I quickly realize I need to check my email more than three times a day, because many people (notably my editors) need responses faster than once every four hours.
It is bad enough that he was giving his email address to any damn website that asked for it. But then he chose to use that same address for work, where an important email can easily be lost in the sea of junk. He set himself up for failure, and deserves all the problems he is having.
If Google is allowed to make Android available to anyone for free, then why shouldn't Microsoft be allowed to competitively price their mobile OS at $0 as well? From that point of view it costs $15 for the mobile patent licenses either way, and WP7 is thrown in for free.
Get it on mainstream media outlet cameras and I *might* believe it.
Here is another video showing it at a car fair(skip to 1:30) with other custom cars.
Fill-flash does not cause the shadow under the craft to be "harder" than a shadow coming from the roof top. It's the same SUN! If I took the time to photoshop the pics, I wouldn't then say. "Yea. You got me. They are fake." Maybe he is just hiding the wheels or something, but it just don't look right.
The hardness of a shadow is highly dependent on the distance from the shadow casting object and the ground. Something a foot from the ground will have a harder and darker shadow than something ten feet from the ground, since the edge dispersion and ambient light will both be greater.
His website has pictures of him building it, including the chassis with wheels that are clearly inset enough that they wouldn't be visible in the final vehicle. What is so unbelievable about this to you? It is an electric three wheeler with nicely crafted body, not exactly an impossible feat.
shrug.. none of my business I suppose since I haven't heard of him, but I would be furious if I got that kind of response from an "anti-spam" company when asking them to stop spamming me.
How does Mailinator spam anybody? They don't send any email, just receive it. And they don't facilitate forum spam any more than any other free email service.
Yeah, you have to both know what Mailinator is and how it uses alternate domains for the summary to make any sort of sense. I didn't know either, but I am glad I read the article, because it is pretty funny.
TL;DR: * Mailinator is a throw-away email service, and some sites want users to provide "real" email address and thus try to ban use of mailinator. * To combat this Mailinator has a bunch of alternate domain names that all resolve to the same server. * It displays them to users at it's website one at a time, chosen randomly. * Blockers tried to scrape the Mailinator website to get the full list of domain. * If a scraper is detected they could instead be fed other domains like gmail.com, which would cause the scrapper to block email from those domains as well.
The problem is that these chips are not competitive with the Atom when it comes to power consumption. They are about on par with SandyBridge i3's in that regard, which is why everyone is comparing their performance against the i3s. There is no chance they will replace the Atom in netbooks (especially after Atom moves to 32nm later this year), but they will be good for low end laptops.
Yeah, I haven't used it since version 1, when I was evaluating a replacement for Eudora on my parent's computer. Back then it was dirt slow on a P4, and I ended up recommending Pegasus for that reason, even though I thought Thunderbird was more user friendly. It's probably gotten a lot better since then.
I was just pointing out why a Gecko upgrade is more significant than just improved HTML emails.
Most of the user interface for Thunderbird and Firefox is implemented in XUL which is rendered using Gecko. Any improvements to the engine, and in particular with JavaScript, will boost the performance of the application as a whole.
The first time I saw it, I was using the SSL version of Google, which doesn't have links for the other search types at the top because they don't have SSL support yet. So I loaded the page and saw a big black bar across the top of the page, with almost nothing in it. My first thought was that the firefox notification bar had crashed. My second was that Google had put up a "redacted box" as some sort of statement against censorship, like the colored ribbons you see. Then I saw the "Sign in" text at the far right of the screen and realized what it was.
They legally fulfilled the requirements for protecting their own patents: they implemented them in production systems
That is not a legal requirement for enforcing patents. Microsoft themselves have lost patent lawsuits where the plaintiff did not produce any products at all, let alone implementing their patents.
Time conversion is complicated because the universe is complicated. The time it takes to orbit around the sun isn't a nice even multiple of the amount of time it takes for the earth rotate, or any subdivision of that day. It isn't even constant as the drag of the moon and the shifting of the tectonic plates all affect the rate at which the earth rotates.
Over time we have developed many different ways of measuring time, each of which have their own advantages and disadvantages depending on the application. TIA and GPS time are both useful for applications where having a continuous scale is more important that exact accuracy. UTC was devised to keep the time in sync with the motion of the earth. That is it's purpose. By removing the leaps seconds, you remove any advantage it provides over TIA, and it becomes a redundant pointless time system.
Furthermore, it won't make software easier, because it will still have to account for the times in the past where leap seconds were inserted. More so, all local times are based on UTC and they add their own discontinuities, which have to be tracked using databases, so it's not like you are removing the need to maintain such databases; you just eliminated one entry in it.
As Einstein said, "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler". This is a case of oversimplifying for no good reason.
Backscatter X-ray machines do emit ionizing radiation. The competing millimeter wave scanners are not ionizing, but having flown through Boston Logan airport recently, the machines they were using certainly looked like backscatter, not millimeter wave, scanners.
The place where I work has supported Firefox since 2.0 came out. They do implement internal change control, which is why we don't get new versions of the browser until it has been tested and found to be compatible with our internal applications. If there was an incompatibility, it could take months to fix the webapp, delaying internal deployment. Security patches were approved much faster because they were more important and didn't break as much.
However, with this new release schedule Mozilla will not be releasing security patches separately. Instead every version will have new features, bug fixes, and security patches. Thus we have to choose between running an insecure browser for weeks/months while testing the new release, or risk breaking applications because we didn't test. I wouldn't be surprised to hear that we will be dropping support for Firefox instead.
Copyright law already protects your photo, whether the copyright notice has been cropped or not. This is a stupidly broad application of "copyright management information".
No it isn't. A copyright notice is practically the definition of copyright management information
(1) The title and other information identifying the work, including the information set forth on a notice of copyright. (2) The name of, and other identifying information about, the author of a work. (3) The name of, and other identifying information about, the copyright owner of the work, including the information set forth in a notice of copyright....
Again, this ruling has absolutely nothing to do with the anti-circumvention or take-down notice sections of the DMCA, so don't apply what you have heard about those part of the law to this ruling.
Yeah unlike the anti-circumvention portion of the DMCA which bans tools just because they could be used for piracy, and thus effectively prevent any fair use of works, the copyright management information section seems fairly reasonably. It is entirely focused on removing or falsifying attribution of copyright. I don't know that the section needs to exist; removal of attribution could just be treated as strong evidence of willful infringement, which already carries higher punishment. But it doesn't seem actively harmful.
Get an ID3 editor that can do batch listing of tags. Look at the encoder used to generate the file. If it isn't the one you used, and you don't remember where you got the file from, then you probably downloaded it.
PopSci doesn't have alternative coverage of the story, they just regurgitated the Daily Mail coverage. And given the timestamps, it is highly unlikely that they did any fact checking before posting. All the other coverage I have seen cite Daily Mail for their source. Strangely, the photos all credit the Associate Press, but searching the AP website doesn't return any results for Isaias Hernandez.
On one hand, the subject of the article is worthy of the front page. On the other hand, the only source covering it is the Daily Mail, whose reporting is usually about as accurate as hair salon gossip. I can't blame samzenpus for sticking it in Idle.
Google had the same functionality as TinEye in Google Labs for at least as long as TinEye has been around. They (weakly) integrated it into their main site in 2009 as a "Find Similar Images" feature. Google goggles (and this) does a lot more than TinEye, because it can find different images with similar content, while TinEye only finds the same image with minor cropping and filtering applied. And academia has been publishing papers on images search for years before either company made anything.
The difference is that TinEye found a niche business model for the (relatively) simple image search that it had, and developed it into a very useful tool for the limited capability it had. Google on the other hand, decided what they had wasn't good enough for their market, and kept working on it in the background until it was good enough.
Neither is a rip off of the other. They are just different approaches to different problems, both of which borrowed from prior research as well as adding their own improvements.
If they didn't want the students taking the laptop home, the could have just confiscated if from them while they were at school, since they were required to have it in class every day. If they thought they were taking it home, and wanted to catch them in the act, they could have just stood outside the door as they were walking out. If the student wasn't returning it to the school, they could have sent the cops over to their house with a warrant. Spying on them in the privacy of their home was in no way necessary nor acceptable.
Furthermore, when this was investigated, they found photographs of students who had paid the fee, and emails between the administrators and IT showing that they were using it for entertainment. One of the quotes was along the lines of "This is so fun. It's like our own private soap opera". Those administrators and IT personal should have been fired and should be sued individually (not just the district), if not facing criminal charges.
The FBI did investigate and chose to not press any charges, since they didn't have "criminal intent", which is of course bullshit. They broke the law, and there are penalties for illegal wiretapping, both with and without criminal intent.
"If I were running Apple, I would milk the Macintosh for all it's worth - and get busy on the next big thing. The PC wars are over. Done. Microsoft won a long time ago." Steve Jobs, Fortune Magazine, February 19, 1996
Which is exactly what he did with the iPod, and then the iPhone. But note there is nothing there about killing the Mac; He will continue milking it as long is it keeps giving milk. His comment was about not sitting on the success of the Mac, nor will he sit on the success of the iPhone; he will keep moving to the next big thing.
Slashdot Mirror
I stopped reading the article at this line.
I quickly realize I need to check my email more than three times a day, because many people (notably my editors) need responses faster than once every four hours.
It is bad enough that he was giving his email address to any damn website that asked for it. But then he chose to use that same address for work, where an important email can easily be lost in the sea of junk. He set himself up for failure, and deserves all the problems he is having.
If Google is allowed to make Android available to anyone for free, then why shouldn't Microsoft be allowed to competitively price their mobile OS at $0 as well? From that point of view it costs $15 for the mobile patent licenses either way, and WP7 is thrown in for free.
Get it on mainstream media outlet cameras and I *might* believe it.
Here is another video showing it at a car fair(skip to 1:30) with other custom cars.
Fill-flash does not cause the shadow under the craft to be "harder" than a shadow coming from the roof top. It's the same SUN! If I took the time to photoshop the pics, I wouldn't then say. "Yea. You got me. They are fake." Maybe he is just hiding the wheels or something, but it just don't look right.
The hardness of a shadow is highly dependent on the distance from the shadow casting object and the ground. Something a foot from the ground will have a harder and darker shadow than something ten feet from the ground, since the edge dispersion and ambient light will both be greater.
His website has pictures of him building it, including the chassis with wheels that are clearly inset enough that they wouldn't be visible in the final vehicle. What is so unbelievable about this to you? It is an electric three wheeler with nicely crafted body, not exactly an impossible feat.
shrug.. none of my business I suppose since I haven't heard of him, but I would be furious if I got that kind of response from an "anti-spam" company when asking them to stop spamming me.
How does Mailinator spam anybody? They don't send any email, just receive it. And they don't facilitate forum spam any more than any other free email service.
Yeah, you have to both know what Mailinator is and how it uses alternate domains for the summary to make any sort of sense. I didn't know either, but I am glad I read the article, because it is pretty funny.
TL;DR:
* Mailinator is a throw-away email service, and some sites want users to provide "real" email address and thus try to ban use of mailinator.
* To combat this Mailinator has a bunch of alternate domain names that all resolve to the same server.
* It displays them to users at it's website one at a time, chosen randomly.
* Blockers tried to scrape the Mailinator website to get the full list of domain.
* If a scraper is detected they could instead be fed other domains like gmail.com, which would cause the scrapper to block email from those domains as well.
The problem is that these chips are not competitive with the Atom when it comes to power consumption. They are about on par with SandyBridge i3's in that regard, which is why everyone is comparing their performance against the i3s. There is no chance they will replace the Atom in netbooks (especially after Atom moves to 32nm later this year), but they will be good for low end laptops.
Yeah, I haven't used it since version 1, when I was evaluating a replacement for Eudora on my parent's computer. Back then it was dirt slow on a P4, and I ended up recommending Pegasus for that reason, even though I thought Thunderbird was more user friendly. It's probably gotten a lot better since then.
I was just pointing out why a Gecko upgrade is more significant than just improved HTML emails.
Most of the user interface for Thunderbird and Firefox is implemented in XUL which is rendered using Gecko. Any improvements to the engine, and in particular with JavaScript, will boost the performance of the application as a whole.
The first time I saw it, I was using the SSL version of Google, which doesn't have links for the other search types at the top because they don't have SSL support yet. So I loaded the page and saw a big black bar across the top of the page, with almost nothing in it. My first thought was that the firefox notification bar had crashed. My second was that Google had put up a "redacted box" as some sort of statement against censorship, like the colored ribbons you see. Then I saw the "Sign in" text at the far right of the screen and realized what it was.
They legally fulfilled the requirements for protecting their own patents: they implemented them in production systems
That is not a legal requirement for enforcing patents. Microsoft themselves have lost patent lawsuits where the plaintiff did not produce any products at all, let alone implementing their patents.
Well, the team lead had a copy of this painting made as a mural on campus to inspire the folks working on it.
Time conversion is complicated because the universe is complicated. The time it takes to orbit around the sun isn't a nice even multiple of the amount of time it takes for the earth rotate, or any subdivision of that day. It isn't even constant as the drag of the moon and the shifting of the tectonic plates all affect the rate at which the earth rotates.
Over time we have developed many different ways of measuring time, each of which have their own advantages and disadvantages depending on the application. TIA and GPS time are both useful for applications where having a continuous scale is more important that exact accuracy. UTC was devised to keep the time in sync with the motion of the earth. That is it's purpose. By removing the leaps seconds, you remove any advantage it provides over TIA, and it becomes a redundant pointless time system.
Furthermore, it won't make software easier, because it will still have to account for the times in the past where leap seconds were inserted. More so, all local times are based on UTC and they add their own discontinuities, which have to be tracked using databases, so it's not like you are removing the need to maintain such databases; you just eliminated one entry in it.
As Einstein said, "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler". This is a case of oversimplifying for no good reason.
Backscatter X-ray machines do emit ionizing radiation. The competing millimeter wave scanners are not ionizing, but having flown through Boston Logan airport recently, the machines they were using certainly looked like backscatter, not millimeter wave, scanners.
The place where I work has supported Firefox since 2.0 came out. They do implement internal change control, which is why we don't get new versions of the browser until it has been tested and found to be compatible with our internal applications. If there was an incompatibility, it could take months to fix the webapp, delaying internal deployment. Security patches were approved much faster because they were more important and didn't break as much.
However, with this new release schedule Mozilla will not be releasing security patches separately. Instead every version will have new features, bug fixes, and security patches. Thus we have to choose between running an insecure browser for weeks/months while testing the new release, or risk breaking applications because we didn't test. I wouldn't be surprised to hear that we will be dropping support for Firefox instead.
Sorry I messed up the link to the quoted law.
Copyright law already protects your photo, whether the copyright notice has been cropped or not. This is a stupidly broad application of "copyright management information".
No it isn't. A copyright notice is practically the definition of
copyright management information
(1) The title and other information identifying the work, including the information set forth on a notice of copyright. ...
(2) The name of, and other identifying information about, the author of a work.
(3) The name of, and other identifying information about, the copyright owner of the work, including the information set forth in a notice of copyright.
Again, this ruling has absolutely nothing to do with the anti-circumvention or take-down notice sections of the DMCA, so don't apply what you have heard about those part of the law to this ruling.
Yeah unlike the anti-circumvention portion of the DMCA which bans tools just because they could be used for piracy, and thus effectively prevent any fair use of works, the copyright management information section seems fairly reasonably. It is entirely focused on removing or falsifying attribution of copyright. I don't know that the section needs to exist; removal of attribution could just be treated as strong evidence of willful infringement, which already carries higher punishment. But it doesn't seem actively harmful.
Get an ID3 editor that can do batch listing of tags. Look at the encoder used to generate the file. If it isn't the one you used, and you don't remember where you got the file from, then you probably downloaded it.
Take a closer look at the bottom of that article:
[the Australian via Daily Mail]
PopSci doesn't have alternative coverage of the story, they just regurgitated the Daily Mail coverage. And given the timestamps, it is highly unlikely that they did any fact checking before posting. All the other coverage I have seen cite Daily Mail for their source. Strangely, the photos all credit the Associate Press, but searching the AP website doesn't return any results for Isaias Hernandez.
On one hand, the subject of the article is worthy of the front page. On the other hand, the only source covering it is the Daily Mail, whose reporting is usually about as accurate as hair salon gossip. I can't blame samzenpus for sticking it in Idle.
Google had the same functionality as TinEye in Google Labs for at least as long as TinEye has been around. They (weakly) integrated it into their main site in 2009 as a "Find Similar Images" feature. Google goggles (and this) does a lot more than TinEye, because it can find different images with similar content, while TinEye only finds the same image with minor cropping and filtering applied. And academia has been publishing papers on images search for years before either company made anything.
The difference is that TinEye found a niche business model for the (relatively) simple image search that it had, and developed it into a very useful tool for the limited capability it had. Google on the other hand, decided what they had wasn't good enough for their market, and kept working on it in the background until it was good enough.
Neither is a rip off of the other. They are just different approaches to different problems, both of which borrowed from prior research as well as adding their own improvements.
Yeah, this is hilarious. Filing frivolous lawsuits against the Bar Association is not a good way to keep your law license.
If they didn't want the students taking the laptop home, the could have just confiscated if from them while they were at school, since they were required to have it in class every day. If they thought they were taking it home, and wanted to catch them in the act, they could have just stood outside the door as they were walking out. If the student wasn't returning it to the school, they could have sent the cops over to their house with a warrant. Spying on them in the privacy of their home was in no way necessary nor acceptable.
Furthermore, when this was investigated, they found photographs of students who had paid the fee, and emails between the administrators and IT showing that they were using it for entertainment. One of the quotes was along the lines of "This is so fun. It's like our own private soap opera". Those administrators and IT personal should have been fired and should be sued individually (not just the district), if not facing criminal charges.
The FBI did investigate and chose to not press any charges, since they didn't have "criminal intent", which is of course bullshit. They broke the law, and there are penalties for illegal wiretapping, both with and without criminal intent.
"If I were running Apple, I would milk the Macintosh for all it's worth - and get busy on the next big thing. The PC wars are over. Done. Microsoft won a long time ago."
Steve Jobs, Fortune Magazine, February 19, 1996
Which is exactly what he did with the iPod, and then the iPhone. But note there is nothing there about killing the Mac; He will continue milking it as long is it keeps giving milk. His comment was about not sitting on the success of the Mac, nor will he sit on the success of the iPhone; he will keep moving to the next big thing.