How so? I haven't seen anything from them in the way of support in their chipsets. NOTHING.
>1394 will never be cheap enough for a mouse
It was never _intended_ to be for mice or such things!
USB & FireWire were to be complimentary, only Intel apparently wants to muscle in on FireWire's territory by upping the USB speeds to make it seem like speed is the only advantage FireWire has over USB, which is not the case. They realize that, that's why they're also backing Serial-ATA for things that they realize aren't going to work with USB 2.x (same things that don't work well with USB 1.x).
FireWire is already here, and FireWire devices are already here. The chicken and egg problem of FireWire has been solved - Intel just needs to bite the bullet and put support in their chipsets. As do AMD, VIA, SiS, and ALi.
Whilst on the subject of biting bullets, Intel also needs to bite the RAMBUS bullet - just pay off Rambus and go to DDR full-steam. Ugh.
And AMD needs to stop smoking whatever it is they're smoking and realize that VIA is not up to the task of producing a stable and high-end Athlon chipset, much less a dual-proc one, and make the 760MP chipset in volume. With AMD, you truly CAN afford a two processor system!
Hmmm, this could be the beginning of something interesting...
Okay, first, you'd likely want keys on your "LinuxCalc" for things like mv, cat, grep, cut, and of course for things like | and <. Lotsa keys, just like any decent HP calculator. (I still LOVE my 11C! - it still works, and it's 15 years old!)
Okay, so, you'd type:
file1<enter>file2<enter><mv_key> for RPN. Simple!
For pipelining, you'd probably have to go backwards:
I think. The pipelining one is hard, to be sure...you might need a special key to prevent it from calculating those first steps immediately. Of course, maybe that wouldn't be a bad thing. Have it pipe the current value to something else. Certainly RPN would make for an interesting UI...someone up to modifying Bash?:)
ps That was a pain in the ass to correctly enter all those html codes for the < & > marks. I hope you all appreciate that.;) Shouldn't "Plain Old Text" _mean_ "Plain Old Text?"
I've noticed that MS Outlook and MS Outlook Express behave quite differently in many aspects ranging from featureset to HOW individual features work, even when they share the same feature.
Case in point: How they differ in handling opening messages. Outlook will keep each subsequent opened message maximized after the first one was, whereas Outlook Express doesn't seem to be able to remember such a simple thing, even after several major revisions. Amazing innovation there, eh?
Whether Linux/BSD apps wind up 'looking' the same as Windows apps is not as important as the question, "Will they WORK better than Windows apps?" Even aside from the feature-set, do things make sense? Are they consistent? Are options located in the menu pull-down common sense would suggest, or in the Microsoft 'innovative' way?
I love many of the features of Outlook, but hate how inconsistent many things are, and some of the simple lacks are quite astounding. I don't even use probably more than a third of the features it has, either, and I run into things all the time that bug me about it, which I cannot change. Simple things like automatically moving a particular account's email into a specific folder. Outlook _Express_ has had that feature for a VERY long time (since it's first version, perhaps), yet the supposedly more-robust product, Outlook, does not. WTF?! People say MS is good at code reuse, but you certainly can't tell it from Outlook and Outlook express. Maybe they share crappy HTML renderers, but certainly not many other basic things.
I have high hopes for Evolution and other upcoming email clients on Linux/BSD, simply for the fact that those platforms encourage software that is much more configurable than your average Windows app - Choice is Good, and is pervasive on those platforms.
I think many of the 'look' parts of most Windows apps have been shown to have good usability (the looks of the widget set in particular), and I'd like to see all the GOOD stuff brought over to Linux/*BSD for sure. In particular, I'd love to see that completely STUPID diamond-shaped radio button go the hell away - it's terrible from a usability standpoint. The round one from the Windows world (or wherever it originated) is great, and MUCH easier to determine the state of than the diamond one.
The HTML-as-application-interface idea is, IMO, quite horrible as it's so incredibly slow. It's slow in MS Internet Explorer, it's slow on Mozilla, it's slow on MS's new MediaPlayer (in fact, there's it's AMAZINGLY slow). It's just slow. I don't understand why those developers don't notice it. I'm on a 400MHz machine with 128Meg of RAM and a nice video card, and it's still friggin' slow. "Long live Galeon!" is what I say.
I originally thought the whole XUL thing in Mozilla was a great idea until I experienced it's speed. Or lack thereof. I know there are supposed to be speed enhancements coming up in a few more milestones, but I dunno - if it's THAT slow now, I'm not sure how much faster it could get - I'm quite doubtful it can get up to the speed where I wouldn't notice the difference between it and a regular app, and that's the speed I want. Extensive customization is _fantastic_ in a UI, but not if it comes at such a heavy speed penalty.
I think I measure the sophistication of a good GUI in these areas: extent of customizability, consistency, features, speed and usability. You can skimp on a few of them to some degree, but you need to make it a pretty well-rounded experience if you want to succeed. I'd say features and usability are typically the things that fall by the wayside in most GUIs, and features come in over time (and usability usually goes away over time - see also: Photoshop - too many features in a UI that was never designed to handle that many). With customizability often comes speed-dehancements, it seems, and with many features comes degradation of consistency, unless you're willing to restart your UI from the ground up when it becomes necessary. Photoshop could _certainly_ use that!
Another thing would be meeting the expectations of the target platform. Again, Photoshop is a great example of bad UI design. Photoshop started out as a Mac app, and you can still, to this day, see LOTS of interface weirdness in that application on the Windows platform that you'll never see in any other Windows application. There are numerous examples of weird widgets that have VASTLY superior analogues in standard windows widgets, but you'll likely never see them in Photoshop, I bet. Easy cross platform development is nice, but it should _NEVER_ get in the way of a good and consistent UI. EVER.
.files are lovely compared to binary data files, sure, but you completely miss the point. with.files, there's no telling the format of the file, the file's location in relation to the application, etc. With a 'Registry' using XML data format, there would always be a common place for an application to look for things. Applications would still store their own settings themselves, but they'd put _references_ (hence: META DATA) in the Registry so OTHER apps could find them correctly. This proposal isn't necessarily to make something possible that isn't possible now, it's just so absurdly complex that noone in their right mind would try it now. Hence lots of weird tricks to get around multiple libs, etc. It's just a pain in the ass, and an unnecessary one. The 'UNIX Registry' wouldn't prevent any existing apps from working, and it certainly wouldn't be 'required' for an app to make use of it, which is the beauty of it - completely compatible with all existing apps. But, future apps _could_ be made to use it in the future. The perfect implementation, really.
ASCII format vs XML: You apparently don't know what XML is, I guess. ASCII is a file format. XML is not. You can put XML in an ASCII file format, and that is, actually, what I would propose for this 'UNIX Registry'. You should _always_ be able to look at this stuff with a text editor. Or with vi.:)
I was under the impression that the Microsoft Registry was just their IMPLEMENTATION of the registry concept. A very badly-implemented one, to boot.
I think the concept of a registry is a great one - but certainly not the way MS did it!
Here's a little list I've been working on about features for a UNIX registry:
1 - Meta-Data Only! 2 - XML format 3 - Access granted through system only a) This ensures no 'hidden' entries in registry 4 - Cached for performance benefits (?) 5 - Roll-back features included to return to any previous state 6 - Ability to back up or import any desired application's registry entry 7 - Ability to delete any desired application's registry entry 8 - Versioning, Integrity & Duplication checking included - duplicate entries not allowed! a) Duplicate entries not allowed b) Permission system on how to handle version conflicts 9 - Permission system for both read & write access to the registry
Just an idea...but I think it'd make software development a bit easier - you can check on place for where libraries & other things are installed, get version numbers, easily manage multiple versions of libraries, etc.
See ArcadePC, a Cabinet/PC/control system, all packaged and ready to purchase. Small & large versions available. I think they're working on a cocktail-type platform, too. Kinda pricey, though. The standard ArcadePC with a 19" monitor & a mini-cabinet is around $800, and the one with a 27" monitor & a full-size cabinet is around $2000.
If you just want the control panel, they're using the Hot Rod, available in 2 versions, that you can use with your current computer. The 'classic' is around $180, and the SE (with more buttons, same layout as many modern coin-op control panels), is around $200. They connect via a PS/2 port, but mention on their site that USB support is in the works (that's what I'm waiting for).
> I look at routers configured by pointing a > www browser at them
What's wrong with you? That's a _GREAT_ way to do it! Because you know what, when you look at that 'install disk' the company sends along with said router, it's a good bet the install program will be multiplatform - Windows 98 and NT. Maybe Windows 2000 if you're lucky. It's a lot easier for the company who makes said router to put a web interface on the beast than worry about an install program for Windows 98, Win NT, Win 2000, Linux, FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, OS/2, and whatever else is out there. Everybody's got a web browser these days. The only 'trick' to it is making the web pages coming out of the box be VERY standards-compliant (OLD standards, at that!).
Now is a great time for it - get a nice stable version out there before all hell breaks loose. Also, I believe Patrick is working on a new installer, etc, for the next major revision of Slackware, so there's a lot more that'll be new in v8 (or whatever version it is) than 'just' a new kernel. At least, that's the impression I get.
Better than yet another distribution, I find the Linux from Scratch project quite interesting...
> It wouldn't suprise me to find little chunks of > "how to grow a tail" or "how to put bright blue > pigment in your buttocks" in human DNA.
Blue buttocks - oh hell yes! I could change my name to 'Smurf-Butt'. Most excellent.
Even better - it's time to haul out those interesting science fiction books of yesteryear and find out what other cool ideas we can mine, such as:
1) Distribute the function of the heart throughout the body in smaller 'modules'. Shot in the chest? Not as big a worry...
2) Faster healing
3) Ability to regrow lost limbs
4) Better senses
5) Gills for the water-freaks out there. Hell, that would truely be awesome. Guess what - lots more usable living space on the planet just opened up - it's a little wet, but that's no longer a concern, is it? LET my castle sink into the swamp! (but NO SINGING)
6) Harder bones
7) Built-in smog/cigarette smoke filters - or filters for anything toxic. Same thing for what we ingest - e. coli & other things filtered out - lead contamination filtered. Lots of possibilities here.
8) Ability to consciously control the melanin levels in your skin - lighten or tan right away!
9) TRULY change the colour of your hair and eyes.
10) Control hair growth patterns - want JUST a mustache, and only where you want it? No problemo. The final solution to shaving. Nice.
11) Grow your hair faster - or slower.
12) Body sculpting - fat loss, muscle building, etc. Of course.
13) Height/weight adjustment
14) Change the body so we metabolize *all* food - never go to the bathroom again! Time to change the exits.
15) Natural body/breath odor eaters...I remember a novel where a artificially-created 'pleasure' female was made so that it smelled like flowers when she farted. Heh. Good planning.
16) Stronger fingernails.
17) Better skin - better at resisting cold, heat, pressure, pain, etc.
18) Upgrade the information processing capabilities - make the brain work faster, make the eyes/brain bit faster so you can see more 'frames per second'. Better hearing range - have better hearing than animals! Not sure how much that might be desirable, but you'd get used to it. I remember another novel ('Telempath', I think, by Spider Robinson), where a madman releases a chemical/virus/whatever that gives humans a sense of smell equivalent or superior to dogs - most people go insane from sensory overload, and society is forever changed for those who survive. Interesting read.
19) Okay, I want cool eyes like cats. Those just look gnarly. *meow*
20) The above-mentioned tail could be quite handy! Good for picking up chicks, I bet.
21) Fangs. 'nuff said.
22) Claws. Sure. More like Spiderman 2099, less like Wolverine
23) Hey, speaking of Spidey - how'bout natural webshooters? Nice if you fall off a building or something.
24) Better control over vocal chords - everyone becomes a fantastic singer - well, everyone has the EQUIPMENT. Still gotta get some training.
25) Total control over reproduction - sex without sperm production and egg creation.
26) Colour me like a zebra! Or not. Maybe more like a white tiger.
27) Hey - maybe I could look like one of those dancers from Cats! THAT would RAWK.
28) Read another book where they re-engineer soldiers - harden the skin, better eyesight, CNS (central nervous system) implants for access to many things. Also made the penis & scrotum 'retractible'. Okay, weird, but I'd probably opt for that.
29) hey, let's make those fangs optionally poisonous while we're at it.
30) Tentacles! With suckers..."Hi, my name is Cala. Last name Mari."
31) Feathers. Or scales. Leaves? Hmm. Great camouflage possibilities here...
32) Ohhh...poisonous spines - like a porcupine! A whole new age in warfare...
33) Maybe 'Skunk Power'!
34) Okay, now wings would be interesting - even if they're just decorative. Perhaps visions of 'Angels' in the past were just visions of the future! Think about it...you could _really_ screw with the religious folks here...
35) Everyone has total recall! And I'm not talking about that bad Arnold movie, either...
36) Radiation-proof - good for interplanetary travel. Put your DNA in constant 'Diagnostic Mode' - any damage done is immediately corrected.
37) Abilities associated with idiot-savante's - lightning calculation abilities, etc.
38) Noone is ever tone-deaf. Ever.
39) Everyone hates country music. And disco.
40) Control over metabolizing alcohol - no more drunk driving with 'InstaSober(tm) Genes from RonCo'!
41) Control over sneezing, hiccupping, vomiting, etc.
42) Control your blood sugar. No more roadrage! No more Diabetes.
43) Adrenaline control. Caffeine industry is now gone. Nice knowin' ya, Starbucks. Same for the rest of the drug industries. Columbia becomes dirt-poor again. The drug cartels start investing heavily in Celera. Celera HQ is moved to Bogata.
44) No more need for computer-generated creatures in future science fiction movies. Actors can control their own forms and voices! Pixar and ILM go bankrupt.
45) Now that everyone is so smart, the world realizes that open source software is the only way to go! The Penguin enjoys new-found popularity at zoos.
46) Mermaids become reality! Mermen, too (Aquaman!)
47) Everyone now has perfect balance and coordination - sales of inline skates, surfboards, and other such products skyrocket.
48) Telco's are pressured by law to provide fiber-optic OC48 speed access to each computer - 56K modems are just too slow for the 'brain-enhanced' public of the modern era. People can read faster than 56K now!
49) 3D chess replaces regular chess in all major tournaments. Regular chess is just too easy - commonly played only in preschool.
50) Nictitating membranes. Oh yeah.
51) And Vulcan ears, too!
52) Women become much happier with new 'Nimble-Tongue'(tm) Genes for men.:)
53) the N.O.W. Genetic Research Centre funds 'Vaginal Teeth' genes...ouch!
54) Basketball baskets are quadrupled in height. Football fields are much bigger. Baseball bats are made out of much stronger materials (as are the baseballs, footballs, and other sports equipment).
55) Speed limits are abolished - everyone has reaction times sufficient to make them redundant. Traffic jams are mostly a thing of the past due to this, and transportation flows much easier.
56) Since people are now smarter, mass transit & renewable energy are now in much higher demand. Pollution is demanded to be reduced, plus it's easier for the smarter engineers and inventors to figure out how to do so.
57) Wars are ended. Religions are abandoned. The Taco Time 'Crisp Burrito' is finally given the praise it so richly deserves. Telecommuting changes the face of the world when it becomes the norm. Children grow up with parents as they're also educated remotely in the same dwelling where their parents work.
58) Life is so good, the 10-hour work week becomes feasible.
59) With all the new senses humans have, art and literature, movies and music, indeed ALL creative endeavours, reach new heights, putting the classical arts to shame.
60) the new 'SmartHuman' (Homo Genius?) recognizes 'Battlestar Galactica' for the brilliant show it really was. And Pops Racer finally figures out how to put a friggin' LOCK on the trunk of the Mach 5. No more stowaways. Spridle and ChimChim can now increase the sugar in their bloodstream anyway, so there's no need to try freaky plans to get candy.
61) the ISA bus and all legacy devices that attach to it, are _finally_ dropped from computers.
Okay, so the last one is a stretch. *shrug*
Does anyone posting on this know ANYTHING about it
on
Pretty Poor Privacy
·
· Score: 5
It sure doesn't look that way!
Okay, with P3P, you are supposed to be able to:
1) Define different things about yourself, such as your age, sex, address, favourite colour, waist size, whatever.
2) Set rules for how each of those piece of information are shared, or even IF they're shared (though there's not much point in defining them if you're never gonna share 'em. So don't define them if you don't want to!)
3) Okay, so you've got your Internet app configured with the information and the rules on how and when and to whom you'll share.
Scenario:
You go to an online retailer (e-tailer, ugh.). This place sells clothes, woohoo! When you hit the site, your internet app does a check - it checks how you set up your P3P settings in that app - do you get notified of where your P3P rules clash, does it autonegotiate sending _some_ of your info based on what the site says it will do with it, or will it pop up a thing that lets you 'dicker' with the site about what you will and won't share? Okay, so if the site says it'll use the info it's requesting for non-personally identifiable marketing purposes (age, sex, favourite colour, nothing that can identify YOU), then hopefully you've set your P3P rules to allow that to happen automagically. The site then has all those nice customized features to match your age, sex, and favourite colour. Nice.
Okay, say what the site wanted wasn't allowed by your P3P rules. Okay, if the internet app has been coded nicely (that's an assumption), then it might pop up something saying, "Site X wants such and such information, but promises it won't be shared with anyone under any circumstances." It's then up to you to say yea or nay, HOPEFULLY to each individual item of information. HOPEFULLY you'll be able to say, check next to each item you're willing to allow. Then the internet app goes back to the site with the additional items you're willing to share. If the site says okie dokie, then you're fine. Or else some features of the site may be disabled. Or perhaps the price of the item is higher (lower price for people willing to share more info? A better way to 'pay' people for sharing information.). Or maybe you don't get access at all, but that brings us to the friggin' POINT of P3P:
You are _optionally_ *INFORMED* of each piece of information the site wants from you, and what they're going to do with it. You don't get that information at many sites now, and you certainly don't negotiate anything. Either you share it, or you don't. This will _NOT_ give out information you don't want given out. Anyone who thinks that knows nothing about P3P. This is about giving INFORMED CONTROL over your information. You don't have to give out anything you don't want to, or you can selectively give out INDIVIDUAL things (there's no "all or nothing" aspect here!!!), to sites, based on what they say they'll do with the info.
P3P _IS_ a good thing. It's GREAT for privacy. It's good for children and other living things. It also stays crunchy in milk, and has a good beat that I can dance to. I give it a 42, Dick.
I just finished reading it, and didn't see anything all that negative about the article at all. In fact, it lists many improvements, although, certainly nothing to warrant a major upgrade in version - more like v5.6, but then again, 5.5 should've been 5.1. Whatever.
At the end of the article, in fact, it says:
--- quote --- The release appears to be solid, and packs a number of additional refinements that are much to specific to detail in this report. --- endquote ---
Not exactly a negative review, by any stretch of the imagination.
I think what this _really_ means is that the full PROJECTED RUN of Athlons for Q2 is already spoken for - NOT that they aren't producing any more until Q3 (that wouldn't make any sense).
I work for an online computer equipment retailer and we have no shortage, and don't foresee any for awhile (and trust me, we'd know better than CNN if an AMD chip shortage was about to hit!).
Keep in mind what Obi-Wan told Luke about certain things being true, "...from a certain point of view.":)
I'm totally addicted to this game on the Mac test machine at work. My best score so far is around 514,000. Yes, I've solved it many times, and have resorted to playing 'Nanosaur Extreme', the version with 5 times dinos roaming around (and 5x the weapon powerups).
The above poster is correct - they DO need to add more to the game, or release the game level editor at the same time - I'd love to be able to make my own levels for the game.
I was rather hoping they could improve the graphics, though - I don't know what the above person is smoking - the engine on it blows, but the game itself is very fun and addictive, so much so that the bad engine & graphics don't much matter.
I just registered my latest domain with Dotster - fast, cheap ($25/year regular, $15 to reserve a domain and use their name servers (another $15 when you want to activate it)), and more convenient and secure methods of changing your records. www.dotster.com
Apparently Network Solutions was legally required to make it possible to change registrars - but they weren't required to make it an easy process, and they definitely didn't! I'd love to change all my other domains over to Dotster, and someday, I may take the time and trouble to do it...
Hugh Jackman, not Jackson. Some Australian actor I've never heard of. Physically, he looks appropriate for the role (check him out at his website hughjackman.com), but I really would've liked to see Ray Liotta as Wolverine. He's got the intensity in spades! I'm not a big Wolverine fan (can't stand him, really), but Ray as Wolverine would've rawked. And someone else already mentioned Iman as Storm - I quite agree! She's got the face AND the voice AND the grace to pull it off. Halle Berry just doesn't look right with white hair. And of course, Patrick Stewart as Professor X is as perfect as Danny DeVito was for Penguin. No other choice at all.
I'm not sure about Anna Paquin as Rogue (please, people, stop spelling her name as ROUGE!), but we'll see - she's a very good actress, so maybe she can pull it off.
Robert A. Heinlein: Door Into Summer, Tunnel in the Sky, Starman Jones, Have Spacesuit Will Travel, Red Planet (Willis!), Space Cadet, Rocketship Galileo, Time for the Stars, The Star Beast, Between Planets, Citizen of the Galaxy, The Rolling Stones (fantastic bio of the band), Farnham's Freehold, Moon is a Harsh Mistress, Starship Troopers, Stranger in a Strange Land, Time Enough for Love. Oh, okay, ANYTHING by Heinlein. He arguably had the most influence on the SF genre of anyone, and for the better, too.
Isaac Asimov: the 'Lucky Starr' books (very Heinlein-ish), I, Robot
Arthur C. Clarke: Islands in the Sky (very Heinlein-ish), Childhood's End, City and the Stars, Rendezvous with Rama
Raymond Z. Gallun - The Planetstrappers (rare but very good and VERY Heinlein-ish)
James Blish - Welcome to Mars (same comments as above)
Anne McAffrey - The Pern books (especially the Harper Hall trilogy, and 'White Dragon'), The Ship Who Sang (& sequels), To Ride Pegasus (& sequels), The Rowan (& sequels), Coelura
Mercedes Lackey - Arrows of the Queen (& sequels), Magic's Pawn, Born to Run (& sequels with and without other authors), The Oathbound (I & II)
Andre Norton - the 'Solar Queen' books
James Schmitz - Witches of Karres (a total classic! hard to find), the Telzey Amberdon books
Joan D. Vinge - Psion & Cat's Paw
Robert Lynn Asprin - the 'Myth' books - very funny
Piers Anthony - the Xanth books and the Apprentice Adept books
Harry Harrison - the Stainless Steel Rat books, The Daleth Effect
Joe Haldeman - The Forever War
James White - the Sector General books
F Paul Wilson - Healer
EE "Doc" Smith - the Skylark series, the Lensman series, Subspace Explorer & Encounter, Spacehounds of IPC, the Vortex Blaster
Edgar Rice Burroughs - the John Carter of Mars books, the Venus books
Poul Anderson - the 'Flandry' books
Joel Rosenberg - Guardians of the Flame series
Douglas Adams - Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy & the next 2 books - skip the rest
Robert Silverberg - Across a Billion Years
Steven Brust - the Vlad Taltos books - great stuff
Elizabeth Moon - the Deed of Paksenarrion books, also some good recent SF novels
David Eddings - The Belgariad, the Malloreon, the Elenium, and anything related to any of these. Great characters.
Marcia J. Bennett - if you can find anything by her like Shadow Singer, Beyond the Draak's Teeth, or Seeking the Dream Brother
Ann Maxwell - the Fire Dancer books - hard to find but worth it
Ray Bradbury - Fahrenheit 451
Orson Scott Card - the Ender books
Frederik Pohl - the Heechee books
C. J. Cherryh - Merchanter's Luck
L. Ron Hubbard - Battlefield Earth
Roger Zelazny - the Amber books
David Brin - The Practice Effect
Aldous Huxley - Brave New World (mmmmm...soma)
That's all I can think of right now. There's LOTS more...
Not too many, that's for sure. But even that's not the entire issue with frames. There's full and partial, good and bad, as with every feature.
Let's, for example, look at Navigator 2 (yes, lots of Nav 2 people still around). If you make a site that uses frames, if you try to do something fancy, you might get bitten by the inability to make 0 pixel margins. Might get bitten pretty badly, and have lots of cute scrollbars show up. I see this all the time on the web by developers who don't know about that (or don't care, or don't have time, etc.)
And then there's different WAYS of implementing this, since it's not standard (margins, that is), IE uses 'topmargin' & 'leftmargin' - Navigator, because Netscape is a stupid company, decided to implement the same feature (much later) as 'marginheight' and 'marginwidth'. Lovely. Okay, so we waste some bandwidth by using both. Not that big a deal, as both seem to work.
Then we come upon BUGS. Okay, lovely, now we get to see that every version of Navigator from 2.x through 4.7 has a bug with fixed-width frames (specify size in pixels). Namely, it doesn't work. This can be very bad if you're depending on it to work. After MUCH harassment, I finally got them to fix it a few builds ago in Mozilla. Oy.
So, where does this leave us with the previous discussion? Namely - sure, you can add features, and claim they're backwards compatible, but that doesn't mean it's going to work the way you want them to, or when you want them to, or with all the browsers you want them to. XHTML is likely a great idea, but claiming that it's going to be backwards compatible is, I think, a big mistake. Maybe we paraphrase the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy phrase, "Mostly Backwards Compatible". Which, of course, is worse than Compatible or not. This leads to a real hodge-podge of crap, and is among the many reasons why there's no program out there capable of creating HTML that's multibrowser (as in platform and generation) compatible.
> He set up and runs the w3c in order to > maintain its sane development.
Gosh, colour me impressed. Did he invent those cool 'Internet monkeys', too?
Whether or not Tim Berners-Lee is a visionary and/or a genius is beside the point. XHTML isn't going to come and save us all from the horrors of HTML, simply because it CAN'T. People don't tend to upgrade their browsers very often, and many times, they CAN'T. I know people who run old Macs who can't even get the Netscape v3 INSTALL program to run, much less the browser itself, simply because of limited resources.
The whole point of the web is to connect people, despite what platform they're on, and that includes OLDER machines, too. Yeah, it'd be great to be able to depend on everyone having 1024x768 with true colour, the latest javascript & JVM, all the fonts in the world, plus completely perfect implementations of JavaScript, Java, and CSS, but it ain't gonna happen. All the footstomping and crying about how big a visionary and genius Tim Berners-Lee is won't change that.
Spoken like someone who, I can only hope, has never done web development for a living.
Anyone who tries to use these things that the W3C says won't break on older browsers is in for a rude shock. I'm sure XHTML will be the same as CSS was, and JavaScript.
1) There will be bugs in implementation. Things will break, even if (or especially if, in the case of MS, most likely) you adhere to the W3C standard.
2) Things won't be fully implemented any time soon (yes, MS, I mean you. You, too, Netscape/Mozilla. You don't think Mozilla is going to be able to implement this right away, do you? Get a clue.)
3) Trying to use these new standards for anything useful means you're likely going to try to depend on them, which means you're going to be doing things that can't BE done in the older standards (else why would you be using the new one?). Once you do this, you lose functionality, or more likely 'break' on the older browsers.
Unless you're willing to make your server detect what browser is hitting your page, and spit out a version specifically for that type of browser, thus defeating this whole nonsense of 'it won't break existing browsers'.
Don't be so naive. The W3C isn't made up of people who have had to make websites for a living under normal conditions, so they've little idea of what's going to work and what won't, so they've no hope in hell of ever coming up with any standard that's going to be backwards completely compatible - BECAUSE IT ISN'T POSSIBLE. They think anytime they come up with a new recommendation, it'll be implemented immediately, and bug-free, too, by gosh, and never realize how bad things can get when things aren't implemented completely, and/or are implemented badly (say hello to CSS!).
> I'm glad bill > decided to step back instead of building a flying robotic > monster and having it lay waste to the campus -- that's what I > would have done.
Is that interlaced, or could this do the 480 progressive (480p) display that DVD is capable of? You'd still have to match it with a DVD player that can output 480p (not many - the Toshiba 5109 comes to mind).
The resolution on the 800 x 640 model is actually 832 (H) x 624 (V), and it's the 'PC Glasstron, PLM-S700'. It also says that it's equivalent to 'only' a 30" screen approximately 6 feet ahead (different from the 52" mentioned in the cheaper, low-res version). Good news - it's got composite video in, woo-hoo!
The problem here is - the TV I want to match up to a Toshiba 5109 is the Toshiba Cinema series 36" TV - 6" larger than the 'apparent' size of this thing, plus the TV is about $600 cheaper. Of course, I'll also be sitting more than 6' away from the TV.:) Then again, this ain't much good for when company comes over. *sigh*
Decisions, decisions.
To check out the expensive version, check this URL.
Slashdot Mirror
Let's just call it a 'Zappa'...abbreviated as 'Z'. the Moon is 1 Z away from the Earth. :)
>Intel has supported 1394 for years
How so? I haven't seen anything from them in the way of support in their chipsets. NOTHING.
>1394 will never be cheap enough for a mouse
It was never _intended_ to be for mice or such things!
USB & FireWire were to be complimentary, only Intel apparently wants to muscle in on FireWire's territory by upping the USB speeds to make it seem like speed is the only advantage FireWire has over USB, which is not the case. They realize that, that's why they're also backing Serial-ATA for things that they realize aren't going to work with USB 2.x (same things that don't work well with USB 1.x).
FireWire is already here, and FireWire devices are already here. The chicken and egg problem of FireWire has been solved - Intel just needs to bite the bullet and put support in their chipsets. As do AMD, VIA, SiS, and ALi.
Whilst on the subject of biting bullets, Intel also needs to bite the RAMBUS bullet - just pay off Rambus and go to DDR full-steam. Ugh.
And AMD needs to stop smoking whatever it is they're smoking and realize that VIA is not up to the task of producing a stable and high-end Athlon chipset, much less a dual-proc one, and make the 760MP chipset in volume. With AMD, you truly CAN afford a two processor system!
Hmmm, this could be the beginning of something interesting...
e r><grep_k ey><|_key>/etc/passwd<enter><cat_key>
:)
;) Shouldn't "Plain Old Text" _mean_ "Plain Old Text?"
Okay, first, you'd likely want keys on your "LinuxCalc" for things like mv, cat, grep, cut, and of course for things like | and <. Lotsa keys, just like any decent HP calculator. (I still LOVE my 11C! - it still works, and it's 15 years old!)
Okay, so, you'd type:
file1<enter>file2<enter><mv_key> for RPN. Simple!
For pipelining, you'd probably have to go backwards:
-d:<enter>-f7<enter><cut_key><|_key>fascdot<ent
I think. The pipelining one is hard, to be sure...you might need a special key to prevent it from calculating those first steps immediately. Of course, maybe that wouldn't be a bad thing. Have it pipe the current value to something else. Certainly RPN would make for an interesting UI...someone up to modifying Bash?
ps That was a pain in the ass to correctly enter all those html codes for the < & > marks. I hope you all appreciate that.
I've noticed that MS Outlook and MS Outlook Express behave quite differently in many aspects ranging from featureset to HOW individual features work, even when they share the same feature.
Case in point: How they differ in handling opening messages. Outlook will keep each subsequent opened message maximized after the first one was, whereas Outlook Express doesn't seem to be able to remember such a simple thing, even after several major revisions. Amazing innovation there, eh?
Whether Linux/BSD apps wind up 'looking' the same as Windows apps is not as important as the question, "Will they WORK better than Windows apps?" Even aside from the feature-set, do things make sense? Are they consistent? Are options located in the menu pull-down common sense would suggest, or in the Microsoft 'innovative' way?
I love many of the features of Outlook, but hate how inconsistent many things are, and some of the simple lacks are quite astounding. I don't even use probably more than a third of the features it has, either, and I run into things all the time that bug me about it, which I cannot change. Simple things like automatically moving a particular account's email into a specific folder. Outlook _Express_ has had that feature for a VERY long time (since it's first version, perhaps), yet the supposedly more-robust product, Outlook, does not. WTF?! People say MS is good at code reuse, but you certainly can't tell it from Outlook and Outlook express. Maybe they share crappy HTML renderers, but certainly not many other basic things.
I have high hopes for Evolution and other upcoming email clients on Linux/BSD, simply for the fact that those platforms encourage software that is much more configurable than your average Windows app - Choice is Good, and is pervasive on those platforms.
I think many of the 'look' parts of most Windows apps have been shown to have good usability (the looks of the widget set in particular), and I'd like to see all the GOOD stuff brought over to Linux/*BSD for sure. In particular, I'd love to see that completely STUPID diamond-shaped radio button go the hell away - it's terrible from a usability standpoint. The round one from the Windows world (or wherever it originated) is great, and MUCH easier to determine the state of than the diamond one.
The HTML-as-application-interface idea is, IMO, quite horrible as it's so incredibly slow. It's slow in MS Internet Explorer, it's slow on Mozilla, it's slow on MS's new MediaPlayer (in fact, there's it's AMAZINGLY slow). It's just slow. I don't understand why those developers don't notice it. I'm on a 400MHz machine with 128Meg of RAM and a nice video card, and it's still friggin' slow. "Long live Galeon!" is what I say.
I originally thought the whole XUL thing in Mozilla was a great idea until I experienced it's speed. Or lack thereof. I know there are supposed to be speed enhancements coming up in a few more milestones, but I dunno - if it's THAT slow now, I'm not sure how much faster it could get - I'm quite doubtful it can get up to the speed where I wouldn't notice the difference between it and a regular app, and that's the speed I want. Extensive customization is _fantastic_ in a UI, but not if it comes at such a heavy speed penalty.
I think I measure the sophistication of a good GUI in these areas: extent of customizability, consistency, features, speed and usability. You can skimp on a few of them to some degree, but you need to make it a pretty well-rounded experience if you want to succeed. I'd say features and usability are typically the things that fall by the wayside in most GUIs, and features come in over time (and usability usually goes away over time - see also: Photoshop - too many features in a UI that was never designed to handle that many). With customizability often comes speed-dehancements, it seems, and with many features comes degradation of consistency, unless you're willing to restart your UI from the ground up when it becomes necessary. Photoshop could _certainly_ use that!
Another thing would be meeting the expectations of the target platform. Again, Photoshop is a great example of bad UI design. Photoshop started out as a Mac app, and you can still, to this day, see LOTS of interface weirdness in that application on the Windows platform that you'll never see in any other Windows application. There are numerous examples of weird widgets that have VASTLY superior analogues in standard windows widgets, but you'll likely never see them in Photoshop, I bet. Easy cross platform development is nice, but it should _NEVER_ get in the way of a good and consistent UI. EVER.
Okay, enough ranting for one night.
.files are lovely compared to binary data files, sure, but you completely miss the point. with .files, there's no telling the format of the file, the file's location in relation to the application, etc. With a 'Registry' using XML data format, there would always be a common place for an application to look for things. Applications would still store their own settings themselves, but they'd put _references_ (hence: META DATA) in the Registry so OTHER apps could find them correctly. This proposal isn't necessarily to make something possible that isn't possible now, it's just so absurdly complex that noone in their right mind would try it now. Hence lots of weird tricks to get around multiple libs, etc. It's just a pain in the ass, and an unnecessary one. The 'UNIX Registry' wouldn't prevent any existing apps from working, and it certainly wouldn't be 'required' for an app to make use of it, which is the beauty of it - completely compatible with all existing apps. But, future apps _could_ be made to use it in the future. The perfect implementation, really.
:)
ASCII format vs XML: You apparently don't know what XML is, I guess. ASCII is a file format. XML is not. You can put XML in an ASCII file format, and that is, actually, what I would propose for this 'UNIX Registry'. You should _always_ be able to look at this stuff with a text editor. Or with vi.
I was under the impression that the Microsoft Registry was just their IMPLEMENTATION of the registry concept. A very badly-implemented one, to boot.
I think the concept of a registry is a great one - but certainly not the way MS did it!
Here's a little list I've been working on about features for a UNIX registry:
1 - Meta-Data Only!
2 - XML format
3 - Access granted through system only
a) This ensures no 'hidden' entries in registry
4 - Cached for performance benefits (?)
5 - Roll-back features included to return to any previous state
6 - Ability to back up or import any desired application's registry entry
7 - Ability to delete any desired application's registry entry
8 - Versioning, Integrity & Duplication checking included - duplicate entries not allowed!
a) Duplicate entries not allowed
b) Permission system on how to handle version conflicts
9 - Permission system for both read & write access to the registry
Just an idea...but I think it'd make software development a bit easier - you can check on place for where libraries & other things are installed, get version numbers, easily manage multiple versions of libraries, etc.
See ArcadePC , a Cabinet/PC/control system, all packaged and ready to purchase. Small & large versions available. I think they're working on a cocktail-type platform, too. Kinda pricey, though. The standard ArcadePC with a 19" monitor & a mini-cabinet is around $800, and the one with a 27" monitor & a full-size cabinet is around $2000.
If you just want the control panel, they're using the Hot Rod , available in 2 versions, that you can use with your current computer. The 'classic' is around $180, and the SE (with more buttons, same layout as many modern coin-op control panels), is around $200. They connect via a PS/2 port, but mention on their site that USB support is in the works (that's what I'm waiting for).
> I look at routers configured by pointing a
> www browser at them
What's wrong with you? That's a _GREAT_ way to do it! Because you know what, when you look at that 'install disk' the company sends along with said router, it's a good bet the install program will be multiplatform - Windows 98 and NT. Maybe Windows 2000 if you're lucky. It's a lot easier for the company who makes said router to put a web interface on the beast than worry about an install program for Windows 98, Win NT, Win 2000, Linux, FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, OS/2, and whatever else is out there. Everybody's got a web browser these days. The only 'trick' to it is making the web pages coming out of the box be VERY standards-compliant (OLD standards, at that!).
> I'd like for them to explain how "using System;"
:)
> is better than "#include ".
Simple - it's easier to type.
Isn't that the ultimate measure of a language's true worth and ability?
Now is a great time for it - get a nice stable version out there before all hell breaks loose. Also, I believe Patrick is working on a new installer, etc, for the next major revision of Slackware, so there's a lot more that'll be new in v8 (or whatever version it is) than 'just' a new kernel. At least, that's the impression I get.
Better than yet another distribution, I find the Linux from Scratch project quite interesting...
> It wouldn't suprise me to find little chunks of
:)
> "how to grow a tail" or "how to put bright blue
> pigment in your buttocks" in human DNA.
Blue buttocks - oh hell yes! I could change my name to 'Smurf-Butt'. Most excellent.
Even better - it's time to haul out those interesting science fiction books of yesteryear and find out what other cool ideas we can mine, such as:
1) Distribute the function of the heart throughout the body in smaller 'modules'. Shot in the chest? Not as big a worry...
2) Faster healing
3) Ability to regrow lost limbs
4) Better senses
5) Gills for the water-freaks out there. Hell, that would truely be awesome. Guess what - lots more usable living space on the planet just opened up - it's a little wet, but that's no longer a concern, is it? LET my castle sink into the swamp! (but NO SINGING)
6) Harder bones
7) Built-in smog/cigarette smoke filters - or filters for anything toxic. Same thing for what we ingest - e. coli & other things filtered out - lead contamination filtered. Lots of possibilities here.
8) Ability to consciously control the melanin levels in your skin - lighten or tan right away!
9) TRULY change the colour of your hair and eyes.
10) Control hair growth patterns - want JUST a mustache, and only where you want it? No problemo. The final solution to shaving. Nice.
11) Grow your hair faster - or slower.
12) Body sculpting - fat loss, muscle building, etc. Of course.
13) Height/weight adjustment
14) Change the body so we metabolize *all* food - never go to the bathroom again! Time to change the exits.
15) Natural body/breath odor eaters...I remember a novel where a artificially-created 'pleasure' female was made so that it smelled like flowers when she farted. Heh. Good planning.
16) Stronger fingernails.
17) Better skin - better at resisting cold, heat, pressure, pain, etc.
18) Upgrade the information processing capabilities - make the brain work faster, make the eyes/brain bit faster so you can see more 'frames per second'. Better hearing range - have better hearing than animals! Not sure how much that might be desirable, but you'd get used to it. I remember another novel ('Telempath', I think, by Spider Robinson), where a madman releases a chemical/virus/whatever that gives humans a sense of smell equivalent or superior to dogs - most people go insane from sensory overload, and society is forever changed for those who survive. Interesting read.
19) Okay, I want cool eyes like cats. Those just look gnarly. *meow*
20) The above-mentioned tail could be quite handy! Good for picking up chicks, I bet.
21) Fangs. 'nuff said.
22) Claws. Sure. More like Spiderman 2099, less like Wolverine
23) Hey, speaking of Spidey - how'bout natural webshooters? Nice if you fall off a building or something.
24) Better control over vocal chords - everyone becomes a fantastic singer - well, everyone has the EQUIPMENT. Still gotta get some training.
25) Total control over reproduction - sex without sperm production and egg creation.
26) Colour me like a zebra! Or not. Maybe more like a white tiger.
27) Hey - maybe I could look like one of those dancers from Cats! THAT would RAWK.
28) Read another book where they re-engineer soldiers - harden the skin, better eyesight, CNS (central nervous system) implants for access to many things. Also made the penis & scrotum 'retractible'. Okay, weird, but I'd probably opt for that.
29) hey, let's make those fangs optionally poisonous while we're at it.
30) Tentacles! With suckers..."Hi, my name is Cala. Last name Mari."
31) Feathers. Or scales. Leaves? Hmm. Great camouflage possibilities here...
32) Ohhh...poisonous spines - like a porcupine! A whole new age in warfare...
33) Maybe 'Skunk Power'!
34) Okay, now wings would be interesting - even if they're just decorative. Perhaps visions of 'Angels' in the past were just visions of the future! Think about it...you could _really_ screw with the religious folks here...
35) Everyone has total recall! And I'm not talking about that bad Arnold movie, either...
36) Radiation-proof - good for interplanetary travel. Put your DNA in constant 'Diagnostic Mode' - any damage done is immediately corrected.
37) Abilities associated with idiot-savante's - lightning calculation abilities, etc.
38) Noone is ever tone-deaf. Ever.
39) Everyone hates country music. And disco.
40) Control over metabolizing alcohol - no more drunk driving with 'InstaSober(tm) Genes from RonCo'!
41) Control over sneezing, hiccupping, vomiting, etc.
42) Control your blood sugar. No more roadrage! No more Diabetes.
43) Adrenaline control. Caffeine industry is now gone. Nice knowin' ya, Starbucks. Same for the rest of the drug industries. Columbia becomes dirt-poor again. The drug cartels start investing heavily in Celera. Celera HQ is moved to Bogata.
44) No more need for computer-generated creatures in future science fiction movies. Actors can control their own forms and voices! Pixar and ILM go bankrupt.
45) Now that everyone is so smart, the world realizes that open source software is the only way to go! The Penguin enjoys new-found popularity at zoos.
46) Mermaids become reality! Mermen, too (Aquaman!)
47) Everyone now has perfect balance and coordination - sales of inline skates, surfboards, and other such products skyrocket.
48) Telco's are pressured by law to provide fiber-optic OC48 speed access to each computer - 56K modems are just too slow for the 'brain-enhanced' public of the modern era. People can read faster than 56K now!
49) 3D chess replaces regular chess in all major tournaments. Regular chess is just too easy - commonly played only in preschool.
50) Nictitating membranes. Oh yeah.
51) And Vulcan ears, too!
52) Women become much happier with new 'Nimble-Tongue'(tm) Genes for men.
53) the N.O.W. Genetic Research Centre funds 'Vaginal Teeth' genes...ouch!
54) Basketball baskets are quadrupled in height. Football fields are much bigger. Baseball bats are made out of much stronger materials (as are the baseballs, footballs, and other sports equipment).
55) Speed limits are abolished - everyone has reaction times sufficient to make them redundant. Traffic jams are mostly a thing of the past due to this, and transportation flows much easier.
56) Since people are now smarter, mass transit & renewable energy are now in much higher demand. Pollution is demanded to be reduced, plus it's easier for the smarter engineers and inventors to figure out how to do so.
57) Wars are ended. Religions are abandoned. The Taco Time 'Crisp Burrito' is finally given the praise it so richly deserves. Telecommuting changes the face of the world when it becomes the norm. Children grow up with parents as they're also educated remotely in the same dwelling where their parents work.
58) Life is so good, the 10-hour work week becomes feasible.
59) With all the new senses humans have, art and literature, movies and music, indeed ALL creative endeavours, reach new heights, putting the classical arts to shame.
60) the new 'SmartHuman' (Homo Genius?) recognizes 'Battlestar Galactica' for the brilliant show it really was. And Pops Racer finally figures out how to put a friggin' LOCK on the trunk of the Mach 5. No more stowaways. Spridle and ChimChim can now increase the sugar in their bloodstream anyway, so there's no need to try freaky plans to get candy.
61) the ISA bus and all legacy devices that attach to it, are _finally_ dropped from computers.
Okay, so the last one is a stretch. *shrug*
It sure doesn't look that way!
Okay, with P3P, you are supposed to be able to:
1) Define different things about yourself, such as your age, sex, address, favourite colour, waist size, whatever.
2) Set rules for how each of those piece of information are shared, or even IF they're shared (though there's not much point in defining them if you're never gonna share 'em. So don't define them if you don't want to!)
3) Okay, so you've got your Internet app configured with the information and the rules on how and when and to whom you'll share.
Scenario:
You go to an online retailer (e-tailer, ugh.). This place sells clothes, woohoo! When you hit the site, your internet app does a check - it checks how you set up your P3P settings in that app - do you get notified of where your P3P rules clash, does it autonegotiate sending _some_ of your info based on what the site says it will do with it, or will it pop up a thing that lets you 'dicker' with the site about what you will and won't share? Okay, so if the site says it'll use the info it's requesting for non-personally identifiable marketing purposes (age, sex, favourite colour, nothing that can identify YOU), then hopefully you've set your P3P rules to allow that to happen automagically. The site then has all those nice customized features to match your age, sex, and favourite colour. Nice.
Okay, say what the site wanted wasn't allowed by your P3P rules. Okay, if the internet app has been coded nicely (that's an assumption), then it might pop up something saying, "Site X wants such and such information, but promises it won't be shared with anyone under any circumstances." It's then up to you to say yea or nay, HOPEFULLY to each individual item of information. HOPEFULLY you'll be able to say, check next to each item you're willing to allow. Then the internet app goes back to the site with the additional items you're willing to share. If the site says okie dokie, then you're fine. Or else some features of the site may be disabled. Or perhaps the price of the item is higher (lower price for people willing to share more info? A better way to 'pay' people for sharing information.). Or maybe you don't get access at all, but that brings us to the friggin' POINT of P3P:
You are _optionally_ *INFORMED* of each piece of information the site wants from you, and what they're going to do with it. You don't get that information at many sites now, and you certainly don't negotiate anything. Either you share it, or you don't. This will _NOT_ give out information you don't want given out. Anyone who thinks that knows nothing about P3P. This is about giving INFORMED CONTROL over your information. You don't have to give out anything you don't want to, or you can selectively give out INDIVIDUAL things (there's no "all or nothing" aspect here!!!), to sites, based on what they say they'll do with the info.
P3P _IS_ a good thing. It's GREAT for privacy. It's good for children and other living things. It also stays crunchy in milk, and has a good beat that I can dance to. I give it a 42, Dick.
I just finished reading it, and didn't see anything all that negative about the article at all. In fact, it lists many improvements, although, certainly nothing to warrant a major upgrade in version - more like v5.6, but then again, 5.5 should've been 5.1. Whatever.
At the end of the article, in fact, it says:
--- quote ---
The release appears to be solid, and packs a number of additional refinements that are much to specific to detail in this report.
--- endquote ---
Not exactly a negative review, by any stretch of the imagination.
I think what this _really_ means is that the full
:)
PROJECTED RUN of Athlons for Q2 is already
spoken for - NOT that they aren't producing any
more until Q3 (that wouldn't make any sense).
I work for an online computer equipment retailer
and we have no shortage, and don't foresee any
for awhile (and trust me, we'd know better than
CNN if an AMD chip shortage was about to hit!).
Keep in mind what Obi-Wan told Luke about certain
things being true, "...from a certain point of
view."
I'm totally addicted to this game on the Mac test machine at work. My best score so far is around 514,000. Yes, I've solved it many times, and have resorted to playing 'Nanosaur Extreme', the version with 5 times dinos roaming around (and 5x the weapon powerups).
The above poster is correct - they DO need to add more to the game, or release the game level editor at the same time - I'd love to be able to make my own levels for the game.
I was rather hoping they could improve the graphics, though - I don't know what the above person is smoking - the engine on it blows, but the game itself is very fun and addictive, so much so that the bad engine & graphics don't much matter.
I just registered my latest domain with Dotster - fast, cheap ($25/year regular, $15 to reserve a domain and use their name servers (another $15 when you want to activate it)), and more convenient and secure methods of changing your records. www.dotster.com
Apparently Network Solutions was legally required to make it possible to change registrars - but they weren't required to make it an easy process, and they definitely didn't! I'd love to change all my other domains over to Dotster, and someday, I may take the time and trouble to do it...
Hugh Jackman, not Jackson. Some Australian actor I've never heard of. Physically, he looks appropriate for the role (check him out at his website hughjackman.com), but I really would've liked to see Ray Liotta as Wolverine. He's got the intensity in spades! I'm not a big Wolverine fan (can't stand him, really), but Ray as Wolverine would've rawked. And someone else already mentioned Iman as Storm - I quite agree! She's got the face AND the voice AND the grace to pull it off. Halle Berry just doesn't look right with white hair. And of course, Patrick Stewart as Professor X is as perfect as Danny DeVito was for Penguin. No other choice at all.
I'm not sure about Anna Paquin as Rogue (please, people, stop spelling her name as ROUGE!), but we'll see - she's a very good actress, so maybe she can pull it off.
Robert A. Heinlein: Door Into Summer, Tunnel in the Sky, Starman Jones, Have Spacesuit Will Travel, Red Planet (Willis!), Space Cadet, Rocketship Galileo, Time for the Stars, The Star Beast, Between Planets, Citizen of the Galaxy, The Rolling Stones (fantastic bio of the band), Farnham's Freehold, Moon is a Harsh Mistress, Starship Troopers, Stranger in a Strange Land, Time Enough for Love. Oh, okay, ANYTHING by Heinlein. He arguably had the most influence on the SF genre of anyone, and for the better, too.
Isaac Asimov: the 'Lucky Starr' books (very Heinlein-ish), I, Robot
Arthur C. Clarke: Islands in the Sky (very Heinlein-ish), Childhood's End, City and the Stars, Rendezvous with Rama
Raymond Z. Gallun - The Planetstrappers (rare but very good and VERY Heinlein-ish)
James Blish - Welcome to Mars (same comments as above)
Anne McAffrey - The Pern books (especially the Harper Hall trilogy, and 'White Dragon'), The Ship Who Sang (& sequels), To Ride Pegasus (& sequels), The Rowan (& sequels), Coelura
Mercedes Lackey - Arrows of the Queen (& sequels), Magic's Pawn, Born to Run (& sequels with and without other authors), The Oathbound (I & II)
Andre Norton - the 'Solar Queen' books
James Schmitz - Witches of Karres (a total classic! hard to find), the Telzey Amberdon books
Joan D. Vinge - Psion & Cat's Paw
Robert Lynn Asprin - the 'Myth' books - very funny
Piers Anthony - the Xanth books and the Apprentice Adept books
Harry Harrison - the Stainless Steel Rat books, The Daleth Effect
Joe Haldeman - The Forever War
James White - the Sector General books
F Paul Wilson - Healer
EE "Doc" Smith - the Skylark series, the Lensman series, Subspace Explorer & Encounter, Spacehounds of IPC, the Vortex Blaster
Edgar Rice Burroughs - the John Carter of Mars books, the Venus books
Poul Anderson - the 'Flandry' books
Joel Rosenberg - Guardians of the Flame series
Douglas Adams - Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy & the next 2 books - skip the rest
Robert Silverberg - Across a Billion Years
Steven Brust - the Vlad Taltos books - great stuff
Elizabeth Moon - the Deed of Paksenarrion books, also some good recent SF novels
David Eddings - The Belgariad, the Malloreon, the Elenium, and anything related to any of these. Great characters.
Marcia J. Bennett - if you can find anything by her like Shadow Singer, Beyond the Draak's Teeth,
or Seeking the Dream Brother
Ann Maxwell - the Fire Dancer books - hard to find but worth it
Ray Bradbury - Fahrenheit 451
Orson Scott Card - the Ender books
Frederik Pohl - the Heechee books
C. J. Cherryh - Merchanter's Luck
L. Ron Hubbard - Battlefield Earth
Roger Zelazny - the Amber books
David Brin - The Practice Effect
Aldous Huxley - Brave New World (mmmmm...soma)
That's all I can think of right now. There's LOTS more...
Not too many, that's for sure. But even that's not the entire issue with frames. There's full and partial, good and bad, as with every feature.
Let's, for example, look at Navigator 2 (yes, lots of Nav 2 people still around). If you make a site that uses frames, if you try to do something fancy, you might get bitten by the inability to make 0 pixel margins. Might get bitten pretty badly, and have lots of cute scrollbars show up. I see this all the time on the web by developers who don't know about that (or don't care, or don't have time, etc.)
And then there's different WAYS of implementing this, since it's not standard (margins, that is), IE uses 'topmargin' & 'leftmargin' - Navigator, because Netscape is a stupid company, decided to implement the same feature (much later) as 'marginheight' and 'marginwidth'. Lovely. Okay, so we waste some bandwidth by using both. Not that big a deal, as both seem to work.
Then we come upon BUGS. Okay, lovely, now we get to see that every version of Navigator from 2.x through 4.7 has a bug with fixed-width frames (specify size in pixels). Namely, it doesn't work. This can be very bad if you're depending on it to work. After MUCH harassment, I finally got them to fix it a few builds ago in Mozilla. Oy.
So, where does this leave us with the previous discussion? Namely - sure, you can add features, and claim they're backwards compatible, but that doesn't mean it's going to work the way you want them to, or when you want them to, or with all the browsers you want them to. XHTML is likely a great idea, but claiming that it's going to be backwards compatible is, I think, a big mistake. Maybe we paraphrase the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy phrase, "Mostly Backwards Compatible". Which, of course, is worse than Compatible or not. This leads to a real hodge-podge of crap, and is among the many reasons why there's no program out there capable of creating HTML that's multibrowser (as in platform and generation) compatible.
Good thing I prefer a text editor, anyway.
> Invented the goddamn web, fool.
> He set up and runs the w3c in order to
> maintain its sane development.
Gosh, colour me impressed. Did he invent those cool 'Internet monkeys', too?
Whether or not Tim Berners-Lee is a visionary and/or a genius is beside the point. XHTML isn't going to come and save us all from the horrors of HTML, simply because it CAN'T. People don't tend to upgrade their browsers very often, and many times, they CAN'T. I know people who run old Macs who can't even get the Netscape v3 INSTALL program to run, much less the browser itself, simply because of limited resources.
The whole point of the web is to connect people, despite what platform they're on, and that includes OLDER machines, too. Yeah, it'd be great to be able to depend on everyone having 1024x768 with true colour, the latest javascript & JVM, all the fonts in the world, plus completely perfect implementations of JavaScript, Java, and CSS, but it ain't gonna happen. All the footstomping and crying about how big a visionary and genius Tim Berners-Lee is won't change that.
> Reread the post - I said that XHTML allows
> you to extend the tagset without breaking
> the standard - I never mentioned older browsers.
Ah, my mistake, you were talking about the standard, I was talking about something useful (implementation). My mistake.
It's a sad day when reality is marked as 'flamebait'. I guess there aren't any professional web developers moderating lately. *shrug*
Whatever.
Spoken like someone who, I can only hope, has never done web development for a living.
:)
Anyone who tries to use these things that the W3C says won't break on older browsers is in for a rude shock. I'm sure XHTML will be the same as CSS was, and JavaScript.
1) There will be bugs in implementation. Things will break, even if (or especially if, in the case of MS, most likely) you adhere to the W3C standard.
2) Things won't be fully implemented any time soon (yes, MS, I mean you. You, too, Netscape/Mozilla. You don't think Mozilla is going to be able to implement this right away, do you? Get a clue.)
3) Trying to use these new standards for anything useful means you're likely going to try to depend on them, which means you're going to be doing things that can't BE done in the older standards (else why would you be using the new one?). Once you do this, you lose functionality, or more likely 'break' on the older browsers.
Unless you're willing to make your server detect what browser is hitting your page, and spit out a version specifically for that type of browser, thus defeating this whole nonsense of 'it won't break existing browsers'.
Don't be so naive. The W3C isn't made up of people who have had to make websites for a living under normal conditions, so they've little idea of what's going to work and what won't, so they've no hope in hell of ever coming up with any standard that's going to be backwards completely compatible - BECAUSE IT ISN'T POSSIBLE. They think anytime they come up with a new recommendation, it'll be implemented immediately, and bug-free, too, by gosh, and never realize how bad things can get when things aren't implemented completely, and/or are implemented badly (say hello to CSS!).
IMO, anyway.
> I'm glad bill
:)
> decided to step back instead of building a flying robotic
> monster and having it lay waste to the campus -- that's what I
> would have done.
What do you think Windows 2000 is?!
Is that interlaced, or could this do the 480 progressive (480p) display that DVD is capable of? You'd still have to match it with a DVD player that can output 480p (not many - the Toshiba 5109 comes to mind).
:) Then again, this ain't much good for when company comes over. *sigh*
The resolution on the 800 x 640 model is actually 832 (H) x 624 (V), and it's the 'PC Glasstron, PLM-S700'. It also says that it's equivalent to 'only' a 30" screen approximately 6 feet ahead (different from the 52" mentioned in the cheaper, low-res version). Good news - it's got composite video in, woo-hoo!
The problem here is - the TV I want to match up to a Toshiba 5109 is the Toshiba Cinema series 36" TV - 6" larger than the 'apparent' size of this thing, plus the TV is about $600 cheaper. Of course, I'll also be sitting more than 6' away from the TV.
Decisions, decisions.
To check out the expensive version, check this URL .