Furthermore, even if you have a non HD TV might you not be interested in the extra exttras the additional space allows for on Blu-Ray discs?
Are you talking about the extra material on the discs? Have they even planned for this to be even more than on current DVD's, besides being in HDTV format? If you're talking about additional space useful for recording on the other hand, I have to wonder whether combo drives or recorders will come first, and when they'll be affordable.
Stellarium is nice, however, I believe Starry Night is even more powerful. It's proprietary software though, if it matters to you, but I believe much more powerful, and pretty much the best on the market right now.
Hehe, that's pretty funny... They say this, about extra-terrestrial "design":
If one accepts that life on earth was designed, the problem with this theory is that although it might explain the design of life on earth, it cannot explain the design of extra-terrestrial components of the universe which are crucial to our existence. As noted in our Anthropic Principles page, there appears to be a design of the universe, going all the way back to a creation event implicated in the Big Bang theory. The extreme "fine-tuning" of the universe must be explained, along with the design of life on earth.
So they're putting a lot of pressure on proof that this must be true before accepting it, yet they seem to have an easier time accepting there's a supernatural designer of the entire Universe, a "God". Hmm, I think I'll never understand these guys.
Not sure of what fine tuning they're talking about either; if the post-Big Bang Universe wasn't fine tuned for us, none of us would be here, so the only way to be here today is if the fine tuning was correct, and that can be just as likely by coincidence as by other forces to me. A God is definitely not more believable to me than a one in a trillion chance the "fine tuning" got "Just Right" for us to exist one day through celestial and terrestrial evolution, simply because a God creating stuff for us is extremely illogical on its own.
Turn the legacy Registry API calls into wrappers for the file-based system.
For those who don't know, this is actually exactly what Microsoft themselves did starting in Windows 4.0. They changed the implementation of a number of Registry API calls to work (read + write) against the registry rather than system.ini files. Time to change back to files again, maybe?;-)
Hmm... Well, assuming you have the source and are ready to start porting code, it's just about changing the behavior of a number of well documented API calls. You can make a library out of it with your own preferred behavior to make the code reusable. Actually, I'd be surprised if someone hadn't already done so and posted it somewhere on the web.
It's hardly a lock-in method when it's both documented methods and it's easy to find out what happens -- the Windows registry is hardly rocket science, but more like a tree of settings that can have a few different data types.
I personally think the Windows Registry is the software implementation of the saying "putting all eggs in one basket".
But of course, backups are automatically made on successful bootups to minimize the damage done if you'd suffer from a file corruption in that specific file. But I've never figured out when it does that. It clearly doesn't seem like on every successful boot, as I've seen messages like "Windows has restored a registry backup" and after that wondered where all settings the past few months went, and why some programs don't even run anymore. Gah... Thankfully last time it happened were a number of years ago. *knocks wood*
Interestingly, Microsoft has started opting more for.config XML files stored in the application directory (sort of like their old.ini files) in their new wave of.NET applications, and that seems to be more like the recommended way of storing application settings. I don't know how user-specific settings are dealt with if doing it that way though, and if it's only suitable for settings for the local machine.
At least he hinted that he understand the demand along with saying they listen to demands.
It's about as positive I think he can get without giving away any specific future plans, which he may not want to for competitive reasons or because that part is still sketchy as for its implementation.
It's supposed to be released in January 10th...!:-p
A bit puzzling to me why the world's largest software developer has to do extensive regression testing (or whatever it's taking them all this time, testing sounds like the most excusable reason anyway) to simply cover a buffer overrun exploit. It's not exactly a bug in IE security zones or some logical flaw like that.
About 98% remains if using an average donation size (your $0.5 stamp for the $30 avg donation).
I'd be having second thoughts about supporting an organization that plans to waste the money given to them.
It's called building personal relations. Which other money than the donated could a non-profit organization use? The alternative would be to skip it altogether, and risk further decreasing donations the next fund drive. Would you be willing to take the risk? Sometimes the revenues more than make up for an expense; that's what good businessmen deal with.
Oh, and if you'd like to 'donate' to me, I'll send you a Christmas Card too, if you like. $500 minimum recommended.
I don't know what you mean with this greatly exaggerated remark. About 2% in the above were used to reward donators with something unexpected. So what does this have to do with?
Today I had received a letter from Wikimedia Foundation (yes, not an e-mail!) sent by international mail, saying something like "Wikimedia thanks you for your support and wish you pleasant holidays and new beginnings". It was even written in Swedish, where I live. I think that was pretty cool of a non-profit organization.:-)
People shouldn't need to have IT qualifications to use a computer, it should be secure enough for them to use it.
Yeah, I wonder when we'll see such an OS though. Usually it involves tradeoffs for security at the cost of features; something big business often aren't very interested in. I feel all popular *nix OS'es are out of the picture still, but they may be getting there, perhaps in the generation of distributions to follow Ubuntu. Ubuntu still means considerable digging on forums if you want to do something "advanced", such as connecting a special peripheral. Not at the fault of the distro or OS per se, but at the support. Still, that doesn't make it less of a problem. Is OS X perhaps closer to this vision? Or is it that just because it's less common, and not something we can merit the OS itself for being?
"Trustworthy" was what was spoken of though (distinction sometimes used), but yeah, I thought that looked out of the subject here. I thought that was more of an initiative to add "trust" as in digital signatures, DRM, "Fritz chips", etc, thereby making systems/data "trustworthy" and not having been tampered with (which can also be used to protect media from piracy), not something having to do with this. I may be confused though as it feels like a pretty broad subject..
Yes, definitely if this was an open source system.
It can be discussed whether it's sad or smart to wait for someone with insight in the closed code to fix it.
If I had an exploitable machine around, I would trust their patch.
I may just have chosen to suffer from using a slightly crippled OS (i.e. no workie Fax & Picture Viewer, etc) by unregistering the DLL until it's fixed.
*awaits avalanche of "Linux is the cure"-style replies*
Which, of course, is correct, as it's not affected by this, but not suitable more than as a worn joke, as many organizations can't make the switch easily either for lack of own competence, will to hire those who have, lacking software compatibility and/or counterparts, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
"Nearly 50" HD-DVD titles also announced
v ies_announced/
Actually, it's more than 50. Seems like 86 to be precise.
Universal = 16, Paramount = 20, Warner Bros. = 50.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/01/07/hd_dvd_mo
Furthermore, even if you have a non HD TV might you not be interested in the extra exttras the additional space allows for on Blu-Ray discs?
Are you talking about the extra material on the discs? Have they even planned for this to be even more than on current DVD's, besides being in HDTV format? If you're talking about additional space useful for recording on the other hand, I have to wonder whether combo drives or recorders will come first, and when they'll be affordable.
Stellarium is nice, however, I believe Starry Night is even more powerful. It's proprietary software though, if it matters to you, but I believe much more powerful, and pretty much the best on the market right now.
Hehe, that's pretty funny... They say this, about extra-terrestrial "design":
If one accepts that life on earth was designed, the problem with this theory is that although it might explain the design of life on earth, it cannot explain the design of extra-terrestrial components of the universe which are crucial to our existence. As noted in our Anthropic Principles page, there appears to be a design of the universe, going all the way back to a creation event implicated in the Big Bang theory. The extreme "fine-tuning" of the universe must be explained, along with the design of life on earth.
So they're putting a lot of pressure on proof that this must be true before accepting it, yet they seem to have an easier time accepting there's a supernatural designer of the entire Universe, a "God". Hmm, I think I'll never understand these guys.
Not sure of what fine tuning they're talking about either; if the post-Big Bang Universe wasn't fine tuned for us, none of us would be here, so the only way to be here today is if the fine tuning was correct, and that can be just as likely by coincidence as by other forces to me. A God is definitely not more believable to me than a one in a trillion chance the "fine tuning" got "Just Right" for us to exist one day through celestial and terrestrial evolution, simply because a God creating stuff for us is extremely illogical on its own.
Raining Extraterrestrial Microbes in Kerala?
Meanwhile, Occam turned in his grave.
Umm, how many websites fill in your name and password?
I've not even seen one, and it sure can't be common.
For WINE users, here's a patch.
Wow, I could never imagine this time would come, after all those here's a patch jokes!
It seems like the only people who have any interest in C# are
.NET languages.
The Mono project is actually gaining some momentum and it's been progressing quite nicely.
Novell would hardly have supported it this much if there was no interest in cross-platform
Turn the legacy Registry API calls into wrappers for the file-based system.
.ini files. Time to change back to files again, maybe? ;-)
For those who don't know, this is actually exactly what Microsoft themselves did starting in Windows 4.0. They changed the implementation of a number of Registry API calls to work (read + write) against the registry rather than system
Hmm... Well, assuming you have the source and are ready to start porting code, it's just about changing the behavior of a number of well documented API calls. You can make a library out of it with your own preferred behavior to make the code reusable. Actually, I'd be surprised if someone hadn't already done so and posted it somewhere on the web.
It's hardly a lock-in method when it's both documented methods and it's easy to find out what happens -- the Windows registry is hardly rocket science, but more like a tree of settings that can have a few different data types.
I personally think the Windows Registry is the software implementation of the saying "putting all eggs in one basket".
.config XML files stored in the application directory (sort of like their old .ini files) in their new wave of .NET applications, and that seems to be more like the recommended way of storing application settings. I don't know how user-specific settings are dealt with if doing it that way though, and if it's only suitable for settings for the local machine.
But of course, backups are automatically made on successful bootups to minimize the damage done if you'd suffer from a file corruption in that specific file. But I've never figured out when it does that. It clearly doesn't seem like on every successful boot, as I've seen messages like "Windows has restored a registry backup" and after that wondered where all settings the past few months went, and why some programs don't even run anymore. Gah... Thankfully last time it happened were a number of years ago. *knocks wood*
Interestingly, Microsoft has started opting more for
Wow, talking web servers. Microsoft is innovating!
At least he hinted that he understand the demand along with saying they listen to demands.
It's about as positive I think he can get without giving away any specific future plans, which he may not want to for competitive reasons or because that part is still sketchy as for its implementation.
He had a great opportunity to list all the new features, but he didn't bother.
Bother??
You know, they have competition both from at least two fronts with the IE guys hard at work nowadays too.
It's supposed to be released in January 10th...! :-p
A bit puzzling to me why the world's largest software developer has to do extensive regression testing (or whatever it's taking them all this time, testing sounds like the most excusable reason anyway) to simply cover a buffer overrun exploit. It's not exactly a bug in IE security zones or some logical flaw like that.
Heck, even the article *summary* speaks of new privacy protection laws. You don't even have to RTFA ;-)
Ha, busted!
a good chunk of the cost of a new server
About 98% remains if using an average donation size (your $0.5 stamp for the $30 avg donation).
I'd be having second thoughts about supporting an organization that plans to waste the money given to them.
It's called building personal relations. Which other money than the donated could a non-profit organization use? The alternative would be to skip it altogether, and risk further decreasing donations the next fund drive. Would you be willing to take the risk? Sometimes the revenues more than make up for an expense; that's what good businessmen deal with.
Oh, and if you'd like to 'donate' to me, I'll send you a Christmas Card too, if you like. $500 minimum recommended.
I don't know what you mean with this greatly exaggerated remark. About 2% in the above were used to reward donators with something unexpected. So what does this have to do with?
I don't understand, which "elite few" are you talking about here??
I've rarely seen my edits, to both new and existing articles, been removed.
Today I had received a letter from Wikimedia Foundation (yes, not an e-mail!) sent by international mail, saying something like "Wikimedia thanks you for your support and wish you pleasant holidays and new beginnings". It was even written in Swedish, where I live. I think that was pretty cool of a non-profit organization. :-)
People shouldn't need to have IT qualifications to use a computer, it should be secure enough for them to use it.
Yeah, I wonder when we'll see such an OS though. Usually it involves tradeoffs for security at the cost of features; something big business often aren't very interested in. I feel all popular *nix OS'es are out of the picture still, but they may be getting there, perhaps in the generation of distributions to follow Ubuntu. Ubuntu still means considerable digging on forums if you want to do something "advanced", such as connecting a special peripheral. Not at the fault of the distro or OS per se, but at the support. Still, that doesn't make it less of a problem. Is OS X perhaps closer to this vision? Or is it that just because it's less common, and not something we can merit the OS itself for being?
Noone's advocating "trusted computing"
"Trustworthy" was what was spoken of though (distinction sometimes used), but yeah, I thought that looked out of the subject here. I thought that was more of an initiative to add "trust" as in digital signatures, DRM, "Fritz chips", etc, thereby making systems/data "trustworthy" and not having been tampered with (which can also be used to protect media from piracy), not something having to do with this. I may be confused though as it feels like a pretty broad subject..
It's sad, really.
Yes, definitely if this was an open source system.
It can be discussed whether it's sad or smart to wait for someone with insight in the closed code to fix it.
If I had an exploitable machine around, I would trust their patch.
I may just have chosen to suffer from using a slightly crippled OS (i.e. no workie Fax & Picture Viewer, etc) by unregistering the DLL until it's fixed.
Not really a whole lot of choice about this one.
OK, that just makes it too easy.
*awaits avalanche of "Linux is the cure"-style replies*
Which, of course, is correct, as it's not affected by this, but not suitable more than as a worn joke, as many organizations can't make the switch easily either for lack of own competence, will to hire those who have, lacking software compatibility and/or counterparts, etc.
Most people should be unaffected by this, as only in Soviet Japan do old DVD-ROMs need people...