This seeems to be happening a lot: 1) company has lousy ProductName 2) company buys better technology 3) company names this completely incompatible product "ProductName 2" or something like that. 4) customers are confused, especially those who don't read slashdot
Don't even think about posting a ??? Profit message on this.
It was just a corrupt plist that was stopping safari from opening. It launches now, after deleting the plist.
Anyone know how to change the group of/tmp to something other than admin? I've tried sudo chgrp -h nogroup/tmp, among other things, and it did nothing.
I like Chimera a lot, but I still prefer galeon because Galeon puts close "X" buttons on each tab. If Chimera did that it would be perfect for me.
I usually close tabs from the keyboard anyway, but for the mouse, Cocoa Gestures are much better than tab Xs (not to mention window widgets), at least if you have a wheel mouse.
For my part, I would have been using Safari for hours, but it no longer opens. What I did:
1) Play with both Safari and Chimera for awhile, comparing performance and rendering on several webpages.
2) Shut down and go to bed.
3) Reboot. Try to launch Safari. No luck. Safari has unexpectedly quit; your system has not been hosed. Reboot and try again. Fidget with settings. Try again. Still doesn't work. Wait for the next version.
I still have/tmp and ~/. I can't print, but that's nothing new since I don't have a printer.
Personally, I run everything as a non-admin user and have a special "admin" account...
The only difference between an admin user and a regular user is that the admin is in the sudoers file and in group "staff" (not group "admin"). Unless you authenticate to the system (equivelant to sudo), you have no more privelages than a regular user unless you have made lots of stuff owned by the "staff" group.
Seriously though, did anyone check to make sure they got the right file from the site rather than a hacked version that was put in place of the original.
How? They didn't sign it. It's not open source, and if it were, you'd have to sift through the source for hours to have a hope of finding anything.
You would think that these kinds of bugs are serious enough that they wouldn't even put out the program (even in beta) until they were fixed.
Yeah. I would guess what happened is that Steve said to be ready by the expo, and they weren't, and they didn't have time to test extensively for major bugs like that. In any case, it's Chimera for me until the next beta.
Like every mac geek out there, I have to post my comments on the new browser. So here goes:
1) It's bitching fast! Much faster than Moz for rendering HTML. Marginally faster than Chimera. Loads fast, light, runs fast, downloads fast.
2) Nice interface! Google toolbar too! I'm not a huge fan of brushed metal and similar iCandy, but this was really well done. The bookmarks are especially nice. Good default fonts too (although white on black would be nice for generic text files, but hey, what can you do?
3) A bit buggy. Especially with java. Some of the defaults are messy. But hey, it's a beta.
4) Missing features: Everything is drag-n-droppable except text, which is mostly what I want to drag-n-drop. No tabs. No "always ask" mode for cookies. No sidebar, but I don't care so much about that. And worst, no way to give them feedback other than bug reports (don't send a bug report containing a feature request; that will just piss them off. Email them instead, I don't know where. Forums?)
...but it had a few stability problems, mostly dealing with downloads and plugins......which is why you're switching to a beta release of a browser that doesn't support plugins.
Also, I'm not sure how much of an impact bugging them for tabs will have... maybe wait until they have a feedback thing on their website?
This is from a somewhat outdated article on breaking PGP encryption, but the improvements in factoring technology since then have been incremental.
It should take about 3*10^20 MIPS-years to factor a 2048-bit RSA key with the General Number Field Sieve, the fastest known algorithm. This means that on a top-of-the-line Athlon, it should take some 10^17 years, or a bit less due to multiple instructions per second. Even if they had a million of these, they couldn't break it in 100 billion years. And on top of that, the GNFS algorithm doesn't parallelize well, so they probably couldn't use it.
In other words, I'd bet a lot of money they won't crack it. They'd have a better chance bribing an insider.
If the disjoint union of n disjoint copies of a fractal F makes a similar (in the geometric sense) one k times as big, then the fractal dimension of F is (log n)/(log k) = log base k of n.
This makes the fractal dimension of a square 2 because it takes four of them to make a square twice as big and log 4 / log 2 = 2. The fractal dimension of the Sierpinski Gasket is log 3 / log 2 because you can assemble 3 copies of it to get one twice as big.
The dimension of the Cantor set (that's the one where you start with the unit interval and remove the middle third of every line, or equivalently the numbers between 0 and 1, inclusive, whose base-3 expansion contains no 1s) is log 2 / log 3 which is less than 1.
The dimension of the rational points in a square is still 2, even though it has fewer points than the Cantor set. So, fractal dimensions are "freaky."
If you find a fingerprint in ink in a manuscript in Tolkein's handwriting, it's safe to say IT'S PROBABLY TOLKEIN'S.
And don't bitch about recognizing the handwriting, I can recognize several people's handwriting that I don't even know very well. When you work with handwritten stuff, you learn the handwriting.
Insurance companies will probably give you a discount if you let them install a data recorder in your car...:-/
Actually, the automakers might also. Remember that they crash test autos in order to design safety features in later versions? That's expensive, and it doesn't always reflect the common types of crashes. So, once they're sure this version is reasonably safe, they'll hand the data collection off to the customers. That way it'll pertain more to the types and speeds of crashes that people actually get into. For next year's model, they don't have to crash-test so many cars to design the cages and crumple zones.
It depends how much you type, and on what you type. I write papers more than I program; it's probably not much faster for programming. If you can already type 100 WPM and you're not a secretary, increasing your typing speed isn't important and to learn any new layout up to that speed would take far to much work to be worth it.
I thought that the change in command keys was a minor annoyance; I got used to changed commands quickly and remapped nav keys. And I don't use vim, mostly just stick with Mac text editors. As for speed, when I switched I could only type maybe 40 or 50 WPM anyway, so it didn't take all that much work to get faster than that. My papers in school were sufficient for this purpose. IM has also helped a lot.
The biggest change I've noticed is that it is less tiring to type quickly, because I don't have to move my hands as much, and many of the finger movements are much more natural (that, and I use a split keyboard, which lets me use a much more comforable posture). For example, nt and th (or nth) can be typed by rolling the right hand along the board. The force with which your hand has to strike the keys, however, is unchanged, so changing to Dvorak doesn't help all that much to prevent typing injuries.
Unfortunately, you are half-right. Your typing speed depends mostly on how much you type rather than what keyboard you use. Furthermore, this is not the sort of question that you can do a controlled double-blind study on. Almost every study to test the effectiveness of Dvorak has been seriously flawed or biased in one way or another. I myself am not that much faster at typing on Dvorak than I was on QWERTY, and I would probably be just as fast if I had spent my time improving my QWERTY typing speed rather than learning Dvorak. While it took me much less time to get up to speed in Dvorak, this could be because I already knew how to type when learning it.
However, what I have noticed is that it is substantially less tiring to type on a Dvorak keyboard than on a QWERTY one, and this is mostly because my hands don't have to move as far. Of course, my fingers have to strike just as many keys either way, so it won't prevent carpal tunnel either (although the fact that I'm using a split keyboard might help).
At least in my experience, the Dvorak keyboard is marginally better than the QWERTY one in terms of speed, and moderately better in terms of ergonomics. It probably isn't worth relearning for a programmer anyway, because it's optimized for English, not C++ (perl maybe?) and because as another poster pointed out, typing speed isn't the limiting factor in programming.
The article is about an incremental improvement to typing interface, and I thought it ironic that it was incompatible with another incremental improvement.
Right. Most stuff isn't that much worse, the main annoyance being that the control keys zxvc and qw arent all next to each other. But that doesn't matter too much anyway, just takes a couple days to get used to. All the shift-characters are above the same symbols, and nothing is much farther away than in QWERTY. The brackets are moved around a bit, but they aren't that much farther away (they're in the place of - and =). The common puncts (at least in English, less so in UNIX) are all closer.
The problems with THE were things like > not being directly above space so you have to move your hand more. Minor details, but so is THE in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't, but if it shits itself and corrupts the plist (as happens occasionally), it's nice to have a shell script to remove it instead of manually.
I'm typing this in Mozilla, which I sear by...
I suppose that dragon thing would be a great cooking tool if you could stop him from burning/crushing your house...
This seeems to be happening a lot:
1) company has lousy ProductName
2) company buys better technology
3) company names this completely incompatible product "ProductName 2" or something like that.
4) customers are confused, especially those who don't read slashdot
Don't even think about posting a ??? Profit message on this.
lol. Reading this five minutes after adding:
/Users/mikehamb/Library/Preferences/com.apple.safa ri.plist;open /Applications/Safari.app'
.bashrc
alias rhino='rm -f
to my
No. So in that case, you're right, the Xs are better.
It was just a corrupt plist that was stopping safari from opening. It launches now, after deleting the plist.
/tmp to something other than admin? I've tried sudo chgrp -h nogroup /tmp, among other things, and it did nothing.
Anyone know how to change the group of
I like Chimera a lot, but I still prefer galeon because Galeon puts close "X" buttons on each tab. If Chimera did that it would be perfect for me.
I usually close tabs from the keyboard anyway, but for the mouse, Cocoa Gestures are much better than tab Xs (not to mention window widgets), at least if you have a wheel mouse.
Hm. Just checked. You're right about the sudoers file, and everything being owned by admin. The BSD half of things says I'm in group admin.
However, Get Info windows list stuff I create as having group "staff (me)". Weird. Is this a bug or what?
For my part, I would have been using Safari for hours, but it no longer opens. What I did:
/tmp and ~/. I can't print, but that's nothing new since I don't have a printer.
1) Play with both Safari and Chimera for awhile, comparing performance and rendering on several webpages.
2) Shut down and go to bed.
3) Reboot. Try to launch Safari. No luck. Safari has unexpectedly quit; your system has not been hosed. Reboot and try again. Fidget with settings. Try again. Still doesn't work. Wait for the next version.
I still have
Personally, I run everything as a non-admin user and have a special "admin" account...
The only difference between an admin user and a regular user is that the admin is in the sudoers file and in group "staff" (not group "admin"). Unless you authenticate to the system (equivelant to sudo), you have no more privelages than a regular user unless you have made lots of stuff owned by the "staff" group.
Seriously though, did anyone check to make sure they got the right file from the site rather than a hacked version that was put in place of the original.
How? They didn't sign it. It's not open source, and if it were, you'd have to sift through the source for hours to have a hope of finding anything.
You would think that these kinds of bugs are serious enough that they wouldn't even put out the program (even in beta) until they were fixed.
Yeah. I would guess what happened is that Steve said to be ready by the expo, and they weren't, and they didn't have time to test extensively for major bugs like that. In any case, it's Chimera for me until the next beta.
And I hope, oh I hope, that Safari doesn't get any major new features before it goes to 1.0.
:-)
Well. Yeah. But it could use some tabs...
Like every mac geek out there, I have to post my comments on the new browser. So here goes:
1) It's bitching fast! Much faster than Moz for rendering HTML. Marginally faster than Chimera. Loads fast, light, runs fast, downloads fast.
2) Nice interface! Google toolbar too! I'm not a huge fan of brushed metal and similar iCandy, but this was really well done. The bookmarks are especially nice. Good default fonts too (although white on black would be nice for generic text files, but hey, what can you do?
3) A bit buggy. Especially with java. Some of the defaults are messy. But hey, it's a beta.
4) Missing features: Everything is drag-n-droppable except text, which is mostly what I want to drag-n-drop. No tabs. No "always ask" mode for cookies. No sidebar, but I don't care so much about that. And worst, no way to give them feedback other than bug reports (don't send a bug report containing a feature request; that will just piss them off. Email them instead, I don't know where. Forums?)
...but it had a few stability problems, mostly dealing with downloads and plugins... ...which is why you're switching to a beta release of a browser that doesn't support plugins.
Also, I'm not sure how much of an impact bugging them for tabs will have... maybe wait until they have a feedback thing on their website?
It's rounded.
I'm 0% confident that the universe is exactly 11 minutes old.
Wasn't one of the editor's switching to OSX?
This is from a somewhat outdated article on breaking PGP encryption, but the improvements in factoring technology since then have been incremental.
It should take about 3*10^20 MIPS-years to factor a 2048-bit RSA key with the General Number Field Sieve, the fastest known algorithm. This means that on a top-of-the-line Athlon, it should take some 10^17 years, or a bit less due to multiple instructions per second. Even if they had a million of these, they couldn't break it in 100 billion years. And on top of that, the GNFS algorithm doesn't parallelize well, so they probably couldn't use it.
In other words, I'd bet a lot of money they won't crack it. They'd have a better chance bribing an insider.
No. Factoring is faster than brute-force cracking. That's why RSA keys are so long. That said, it's still not a happening thing.
If the disjoint union of n disjoint copies of a fractal F makes a similar (in the geometric sense) one k times as big, then the fractal dimension of F is (log n)/(log k) = log base k of n.
This makes the fractal dimension of a square 2 because it takes four of them to make a square twice as big and log 4 / log 2 = 2. The fractal dimension of the Sierpinski Gasket is log 3 / log 2 because you can assemble 3 copies of it to get one twice as big.
The dimension of the Cantor set (that's the one where you start with the unit interval and remove the middle third of every line, or equivalently the numbers between 0 and 1, inclusive, whose base-3 expansion contains no 1s) is log 2 / log 3 which is less than 1.
The dimension of the rational points in a square is still 2, even though it has fewer points than the Cantor set. So, fractal dimensions are "freaky."
If you find a fingerprint in ink in a manuscript in Tolkein's handwriting, it's safe to say IT'S PROBABLY TOLKEIN'S.
And don't bitch about recognizing the handwriting, I can recognize several people's handwriting that I don't even know very well. When you work with handwritten stuff, you learn the handwriting.
Insurance companies will probably give you a discount if you let them install a data recorder in your car... :-/
Actually, the automakers might also. Remember that they crash test autos in order to design safety features in later versions? That's expensive, and it doesn't always reflect the common types of crashes. So, once they're sure this version is reasonably safe, they'll hand the data collection off to the customers. That way it'll pertain more to the types and speeds of crashes that people actually get into. For next year's model, they don't have to crash-test so many cars to design the cages and crumple zones.
It depends how much you type, and on what you type. I write papers more than I program; it's probably not much faster for programming. If you can already type 100 WPM and you're not a secretary, increasing your typing speed isn't important and to learn any new layout up to that speed would take far to much work to be worth it.
I thought that the change in command keys was a minor annoyance; I got used to changed commands quickly and remapped nav keys. And I don't use vim, mostly just stick with Mac text editors. As for speed, when I switched I could only type maybe 40 or 50 WPM anyway, so it didn't take all that much work to get faster than that. My papers in school were sufficient for this purpose. IM has also helped a lot.
The biggest change I've noticed is that it is less tiring to type quickly, because I don't have to move my hands as much, and many of the finger movements are much more natural (that, and I use a split keyboard, which lets me use a much more comforable posture). For example, nt and th (or nth) can be typed by rolling the right hand along the board. The force with which your hand has to strike the keys, however, is unchanged, so changing to Dvorak doesn't help all that much to prevent typing injuries.
Unfortunately, you are half-right. Your typing speed depends mostly on how much you type rather than what keyboard you use. Furthermore, this is not the sort of question that you can do a controlled double-blind study on. Almost every study to test the effectiveness of Dvorak has been seriously flawed or biased in one way or another. I myself am not that much faster at typing on Dvorak than I was on QWERTY, and I would probably be just as fast if I had spent my time improving my QWERTY typing speed rather than learning Dvorak. While it took me much less time to get up to speed in Dvorak, this could be because I already knew how to type when learning it.
However, what I have noticed is that it is substantially less tiring to type on a Dvorak keyboard than on a QWERTY one, and this is mostly because my hands don't have to move as far. Of course, my fingers have to strike just as many keys either way, so it won't prevent carpal tunnel either (although the fact that I'm using a split keyboard might help).
At least in my experience, the Dvorak keyboard is marginally better than the QWERTY one in terms of speed, and moderately better in terms of ergonomics. It probably isn't worth relearning for a programmer anyway, because it's optimized for English, not C++ (perl maybe?) and because as another poster pointed out, typing speed isn't the limiting factor in programming.
The article is about an incremental improvement to typing interface, and I thought it ironic that it was incompatible with another incremental improvement.
Right. Most stuff isn't that much worse, the main annoyance being that the control keys zxvc and qw arent all next to each other. But that doesn't matter too much anyway, just takes a couple days to get used to. All the shift-characters are above the same symbols, and nothing is much farther away than in QWERTY. The brackets are moved around a bit, but they aren't that much farther away (they're in the place of - and =). The common puncts (at least in English, less so in UNIX) are all closer.
The problems with THE were things like > not being directly above space so you have to move your hand more. Minor details, but so is THE in the first place.