Somewhat recent (at least for several years) macs include recovery firmware which can boot into an environment one can configure a network connection with, and has the option of downloading the operating system from Apple and re-installing it.
Sounds like the watch needs a gesture for "go back to where I was in the app, before the watch auto-reset to the time". And I don't mean a touchscreen gesture, I mean something using the accelerometer. The downside is that's bound to look silly.
I appreciate the response, but I just don't think "we haven't had time to implement it yet" cuts it for important features which are working in the current UI. The obvious solution is to wait until there is feature parity, then start beta testing.
So, while VortexCortex's response (http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4771749&cid=46207371) could have been nicer, I'd say it's accurate. A UI replacement just isn't ready for beta testing before it has feature parity with what it's replacing. And it's foolish to think otherwise.
Routing any users to an unfinished beta, where plenty of feedback has already been given, shows a fundamental disrespect for the community. It should be taken down until it's at feature parity, then we can provide constructive feedback.
What you're describing sounds consistent with the article to me. The ghost behaviors are complex, but not random. They are determined by the location of Pac-Man, the location of other ghosts, the number of dots eaten, and by timers. If you run the same pattern every time, those factors will generate the same behavior each time.
If you still remember the patterns, it might be interesting to run through them again and see if you can see why they work after reading this article.
Usually I let patches sit for several days after they are downloaded. Why?
- Once I install the patches, I know I am going to get nagged to reboot, I can either keep closing the popup, or drag it to the edge of the screen, but either way, I find it bothersome - When I wind up rebooting anyway, I don't want to wait for the updates to install before I do.
So, I wind up waiting until I have nothing better to do than run the updates *and* want to shut down. I'm sure I can't be the only one who does this - seems like MS would have quicker update uptake if there was an option to:
- automatically install updates
- if they need a reboot, just have them use the next reboot you happen to do, don't nag.
Auto-update with auto-reboot isn't an option because I don't want whatever applications I happen to leave running overnight be at risk of getting closed by random reboots.
Interesting - do you ever run into flash applets you want to use but are broken due to not being able to store anything even temporarily?
Have you considered trying this:
rm -r.macromedia;mkdir/tmp/$LOGNAME; mkdir/tmp/$LOGNAME/.macromedia; chmod 700/tmp/$LOGNAME/.macromedia; ln -s/tmp/$LOGNAME/.macromedia ~/.macromedia
(Assuming you are using tmpfs or otherwise periodically cleaning out/tmp)
If that is indeed their plan, the right way to do it would be to have already created the patch, and placed it in escrow with a neutral third party who has been paid in advance to keep the patch secure until such time as they go out of business or for any other reason no longer provide authentication. This third party would then be required to release the patch.
This sort of thing is done all the time by closed-source software vendors when their (big) customers demand access to the source in case they go belly-up, this sort of patch would not be much different.
If the patch does not already exist, in escrow, they are not serious about releasing it.
In Boston, parking overnight is allowed on almost every street, in general, though in many neighborhoods one has to have a resident parking permit to park on the street at all. Even so, some of the more densely populated areas have so many more cars than spaces, so finding a spot several blocks away from where you want to go can still be considered "lucky". The lanes also tend to be small by US standards. As a result, this is what happens on the streets where parking is still permitted during a snow-storm:
the plows can not clear as large a traffic lane as they otherwise would, and the streets become less passable
due to the spots that did not get plowed back to the curb or shoveled out between cars, there wind up being less spots available, and those that are available are difficult to get close to the curb in, so traffic is impeded further.
So they do take people parking on the arterials during a snow emergency seriously.
You said it yourself - stealing is "taking" - when copyright infringement occurs, nothing is taken, rather an unauthorized copy is made, and the original is still there. The copies themselves are not protected by law, rather the act of copying is what is restricted, and having an unauthorized copy is good evidence that infringement has occurred.
Of course damages are due for instances of copyright infringement - but using the word "stealing" is inflammatory, and that is what people object to.
The current ID procedures airlines are using do not even guarantee that the person getting on a given flight is the person the airline thinks is getting on. I recently flew from Boston to Seattle via Chicago, and back via San Francisco on United. Four flights - and on *NONE* of the flights did I have to show my ID at the gate, only at the security checkpoint before the gates.
I can think of two exploits based on this to get on a plane the airline does not think you are on, though you do have to be able to get through security in the first place.
1) You and your associate buy tickets on two flights departing the same set of gates at a similar time. Go through security. Switch boarding passes once you are through security.
2) You fly into an airport shortly before your associate has an outbound flight booked for, making sure you are scheduled to arrive at the same set of gates as the outbound flight. Your associate hands you the boarding pass for the outbound flight, you get on the plane and your associate leaves without getting on a plane at all.
My conclusion: if this was a real a security measure, they would not leave loopholes like this. The ID check is there to keep people from casually swapping non-transferable tickets, and to give people a warm fuzzy feeling about security.
Either way they have to deal with processing a transaction, but if you use it as a CC, the store has to pay a percentage of the transaction to the CC company, and part of that is paid to the issuer (your credit union).
As someone who keeps as far right as possible unless passing, I find that I wind up passing more people on the right than the left now. In particular on the three lane section of the Mass. Pike I can cruise along for miles and miles in the right lane without anyone in my way. All the slow people seem stick to the middle lane. Go figure.
If you are going to record them off of satellite, be careful you are getting the full episodes. I've noticed some dropped scenes in almost every episode I've watched in syndication in the last few years. Though I don't have satellite so maybe you have some channels that are better behaved about that.
That sounds like too much work. Just keep a rubber garbage can in your trunk, park at an actual hydrant and put the can over the hydrant. (from the "Boston Driver's Handbook")
Re:Practical or somebody's thesis?
on
Robocones
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
What would really be helpful is construction zone signs that could be switched on and off remotely when people were actually working. At least in upstate NY, the work zone signs usually seem to be indicating that work may at some point have happened, or will happen eventually, so why don't you slow down just in case.
Not that speeding in work zones is justified, but I'm sure more people would slow down if they knew the signs actually meant something.
This I do not understand. If 375Kb/s = 375,000 b/s, then how can this be more than 3,000,000 b/s?
375KB/s would require more than a 3Mb/s connection, since 375,000*8=3,000,000 and that does not account for any overhead.
The grandparent probably just mistyped b for bit instead of B for Byte. Download speeds are customarily measured in Bytes, and connection speeds in bits.
Take:
1 : to get into one's hands or into one's possession, power, or control: as a : to seize or capture physically <took them as prisoners>
One can not "Take" intellectual property, one could take the media it is on but the IP itself can only be copied. If it can not be taken then by your definition above, there can be no theft.
The price tag isn't going to stop any spammers but it will stop some legit people from getting a domain.
Maybe they could stop spamers without financially burdening legit people by using a long set-up time instead of a high initial fee. They would have to only allow one application per person or organization at a time, but if it took a month to get a.mail domain, it wouldn't be worth it to a spammer who would probably be shut down quickly anyway.
"the claim that LT is not authorized to redistribute the content is not defamatory, it's merely incorrect."
Actually, it most likely correct, just misleading. If LT was authorized to redistribute the content, CMP would presumably also have no problem with LT linking, even though they are two different things. So they probably were never authorized to redistribute content from CMP - but the misleading part is they needed no such authorization.
Slashdot Mirror
Somewhat recent (at least for several years) macs include recovery firmware which can boot into an environment one can configure a network connection with, and has the option of downloading the operating system from Apple and re-installing it.
Sounds like the watch needs a gesture for "go back to where I was in the app, before the watch auto-reset to the time". And I don't mean a touchscreen gesture, I mean something using the accelerometer. The downside is that's bound to look silly.
I appreciate the response, but I just don't think "we haven't had time to implement it yet" cuts it for important features which are working in the current UI. The obvious solution is to wait until there is feature parity, then start beta testing. So, while VortexCortex's response (http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4771749&cid=46207371) could have been nicer, I'd say it's accurate. A UI replacement just isn't ready for beta testing before it has feature parity with what it's replacing. And it's foolish to think otherwise. Routing any users to an unfinished beta, where plenty of feedback has already been given, shows a fundamental disrespect for the community. It should be taken down until it's at feature parity, then we can provide constructive feedback.
Oops, I wasn't thinking about frightened mode. As others have said, presumably the PRNG generating the same series causes patterns to work there.
What you're describing sounds consistent with the article to me. The ghost behaviors are complex, but not random. They are determined by the location of Pac-Man, the location of other ghosts, the number of dots eaten, and by timers. If you run the same pattern every time, those factors will generate the same behavior each time.
If you still remember the patterns, it might be interesting to run through them again and see if you can see why they work after reading this article.
Usually I let patches sit for several days after they are downloaded. Why?
- Once I install the patches, I know I am going to get nagged to reboot, I can either keep closing the popup, or drag it to the edge of the screen, but either way, I find it bothersome
- When I wind up rebooting anyway, I don't want to wait for the updates to install before I do.
So, I wind up waiting until I have nothing better to do than run the updates *and* want to shut down. I'm sure I can't be the only one who does this - seems like MS would have quicker update uptake if there was an option to:
- automatically install updates
- if they need a reboot, just have them use the next reboot you happen to do, don't nag.
Auto-update with auto-reboot isn't an option because I don't want whatever applications I happen to leave running overnight be at risk of getting closed by random reboots.
No, it's not possessive.
ITS IT'S
Interesting - do you ever run into flash applets you want to use but are broken due to not being able to store anything even temporarily?
Have you considered trying this: .macromedia;mkdir /tmp/$LOGNAME; mkdir /tmp/$LOGNAME/.macromedia; chmod 700 /tmp/$LOGNAME/.macromedia; ln -s /tmp/$LOGNAME/.macromedia ~/.macromedia
rm -r
(Assuming you are using tmpfs or otherwise periodically cleaning out /tmp)
If that is indeed their plan, the right way to do it would be to have already created the patch, and placed it in escrow with a neutral third party who has been paid in advance to keep the patch secure until such time as they go out of business or for any other reason no longer provide authentication. This third party would then be required to release the patch.
This sort of thing is done all the time by closed-source software vendors when their (big) customers demand access to the source in case they go belly-up, this sort of patch would not be much different.
If the patch does not already exist, in escrow, they are not serious about releasing it.
So they do take people parking on the arterials during a snow emergency seriously.
You said it yourself - stealing is "taking" - when copyright infringement occurs, nothing is taken, rather an unauthorized copy is made, and the original is still there. The copies themselves are not protected by law, rather the act of copying is what is restricted, and having an unauthorized copy is good evidence that infringement has occurred.
Of course damages are due for instances of copyright infringement - but using the word "stealing" is inflammatory, and that is what people object to.
The current ID procedures airlines are using do not even guarantee that the person getting on a given flight is the person the airline thinks is getting on. I recently flew from Boston to Seattle via Chicago, and back via San Francisco on United. Four flights - and on *NONE* of the flights did I have to show my ID at the gate, only at the security checkpoint before the gates.
I can think of two exploits based on this to get on a plane the airline does not think you are on, though you do have to be able to get through security in the first place.
1) You and your associate buy tickets on two flights departing the same set of gates at a similar time. Go through security. Switch boarding passes once you are through security.
2) You fly into an airport shortly before your associate has an outbound flight booked for, making sure you are scheduled to arrive at the same set of gates as the outbound flight. Your associate hands you the boarding pass for the outbound flight, you get on the plane and your associate leaves without getting on a plane at all.
My conclusion: if this was a real a security measure, they would not leave loopholes like this. The ID check is there to keep people from casually swapping non-transferable tickets, and to give people a warm fuzzy feeling about security.
If that is the case, how long before Apple changes the iPod to allow retreiving theese files? After all, Apples files are DRM-ed anyway.
Sounds to me like it is their government erecting the wall, not "us".
.50 bond is a trivial amount to some, but not so trivial to others.
I think it may be a problem that a
1) announce big dividend, get $3 billion dollars and donate it all
2) ????
3) Profit
some scam
Either way they have to deal with processing a transaction, but if you use it as a CC, the store has to pay a percentage of the transaction to the CC company, and part of that is paid to the issuer (your credit union).
As someone who keeps as far right as possible unless passing, I find that I wind up passing more people on the right than the left now. In particular on the three lane section of the Mass. Pike I can cruise along for miles and miles in the right lane without anyone in my way. All the slow people seem stick to the middle lane. Go figure.
They may lack more than quality -
If you are going to record them off of satellite, be careful you are getting the full episodes. I've noticed some dropped scenes in almost every episode I've watched in syndication in the last few years. Though I don't have satellite so maybe you have some channels that are better behaved about that.
The point is, the owner of the address did not opt in the address.
That sounds like too much work. Just keep a rubber garbage can in your trunk, park at an actual hydrant and put the can over the hydrant. (from the "Boston Driver's Handbook")
What would really be helpful is construction zone signs that could be switched on and off remotely when people were actually working. At least in upstate NY, the work zone signs usually seem to be indicating that work may at some point have happened, or will happen eventually, so why don't you slow down just in case.
Not that speeding in work zones is justified, but I'm sure more people would slow down if they knew the signs actually meant something.
This I do not understand. If 375Kb/s = 375,000 b/s, then how can this be more than 3,000,000 b/s?
375KB/s would require more than a 3Mb/s connection, since 375,000*8=3,000,000 and that does not account for any overhead.
The grandparent probably just mistyped b for bit instead of B for Byte. Download speeds are customarily measured in Bytes, and connection speeds in bits.
Courtesy http://www.m-w.com (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary)
Take:
1 : to get into one's hands or into one's possession, power, or control: as a : to seize or capture physically <took them as prisoners>
One can not "Take" intellectual property, one could take the media it is on but the IP itself can only be copied. If it can not be taken then by your definition above, there can be no theft.
The price tag isn't going to stop any spammers but it will stop some legit people from getting a domain.
.mail domain, it wouldn't be worth it to a spammer who would probably be shut down quickly anyway.
Maybe they could stop spamers without financially burdening legit people by using a long set-up time instead of a high initial fee. They would have to only allow one application per person or organization at a time, but if it took a month to get a
"the claim that LT is not authorized to redistribute the content is not defamatory, it's merely incorrect."
Actually, it most likely correct, just misleading. If LT was authorized to redistribute the content, CMP would presumably also have no problem with LT linking, even though they are two different things. So they probably were never authorized to redistribute content from CMP - but the misleading part is they needed no such authorization.