I would really like to see some different permission that lets applications download ads and not do anything else.
The simplest I can think of is that it is limited to downloading the contents of *short* url's at a *slow* rate (1 request each 10 seconds or something). It cannot submit forms or do anything else with the the internet. A more complex version would be to fix the text of these url's, possibly allowing Android to insert rough location, screen size, or other non-identifying information.
Anybody know if this idea would work at all? And how to convince Android to add it?
Because Windows was more free than Apple. Any computer manufacturer could make a machine and sell it with Windows on it, by buying a license for it. They could not do that to make a machine running Apple software.
If it is as you describe, can't Sony get the same result by releasing only the SFC code, while not releasing the Linux kernel modifications? It would seem that would remove the ability for the SFC to sue, thus making this scheme work with a lot less effort than writing a BusyBox replacement.
If that is what Sony wants, then can't they just release the BusyBox source code? That would be a lot easier than replacing it, and would serve equally well as a way to make them unable to sue.
I have a Honda Fit. The gas tank is under the front seat. Quite nice actually because the rear floor is completely flat and you can raise the rear seats and get a large and square storage area.
the floors in tension would quickly crack under their own weight
The animation clearly shows the robot adding beams over the windows and some kind of beam + flat pan objects that completely cover the ceilings before putting concrete atop them.
"apple" does not have an S in it. Leet misspelling would be "@pple" or something like that.
The belief that the $ means "money" is wrong. It is rather a humorous misspelling of a word with an S in it. It serves the purpose of distinguishing it from many other uses of MS (in particular MS is the stock symbol for Morgan Stanley), and to prevent the text from being read out loud as "miss". So sorry it insults your beloved company that it looks like it is implying that they are 50% concerned with money, when you know that everything Microsoft does is 100% altruistic!
Distinguishing M$ from MS (which means Mississippi, Multiple Sclerosis, and is the stock symbol for Morgan Stanley, and a dozen other uses that way predate the formation of Microsoft) seems pretty reasonable. It also reads better because you are forced to pronounce it as either "Microsoft" or at least "m-soft", rather than "miss". And as pointed out it looks like the string variables in the Basic that was Bill Gate's original claim to fame.
The people who are horrified that this implies that their beloved company is somehow related to *money* (really, they don't use money?) is pretty funny however. You are free to call open source software O$$ if it makes you feel better. But really you should get over it.
I want to release software (libraries, mostly) that anybody can use in any project they want, either open or closed source. However unlike the BSD or public domain, I want *my* source code to be "GPL'd": if you use it and modify it, you must make available, under the same license, the modified version of my source code. You can of course still link this with your own source code which remains closed (there may also be some rules to prevent cheats like modifying the source to call something in a closed-source portion but I am not too concerned about that). I would also want to make sure my code can be used by GPL or LGPL software by requiring the license to be compatible.
This is not the GPL (which requires your source code to be GPL'd as well). It is not the LGPL because it removes the weird "you must distribute the software in a way that lets it be relinked with a new version" provision (this provision actually *hurts* development of OSS libraries, as it technically means that end users expect me to not alter the abi, which is pretty much impossible and a waste of time for a little-used library. It also prevents static linking of my library which greatly reduces it's appeal).
I have been desparate for a well-known three-letter name for the license I want. What we have been doing is distributing under the GPL plus a "linking exception" that describes the above (actually we use the LGPL to make it more clear, but the linking exception hides any differences between that and the GPL).
Can anybody confirm if the MPL 2.0 is what I want?
Apollo 13 used miniatures, with extensive CGI added later.
The service module, capsule, and lunar module were all built as a single unit at 1/4 scale (and thus about 16' long) and were mounted on a huge gimbal so they could be oriented at any angle and rotated about the axis. The only real difference from the actual one is that the capsule was painted a matte finish and the reflections were added as CGI later. The model was shot sometimes with green screen and sometimes with black background and the matte generated by a rough cg model later. Some multi-pass was done to put lights in the interiors but that technology was already pretty obsolete. Obviously the background stars, the gas, all the floating debris, thruster exhaust, etc, were added as CGI.
The entire Saturn 5 and the service tower were built as a huge miniature at 1/20 scale. It was constructed sideways and the rocket actually moved relative to the tower. This was all filmed greenscreen. The backgrounds were actual pictures of the area around the launchpad, sometimes mapped onto very simple models of the ground and sky (such fully-surrounding photographed environments where the camera move can be done later are really common now, but it was an innovation at the time and this movie may be the first to use it). All the falling ice and the smoke were CG. The rocket exhaust was interesting, it was CGI but it was rephotographed overexposed onto real film to get a realistic glow effect. The large Saturn 5 model also came apart into all the stages and was used for all the shots in space until the third stage was jettisoned. No real footage was used for this movie, as it avoided any problems with matching (and in fact the model apparently has the wrong paint pattern for the Apollo 13 mission, as pointed out by various nitpickers).
There was also a huge model at the same scale of the interior walls of the vertical assembly building. The shots of the rocket on the crawler and inside the doors of the VAB were of a commercial 3' rocket model with a scratch-built tower and platform, with a motion controlled camera replicating the movement on the live-action background image.
All these models ended up at Universal, where they were on display for a while (the rocket was apparently strong enough that it could be stood vertically) and are probably in storage now.
You can make Linux applications that run out of a single directory. Use the RPATH option to the linker, which is effectively the same as adding the directory the executable is in to LD_LIBRARY_PATH. Readlink/proc/self/exe to find the executable and use that to find all your other data files.
Most commercial Linux software does exactly this. Installers pretty much dump an Application directory into/opt and then do a bit more cruft to add a symbolic link to/usr/bin, and to add launch menu items and.desktop files (I agree it would be nice if the system was changed so these extra bits could just reside in the Application directory as well). Advanced users can even try to use the system's versions of shared libraries by renaming the.so files in the Application directory. I can insure you that *nobody* cares if there are multiple copies of various libs and we certainly could never distribute code without being able to force exactly what libpython we are using.
Linux actually has it better over Windows and OS/X in that there is a well-defined place to dump your user's configuration that is *not* part of the Application, so the users don't clobber each other and the configuration stays even if the application is removed. This is to put it in ~/.appname. Windows suffers from a *lot* of potential locations (due to everything being writable at one time), while OS/X has a misguided attempt to put writable data into the application directory.
Almost 100% of the files on a modern system should be your "unit files".
The work around on Unix to get this behavior is obscenely complex. And changes to file systems can break it: that is what all the complaints about EXT4 were: programs were assuming that link() would always be done after all previous data is written. This probably would not be a bit deal normally, but was used everywhere to try to simulate the "unit file" by assuming that writing a temporary file, closing it, then linking the correct name to it would produce the desired effect. If there was a simple direct way to make such files then the people writing EXT4 could support it directly.
"scratch files" as you describe are the same as the unit files if they are never closed. It may be a good idea to add a call that can be done to an opened for write unit file handle that duplicates what happens if your program exits without closing it, so that resources can go away.
An extra idea is just a phony file system that just allocates space in the process's own memory. This would be mounted at some well-known location. It would always be blank on startup, and all data written there is lost when the process exits. Mmap calls can be used to instantly create a "file" that matches some block of memory. This is useful for interacting with code that only knows how to read/write files (many image libraries have this problem). Also could be used as that scratch space.
I agree with you, but I think a solution is to make the metadata always be part of the file.
Basically if you 'cat' a file, the resulting stream of bytes contain all the metadata. If you copy it to another system that does not store metadata, then the resulting block there will still have it (and there will likely be utilities and even libraries that read the metadata). If eventually the file is copied back to a system that understands the metadata scheme, it may disassemble the block back into the metadata representation.
An obvious problem is incompatibility, which is the reason this probably has not happened yet. As soon as you attach metadata your text file will be changed. Even if there is no metadata, your file will have to be modified so that it does not match whatever pattern indicates metadata.
Wrong. At least at the WIN32 level, you can mv a directory (use the rename() call) and it only changes the entry for the directory itself, not recursively for all the contents. It is not atomic, which is just Microsoft being incredibly stupid, but there are other calls in newer versions of WIN32 that are (Microsoft refuses to fix the rename() function in the library to call these new ones as they want to discourage portability between Unix/Windows).
You can use '/' for "a delimiter I invented that allows selection of subsections of a file"
This is an OLD idea and I'm not sure why it has never really been implemented. Basically *all* files are directories. They also have a single block of data that you get if you "open" the file and read it. Since there is no difference between a file and a directory, you can reuse the delimiter for both.
I have only sent one fix to Google, and it was fixed within a week. They did not send anything back but I believe they listened to my fix because the error had been there for years and it seems to much of a coincidence that it was fixed that week. Fix was to add a connection between a bike path and a road.
So for me 100% of my reports to Google have been listened to and applied.
Where have I posted that? I would be very interested to see where I've espoused that opinion anywhere on this site or elsewhere. Unsure what you are referring to. If it is "users and defenders of 'M$' are 'childish'" opinion I think the quote in the abvoe post: "No way you're old enough to have registered it for real" would be difficult to explain as anything other than an implication that I am "childish".
You and everybody seem to have missed the QUOTES I put around the childish part. Obviously parody is impossible in these postings which is really quite sad.
There does appear to be a knee-jerk reaction to say "CHILDISH!!!!!" to "M$". After 4 back-and-forth you finally managed to *not* use the word "childish" and came up with an actual argument: that it indicates "personal bias" which is certainly true and by far the best reason to not use the abbreviation.
Of the 8 or so responses, not one other than this last one of yours managed to not use "childish" in it's description! The inability to avoid the word "childish" seems to be a deep wiring in some people's brains. It would be fascinating if you could locate a single first-response to "M$" that does not use the word "childish" as I certainly have not seen any. However if you look at responses to stupid "Ballmer chair throwing" attempts at humor, there is a large variety, including legitimate explanations that the joke is really old and not at all funny any more: this indicates that this strange uniform reaction is not to any insult of Microsoft, but limited to this abbreviation.
My belief is that this indicates insecurity in the poster that "M$" may actually become popular, much like the supposed "misuse" of the word "hacker". But then I don't really know, I just find it pretty interesting and fun to point out.
I'm not clear if you are *actually* claiming that a catalyst could in theory be so good that the reactor will freeze. If so you might want to check your facts.
Yes the reaction will stop if you lower the energy input enough. What I am saying is that it MUST stop before the energy input is lowered below the actual amount of useful energy contained in the reaction products. Therefore there will always be a non-negative amount of input energy going into waste heat. There is NO way the reactor will get colder.
If the reactor got colder you would not need solar energy or anything. Just connect it to the ground and you will get unlimited hydrogen as long as you don't lower the entire earth to 0 kelvin (or run out of water).
If you paid attention you would note that I don't use "M$" in my posts.
What I was pointing out is that NOBODY uses "MS", including Microsoft. You can use "MSFT" but really using a stock symbol is really as insulting as using a dollar sign. "MS" is in fact Morgan Stanley anyway.
I also find it fascinating that somebody can write "Microsucks" and nobody will say anything. But as soon as somebody writes "M$" there seems to be a whole faction of users, such as you, who cannot resist posting something, always with the word "childish" in it!
If "M$" was such an indicator of immaturity then it can stand on it's own. The fact that you have this compelling need to post to somehow *prove* that saying "M$" is "childish" shows a great deal of insecurity that you in fact are not sure you really believe this.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes it is ads.
I would really like to see some different permission that lets applications download ads and not do anything else.
The simplest I can think of is that it is limited to downloading the contents of *short* url's at a *slow* rate (1 request each 10 seconds or something). It cannot submit forms or do anything else with the the internet. A more complex version would be to fix the text of these url's, possibly allowing Android to insert rough location, screen size, or other non-identifying information.
Anybody know if this idea would work at all? And how to convince Android to add it?
Because Windows was more free than Apple. Any computer manufacturer could make a machine and sell it with Windows on it, by buying a license for it. They could not do that to make a machine running Apple software.
What Microsoft does not allow is *DUAL BOOT* machines. This effectively removes a huge amount of the potential Linux market.
If it is as you describe, can't Sony get the same result by releasing only the SFC code, while not releasing the Linux kernel modifications? It would seem that would remove the ability for the SFC to sue, thus making this scheme work with a lot less effort than writing a BusyBox replacement.
If that is what Sony wants, then can't they just release the BusyBox source code? That would be a lot easier than replacing it, and would serve equally well as a way to make them unable to sue.
I have a Honda Fit. The gas tank is under the front seat. Quite nice actually because the rear floor is completely flat and you can raise the rear seats and get a large and square storage area.
You can't open the emergency exits while the plane is pressurized.
the floors in tension would quickly crack under their own weight
The animation clearly shows the robot adding beams over the windows and some kind of beam + flat pan objects that completely cover the ceilings before putting concrete atop them.
Shouldn't they merge with Duracell now?
"apple" does not have an S in it. Leet misspelling would be "@pple" or something like that.
The belief that the $ means "money" is wrong. It is rather a humorous misspelling of a word with an S in it. It serves the purpose of distinguishing it from many other uses of MS (in particular MS is the stock symbol for Morgan Stanley), and to prevent the text from being read out loud as "miss". So sorry it insults your beloved company that it looks like it is implying that they are 50% concerned with money, when you know that everything Microsoft does is 100% altruistic!
.
Distinguishing M$ from MS (which means Mississippi, Multiple Sclerosis, and is the stock symbol for Morgan Stanley, and a dozen other uses that way predate the formation of Microsoft) seems pretty reasonable. It also reads better because you are forced to pronounce it as either "Microsoft" or at least "m-soft", rather than "miss". And as pointed out it looks like the string variables in the Basic that was Bill Gate's original claim to fame.
The people who are horrified that this implies that their beloved company is somehow related to *money* (really, they don't use money?) is pretty funny however. You are free to call open source software O$$ if it makes you feel better. But really you should get over it.
The CDDL has some on-purpose incompatability with the GPL so that CDDL code cannot be used by a GPL project. I don't want that.
Though I may be wrong about that, can anybody confirm? This may have been FUD to prevent usage of the CDDL.
I want to release software (libraries, mostly) that anybody can use in any project they want, either open or closed source. However unlike the BSD or public domain, I want *my* source code to be "GPL'd": if you use it and modify it, you must make available, under the same license, the modified version of my source code. You can of course still link this with your own source code which remains closed (there may also be some rules to prevent cheats like modifying the source to call something in a closed-source portion but I am not too concerned about that). I would also want to make sure my code can be used by GPL or LGPL software by requiring the license to be compatible.
This is not the GPL (which requires your source code to be GPL'd as well). It is not the LGPL because it removes the weird "you must distribute the software in a way that lets it be relinked with a new version" provision (this provision actually *hurts* development of OSS libraries, as it technically means that end users expect me to not alter the abi, which is pretty much impossible and a waste of time for a little-used library. It also prevents static linking of my library which greatly reduces it's appeal).
I have been desparate for a well-known three-letter name for the license I want. What we have been doing is distributing under the GPL plus a "linking exception" that describes the above (actually we use the LGPL to make it more clear, but the linking exception hides any differences between that and the GPL).
Can anybody confirm if the MPL 2.0 is what I want?
A modal dialog should get focus even if the mouse is pointing at it's parent.
A window that grabs focus should warp the mouse pointer to be inside it.
These would makepoint to type work. But the main wms all refuse to do this so they can continue to claim it does not work.
Apollo 13 used miniatures, with extensive CGI added later.
The service module, capsule, and lunar module were all built as a single unit at 1/4 scale (and thus about 16' long) and were mounted on a huge gimbal so they could be oriented at any angle and rotated about the axis. The only real difference from the actual one is that the capsule was painted a matte finish and the reflections were added as CGI later. The model was shot sometimes with green screen and sometimes with black background and the matte generated by a rough cg model later. Some multi-pass was done to put lights in the interiors but that technology was already pretty obsolete. Obviously the background stars, the gas, all the floating debris, thruster exhaust, etc, were added as CGI.
The entire Saturn 5 and the service tower were built as a huge miniature at 1/20 scale. It was constructed sideways and the rocket actually moved relative to the tower. This was all filmed greenscreen. The backgrounds were actual pictures of the area around the launchpad, sometimes mapped onto very simple models of the ground and sky (such fully-surrounding photographed environments where the camera move can be done later are really common now, but it was an innovation at the time and this movie may be the first to use it). All the falling ice and the smoke were CG. The rocket exhaust was interesting, it was CGI but it was rephotographed overexposed onto real film to get a realistic glow effect. The large Saturn 5 model also came apart into all the stages and was used for all the shots in space until the third stage was jettisoned. No real footage was used for this movie, as it avoided any problems with matching (and in fact the model apparently has the wrong paint pattern for the Apollo 13 mission, as pointed out by various nitpickers).
There was also a huge model at the same scale of the interior walls of the vertical assembly building. The shots of the rocket on the crawler and inside the doors of the VAB were of a commercial 3' rocket model with a scratch-built tower and platform, with a motion controlled camera replicating the movement on the live-action background image.
All these models ended up at Universal, where they were on display for a while (the rocket was apparently strong enough that it could be stood vertically) and are probably in storage now.
You can make Linux applications that run out of a single directory. Use the RPATH option to the linker, which is effectively the same as adding the directory the executable is in to LD_LIBRARY_PATH. Readlink /proc/self/exe to find the executable and use that to find all your other data files.
Most commercial Linux software does exactly this. Installers pretty much dump an Application directory into /opt and then do a bit more cruft to add a symbolic link to /usr/bin, and to add launch menu items and .desktop files (I agree it would be nice if the system was changed so these extra bits could just reside in the Application directory as well). Advanced users can even try to use the system's versions of shared libraries by renaming the .so files in the Application directory. I can insure you that *nobody* cares if there are multiple copies of various libs and we certainly could never distribute code without being able to force exactly what libpython we are using.
Linux actually has it better over Windows and OS/X in that there is a well-defined place to dump your user's configuration that is *not* part of the Application, so the users don't clobber each other and the configuration stays even if the application is removed. This is to put it in ~/.appname. Windows suffers from a *lot* of potential locations (due to everything being writable at one time), while OS/X has a misguided attempt to put writable data into the application directory.
I absolutely agree with your idea.
Almost 100% of the files on a modern system should be your "unit files".
The work around on Unix to get this behavior is obscenely complex. And changes to file systems can break it: that is what all the complaints about EXT4 were: programs were assuming that link() would always be done after all previous data is written. This probably would not be a bit deal normally, but was used everywhere to try to simulate the "unit file" by assuming that writing a temporary file, closing it, then linking the correct name to it would produce the desired effect. If there was a simple direct way to make such files then the people writing EXT4 could support it directly.
"scratch files" as you describe are the same as the unit files if they are never closed. It may be a good idea to add a call that can be done to an opened for write unit file handle that duplicates what happens if your program exits without closing it, so that resources can go away.
An extra idea is just a phony file system that just allocates space in the process's own memory. This would be mounted at some well-known location. It would always be blank on startup, and all data written there is lost when the process exits. Mmap calls can be used to instantly create a "file" that matches some block of memory. This is useful for interacting with code that only knows how to read/write files (many image libraries have this problem). Also could be used as that scratch space.
I agree with you, but I think a solution is to make the metadata always be part of the file.
Basically if you 'cat' a file, the resulting stream of bytes contain all the metadata. If you copy it to another system that does not store metadata, then the resulting block there will still have it (and there will likely be utilities and even libraries that read the metadata). If eventually the file is copied back to a system that understands the metadata scheme, it may disassemble the block back into the metadata representation.
An obvious problem is incompatibility, which is the reason this probably has not happened yet. As soon as you attach metadata your text file will be changed. Even if there is no metadata, your file will have to be modified so that it does not match whatever pattern indicates metadata.
Wrong. At least at the WIN32 level, you can mv a directory (use the rename() call) and it only changes the entry for the directory itself, not recursively for all the contents. It is not atomic, which is just Microsoft being incredibly stupid, but there are other calls in newer versions of WIN32 that are (Microsoft refuses to fix the rename() function in the library to call these new ones as they want to discourage portability between Unix/Windows).
Would you be opposed to a DRM scheme that would allow you to totally and irrevocably delete a picture you posted to Facebook
You mean a scheme where I can affect every computer that looked at that picture (and thus made a copy to local storage)?
Damn right I would be VERY VERY strongly opposed to such a scheme!
You can use '/' for "a delimiter I invented that allows selection of subsections of a file"
This is an OLD idea and I'm not sure why it has never really been implemented. Basically *all* files are directories. They also have a single block of data that you get if you "open" the file and read it. Since there is no difference between a file and a directory, you can reuse the delimiter for both.
I have only sent one fix to Google, and it was fixed within a week. They did not send anything back but I believe they listened to my fix because the error had been there for years and it seems to much of a coincidence that it was fixed that week. Fix was to add a connection between a bike path and a road.
So for me 100% of my reports to Google have been listened to and applied.
Where have I posted that? I would be very interested to see where I've espoused that opinion anywhere on this site or elsewhere. Unsure what you are referring to. If it is "users and defenders of 'M$' are 'childish'" opinion I think the quote in the abvoe post: "No way you're old enough to have registered it for real" would be difficult to explain as anything other than an implication that I am "childish".
You and everybody seem to have missed the QUOTES I put around the childish part. Obviously parody is impossible in these postings which is really quite sad.
There does appear to be a knee-jerk reaction to say "CHILDISH!!!!!" to "M$". After 4 back-and-forth you finally managed to *not* use the word "childish" and came up with an actual argument: that it indicates "personal bias" which is certainly true and by far the best reason to not use the abbreviation.
Of the 8 or so responses, not one other than this last one of yours managed to not use "childish" in it's description! The inability to avoid the word "childish" seems to be a deep wiring in some people's brains. It would be fascinating if you could locate a single first-response to "M$" that does not use the word "childish" as I certainly have not seen any. However if you look at responses to stupid "Ballmer chair throwing" attempts at humor, there is a large variety, including legitimate explanations that the joke is really old and not at all funny any more: this indicates that this strange uniform reaction is not to any insult of Microsoft, but limited to this abbreviation.
My belief is that this indicates insecurity in the poster that "M$" may actually become popular, much like the supposed "misuse" of the word "hacker". But then I don't really know, I just find it pretty interesting and fun to point out.
I'm not clear if you are *actually* claiming that a catalyst could in theory be so good that the reactor will freeze. If so you might want to check your facts.
Yes the reaction will stop if you lower the energy input enough. What I am saying is that it MUST stop before the energy input is lowered below the actual amount of useful energy contained in the reaction products. Therefore there will always be a non-negative amount of input energy going into waste heat. There is NO way the reactor will get colder.
If the reactor got colder you would not need solar energy or anything. Just connect it to the ground and you will get unlimited hydrogen as long as you don't lower the entire earth to 0 kelvin (or run out of water).
If you paid attention you would note that I don't use "M$" in my posts.
What I was pointing out is that NOBODY uses "MS", including Microsoft. You can use "MSFT" but really using a stock symbol is really as insulting as using a dollar sign. "MS" is in fact Morgan Stanley anyway.
I also find it fascinating that somebody can write "Microsucks" and nobody will say anything. But as soon as somebody writes "M$" there seems to be a whole faction of users, such as you, who cannot resist posting something, always with the word "childish" in it!
If "M$" was such an indicator of immaturity then it can stand on it's own. The fact that you have this compelling need to post to somehow *prove* that saying "M$" is "childish" shows a great deal of insecurity that you in fact are not sure you really believe this.