Try this: Make a list of all the things that MC is missing vs sawfish (or The Ultimate Window Manager) and then work as you do normally and tick the times you miss each feature. I'd be willing to bet that in an honest test you'll find that you don't use them nearly as often as you think you do.
I have two that's on the list. The first is that there's only resistance against moving a window of the top of the screen, not the edges. Being able to position a window at the edge of the screen is something I do all the time.
The other is the ability to maximize a window in one direction only. I often find that I want to make my Mozilla window as wide as I want it to, and maximize the height. I don't do the maximize the width as often though, so that could go.
Now, granted I run a default RedHat 9.0 install these days, and I haven't looked around to see if these customisations lurk somewhere, but I did do some searching around. If they do exist somewhere I'd appreciate a pointer.
The FAA was worried that this might interfere with navigation and flight control systems.
Ah, that would have made sense for later flights. It wasn't much of a problem in '54 though. Navigation was primarily celestial (telescope out the top of the cabin), since magnetic compass didn't help much. Flight control systems on the DC-8 were mechanical (i.e. hydraulic servo) when cosmic radiation becomes a problem for that you have other things to worry about...;-)
No commercial flights went over the pole until 2000.
No, not even close. Try
1954. I know I've seen on TV why they stopped but I cannot find the reason now. Fear of ballistic missiles or bombers doesn't fly (pardon the pun) since telling missiles bombers and civilian airplanes apart was the main reason there even is a NORAD. It was their main operational task. Even built huge analog machines, complete with PPI:s and light pens in the fifties to cope with the burden.
The deal north of the Mason-Dixon line is that once you've served your debt to society, your pardoned and can vote again. However the legacy of the Jim Crow south is still kickin albeit a shadow of it's former self.
Thanks for the historical perspective. I was under the impression that this was more or less the case throughout the US, but by your post I gather that there are differences in fellon voting rights depending on where in the US you are. That's of course very interesting. Thanks for pointing that out.
Seems like a dodgy bit of history though, the kind that as a nation you'd be interested to quickly and quietly put right now that you have the benefit of hindsight... (And to the hypersensitive out there; yes we have are share of those to, so this is no slight against the US in particular).
And they say you cannot learn anything from the stuff posted on Slashdot.:-)
Well, what I've found hasn't been discussed is why convicted fellons should be stripped of their civil rights?
That's not how we do it in northern Europe (granted we don't have nearly the level of crime you do). Sure, if you're not a citizen we may deport you after time served if the crime is serious enough. But if you are a citizen there's no way to lose your right to vote. You can even vote in prison, though not many actually in prison do. Politics not usually being their main interest.
Now, I could imagine a few arguments to do it the way you do, but I'd still like to hear the rationale.
I've never seen the figures, but I know the US has the largest prison population per capita in the world, if you add the previous fellons to the mix would that make them a political factor to be reconed with? Are you afraid they'd vote crooks into office? Well, you still got Nixon in the White house, so that didn't work.;-)
How old is the notion of previously convicted not being allowed to vote anyway? Is it a 'founding fathers' thing?
...that Europe isn't as "sold out" as the USA. It's just sold out to different people and for different reasons. Mainly it's sold out to political vested interests, rather than campaign contributors. Luckily one of the more influential groups (the socialists) seem to have gotten the message that this software-patent stuff is bad for their agenda.
You know, when the elected representatives act according to the will of their voters, we don't call it sell out we call it democracy.
And as others have pointed out, european style social democrats are a far cry from soviet style communists.
Now I think maybe we are headed for October 1917.
Because that worked REALLY well.
Well, the original poster was wrong. We would first head for a february revolution, the one that overthrew the Tsar. If they had managed to overcome their inexperience at government and stave off the bolshevik revolution, it might have worked as well as it did for the majority of us Europeans.
It's really only the English that haven't had the socialist revolution.
The buffer overrun is essentially an invention of the C programming language. Before C nobody thought of writing language compilers without bounds checking on arrays.
Wrong on both counts. The buffer overrun problem was identified (indeed exploited in a security context) well before the advent of both UNIX and C. Languages such as 'PL/1' and 'Algol 68' not to mention 'Fortran' that predate C by many years contained bounds checking on arrays. Indeed the hardware on which these languages ran (such as the Unisys A-series mainframes) contained bounds checking primitives.
I am probably better informed about the state of MS security system design than any other person who does not work for them and is not a contractor. You are wrong in this assertion on two counts, first the extreme modular nature of Unix has historically been considered a security weakness, second Microsoft is not moving towards Unix. Windows NT has always been a micro-kernel design.
Two points.
First, we're all getting a bit tired of the old "NT is a microkernel and UNIX isn't". When you look at the functionality that both kernels provide, both the traditional UNIX kernel and the NT kernel there is no difference worth mentioning. In fact, with the introduction of the GUI subsystem into the kernel by later NT versions, the scale is tipped in favour of UNIX. It handles more system tasks in user space than does NT.
It's unfortunate that the Mach people coined the term microkernel, since that seriously bloated the idea of what a microkernel is. If the term had been reserved for true microkernels (e.g. QNX, L3 or the like) than of course neither NT nor UNIX could have any realistic claim to the name, as it should be.
And second that the "extreme modular architecture has historically been considered a security weakness". I'm not sure I agree with much either. The one overarching security problem with the UNIX design (which was indeed identified in UNIX history) is the introduction of the super user (aka "root") and the poor division of responsibility/clout that came with it. Note that this is orthogonal to any notion of modularity.
Next you talk of the interfaces of the security subsystem in UNIX not being prepared for Kerberos and the like. Well, they weren't really prepared for networking either, as that wasn't really around when these interfaces were designed. A critisism a bit off the mark. As others have pointed out, when that weakness was identified the API was indeed made richer, with the introduction of PAM.
the whole point of such to-paper logging is to log things so that the alerts can't get destroyed afterwards(because of a hacker, or because the machine has melted) by the computer.
And hence the old habit of injecting a kilobyte or two of formfeeds after the break so as to make sure the log printer was out of paper.
A friend, who shall remain nameless (though the setting was actually fairly benign), actually backed up the printer and 'X'-ed over the printout. But that was more for show, reverse feeding is unreliable, better yet to just run the printer out of paper.
A variation was recently used. A company HQ had a paper printer to log access cards as they opened the doors to the building. But, the printer was in a cleaning cupboard on the ground floor. The thief (an insider) just broke into it and took the paper logs with him as he left with his companions carrying a s*it load of computers.
The moral of that story is that paper is kind of fragile as a log material. Make sure it'll survive the calamity that the original equipment wont, lest you be standing with a long face with neither the equipment/data nor the logs.
With all the nuclear materials and chemical weapons confiscated in Berlin WWII would have continued for many years to come with far more disasterous consequences.
Well, regarding the nuclear materials the Germans were actually very far from any weapon, further than we've previously thought. For example Heisenberg didn't even have the mean free path correct, he calculated several tons of U235 were necessary. A missunderstanding that alone put the Germans a decade from any weapon. He also didn't know how to build a reactor, he erroneously thought that negative void would be enough to prevent runaway and didn't design any other control mechanism. So had that reactor ever run the core would have melted. We now know more about what Heisenberg knew since the British recently declassified the surveillance and interrogation reports from Farm Hall.
And sure the Waffen-SS were the elite alright (and also crawling with the worst kind of Nazis even though the figure was far from 100%), and the last ditch defence of Hitlers bunker and the surrounding city block was actually made by the Schweden kompanie, by division Nordland. Commanded by Go"sta Persson (who survivied the war and returned to Sweden), but that's a different story.
It was really the battle of Stalingrad that changed thing for the Germans. Normandy was pretty much the final nail in the coffin for the Nazis.
Well, it changed it in the eyes of everyone else. From a military strategic standpoint it was really the battle of Kursk, where the Germans lost more than 500 tanks, that they had a hard time making a comeback from. I honestly don't think Normandy would have made a difference as to the Germans winning or losing, just how the post war map was drawn. The Soviets would have won sooner or later.
Hitler had no strategic bombers to reach Soviet production facilities, while the rest of the allies was hammering his. So while Normandy didn't make much difference, the US Army air force and the RAF might have. Still, even with factories intact, Hitler didn't have raw materials (notably oil) which the Russians had (and still have) in abundace.
Americans tend to have a pretty distorted view of history. Most Americans think Henry Ford invented the automobile, Edison was responsible for electricity. Once you realize that this is how Americans have been taught their present world outlook becomes a little more understandable, though still not entirely sensible. Every country teaches its citizens that they're somehow "special" but Americans seems to buy into that crap a lot more than most.
Well, I attribute it to mostly being too far away from the rest of us. If I went on shouting that Sweden was the best in the world driving with the top down I could only go on for about an hour or two before hitting a border. And then it'd sound sillier and sillier. It's only natural you have to have more perspective when your neighbours are that much closer by. Any BS is going to get called pretty quickly.
A nit pick. The Allies kicked his ass. You know, all those Brits, Aussies, Russians and other people that also fought and died.
Plus, it was the Russians that took Berlin.
A few figures brings this point home. For the duration of the war 8 out of every 10 german soldier fought on the eastern front. Out of 55 million dead in WWII ca 22 million were Soviet (about 1/4 of a million US).
So the old saying is wrong. If it wasn't for the americans we'd all be speaking russian. Not german.
Slander/Libel law broadened to include "negative and harmful" speech towards economic activity.
Well, that's already happened in the lawsuit against Oprah for defaming the Texas meat industry:
The lawsuit alleged Lyman and Oprah had violated a Texas law which forbids someone from 'knowingly making false statement' about agricultural business.
Since the ranchers lost making the laws tougher can't be far away.
Just make sure to blame all those Indians working in Banaglore meat grinders for a quarter of US wages for your lack of a job. Whatever you do, dont blame American companies for your job loss. That would be unpatriotic!
What, between the DMCA, EULAS, Bush in the big house, the Reichssicherheitsamt (sorry Office of Homeland Security) and RIAA/MPAA, I thought it was illegal to blame American companies, for anything. (Seriously; Oprah being sued for defaming the Texas meat industry should probably be in there as well).
Careful, it's true that English is an official language in India and not in China but it is also true that speaking good English is common in the cities in China, and certainly amognst programmers.
Well, as is true here in Sweden and Holland as well. But there is a difference though between those of us who have English as a second language and the Indians, many of which have it as their first, i.e. their native language.
Now, that is not true of all Indians by a long shot, but it is still a native language of the country and that makes a world of difference. Take the issue of who is going to teach you English for example. A qualified teacher who is a native speaker has a lot more potential, let me tell you.
And no offence to the Chineese, but when it comes to actually speaking English I'd say most have a ways to come relative to the Indians the dialect of which is a bit peculiar but not really difficult to make sense of. I've met quite a few Chineese that I could correspond with perfectly, but could hardly make out a single word they were saying in conversation. I'm sure my Chineese would be equally bad.
Hmm? If you buy a smaller house instead a big one and only one car instead of two and a few gadgets less. Would you still have to work 16 hours a day, seven a week?
Well, if you didn't would you still have a job? Wouldn't you just be laid off as a slacker?
XP creates more heat than say linux sometimes, try monitoring the temperature in XP, using something like speedfan.
Yeah, I already do, and there's no real difference between Linux and XP on that machine.
And, lamentably I already know about the three 'R:s' of Windows administration, reboot, reboot, reinstall. But XP was supposed to be the solid alternative to all that. It's not as if I'm not running the same Linux as I always have, or rather, I've just updated it to keep it up to date and it just keeps on running.
If I have to clear XP of the partition to get it working again I'm leaning towards leaving it off and go Linux all the way. For me it's Microsoft - Just say no from then on.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll do that. Thanks.
I have two that's on the list. The first is that there's only resistance against moving a window of the top of the screen, not the edges. Being able to position a window at the edge of the screen is something I do all the time.
The other is the ability to maximize a window in one direction only. I often find that I want to make my Mozilla window as wide as I want it to, and maximize the height. I don't do the maximize the width as often though, so that could go.
Now, granted I run a default RedHat 9.0 install these days, and I haven't looked around to see if these customisations lurk somewhere, but I did do some searching around. If they do exist somewhere I'd appreciate a pointer.
Ah, that would have made sense for later flights. It wasn't much of a problem in '54 though. Navigation was primarily celestial (telescope out the top of the cabin), since magnetic compass didn't help much. Flight control systems on the DC-8 were mechanical (i.e. hydraulic servo) when cosmic radiation becomes a problem for that you have other things to worry about... ;-)
No, not even close. Try 1954. I know I've seen on TV why they stopped but I cannot find the reason now. Fear of ballistic missiles or bombers doesn't fly (pardon the pun) since telling missiles bombers and civilian airplanes apart was the main reason there even is a NORAD. It was their main operational task. Even built huge analog machines, complete with PPI:s and light pens in the fifties to cope with the burden.
Thanks for the historical perspective. I was under the impression that this was more or less the case throughout the US, but by your post I gather that there are differences in fellon voting rights depending on where in the US you are. That's of course very interesting. Thanks for pointing that out.
Seems like a dodgy bit of history though, the kind that as a nation you'd be interested to quickly and quietly put right now that you have the benefit of hindsight... (And to the hypersensitive out there; yes we have are share of those to, so this is no slight against the US in particular).
And they say you cannot learn anything from the stuff posted on Slashdot. :-)
ROTFL! :-) Should have had mod points.
Well, what I've found hasn't been discussed is why convicted fellons should be stripped of their civil rights?
That's not how we do it in northern Europe (granted we don't have nearly the level of crime you do). Sure, if you're not a citizen we may deport you after time served if the crime is serious enough. But if you are a citizen there's no way to lose your right to vote. You can even vote in prison, though not many actually in prison do. Politics not usually being their main interest.
Now, I could imagine a few arguments to do it the way you do, but I'd still like to hear the rationale.
I've never seen the figures, but I know the US has the largest prison population per capita in the world, if you add the previous fellons to the mix would that make them a political factor to be reconed with? Are you afraid they'd vote crooks into office? Well, you still got Nixon in the White house, so that didn't work. ;-)
How old is the notion of previously convicted not being allowed to vote anyway? Is it a 'founding fathers' thing?
You know, when the elected representatives act according to the will of their voters, we don't call it sell out we call it democracy.
And as others have pointed out, european style social democrats are a far cry from soviet style communists.
Well, the original poster was wrong. We would first head for a february revolution, the one that overthrew the Tsar. If they had managed to overcome their inexperience at government and stave off the bolshevik revolution, it might have worked as well as it did for the majority of us Europeans.
It's really only the English that haven't had the socialist revolution.
No I didn't. I just limited my reply to was was factually incorrect. Now be a good little boy and sign your name to your next ad-hominem.
Wrong on both counts. The buffer overrun problem was identified (indeed exploited in a security context) well before the advent of both UNIX and C. Languages such as 'PL/1' and 'Algol 68' not to mention 'Fortran' that predate C by many years contained bounds checking on arrays. Indeed the hardware on which these languages ran (such as the Unisys A-series mainframes) contained bounds checking primitives.
Two points.
First, we're all getting a bit tired of the old "NT is a microkernel and UNIX isn't". When you look at the functionality that both kernels provide, both the traditional UNIX kernel and the NT kernel there is no difference worth mentioning. In fact, with the introduction of the GUI subsystem into the kernel by later NT versions, the scale is tipped in favour of UNIX. It handles more system tasks in user space than does NT.
It's unfortunate that the Mach people coined the term microkernel, since that seriously bloated the idea of what a microkernel is. If the term had been reserved for true microkernels (e.g. QNX, L3 or the like) than of course neither NT nor UNIX could have any realistic claim to the name, as it should be.
And second that the "extreme modular architecture has historically been considered a security weakness". I'm not sure I agree with much either. The one overarching security problem with the UNIX design (which was indeed identified in UNIX history) is the introduction of the super user (aka "root") and the poor division of responsibility/clout that came with it. Note that this is orthogonal to any notion of modularity.
Next you talk of the interfaces of the security subsystem in UNIX not being prepared for Kerberos and the like. Well, they weren't really prepared for networking either, as that wasn't really around when these interfaces were designed. A critisism a bit off the mark. As others have pointed out, when that weakness was identified the API was indeed made richer, with the introduction of PAM.
England pioneered the introduction of tuition. I was unaware that that the Netherlands has since followed them into the darkness. No need to be snide.
And that's in the UK, which is the only country in Europe that even has tuition. The rest of us don't.
And then we're back to the problem of destroying the logs by formfeeds, or just cutting the wire to the remote location. Problem not solved.
And hence the old habit of injecting a kilobyte or two of formfeeds after the break so as to make sure the log printer was out of paper.
A friend, who shall remain nameless (though the setting was actually fairly benign), actually backed up the printer and 'X'-ed over the printout. But that was more for show, reverse feeding is unreliable, better yet to just run the printer out of paper.
A variation was recently used. A company HQ had a paper printer to log access cards as they opened the doors to the building. But, the printer was in a cleaning cupboard on the ground floor. The thief (an insider) just broke into it and took the paper logs with him as he left with his companions carrying a s*it load of computers.
The moral of that story is that paper is kind of fragile as a log material. Make sure it'll survive the calamity that the original equipment wont, lest you be standing with a long face with neither the equipment/data nor the logs.
Well, regarding the nuclear materials the Germans were actually very far from any weapon, further than we've previously thought. For example Heisenberg didn't even have the mean free path correct, he calculated several tons of U235 were necessary. A missunderstanding that alone put the Germans a decade from any weapon. He also didn't know how to build a reactor, he erroneously thought that negative void would be enough to prevent runaway and didn't design any other control mechanism. So had that reactor ever run the core would have melted. We now know more about what Heisenberg knew since the British recently declassified the surveillance and interrogation reports from Farm Hall.
And sure the Waffen-SS were the elite alright (and also crawling with the worst kind of Nazis even though the figure was far from 100%), and the last ditch defence of Hitlers bunker and the surrounding city block was actually made by the Schweden kompanie, by division Nordland. Commanded by Go"sta Persson (who survivied the war and returned to Sweden), but that's a different story.
Well, it changed it in the eyes of everyone else. From a military strategic standpoint it was really the battle of Kursk, where the Germans lost more than 500 tanks, that they had a hard time making a comeback from. I honestly don't think Normandy would have made a difference as to the Germans winning or losing, just how the post war map was drawn. The Soviets would have won sooner or later.
Hitler had no strategic bombers to reach Soviet production facilities, while the rest of the allies was hammering his. So while Normandy didn't make much difference, the US Army air force and the RAF might have. Still, even with factories intact, Hitler didn't have raw materials (notably oil) which the Russians had (and still have) in abundace.
Well, I attribute it to mostly being too far away from the rest of us. If I went on shouting that Sweden was the best in the world driving with the top down I could only go on for about an hour or two before hitting a border. And then it'd sound sillier and sillier. It's only natural you have to have more perspective when your neighbours are that much closer by. Any BS is going to get called pretty quickly.
A few figures brings this point home. For the duration of the war 8 out of every 10 german soldier fought on the eastern front. Out of 55 million dead in WWII ca 22 million were Soviet (about 1/4 of a million US).
So the old saying is wrong. If it wasn't for the americans we'd all be speaking russian. Not german.
Well, that's already happened in the lawsuit against Oprah for defaming the Texas meat industry:
Since the ranchers lost making the laws tougher can't be far away.
Well, I do, I just got the impression things were different 'over there', hence my question.
Or rather, I used to. Now I'm a grad student, so the distinction is (unfortunately) a little blurred at the moment.
What, between the DMCA, EULAS, Bush in the big house, the Reichssicherheitsamt (sorry Office of Homeland Security) and RIAA/MPAA, I thought it was illegal to blame American companies, for anything. (Seriously; Oprah being sued for defaming the Texas meat industry should probably be in there as well).
It no doubt will be shortly if it isn't already.
Well, as is true here in Sweden and Holland as well. But there is a difference though between those of us who have English as a second language and the Indians, many of which have it as their first, i.e. their native language.
Now, that is not true of all Indians by a long shot, but it is still a native language of the country and that makes a world of difference. Take the issue of who is going to teach you English for example. A qualified teacher who is a native speaker has a lot more potential, let me tell you.
And no offence to the Chineese, but when it comes to actually speaking English I'd say most have a ways to come relative to the Indians the dialect of which is a bit peculiar but not really difficult to make sense of. I've met quite a few Chineese that I could correspond with perfectly, but could hardly make out a single word they were saying in conversation. I'm sure my Chineese would be equally bad.
Well, if you didn't would you still have a job? Wouldn't you just be laid off as a slacker?
Yeah, I already do, and there's no real difference between Linux and XP on that machine.
And, lamentably I already know about the three 'R:s' of Windows administration, reboot, reboot, reinstall. But XP was supposed to be the solid alternative to all that. It's not as if I'm not running the same Linux as I always have, or rather, I've just updated it to keep it up to date and it just keeps on running.
If I have to clear XP of the partition to get it working again I'm leaning towards leaving it off and go Linux all the way. For me it's Microsoft - Just say no from then on.