Does one really require a whole new browser to do these things? What about implementing support for these native services in extensions, and shipping them with the OSX port of Firefox? Or perhaps building them right into the Mac port of Firefox?
I understand your feelings, but I disagree. A new release can only be a good thing.
Those who don't agree or enjoy the new release are free to not watch it. You are thereby not affected at all by any new releases such as this.
However, those who would enjoy the new release get to do exactly that.
So the net result is overall positive. You don't watch it and don't care either way, and we watch it and enjoy it.
However, I don't understand why you think a 3D release constitutes "raping the fond memories" of anyone. As I understand it, the movie will be exactly the same as the current release (I know, I know), but in 3D. I'm not sure how that's worse in any way. It's the same thing, but... 3D. Even if you don't agree with some of the changes made to the DVD release, it shouldn't be any WORSE.
You're telling me! So awkward that apparently the fact that it's 1.0.1 and not 1.01 went completely unnoticed. They are two VERY different numbering conventions.
For example, 1.10 would indicate the 10th release of version 1, whereas 1.1.0 would indicate the magnitude of the changes in the release, not the number of releases.
What else should I call them? Technologically challeneged? Ability impaired? How would you like me to describe what the rest of the world would call "dumb users"? Keep in mind I'm not referring to all Windows users, but the subset of them that are dumb. But I guess you didn't figure that out.
Knoppix was slower than native, but it was nothing compared to the 10% to 20% of native speed that QEMU gives you. And of course throw the Knoppix slowdown on top of that...
QEMU might be the fastest emulator, but it's still a full-system emulator. According to the QEMU site, QEMU runs emulated systems at 5x to 10x slower than native (That's 10% to 20% of native speed). That's still extremely slow compared to a virtualized solutions.
I quote a child post:
"but i started booting on my xp2000 with 1gb ram 10 minutes ago and its still at the KDE splashscreen..."
That kind of speed will certainly convince any Windows user that Linux is a horrible slow PoS. That's not the kind of publicity it needs.
Surely there is some win32 opensource virtualization app out there that could be used instead?
Who said it had to be an ATI or nVidia graphics chip? Most chips support dual monitor displays. Under Windows you simply go into display properties, go to the Settings tab, and you should see two monitors. Then select the second display and select "Extend my Windows desktop onto this monitor".
If a notebook made in the past few years doesn't have an ATI or nVidia chip, it probably has something like "Intel Extreme Graphics", which I do believe supports this too.
Besides, the notebook in the article is an Apple. Last I checked they ALL had either an ATI or nVidia chip of some sort.
Who cares if the glass gets marks on it from the tape? If you're already buying a $500 projecter to make this work, what's wrong with buying some glass? It might even be possible to find some cheap glass in decent condition that someone would be willing to sell. I mean we have some in our garage, I don't even know where it came from. It doesn't even have to be glass, clear plastic or plexiglas would probably work too. Any hard transparent material.
QEMU is an EMULATOR. They want to demo linux to windows users running under a full blown emulator? I can see it now. "This lunix thing looks nice, but it's just so SLOW!".
They're going to end up convincing dumb windows users that Linux is slow as hell!
Before you say anything, keep in mind that they are running QEMU on windows, and the QEMU virtualizer is closed-source and linux only. So they can ONLY do full emulation.
Wrong. QEMU is a full system emulator. There is a processor module availble that virtualizes the CPU instead of emulating, but it is closed-source and linux-only. As such the windows version of QEMU is a full blown emulator.
Or even better, instead of greasing or scratching, a very thin piece of white paper (The thinner the better).
What I want to know is why he has to have people look away to check stuff for himself. All he has to do is set the projector as a second screen instead of cloning the main screen (This is trivial to do on a laptop, which he seems to use). Do your editing on the main screen, which only the DM can see. Then just copy+paste onto the second screen. This way the DM can do his changes, and get them right, BEFORE he shows the players. No lowering opacity while players look away!
You could get more fancy too. Since this is a layered approach, he could only copy+paste the mask layer so that on his editing copy the mask layer can have 50% opacity, which he then copy+pastes to the display copy which has an opacity of 100% on the display layer.
I doubt it. The reason such powerful power supplies are required in PCs is often because of the quality; manufacturers often either measure power output at room temperature (Not the 40 or 50 degrees that they actually heat up to), or they sometimes lie outright.
The original shuttle XPCs had a 240 watt power supply, and yet were able to handle the fastest P4s and the best videocards available.
I would imagine they might be able to get away with a 350w power supply, which they already have in their XPCs. At worst they'd have to stretch it to 400w.
It makes sense. Existing XPCs already have two slots; one PCI slot and one AGP/PCIe slot.
It looks like all they've done is replaced the PCI slot with a second PCIe slot, and put in a shorter SLI bridge between them. The only actual difficulty in this setup would be cooling, which I'm sure Shuttle will solve considering their expertise with SFF cooling.
I think the article is misquoting though. The slots themselves are probably not spaced half the distance together. It's just that SLI solutions normally require the space of 3 slots, and they're doing it in the space of 2.
Why are binary-only modules not legal? The people are writing the modules from scratch, aren't they? So they get to pick what licence they use for their code.
1) It is by far the most popular P2P client (Or at least protocol), in fact its more popular than all other P2P clients/protocols combined. Last I heard BitTorrent made up 35% of all net traffic. Perhaps it takes up even more since then?
2) It should be reviewed precisely BECAUSE it has no spyware. Bram Cohen, who doesn't write the official client (anymore that is. Check the about dialog) still organizes everything, and has a refreshing take on privacy and legal issues.
It should be mentioned for those who don't know, McGill is an english university in Montreal. As it's primarily a research university, it is mentioned in the international news more than the other english university in Montreal, Concordia.
Slashdot Mirror
Does one really require a whole new browser to do these things? What about implementing support for these native services in extensions, and shipping them with the OSX port of Firefox? Or perhaps building them right into the Mac port of Firefox?
So why write an entire browser instead of adding native widgets to the Mac port of Firefox?
So why not improve Firefox until it uses similar resources to Camino? It seems a waste to divide developers among three browsers on one platform.
What does Camino offer that Firefox doesn't? The products seem to do much the same thing, and indeed, look virtually identical on the Mac.
I guess my question is, why would somebody want to use Camino over Firefox?
From the article:
"For instance, what if my server sucks?"
Then when you get get slashdotted, hard.
Too bad Mirrordot only caches the first page of the site. I'd like to see the other pages, but again, slashdotted.
Went well?
"Amounts of vaccine remaining on skin surface were quantified."
In other words, it leaves a bit of a mess.
I understand your feelings, but I disagree. A new release can only be a good thing.
Those who don't agree or enjoy the new release are free to not watch it. You are thereby not affected at all by any new releases such as this.
However, those who would enjoy the new release get to do exactly that.
So the net result is overall positive. You don't watch it and don't care either way, and we watch it and enjoy it.
However, I don't understand why you think a 3D release constitutes "raping the fond memories" of anyone. As I understand it, the movie will be exactly the same as the current release (I know, I know), but in 3D. I'm not sure how that's worse in any way. It's the same thing, but... 3D. Even if you don't agree with some of the changes made to the DVD release, it shouldn't be any WORSE.
Of course, you're right. Been working a lot with CVS recently.
"Ah, the joy of awkward numbering conventions!"
You're telling me! So awkward that apparently the fact that it's 1.0.1 and not 1.01 went completely unnoticed. They are two VERY different numbering conventions.
For example, 1.10 would indicate the 10th release of version 1, whereas 1.1.0 would indicate the magnitude of the changes in the release, not the number of releases.
What else should I call them? Technologically challeneged? Ability impaired? How would you like me to describe what the rest of the world would call "dumb users"? Keep in mind I'm not referring to all Windows users, but the subset of them that are dumb. But I guess you didn't figure that out.
Idiot.
So it sounds like his setup is this:
monitor 1: secret DM excel sheets
monitor 2: Photoshop on projector
So what is stopping him from doing this:
monitor 1: secret DM excel sheets and Photoshop
monitor 2: image for projector
There are a variety of methods of running two programs on one screen at the same time, computers have been able to do this for more than 10 years.
Many projectors accept either VGA or composite/svideo input.
I'm still surprised that you'd support dual-monitor desktop on S-VIDEO but not VGA...
Knoppix was slower than native, but it was nothing compared to the 10% to 20% of native speed that QEMU gives you. And of course throw the Knoppix slowdown on top of that...
QEMU might be the fastest emulator, but it's still a full-system emulator. According to the QEMU site, QEMU runs emulated systems at 5x to 10x slower than native (That's 10% to 20% of native speed). That's still extremely slow compared to a virtualized solutions.
I quote a child post:
"but i started booting on my xp2000 with 1gb ram 10 minutes ago and its still at the KDE splashscreen..."
That kind of speed will certainly convince any Windows user that Linux is a horrible slow PoS. That's not the kind of publicity it needs.
Surely there is some win32 opensource virtualization app out there that could be used instead?
Who said it had to be an ATI or nVidia graphics chip? Most chips support dual monitor displays. Under Windows you simply go into display properties, go to the Settings tab, and you should see two monitors. Then select the second display and select "Extend my Windows desktop onto this monitor".
If a notebook made in the past few years doesn't have an ATI or nVidia chip, it probably has something like "Intel Extreme Graphics", which I do believe supports this too.
Besides, the notebook in the article is an Apple. Last I checked they ALL had either an ATI or nVidia chip of some sort.
Who cares if the glass gets marks on it from the tape? If you're already buying a $500 projecter to make this work, what's wrong with buying some glass? It might even be possible to find some cheap glass in decent condition that someone would be willing to sell. I mean we have some in our garage, I don't even know where it came from. It doesn't even have to be glass, clear plastic or plexiglas would probably work too. Any hard transparent material.
QEMU is an EMULATOR. They want to demo linux to windows users running under a full blown emulator? I can see it now. "This lunix thing looks nice, but it's just so SLOW!".
They're going to end up convincing dumb windows users that Linux is slow as hell!
Before you say anything, keep in mind that they are running QEMU on windows, and the QEMU virtualizer is closed-source and linux only. So they can ONLY do full emulation.
Wrong. QEMU is a full system emulator. There is a processor module availble that virtualizes the CPU instead of emulating, but it is closed-source and linux-only. As such the windows version of QEMU is a full blown emulator.
Or even better, instead of greasing or scratching, a very thin piece of white paper (The thinner the better).
What I want to know is why he has to have people look away to check stuff for himself. All he has to do is set the projector as a second screen instead of cloning the main screen (This is trivial to do on a laptop, which he seems to use). Do your editing on the main screen, which only the DM can see. Then just copy+paste onto the second screen. This way the DM can do his changes, and get them right, BEFORE he shows the players. No lowering opacity while players look away!
You could get more fancy too. Since this is a layered approach, he could only copy+paste the mask layer so that on his editing copy the mask layer can have 50% opacity, which he then copy+pastes to the display copy which has an opacity of 100% on the display layer.
I doubt it. The reason such powerful power supplies are required in PCs is often because of the quality; manufacturers often either measure power output at room temperature (Not the 40 or 50 degrees that they actually heat up to), or they sometimes lie outright.
The original shuttle XPCs had a 240 watt power supply, and yet were able to handle the fastest P4s and the best videocards available.
I would imagine they might be able to get away with a 350w power supply, which they already have in their XPCs. At worst they'd have to stretch it to 400w.
It makes sense. Existing XPCs already have two slots; one PCI slot and one AGP/PCIe slot.
It looks like all they've done is replaced the PCI slot with a second PCIe slot, and put in a shorter SLI bridge between them. The only actual difficulty in this setup would be cooling, which I'm sure Shuttle will solve considering their expertise with SFF cooling.
I think the article is misquoting though. The slots themselves are probably not spaced half the distance together. It's just that SLI solutions normally require the space of 3 slots, and they're doing it in the space of 2.
Why are binary-only modules not legal? The people are writing the modules from scratch, aren't they? So they get to pick what licence they use for their code.
I'd RATHER see it reviewed, for several reasons:
1) It is by far the most popular P2P client (Or at least protocol), in fact its more popular than all other P2P clients/protocols combined. Last I heard BitTorrent made up 35% of all net traffic. Perhaps it takes up even more since then?
2) It should be reviewed precisely BECAUSE it has no spyware. Bram Cohen, who doesn't write the official client (anymore that is. Check the about dialog) still organizes everything, and has a refreshing take on privacy and legal issues.
It should be mentioned for those who don't know, McGill is an english university in Montreal. As it's primarily a research university, it is mentioned in the international news more than the other english university in Montreal, Concordia.
I don't see the term "wall wort" or "wallwort" anywhere on that page.
Because the term "web page" contains the word "web", does that mean it's made out of silk? Apparently it does, by your logic.