Damn. It's completely impossible to read the text in the Downfall parodies, when your brain constantly gets hooked on interpreting the German speech. And it's also not funny anymore, because the spoken words make sense...:(
It is gravity/speed-regulated. Just get near a black hole, or get really fast, and it will automatically speed up everything around you (but not you), from your point of view.
Most people here will recommend those "one click and you're done" tools. But those tools, and the missing knowledge about file systems and storage, often destroy more than they save.
Over the years, I gradually went from those colorful one-click things over some different tools, to professional software like EnCase et. al., plus some Linux shell tools. With them, I even save the hard stuff.
Still, the best "recovery" is prevention with backups, ZFS scrubbing and S.M.A.R.T.. (But beware those virii and disk errors that slowly corrupt the data. When you notice it, all backups are already destroyed.)
I hope someone comes up with a deformable screen, that allows tactile responses. I hate looking at a keyboard while typing.
Oh, and it took me five seconds, to come up with a better design. I noticed that the space around the keys is, so you do not accidentially hit other keys. Well, wanna know what else prevents that? Bigger keys! ^^
So essentially, they are just making the keys bigger, but not all of it touchable. I would make the triangles point upwards, and fill a third of the empty spaces too. But still only react when touching the inner, downwards pointing triangle. And enforce minimum sizes for both triangle areas, in the patent license.
Because with those keys, companies will just try to fit more keys onto the screen, until you can't hit them properly again. Which was the source of the problem in the first place.:)
...as I am very very strict in my security, I would never go without the following:
Everything is encrypted. Encrypt the location data as soon as possible. If you do not need to show it on the mobile device, encrypt it right after reading it from the GPS API. With the public key of the analyzing client. Then send it out with your ID and metadata, in another encryption container, that is secured with the public key of the server On the server, never ever decrypt the location data. But encrypt the connection to the analyzing client again, with its public key. Then encrypt the private key for the client with a password. And put it on a usb stick So only the person with that stick and the password can get the data.
Next, add a opt-in-based trust-relationship aspect into that prototype. Let the tracked device have a way to define what user or group can see what part of your location, id and metadata, and to what detail (eg. gps resolution). Then let the server check the analyzers rights on every request, and filter the data accordingly. (If possible, prefer doing as much filtering as possible on the tracked device, or as early on as possible. Just as with the encryption. The user has to specifically allow something, just as with firewalls. (By the way: If there is a generic well-proven library that does implement all this in a generic way: Use it!)
Final rule: In this issue, there is no such thing as security overkill. Don't be lazy.
Oh, and if you track your children without their approval or even knowledge, then you are a bad parent and a weirdo/stalker. Good parents have the trust of their children, and do not have to rely on such evil tactics. Additionally, using them makes your children trust you even less, and learn a bad lesson too. It's a slippery slope that you do not want to try out. I think we all are perfectly capable to do it the good way. You are no exception. Use your skills!:)
But... All software I installed on my computers, was free (as in everything) for me. So I care for not buying another piece of RAM.
Oh, and you can also can have less memory consumption by doing less. Which is called "feature bloat". (Not the good one, like in KDE, but the bad one, like in MS Office.)
Depends on your taste of music. Bach is something for the mathematicians of the music students. So something that real existing people with a real life enjoy. ^^
91 years later, president Not Sure will overturn that ruling.
What I don't understand, is why the RIAA would like Linux? Wouldn't they want to have a DRM/TCPA nightmare as the main OS? (Oh well, at least from the looks, all major Linux desktop system teams work very hard to imitate Windows in every detail, so it's only a question of time...)
We always whine about the windows monoculture, but when it comes to Linux, there are always those pseudo-experts (similar to pundits), who still think everything has to be unified. They would love to live in a world with only one desktop environment, one library per technology (eg audio), one userland, and one unpatchable kernel with a fixed config. In other words: They want it to become Windows.
No thank you. I love my freedom more than anything in the world. I want many, many concurring libraries, kernels, desktop environments, and even "standards". I want to be able to choose and support my favorite one. When Linux becomes a monoculture, Linux will be dead.
Luckily, that will never happen. Because we are no company, and do not walk in lockstep.:)
Ok. I can help you here. I am a professional decider. Just vote for the Pirate party, send me all your money and precious things, go buy a German spiked helmet, make a parachute drop over Fox or some government (you won't need the parachute), and see if you can hit the biggest crook in the area.
Convenient, to let others do the thinking, isn't it? Do you feel the uplifting sense of knowing your purpose in life already?
I find it strange, that we know that great firewalls on the net can't work, and still somehow think it would be possible to block a person from editing Wikipedia.
There are tons of ways. Proxys, Internet cafes, friends, getting a new provider, etc, etc, etc.
Oh, and Wikipedia lost its freedom a long time ago. At the moment they made some sites go trough censorship (aka "proof reading"). With admins discussing on private mailing lists, what agenda to push into Wikipedia, we aren't even able to see it on the horizon anymore.:(
But I still think either anyone must have the right to edit, or that whole Wikipedia experiment has failed.
First we got site lockdowns for non-logged-ins. Then for logged ins. Then blocking of IPs. Then admins enforcing their agenda. Then they planning their agenda together on a mailing list. That's just wrong on so many levels.
I've thought a bit, about how you can merge the freedom to edit with the ability to filter out nutjobs. And in the process, I found that view are just relative. You can usually not prove that someone is 100% right or wrong, because 1. no single person can track the reasoning down to quantum physics, and 2. there still is the missing base of the world formula. So we pretty much always rely on some sensible paradigms and long chains of reasoning. The nutjobs usually are those, that either A) fail in their logic, or B) do not follow the groupthink of what everyone assumes to be correct, but never gets tested.
Now the problem is, that on Wikipedia, not only (A) gets blocked (which nobody can or wants to check down to the physical base anyway), but (B) too (aka "spin"/"agenda"). Don't think that an "agenda" or "spin" is entirely bad. Because unfortunately, pure objectivity is a physically impossible fantasy. People just have to make their logic work for them, with the input they got. And some just got some really weird or different combinations of input.
So there would be two ways to solve this:
1. Rigorously enforce logic reasoning, most likely with a special language, with defined semantics. You would then find the reasoning behind everything, down to the most basic paradigms. This would be very great... if it were realistic. ^^ Because unfortunately, you would notice, that for some things, you would still, even with rigorous logic, end up with more than one basic paradigm. Because we simply don't know this yet.
2. Because of the problems with (1), we have to make it possible to create more than one view of a subject. I know this sounds like the argument for creationism (which I strongly oppose). That's why there has to be a second element. Maybe you know how cascading stylesheets (CSS) work. For every element, the interpreter goes trough all the rules, and applies them, by overlaying each rule with the next one, so that it changes in the points of the second rule. Imagine this, but with the rules being people, and the interpreter being you (with software assistance), and the element being the article. So people could put together a "view" on Wikipedia. From collecting specific versions of the articles into a group, and giving it a name. Then others can define their view from using the first view as a basis, and adding some modifications. And so on. The enduser can then choose from the views. He could for example, choose the view of some association of scientists or university, add some "Jon Steward" on top of it for the political things, and season it with some changes that a trusted friend or editor chose. He could also publish that as another "view".
This would make it possible, to create a completely "clean" (in your eyes) Wikipedia (trough choosing the right "view"), and still allow everything and anything to be said. Even some weirdo's 4chan Wiki view. ^^ Of course it would be nicer to be able to enforce logic. But until we found a realistic way, and have a world formula, I think this is our best shot. I rather sacrifice that, than to sacrifice freedom.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll just say: BioShock 2 or 3!
Although I would love more, to see a Terminator 4 game with BioShock 2/3 graphics and a System Shock 1/2 style evil futuristic system (Skynet) in it.
Well, now that you already are on your knees... I'd have some...uum...protein...for ya! :P
Damn. It's completely impossible to read the text in the Downfall parodies, when your brain constantly gets hooked on interpreting the German speech. And it's also not funny anymore, because the spoken words make sense... :(
That's already very compressed data. The server could only lower the bitrate, by lowering the quality.
I wonder how they are going to finance those servers. I mean, since Opera is, and has to be, free...
That's just the muffled audio of your old video cassette, which misses the heights of the sounds. ^^
Yeah. Because from what we know, it's physically impossible. (Except if something, like a big crunch compresses space really fast.)
It is gravity/speed-regulated. Just get near a black hole, or get really fast, and it will automatically speed up everything around you (but not you), from your point of view.
Einstein RULES! ^^
Most people here will recommend those "one click and you're done" tools. But those tools, and the missing knowledge about file systems and storage, often destroy more than they save.
Over the years, I gradually went from those colorful one-click things over some different tools, to professional software like EnCase et. al., plus some Linux shell tools. With them, I even save the hard stuff.
Still, the best "recovery" is prevention with backups, ZFS scrubbing and S.M.A.R.T.. (But beware those virii and disk errors that slowly corrupt the data. When you notice it, all backups are already destroyed.)
By the way: Wikipedia could have told you this too. ^^
I hope someone comes up with a deformable screen, that allows tactile responses. I hate looking at a keyboard while typing.
Oh, and it took me five seconds, to come up with a better design. I noticed that the space around the keys is, so you do not accidentially hit other keys. Well, wanna know what else prevents that? Bigger keys! ^^
So essentially, they are just making the keys bigger, but not all of it touchable. I would make the triangles point upwards, and fill a third of the empty spaces too. But still only react when touching the inner, downwards pointing triangle. And enforce minimum sizes for both triangle areas, in the patent license.
Because with those keys, companies will just try to fit more keys onto the screen, until you can't hit them properly again. Which was the source of the problem in the first place. :)
The googles, they do nothing! (Link's not working.)
It's the Luxemburgish slang word for "jail". I kid you not, as I am Luxemburgish (genetically only half) myself.
Reminds me of the German school newspaper in my final school, that was called "Flapp" (pronounced "fluhpp")... which is Luxemburgish for "turd".
I'm eagerly awaiting Microsoft Flapp to come out too. ^^
How's the power quality on those lines? Spikes and strong fluctuations can be pretty bad for any electronics device.
...as I am very very strict in my security, I would never go without the following:
Oh, and if you track your children without their approval or even knowledge, then you are a bad parent and a weirdo/stalker. Good parents have the trust of their children, and do not have to rely on such evil tactics. Additionally, using them makes your children trust you even less, and learn a bad lesson too. It's a slippery slope that you do not want to try out. :)
I think we all are perfectly capable to do it the good way. You are no exception. Use your skills!
(I made this post generic, so it's more useful.)
I didn't even know that there still are phones without video capture. Pretty much all phones here have one cam. Some have two (for video chat).
How much would you pay, If I'd send you one of these, from over here: http://translate.google.com/translate?prev=hp&hl=en&js=n&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.xonio.com%2Fbestenlisten%2FBestenliste-Handys--index%2Findex%2Fid%2F598%2F&sl=de&tl=en&history_state0= (autotranslated)
Will it finally have buttons? ^^
(On the back, side, top or bottom does not count. Non-tactile does not count too.)
So you're saying there are managers out there, that are payed by the amount of money that they sink into stuff? That's just wrong on so many levels.
It's like only paying doctors and pharma companies, when you are sick... Oh, wait...
But... All software I installed on my computers, was free (as in everything) for me. So I care for not buying another piece of RAM.
Oh, and you can also can have less memory consumption by doing less. Which is called "feature bloat". (Not the good one, like in KDE, but the bad one, like in MS Office.)
Damnit! I meant: NOT something that real existing people with a real life enjoy.
That's what I get for partying all night and sleeping all day. :/
Depends on your taste of music. Bach is something for the mathematicians of the music students. So something that real existing people with a real life enjoy. ^^
91 years later, president Not Sure will overturn that ruling.
What I don't understand, is why the RIAA would like Linux? Wouldn't they want to have a DRM/TCPA nightmare as the main OS?
(Oh well, at least from the looks, all major Linux desktop system teams work very hard to imitate Windows in every detail, so it's only a question of time...)
We always whine about the windows monoculture, but when it comes to Linux, there are always those pseudo-experts (similar to pundits), who still think everything has to be unified.
They would love to live in a world with only one desktop environment, one library per technology (eg audio), one userland, and one unpatchable kernel with a fixed config. In other words: They want it to become Windows.
No thank you. I love my freedom more than anything in the world. I want many, many concurring libraries, kernels, desktop environments, and even "standards". I want to be able to choose and support my favorite one.
When Linux becomes a monoculture, Linux will be dead.
Luckily, that will never happen. Because we are no company, and do not walk in lockstep. :)
Ok. I can help you here. I am a professional decider.
Just vote for the Pirate party, send me all your money and precious things, go buy a German spiked helmet, make a parachute drop over Fox or some government (you won't need the parachute), and see if you can hit the biggest crook in the area.
Convenient, to let others do the thinking, isn't it?
Do you feel the uplifting sense of knowing your purpose in life already?
I find it strange, that we know that great firewalls on the net can't work, and still somehow think it would be possible to block a person from editing Wikipedia.
There are tons of ways. Proxys, Internet cafes, friends, getting a new provider, etc, etc, etc.
Oh, and Wikipedia lost its freedom a long time ago. At the moment they made some sites go trough censorship (aka "proof reading"). :(
With admins discussing on private mailing lists, what agenda to push into Wikipedia, we aren't even able to see it on the horizon anymore.
But I still think either anyone must have the right to edit, or that whole Wikipedia experiment has failed.
First we got site lockdowns for non-logged-ins. Then for logged ins. Then blocking of IPs. Then admins enforcing their agenda. Then they planning their agenda together on a mailing list.
That's just wrong on so many levels.
I've thought a bit, about how you can merge the freedom to edit with the ability to filter out nutjobs. And in the process, I found that view are just relative. You can usually not prove that someone is 100% right or wrong, because 1. no single person can track the reasoning down to quantum physics, and 2. there still is the missing base of the world formula. So we pretty much always rely on some sensible paradigms and long chains of reasoning. The nutjobs usually are those, that either A) fail in their logic, or B) do not follow the groupthink of what everyone assumes to be correct, but never gets tested.
Now the problem is, that on Wikipedia, not only (A) gets blocked (which nobody can or wants to check down to the physical base anyway), but (B) too (aka "spin"/"agenda").
Don't think that an "agenda" or "spin" is entirely bad. Because unfortunately, pure objectivity is a physically impossible fantasy. People just have to make their logic work for them, with the input they got. And some just got some really weird or different combinations of input.
So there would be two ways to solve this:
1. Rigorously enforce logic reasoning, most likely with a special language, with defined semantics. You would then find the reasoning behind everything, down to the most basic paradigms. This would be very great... if it were realistic. ^^
Because unfortunately, you would notice, that for some things, you would still, even with rigorous logic, end up with more than one basic paradigm. Because we simply don't know this yet.
2. Because of the problems with (1), we have to make it possible to create more than one view of a subject. I know this sounds like the argument for creationism (which I strongly oppose). That's why there has to be a second element. Maybe you know how cascading stylesheets (CSS) work. For every element, the interpreter goes trough all the rules, and applies them, by overlaying each rule with the next one, so that it changes in the points of the second rule.
Imagine this, but with the rules being people, and the interpreter being you (with software assistance), and the element being the article.
So people could put together a "view" on Wikipedia. From collecting specific versions of the articles into a group, and giving it a name. Then others can define their view from using the first view as a basis, and adding some modifications. And so on.
The enduser can then choose from the views. He could for example, choose the view of some association of scientists or university, add some "Jon Steward" on top of it for the political things, and season it with some changes that a trusted friend or editor chose. He could also publish that as another "view".
This would make it possible, to create a completely "clean" (in your eyes) Wikipedia (trough choosing the right "view"), and still allow everything and anything to be said. Even some weirdo's 4chan Wiki view. ^^
Of course it would be nicer to be able to enforce logic. But until we found a realistic way, and have a world formula, I think this is our best shot.
I rather sacrifice that, than to sacrifice freedom.
Oh. I'm sorry for not RTFA. Seems they already are *very* close to that. Man, *finally* an office suite with an UI that makes sense!