The lock-up only occured in 3D stuff, e.g., armagetron. I detuned AGP and everything and it still happened. If Nvidia is gonna release a kernel module for VIA they damn well better have workarounds for any and all such bugs and have an effective way to report new ones. I'm using a very common board (not in front of me, can't give you the model) recommended by Tom's Hardware at the time. I can't think of any reason but lack of testing or interest as to why it breaks.
Besides, the Radeon works fine.
-l
p.s., I have 1 computer and I don't know anyone near me who runs the same set-up, so the point's prolly moot anyway.
The problem with a unified driver that's proprietary is that despite what they say, older hardware does not get the same level of support as open source drivers for cards of the same age. Worse, since your architecture is unified, you can't open source the drivers for older cards without jeopardizing IP on new cards!
So, while I'm glad the unified driver works for you and your newish card, I had to ditch my TNT1 for an older Radeon because the unified drivers never supported my TNT1 on K6-III/VIA chipset very well (i.e., it crashed too much).
Cheers,
-l
who got a 64MB Radeon VE dirt cheap for his new flat panel. and yes, next year I hope to upgrade the mb/cpu.:)
Eh, I'm not sure if your Windows shortcuts will be the same as my Linux ones, but here goes...
cycle tabs: ctrl+pgup, ctrl+pgdown. Auto Reload: (not sure. you can do it in Galeon.). Close tab: ctrl+w. No clue about the XP group feature. Is it anything like window groups in Enlightenment?
no idea
yeah, Galeon allows you to rearrange the menu bars. Moz doesn't appear to on first glance. For stuff like the Google bar, you don't really need the Google bar since the Location bar will fwd the request to Google and open the results in a new tab.
IE-specific code: no it's not fixable. If we cede control of standards to Microsoft, Moz will forever be playing the catch-up game. It would be helpful to have a quickie option to make the browser lie and say it's IE, just like Opera.
No idea how MIME is handled on the windows builds.
Edit, Preferences, Privacy & Security, Master Password. Customize to your heart's content. RE: autofill, I wonder if this is an IE bug where it autofills stuff it's not supposed to cache. Not sure.
One reason why I don't use em.:)
Isn't that an option in the Windows installer? If not, seems like it should be.
There's another post on how to fix this. You'd think this would be an installer option...
My understanding is that IE lies about its memory usage. It also can cheat and use undocumented APIs and other tricks to make the kernel favor it.
so anyway, I hope this helps, even if just a litttle...
the idea of constancy is abstracted from observed change.
while I cannot point to anything around me that hasn't changed, things like that building over there, set against the grass and trees in the rain, change slowly enough for me to abstract an idea of constancy, i.e., the process of change slowed to an ideal state of stopping.
then we're back to whether the definition of change can change. I think it changes if everything ceases to exist, but maybe that's a non-standard belief.;) (i.e., the old example of: If nothing exists, does 1 + 1 equal 2? Many of my professors would say that "Yes, 1 + 1 = 2 still holds" whereas I'm inclined to say "Only if someone is around to classify the void into sets... but then it wouldn't be a void.")
and since X is network transparent and all, and rather unlikely to become grotesquely incompatible, you can run the app on the fancy server and display on the old workstation.:)
indeed, "nothing is constant" should be reformulated as "everything changes" which is consistent with itself.
The closest argument contra is: But, then the fact of change would itself be constant.
However, the fact of change is dependent on the existence of things. So, when things cease to exist, the fact of change changes (i.e., it ceases to exist).
But I've stolen nothing from you. I've made a copy. That's not theft. Theft assumes I have removed a singularity from your control. I've not done that. What I've done is made a duplicate of your original, leaving the original to you, so that you are not deprived of the original.
What I have removed is your ability to control the distribution of duplicates. Under a government with copyright laws, this is punishable. Without copyright laws, I've simply made it easier for other people to use your utility.
Blockquoth the poster:
Copyright and governments are not necessary to establish ownership of something I make. If I don't own it, who does? I own what I make until I transfer ownership to someone else.
The fallacy is you assume someone has to own something that can be cheaply duplicated.
Put it another way: If we could easily make duplicate copies of Earth for everyone to live on, would it make sense to say: "I own this bit of oceanfront in Florida. Therefore, I control all copies of this spot of land and refuse to allow anyone to copy it by divine/natural right."
?
See, ownership and creatorship are different things. Now, let's refine the example:
Say you are Slartibartfast and you created the original fjords of Norway and live on them. You're telling me we can't copy your fjords on Earth 2 - Earth n just because you made them?
?
Because that sounds perfectly ridiculous to me.
For the record, I'm not in favor of universal ownership (which is contradictory until the advent of matter duplicators) and I do support reasonable copyright laws... but only on the argument that reasonable copyright exists for the public good not by divine/natural right. And when copyright violates the public good, it should be rolled back with all deliberate speed.
What happens if I hack into your server, copy your utility, and redistribute it to the world? Or better, if I break into your house, steal your computer, copy the utility, return the computer, and distribute the utility to the world? Do you own it then? Does it make sense to say you are the owner of something that has been wrested from your control?
Copyright is an artifice which says you control a work's distribution by fiat of $GOV for $YEARS in the hopes you will create some more good for the world. You have no natural rights as creator or owner. Your rights exist through the mechanism of copyright.
Back in the Good Old Days[tm] your property (home, land, food, body, wives, etc.) was whatever you could defend from being taken away from you. Just read some of the Torah to get an idea of what it was like.
It's the same today, but the concept has been abstracted into government and people's living/working philosophies. This is why it feels like ownership inheres in the relationship between a creator and her work. But that feeling doesn't make it so. What makes it so is a government that, in theory anyway..., would ensure you control a work's distribution with guns, nukes, airplanes, etc. and expects you to do the same of others' copyrights.
Because I don't share your feelings about 1s and 0s.;)
FOTR is the weakest of the 3 novels, IMHO. There's a lot of exposition and stuff he wants to detail in his mythology, tending toward furious detail instead of furious action!
The thing about LOTR is it's less a "story" and more a "world" in which stuff happens and he's trying to string all those events together. I think it gets better and better in TTT and ROTK, but that's cause I like the world and like seeing how the events tie together. He's such a slow writer anyway... crafting the details of his world more than the story... if he'd told the story as much as the world it'd span 20 books and would've taken him 70 years, probably.:)
Mainly, I think it's due to Tolkien having his nose in old mythological epics more than novels. Frankly, the Iliad bores me to tears and I don't remember being all that moved by the stories of Gilgamesh or Beowulf either. Tolkien works for me because the story is a more focused than those other epics, even though it could stand some work. I like the world and the stories that take place in the world, even if the storytelling itself isn't that great. So, like I said, it works for me. But I can see how it wouldn't for someone else.
although you usually need dedicated hardware to offset the performance hit from the parity calculations.
Last time I looked, even a 400mhz K6-2 would easily outrun those little i960s they like to put on the low-end RAID controllers. Unless you need the main CPU for other tasks, it's probably gonna be faster at the parity calcs.
all I'm saying is you gotta research your needs. If your server is just a big ass Samba box, software raid is more likely to be a faster solution. If you're running a 4-way Oracle box, yeah, it would make sense to offload the parity calcs onto a dedicated controller.
1. Both are fixed - only one entity may occupy a particular "parcel" at a time.
2. There is a fixed supply of each (excluding adding stupid TLDs, and Hawaii)
A better way to state this is "each domain name is globally unique". There are an awful lot of "good enough" names possible in the namespace so you wouldn't want to imply that the supply is "scarce". With the advent of quality search engines, there's no real reason to keep the artificially scare scheme of simple TLDs around.
can be studied without reference to the organisms that use it.
my philosophy of language professor was way into Pragmatics. He seemed pretty interested in the adaptations necessary for language to survive... so anyway I'm just saying there's some hope for the science. Relevance Theory is a step in the right direction.
I wrote a paper on this year before last. There are quite a few PhD's in cognitive science and cognitive ethology who think chimps, dogs, and others are communicating quite well. They'll tell you it's simply a matter of degree of language skills, not "yes these animals have it" or "no they don't".
No primate has signed a sentence longer than 3 signs, it is true. But hand signs aren't the only thing they're testing. There's another group of chimp researchers who use a button pushing mechanism.
Anyhow, the point is, one dumb chimp doesn't collapse the theory. It's far more compelling to me that these high level animals could understand some basic emotions and drives and assign a label for those concepts than to accept that they are complete automata, lacking comprehension of any ability.
So, I demand more proof than a one-off experiment with one chimp to prove the research is off-base.
For reference, you can read my paper here: http://arrakeen.dynodns.net/paper.pdf
today, your assessment is correct about AbiWord. fortunately, you can track its continual progress: http://www.abisource.org/information/news/ . they already have slew of new features in the works to provide compatibility, etc. The whole point of a 1.0 release was to give AbiWord a stable place where they could say "look, it ain't feature complete, but you can do some work with it".
Is staroffice/openoffice available as a plug-in? There's a patch for AbiWord to make it available as a lite bonobo-component (which i use for viewing Word doc's inline in Evolution).
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, I understood what you meant, I just didn't think it was a valid excuse seeing how Linux seems to work with crappy broken hardware. :)
sorry if I seemed a little brusque.
-l
The lock-up only occured in 3D stuff, e.g., armagetron. I detuned AGP and everything and it still happened. If Nvidia is gonna release a kernel module for VIA they damn well better have workarounds for any and all such bugs and have an effective way to report new ones. I'm using a very common board (not in front of me, can't give you the model) recommended by Tom's Hardware at the time. I can't think of any reason but lack of testing or interest as to why it breaks.
Besides, the Radeon works fine.
-l
p.s., I have 1 computer and I don't know anyone near me who runs the same set-up, so the point's prolly moot anyway.
The problem with a unified driver that's proprietary is that despite what they say, older hardware does not get the same level of support as open source drivers for cards of the same age. Worse, since your architecture is unified, you can't open source the drivers for older cards without jeopardizing IP on new cards!
So, while I'm glad the unified driver works for you and your newish card, I had to ditch my TNT1 for an older Radeon because the unified drivers never supported my TNT1 on K6-III/VIA chipset very well (i.e., it crashed too much).
Cheers,
-l
who got a 64MB Radeon VE dirt cheap for his new flat panel. and yes, next year I hope to upgrade the mb/cpu. :)
Eh, I'm not sure if your Windows shortcuts will be the same as my Linux ones, but here goes...
so anyway, I hope this helps, even if just a litttle...
-l
/me grins
-l
the idea of constancy is abstracted from observed change.
;) (i.e., the old example of: If nothing exists, does 1 + 1 equal 2? Many of my professors would say that "Yes, 1 + 1 = 2 still holds" whereas I'm inclined to say "Only if someone is around to classify the void into sets... but then it wouldn't be a void.")
while I cannot point to anything around me that hasn't changed, things like that building over there, set against the grass and trees in the rain, change slowly enough for me to abstract an idea of constancy, i.e., the process of change slowed to an ideal state of stopping.
then we're back to whether the definition of change can change. I think it changes if everything ceases to exist, but maybe that's a non-standard belief.
-l
and since X is network transparent and all, and rather unlikely to become grotesquely incompatible, you can run the app on the fancy server and display on the old workstation. :)
-l
the ships are fugly. give me flying space junk ANYday! go Explorers!
-l
But when the undercover agent kills more people than the godfather, then there's no way you can make him turn out to be a good guy after all.
Thus the ending of Get Carter (the original), a good movie. :)
-l
indeed, "nothing is constant" should be reformulated as "everything changes" which is consistent with itself.
The closest argument contra is: But, then the fact of change would itself be constant.
However, the fact of change is dependent on the existence of things. So, when things cease to exist, the fact of change changes (i.e., it ceases to exist).
-l
finders, keepers! ...come and take it!
-l
Then we have a fundamental, unresolvable disagreement as to what constitutes theft.
End of line.
-l
But I've stolen nothing from you. I've made a copy. That's not theft. Theft assumes I have removed a singularity from your control. I've not done that. What I've done is made a duplicate of your original, leaving the original to you, so that you are not deprived of the original.
What I have removed is your ability to control the distribution of duplicates. Under a government with copyright laws, this is punishable. Without copyright laws, I've simply made it easier for other people to use your utility.
Blockquoth the poster:
The fallacy is you assume someone has to own something that can be cheaply duplicated.
Put it another way: If we could easily make duplicate copies of Earth for everyone to live on, would it make sense to say: "I own this bit of oceanfront in Florida. Therefore, I control all copies of this spot of land and refuse to allow anyone to copy it by divine/natural right."
?
See, ownership and creatorship are different things. Now, let's refine the example:
Say you are Slartibartfast and you created the original fjords of Norway and live on them. You're telling me we can't copy your fjords on Earth 2 - Earth n just because you made them?
?
Because that sounds perfectly ridiculous to me.
For the record, I'm not in favor of universal ownership (which is contradictory until the advent of matter duplicators) and I do support reasonable copyright laws... but only on the argument that reasonable copyright exists for the public good not by divine/natural right. And when copyright violates the public good, it should be rolled back with all deliberate speed.
-l
What happens if I hack into your server, copy your utility, and redistribute it to the world? Or better, if I break into your house, steal your computer, copy the utility, return the computer, and distribute the utility to the world? Do you own it then? Does it make sense to say you are the owner of something that has been wrested from your control?
Copyright is an artifice which says you control a work's distribution by fiat of $GOV for $YEARS in the hopes you will create some more good for the world. You have no natural rights as creator or owner. Your rights exist through the mechanism of copyright.
Back in the Good Old Days[tm] your property (home, land, food, body, wives, etc.) was whatever you could defend from being taken away from you. Just read some of the Torah to get an idea of what it was like.
It's the same today, but the concept has been abstracted into government and people's living/working philosophies. This is why it feels like ownership inheres in the relationship between a creator and her work. But that feeling doesn't make it so. What makes it so is a government that, in theory anyway..., would ensure you control a work's distribution with guns, nukes, airplanes, etc. and expects you to do the same of others' copyrights.
Because I don't share your feelings about 1s and 0s. ;)
-l
SVG (Scalable Vector Graphics) is XML. XML in XML isn't too hard, I here. ;)
-l
http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/Overview.htm8
Postal Workers of the world rejoice! :)
-l
sounds like when I was a teenager... no matter how many times I cleaned my face, the zits just kept coming... :)
-l
If the bad guys had been blue, the Mouse would've faced a lawsuit from Big Blue!
-l
FOTR is the weakest of the 3 novels, IMHO. There's a lot of exposition and stuff he wants to detail in his mythology, tending toward furious detail instead of furious action!
:)
The thing about LOTR is it's less a "story" and more a "world" in which stuff happens and he's trying to string all those events together. I think it gets better and better in TTT and ROTK, but that's cause I like the world and like seeing how the events tie together. He's such a slow writer anyway... crafting the details of his world more than the story... if he'd told the story as much as the world it'd span 20 books and would've taken him 70 years, probably.
Mainly, I think it's due to Tolkien having his nose in old mythological epics more than novels. Frankly, the Iliad bores me to tears and I don't remember being all that moved by the stories of Gilgamesh or Beowulf either. Tolkien works for me because the story is a more focused than those other epics, even though it could stand some work. I like the world and the stories that take place in the world, even if the storytelling itself isn't that great. So, like I said, it works for me. But I can see how it wouldn't for someone else.
-l
although you usually need dedicated hardware to offset the performance hit from the parity calculations.
Last time I looked, even a 400mhz K6-2 would easily outrun those little i960s they like to put on the low-end RAID controllers. Unless you need the main CPU for other tasks, it's probably gonna be faster at the parity calcs.
all I'm saying is you gotta research your needs. If your server is just a big ass Samba box, software raid is more likely to be a faster solution. If you're running a 4-way Oracle box, yeah, it would make sense to offload the parity calcs onto a dedicated controller.
$0.02USD,
-l
I opt for vagueness. But then, I'm a philosophy student. :)
-l
A better way to state this is "each domain name is globally unique". There are an awful lot of "good enough" names possible in the namespace so you wouldn't want to imply that the supply is "scarce". With the advent of quality search engines, there's no real reason to keep the artificially scare scheme of simple TLDs around.
-l
my philosophy of language professor was way into Pragmatics. He seemed pretty interested in the adaptations necessary for language to survive... so anyway I'm just saying there's some hope for the science. Relevance Theory is a step in the right direction.
-l
I wrote a paper on this year before last. There are quite a few PhD's in cognitive science and cognitive ethology who think chimps, dogs, and others are communicating quite well. They'll tell you it's simply a matter of degree of language skills, not "yes these animals have it" or "no they don't".
No primate has signed a sentence longer than 3 signs, it is true. But hand signs aren't the only thing they're testing. There's another group of chimp researchers who use a button pushing mechanism.
Anyhow, the point is, one dumb chimp doesn't collapse the theory. It's far more compelling to me that these high level animals could understand some basic emotions and drives and assign a label for those concepts than to accept that they are complete automata, lacking comprehension of any ability.
So, I demand more proof than a one-off experiment with one chimp to prove the research is off-base.
For reference, you can read my paper here: http://arrakeen.dynodns.net/paper.pdf
-l
today, your assessment is correct about AbiWord. fortunately, you can track its continual progress: http://www.abisource.org/information/news/ . they already have slew of new features in the works to provide compatibility, etc. The whole point of a 1.0 release was to give AbiWord a stable place where they could say "look, it ain't feature complete, but you can do some work with it".
Is staroffice/openoffice available as a plug-in? There's a patch for AbiWord to make it available as a lite bonobo-component (which i use for viewing Word doc's inline in Evolution).
-l