Yes, Windows most likely can support that. I mean, it does support ext3, ReiserFS, and even ext2 with write support. So I think there's nothing technically in the way. The problem is probably being lack of driver developers.;-)
So not only is it a file system, it is also a search engine.
To the end-user it may appear as a new file system, yes, but to Windows it's a Windows service running on top of NTFS making extensive use of NTFS alternative data streams. At least that's how I understood it...
IE 1.0: Let's get on this intarweb bandwagon! We'll start by taking code from Spyglass' NCSA Mosaic, since we still haven't figured out how to use the "New Project" feature in Visual Studio.
IE 1.5: Introducing HTML TABLE support! Innovating faster than ever before! What, W3C was before us? Well, fuck that competitor to us!
IE 3.0: We now support frames! And we reverse-engineered your JavaScript, Netscape... to innovate JScript! We also innovated the new ActiveX technology for an almost unimaginable number of uses -- good or bad. How about that!? Starting to lay the foundation of a web browser the world will come to love.
IE 4.0: Mass proprietary feature implementation! Also, DHTML and lots of CSS improvements! Ooh, a HTML link... *clicky*!L=#$Xz**A@@#__ LOST CARRIER. Ahh well, stability can come later, it's only a good reason for us to make people switch to IE 5 now that we have a decent marketshare.
IE 5.0: We changed how the proprietary features in IE 4, linked to above, should be used to confuse you a bit. Hah! ANYWAY... More stable than ever before, and now supporting so many features that it's having a shitload of security issues so users will have a reason to download IE 6!
IE 5.5: Introducing a great new... bump in the version number!
IE 6.0: More stability improvements, and better standards compliant! At least we'll tell them so since that's becoming common complaints. Oh and fuck PNG! Heck, it's not even a proprietary format, and we refuse to give top notch support for communist technology. And are those W3C guys still competing with us, with their technologies they call "standards"? Damn, they never give up, do they. Security fixes? Hmm, later.
IE 6.0 Ultra Windows XP SP2 Edition Turbo: OK, we'll add the security fixes then... for one specific service pack for a specific operating system.
IE 7.0: This should crush Firefox by maybe innovating tabs... they're still confusing the hell out of us, but whatever. IE fans have asked for it, and we'll deliver by making this one a new version rich in innovations.
So far, RIAA hasn't sued a single Allofmp3.com user?
You can get high quality album rips off ed2k for free, and it's just as legit.
Yes, but they're sometimes harder to find. With Allofmp3.com you can pick not only your favorite DRM-free format, but a lossless one too, if you really feel like it. FLAC? On many of their offered songs -- no problem. Ogg? Basically on all of their songs, no problem, regardless requested bitrate. How easy is that to do on e.g. an ed2k network where some guys packaged their own rips in a RAR archive and spread it?
so it is better to pay someone, anyone, something to relieve the guilt of stealign music?
Nah, no guilt is relieved. However, those "stealing" (wtf?) music probably never felt any guilt in the first place. When they pay small amounts of money to Allofmp3.com it's most likely to ensure e.g. RIAA won't catch you with a cease & desist letter.
Blocky 3D models, and the coolest 3D technology it seems to support is transparency, also found in GLQuake anno 1997. Yes, so it may be comparable to mid-late 90's, but he gets his point across well. It looks like a 5-10 years old 3D engine.
Yes, there are these kind of news now and then of companies trying to stifle competition, but why aren't we facing a jungle of lawsuits, if what you're saying is true? Did Intel recently bully and make use of unlawful tactics? AMD? Google? Yahoo? ATI?
Coming from Sweden with a monarchy, I can just add that our monarchs are simply PR devices. They know that too, and don't try to be something else either. If they do (it has happened they've let some political opinion slip) they usually catch a lot of flak for it. They have nothing to say about how our contry is run as well (that's indeed left to our government), and when they open their mouths it's often in times of disasters like the recent Thailand tsunami, to "comfort" us.
The only problem I have with them is basically that they cost money. I'm sure we could switch to becoming a republic and save a bit of money that way, and not have monarchs represent our country on e.g. visiting Africa to show our stance about poor children, smashing a bottle to introduce a ship, eating some food at a Nobel dinner or whatever. Seems a bit like a waste to me.
When you type in a search keyword, isn't it because you want that keyword to appear in the documents you find?
Hmm. Well, for many it's to find documents that match what you're looking for when giving it the keywords. Which may not necessarily be just the keywords you input themselves.
As an actual example, the top link on Google when I search for "jfk death" was www.1underground.com/jfk.shtml, but if Google had understood I meant "John F. Kennedy" better, it would've maybe given me the page that comes up early on a search on "John F Kennedy death"; http://www.jfk-assassination.de/, which seems to be a much better resource than the former one.
I call "innovation for the sake of accuracy". If Google didn't believe in that as well, they would obviously not implement the feature. A search engine's success is depending a lot on its accuracy. There's always competitors around the corners if it starts to suck or fall behind.
That's the problem. It isn't reliable. For example, one local journalist got burned badly by using that piece of crap to do research during the election.
Correction: It's "often" reliable.
You want a better source?
Sorry, you won't find one. Not a single one at least.
What you're speaking of is not a problem with Wikipedia, that's a problem with a journalist who doesn't know how to properly research a subject. If a journalist relies on any single source to be perfectly correct, well what can I say... We've been over this exact thing multiple times before on Slashdot, and the most recent article posted here that touched the subject was about a 12 year old finding actual undeniable flaws in Encyclopedia Britannica. The only difference here is that as opposed to Wikipedia, they can survive in a damn book shelf for decades. Or at a minimum a year or so. You take risks in both cases; with Wikipedia it's due to the fluctuating medium, in other cases it may instead be outdated information. If there's anything a researcher has have had hammered into his head during education, it's that theories and knowledge are rarely "final" or "ultimate". And here lies the disadvantages that's generally greater in sources other than Wikipedia than in Wikipedia itself due to how they're revised.
"We don't generally discuss how we will leverage this patent against competitors or others"
Wow, no kidding.. I wonder if it has anything to do with not wanting to say "we intend to use this patent whenever we feel an antivirus competitor is becoming more successful than us, or when we need some money badly".
In January, the a European scientist warned residents of the far north to basically stay out of the sun.
No, he's not saying that in the linked article. He's saying it may affect our health, and a hole could affect these areas. And he's certainly not saying "don't expose yourself to the sun!"
Heh, that would actually be quite funny to see -- Google.com starting to make some heavy use of e.g. advanced CSS2, making it look like shit on IE.:-) Can't see Google doing it though for the lack of ad revenues which Google's business model is largely based on, along with being real bad for their PR. But it would sure be fun to watch, especially since Microsoft can hardly sue Google for following W3C standards. I mean, Google wouldn't need to selectively break their page for IE to make it look bad.
And although in their feedback page they say "If you're trying to view Calgary using Opera, it probably won't work", it now does in the latest Opera beta -- Opera 8 Beta 2! This time credits doesn't go to Google though, but to the Opera team for adding support for some features it was lacking in Opera 8 beta 1 and before.
Imagine there's no patents, It's easy if you try, No lawyers around us, Above us only sky, Imagine all the people developing in joy...
Imagine there's no lawsuits, It isn't hard to do, Nothing to fight or pay for, No worries too, Imagine all the people hacking code in peace...
Imagine no copyrights, I wonder if you can, Nothing to support greed or hunger, A brotherhood of geeks, Imagine all the people Sharing all the world...
You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one, I hope some day you'll join us, And the world will live as one.
You have to show ID to get on a plane. This is to make it somewhat harder for terrorists to succeed in accomplishing their terrorist goals. It doesn't make it impossible, just somewhat harder.
In which way? They just pick a guy not convicted to any particular crime before and he pass? That doesn't sound like a law useful enough to be a law to me. Many terrorists just do one crime in their lives, and that's when they die.
Terrorism is a national security matter. Matters of national security correctly fall under the duties and jurisdictions of the Federal Government.
Of course.
Having to show ID is not out-of-line. If terrorism didn't exist, then the situation would be different. Then there would be no need for a law or a rule that you must show ID. But terrorism does exist, unfortunately.
So, why is the law secret then? And still secret. Hide laws from the public to stop terrorists (wow, what a clever way to combat terrorists:-p) and keep them hidden after they've even been revealed? Doesn't make much sense to me. Any informed terrorist will of course know about this "secret" law, making it pretty much toothless. If it would even be about terrorists, which I can see no signs of. It could just as well be to try to check up on basically anything else about you, probably controversial, since it's secret.
And this kind of thing tends to discredit the otherwise good work of organizations like the EFF.
??? Why? More like the opposite to me. It feels good to me to have an organization with resources to follow up on these things to actually do it. Would you rather just want to live in your bubble or what?
Yes, I optimized for speed (default setting for release compiles). However, the.NET compiler didn't "get" something like
int i = 0; for (i = 0; i 1e12; i++) { i++; } printf("%d", i);
It made a loop out of that.:-/
But it didn't if I ran it just up to 1000 instead of 1e12. So it tries to optimize via registers if possible, but is forced to calculate it with raw power if it doesn't fit into one. This has some interesting implications for how loops growing beyond a specific value can suddenly start taking a much longer than it would otherwise? Never thought of that really, and it's pretty interesting to turn on C++/ASM code generation for the compiler and try out various things. It definitely tries to get rid of loops whenever possible anyway.:-)
There's often no point in fiddling around with details, and you should instead focus on optimizing for "the big picture", e.g. whether you should really re-establish a database connection each time a user selects OK in a dialog box.
As for simple code optimizations, here's what a modern compiler (Microsoft Visual C++.NET 2003 in this case) optimize code as: (yes, I've checked these myself as I've been writing this post)
for (int i = 0; i < 5; i++) {
int j = 42;
if (j == 13)
{
printf("j is %d", j); j = 42;
} } return 0;
... optimized to...
xor eax, eax ret 0
In other words, it basically threw away all that code since the program wouldn't make use of any values that would be calculated there. And this:
for (int i = 0; i < 100; i++) {
int j = 42;
i += j; } printf("i is %d", i); return 0;
Do you see what that means -- yep, the compiler understood that the resulting value would be 129 by analyzing the for loop and simply just push that value onto the stack as a parameter to printf. It basically optimizes to:
printf("i is %s", 129); return 0
That's probably considered some simplistic analyzing too, by today's compilers.;-)
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, Windows most likely can support that. I mean, it does support ext3, ReiserFS, and even ext2 with write support. So I think there's nothing technically in the way. The problem is probably being lack of driver developers. ;-)
So not only is it a file system, it is also a search engine.
To the end-user it may appear as a new file system, yes, but to Windows it's a Windows service running on top of NTFS making extensive use of NTFS alternative data streams. At least that's how I understood it...
... and for Microsoft it went like this ...
IE 1.0: Let's get on this intarweb bandwagon! We'll start by taking code from Spyglass' NCSA Mosaic, since we still haven't figured out how to use the "New Project" feature in Visual Studio.
IE 1.5: Introducing HTML TABLE support! Innovating faster than ever before! What, W3C was before us? Well, fuck that competitor to us!
IE 2.0: Let's all welcome MARQUEEs and BGSOUNDs for an improved user experience on beautiful rich media web pages!
IE 3.0: We now support frames! And we reverse-engineered your JavaScript, Netscape... to innovate JScript! We also innovated the new ActiveX technology for an almost unimaginable number of uses -- good or bad. How about that!? Starting to lay the foundation of a web browser the world will come to love.
IE 4.0: Mass proprietary feature implementation! Also, DHTML and lots of CSS improvements! Ooh, a HTML link... *clicky* !L=#$Xz**A@@#__ LOST CARRIER. Ahh well, stability can come later, it's only a good reason for us to make people switch to IE 5 now that we have a decent marketshare.
IE 5.0: We changed how the proprietary features in IE 4, linked to above, should be used to confuse you a bit. Hah! ANYWAY... More stable than ever before, and now supporting so many features that it's having a shitload of security issues so users will have a reason to download IE 6!
IE 5.5: Introducing a great new... bump in the version number!
IE 6.0: More stability improvements, and better standards compliant! At least we'll tell them so since that's becoming common complaints. Oh and fuck PNG! Heck, it's not even a proprietary format, and we refuse to give top notch support for communist technology. And are those W3C guys still competing with us, with their technologies they call "standards"? Damn, they never give up, do they. Security fixes? Hmm, later.
IE 6.0 Ultra Windows XP SP2 Edition Turbo: OK, we'll add the security fixes then... for one specific service pack for a specific operating system.
IE 7.0: This should crush Firefox by maybe innovating tabs... they're still confusing the hell out of us, but whatever. IE fans have asked for it, and we'll deliver by making this one a new version rich in innovations.
Then why are people paying to download songs?
So far, RIAA hasn't sued a single Allofmp3.com user?
You can get high quality album rips off ed2k for free, and it's just as legit.
Yes, but they're sometimes harder to find. With Allofmp3.com you can pick not only your favorite DRM-free format, but a lossless one too, if you really feel like it. FLAC? On many of their offered songs -- no problem. Ogg? Basically on all of their songs, no problem, regardless requested bitrate. How easy is that to do on e.g. an ed2k network where some guys packaged their own rips in a RAR archive and spread it?
so it is better to pay someone, anyone, something to relieve the guilt of stealign music?
Nah, no guilt is relieved. However, those "stealing" (wtf?) music probably never felt any guilt in the first place. When they pay small amounts of money to Allofmp3.com it's most likely to ensure e.g. RIAA won't catch you with a cease & desist letter.
Wow! Go, OGLE!
:-/
I'm gonna register a website for that...
No, wait...
Uh, it looks like crap to me as well.
Blocky 3D models, and the coolest 3D technology it seems to support is transparency, also found in GLQuake anno 1997. Yes, so it may be comparable to mid-late 90's, but he gets his point across well. It looks like a 5-10 years old 3D engine.
"Everyone"?
Yes, there are these kind of news now and then of companies trying to stifle competition, but why aren't we facing a jungle of lawsuits, if what you're saying is true? Did Intel recently bully and make use of unlawful tactics? AMD? Google? Yahoo? ATI?
Coming from Sweden with a monarchy, I can just add that our monarchs are simply PR devices. They know that too, and don't try to be something else either. If they do (it has happened they've let some political opinion slip) they usually catch a lot of flak for it. They have nothing to say about how our contry is run as well (that's indeed left to our government), and when they open their mouths it's often in times of disasters like the recent Thailand tsunami, to "comfort" us.
The only problem I have with them is basically that they cost money. I'm sure we could switch to becoming a republic and save a bit of money that way, and not have monarchs represent our country on e.g. visiting Africa to show our stance about poor children, smashing a bottle to introduce a ship, eating some food at a Nobel dinner or whatever. Seems a bit like a waste to me.
So the best option for you would be to install the Slashfix extension for Firefox 1.0.1 then? :-)
When you type in a search keyword, isn't it because you want that keyword to appear in the documents you find?
Hmm. Well, for many it's to find documents that match what you're looking for when giving it the keywords. Which may not necessarily be just the keywords you input themselves.
As an actual example, the top link on Google when I search for "jfk death" was www.1underground.com/jfk.shtml, but if Google had understood I meant "John F. Kennedy" better, it would've maybe given me the page that comes up early on a search on "John F Kennedy death"; http://www.jfk-assassination.de/, which seems to be a much better resource than the former one.
I call "innovation for the sake of accuracy". If Google didn't believe in that as well, they would obviously not implement the feature. A search engine's success is depending a lot on its accuracy. There's always competitors around the corners if it starts to suck or fall behind.
What more could you need?
Pr0n!
> FAIRLY reliable source for information
That's the problem. It isn't reliable. For example, one local journalist got burned badly by using that piece of crap to do research during the election.
Correction: It's "often" reliable.
You want a better source?
Sorry, you won't find one. Not a single one at least.
What you're speaking of is not a problem with Wikipedia, that's a problem with a journalist who doesn't know how to properly research a subject. If a journalist relies on any single source to be perfectly correct, well what can I say... We've been over this exact thing multiple times before on Slashdot, and the most recent article posted here that touched the subject was about a 12 year old finding actual undeniable flaws in Encyclopedia Britannica. The only difference here is that as opposed to Wikipedia, they can survive in a damn book shelf for decades. Or at a minimum a year or so. You take risks in both cases; with Wikipedia it's due to the fluctuating medium, in other cases it may instead be outdated information. If there's anything a researcher has have had hammered into his head during education, it's that theories and knowledge are rarely "final" or "ultimate". And here lies the disadvantages that's generally greater in sources other than Wikipedia than in Wikipedia itself due to how they're revised.
"We don't generally discuss how we will leverage this patent against competitors or others"
Wow, no kidding.. I wonder if it has anything to do with not wanting to say "we intend to use this patent whenever we feel an antivirus competitor is becoming more successful than us, or when we need some money badly".
In January, the a European scientist warned residents of the far north to basically stay out of the sun.
No, he's not saying that in the linked article. He's saying it may affect our health, and a hole could affect these areas. And he's certainly not saying "don't expose yourself to the sun!"
News article :-)
Knight of... what?
;-)
The Sith?
Heh, that would actually be quite funny to see -- Google.com starting to make some heavy use of e.g. advanced CSS2, making it look like shit on IE. :-) Can't see Google doing it though for the lack of ad revenues which Google's business model is largely based on, along with being real bad for their PR. But it would sure be fun to watch, especially since Microsoft can hardly sue Google for following W3C standards. I mean, Google wouldn't need to selectively break their page for IE to make it look bad.
And although in their feedback page they say "If you're trying to view Calgary using Opera, it probably won't work", it now does in the latest Opera beta -- Opera 8 Beta 2! This time credits doesn't go to Google though, but to the Opera team for adding support for some features it was lacking in Opera 8 beta 1 and before.
Great. Here's hoping they fix the inaccuracies in the maps.
Don't forget about telling them about the problems you're seeing.
Imagine there's no patents,
It's easy if you try,
No lawyers around us,
Above us only sky,
Imagine all the people
developing in joy...
Imagine there's no lawsuits,
It isn't hard to do,
Nothing to fight or pay for,
No worries too,
Imagine all the people
hacking code in peace...
Imagine no copyrights,
I wonder if you can,
Nothing to support greed or hunger,
A brotherhood of geeks,
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world...
You may say I'm a dreamer,
but I'm not the only one,
I hope some day you'll join us,
And the world will live as one.
You have to show ID to get on a plane. This is to make it somewhat harder for terrorists to succeed in accomplishing their terrorist goals. It doesn't make it impossible, just somewhat harder.
:-p) and keep them hidden after they've even been revealed? Doesn't make much sense to me. Any informed terrorist will of course know about this "secret" law, making it pretty much toothless. If it would even be about terrorists, which I can see no signs of. It could just as well be to try to check up on basically anything else about you, probably controversial, since it's secret.
In which way? They just pick a guy not convicted to any particular crime before and he pass? That doesn't sound like a law useful enough to be a law to me. Many terrorists just do one crime in their lives, and that's when they die.
Terrorism is a national security matter. Matters of national security correctly fall under the duties and jurisdictions of the Federal Government.
Of course.
Having to show ID is not out-of-line. If terrorism didn't exist, then the situation would be different. Then there would be no need for a law or a rule that you must show ID. But terrorism does exist, unfortunately.
So, why is the law secret then? And still secret. Hide laws from the public to stop terrorists (wow, what a clever way to combat terrorists
And this kind of thing tends to discredit the otherwise good work of organizations like the EFF.
??? Why? More like the opposite to me. It feels good to me to have an organization with resources to follow up on these things to actually do it. Would you rather just want to live in your bubble or what?
He also thought that "Microsoft Bob" represented the future of computing, that 640KB of RAM should be enough for everyone, etc.
Nope.
Microsoft didn't even set a 640 K limit, which that blog entry summarizes well.
Yes, I optimized for speed (default setting for release compiles). However, the .NET compiler didn't "get" something like
:-/
:-)
int i = 0;
for (i = 0; i 1e12; i++)
{
i++;
}
printf("%d", i);
It made a loop out of that.
But it didn't if I ran it just up to 1000 instead of 1e12. So it tries to optimize via registers if possible, but is forced to calculate it with raw power if it doesn't fit into one. This has some interesting implications for how loops growing beyond a specific value can suddenly start taking a much longer than it would otherwise? Never thought of that really, and it's pretty interesting to turn on C++/ASM code generation for the compiler and try out various things. It definitely tries to get rid of loops whenever possible anyway.
As for simple code optimizations, here's what a modern compiler (Microsoft Visual C++