This is why Google wants to do voice recognition. Imagine having a phone-sized device that could understand the spoken word. It might not be great for composing an essay, but it would kick ass for getting directions, running IM, making notes and pretty much anything else Google is good at. I've been waiting for my GooglePhone for years now; but companies keep making crap like this instead (I'm also very disappointed with my Nokia 6101 -- I think they've lost me as a customer).
Get the voice recognition done already! I can handle a virtual-touch keyboard for the one-off case, but I need a full keyboard until we have good voice recognition.
And Congress keeps paying for the whole deal; so the blood really is on their hands anyway. I love how they gave Bush the authority to go into Iraq, but later act all shocked that he actually did it (ie, John Kerry), and *then* go on to support funding the fiasco. Outside of the national budget. In supplementary funding bills that do not make headlines for debt spending.
Ugh.
I agree that too many heap all their demons onto Bush and don't hold other public officers to account. I actually voted for John Kerry, but I had to hold my nose while I did it.
If I had mod points, I'd give them to you. People seem to be under the mistaken notion that iTunes/FairPlay is somehow less evil than other DRM systems.
Hybrids rarely use the electric engine while cruising on the expressway, and as such will have the same fuel economy as a comprable gasoline-only engine. Diesel cars and motorcycles use much less fuel than conventional vehicles; but not hybrids.
Or it could just be that certain industries do not lend themselves to markets very well (as long as we're mixing markets with "capitalism"). Common-carrier networks may be one of them, along with firemen, policemen and public education. Unfortunately, that doesn't stop communists or some socialists from propping such companies up as strawmen which exemplify the entire market system. Try having a government come up with, manufacture and maintain the iPod sometime. The 2GB model would still be in community sub-hearings on the proper maximum volume level today.
That you got modded "Troll" for that is pretty damn funny. Moderators who know nothing about IPv6 should refrain from moderating the discussion. It really is a solution in search of a problem; the internet as designed by committee. Thank god ipv4/apranet wasn't designed that way -- as any large project with "milestones" and corresponding Gannt-Charts is doomed to failure. You made my friend list, if nothing else thegameiam. Keep beating your heart against the wall.
How on earth would a ukernel alleviate any of these problems?
Say you're writing a sensor for a new CPU thermal ic, and you want to export it via a pseudofile (eg,/proc). How is it going to help your cause to have several subsystems that may or may not be present at very high levels (eg, the UNIX subsystem, the filesystem subsystem, etc.)?
In fact, a ukernel could protenally make it much more difficult to design something like that, especially if you can't guarantee that subsystems are present or that they can go up/down (gee, the filesystem subsystem went away, what do I do now?!?) In practice, it's a beautiful cathedral and not a funcational bazar.
I would also point to MacOS X, which makes some use of a ukernel (although most of the system I/O completely bypasses it for efficiency reasons -- nothing like a slow disk eh?); practically every device driver written for it needs to be re-written for new versions (ProTools being the example I'm most familiar with). Many of them use kernel extensions that do not gracefully upgrade.
I can guarantee that any person with a brain that watched the presidential debates would not have voted for Bush, but he still won.
You must have watched different debates than I did. I came away hating both candidates. Bush is a simple manager that leans heavily on his "experts", and can't think on the fly to save his life; Kerry is a carreer politician who will say anything to anyone to get elected. We need to take the caucus/primary power away from those notheastern small states. Dean could have solidly beat Bush, if he hadn't "scared" those poor farmers with his scream.
I voted for Kerry, but it was the most distateful vote I have ever cast.
It wasn't an obvious call by any means, and I'm not surprised that people were conflicted. Trying to pick between Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle-Dum isn't fun.
Yes, WIPO is exactly why the UN should not be allowed to administer it. The organization is overly political (ie, they take bribes and cater to popular whim); we need a "secular" body that thinks instead. Personally, I don't see how the root servers have been mismanaged so far. All I see is grandstanding by EU politicos against the Great Beast of America; which may be warrented in certain spheres (eg, Iraq), but not here.
After giving root server control to the UN, how long would it take them to "synergize" it with security council sanctions, human rights violitions and such? Even the "axis of evil" have not had problems with DNS under US control.
According to TFA, that's exactly the case. It's a very simple logical fallacy, so I suppose that shines some light on "the bar" that they employ to hire people at WebSideStory.
Because, you know... if you don't use IE then you must hate Microsoft.::Bill the Cat ptppppts to him::
So, only two groups use Firefox: Early adopters and Microsoft Haters.
I use Linux on my desktop and I have a PowerBook. Which category does that put me in? The last time I checked, I couldn't run Internet Explorer... but someone please correct me if I'm wrong here.
Firefox has achieved many of its goals regardless, with 10% of the web not using Internet Explorer (Firefox + Opera + Safari + Konq) websites are no longer able to simply plug Microsoft technology into their websites and run with it. I can't remember the last website that I visited that didn't function properly in Firefox -- which was a very common problem in the bad-old-days of IE5/ActiveX (again, through no supposed hatred on my part). Microsoft is a better netizen today than they were five years ago. Their development is more open, and their technologies are more cooperative. There is much more of a free market in webspace now, which is a good thing.
Well, I used to be a Mormon, and even served the mission and all that. The reason your mother could not be re-sealed is because she lacks a penis. Only men are allowed to be sealed again and again and again. Joseph Smith himself was "sealed" to girls as young as 14 years of age. He didn't want to share with other men, so he forbade women the same privilege.
And blacks too. They couldn't be sealed. Dirty blacks and females weren't wanted in his church.
In this case there is no directory server that can touch AD.
Yes, but don't you want your directory server to interoperate with other systems? Isn't that the whole point? I'm half joking, but half serious as well; one of the main gripes I have with AD is the lack of customization that one can perform with it. It's great when you want to integrate it with Microsoft Remote Acess or Microsoft SQL Server or any of a dozen other Microsoft products, but try getting it to authenticate against opensource P2PP/PPP (which easily integrates with other LDAP solutions).
We use Scalix which authenticates against OpenLDAP. They are a commercial solution, but their software is very opensource friendly and their support is very good (including pulic forums). We also have Tomcat, Apache, PAM, PPP/CHAP (for Remote Access with L2TP/PPTP), OpenSWAN (ipsec), Samba and custom applications authenticating against LDAP. Our centralized directory system is all home-brew, but this also gives us a lot of flexibility (we have 5 different password hashes for various systems!). It's not the easiest route in the short term, but it pays off in the long term. We have bindings for pretty much any language (including shell script via ldapsearch, etc) which offers tremendous flexibility. OpenLDAP is synchronized with a hot-backup, so we have redundancy built-in.
Yes, you could use any XML editor on the file, but it still doesn't really buy you anything. Configuring a webserver is a complicated task, and those that complain about the complexity of the configuration file are often simply expressing ignorance of the process (which a GUI will not really solve).
I haven't used IIS since version 4, but oh my! What a mess that GUI was; I didn't find it helpful in the least. In fact, I was often roaming around (configuring a vhost was a horrible task) trying to remember *where* the gadget that I needed was placed.
Contrast that with httpd.conf, where one can search for sections in any one of hundreds of text editors out there. You can even use other text processing tools such as perl, or even the unix userland.
Converting the config file over to XML will make it easier for a machine to read the data (the httpd daemon can read either, so it doesn't really care one way or the other) at the cost of sacrificing all the other tools. Well, crippling them at least. As I said in another post, bringing up the Tomcat XML configuration file in vi is a mess; emacs electric highlighting makes it a tad bit better -- and the web configuation tool can't do many many things that need to be done (such as migrating a tomcat4 to a tomcat5 configuration). Couple that with all the advice to "put this in your tomcat config file" all over the net: I suspect a VERY SMALL number of users ever take advantage of the benefit that XML offers, and the rest of us must suffer with it.
Yes, because editing the Tomcat config file is SUCH a joy every time I upgrade the server. I love all the extremely verobse tags that encapsulate a byte (don't forget to TypeTheEntireEndTagAsWell). It's so much nicer than human language; thinking like a machine makes me so much more productive...
Ahh, XML, a solution for a problem that often doesn't exist.
Don't get me wrong, I love xmlrpc, SOAP and RSS. Places where I don't have to edit the raw data, and it needs to be host agnostic.
He wants to be able to edit vhosts without doing a server restart. 95% (I would wager) of the users out there probably don't care about restarting apache after a configuration change. It just doesn't affect us. Session data is generally stored in cookies or with tomcat, or in a peristent store -- and Apache restart has almost zero effect on operations.
A limitation? Yes. It'll have to be addressed at some point.
I would, however, rather have the stability and modularity of Apache _now_, and wait for this "feature" later; rather than the other way around, as IIS seems to be growing.
That, and I refuse to use a server that doesn't support regular expression url rewrites (mod_rewrite RULES!)
Slashdot Mirror
Get the voice recognition done already! I can handle a virtual-touch keyboard for the one-off case, but I need a full keyboard until we have good voice recognition.
All software companies fix bugs all the time. Why do we have to have a story every time a bug is fixed in IE or Firefox...? It boggles the mind.
And Congress keeps paying for the whole deal; so the blood really is on their hands anyway. I love how they gave Bush the authority to go into Iraq, but later act all shocked that he actually did it (ie, John Kerry), and *then* go on to support funding the fiasco. Outside of the national budget. In supplementary funding bills that do not make headlines for debt spending. Ugh. I agree that too many heap all their demons onto Bush and don't hold other public officers to account. I actually voted for John Kerry, but I had to hold my nose while I did it.
If I had mod points, I'd give them to you. People seem to be under the mistaken notion that iTunes/FairPlay is somehow less evil than other DRM systems.
Hybrids rarely use the electric engine while cruising on the expressway, and as such will have the same fuel economy as a comprable gasoline-only engine. Diesel cars and motorcycles use much less fuel than conventional vehicles; but not hybrids.
At least on Sunday mornings, that appears to be the case.
Or it could just be that certain industries do not lend themselves to markets very well (as long as we're mixing markets with "capitalism"). Common-carrier networks may be one of them, along with firemen, policemen and public education. Unfortunately, that doesn't stop communists or some socialists from propping such companies up as strawmen which exemplify the entire market system. Try having a government come up with, manufacture and maintain the iPod sometime. The 2GB model would still be in community sub-hearings on the proper maximum volume level today.
The last geek band from DC that I know of was Barcelona; good stuff. I'll have to check it out.
That you got modded "Troll" for that is pretty damn funny. Moderators who know nothing about IPv6 should refrain from moderating the discussion. It really is a solution in search of a problem; the internet as designed by committee. Thank god ipv4/apranet wasn't designed that way -- as any large project with "milestones" and corresponding Gannt-Charts is doomed to failure. You made my friend list, if nothing else thegameiam. Keep beating your heart against the wall.
Say you're writing a sensor for a new CPU thermal ic, and you want to export it via a pseudofile (eg, /proc). How is it going to help your cause to have several subsystems that may or may not be present at very high levels (eg, the UNIX subsystem, the filesystem subsystem, etc.)?
In fact, a ukernel could protenally make it much more difficult to design something like that, especially if you can't guarantee that subsystems are present or that they can go up/down (gee, the filesystem subsystem went away, what do I do now?!?) In practice, it's a beautiful cathedral and not a funcational bazar.
I would also point to MacOS X, which makes some use of a ukernel (although most of the system I/O completely bypasses it for efficiency reasons -- nothing like a slow disk eh?); practically every device driver written for it needs to be re-written for new versions (ProTools being the example I'm most familiar with). Many of them use kernel extensions that do not gracefully upgrade.
I voted for Nader in 2000, for all the good it did.
You must have watched different debates than I did. I came away hating both candidates. Bush is a simple manager that leans heavily on his "experts", and can't think on the fly to save his life; Kerry is a carreer politician who will say anything to anyone to get elected. We need to take the caucus/primary power away from those notheastern small states. Dean could have solidly beat Bush, if he hadn't "scared" those poor farmers with his scream.
I voted for Kerry, but it was the most distateful vote I have ever cast.
It wasn't an obvious call by any means, and I'm not surprised that people were conflicted. Trying to pick between Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle-Dum isn't fun.
Maybe they should include the FBI Campus and the RIAA Campus too.
Ban those as needed. What's the problem? It's easier to censor a netblock than to do your job?
Yes, WIPO is exactly why the UN should not be allowed to administer it. The organization is overly political (ie, they take bribes and cater to popular whim); we need a "secular" body that thinks instead. Personally, I don't see how the root servers have been mismanaged so far. All I see is grandstanding by EU politicos against the Great Beast of America; which may be warrented in certain spheres (eg, Iraq), but not here.
After giving root server control to the UN, how long would it take them to "synergize" it with security council sanctions, human rights violitions and such? Even the "axis of evil" have not had problems with DNS under US control.
Because, you know... if you don't use IE then you must hate Microsoft. ::Bill the Cat ptppppts to him::
I suppose you could call it an "ideological war" if you wanted to stigmatize it. I prefer to call it "superior open standards" myself.
I use Linux on my desktop and I have a PowerBook. Which category does that put me in? The last time I checked, I couldn't run Internet Explorer... but someone please correct me if I'm wrong here.
Firefox has achieved many of its goals regardless, with 10% of the web not using Internet Explorer (Firefox + Opera + Safari + Konq) websites are no longer able to simply plug Microsoft technology into their websites and run with it. I can't remember the last website that I visited that didn't function properly in Firefox -- which was a very common problem in the bad-old-days of IE5/ActiveX (again, through no supposed hatred on my part). Microsoft is a better netizen today than they were five years ago. Their development is more open, and their technologies are more cooperative. There is much more of a free market in webspace now, which is a good thing.Well, I used to be a Mormon, and even served the mission and all that. The reason your mother could not be re-sealed is because she lacks a penis. Only men are allowed to be sealed again and again and again. Joseph Smith himself was "sealed" to girls as young as 14 years of age. He didn't want to share with other men, so he forbade women the same privilege. And blacks too. They couldn't be sealed. Dirty blacks and females weren't wanted in his church.
Yes, but don't you want your directory server to interoperate with other systems? Isn't that the whole point? I'm half joking, but half serious as well; one of the main gripes I have with AD is the lack of customization that one can perform with it. It's great when you want to integrate it with Microsoft Remote Acess or Microsoft SQL Server or any of a dozen other Microsoft products, but try getting it to authenticate against opensource P2PP/PPP (which easily integrates with other LDAP solutions).
We use Scalix which authenticates against OpenLDAP. They are a commercial solution, but their software is very opensource friendly and their support is very good (including pulic forums). We also have Tomcat, Apache, PAM, PPP/CHAP (for Remote Access with L2TP/PPTP), OpenSWAN (ipsec), Samba and custom applications authenticating against LDAP. Our centralized directory system is all home-brew, but this also gives us a lot of flexibility (we have 5 different password hashes for various systems!). It's not the easiest route in the short term, but it pays off in the long term. We have bindings for pretty much any language (including shell script via ldapsearch, etc) which offers tremendous flexibility. OpenLDAP is synchronized with a hot-backup, so we have redundancy built-in.
Yes, you could use any XML editor on the file, but it still doesn't really buy you anything. Configuring a webserver is a complicated task, and those that complain about the complexity of the configuration file are often simply expressing ignorance of the process (which a GUI will not really solve).
I haven't used IIS since version 4, but oh my! What a mess that GUI was; I didn't find it helpful in the least. In fact, I was often roaming around (configuring a vhost was a horrible task) trying to remember *where* the gadget that I needed was placed.
Contrast that with httpd.conf, where one can search for sections in any one of hundreds of text editors out there. You can even use other text processing tools such as perl, or even the unix userland.
Converting the config file over to XML will make it easier for a machine to read the data (the httpd daemon can read either, so it doesn't really care one way or the other) at the cost of sacrificing all the other tools. Well, crippling them at least. As I said in another post, bringing up the Tomcat XML configuration file in vi is a mess; emacs electric highlighting makes it a tad bit better -- and the web configuation tool can't do many many things that need to be done (such as migrating a tomcat4 to a tomcat5 configuration). Couple that with all the advice to "put this in your tomcat config file" all over the net: I suspect a VERY SMALL number of users ever take advantage of the benefit that XML offers, and the rest of us must suffer with it.
Ahh, XML, a solution for a problem that often doesn't exist.
Don't get me wrong, I love xmlrpc, SOAP and RSS. Places where I don't have to edit the raw data, and it needs to be host agnostic.
He wants to be able to edit vhosts without doing a server restart. 95% (I would wager) of the users out there probably don't care about restarting apache after a configuration change. It just doesn't affect us. Session data is generally stored in cookies or with tomcat, or in a peristent store -- and Apache restart has almost zero effect on operations. A limitation? Yes. It'll have to be addressed at some point. I would, however, rather have the stability and modularity of Apache _now_, and wait for this "feature" later; rather than the other way around, as IIS seems to be growing. That, and I refuse to use a server that doesn't support regular expression url rewrites (mod_rewrite RULES!)
Right. Because it's not News unless it comes from CNN or Fox, I suppose. I think you're at the wrong website.