You can read gifs without violating the patent. Only writing them violates the patent. So this is not a problem for programs displaying images or translating them to another format like png.
Huh? The Mac version of IE probably works with fewer sites than Safari. Macintosh IE has nothing to do with the Windows IE that all sites are "designed for".
You seem to have the terms confused. GC refers to algorithims where you know for a fact that some data is not needed ever again. Caching refers to algorithims where you *might* need the data again, but you can also recreate it if it is thrown away. Many programs will do this with their own memory and data structures, and certainly the algorithims used there are relevant to this, but it is still called "caching", not GC.
Wrong. There is in fact some piece of paper for every votor. Printouts from the system are useless, since they will just repeat what the system said the vote was, and can't prove they counted it correctly.
The Marketing and Advertising divisions of Microsoft dictate the direction of the company
Unfortunately I don't think Micorsoft has a monopoly there. It's probably far from the worst company in this respect
I certainly see some occasional signs that a programmer or other intelligent person was allowed to invent something and implement it without product testing and management review. The shrinking of icons down to 16x16 in Windows 95 is probably the best example, you can be sure management and advertising (who think pictures==goodness) probably fought this like crazy, but somebody intelligent realized that those pictures were useless and got as close to getting rid of them as they could. We are all better off because of the bravery of this person (nobody here wants to admit it, but Unix/X had bloated icons as well and they did not get taskbar-like ones until after Win95 demonstrated them).
Is there any easy way a company can make IE only able to load in-house pages, and force another browser to be used for the outside web? This would allow those IE-specific things to be used for work, but avoid exploits from outside infecting the network. Seems like a big win for any company. Can this be done to Windows? Or to their firewall or something?
Though Apache is demonstratably better than IIS, and there is plenty of proof that anything database, filesystem or network related is far better in Linux than in Windows, I am uncertain about desktop software.
My impression is that the stuff being forced onto the Linux desktop is as huge of a bloated and hacked mess as anything coming out of Redmond, and that only the variety and minor market share of any of them is preventing exploits as bad or worse than anything in IE. Though I doubt anything on Linux is as bad as Outlook, but neither is anything else from Redmond that bad.
The New York Times has announced a new idemification program. For only $100 extra over the cost of the paper, you are protected when reading the Times against any legal liability in cases that one or more of the articles is plagurized. Feel safer when reading the Times! Now your legal department can feel safe letting a copy be left in the break room at work! All for $100 dollars. PS: better stop reading those cheapo little papers who can't afford this idemification program, you could be sued!
I think the Windows taskbar *did* get taller automatically at one time as more things were added to it. They turned this off in Win95. You can still manually make it bigger, drag the top edge up, though I have never seen this used for real, but certainly seen screwed up WIndows desktops where the user has done this accidentally.
Personally I don't like the grouping at all. I don't like it in KDE, either.
The reason X works badly has nothing to do with the one extra context switch per action. In fact if X is just drawing and avoiding the problem calls, it has far fewer context switches than Windows, since the drawing calls are all stuffed in a buffer and sent as one block (it's possible Windows is doing this in modern versions, too, I don't know).
The problems are:
1. There are two unsynchronized processes talking to the window server: the "window manager" which draws the borders, and the application, which draws the internals. Imagine if just one program sent the command to make the window bigger and stuffed into the same buffer the instructions to draw the all-new window border and contents, right on the heels of the make-window-bigger call. This is what Windows effectively has, that X lacks. And it is not going to be fixed until we admit that it is ok for programs to draw their own window borders.
2. There is a serious lack of useful drawing primitives, meaning that X programs that want to look good have to send entire images of their windows to the server. Now GDI32 is not a lot better, but it does support rotated and scaled fonts, drawing images without having to figure out the "visual" and with *one* call, and the new ones support alpha-based compositing (well, kinda), and the font drawing was switched to antialiased in a way that let old programs use the antialiased fonts. And hundreds of other indications that the people trying to fix GDI32 are somewhat more active and smarter than the X consortium, which did nothing!
Like many people pointed out, this allows a toolbar space to be added below (or above) an HDTV image that has been enlarged to fill the screen left to right.
Also European cinema is 1.66:1 and will fit on this screen, with a slightly thinner space for a toolbar.
I believe the "NO WARRANTY" stuff is unrelated to the GPL. You will find identical wording on commercial, BSD, and public domain software, and on sample code distributed with closed programming environments. Whether this is valid or not is probably unrelated to whether the GPL works or not.
My opinion is that if software writers were liable for damages it would be the end of the software industry, including open source. Microsoft may last the longest but even it would be destroyed by litigation. All software would have to be written by people who keep their identities secret. I guess it would be open source, but you would lose the ability to be publicly known as the author of it, and there would be no clear way to communicate fixes back to the author.
In all liklihood, the point of money/efficiency tradeoffs is probably well before anything is put in orbit. But after that I don't think arguing efficiency makes any sense.
If you actually paid for something in orbit, increasing it's size and power output is probably relativly inexpensive. Assumming the sattelite costs 50 billion dollars, I would not be suprised if a 10x larger sattelite would instead cost about 60 billion dollars. Therefore if the sattellite is worth 50 billion (a big if!), it is easy to refute any efficency questions because of the moderate cost of building larger.
On earth efficiency is important as the inefficient portion means pollution (heat at least), and likely means the size of system has to be larger and take up valuable land space. Neither of these are a problem for a space platform.
Whoops! Never mind, it was too early in the morning. b/s^2 is NOT (b/s)^2. Might as well admit I'm an idiot.
Anyway, whether right or wrong, the thinking of the distributors is that somehow everybody interested in a documentary will go to the one theatre it is playing in, and increasing the number of theatres will not increase revenue. Why they don't think the fans of White Chicks will travel to one theatre as well is a question to ask them.
I'm not sure what you are getting at. That number is the same as (boxoffice/screens)^2. All you are implying is that the boxoffice/screen is higher for 911 than White Chicks, and if you square that ratio you get an even bigger number. I certainly agree that the money made per screen for 911 is much higher and they really should consider putting it on more screens, but I don't see the point in squaring the results. Some opponent could say "in square-root land, 911 only makes 1.1 times as much as White Chicks..."
What does the typical XP user do when they buy a new scanner / camera / printer / mouse / keyboard / whatever? Don't they work right away in almost all cases after you plug it in and possibly reboot the machine? Is there any way to convince the public to at least try it before they stick the CD that came with it in their machine?
I would guess that getting a mirror or other power relay up there so closely equals the difficulty of getting a solar array and transmitter up that there is no reason to consider this idea.
Such a wire would be too heavy to hold up with the space elevator cable. Don't forget it is 28,000 miles long. It would double or more the mass of the cable. Thats why the proposals for the elevators is to have them powered by lasers or on-board power sources, rather than with power sent up the cable.
Though I kind of doubt these satellites are feasable, arguing about their efficiency is ridiculous.
If they lose 99% of the energy hitting them, just build them 100 times larger. The only selling point of them is that, if it is possible to build them at all, there is probably no size limit, and the costs are likely to drop considerably per area as the size goes up.
He might as well argue that their efficency is really really terrible because the sun puts out a hundred billion billion times as much energy as a solar power sattelite would collect.
There are other open source projects moving just as fast as Linux, or faster. Browsers? Movie playback? The infrastructure for the KDE/Gnome desktops? Conversely Linux itself is huge, if you read the LWN weekly kernel reports, how many times has some new change been described starting with "this has not changed in many years and has gotten really old and unstable, so..." Some parts of Linux are going slowly.
The truth is that you should immediatly discount about 95% of the open source projects that are announced, as nothing will be done (counting them would be like counting every idea suggested and then retracted in a Microsoft conference room as a "slow Microsoft project"). If you then plotted all the rest in some sort of fashion of "speed of development" big things like Linux itself would smear out, depending on how finely you divided it, I would expect Linux would cover at least half the range, and would be hard to distinguish from most other non-zero-speed projects.
The proposals all assumme a length of cable beyond geosynchronous orbit, and possibly left over machinery from the cable building, would serve as the counterweight.
A longer cable is actually useful, as it can be used to throw things out of Earth's orbit, such as to get to other planets.
I would guess you mean that a "_prop = 0;" is needed after the delete. If you meant something else you have not provided enough information (such as the rest of the program).
Assumming it was the delete, the total debugging time for me was 5.5 seconds. Determining that any other solution (like changing the #if 0 to #if 1) is impossible to prove from the information given took a good deal longer, but that is irrelevant.
Slashdot Mirror
You can read gifs without violating the patent. Only writing them violates the patent. So this is not a problem for programs displaying images or translating them to another format like png.
Huh? The Mac version of IE probably works with fewer sites than Safari. Macintosh IE has nothing to do with the Windows IE that all sites are "designed for".
You seem to have the terms confused. GC refers to algorithims where you know for a fact that some data is not needed ever again. Caching refers to algorithims where you *might* need the data again, but you can also recreate it if it is thrown away. Many programs will do this with their own memory and data structures, and certainly the algorithims used there are relevant to this, but it is still called "caching", not GC.
Wrong. There is in fact some piece of paper for every votor. Printouts from the system are useless, since they will just repeat what the system said the vote was, and can't prove they counted it correctly.
Unfortunately I don't think Micorsoft has a monopoly there. It's probably far from the worst company in this respect
I certainly see some occasional signs that a programmer or other intelligent person was allowed to invent something and implement it without product testing and management review. The shrinking of icons down to 16x16 in Windows 95 is probably the best example, you can be sure management and advertising (who think pictures==goodness) probably fought this like crazy, but somebody intelligent realized that those pictures were useless and got as close to getting rid of them as they could. We are all better off because of the bravery of this person (nobody here wants to admit it, but Unix/X had bloated icons as well and they did not get taskbar-like ones until after Win95 demonstrated them).
Is there any easy way a company can make IE only able to load in-house pages, and force another browser to be used for the outside web? This would allow those IE-specific things to be used for work, but avoid exploits from outside infecting the network. Seems like a big win for any company. Can this be done to Windows? Or to their firewall or something?
Though Apache is demonstratably better than IIS, and there is plenty of proof that anything database, filesystem or network related is far better in Linux than in Windows, I am uncertain about desktop software.
My impression is that the stuff being forced onto the Linux desktop is as huge of a bloated and hacked mess as anything coming out of Redmond, and that only the variety and minor market share of any of them is preventing exploits as bad or worse than anything in IE. Though I doubt anything on Linux is as bad as Outlook, but neither is anything else from Redmond that bad.
The New York Times has announced a new idemification program. For only $100 extra over the cost of the paper, you are protected when reading the Times against any legal liability in cases that one or more of the articles is plagurized. Feel safer when reading the Times! Now your legal department can feel safe letting a copy be left in the break room at work! All for $100 dollars. PS: better stop reading those cheapo little papers who can't afford this idemification program, you could be sued!
I think the Windows taskbar *did* get taller automatically at one time as more things were added to it. They turned this off in Win95. You can still manually make it bigger, drag the top edge up, though I have never seen this used for real, but certainly seen screwed up WIndows desktops where the user has done this accidentally.
Personally I don't like the grouping at all. I don't like it in KDE, either.
The problem is not "message passing".
The reason X works badly has nothing to do with the one extra context switch per action. In fact if X is just drawing and avoiding the problem calls, it has far fewer context switches than Windows, since the drawing calls are all stuffed in a buffer and sent as one block (it's possible Windows is doing this in modern versions, too, I don't know).
The problems are:
1. There are two unsynchronized processes talking to the window server: the "window manager" which draws the borders, and the application, which draws the internals. Imagine if just one program sent the command to make the window bigger and stuffed into the same buffer the instructions to draw the all-new window border and contents, right on the heels of the make-window-bigger call. This is what Windows effectively has, that X lacks. And it is not going to be fixed until we admit that it is ok for programs to draw their own window borders.
2. There is a serious lack of useful drawing primitives, meaning that X programs that want to look good have to send entire images of their windows to the server. Now GDI32 is not a lot better, but it does support rotated and scaled fonts, drawing images without having to figure out the "visual" and with *one* call, and the new ones support alpha-based compositing (well, kinda), and the font drawing was switched to antialiased in a way that let old programs use the antialiased fonts. And hundreds of other indications that the people trying to fix GDI32 are somewhat more active and smarter than the X consortium, which did nothing!
Absolutely this happens a hundred times more often in closed source than in open source.
Unfortunatly it is more than a hundred times harder to catch. So to the average PHB the chances of getting in trouble are less.
This is unfortunate, unfair, but I don't know what the solution is.
Yet sticking that fucking __declspec in everywhere to make MSVC happy is not a problem?
Like many people pointed out, this allows a toolbar space to be added below (or above) an HDTV image that has been enlarged to fill the screen left to right.
Also European cinema is 1.66:1 and will fit on this screen, with a slightly thinner space for a toolbar.
I believe the "NO WARRANTY" stuff is unrelated to the GPL. You will find identical wording on commercial, BSD, and public domain software, and on sample code distributed with closed programming environments. Whether this is valid or not is probably unrelated to whether the GPL works or not.
My opinion is that if software writers were liable for damages it would be the end of the software industry, including open source. Microsoft may last the longest but even it would be destroyed by litigation. All software would have to be written by people who keep their identities secret. I guess it would be open source, but you would lose the ability to be publicly known as the author of it, and there would be no clear way to communicate fixes back to the author.
In all liklihood, the point of money/efficiency tradeoffs is probably well before anything is put in orbit. But after that I don't think arguing efficiency makes any sense.
If you actually paid for something in orbit, increasing it's size and power output is probably relativly inexpensive. Assumming the sattelite costs 50 billion dollars, I would not be suprised if a 10x larger sattelite would instead cost about 60 billion dollars. Therefore if the sattellite is worth 50 billion (a big if!), it is easy to refute any efficency questions because of the moderate cost of building larger.
On earth efficiency is important as the inefficient portion means pollution (heat at least), and likely means the size of system has to be larger and take up valuable land space. Neither of these are a problem for a space platform.
Whoops! Never mind, it was too early in the morning. b/s^2 is NOT (b/s)^2. Might as well admit I'm an idiot.
Anyway, whether right or wrong, the thinking of the distributors is that somehow everybody interested in a documentary will go to the one theatre it is playing in, and increasing the number of theatres will not increase revenue. Why they don't think the fans of White Chicks will travel to one theatre as well is a question to ask them.
I'm not sure what you are getting at. That number is the same as (boxoffice/screens)^2. All you are implying is that the boxoffice/screen is higher for 911 than White Chicks, and if you square that ratio you get an even bigger number. I certainly agree that the money made per screen for 911 is much higher and they really should consider putting it on more screens, but I don't see the point in squaring the results. Some opponent could say "in square-root land, 911 only makes 1.1 times as much as White Chicks..."
What does the typical XP user do when they buy a new scanner / camera / printer / mouse / keyboard / whatever? Don't they work right away in almost all cases after you plug it in and possibly reboot the machine? Is there any way to convince the public to at least try it before they stick the CD that came with it in their machine?
I would guess that getting a mirror or other power relay up there so closely equals the difficulty of getting a solar array and transmitter up that there is no reason to consider this idea.
Such a wire would be too heavy to hold up with the space elevator cable. Don't forget it is 28,000 miles long. It would double or more the mass of the cable. Thats why the proposals for the elevators is to have them powered by lasers or on-board power sources, rather than with power sent up the cable.
Though I kind of doubt these satellites are feasable, arguing about their efficiency is ridiculous.
If they lose 99% of the energy hitting them, just build them 100 times larger. The only selling point of them is that, if it is possible to build them at all, there is probably no size limit, and the costs are likely to drop considerably per area as the size goes up.
He might as well argue that their efficency is really really terrible because the sun puts out a hundred billion billion times as much energy as a solar power sattelite would collect.
There are other open source projects moving just as fast as Linux, or faster. Browsers? Movie playback? The infrastructure for the KDE/Gnome desktops? Conversely Linux itself is huge, if you read the LWN weekly kernel reports, how many times has some new change been described starting with "this has not changed in many years and has gotten really old and unstable, so..." Some parts of Linux are going slowly.
The truth is that you should immediatly discount about 95% of the open source projects that are announced, as nothing will be done (counting them would be like counting every idea suggested and then retracted in a Microsoft conference room as a "slow Microsoft project"). If you then plotted all the rest in some sort of fashion of "speed of development" big things like Linux itself would smear out, depending on how finely you divided it, I would expect Linux would cover at least half the range, and would be hard to distinguish from most other non-zero-speed projects.
The proposals all assumme a length of cable beyond geosynchronous orbit, and possibly left over machinery from the cable building, would serve as the counterweight.
A longer cable is actually useful, as it can be used to throw things out of Earth's orbit, such as to get to other planets.
I would guess you mean that a "_prop = 0;" is needed after the delete. If you meant something else you have not provided enough information (such as the rest of the program).
Assumming it was the delete, the total debugging time for me was 5.5 seconds. Determining that any other solution (like changing the #if 0 to #if 1) is impossible to prove from the information given took a good deal longer, but that is irrelevant.
Did you really mean to imply this was "hard"?
Yea, there was some sort of copy protection that caused no end of troubles. Hopefully that has been deleted from the new PPC version.