Obviously you can have mail apps, browsers etc doing all this automatically, it was more a description of how it could work for times when it's not automatic.
But it should be automatic. At any time you need to take a tree with data and unsupported metadata or other trees* across to something that doesn't support metadata, it should be done by the system. The idea of it being unautomatic is stupid (IMHO). If you can think of a reason, I'd be delighted to here it, but you can always access the tree as a whole with the # and you can't not treat it as a whole on systems which don't understand the metadata.
*I invented this terminology for want of a better word. A tree with other trees but without data would be a folder. A tree with data but without other trees would be a document. A tree with both is something that doesn't correspond well into the current environment.
No, but it seems the most logical way of doing it. If I were coding a filesystem, there's no way other than that that I would use.
did you read the article?
Yes.
SO now you are saying that the filesystem will need code to handle every multimedia format differently? Sounds like more of a nightmare
Better it be programmed once for everyone to use than many times for fewer people to use. And it doesn't go into the filesystem, it goes into a plugin for the filesystem, so the filesystem can be totally completely written and Frog can make Snorbus files, and I won't need to have recompile my kernel, I just load a new plugin.
choose the "Box it" option.... choosing the "Unbox" option... To the user, it is seamless, far easier than zips or tarballs.
Ah... no, that isn't seamless and seems no simpler than zips and tarballs. Just have three ways of accessing files:/file gives you just the content,/file/ lets you see what's inside, and/file# gives you the complete file (pre-compressed, perhaps). Of course, the user needn't know of such technicalities. When they decide they want to email a file to someone, they say the want to email/file and the program asks the system for/file#. Then, at the other end, the program says to the system: here's file# and the system automatically knows that we're talking about a completefile. Obviously if someone asks for/file#frog/, that's impossible, so we'll give them/file/frog/ instead.
i am skeptical as well, the only reasonable answer seems to be that it would get lost.
No. The idea is you have a plugin to the filesystem which accesses the ID3 tags. So that when you change/Music/Russian/Zemfira/Zemfira - Iskala/title from iskala to Iskala, the ID3 tag is being changed. And so on. The idea of plugins is to access file-specific information in generic ways, which I would personally love.
The Devil doesn't die---and it's already been tried by fire.
Re:Words change in meaning over time
on
Isn't It Ironic?
·
· Score: 1
Yeah, but 'irony' is a technical term. How would you like it if people started calling any chip in a computer a CPU or anything capable of storing information (volatile or not) RAM? Or called any small thing, such as electrons or molecules, an atom? Or something else like that.
Re:Obligatory Blackadder reference
on
Isn't It Ironic?
·
· Score: 1
How ironic that this is definition is actually valid and in the dictionary.
Just because something's in the dictionary doesn't make it right. Conversely, just because something isn't in the dictionary doesn't make it wrong.
What I hate is the way English (and some Americans) go round labelling sarcasm as irony... Terry Pratchett is especially bad like that.
Have there been any precedents around this sort of thing? And what country combination were those precedents?
Australia (Victoria) + US.
An Australian was defamed (according to Aussie laws) by an American corporation. The American laws didn't agree. So he went to a Victorian court and won the right to be able to sue, even though it was an American company and the servers were in America.
This is an article about it, but there was another one this year. Or at least, 2001 seems much too long ago to have been it.
In the Matrix, people think for themselves. That's were independent thought comes from. It's also were religion comes from. What the computer didn't program, people could have created *inside* the Matrix. Simple.
It's too human, too sympathetic to be built by cold, heartless machines.
So it was build by computers beyond what you're willing to comprehend. Just because you don't think a computer can ever have properties we associate with life doesn't mean it can't. I mean, the computer can emulate a universe!
I'm not sure if it was just the way the article was written but it almost seemed like RMS had never used KDE before.
Plenty of people have never run KDE before. I've run itbut only enough to know I don't like it. I didn't know there was an embedded console in Konqueror. I wouldn't know how to bring it up. I'm sure there's dozens of stuff a KDE god could show me that I'd never even thought of. But that doesn't make me a dinosaurit makes me a user of a different system. I consider my system to be reasonably modern and easy-to-use, but I'm sure my mother would have a rather different perspective.
But how do most people run their systems? I have LILO loading the Linux kernel, which then does its init stuff, using some GNU and some Gentoo software. The last step of that involves running X. Due to a problem with my configuration, I can't switch to virtual consoles, so I make minimal use of the console. As X starts, it loads GDM which logs me straight into my ROX-Filer/XFCE4 system and starts Gaim, XMMS, Galeon and Mozilla (for Mail; I can't seem to get Thunderbird working). Occaisonally, I run a Terminal to install software or ssh into another box (to do school work or encourage my Mail to be checkedthe server can be a bit iffy sometimes, but for some reason sshing into it helps). When I'm done, I click on the logout/shutdown button, chose to halt my computer, and a bunch of GNU- and Gentoo-written software shuts it down.
From my perspective, the GNU bit is minimal. I could take my system over to FreeBSD and it'd *mostly* work the same, but where it doesn't, it'd be the *kernel* (drivers), not the GNU software, that makes the difference.
To me, the GNU/ is not that relevant. There is no reason I should say I'm running a GNU/Linux system, because the ROX-Filer has a much larger effect on the way I interact with my system. So, I run ROX on Linux (or either ROX or Linux for short, depending on which its better to say).
Anyway, people will understand what I mean when I say Linux, but they won't when I say 'GNU/Linux'. Why add another three syllables of confusion?
We call it Preferential Voting here. That's why I called it preferential voting in the post I made before:)
But yes, it certainly doesn't stop two-party systems. Maybe it can support multi-party systems better than first past the post, I don't know. With the rise of the Greens (first party to get a seat in the lower house other than Labor or the coallition since the 1940s I believe), we may find out.
Pardon me, but in Australia we don't have a first-past-the-post system, which is described by the Wikipedia entry. Yet, we still have a two-party system in our House of Representatives (and one could have gone so far as to describe Victoria's Legislative Council as having been a one-party system; this is the second time in ~150 years that the conservative party hasn't had control of it). This is despite compulsory, preferential voting.
Duverger's Law might give a two-party system, but it isn't the root cause. Guaranteeing that only the majority (or plurality or whatever as the case may be) gets to chose who's in power causes it. That's why Australia's Senate and European Parliaments aren't as two-party based as the UK, America, and our House of Reps.
At least in America, the fonts themselves are not copyright. It is the font file. I understand that if you wanted, you could print out your favorite font and use that to redesign the font and it'd all be perfectly legal, even if the outcome was identical. But you can't copy the font file without it being allowed. But IANAL. And I'm not American, either.
If everything is guided by GPS, why have headlights?
Poor Johnny's ball rolls onto the road. Poor James' car doesn't have headlines. James can't stop his car in time. James now has to deal with the guilt of having been responsible for a child's death.
With Opera 6, I didn't use them (I used multiple windows). With Opera 7, I've started using tabs.
Opera does not use tabs. Do not confuse an MDI (multiple windows all within one) with a tabbed interface (multiple windows with tabs so that one window can contain multiple webpages).
MDIs are a lot less flexible and have been going out of fashion for quite a while (as you've noticed, Office doesn't use them any more). Tabs are more flexible in some ways (you can have lots of windows, each with subwindows, spread across multiple screens if you want), but not in all (one window can only have subwindows of the same size).
In short, tabbing is mostly the best of both (MDI and SDI) worlds.
As much as I love Linux/X11, I find the method you mentioned as less than desirable. Yes, it changes the resolution. It also leaves me with a virtual desktop size of the default resolution. Thus, to see all of the desktop at once is not possible, requiring me to mouse to the edges and have the "view" scroll around.
OTOH, I would kill someone if they got rid of that. It's just shy of impossible to live with less than 1024x768 these days, but my screen is 800x600 max.
No. To have responsive and responsible politicians, you have to create competition. In the current duopoly+irrelevants, the situation is barely better than in the US. It's just when the Labral Party gets elected, they can say that seeing as a majority of 85%95% people voted for them, they have a Mandate to introduce things they promised never to introduce. Also, our system is essentially geared up to give a party (or coalition) an essential dictatorship for a term; this is why we're going to war with an actual dictatorship. Sounds intelligent, ja?
I personally use them all the time. Much more so than in Windows. Map 'em to Meta or Super or somesuch and you have key combinations apps never (or almost never) use. Much more sensible than KDE's let's-take-over ctrl+-> for-switching-desktops-to-really-piss-kesuari-off- when-he-tries-to-use-apps-that-already-use-it!
Sorry, apparently plain old text is plain old text with extra markup! Plain old text redone for a new generation! Reposted.
I think instead of clearing the forward history when you click a link or whatever, it should remain. So: a->b->c<=b<=a->d->e would have {a,d} in back and {b,c} in forward. It's just stupid clearing it all the time.
I think instead of clearing the forward history when you click a link or whatever, it should remain. So: a->b->cd->e would have {a,d} in back and {b,c} in forward. It's just stupid clearing it all the time.
Slashdot Mirror
Obviously you can have mail apps, browsers etc doing all this automatically, it was more a description of how it could work for times when it's not automatic.
But it should be automatic. At any time you need to take a tree with data and unsupported metadata or other trees* across to something that doesn't support metadata, it should be done by the system. The idea of it being unautomatic is stupid (IMHO). If you can think of a reason, I'd be delighted to here it, but you can always access the tree as a whole with the # and you can't not treat it as a whole on systems which don't understand the metadata.
*I invented this terminology for want of a better word. A tree with other trees but without data would be a folder. A tree with data but without other trees would be a document. A tree with both is something that doesn't correspond well into the current environment.
are you sure about that?
No, but it seems the most logical way of doing it. If I were coding a filesystem, there's no way other than that that I would use.
did you read the article?
Yes.
SO now you are saying that the filesystem will need code to handle every multimedia format differently? Sounds like more of a nightmare
Better it be programmed once for everyone to use than many times for fewer people to use. And it doesn't go into the filesystem, it goes into a plugin for the filesystem, so the filesystem can be totally completely written and Frog can make Snorbus files, and I won't need to have recompile my kernel, I just load a new plugin.
choose the "Box it" option. ... choosing the "Unbox" option ... To the user, it is seamless, far easier than zips or tarballs.
/file gives you just the content, /file/ lets you see what's inside, and /file# gives you the complete file (pre-compressed, perhaps). Of course, the user needn't know of such technicalities. When they decide they want to email a file to someone, they say the want to email /file and the program asks the system for /file#. Then, at the other end, the program says to the system: here's file# and the system automatically knows that we're talking about a completefile. Obviously if someone asks for /file#frog/, that's impossible, so we'll give them /file/frog/ instead.
Ah... no, that isn't seamless and seems no simpler than zips and tarballs. Just have three ways of accessing files:
That's much closer to seamless.
i am skeptical as well, the only reasonable answer seems to be that it would get lost.
/Music/Russian/Zemfira/Zemfira - Iskala/title from iskala to Iskala, the ID3 tag is being changed. And so on. The idea of plugins is to access file-specific information in generic ways, which I would personally love.
No. The idea is you have a plugin to the filesystem which accesses the ID3 tags. So that when you change
Really? Can you thank him for me sometime? Netscape was cool :)
The Devil doesn't die---and it's already been tried by fire.
Yeah, but 'irony' is a technical term. How would you like it if people started calling any chip in a computer a CPU or anything capable of storing information (volatile or not) RAM? Or called any small thing, such as electrons or molecules, an atom? Or something else like that.
How ironic that this is definition is actually valid and in the dictionary.
Just because something's in the dictionary doesn't make it right. Conversely, just because something isn't in the dictionary doesn't make it wrong.
What I hate is the way English (and some Americans) go round labelling sarcasm as irony... Terry Pratchett is especially bad like that.
Have there been any precedents around this sort of thing? And what country combination were those precedents?
Australia (Victoria) + US.
An Australian was defamed (according to Aussie laws) by an American corporation. The American laws didn't agree. So he went to a Victorian court and won the right to be able to sue, even though it was an American company and the servers were in America.
This is an article about it, but there was another one this year. Or at least, 2001 seems much too long ago to have been it.
In the Matrix, people think for themselves. That's were independent thought comes from. It's also were religion comes from. What the computer didn't program, people could have created *inside* the Matrix. Simple.
It's too human, too sympathetic to be built by cold, heartless machines.
So it was build by computers beyond what you're willing to comprehend. Just because you don't think a computer can ever have properties we associate with life doesn't mean it can't. I mean, the computer can emulate a universe!
I would have used the same on FreeBSD. When was the last time we were asked to call it GNU/FreeBSD? And MacOS X uses gcc too.
I would quite happily say I used GNU/Linux if I used the console and emacs and suchlike more than I do. But I don't. So I don't use GNU/Linux.
I'm not sure if it was just the way the article was written but it almost seemed like RMS had never used KDE before.
Plenty of people have never run KDE before. I've run itbut only enough to know I don't like it. I didn't know there was an embedded console in Konqueror. I wouldn't know how to bring it up. I'm sure there's dozens of stuff a KDE god could show me that I'd never even thought of. But that doesn't make me a dinosaurit makes me a user of a different system. I consider my system to be reasonably modern and easy-to-use, but I'm sure my mother would have a rather different perspective.
But how do most people run their systems? I have LILO loading the Linux kernel, which then does its init stuff, using some GNU and some Gentoo software. The last step of that involves running X. Due to a problem with my configuration, I can't switch to virtual consoles, so I make minimal use of the console. As X starts, it loads GDM which logs me straight into my ROX-Filer/XFCE4 system and starts Gaim, XMMS, Galeon and Mozilla (for Mail; I can't seem to get Thunderbird working). Occaisonally, I run a Terminal to install software or ssh into another box (to do school work or encourage my Mail to be checkedthe server can be a bit iffy sometimes, but for some reason sshing into it helps). When I'm done, I click on the logout/shutdown button, chose to halt my computer, and a bunch of GNU- and Gentoo-written software shuts it down.
From my perspective, the GNU bit is minimal. I could take my system over to FreeBSD and it'd *mostly* work the same, but where it doesn't, it'd be the *kernel* (drivers), not the GNU software, that makes the difference.
To me, the GNU/ is not that relevant. There is no reason I should say I'm running a GNU/Linux system, because the ROX-Filer has a much larger effect on the way I interact with my system. So, I run ROX on Linux (or either ROX or Linux for short, depending on which its better to say).
Anyway, people will understand what I mean when I say Linux, but they won't when I say 'GNU/Linux'. Why add another three syllables of confusion?
We call it Preferential Voting here. That's why I called it preferential voting in the post I made before :)
But yes, it certainly doesn't stop two-party systems. Maybe it can support multi-party systems better than first past the post, I don't know. With the rise of the Greens (first party to get a seat in the lower house other than Labor or the coallition since the 1940s I believe), we may find out.
Pardon me, but in Australia we don't have a first-past-the-post system, which is described by the Wikipedia entry. Yet, we still have a two-party system in our House of Representatives (and one could have gone so far as to describe Victoria's Legislative Council as having been a one-party system; this is the second time in ~150 years that the conservative party hasn't had control of it). This is despite compulsory, preferential voting.
Duverger's Law might give a two-party system, but it isn't the root cause. Guaranteeing that only the majority (or plurality or whatever as the case may be) gets to chose who's in power causes it. That's why Australia's Senate and European Parliaments aren't as two-party based as the UK, America, and our House of Reps.
At least in America, the fonts themselves are not copyright. It is the font file. I understand that if you wanted, you could print out your favorite font and use that to redesign the font and it'd all be perfectly legal, even if the outcome was identical. But you can't copy the font file without it being allowed. But IANAL. And I'm not American, either.
If everything is guided by GPS, why have headlights?
Poor Johnny's ball rolls onto the road. Poor James' car doesn't have headlines. James can't stop his car in time. James now has to deal with the guilt of having been responsible for a child's death.
With Opera 6, I didn't use them (I used multiple windows). With Opera 7, I've started using tabs.
Opera does not use tabs. Do not confuse an MDI (multiple windows all within one) with a tabbed interface (multiple windows with tabs so that one window can contain multiple webpages).
MDIs are a lot less flexible and have been going out of fashion for quite a while (as you've noticed, Office doesn't use them any more). Tabs are more flexible in some ways (you can have lots of windows, each with subwindows, spread across multiple screens if you want), but not in all (one window can only have subwindows of the same size).
In short, tabbing is mostly the best of both (MDI and SDI) worlds.
Indeed, except I'd be much happier searching through a (computer's) trash can than a rubbish bin. ;)
As much as I love Linux/X11, I find the method you mentioned as less than desirable. Yes, it changes the resolution. It also leaves me with a virtual desktop size of the default resolution. Thus, to see all of the desktop at once is not possible, requiring me to mouse to the edges and have the "view" scroll around.
OTOH, I would kill someone if they got rid of that. It's just shy of impossible to live with less than 1024x768 these days, but my screen is 800x600 max.
Try XRandR/XFree86 4.3.
And do you think that'll be done with properly strong encryption, or something weak and crappy coupled with a DMCA threat?
Perhaps you're being hypothetical, but there is no DMCA in Australia. (Yet.) This article is about Australian ATMs.
No. To have responsive and responsible politicians, you have to create competition. In the current duopoly+irrelevants, the situation is barely better than in the US. It's just when the Labral Party gets elected, they can say that seeing as a majority of 85%95% people voted for them, they have a Mandate to introduce things they promised never to introduce. Also, our system is essentially geared up to give a party (or coalition) an essential dictatorship for a term; this is why we're going to war with an actual dictatorship. Sounds intelligent, ja?
I personally use them all the time. Much more so than in Windows. Map 'em to Meta or Super or somesuch and you have key combinations apps never (or almost never) use. Much more sensible than KDE's let's-take-over ctrl+-> for-switching-desktops-to-really-piss-kesuari-off- when-he-tries-to-use-apps-that-already-use-it!
Sorry, apparently plain old text is plain old text with extra markup! Plain old text redone for a new generation! Reposted.
I think instead of clearing the forward history when you click a link or whatever, it should remain. So: a->b->c<=b<=a->d->e would have {a,d} in back and {b,c} in forward. It's just stupid clearing it all the time.
I think instead of clearing the forward history when you click a link or whatever, it should remain. So: a->b->cd->e would have {a,d} in back and {b,c} in forward. It's just stupid clearing it all the time.