Like others, I have traded up from heavy steel to aluminum, and now carbon fiber, ending up with a bike far better than its rider.
I wouldn't call that trading up in all instances. I have both aluminum and steel frame bicycles, and while my aluminum frames are a few pounds lighter, that's not my only consideration. Steel is generally much more comfortable (especially on crappy roads with three-inch-wide cracks, like around here). This is because it is more flexible and absorbs the jolts better than aluminum - although, it also absorbs a small amount of the energy you put into each pedal stroke too.
Steel frames are a lot more durable too - your steel bike will probably be in better shape after a minor wreck than an alluminum frame. For that matter, I've seen aluminum forks bend while mounted in a car or truck because of potholes in the road, etc. It's not common, but it happens more frequently than people would like.
Unless you're racing or doing time trials, the small weight difference will not be a big factor. I've toured 100 miles on steel and aluminum without noticing the difference in weight.
Bottom line: "newer" technology is not always better. It's all about the circumstances in which it will be used. Get that carbon fiber frame if you've got the money to blow and you want to shave those extra grams off for your next big race. Otherwise, don't worry too much if the bike you've got your heart set on is steel, or aluminum, or even cast iron.:) Get what's comfortable and what suits your style of cycling.
Well considering I wrote the review I could of went into all that mumbo jumbo about it had this feature, it lacked this feature.. Frankly my criteria was very short..
"Could of"? Your "criteria" was "very short"? Sorry, but with grammatical errors such as these, I don't think you're capable of writing a real review at this point.
If you want something detailed then instead of taking 3 hours I'll put in a weeks worth of the freetime I do these things in and prove something useful to you.
Despite the fact that you said this sarcastically, that's a very realistic definition of how one does GOOD reviews. Anything less and you really can't call it a review - it's just a "first glance" opinion of what's there on the surface.
You cannot review something as complex as a software package in a whopping 3 hours. With anything of significance, be it hardware, software, a book, etc. that is being reviewed, it is essential that you put time into it. Your review is about as insightful as me firing up NetHack and astounding my readers with such observations as "it uses text for its display" and "it is an adventure game that is very cool."
Or perhaps everyone's complaining becuse the word Microsoft or SCO was not included here.
Or perhaps because it lacked any depth, pros and cons, detailed comparisons of Ximian vs. other desktop environments, etc. Tell me why I should or should not use Ximian's desktop. Does it bork my custom menus, as others here have said? Does it bundle crashy components? Is this going to convince me to use Linux as a desktop vs. Windows? Tell me why Ximian might be worth my while, or not - and back it up!
But all this feedback is quiet useful since everyone can learn from critics:)
Now there is an excellent thing to say! While Slashdot isn't exactly the most mature crowd at times, there are plenty of intelligent people here with constructive criticism. In all seriousness, if you (or someone) wrote a well thought out and interesting review of Ximian, it would blow Slashdot away. Then again, rarely does content of significant quality make it to the front page, but one can dream...
You've hinted at some interesting things (such as plugins not being bundled with XYZ distro, and so forth) that would be excellent to flesh out in a real review. The ideas are there, but it would need more work. Oh and one more piece of advice - don't submit news postings about your own stuff and talk about yourself in the third person. It looks really lame, and there's nothing wrong with saying "I've spent a lot of time working with Ximian Desktop 2, and discovered [review teaser here] and [another teaser]. Check out my full review of it here for the juicy details." Or something like that.
Wouldn't it be more natural to natural to ask Red Hat for a clarification first?
I get the feeling this person has an axe to grind when it comes to Red Hat, and would rather incite an idealogical flamewar between the free-as-in-freedom folks and the more pragmatic or business-y Red Hat types.
Yeah but the difference is that PNG doesn't have to make money to survive or "win". With Beta vs. VHS there were financial interests at stake, and the winner was determined by where the dollars went...
GIF has such a huge head start...
It also has a rather limited palette, no alpha channel support, etc. When money isn't the determining factor (or a factor at all), technical merit can play a bigger role.
For two reasons, one of which I mentioned outright in my first posting.
It is NOT the responsibility of an IRC network to patch the codebase for its servers to fix a client side issue. You don't see changelog entries for ircu crippling their code because the latest version of BitchX has crasher Y or overflow bug Z, do you? No, you don't. Our patch ended up having some unfortunate side-effects that could not be avoided, and it frustrated a lot of users who were not on UT.
We spent a lot of time dealing with Epic's developers and higher-ups attempting to get through to someone that if they simply invested a few minutes in fixing the overflow bug, it would save the users (and us) a lot of frustration.
We basically got the brush off from everyone we talked to at Epic. Like I said, any halfway decent programmer could have fixed the bug in minutes. So the reason we didn't "fix this earlier" is we were waiting to see what Epic would do. Once it became clear they didn't care one bit, we did whatever we could on our end to take care of it. It was not an ideal solution by any means, and it really was not our responsibility to screw with our server code to fix their client, but we had to do something in order to protect a (then) large chunk of our user base.
Yeah, I love how they handled their IRC client in the original UT. There was a crasher bug in it that, if you msg'd someone with the right string (or typed it in a channel), the program would crash and burn. It didn't matter if you were even in the IRC window, if you were connected and the message came through to you somehow, *poof*. In game, in the server browser, didn't matter. Idiots would come on IRC and crash entire channels with 100s of people in them, or they'd crash rival clans while they were in the middle of important games.
Epic knew about this bug for well over a year, and they did absolutely nothing about it. We at Gameslink (then the IRC network for UT) ended up patching the ircd just to fix Epic's problem, and keep UT users happy. It should not be the responsibility of an IRC network to patch their whole network of servers to fix a terrible client-side crasher that could be solved in 5 minutes by a competent programmer.
How can DRM "protect rights" when it denies basic rights of fair use?
Ah, but there's the rub. It's not about protecting YOUR rights, it's about protecting the rights of the big corporations. Well not so much their rights as the "rights" they want - i.e. control over your computer and everything you use it for.
And if it's a Mac, get the Omni Group's excellent OmniOutliner software; that thing is a freaking godsend when it comes to taking class notes.
I second that - and I also recommend OmniGraffle, also by Omni Group. OmniGraffle is a kick-ass charting app, and it saved me a bundle of time when I had to do annoying flowcharts for my programming classes.:)
If I find a WM camping on Alt-mouse or Alt-key, preventing my hungry hungry hippo (emacs) from getting them, its uninstalled faster than you can say "twm".
I'm not sure I see the problem... The Alt key is only 'camped' on with regards to the mouse. i.e. You can still use your alt+whatever key combos, but if you hold down alt and then click or drag with the mouse, then the WM steps in and does its thang. I don't know about you, but I don't have a single app that itself needs alt-clicking or alt-dragging...
Q: Why is this? the anti-trust? (no further standalone)
A: Although this is off topic, I will answer briefly: Legacy OSes have reached their zenith with the addition of IE 6 SP1. Further improvements to IE will require enhancements to the underlying OS.
What, exactly, about web browsing could require 'enhancements to the underlying OS'? The only answer I can think of is DRM/Palladdium, but of course Microsoft does not want to say that. They want these "improvements" to sound like "features" that people would actually want. Perhaps they will play on peoples' fears of online banking and ordering?
I wonder what GimpPrint would think of being forced to print or not print certain documents based on their contents.
This point should be moot - it's not GimpPrint's (or GimpPrint's authors') responsibility to enforce the legality of what you print. This is just like DRM telling me what I can or can't do with music I own - or that I created, for that matter. If GimpPrint (or any printing software) came to have such a feature, it would either be boycotted or forked with the restrictions removed. Not because of any desire to do illegal stuff, but simply in the name of freedom and to avoid anything remotely DRM-like.
just cuz they dont exist on google doesnt mean they dont exist specially ppl at large corporations almost never write anything on the net or publish any info
Then they have no right to be on a committee that makes decisions about a public specification. If there is not one single mention of these supposed people anywhere on the public web as Google knows it, then it is very likely they do not exist - or at least, they do not exist in any capacity that should allow them to help decide the fate of a spec like 802.11g.
micheal did no log in is probably cuz of this reason that way he does not leave a paper trail behind that his company could track
I don't see how simply putting your name on the bottom of a post instead of logging in is "not leav[ing] a paper trail". I don't care if the person was logged in or not, it doesn't make their existence any more or less legit. I'm ".com b4.storm" but for all you know I could be Bill Gates. I'm not, but the existence or non-existence of a login name proves nothing.
Sorry bub, my concerns about this posting are legit. Paragraph-long run on sentences do not an intelligent rebuttal make.
Somebody mod the parent down. Not only does he/she claim to work for Apple and Nokia, but he/she can't even spell committee properly. Also a quick Google for "Micheal Van Laferie" and '"Tracy McNeal" Xerox' turned up no results, making this post even more suspect.
If it's YOUR system, then how are you "intercepting" anything? If someone tries to crack into a system that is yours, then who cares if it is a honeypot or not? This is like a burglar suing a homeowner because he cut himself on a knife he was stealing along with the rest of their silverware...
Find out what these "standards" are that everyone speaks of
and find a way to buy them out.
Obligatory Simpsons reference...
Bill Gates: Buy 'em out, boys!
Homer: Hey, what the hell is going on?
Bill Gates: Oh, Mr. Simpson, I didn't get rich by writing a lot of checks! Ahahaha!
I used to play NetHack on a Psion handheld in my math classes. Does gaming reduce productivity? Well, just take a look at my math scores and draw your own conclusions...:)
SCO should just start suing anyone who produces a "stable" OS.
That rules out Windows, then...
Re:Ogg or OGG?
on
Ogg Now An RFC
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Why do the RFC page headers say "OGG" instead of "Ogg"? The headers in other RFCs aren't arbitrarily capitalized. It's hard enough convincing people that Ogg isn't an acronym without the RFC itself making our work harder.
Can they fix this without issuing a new RFC number?
4) How can I correct an error in a published RFC? You cannot! Once an RFC is published, it cannot be changed.
[...] For both technical and editorial errors, the RFC Editor provides a list of errata for published RFCs. This page contains a list of errors that have been reported to the RFC Editor.
I have lost a lot of respect for the Mozilla leadership because of this dispute. The database folks had the name first, and it's not as if picking another name will cause "branding" issues... 99% of users don't call it "Mozilla Firebird" and so nobody will care if another name is picked. It's not like Mozilla.org invested in a million-dollar ad campaign with the name Firebird.
The mature thing to do would be for the Mozilla folks to back off, and pick another name. The legalities of it are largely irrelevant - this kind of dispute is bad for the community, and it reflects very poorly on all involved with the Mozilla side of things. These guys are making some abusive corporations look nice and friendly right now, and it disgusts me.
So you'd also like to hear "Your Pinto exploded? To bad, you shouldn't have gotten rear-ended."
No automobile company would get away with selling products as defective as most commercial software. Why should the software industry be immune from product liability?
Well in this case, "you shouldn't have gotten rear-ended" is not a good analogy. A better analogy would be the front door on your house. If you leave it unlocked, well that's pretty stupid. It's not the lock manufacturer's fault you didn't lock it. Similarly, if you don't patch a server for a vulnerability that's been known for months, it's not the software developer's fault.
This isn't to say Microsoft software is inherently secure or better or blah blah blah. Don't take it that way. But in this case, it is the fault of the sys admins for not patching their damn systems. Or for that matter, running SQL servers accessible by the public internet. There's a difference between getting rear-ended, and backing out into traffic without looking first. If you don't take adequate precautions, you (at the very least) share the burden of guilt for what happens.
you'd think that w/ MS' past legal troubles, they'd stay out of manufacturing or collarborating w/ manufacturers unilaterally.
That would probably be the case if Microsoft had actually suffered as a result of its legal "troubles." The anti-trust trial et al have done very little to deter Microsoft, since the government has been weak as water in punishing them and enforcing the law. They've received very little incentive to do anything other than exactly what they wish, legal or not.
Slashdot Mirror
Like others, I have traded up from heavy steel to aluminum, and now carbon fiber, ending up with a bike far better than its rider.
I wouldn't call that trading up in all instances. I have both aluminum and steel frame bicycles, and while my aluminum frames are a few pounds lighter, that's not my only consideration. Steel is generally much more comfortable (especially on crappy roads with three-inch-wide cracks, like around here). This is because it is more flexible and absorbs the jolts better than aluminum - although, it also absorbs a small amount of the energy you put into each pedal stroke too.
Steel frames are a lot more durable too - your steel bike will probably be in better shape after a minor wreck than an alluminum frame. For that matter, I've seen aluminum forks bend while mounted in a car or truck because of potholes in the road, etc. It's not common, but it happens more frequently than people would like.
Unless you're racing or doing time trials, the small weight difference will not be a big factor. I've toured 100 miles on steel and aluminum without noticing the difference in weight.
Bottom line: "newer" technology is not always better. It's all about the circumstances in which it will be used. Get that carbon fiber frame if you've got the money to blow and you want to shave those extra grams off for your next big race. Otherwise, don't worry too much if the bike you've got your heart set on is steel, or aluminum, or even cast iron. :) Get what's comfortable and what suits your style of cycling.
Well considering I wrote the review I could of went into all that mumbo jumbo about it had this feature, it lacked this feature.. Frankly my criteria was very short..
"Could of"? Your "criteria" was "very short"? Sorry, but with grammatical errors such as these, I don't think you're capable of writing a real review at this point.
If you want something detailed then instead of taking 3 hours I'll put in a weeks worth of the freetime I do these things in and prove something useful to you.
Despite the fact that you said this sarcastically, that's a very realistic definition of how one does GOOD reviews. Anything less and you really can't call it a review - it's just a "first glance" opinion of what's there on the surface.
You cannot review something as complex as a software package in a whopping 3 hours. With anything of significance, be it hardware, software, a book, etc. that is being reviewed, it is essential that you put time into it. Your review is about as insightful as me firing up NetHack and astounding my readers with such observations as "it uses text for its display" and "it is an adventure game that is very cool."
Or perhaps everyone's complaining becuse the word Microsoft or SCO was not included here.
Or perhaps because it lacked any depth, pros and cons, detailed comparisons of Ximian vs. other desktop environments, etc. Tell me why I should or should not use Ximian's desktop. Does it bork my custom menus, as others here have said? Does it bundle crashy components? Is this going to convince me to use Linux as a desktop vs. Windows? Tell me why Ximian might be worth my while, or not - and back it up!
But all this feedback is quiet useful since everyone can learn from critics :)
Now there is an excellent thing to say! While Slashdot isn't exactly the most mature crowd at times, there are plenty of intelligent people here with constructive criticism. In all seriousness, if you (or someone) wrote a well thought out and interesting review of Ximian, it would blow Slashdot away. Then again, rarely does content of significant quality make it to the front page, but one can dream...
You've hinted at some interesting things (such as plugins not being bundled with XYZ distro, and so forth) that would be excellent to flesh out in a real review. The ideas are there, but it would need more work. Oh and one more piece of advice - don't submit news postings about your own stuff and talk about yourself in the third person. It looks really lame, and there's nothing wrong with saying "I've spent a lot of time working with Ximian Desktop 2, and discovered [review teaser here] and [another teaser]. Check out my full review of it here for the juicy details." Or something like that.
Wouldn't it be more natural to natural to ask Red Hat for a clarification first?
I get the feeling this person has an axe to grind when it comes to Red Hat, and would rather incite an idealogical flamewar between the free-as-in-freedom folks and the more pragmatic or business-y Red Hat types.
Yeah but the difference is that PNG doesn't have to make money to survive or "win". With Beta vs. VHS there were financial interests at stake, and the winner was determined by where the dollars went...
GIF has such a huge head start...
It also has a rather limited palette, no alpha channel support, etc. When money isn't the determining factor (or a factor at all), technical merit can play a bigger role.
For two reasons, one of which I mentioned outright in my first posting.
We basically got the brush off from everyone we talked to at Epic. Like I said, any halfway decent programmer could have fixed the bug in minutes. So the reason we didn't "fix this earlier" is we were waiting to see what Epic would do. Once it became clear they didn't care one bit, we did whatever we could on our end to take care of it. It was not an ideal solution by any means, and it really was not our responsibility to screw with our server code to fix their client, but we had to do something in order to protect a (then) large chunk of our user base.
Epic is really a great company
Yeah, I love how they handled their IRC client in the original UT. There was a crasher bug in it that, if you msg'd someone with the right string (or typed it in a channel), the program would crash and burn. It didn't matter if you were even in the IRC window, if you were connected and the message came through to you somehow, *poof*. In game, in the server browser, didn't matter. Idiots would come on IRC and crash entire channels with 100s of people in them, or they'd crash rival clans while they were in the middle of important games.
Epic knew about this bug for well over a year, and they did absolutely nothing about it. We at Gameslink (then the IRC network for UT) ended up patching the ircd just to fix Epic's problem, and keep UT users happy. It should not be the responsibility of an IRC network to patch their whole network of servers to fix a terrible client-side crasher that could be solved in 5 minutes by a competent programmer.
Great company, indeed.
How can DRM "protect rights" when it denies basic rights of fair use?
Ah, but there's the rub. It's not about protecting YOUR rights, it's about protecting the rights of the big corporations. Well not so much their rights as the "rights" they want - i.e. control over your computer and everything you use it for.
And if it's a Mac, get the Omni Group's excellent OmniOutliner software; that thing is a freaking godsend when it comes to taking class notes.
I second that - and I also recommend OmniGraffle, also by Omni Group. OmniGraffle is a kick-ass charting app, and it saved me a bundle of time when I had to do annoying flowcharts for my programming classes. :)
If I find a WM camping on Alt-mouse or Alt-key, preventing my hungry hungry hippo (emacs) from getting them, its uninstalled faster than you can say "twm".
I'm not sure I see the problem... The Alt key is only 'camped' on with regards to the mouse. i.e. You can still use your alt+whatever key combos, but if you hold down alt and then click or drag with the mouse, then the WM steps in and does its thang. I don't know about you, but I don't have a single app that itself needs alt-clicking or alt-dragging...
Q: Why is this? the anti-trust? (no further standalone)
A: Although this is off topic, I will answer briefly: Legacy OSes have reached their zenith with the addition of IE 6 SP1. Further improvements to IE will require enhancements to the underlying OS.
What, exactly, about web browsing could require 'enhancements to the underlying OS'? The only answer I can think of is DRM/Palladdium, but of course Microsoft does not want to say that. They want these "improvements" to sound like "features" that people would actually want. Perhaps they will play on peoples' fears of online banking and ordering?
But Safari > MSIE ;)
Well duh. Even Contiki > MSIE. :)
[...] signs of activity in the Martian soil - akin to microbes giving off gas
Let the Taco Bell jokes begin!
I wonder what GimpPrint would think of being forced to print or not print certain documents based on their contents.
This point should be moot - it's not GimpPrint's (or GimpPrint's authors') responsibility to enforce the legality of what you print. This is just like DRM telling me what I can or can't do with music I own - or that I created, for that matter. If GimpPrint (or any printing software) came to have such a feature, it would either be boycotted or forked with the restrictions removed. Not because of any desire to do illegal stuff, but simply in the name of freedom and to avoid anything remotely DRM-like.
just cuz they dont exist on google doesnt mean they dont exist specially ppl at large corporations almost never write anything on the net or publish any info
Then they have no right to be on a committee that makes decisions about a public specification. If there is not one single mention of these supposed people anywhere on the public web as Google knows it, then it is very likely they do not exist - or at least, they do not exist in any capacity that should allow them to help decide the fate of a spec like 802.11g.
micheal did no log in is probably cuz of this reason that way he does not leave a paper trail behind that his company could track
I don't see how simply putting your name on the bottom of a post instead of logging in is "not leav[ing] a paper trail". I don't care if the person was logged in or not, it doesn't make their existence any more or less legit. I'm ".com b4 .storm" but for all you know I could be Bill Gates. I'm not, but the existence or non-existence of a login name proves nothing.
Sorry bub, my concerns about this posting are legit. Paragraph-long run on sentences do not an intelligent rebuttal make.
Somebody mod the parent down. Not only does he/she claim to work for Apple and Nokia, but he/she can't even spell committee properly. Also a quick Google for "Micheal Van Laferie" and '"Tracy McNeal" Xerox' turned up no results, making this post even more suspect.
And that, ladies and gentleman, is a prime example of why so many Slashdotters are virgins... :)
If it's YOUR system, then how are you "intercepting" anything? If someone tries to crack into a system that is yours, then who cares if it is a honeypot or not? This is like a burglar suing a homeowner because he cut himself on a knife he was stealing along with the rest of their silverware...
Find out what these "standards" are that everyone speaks of and find a way to buy them out.
Obligatory Simpsons reference...
I used to play NetHack on a Psion handheld in my math classes. Does gaming reduce productivity? Well, just take a look at my math scores and draw your own conclusions... :)
SCO should just start suing anyone who produces a "stable" OS.
That rules out Windows, then...
Why do the RFC page headers say "OGG" instead of "Ogg"? The headers in other RFCs aren't arbitrarily capitalized. It's hard enough convincing people that Ogg isn't an acronym without the RFC itself making our work harder.
Can they fix this without issuing a new RFC number?
To quote the RFC FAQ:
The only word I understood in that whole thing was "sandwich." :) Mmmm Subway...
I have lost a lot of respect for the Mozilla leadership because of this dispute. The database folks had the name first, and it's not as if picking another name will cause "branding" issues... 99% of users don't call it "Mozilla Firebird" and so nobody will care if another name is picked. It's not like Mozilla.org invested in a million-dollar ad campaign with the name Firebird.
The mature thing to do would be for the Mozilla folks to back off, and pick another name. The legalities of it are largely irrelevant - this kind of dispute is bad for the community, and it reflects very poorly on all involved with the Mozilla side of things. These guys are making some abusive corporations look nice and friendly right now, and it disgusts me.
So you'd also like to hear "Your Pinto exploded? To bad, you shouldn't have gotten rear-ended."
No automobile company would get away with selling products as defective as most commercial software. Why should the software industry be immune from product liability?
Well in this case, "you shouldn't have gotten rear-ended" is not a good analogy. A better analogy would be the front door on your house. If you leave it unlocked, well that's pretty stupid. It's not the lock manufacturer's fault you didn't lock it. Similarly, if you don't patch a server for a vulnerability that's been known for months, it's not the software developer's fault.
This isn't to say Microsoft software is inherently secure or better or blah blah blah. Don't take it that way. But in this case, it is the fault of the sys admins for not patching their damn systems. Or for that matter, running SQL servers accessible by the public internet. There's a difference between getting rear-ended, and backing out into traffic without looking first. If you don't take adequate precautions, you (at the very least) share the burden of guilt for what happens.
you'd think that w/ MS' past legal troubles, they'd stay out of manufacturing or collarborating w/ manufacturers unilaterally.
That would probably be the case if Microsoft had actually suffered as a result of its legal "troubles." The anti-trust trial et al have done very little to deter Microsoft, since the government has been weak as water in punishing them and enforcing the law. They've received very little incentive to do anything other than exactly what they wish, legal or not.