
on
OK Go Goes HTML5
·
· Score: 2
I think the difference is not as big as some may think it to be, though.
Ultimately if a site developer chooses to use certain desired (by them) features that make the site work better in a particular browser and slaps on a "site works best in..." disclaimer, then it's still that site developer's doing.
Whether those features are proprietary (not counting ActiveX bits, which were rarely the reason for such disclaimers) or part of a work-in-progress standard (HTML5 has not been finalized) doesn't really matter much there.
This in no way undermines what you're saying about development pace, mind. But when you couple it with the fact that Google helped make the page, you have to ask yourself if they really are just trying to be 'hip with Web 2.0' and making an interactive HTML5 video, or whether they're really just helping push Google Chrome onto more desktops by virtue of using HTML5 features that they undoubtedly knew would only work proper in Google Chrome / Chromium.
and even if it were great, wtf. since when did slashdot become an art channel for specific releases
Since the release involved HTML5, something that jives well within the 'nerd' demographic? (as does the band, to an extent, given that they're not generally 'pop' and make wacky videos). Slashdot did the same with Radiohead's open sourcing of their music video: http://tech.slashdot.org/story/08/07/18/1436211/Radiohead-Open-Sources-Music-Video Be glad that this time it was posted under Idle?
and having videos embedded in the fucking article?
It's called 'convenience'. You may not appreciate it, but most people do. In fact, I think Slashdot should do so far more often.
it's fucking '70s "artsy" too
While I, myself, am no fan of the style either, I don't think it's the video's content that is the reason for its posting.
this was not enabled by the new gen web techniques. this is shit.
I wouldn't know - it's apparently a "This site works best with (read: only with) Google Chrome". Can't be bothered to install it.
also, they're not a sensation
They may be riding the momentum from back when they very much were (you know, the treadmill thing). if nothing else, many sites pick up on new 'Ok Go!' video releases because, as mentioned above, it's always something rather different from what you'd usually see. As such, perhaps 'sensation' is too strongly worded, but it captures the general idea.
there's a fucking nintendo 3ds advert there.
It's called AdBlock (or one of various alternatives) - you might want to look into it.
You seem very angry - I don't know why, it's not like you're all that new here.
"This site works best with..." remember the loathe 'we' used to have for that phrase, because it was almost invariably followed by "Internet Explorer"?
Welcome to semi-recent developments where that phrase makes its comeback, now to be followed by Google Chrome.
So I'll augment my post from yesterday with: How about installing Google Chrome when you want to watch an online presentation purportedly made using HTML5 standard tech?
I don't think there's anything particularly 'pathetic' about it. They could have made it possible (without dev unlocking and mucking about) to change the default search engine when pressing the hardware search button within the IE environment, though, I agree. Then again, there's plenty of Android devices that are locked to Google / Bing / Yahoo and also can't be changed as the cell provider locked that down.
On the up side, all of the devices let you put a shortcut to Google right on the home screen, and Google even made a WP7 google search app that does pretty much the same thing but provides a nicer icon - just as Microsoft offer a Bing search app for Android.
Back on-topic... the idea of the site is okay, but it seems too limited in scope (why only schematics?), too limited in possibilities, and too much in search of a problem for it to actually be the solution to.
At least one comment here was interesting, though.. search by parts, pop up schematics using that part. Sometimes the datasheets' typical use cases are not exactly what you're looking for, even though you're quite certain it's the part you need, but what other people have done with it may be more along the line of what you're doing. Then again, a google image search tends to lead to those as well.
For months I've been reading how great this Netflix thing is, unlimited movies, TV series, for just a few bucks a month, it'll do away with piracy, blabla.
So I arrive at a place that has Netflix, through a Roku box - quite nice, and find that the movie selection is... well it's a bit like U.S. TV channels isn't it? There's hundreds of titles, but none of them you feel like watching at the time.
If I'm lucky, the title is available through Amazon - and preferably in SD because the HD prices are ridiculous for renting - but more often than not, it's not there either.
Don't get me wrong, I didn't expect every single title listed on IMDB to be available on demand via Netflix (how cool would that be, though?), but right now for example they offer X-Men 3, but not X-Men 1/2. Cube 2 is on there, but not the original nor the later prequel. All Star Trek series are on there, but not DS9 (news articles announcing Trek coming to Netflix included DS9, but apparently that has moved down to October 1st). On the other hand, it does have 'gems' like "Run! Bitch Run!" and "Battle of Los Angeles". No, not the already underperforming 'blockbuster' without the "of", the mockbuster version.
Now it does have good movies on there, but it's hardly the panacea that some comments here have made it out to be.
I'm not a fan of pirating, but I can see the hiccups in available services that make people a little more inclined to go that route.
Perhaps more to the point, any exercise bike with a computer-controlled resistance is likely to have a variety of profiles where the resistance is increased/decreased automatically. Unlike the Google-inspired routes, they also tend to be designed for specific purposes.. training for climbing, training for endurance, training for just building muscle, etc.
I can see where it could be useful, however - if somebody rides a particular route outside quite regularly but a giant dust storm (hi Phoenix!) decides to screw their schedule.. load the route into the trainer's computer and off you go. But I rather suspect the experience will still be nowhere near the same in terms of the particular resistance given.
So in general I enjoy the geek factor, but practical use seems limited; as with most things in life, I suppose.
If they where.com.us and so on, that would make sense. As it is, USA have at best a "historical" claim on the jurisdiction of.com and the rest.
No, at best the following is true:.com registry holder: VeriSign.net registry holder: VeriSign.org registry holder: Public Interest Registry (operated by: Afilias).edu registry holder: Educause (operated by: VeriSign)
VeriSign headquarters: 21355 Ridgetop Circle, Dulles, Virginia, USA
Afilias US office: Afilias USA, Inc., Building 3, Suite 105, 300 Welsh Road, Horsham, PA 19044, USA
Now, Afilias is headquartered in Ireland, so they could always choose to bugger out of the U.S., although I'm not sure what that would do with regard to being the operator for the.org registry.
But for.com and.net, the U.S. very much has jurisdiction over the main registry and by extension the data registered with them.
See also the recent newsbits about the U.S. having the jurisdiction to request data on Microsoft's cloud services servers parked in Europe and (largely) being marketed to Europeans.
It doesn't matter that you have nothing to do with them.
Except that.com,.net,.org and.edu all fall squarely within the domain of the U.S. as far as regulation goes, as per the blurb.
The other point made in the blurb is if you are targeting a particular nation's citizens, that you may also be subject to that nation's regulations.
Does that mean Amazon should be held liable for any naughty things entering Indonesia, for example? No, because although they'll ship things there, they're not targeting them. If they were to start offering their site in Indonesian and clearly marketed things to Indonesians, then perhaps they would.
This is really not much different from a bunch of Russians setting up a poker site on the Seychelles and then advertising specifically to Americans, require bets be made in U.S. Dollars, etc. You've probably already read on the crackdown operations on those.
Whether it is just is another matter entirely.
So while your comment is on the mark somewhere down the slippery slope, it's not particularly relevant as in fact people do have something to with 'them'.
Any piece which can be shifted into another piece's place has to be the same size and shape as the other piece, or it doesn't work right. Yours fails that.
Yes, I'm pretty sure we covered that when I initially said that it wouldn't work for a Rubik's Cube. I though it was made more obvious when Obfuscant explained that to somebody else, too;) Thanks for the contribution, though
I'm guessing you're modded Funny because - sadly - this hasn't been true of PDF in a long time now.
Even between desktop PDF readers there's now too much of a difference to even remotely be able to 'rely' on it. Even bitmaps are getting less and less reliable with applications choosing to either respect or ignore gamma tags, let alone color profile information.
As it is, I used to use FoxIt, but that started to get bloaty and including oddball toolbars. So I switched to PDF-Xchange. I'm about to switch again (Sumatra, maybe?) because PDF-Xchange takes far too long to render pages with lots of graphics. And neither FoxIt nor PDF-Xchange render vector content with anti-aliasing correctly. http://i.imgur.com/f8udg.png ( original image source: sinfest.net . Note that left image was at 172% zoom, right image was at 150% zoom, to get the same on-screen size. wtf? )
I'm going to guess that Sumatra really won't be any much better and maybe I'll have to go back to FoxIt. Either way, it looks like Adobe Reader will have to remain installed for when these alternatives don't quite get things right.
Draw a square. Now draw a line 1/3rd of the way along the horizontal axis parallel to the vertical axis. Draw another line 1/3rd of the way along the vertical axis parallel to the horizontal axis. You should now have a square that is divided into 1 smaller square, 1 larger square, and 2 equally-sized rectangles. Those rectangles aren't squares, true, but the outer square you began with is still a square.
Extrapolate that to a cube. Cut it up in any way you wish and each individually cut piece may not be a cube itself, but the original shape remains a cube.
Obfuscant already answered the question I figured would follow; why couldn't it be a Rubik's Cube? So I refer you to his post for the answer.
Only if you assume each cell is of the same dimension. You could very well have a cube that is 3x4x5 cells. Although it wouldn't work as a Rubik's Cube.
Back on topic.. I'm pretty sure I saw a 50x50x50 or something solved by software on YouTube.. is this algorithm bringing something new to the table, or...?
We used the UV-sensitive boards. Print the design onto an overhead sheet, put on board, expose board, etch, rinse, remove the photosensitive layer that's still on the tracers with some acetone, rinse again, done. Works much better than toner transfer; but also more expensive. Even did some 2-sided boards that way.
Then again, rarely do people etch their own boards these days. Either use one of the island pads/strips boards that are cheap and do some wiring for cross-traces, or have the board fabbed. By the dorkbotpdx guy - Laen, perhaps.. bit more expensive than the far east options, but quality is great, shipping is faster, boards are U.S.-made (for those who care), and hey.. the mask is purple.
We've been getting a lot of user feedback recently, spiking significantly over the past week, on the amount of application spam people are seeing in their feeds and on their walls.
I'm now curious if that is negative feedback from their users, or the users' friends - essentially blocking the app-generated updates because they don't care for them.
It's a 'dick move', but the title's mention of KDE is clearly an appeal to the geek mind; let's face it, the main complaint from developers is not the principle of getting blocked at random - they can just make a new version and get that up - but rather this:
Lost 370M users, tens of thousands dollars of advertising money and apparently we won't receive any payout on Credits too.
facebook giveth, and facebook taketh away. I don't mourn their loss of advertising dollars given the way they tend to collect said advertising dollars.
They are going to be breaking add-ons left and right with this shit.
But that is merely a symptom, not the cause.
If nothing else, the new release philosophy causes the incredibly stupid approach to add-on compatibility to be highlighted.
People have complained about add-ons 'breaking' for years with other (point) releases, usually stating that after updating the maxVersion string manually, or using Nightly Tester Tools to override, the add-on continues to work perfectly fine.
Perhaps it's wishful thinking.. but part of me is hoping that the new release schedule forces Mozilla, and the community, to re-think add-on compatibility reporting; flagging add-ons as 'broken' not by default, but after testing.
This is pretty off-topic, but in reference to your statement:
Really, Reuters? Don't you have wars you could be reporting on?
I can't help but wonder the same thing. But not really related to the latest lulzseclulz in any way - I mean war reporting in general.
I'm sure most of the people here who were semi-world conscious at the time can remember Christiane Amanpour reporting from Iraq and Bosnia, but also many other war reporters in those conflicts and many before them, often risking their own lives to bring reports from the battlefield, human interest stories from both sides, etc.
But now, I keep hearing every talking head in news reports saying that 'allegedly' this-and-that happened - while a video off of youtube or something plays in the background - but that these are unconfirmed reports because they have no journalists in those countries because journalists aren't allowed into them(!)
Have the news agencies lost their proverbial backbone, or have they just gotten lazy and think the youtube videos from either side in these conflicts are 'good enough'?
Slashdot Mirror
Isn't this pretty much an old trick, similar to 'bumping'?
This one's a lot more fun as you have to know where, approximately, that contact is - but then again, why is that contact accessible?
oh for pity's sake.
The first has already been solved by lockmakers, the second is solved by making the PCB reasonably inaccessible (an individual cover plate will do) which would also deal with the third, but then the third shouldn't be a switch anyway - it should be two distinct female header points on the PCB that can be bridged only with a length of wire; this is not a crappy home wireless router that actually needs a user-accessible reset button.
Whoever designed these $1k locks, electronically and mechanically, really need to go back to the drawing board... or school.
The problem is that you may say something that you have no reason to hide now, but every reason to hide in the future.
E.g. there may be no reason to hide the fact that you're not a big fan of Colonel X of the army now. But 3 months later, after a successful coup attempt, and rounding up of those critical of him, you may very well have every reason to want to hide it.
Anonymity means you don't have to worry about those future situations, be that an extreme such as the above, or something far more innocuous.
The down side is the 'greater internet fuckwad theory'.
I think Google+ is right in suggesting real names to keep out the fuckwads (even though there's plenty of pseudonyms already), who will still have their soapboxes on facebook, myspace, IRC, some random other forum, etc. Those who insist on anonymity whilst not being fuckwads may be condemned to those same places - that may be the price they pay.
I just visited the U.S. (came back last Tuesday) - I'm from the EU, so we get don't need a visa when just visiting, just the ESTA program stuff (where we pay $15 for the privilege of promoting tourism to the U.S.) - and just before entering the country, i.e. at the border checkpoint in the airport, the following were taken:
left hand, fingerprints
left hand, thumbprint
right hand, fingerprints
right hand, thumbprint
mugshot from looking straight into a webcamera, no smiling
other security measures, while flying within the U.S., included the usual of taking off shoes, personal items go in a bucket, laptop out of bag, metal scanner. At DC I was additionally guided through an x-ray backscatter machine and had to fill out a little form (which was presented to me in the city from which my flight originated) which required me to fill in flight information, seat number, and full name, and optionally some emergency contact. The airlines of course already have this information but I'm guessing some left-over of privacy laws makes it so they can't hand this over to Uncle Sam, so filling out a separate form it is.
All in all, a hassle.. enough to make my eyes roll, but unfortunately I don't have the option of not going to the U.S., so I guess it's waiting to see if they finally end up crossing my personal line, or whether TSA gets reigned in.
I RTFA-announcement (There's no actual article yet, I guess, and even if there were, it'd be behind a paywall), but the only thing mentioned is indeed that search is text-based. Apparently, at least for mobile, we'll want voice-recognition, and something along the lines of that Jeopardy!-bot from IBM to give us the answer straight away.
While that's commendable, neither are particularly search-related. One is voice recognition, a well-understood problem, and I've had no problems telling Google Maps / Navigate on an Android phone a bunch of addresses/interests the past 2 weeks. The other is a less-understood problem, but it deals more with parsing search results than searching in the first place.
Maybe the eventual commentary thing will have more 'provocative' things.
If I were to go provocative with a search engine, I'd start ignoring robots.txt, flip off facebook and index the heck out of it, use the facial recognition tech I already have but beefed up a bit by a recent acquisition to do facial searches (privacy concerns be damned), allow a midomi-type search to not just find out about a song by humming it, but also pop up the lyrics (without a thousand ads, intentional mistakes, etc.) and links to actually download them (and I don't mean iTunes), index every leaked document (credit cards, medical records, etc.) and so forth and so on.
Basically, everything a lot of people take issue with for perfectly good reasons, but secretly wouldn't mind having at their fingertips, themselves.
Perhaps a simple analogy is the search for extrasolar planets.
Although recently some have been imaged directly, the way to usually find them is not to look for the planets themselves.. they tend to be too dim and small ..but to look for the effect they have on their nearby star(s). Be it a periodic shifting in the star's velocity relative to Earth or a periodic dimming of its apparent output, etc.
So we don't observe the planet directly, but by looking for the signs we'd expect a planet to have on something else, we can infer their existence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extrasolar_planet#Detection_methods
While they are 'fundamentally different', that doesn't mean that they're not poking at the foundations.
You mention borrowing UI features, so you might be including the recent decision for the scrollbar direction reversal - defended (as usual, the shill that he is) by David Pogue as being far more natural.. slide down to make the page slide down, who could argue with that logic - for it applies to the real world and whaddayaknow touch devices, too.
This despite the fundamental point of a scrollbar, vs scrolling a page, being that it tells you where you are in a documen. It, in essence, defines the viewscreen's position, rather than the underlying page.. There's even extensions for FireFox that will put little markers near the scrollbar for search hits on a page ( https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/scrollbar-search-highlighter/ ).
All of those conventions, however.. thrown out in Lion. Yes, you can still change it back - and maybe if enough people do so, Apple will revert this change in the next OS X. But I wouldn't count no it.
That change, like many before it, most definitely point to a continued merger of OS X and iOS paradigms.
Will they be merged into a unified GUI? Probably not. Most likely there will still be GUI- and input-related differences between a desktop and a tablet, just as there are between a tablet and a(n i)phone.
But that doesn't mean the underlying OS can't be the result of a complete merger.
I think the difference is not as big as some may think it to be, though.
Ultimately if a site developer chooses to use certain desired (by them) features that make the site work better in a particular browser and slaps on a "site works best in..." disclaimer, then it's still that site developer's doing.
Whether those features are proprietary (not counting ActiveX bits, which were rarely the reason for such disclaimers) or part of a work-in-progress standard (HTML5 has not been finalized) doesn't really matter much there.
This in no way undermines what you're saying about development pace, mind. But when you couple it with the fact that Google helped make the page, you have to ask yourself if they really are just trying to be 'hip with Web 2.0' and making an interactive HTML5 video, or whether they're really just helping push Google Chrome onto more desktops by virtue of using HTML5 features that they undoubtedly knew would only work proper in Google Chrome / Chromium.
Opinions - you're entitled to have 'm.
Since the release involved HTML5, something that jives well within the 'nerd' demographic? (as does the band, to an extent, given that they're not generally 'pop' and make wacky videos).
Slashdot did the same with Radiohead's open sourcing of their music video:
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/08/07/18/1436211/Radiohead-Open-Sources-Music-Video
Be glad that this time it was posted under Idle?
It's called 'convenience'. You may not appreciate it, but most people do. In fact, I think Slashdot should do so far more often.
While I, myself, am no fan of the style either, I don't think it's the video's content that is the reason for its posting.
I wouldn't know - it's apparently a "This site works best with (read: only with) Google Chrome". Can't be bothered to install it.
They may be riding the momentum from back when they very much were (you know, the treadmill thing). if nothing else, many sites pick up on new 'Ok Go!' video releases because, as mentioned above, it's always something rather different from what you'd usually see. As such, perhaps 'sensation' is too strongly worded, but it captures the general idea.
It's called AdBlock (or one of various alternatives) - you might want to look into it.
You seem very angry - I don't know why, it's not like you're all that new here.
"This site works best with..." remember the loathe 'we' used to have for that phrase, because it was almost invariably followed by "Internet Explorer"?
Welcome to semi-recent developments where that phrase makes its comeback, now to be followed by Google Chrome.
So I'll augment my post from yesterday with:
How about installing Google Chrome when you want to watch an online presentation purportedly made using HTML5 standard tech?
Providing Microsoft Bing on Microsoft's Windows Phone 7 devices is pathetic? you're absolutely right.
By the way, would you like to install Google Chrome and make it your default browser when you install Google Earth?
http://www.google.com/earth/download/ge/agree.html
How about installing Google Chrome when you install Adobe Flash?
http://get.adobe.com/flashplayer/
Perhaps installing Google Chrome when you install Piriform CCleaner?
http://www.piriform.com/ccleaner/download/standard
I don't think there's anything particularly 'pathetic' about it. They could have made it possible (without dev unlocking and mucking about) to change the default search engine when pressing the hardware search button within the IE environment, though, I agree. Then again, there's plenty of Android devices that are locked to Google / Bing / Yahoo and also can't be changed as the cell provider locked that down.
On the up side, all of the devices let you put a shortcut to Google right on the home screen, and Google even made a WP7 google search app that does pretty much the same thing but provides a nicer icon - just as Microsoft offer a Bing search app for Android.
and don't think it wouldn't!
http://www.555contest.com/
now get off my lawn :(
Back on-topic... the idea of the site is okay, but it seems too limited in scope (why only schematics?), too limited in possibilities, and too much in search of a problem for it to actually be the solution to.
At least one comment here was interesting, though.. search by parts, pop up schematics using that part. Sometimes the datasheets' typical use cases are not exactly what you're looking for, even though you're quite certain it's the part you need, but what other people have done with it may be more along the line of what you're doing.
Then again, a google image search tends to lead to those as well.
Pick up a Roku? Or is the "runs on my Linux" a solid prerequisite? 'cos I think it's torrents for you as far as that goes, I'm afraid.
For months I've been reading how great this Netflix thing is, unlimited movies, TV series, for just a few bucks a month, it'll do away with piracy, blabla.
So I arrive at a place that has Netflix, through a Roku box - quite nice, and find that the movie selection is... well it's a bit like U.S. TV channels isn't it? There's hundreds of titles, but none of them you feel like watching at the time.
If I'm lucky, the title is available through Amazon - and preferably in SD because the HD prices are ridiculous for renting - but more often than not, it's not there either.
Don't get me wrong, I didn't expect every single title listed on IMDB to be available on demand via Netflix (how cool would that be, though?), but right now for example they offer X-Men 3, but not X-Men 1/2. Cube 2 is on there, but not the original nor the later prequel. All Star Trek series are on there, but not DS9 (news articles announcing Trek coming to Netflix included DS9, but apparently that has moved down to October 1st).
On the other hand, it does have 'gems' like "Run! Bitch Run!" and "Battle of Los Angeles". No, not the already underperforming 'blockbuster' without the "of", the mockbuster version.
Now it does have good movies on there, but it's hardly the panacea that some comments here have made it out to be.
I'm not a fan of pirating, but I can see the hiccups in available services that make people a little more inclined to go that route.
Perhaps more to the point, any exercise bike with a computer-controlled resistance is likely to have a variety of profiles where the resistance is increased/decreased automatically. Unlike the Google-inspired routes, they also tend to be designed for specific purposes.. training for climbing, training for endurance, training for just building muscle, etc.
I can see where it could be useful, however - if somebody rides a particular route outside quite regularly but a giant dust storm (hi Phoenix!) decides to screw their schedule.. load the route into the trainer's computer and off you go. But I rather suspect the experience will still be nowhere near the same in terms of the particular resistance given.
So in general I enjoy the geek factor, but practical use seems limited; as with most things in life, I suppose.
No, at best the following is true: .com registry holder: VeriSign .net registry holder: VeriSign .org registry holder: Public Interest Registry (operated by: Afilias) .edu registry holder: Educause (operated by: VeriSign)
VeriSign headquarters: 21355 Ridgetop Circle, Dulles, Virginia, USA
Afilias US office: Afilias USA, Inc., Building 3, Suite 105, 300 Welsh Road, Horsham, PA 19044, USA
Now, Afilias is headquartered in Ireland, so they could always choose to bugger out of the U.S., although I'm not sure what that would do with regard to being the operator for the .org registry.
But for .com and .net, the U.S. very much has jurisdiction over the main registry and by extension the data registered with them.
See also the recent newsbits about the U.S. having the jurisdiction to request data on Microsoft's cloud services servers parked in Europe and (largely) being marketed to Europeans.
Except that .com, .net, .org and .edu all fall squarely within the domain of the U.S. as far as regulation goes, as per the blurb.
The other point made in the blurb is if you are targeting a particular nation's citizens, that you may also be subject to that nation's regulations.
Does that mean Amazon should be held liable for any naughty things entering Indonesia, for example? No, because although they'll ship things there, they're not targeting them. If they were to start offering their site in Indonesian and clearly marketed things to Indonesians, then perhaps they would.
This is really not much different from a bunch of Russians setting up a poker site on the Seychelles and then advertising specifically to Americans, require bets be made in U.S. Dollars, etc. You've probably already read on the crackdown operations on those.
Whether it is just is another matter entirely.
So while your comment is on the mark somewhere down the slippery slope, it's not particularly relevant as in fact people do have something to with 'them'.
Any piece which can be shifted into another piece's place has to be the same size and shape as the other piece, or it doesn't work right. Yours fails that.
Yes, I'm pretty sure we covered that when I initially said that it wouldn't work for a Rubik's Cube. I though it was made more obvious when Obfuscant explained that to somebody else, too ;) Thanks for the contribution, though
I'm guessing you're modded Funny because - sadly - this hasn't been true of PDF in a long time now.
Even between desktop PDF readers there's now too much of a difference to even remotely be able to 'rely' on it. Even bitmaps are getting less and less reliable with applications choosing to either respect or ignore gamma tags, let alone color profile information.
As it is, I used to use FoxIt, but that started to get bloaty and including oddball toolbars. So I switched to PDF-Xchange. I'm about to switch again (Sumatra, maybe?) because PDF-Xchange takes far too long to render pages with lots of graphics. And neither FoxIt nor PDF-Xchange render vector content with anti-aliasing correctly.
http://i.imgur.com/f8udg.png
( original image source: sinfest.net . Note that left image was at 172% zoom, right image was at 150% zoom, to get the same on-screen size. wtf? )
I'm going to guess that Sumatra really won't be any much better and maybe I'll have to go back to FoxIt.
Either way, it looks like Adobe Reader will have to remain installed for when these alternatives don't quite get things right.
Draw a square. Now draw a line 1/3rd of the way along the horizontal axis parallel to the vertical axis. Draw another line 1/3rd of the way along the vertical axis parallel to the horizontal axis. You should now have a square that is divided into 1 smaller square, 1 larger square, and 2 equally-sized rectangles. Those rectangles aren't squares, true, but the outer square you began with is still a square.
Extrapolate that to a cube. Cut it up in any way you wish and each individually cut piece may not be a cube itself, but the original shape remains a cube.
Obfuscant already answered the question I figured would follow; why couldn't it be a Rubik's Cube? So I refer you to his post for the answer.
Only if you assume each cell is of the same dimension. You could very well have a cube that is 3x4x5 cells. Although it wouldn't work as a Rubik's Cube.
Back on topic.. I'm pretty sure I saw a 50x50x50 or something solved by software on YouTube.. is this algorithm bringing something new to the table, or...?
That's the norm.
This is from several years back - and the author doesn't even host the page anymore because it's outdated, but other than exact figure details, very much still applies:
http://web.archive.org/web/20090501014507/http://www.amanwithapencil.com/adobe.html
See also the excuses Adobe uses for the price differentiation:
http://web.archive.org/web/20090504203050/http://www.amanwithapencil.com/adobe_spin.html
This applies to practically all of the larger software companies. E.g. Adobe, Microsoft, Autodesk, Apple
We used the UV-sensitive boards. Print the design onto an overhead sheet, put on board, expose board, etch, rinse, remove the photosensitive layer that's still on the tracers with some acetone, rinse again, done. Works much better than toner transfer; but also more expensive. Even did some 2-sided boards that way.
Then again, rarely do people etch their own boards these days. Either use one of the island pads/strips boards that are cheap and do some wiring for cross-traces, or have the board fabbed. By the dorkbotpdx guy - Laen, perhaps.. bit more expensive than the far east options, but quality is great, shipping is faster, boards are U.S.-made (for those who care), and hey.. the mask is purple.
From that post...
I'm now curious if that is negative feedback from their users, or the users' friends - essentially blocking the app-generated updates because they don't care for them.
It's a 'dick move', but the title's mention of KDE is clearly an appeal to the geek mind; let's face it, the main complaint from developers is not the principle of getting blocked at random - they can just make a new version and get that up - but rather this:
facebook giveth, and facebook taketh away. I don't mourn their loss of advertising dollars given the way they tend to collect said advertising dollars.
But that is merely a symptom, not the cause.
If nothing else, the new release philosophy causes the incredibly stupid approach to add-on compatibility to be highlighted.
People have complained about add-ons 'breaking' for years with other (point) releases, usually stating that after updating the maxVersion string manually, or using Nightly Tester Tools to override, the add-on continues to work perfectly fine.
Perhaps it's wishful thinking.. but part of me is hoping that the new release schedule forces Mozilla, and the community, to re-think add-on compatibility reporting; flagging add-ons as 'broken' not by default, but after testing.
This is pretty off-topic, but in reference to your statement:
I can't help but wonder the same thing. But not really related to the latest lulzseclulz in any way - I mean war reporting in general.
I'm sure most of the people here who were semi-world conscious at the time can remember Christiane Amanpour reporting from Iraq and Bosnia, but also many other war reporters in those conflicts and many before them, often risking their own lives to bring reports from the battlefield, human interest stories from both sides, etc.
But now, I keep hearing every talking head in news reports saying that 'allegedly' this-and-that happened - while a video off of youtube or something plays in the background - but that these are unconfirmed reports because they have no journalists in those countries because journalists aren't allowed into them(!)
Have the news agencies lost their proverbial backbone, or have they just gotten lazy and think the youtube videos from either side in these conflicts are 'good enough'?