They already released two large documents, and it would seem pretty silly to release that much and then not follow up on the rest of the promise. I mean, if you aren't going to keep your promise, why not go all the way and and not keep any of it?
ATI hasn't announced anything new. They've simply brought attention to the fact that they will support open source efforts, as they always have.
They never supported open source efforts in the past. This is the first time they have provided documentation and been willing to answer questions without an NDA (and sometime they were reluctant to talk even with an NDA).
As always, there will be 3d drivers for paleolithic versions of their cards, and 2d for everything else. If you actually want to use up to date cards, you'll have to use the closed drivers.
Actually, this should be very helpful to the efforts to create open drivers for all ATI cards.
The w3c didn't come up with this. Most or all of the current HTML5 spec in the w3c was pulled directly from the WHAT-WG, which is a group primarily made up of representatives from Mozilla, Apple and Opera.
Micro formats are good but they don't carry the weight that the official HTML spec does.
Things like time and meter could be very useful for rich web apps.
If you dislike the spec, you should join the w3c or WHAT working group (both are open membership).
html5 has been adopted by the w3c, but it started life in the WHAT-WG, which is a group created by Mozilla, Apple and Opera. So I think it will be well received. Also, Chris Wilson of Microsoft is the chairman of the w3c working group, so there is a good chance of even IE supporting this.
IE is the only browser that is not doing so well in supporting the standards, and that's only in the realms of CSS and XHTML. IE has done a pretty good job of supporting HTML for quite a while.
I never said anything about no package management. If you know a reasonable amount about Linux, it is pretty darn easy to use [insert favorite package manager] to install the packages automatix installs, and to make the adjustments it makes. Automatix makes it *slightly* more convenient, but it does too many bad things to make that slight convenience worth it.
I like Obama's and Romney's sites best. I want to like Edwards' site, as he is my current favorite, but it is rather cluttered.
McCain's site is the worst in my opinion. It has four Flash objects on the front page and if you have Flash blocked, there is not much content. And as soon as I unblock the three flash buttons, they turn into videos of McCain explaining what is in that section - really annoying IMO.
It's perfectly understandable that people don't want sites to automatically combine various pieces of information about them. Many people who e.g. post in newsgroups already find it highly creepy what random stalkers can find out about them from simple googlings, they don't need an automatic system to stalk them as well.
An automatic system for stalking people? Isn't that what Google is?:-)
Re:Lovely knees you have ... if anything.
on
AOL Now Supports OpenID
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
If you don't want to be tracked, don't use OpenID.
If I go to a blog and enter a comment with the name Kelly Clowers and give my website as www.clowersnet.net/~krc/, how do you know that I am really the Kelly Clowers who owns that website? This example is one of the original use cases for OpenID.
Now anyone can google Kelly Clowers and if an OpenID post turns up in the results, you can be fairly sure it was really the owner of www.clowersnet.net/~krc/ (which is presumably me, since that website specifically mentions this account (which is a solution that can work for main accounts, but I don't really want to list every one-off comment I ever made on random blogs)). Of course, a page could be hijacked, but the point is that imitating someone is not as trivial as entering someone else's name and website.
Not being tracked when you don't want to be tracked could be an issue if websites started accepting *only* OpenID, but I haven't seen anyone do that yet, and I doubt many will ever do that. And I don't think OpenID is really intended for online banking and shopping and the like. Also, if you don't want to be tracked, you could set up a second OpenID account that does not link to your primary account or to your real name.
AOL did not develop the OpenID 1.x spec and they are not developing the OpenID 2.0 spec.
OpenID was originally developed by Brad Fitzpatrick of LiveJournal, and now it is being developed with an open process, involving many open source hackers and tech companies. Anyone is free to implement the specs.
There are already OpenID libraries for Python, PHP, Perl and.NET that are under the LGPL. The Ruby library is under the Apache license. Many open source projects (Apache, MoinMoin, MediaWiki, Drupal, Plone, etc.) have implemented OpenID or are working on it.
Is it me or is dinosaur discovery actually dead? I think it is you. I think most dinosaur paleontologists would say that this is a very exiting period. In the past two decades, the number of known dinosaur genera has skyrocketed and things like computer modeling and phylogenetic analysis have vastly increased our understanding of dinosaurs.
I have to think that most of the recent articles about these is to try to revitalize interest in the field but the simple fact is archeologists arn't that interesting.
Points: 1. Please don't mutilate the English language. 2. I think you mean paleontologists, not archaeologists. 3. Just because you don't find it interesting, doesn't mean other people can't find it interesting.
They'll try to make up some interesting stuff about them but seriously, now you're saying 150 years of evidence is wrong because the first flying dinosaur was a biplane?
No one is making stuff up, and no one is saying that 150 years of evidence is wrong. Microraptor does not contradict any modern theories about dinosaurs.
Either the guys now are just making stuff up, or the guys before them were making stuff up, either way something about that pisses me off.
Modifying theories, and sometimes totally discarding them, in order to fit the evidence and to be able to make better predictions is how science works.
Hmm, I have a feeling that I'm responding to a troll, but that's ok, I felt like writing about dinosaurs anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
They already released two large documents, and it would seem pretty silly to release that much and then not follow up on the rest of the promise. I mean, if you aren't going to keep your promise, why not go all the way and and not keep any of it?
They never supported open source efforts in the past. This is the first time they have provided documentation and been willing to answer questions without an NDA (and sometime they were reluctant to talk even with an NDA).
Actually, this should be very helpful to the efforts to create open drivers for all ATI cards.
http://airlied.livejournal.com/50613.html
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=838&num=1
Fluxbox is an acceptable WM to use until you come to understand the greatness that is wmii ;-)
XHTML 5 will be the actual XHTML standard, once it is complete.
The w3c didn't come up with this. Most or all of the current HTML5 spec in the w3c was pulled directly from the WHAT-WG, which is a group primarily made up of representatives from Mozilla, Apple and Opera.
Micro formats are good but they don't carry the weight that the official HTML spec does.
Things like time and meter could be very useful for rich web apps.
If you dislike the spec, you should join the w3c or WHAT working group (both are open membership).
What?
That's why you are supposed to use CSS and not HTML for layout.
HTML5 includes web forms 2.0
Validation is included in Web Forms 2.0
Just use XHTML5
/ #html-vs
http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work
http://blog.whatwg.org/faq/#html-namespaces
Webkit, Gecko, and Opera will probably all get html5 support around the same time.
For example, there are experimental Opera, Firefox and webkit builds with <video> support.
IE will probably lag, but Chris Wilson of Microsoft is the w3c working group chairman so there is hope...
html5 has been adopted by the w3c, but it started life in the WHAT-WG, which is a group created by Mozilla, Apple and Opera. So I think it will be well received. Also, Chris Wilson of Microsoft is the chairman of the w3c working group, so there is a good chance of even IE supporting this.
IE is the only browser that is not doing so well in supporting the standards, and that's only in the realms of CSS and XHTML. IE has done a pretty good job of supporting HTML for quite a while.
I never said anything about no package management. If you know a reasonable amount about Linux, it is pretty darn easy to use [insert favorite package manager] to install the packages automatix installs, and to make the adjustments it makes. Automatix makes it *slightly* more convenient, but it does too many bad things to make that slight convenience worth it.
Vetinari?
If you were to learn Linux you would not need Automatix,
Even if some people *do* call Zonk the gangster of love, I did *not* want to know about it.
That is not true at all.
Microsoft:"We're fully committed to HD DVD and have absolutely no plans to support other optical formats."
I read this as "Monkey Punch", and I thought "oh goody, Lupin the Third in my newspaper!"
I was so disappointed when I realized my mistake.
It keeps the tigers away? I'll take it! That other stuff is just a bonus.
I don't know if it will happen but at least one person is calling for DDs to not flood unstable and testing with really broken packages.
c h-lenny-and-future.html
http://stratusandtheswirl.blogspot.com/2007/04/et
No, it means you need to switch to SeaMonkey
I like Obama's and Romney's sites best. I want to like Edwards' site, as he is my current favorite, but it is rather cluttered.
McCain's site is the worst in my opinion. It has four Flash objects on the front page and if you have Flash blocked, there is not much content. And as soon as I unblock the three flash buttons, they turn into videos of McCain explaining what is in that section - really annoying IMO.
Also, McCain's site looks like a dead Transformer.
---
P.S. 200 comments!
OpenID is an identity system, not a trust system. It identifies that I am me, not that you can trust me. *insert evil laugh*
An automatic system for stalking people? Isn't that what Google is?
If you don't want to be tracked, don't use OpenID.
If I go to a blog and enter a comment with the name Kelly Clowers and give my website as www.clowersnet.net/~krc/, how do you know that I am really the Kelly Clowers who owns that website? This example is one of the original use cases for OpenID.
Now anyone can google Kelly Clowers and if an OpenID post turns up in the results, you can be fairly sure it was really the owner of www.clowersnet.net/~krc/ (which is presumably me, since that website specifically mentions this account (which is a solution that can work for main accounts, but I don't really want to list every one-off comment I ever made on random blogs)). Of course, a page could be hijacked, but the point is that imitating someone is not as trivial as entering someone else's name and website.
Not being tracked when you don't want to be tracked could be an issue if websites started accepting *only* OpenID, but I haven't seen anyone do that yet, and I doubt many will ever do that. And I don't think OpenID is really intended for online banking and shopping and the like. Also, if you don't want to be tracked, you could set up a second OpenID account that does not link to your primary account or to your real name.
AOL did not develop the OpenID 1.x spec and they are not developing the OpenID 2.0 spec.
.NET that are under the LGPL. The Ruby library is under the Apache license. Many open source projects (Apache, MoinMoin, MediaWiki, Drupal, Plone, etc.) have implemented OpenID or are working on it.
OpenID was originally developed by Brad Fitzpatrick of LiveJournal, and now it is being developed with an open process, involving many open source hackers and tech companies. Anyone is free to implement the specs.
There are already OpenID libraries for Python, PHP, Perl and
Yes, that would have helped.
Is it me or is dinosaur discovery actually dead?
I think it is you. I think most dinosaur paleontologists would say that this is a very exiting period. In the past two decades, the number of known dinosaur genera has skyrocketed and things like computer modeling and phylogenetic analysis have vastly increased our understanding of dinosaurs.
I have to think that most of the recent articles about these is to try to revitalize interest in the field but the simple fact is archeologists arn't that interesting.
Points:
1. Please don't mutilate the English language.
2. I think you mean paleontologists, not archaeologists.
3. Just because you don't find it interesting, doesn't mean other people can't find it interesting.
They'll try to make up some interesting stuff about them but seriously, now you're saying 150 years of evidence is wrong because the first flying dinosaur was a biplane?
No one is making stuff up, and no one is saying that 150 years of evidence is wrong. Microraptor does not contradict any modern theories about dinosaurs.
Either the guys now are just making stuff up, or the guys before them were making stuff up, either way something about that pisses me off.
Modifying theories, and sometimes totally discarding them, in order to fit the evidence and to be able to make better predictions is how science works.
Hmm, I have a feeling that I'm responding to a troll, but that's ok, I felt like writing about dinosaurs anyway.