Also, do not have links open up in a new browser window unless absolutely necessary.
Absolutely. And if you're going to open up a new browser window, at least do it right. It annoys me to no end when people do things like:
<A HREF="javascript:window.open(url);">
This prevents people from right-clicking and opening the page in a new window explicitly. Instead they'll get a new, blank, browser window and become confused.
And then there's:
<A HREF="#" onClick="window.open(url)";>
This is even worse. Not only does this also prevent users from explicitly opening the page in a new browser window by right-clicking, but because the nimrod author didn't set the onClick handler to return false, the current browser window will scroll to the top of the page when users clicks the link. Nice, you made me lose my place, and because all the links point to #, they all appear as being visited.
The correct way (aside from not using window.open in the first place):
The technology is apparently patented and there's not a lot of technical details
I thought the patent process requires that the inventor disclose information about how the product works, and after the patent expires the public can use it freely. Isn't it opposed to a trade secret, where the inventor doesn't get protection if someone else reverse-engineers the product or happens to invent the same thing independently?
You don't need planes that land themselves, you just need to make sure that the pilots retain control of the aircraft. You can do this with a lot of low-tech methods.
Obviously, they need to put a REAL door between the cockpit and the cabin, and make it's locked.
Airlines also need to make sure that pilots have an absolute zero-tolerance policy toward terrorists. Under no circumstances are they to unlock the door, even if the terrorists are murdering all the passengers. If this policy is advertised publicly, it should deter most hijack attempts.
Another idea that my friend and I have been tossing around is making the cockpit airtight and installing some kind of gas system in the cabin. If anything should go wrong in the cabin, the pilots could release some kind of knockout gas in the cabin. (There might be some problems with passengers who might be allergic to the gas, but I doubt anyone would object to its use during a violent hijacking.)
And of course, you can supplement this with air marshalls, armed pilots, etc. Finally, passengers will never again stand by and watch as a handful of terrorists try to commandeer their plane; they'll fight back, especially if the terrorists are lightly armed.
Moderators labeled this as "interesting"? This is a joke, right?
Palm as a likely buyer? Don't be ridiculous.
1) Did Palm suddenly find a downed plane with a dead pilot and a briefcase with millions of dollars in drug money? Palm has enough financial troubles of their own without spending what money they have left on Be.
2) Palm OS is already a good operating system for handhelds. Futhermore, Palm is already in the process of porting their OS to ARM--why would they want to buy another OS now and start over? Considering that Palm is already way behind
in getting their ARM-based OS out the door, if they stall any longer, they're dead.
3) BeOS was designed for desktops, and BeIA is designed for internet appliances. The only reason Palm would be interested in either is for something like the Audrey, which already is known to be a colossal failure. Again, this isn't worth the money, and Palm should concentrate on handhelds.
Your idea that Microsoft's OS monopoly gains from piracy only has merit so long as you acknowledge that one day Microsoft must one day squeeze those pirates for their long overdue gold.
No. Being in the monopoly position is advantangeous for Microsoft, whether or not MS ever get a dime from some dishonest home users.
Why is this so?
Software developers will concentrate their effort and resources developing software for the OS with the largest userbase. It doesn't matter if the users owns legal copies of the OS or not--they're still potential customers.
We also know that most people use Windows not because it's the best OS but because most of their favorite software runs on Windows.
This fact influences the people (and more importantly, businesses) who purchase legitimate copies of Windows.
The end result is that Microsoft profits and maintains its OS monopoly, allowing to continue to generate revenue for years to come.
I have both a laptop and a desktop. I use my desktop probably 80-90% of the time. The desktop is more configurable, more powerful, and much more comfortable to use. Replacing it with a laptop would be ridiculous.
Meanwhile, my laptop sits around collecting dust, unless I'm travelling or need to transport files to/from work.
Looking at some of those Compaq photos that separated the screen from the keyboard gave me an idea:
I'd like to see laptops with VGA-in ports. It might be kind of cool to use a laptop as an LCD screen (this could be particularly useful as a second monitor). After all, if you spend $2000 on a laptop--a good portion of which covers the cost of the LCD--wouldn't it be nice to get as much use out of its screen as possible?
It might also be interesting if you could hook up a laptop to a desktop so that the desktop sees the laptop as removeable storage, a PCMCIA drive, etc.
Actually, I do use my right thumb for the spacebar almost all the time. I'm not sure how I kept hitting that newfangled backspace key. Somehow I remember sworn it being on the right instead of the left.
I saw a brief interview with Engelbart on TechTV last year in response to tactile mice (like Logitech's iFeel), and he had some interesting things to say about mouse evolution.
One of the things he mentioned was that his original mouse used two orthogonal wheels instead of a mouseball. If you tilted the mouse, it would rest on only one of the wheels. Depending on which wheel it was resting on, you then could move the mouse perfectly horizontally or vertically.
I had the misfortune of working on someone else's computer before which happened to be a Compaq with this bizarre change.
I don't remember if the backspace key was on the left or the right, but I remember it being the most HORRIBLE thing I had ever dealt with. Every time I tried to hit the spacebar, I hit backspace instead. Messing with the space bar is a bad idea, and putting a backspace there just made it even worse.
Incidentally, regarding number entry with the numeric keypad, holding down the shift key disables numlock, so you can then use the keypad to move the cursor.
Slashdot Mirror
Absolutely. And if you're going to open up a new browser window, at least do it right. It annoys me to no end when people do things like:
This prevents people from right-clicking and opening the page in a new window explicitly. Instead they'll get a new, blank, browser window and become confused.
And then there's:
This is even worse. Not only does this also prevent users from explicitly opening the page in a new browser window by right-clicking, but because the nimrod author didn't set the onClick handler to return false, the current browser window will scroll to the top of the page when users clicks the link. Nice, you made me lose my place, and because all the links point to #, they all appear as being visited.
The correct way (aside from not using window.open in the first place):
You still need to disable hardware acceleration to perform screen captures, though.
I thought the patent process requires that the inventor disclose information about how the product works, and after the patent expires the public can use it freely. Isn't it opposed to a trade secret, where the inventor doesn't get protection if someone else reverse-engineers the product or happens to invent the same thing independently?
You don't need planes that land themselves, you just need to make sure that the pilots retain control of the aircraft. You can do this with a lot of low-tech methods.
Obviously, they need to put a REAL door between the cockpit and the cabin, and make it's locked.
Airlines also need to make sure that pilots have an absolute zero-tolerance policy toward terrorists. Under no circumstances are they to unlock the door, even if the terrorists are murdering all the passengers. If this policy is advertised publicly, it should deter most hijack attempts.
Another idea that my friend and I have been tossing around is making the cockpit airtight and installing some kind of gas system in the cabin. If anything should go wrong in the cabin, the pilots could release some kind of knockout gas in the cabin. (There might be some problems with passengers who might be allergic to the gas, but I doubt anyone would object to its use during a violent hijacking.)
And of course, you can supplement this with air marshalls, armed pilots, etc. Finally, passengers will never again stand by and watch as a handful of terrorists try to commandeer their plane; they'll fight back, especially if the terrorists are lightly armed.
The BBC has a slightly more informative story.
... lost the first of their four confrontations 8-0.
... such as these tidbits?
Since then [Fischer's] whereabouts have remained a mystery and he has surfaced only once - in 1992 - for a 20th anniversary rematch in Siberia....
The SFGate article and other sources say that the rematch was in Yugoslavia.
Short
Huh?
Nah, I think Palm is stupid for actually buying Be.
Moderators labeled this as "interesting"? This is a joke, right?
Palm as a likely buyer? Don't be ridiculous.
1) Did Palm suddenly find a downed plane with a dead pilot and a briefcase with millions of dollars in drug money? Palm has enough financial troubles of their own without spending what money they have left on Be.
2) Palm OS is already a good operating system for handhelds. Futhermore, Palm is already in the process of porting their OS to ARM--why would they want to buy another OS now and start over? Considering that Palm is already way behind
in getting their ARM-based OS out the door, if they stall any longer, they're dead.
3) BeOS was designed for desktops, and BeIA is designed for internet appliances. The only reason Palm would be interested in either is for something like the Audrey, which already is known to be a colossal failure. Again, this isn't worth the money, and Palm should concentrate on handhelds.
How about the New Hacker's Dictionary (aka The Jargon File)?
Not only does it provide a lot of history, but it probably would help people decipher some of the other books.
No. Being in the monopoly position is advantangeous for Microsoft, whether or not MS ever get a dime from some dishonest home users.
Why is this so?
Software developers will concentrate their effort and resources developing software for the OS with the largest userbase. It doesn't matter if the users owns legal copies of the OS or not--they're still potential customers.
We also know that most people use Windows not because it's the best OS but because most of their favorite software runs on Windows.
This fact influences the people (and more importantly, businesses) who purchase legitimate copies of Windows.
The end result is that Microsoft profits and maintains its OS monopoly, allowing to continue to generate revenue for years to come.
... having them work better together?
I have both a laptop and a desktop. I use my desktop probably 80-90% of the time. The desktop is more configurable, more powerful, and much more comfortable to use. Replacing it with a laptop would be ridiculous.
Meanwhile, my laptop sits around collecting dust, unless I'm travelling or need to transport files to/from work.
Looking at some of those Compaq photos that separated the screen from the keyboard gave me an idea:
I'd like to see laptops with VGA-in ports. It might be kind of cool to use a laptop as an LCD screen (this could be particularly useful as a second monitor). After all, if you spend $2000 on a laptop--a good portion of which covers the cost of the LCD--wouldn't it be nice to get as much use out of its screen as possible?
It might also be interesting if you could hook up a laptop to a desktop so that the desktop sees the laptop as removeable storage, a PCMCIA drive, etc.
Actually, I do use my right thumb for the spacebar almost all the time. I'm not sure how I kept hitting that newfangled backspace key. Somehow I remember sworn it being on the right instead of the left.
I saw a brief interview with Engelbart on TechTV last year in response to tactile mice (like Logitech's iFeel), and he had some interesting things to say about mouse evolution.
One of the things he mentioned was that his original mouse used two orthogonal wheels instead of a mouseball. If you tilted the mouse, it would rest on only one of the wheels. Depending on which wheel it was resting on, you then could move the mouse perfectly horizontally or vertically.
I had the misfortune of working on someone else's computer before which happened to be a Compaq with this bizarre change. I don't remember if the backspace key was on the left or the right, but I remember it being the most HORRIBLE thing I had ever dealt with. Every time I tried to hit the spacebar, I hit backspace instead. Messing with the space bar is a bad idea, and putting a backspace there just made it even worse. Incidentally, regarding number entry with the numeric keypad, holding down the shift key disables numlock, so you can then use the keypad to move the cursor.