What the parent poster was considering was the size increase in markup versus binary, the penalty in space we pay for it to be human readable. I'm with the parent; if SVG doesn't have an alternate binary format, its bandwidth costs will kill it dead.
Well, SVG can be delivered as standard SVG (*.svg) or it can be sent as gzipped SVG (*.svgz). Text-based formats zip down quite nicely in size, so the bandwidth thing isn't a horrible issue.
I think there there are few compelling reasons for allowing websites to modify the status bar information. Doing so is a serious security issue
Is the problem that developers can request info be placed in the status bar, or that none of the browser makers differentiate between text put there by the browser (URL destinations) and text put there through page actions (JS actions)?
Seems to me, allowing page authors to use the status bar can be an efficient use of space, but displaying it in such a way so as to let users know it isn't trusted information would help alleviate problems.
many of them have probably never heard of Linux, or X, or Fvwm, or are even aware of the existence of Window Managers in general
Maybe if you actually look at the patent application you'll see that they (Microsoft) INCLUDE a representation of both KDE and Gnome implementations in their drawings. See page 2 (tiff) of their application. They're not trying to pretend that virtual desktops don't exist. They're trying to describe a slightly different way of doing it that is related (but not the same) as existing methods.
This application doesn't look like their trying to patent the concept of virtual desktop pagers, but a specific implementation of one. This patent app would fall under the broad cateogory of being an incremental improvement of an existing invention.
The question the patent office will need to face is whether the claims are unique enough that this specific implementation warrants a patent. This patent wouldn't cover all virtual desktop pagers, just ones that use the method they describe in their claims.
Clicking the link in MozFB pops up the following dialog box:
The site has suggested that "ie.{3050f4d8-98B5-11CF-BB82-00AA00BDCE0B}Se cunial _Internet_Explorer%2Epdf.html" be handled as an attachment. It is of type text/html (HyperText Markup Language) and located at:
http://secunia.com/internet_explorer_file_downlo ad _spoof/
What should Mozilla Firebird do with this file?
( )Open it with the default application ( )Open it with [ ] (*)Save it to disk
-----
Clicking the link with IE (6) pops up the following:
Some files can harm your computer. If the file information below looks suspicious, or you do not fully trust the source, do not open or save this file.
Would you like to open the file or save it to your computer [open][save][cancel][more info]
--
Saving the file from each browser: MozFB - saves a file with the.html extension IE - saves a file that looks like it has the PDF extension and gets the PDF icon.
I don't really get the love affair with duct tape. It works, but a much better tape for most electronics-type tinkering is gaffer tape. It's expensive, and you won't find it at the local hardware store, but I think it's well worth it. You should be able to find it at a (professional) photo supply store.
The standard gaffer type has a matte black finish (so that it doesn't reflect light in a photo shoot) and you can easily tear it perfectly horizontally or vertically. It has a pretty good adhesive, but doesn't gum up the surface like duct tape does when you remove it.
I wasn't saying that The GIMP was at fault for allowing these operations. I was saying that if the commercial programs restrict the use to 'block counterfeiters' that it could be perceived that The GIMP (in not doing the same) is aiding counterfeiters. I *don't* think this is the case, but this is exactly the kind of thing that gets past people. There are people that think that it's fine for the government to spy on them, because only those doing something wrong should have something to fear.
What I was trying to get across is that many things that are possible in OSS can be (and are) used for less than legal purposes. Even though there are legitimate reasons to have that functionality, clueless lawmakers can use this as a wedge to legislate laws that make OSS difficult or impossible.
My point wasn't that The GIMP should add this "feature", but that it is a BAD THING that the commercial applications are, because it makes it look (to many people) like OSS is a 'hacker' tool and not something that "good, law abiding citizens" should be involved with.
Hey, that will be a win against open source. "Only counterfeiters use open source software."
The idea of The GIMP becoming synonomous with breaking the law isn't really the kind of thing that will help it work its way into the mainstream, now is it?
"I think you should teach your graphics class using The GIMP instead of Photoshop. That way the students can afford the program."
"Sorry, the school has a policy against 'hacking' tools."
VirtualDub is an excellent program, but it really isn't an editor. Read the first paragraph at virtualdub.org and Avery Lee comes right out any says this.
If all you need to do is trim or process your video (resize, recolor, etc.) virtualdub is great. If you're looking for real editing (combining scenes, doing a multicamera edit) you need something with a timeline, multiple a/v tracks, etc.
Part of the difficulty of the arcade game was overcoming the intracacies of the control mechanism.
The trackball was the most sensible control that could have existed for that game. You had a direct relationship to direction and speed with your marble.
Digital controls are awful for this because they're always 100% at certain direction. Analog sticks are better because you can have varying pressure, but even then it's possible to do things like quick reverses with the stick that just don't make sense with the marble.
Every time something about Flash comes up, there is the same (invariably highly modded) complaint that it is useless and the web is so bad because of it.
I will agree that a lot of crappy stuff has been done in Flash. There's also a lot of crappy books/webpages/slashdot posts that have been written, but I'm not about to propose getting rid of the alphabet so that it doesn't happen again.
There are some things for which the interactive, vector-based, flash delivered materials are best. Something like technial illustrations on a website would be a perfect example, ones that can be cross linked and are zoomable. (if you did it in static files, you'd need to render a bunch of different resolutions. if you did it as PDF, you don't get the same interactivity)
And whether you like it or not, a LOT of people learn better by smaller, bite sized bits of information, rather than by large text blocks that they need to plow through.
There is also this idea that presentation is totally useless. For many things it isn't the foremost important thing, but if you totally dislike having content delivered to you with somebody else's presentation applied, you'd better:
stop listening to music - read it in sheet music form instead
turn the color down on your TV - don't let *them* force their colors on you
have somebody cut up your magazines into long strips of single words - *they* might be trying to influence you by the way the elements are positioned and juxtaposed on the page
I don't care if it is flash or svg or whatever. The reason it popped up is because there are people who legitimately can use this technology. If you aren't one of them, fine. But don't assume that because you don't find it useful, then nobody should.
Referral Fees and Payment Schedule Our online reporting conveniently keeps you informed of the progress of your site by tracking sales in a variety of ways. There are many ways you can earn referral fees via your Amazon.com Associate Links.
Depending on the number and type of products sold, you can earn between 2.5% and 15% on the sale of products sold through your links.
We pay you by Direct Deposit, Amazon.com Gift Certificate, or check on a quartely basis.
You're right. I'd thought that was how it was working, but I'd tested again and it doesn't work quite that way. (Works only if you're entirely blocking cookies)
It would be valuable to use that list as the list of sites that can write *persistent* cookies when using the 'session cookie' option.
I too would use this feature, right now I turn off the session option. Log into the site I want, then turn it back on so as to keep a permanent cookie for that site.
I want all cookies to be session cookies except for ones from my whitelist of sites.
This is in version 0.7 - if you go to the Options > Cookies panel, there is a button to define "exceptions" where you can specify sites to always allow/deny cookies.
It didn't seem to always "catch" the site when I added it, but I haven't been able to repeat the problem so I'm not submitting a bug report.
Failing this, you can always go the non-pretty route and edit the cookperm.txt file in your profile.
theSiteToSet.com 0F theOtherSite.com 0T
make sure that it is a TAB between the site and the value.
0F means always block cookies 0T means always allow cookies
1F/1T to do the same for images 2F/2T to do the same for popups
You can do the popup management through the GUI, but the image allow/deny isn't yet editable through the config panels - you can only view the settings (or delete listings) so for image management, you need to do the cookperm.txt editing manually.
I'm not familiar with this particular logitech keyboard... but in order for the thing to operate as a regular keyboard, they must just be putting something in the driver to make the F-keys behave differently.
If you don't install the custom drivers, I'd assume the thing would work just like any other 101-key keyboard.
correction to my post: ... there will either be a feasible open source solution, or maybe Wine will have advanced enough to run what you need.
left off the 3rd possibility: ... there will either be a feasible open source solution, maybe Wine will have advanced enough to run what you need, or you'll find that you still need windows.
I don't understand this attitude that MSOffice is *required* if you run Windows. I see it a lot when comparing the costs of running the two OSes.
$ windows = OS cost + MSOffice cost $ linux = free OS + free office app
There's nothing preventing you from running free (beer/speech) software on Windows.
If you need Windows to run legacy apps, why not do it in stages. In your case, upgrade your boxes from 98 to XP - but don't do the MSOffice route. Use Openoffice.org (assuming it will work for you since you were going to do a full linux switch anyway) and other open source software when applicable. (Mozilla Firebird instead of IE, etc.)
This way, you don't abandon your legacy apps... and in a few years (at next upgrade time) there will either be a feasible open source solution, or maybe Wine will have advanced enough to run what you need.
If you can do a full transition, good for you. But to compare costs the way you did isn't a real comparison.
How will it look to the average customer if free software has to resort to ads to make it profitable?
How will it look to the average customer if free television has to resort to ads to make it profitable?
How will it look to the average customer if free radio has to resort to ads to make it profitable?
People are used to free stuff having advertising. I don't know if this will really alter the 'average consumer' much anyway. The average consumer isn't downloading and installing Mandrake. If the average consumer ends up with a Linux box, it was either purchased pre-installed (think Wal*Mart) or put together by their techno-geek-friend/relative. In either instance, they wouldn't be exposed to the install process anyway.
If they're a Windows (and IE) convert they're so used to ads popping up all over the place that any ads in the browser will likely be a downstep anyway.
After the install, it wouldn't be that difficult to sidestep the ads with a different screensaver or alternate browser anyway.
All in all, I don't see this affecting the average consumer.
Re:Predictability, thy name is corporate photoart
on
The Most Famous Geek in IT
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I've done both (use stock photo and custom shoot).
For web stuff, 35mm camera shots are good enough, but you really need good lighting. Camera flashes give off very unnatural looking light. I had to do a photo-shoot of our CEO for a magazine interview. I have a photography background, so I was comfortable renting the appropriate lighting rig (and medium format camera, since the photo was going to be printed in the magazine at any size up to about 15x20 inches); but I don't expect that all companies have someone on-staff who would have the first clue about setting up appropriate location lighting.
On our site, the shot of the staff, and of the building are actual (homegrown) shots, but for simple graphic "punctuation" pieces, it's much more convenient to be able to use stock photography. It's not like we are in the photography business, so I don't have a studio set up full time. Additionally, I think you are totally discounting the fact that it takes somebody who knows how to take good photographs for it to look good. "Point and shoot" most likely will not leave you with anything useful.
I would agree, however, that once you are a high profile company, that you avoid stock photography in certain areas (ie. your home page, cover of your brochure, etc.) For that stuff, you should have something custom made. However for many small businesses, this just isn't an option.
Re:Predictability, thy name is corporate photoart
on
The Most Famous Geek in IT
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Stock photo = ~$25
Setting up good camera equipment (no, not your $200 digicam) with real lighting so that you don't end up with hotspots and unwanted shadows and having someone with enough knowledge to use it properly = ~$1000.
Which would you rather pay for a graphic on a site that will probably change in 3 months?
The only possible use I can think of is that by reverse engineering the code you would be able to make 30 min. text documents available on the go. Kind of along the lines of e-books I guess. Might call them E-white papers.
Why would you want to hack this device in order to display text on an 80x80 pixel screen?
Get yourself a used palm for the same money (or less) and view them on a 160x160 screen without having to convert them to video or burn a CD.
No, it seems the only real use for this would be for actual video.
They must not play many FPS's either if they cant hit the broad side of a truck without hitting a person in another car...
Yes. Because we all know that game physics and real life physics are identical.
If there's anything that our office sessions of Quake II taught me, it's that the best way to move about in any situation is to constantly run while incessantly jumping like a rabbit 6 feet in the air.
I don't wan't to blame the motivation on the game either, I think it's just a cheap excuse... but to claim that game players should be better with a *real* gun doesn't really hold up.
If your not doing anything to hurt the company then you dont need privacy. Its as simple as that
I can't stand having my monitor point into the open area... and that has nothing to do with goofing off.
When I'm working on a design, there is a point where it is 'ready' to be seen by others. During the process, I may be playing with some things (that woudn't ever go in the final) just to get a sense of how some things go together (color, shape, etc.)
I can't stand it when somebody walks behind me and says "Oh, that's neat. What's that blue thing? You're not going to leave that red, are you? Why do you have that over to the left?" At that point, the train of thought usually heads off, as it's hard to not let their comments affect the process.
That's why when I hear people coming, I often will start minimizing windows (or pull the email client to the forefront)... anything to keep them from seeing a design until it's ready for public view (and ready for critique).
When I'm programming, it's not so much of a big deal. So what, I have my text editor open. Most people can't casually look and comment about code.
Even, that aside. It's just plain polite to not hang over someone's shoulder unless they are specifically showing something to you.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, SVG can be delivered as standard SVG (*.svg) or it can be sent as gzipped SVG (*.svgz). Text-based formats zip down quite nicely in size, so the bandwidth thing isn't a horrible issue.
Is the problem that developers can request info be placed in the status bar, or that none of the browser makers differentiate between text put there by the browser (URL destinations) and text put there through page actions (JS actions)?
Seems to me, allowing page authors to use the status bar can be an efficient use of space, but displaying it in such a way so as to let users know it isn't trusted information would help alleviate problems.
Maybe if you actually look at the patent application you'll see that they (Microsoft) INCLUDE a representation of both KDE and Gnome implementations in their drawings.
See page 2 (tiff) of their application. They're not trying to pretend that virtual desktops don't exist. They're trying to describe a slightly different way of doing it that is related (but not the same) as existing methods.
This application doesn't look like their trying to patent the concept of virtual desktop pagers, but a specific implementation of one. This patent app would fall under the broad cateogory of being an incremental improvement of an existing invention.
The question the patent office will need to face is whether the claims are unique enough that this specific implementation warrants a patent. This patent wouldn't cover all virtual desktop pagers, just ones that use the method they describe in their claims.
Not really sure if it fits the RTS genre ... but I still fire up the Atari emulator to put in a round every now and then.
Followup:
In the parent post I was testing on one system that was running MozFB 0.6.1
On my other system, running 0.7 the dialog is different, but it is still correctly identified as an HTML file and saves with the correct extension.
Clicking the link in MozFB pops up the following dialog box:
e cunial _Internet_Explorer%2Epdf.html"
o ad _spoof/
...Secunia_Inernet_Explorer.pdf
.html extension
The site has suggested that
"ie.{3050f4d8-98B5-11CF-BB82-00AA00BDCE0B}S
be handled as an attachment. It is of type text/html (HyperText Markup Language) and
located at:
http://secunia.com/internet_explorer_file_downl
What should Mozilla Firebird do with this file?
( )Open it with the default application
( )Open it with [ ]
(*)Save it to disk
-----
Clicking the link with IE (6) pops up the following:
Some files can harm your computer. If the file information below
looks suspicious, or you do not fully trust the source, do not open or
save this file.
File name:
File type:
From: Secunia.com
Would you like to open the file or save it to your computer
[open][save][cancel][more info]
--
Saving the file from each browser:
MozFB - saves a file with the
IE - saves a file that looks like it has the PDF extension and gets the PDF icon.
I don't really get the love affair with duct tape. It works, but a much better tape for most electronics-type tinkering is gaffer tape. It's expensive, and you won't find it at the local hardware store, but I think it's well worth it. You should be able to find it at a (professional) photo supply store.
The standard gaffer type has a matte black finish (so that it doesn't reflect light in a photo shoot) and you can easily tear it perfectly horizontally or vertically. It has a pretty good adhesive, but doesn't gum up the surface like duct tape does when you remove it.
Here's one place selling it.
I think I paid less at my local photo store for the roll I have here.
Also, on a laptop, the matte black will look a lot better than the shiny silver of duct tape.
I wasn't saying that The GIMP was at fault for allowing these operations. I was saying that if the commercial programs restrict the use to 'block counterfeiters' that it could be perceived that The GIMP (in not doing the same) is aiding counterfeiters. I *don't* think this is the case, but this is exactly the kind of thing that gets past people. There are people that think that it's fine for the government to spy on them, because only those doing something wrong should have something to fear.
What I was trying to get across is that many things that are possible in OSS can be (and are) used for less than legal purposes. Even though there are legitimate reasons to have that functionality, clueless lawmakers can use this as a wedge to legislate laws that make OSS difficult or impossible.
My point wasn't that The GIMP should add this "feature", but that it is a BAD THING that the commercial applications are, because it makes it look (to many people) like OSS is a 'hacker' tool and not something that "good, law abiding citizens" should be involved with.
I don't think GIMP has this kind of limitation.
Hey, that will be a win against open source. "Only counterfeiters use open source software."
The idea of The GIMP becoming synonomous with breaking the law isn't really the kind of thing that will help it work its way into the mainstream, now is it?
"I think you should teach your graphics class using The GIMP instead of Photoshop. That way the students can afford the program."
"Sorry, the school has a policy against 'hacking' tools."
VirtualDub is an excellent program, but it really isn't an editor. Read the first paragraph at virtualdub.org and Avery Lee comes right out any says this.
If all you need to do is trim or process your video (resize, recolor, etc.) virtualdub is great. If you're looking for real editing (combining scenes, doing a multicamera edit) you need something with a timeline, multiple a/v tracks, etc.
Part of the difficulty of the arcade game was overcoming the intracacies of the control mechanism.
The trackball was the most sensible control that could have existed for that game. You had a direct relationship to direction and speed with your marble.
Digital controls are awful for this because they're always 100% at certain direction. Analog sticks are better because you can have varying pressure, but even then it's possible to do things like quick reverses with the stick that just don't make sense with the marble.
I will agree that a lot of crappy stuff has been done in Flash. There's also a lot of crappy books/webpages/slashdot posts that have been written, but I'm not about to propose getting rid of the alphabet so that it doesn't happen again.
There are some things for which the interactive, vector-based, flash delivered materials are best. Something like technial illustrations on a website would be a perfect example, ones that can be cross linked and are zoomable. (if you did it in static files, you'd need to render a bunch of different resolutions. if you did it as PDF, you don't get the same interactivity)
And whether you like it or not, a LOT of people learn better by smaller, bite sized bits of information, rather than by large text blocks that they need to plow through.
There is also this idea that presentation is totally useless. For many things it isn't the foremost important thing, but if you totally dislike having content delivered to you with somebody else's presentation applied, you'd better:
I don't care if it is flash or svg or whatever. The reason it popped up is because there are people who legitimately can use this technology. If you aren't one of them, fine. But don't assume that because you don't find it useful, then nobody should.
What do those get per click, anyways?
From their 'associates' faq:
Referral Fees and Payment Schedule
Our online reporting conveniently keeps you informed of the progress of your site by tracking sales in a variety of ways. There are many ways you can earn referral fees via your Amazon.com Associate Links.
Depending on the number and type of products sold, you can earn between 2.5% and 15% on the sale of products sold through your links.
We pay you by Direct Deposit, Amazon.com Gift Certificate, or check on a quartely basis.
You're right. I'd thought that was how it was working, but I'd tested again and it doesn't work quite that way. (Works only if you're entirely blocking cookies)
It would be valuable to use that list as the list of sites that can write *persistent* cookies when using the 'session cookie' option.
I too would use this feature, right now I turn off the session option. Log into the site I want, then turn it back on so as to keep a permanent cookie for that site.
This is in version 0.7 - if you go to the Options > Cookies panel, there is a button to define "exceptions" where you can specify sites to always allow/deny cookies.
It didn't seem to always "catch" the site when I added it, but I haven't been able to repeat the problem so I'm not submitting a bug report.
Failing this, you can always go the non-pretty route and edit the cookperm.txt file in your profile.
theSiteToSet.com 0F
theOtherSite.com 0T
make sure that it is a TAB between the site and the value.
0F means always block cookies
0T means always allow cookies
1F/1T to do the same for images
2F/2T to do the same for popups
You can do the popup management through the GUI, but the image allow/deny isn't yet editable through the config panels - you can only view the settings (or delete listings) so for image management, you need to do the cookperm.txt editing manually.
Our dogs used to be really good about staying in the other room while we ate.
Then we had kids.
I swear they can hear the sound of the food as it is still falling and are usually there at about the time it hits the floor.
I'm not familiar with this particular logitech keyboard ... but in order for the thing to operate as a regular keyboard, they must just be putting something in the driver to make the F-keys behave differently.
If you don't install the custom drivers, I'd assume the thing would work just like any other 101-key keyboard.
Anybody know differently?
correction to my post:
... there will either be a feasible open source solution, or maybe Wine will have advanced enough to run what you need.
... there will either be a feasible open source solution, maybe Wine will have advanced enough to run what you need, or you'll find that you still need windows.
left off the 3rd possibility:
I don't understand this attitude that MSOffice is *required* if you run Windows. I see it a lot when comparing the costs of running the two OSes.
... and in a few years (at next upgrade time) there will either be a feasible open source solution, or maybe Wine will have advanced enough to run what you need.
$ windows = OS cost + MSOffice cost
$ linux = free OS + free office app
There's nothing preventing you from running free (beer/speech) software on Windows.
If you need Windows to run legacy apps, why not do it in stages. In your case, upgrade your boxes from 98 to XP - but don't do the MSOffice route. Use Openoffice.org (assuming it will work for you since you were going to do a full linux switch anyway) and other open source software when applicable. (Mozilla Firebird instead of IE, etc.)
This way, you don't abandon your legacy apps
If you can do a full transition, good for you. But to compare costs the way you did isn't a real comparison.
How will it look to the average customer if free television has to resort to ads to make it profitable?
How will it look to the average customer if free radio has to resort to ads to make it profitable?
People are used to free stuff having advertising. I don't know if this will really alter the 'average consumer' much anyway. The average consumer isn't downloading and installing Mandrake. If the average consumer ends up with a Linux box, it was either purchased pre-installed (think Wal*Mart) or put together by their techno-geek-friend/relative. In either instance, they wouldn't be exposed to the install process anyway.
If they're a Windows (and IE) convert they're so used to ads popping up all over the place that any ads in the browser will likely be a downstep anyway.
After the install, it wouldn't be that difficult to sidestep the ads with a different screensaver or alternate browser anyway.
All in all, I don't see this affecting the average consumer.
I've done both (use stock photo and custom shoot).
For web stuff, 35mm camera shots are good enough, but you really need good lighting. Camera flashes give off very unnatural looking light. I had to do a photo-shoot of our CEO for a magazine interview. I have a photography background, so I was comfortable renting the appropriate lighting rig (and medium format camera, since the photo was going to be printed in the magazine at any size up to about 15x20 inches); but I don't expect that all companies have someone on-staff who would have the first clue about setting up appropriate location lighting.
On our site, the shot of the staff, and of the building are actual (homegrown) shots, but for simple graphic "punctuation" pieces, it's much more convenient to be able to use stock photography. It's not like we are in the photography business, so I don't have a studio set up full time. Additionally, I think you are totally discounting the fact that it takes somebody who knows how to take good photographs for it to look good. "Point and shoot" most likely will not leave you with anything useful.
I would agree, however, that once you are a high profile company, that you avoid stock photography in certain areas (ie. your home page, cover of your brochure, etc.) For that stuff, you should have something custom made. However for many small businesses, this just isn't an option.
Stock photo = ~$25
Setting up good camera equipment (no, not your $200 digicam) with real lighting so that you don't end up with hotspots and unwanted shadows and having someone with enough knowledge to use it properly = ~$1000.
Which would you rather pay for a graphic on a site that will probably change in 3 months?
Why would you want to hack this device in order to display text on an 80x80 pixel screen?
Get yourself a used palm for the same money (or less) and view them on a 160x160 screen without having to convert them to video or burn a CD.
No, it seems the only real use for this would be for actual video.
Yes. Because we all know that game physics and real life physics are identical.
If there's anything that our office sessions of Quake II taught me, it's that the best way to move about in any situation is to constantly run while incessantly jumping like a rabbit 6 feet in the air.
I don't wan't to blame the motivation on the game either, I think it's just a cheap excuse
I can't stand having my monitor point into the open area
When I'm working on a design, there is a point where it is 'ready' to be seen by others. During the process, I may be playing with some things (that woudn't ever go in the final) just to get a sense of how some things go together (color, shape, etc.)
I can't stand it when somebody walks behind me and says "Oh, that's neat. What's that blue thing? You're not going to leave that red, are you? Why do you have that over to the left?" At that point, the train of thought usually heads off, as it's hard to not let their comments affect the process.
That's why when I hear people coming, I often will start minimizing windows (or pull the email client to the forefront)
When I'm programming, it's not so much of a big deal. So what, I have my text editor open. Most people can't casually look and comment about code.
Even, that aside. It's just plain polite to not hang over someone's shoulder unless they are specifically showing something to you.