I submitted a PCWorld story on the 10th and 11th about AOL applying to the FCC for release from the requirement to make AOL Instant Messener interoperable with other provider's services.
The story that was posted on the 12th was about tests of Video Messaging.
It's funny, this get's posted, but my news submissions about AOL/Time Warner trying to weasel out of the IM Interoperability order that was a condition of their merger, was rejected twice.
The handwriting recognition on PocketPC 2002 is NOT the same as the Handwriting Recognition on the Tablet PC.
Digital Ink on the Tablet PC is quite a bit more advanced than Transcriber on PPC2K2.
You were block printing single words and short phrases to test the recognizer, weren't you?
Seriously, write in cursive, and write alot. Block Printing is hard for the recognizer to work with, because it's a ton of tiny little strokes.
Cursive on the other hand is a hell of a lot easier for the recognizer to work with, not to mention the fact that the recognizer combines spell check/grammar check into it's routine. Thus if you're writing long sentences that makes sense, rather than short little block printed words, the accuracy goes WAY up.
It's not a "Black Box" in the manner in which a commercial aircraft has a black box. It's not designed to survive a crash, it has no beacon to aid in recovery, it's an artifact of the test flights, and as such, no other shuttle has one. They just never ripped the thing out when they didn't need it anymore. It's more of a lucky accident than anything.
I was just refuting the assertion that Disney was somehow contractually obligated NOT to promote the film. They did plenty of promotion for it, within the select markets they brought the film to, or at least they seemed to here in Canada.
There were Trailers for Spirited Away before many G and PG films, posters in the Paramount Theatre in Downtown Toronto, and it showed in one of the large screens at that theatre during it's initial run, and was packed when I saw it.
He's speaking as a developer. He can write an application that uses the 100% guaranteed to be there, IE HTML Rendering Engine, without having to write his own HTML Engine, or go out and try and integrate someone elses and deal with installation hassles.
If it was a "Bug" why did it ONLY Manifest when the Binary was called quake.exe? Rename it to quack.exe and the "Bug" didn't manifest, and the true performance (and accurate visual details were shown.)
Surely, the same settings set in game should have triggered the same bug, regardless of the name of the binary that was running at the time.
IT didn't just make it run faster. It turned down the Visual Quality lower than what you were asking for in order to make it run faster.
If I ask for Highest Visual Detail in a game, I expect Highest Visual Detail. I don't expect the Video Card Drivers to internally decide that I really meant Pretty High Visual Detail so that it can run it faster.
It's not as much about Security, as it is about Integrity of the Document.
Manager creates stnadard boilerplate documents, with certain fields uneditable.
Regular Users can use those documents, make changes in the sections they're allowed to make changes in and issue them to clients, or send them for storage or whatever, but cannot edit certain portions of the documents (usually done by accident, rather than intentionally).
Absolutely correct, and not the only place it's applicable.
All throughout a business's processes, you'll want certain documents ability to be modified restricted to certain users (or even just parts of some documents). Just because a company puts DRM features into a software package, it's not some underhanded payoff to the RIAA.
It's trivial to get silver/silver CD-R's these days. A silver playing surface is no guarantee that you have a pressed CD in your hands, and not a burned CD-R.
There are always 2 EVA Rated people on a shuttle flight, and 2 EVA Suits.
They're necessary in the event that there is a problem closing and locking the cargo-bay doors (which must be opened on every flight to help cool the shuttle.)
They've been launching 2 Soyuz a month for the last 69 years and 10 months?
Might want to look that number up again, there's no way in hell they've launched that many missions.
It's not Cargo room, and Soyuz flights aren't ..
on
Latest Columbia News
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
It's not Cargo room, and Soyuz flights aren't resupply flights.
Unmanned Progress Tugs fly resupply missions to ISS, they can carry 2.5 tons of supplies (food, clothes, fuel, water, oxygen, etc).
Soyuz flights were "Taxi Flights" Soyuz capsules have an on-orbit rating of six months. So that means that the Russians need to rotate the Soyuz "Life Boat" at the ISS every six months.
What they do is fly a fresh Soyuz capsule up. Two cosmonauts are necessary for the Taxi Flight, and then that Taxi Crew comes back down on the old Soyuz capsule. They used to fill that third seat through agreements they had with other nations space agencies, and have only recently begun selling them to space tourists.
They're going to kill the Taxi Flights while the Space Shuttle is grounded, and devote them to ISS Crew Rotation.
That means that the next Long-Term ISS Crew will fly up to the station on a Soyuz, and the current crew will return to earth aboard the Soyuz currently docked to the station, and due to be rotated out.
They will continue that pattern until the Shuttle's start flying again, at which point they will resume Crew Rotation duties, and the Soyuz flights will go back to being simple Taxi Flights again, at which point the russians will start selling the third seat again.
They're cancelling the "Space Tourism" flights, because Russia is going to devote all Soyuz flights solely to resupplying the ISS while the Shuttle Fleet is grounded.
That means no Taxi Flights. The next Long Term crew will fly up in a Soyuz, and the current crew will return on the one already docked there.
This pattern will continue until the Shuttles are flying again, at which point the Shuttle will resume Crew Rotation duties, and the Russians will go back to Taxi Flights to replace the Soyuz "Escape Capsule", at which point they will then have an extra seat open to sell to Tourists, or to other Space Agencies.
They shuttle could have stayed on orbit until Wednesday, and with careful rationing, they might have extended that another couple of days, but they would have run out of consumables (air, power, food, water) by the end of the week.
The question then becomes, was it a bug in the style sheet that was masked by a bug in Opera v6, or was it a deliberate setting in the stylesheet to work around a bug in Opera v6?
Now that v7 doesn't have the bug anymore, the existence of the setting, that was a workaround for a previous bug, looks like intentional shennanigans.
The Space Station has quite a bit of propellant onboard (and can be refuelled by the Progress Cargo Ships that periodically dock).
They use the Shuttle when it's there to do reboosts because The Shuttle's there already, and has extra fuel, so they might as well use it to reboost the station. It's not necessary, they just use the Shuttle's fuel to conserve the station's own fuel supply for emergencies.
And damn, their stuff can't do any of the things the Shuttle is designed to do.
The Soyuz is nothing more than an Apollo Capsule, for chrissakes. It get's people into orbit, and brings them back, and that's about all it does. There's more habitable room in a the typical minivan than there is inside a Soyuz capsule.
Slashdot Mirror
I submitted a PCWorld story on the 10th and 11th about AOL applying to the FCC for release from the requirement to make AOL Instant Messener interoperable with other provider's services.
t k,dn040703X,00.asp
The story that was posted on the 12th was about tests of Video Messaging.
http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,110158,
It's funny, this get's posted, but my news submissions about AOL/Time Warner trying to weasel out of the IM Interoperability order that was a condition of their merger, was rejected twice.
Windows XP Professional is a Desktop/Workstation OS, not a Server OS.
XP Pro has the Remote Desktop and Networking support necessary for "Mira" to function
The handwriting recognition on PocketPC 2002 is NOT the same as the Handwriting Recognition on the Tablet PC. Digital Ink on the Tablet PC is quite a bit more advanced than Transcriber on PPC2K2.
You were block printing single words and short phrases to test the recognizer, weren't you? Seriously, write in cursive, and write alot. Block Printing is hard for the recognizer to work with, because it's a ton of tiny little strokes. Cursive on the other hand is a hell of a lot easier for the recognizer to work with, not to mention the fact that the recognizer combines spell check/grammar check into it's routine. Thus if you're writing long sentences that makes sense, rather than short little block printed words, the accuracy goes WAY up.
goes back several more years to Star Trek IV, when Scotty tries to give voice commands to the Macintosh in the Plexiglass Plant Manager's office.
I've got new for them...: The world doesn't owe you a living. I've got news for you, you don't deserve their music for free either, scumbag.
Don't forget to pay all your expenses out of that 40% cut. Transportation, equipment rental, insurance, etc.
It's not a "Black Box" in the manner in which a commercial aircraft has a black box. It's not designed to survive a crash, it has no beacon to aid in recovery, it's an artifact of the test flights, and as such, no other shuttle has one. They just never ripped the thing out when they didn't need it anymore. It's more of a lucky accident than anything.
I was just refuting the assertion that Disney was somehow contractually obligated NOT to promote the film. They did plenty of promotion for it, within the select markets they brought the film to, or at least they seemed to here in Canada.
There were Trailers for Spirited Away before many G and PG films, posters in the Paramount Theatre in Downtown Toronto, and it showed in one of the large screens at that theatre during it's initial run, and was packed when I saw it.
He's speaking as a developer. He can write an application that uses the 100% guaranteed to be there, IE HTML Rendering Engine, without having to write his own HTML Engine, or go out and try and integrate someone elses and deal with installation hassles.
If it was a "Bug" why did it ONLY Manifest when the Binary was called quake.exe? Rename it to quack.exe and the "Bug" didn't manifest, and the true performance (and accurate visual details were shown.)
Surely, the same settings set in game should have triggered the same bug, regardless of the name of the binary that was running at the time.
IT didn't just make it run faster. It turned down the Visual Quality lower than what you were asking for in order to make it run faster.
If I ask for Highest Visual Detail in a game, I expect Highest Visual Detail. I don't expect the Video Card Drivers to internally decide that I really meant Pretty High Visual Detail so that it can run it faster.
It's not as much about Security, as it is about Integrity of the Document.
Manager creates stnadard boilerplate documents, with certain fields uneditable.
Regular Users can use those documents, make changes in the sections they're allowed to make changes in and issue them to clients, or send them for storage or whatever, but cannot edit certain portions of the documents (usually done by accident, rather than intentionally).
Absolutely correct, and not the only place it's applicable.
All throughout a business's processes, you'll want certain documents ability to be modified restricted to certain users (or even just parts of some documents). Just because a company puts DRM features into a software package, it's not some underhanded payoff to the RIAA.
It's trivial to get silver/silver CD-R's these days. A silver playing surface is no guarantee that you have a pressed CD in your hands, and not a burned CD-R.
There are always 2 EVA Rated people on a shuttle flight, and 2 EVA Suits.
They're necessary in the event that there is a problem closing and locking the cargo-bay doors (which must be opened on every flight to help cool the shuttle.)
They've been launching 2 Soyuz a month for the last 69 years and 10 months? Might want to look that number up again, there's no way in hell they've launched that many missions.
It's not Cargo room, and Soyuz flights aren't resupply flights.
Unmanned Progress Tugs fly resupply missions to ISS, they can carry 2.5 tons of supplies (food, clothes, fuel, water, oxygen, etc).
Soyuz flights were "Taxi Flights" Soyuz capsules have an on-orbit rating of six months. So that means that the Russians need to rotate the Soyuz "Life Boat" at the ISS every six months.
What they do is fly a fresh Soyuz capsule up. Two cosmonauts are necessary for the Taxi Flight, and then that Taxi Crew comes back down on the old Soyuz capsule. They used to fill that third seat through agreements they had with other nations space agencies, and have only recently begun selling them to space tourists.
They're going to kill the Taxi Flights while the Space Shuttle is grounded, and devote them to ISS Crew Rotation.
That means that the next Long-Term ISS Crew will fly up to the station on a Soyuz, and the current crew will return to earth aboard the Soyuz currently docked to the station, and due to be rotated out.
They will continue that pattern until the Shuttle's start flying again, at which point they will resume Crew Rotation duties, and the Soyuz flights will go back to being simple Taxi Flights again, at which point the russians will start selling the third seat again.
They're cancelling the "Space Tourism" flights, because Russia is going to devote all Soyuz flights solely to resupplying the ISS while the Shuttle Fleet is grounded.
That means no Taxi Flights. The next Long Term crew will fly up in a Soyuz, and the current crew will return on the one already docked there.
This pattern will continue until the Shuttles are flying again, at which point the Shuttle will resume Crew Rotation duties, and the Russians will go back to Taxi Flights to replace the Soyuz "Escape Capsule", at which point they will then have an extra seat open to sell to Tourists, or to other Space Agencies.
They shuttle could have stayed on orbit until Wednesday, and with careful rationing, they might have extended that another couple of days, but they would have run out of consumables (air, power, food, water) by the end of the week.
The question then becomes, was it a bug in the style sheet that was masked by a bug in Opera v6, or was it a deliberate setting in the stylesheet to work around a bug in Opera v6?
Now that v7 doesn't have the bug anymore, the existence of the setting, that was a workaround for a previous bug, looks like intentional shennanigans.
The Space Station has quite a bit of propellant onboard (and can be refuelled by the Progress Cargo Ships that periodically dock). They use the Shuttle when it's there to do reboosts because The Shuttle's there already, and has extra fuel, so they might as well use it to reboost the station. It's not necessary, they just use the Shuttle's fuel to conserve the station's own fuel supply for emergencies.
And damn, their stuff can't do any of the things the Shuttle is designed to do.
The Soyuz is nothing more than an Apollo Capsule, for chrissakes. It get's people into orbit, and brings them back, and that's about all it does. There's more habitable room in a the typical minivan than there is inside a Soyuz capsule.