They may get their act together if they hire the right people.
By the time it's designed for the road, the old foggies who botched the last one may not be around to botch this one.
Same with the engineers.
Nations' power and technical abilities and areas of excellence ARE NOT STAGNANT over long periods of time.
Belief that they are is wishful or deliberately hopeful thinking at best.
That which you get the people and the engineering to believe -- so shall they be.
In 1957, who'd of believed we'd put a man in space, or a man on the moon 11 years later?
What I wanna know is if I can put my feet out the bottom and run and make em run when they run down on batteries ala Flinstone style..(forget Shatner...wrong temporal direction for this option!)...
While the bill stops explicit charging in future data provided to the public, it allows any existing "pay walls" to keep the public from _freely_ accessing the information over the internet to remain in place. It will be interesting to see how many future cases will be _*claimed*_ to have been covered by prior "paywalls" (fees, cost recovery, licensing for maintenance...etc...) agreements _if_ this law passes...
IT certainly would never pass under a Republican administration or if the Republicans have their way, as they have, especially in the Bush era, shown a propensity toward "privatizing" all of these information sources in order to make the government "self-sustaining" -- i.e. affordable only to those who can afford to pay.
It's a very different mindset -- government, and its services, only for those who can pay for those services, vs. a government for all of the people. It's said those ideals weren't further established into explicit constitutional protections before "fiscal conservatives" decided that government should strive for being a "for-profit" business.
I got marked down in job reviews for spending my own time doing optimizations -- even though I got my daily work done -- if I had so much extra energy or 'cycles' to do my own optimization or , then when I worked for managers, they always coveted *my* cycles.
Stupid managers -- always greedy.
Customers don't pay big bucks for efficiency -- they pay to have something WORK. It's always the next big feature that they think they need (or they've been sold on). So optimizing and testing take second and third seat.
You have a choice of what to do with your computer or doodling equipment. If you want to learn, you learn -- if you don't, why are professors trying to force students to learn the way they want them to. Either they will learn it and if the professor is any good, his tests will turn up who knows it and who doesn't How much attention you pay while a professor is blabbing in Slow motion, in front, is irrelevant. Are you learning the material and can you perform.
Some of them also tend toward being very cliquish with superiority complexes.
Can be alot to take.
Them: "I'm a Mac, and you're a PC...isn't it obvious?"
As for solutions....
My first thought was to use a linux file server. But if that's out,
What does your designer use the network for? Would he be heavily impacted by a slower network?
The best would be to place the offender on a 10Mbit Half-Duplex hub. But he might too easily trace the connection. But if you can find a way to work that 10Mb-HD hub in between them, that'd slow down file transfers by a good bit. Maybe you have an old PC around running XP? I wonder how it would perform as a network bridge?
Oh well...extra network equipment might be too noticeable.
Perhaps a USB-1.1 ethernet adapter can be worked in somewhere?:-)
If you are behind a proxy or firewall you are s-o-l With EA's DLC. They don't use standard ports they use proprietary ports that you'd have to analyze and adapt for on a per-vendor or per-game basis. It's pretty sucky.
It says the RAM is FULL...read the lines of the original post carefully -- it says the consequence of of this full RAM is requiring programs to turn to virtual memory to handle tasks....MY GAWD! you even quoted it, you twit.
The OS doesn't use virtual memory unless it is OUT of memory -- that means it's way past the point of cached data being dropped.
I pity anyone stupid enough to move to Win7 and choose to stay at 32 bits. At 64 bits, 4G is a good start system for those doing simple desktop tasks. You want to use 64 bit programs that use large address spaces? 4G is low end, and you will page.
**I** page (though rarely) with 24G (maxed until 8G Ram chips become available and cheap enough) of memory. But that's with things like Mass Effect-II and Photoshop, and a 1.5G copy of FF in memory, among many other things all in memory at the same time -- isn't that what a multitasking computer is for?
I'm playing devil's advocate here a bit, as my first tendency was to write what you wrote. However, I'd like to point out that when bands sample other's works, I may recognize those other works if I've heard them first -- but I certainly don't hear any quotes where they say "quote "hey there[repeated 3 times in staccato succession]". It just doesn't happen -- it would ruin the flow of the song. Why in writing? I would suggest, alternatively the ability to have endnotes that lists sources -- BUT not annotation that again would ruin the flow of the writing.
In thinking about this -- given the wide use of sampling in music, I don't see why such shouldn't be the norm in writing.
However--whole sale copying of more than a paragraph, or about 30-50 words, I would say would violate the spirit of sampling (depending on the length of the larger work). I would say that depending on the venue for which they are writing, they would be safer to use quotes and footnotes -- especially in scholarly works, but in 'fiction' or works for public sale?
It really would depend on what was used and where, but I could easily see that a blanket ban would be wrong -- just as it would support repeating lines from other people in speeches or songs. Sound bites are catchy.
Four score and seven years ago, our forefathers could never have brought forth, on this continent, a new digital nation, conceived in Liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all people are created equal. We should dedicate our selves to the great task remaining before us -- that from those unjustly imprisoned or executed for crimes against freedom of speech and liberty on the net, shall not have suffered in vain -- that this digital nation -- formed by no geographical borders, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that internet of the people, by the people and their just representatives shall not perish from the earth.
q.e.d. -lpq
endnote -- apologies to A. Lincoln for butchering parts of body of work.
Anyone who thinks they can predict that which has not been done before, is full of it. If it can be predicted with any accuracy its because it has been done before -- in which case, why are you doing it AGAIN!?
People who can give schedules are people who are pulling the wool over management's eye. But software isn't like manufacturing, where you take known parts, and known formula and combine them in a known way to get a the same result as you got last week. It's doing something that hasn't been done before. How people think they can accurately predict that is beyond me. You have to do the project to know how long it's really going to take.
The closer you get to the end, the more accurate your estimates may get. OR not, if you succumb to some 90/10 rule.
If you can teleport E, then given m=E/c^2, then you can teleport 'M'. It's a slow build up from 1 bit of 'E', to many bits of E, but the referred to article also mentions the ability to transfer small bits of matter in the not too distant future being a possibility -- from there, it's only a matter of scale and time (perhaps money and energy) before such technology could feasibly transport humans. Theoretically, that is...
But today's theory and sci-fi could easily be tomorrow's science fact.
Ditto on this balanced bit -- games need to quickly adapt (automatically would be best, but manually is better than nothing) to the player -- to scale up their difficulty as the player shows they are having it too easy, but scaling down difficult if the player is clueless or dying alot. That's, IMO, should be a grail of game programming.
Even if someone improves -- game play can be stepped up to provide a challenge.
It's like in 'learning' any skill -- challenge too hard = discouraging. Challenge too easy = boring. Either way the 'attention' falls off and the player gets tired of the game.
The one who moves first is 'moving' (in place). That bit of action focuses the eye of a responder and gives them a better visual target than the first guy has. If you stand absolutely still when someone shoots you, you don't present as good a target as if you are moving your arms or making some motion (but not large enough motion that it would throw off the other person's perspective of your center of target.
It's like bull fighting -- if you stand still with the red-cape, the bull may or may not go at you or the cape. But if you wave the red cape, the bull goes after the target that is moving.
Our visual system is designed to pick up *differences* faster than 'sameness'. The motion of drawing the gun would often generate a 'difference' in an opponent's visual field, thus providing a better target.
At least that's my observations....I suppose I could read the article, but they are just researchers.
So are they going to ban passengers in cars as well -- as you might carry on distracting conversations with people in the car -- or worse, since they are there, you might be more likely to actually try to *look* at them during the conversation -- or observe children or passengers in the rearview mirror.
Certainly if one insists on banning cell phone conversations, one should ban passengers as well unless they are separated by a soundproof barrier. Yeah -- this sounds real useful. People think cell phones are some bad thing but there's no reason why one can't use a cell phone and yet keep focus on the here and now -- on the road, but I'd go so far as to say it would take 'training'. However, most people don't even have proper training to drive properly.
For me, my attention is increased by anything that makes the task more interesting. That might be a cell phone. For me, inattention is bred by a lack of distractions -- pure sameness -- boredom -- brain tunes out. I can't imagine that it's not the same for many or most people, but I'm told that I'm not entirely normal in this regard, so I accept that my experience may not be everyone's. But this is why rules designed for the masses may not be best for individuals. Laws designed for the masses may increase problems for some individuals.
A parallel observation was made for many veteran pot smokers and driving. Those who were regular smokers didn't perform worse on driving tests. To the contrary, many drove *better*. That's why it's a _medicine_, though I don't think the DMV is quite up to speed on medical facts and applies Lowest Common Denominator rules to the masses that are drivers. Way too many of our laws are being crafted for LCD folks -- like Windows interfaces being designed for LCD users. It doesn't make for an optimal experience for many.
So any distraction can be bad for driving....but some distractions can be useful to improve and sharpen the concentration of some drivers (obviously there are different levels of distractions, where too high on the intensity scale becomes counter-productive).
The opposite of people's 'attention state', is the 'sleep state' -- lack of "arousal" or "stimulation" breeds a tendency toward sleep...So conversations...more research needs to be done to see why cell phones are supposedly more distracting that the host of things that can be done with live passengers (including unruly children).
Is it looking away from the the driving visual field to operate the device? Would a heads-up display would provide increased safety?
You miss this the main point. Funny how people focus on the unimportant details when they don't like the main statement of the post. Robots.txt says to ignore case. It only makes sense for their webserver to also ignore case for the file name. It sure would make retrieving cpan modules much easier. I'm always forgetting where some specific author has decided to put caps - because it isn't done consistently. It would be far smarter to allow case insensitive searching and usage given how capricious case usage is. They got hoisted by their own petard.
Most web servers ignore case. Theirs doesn't because they like to give authors the ability to randomly force users to remember random combination of case. Yipee. The bit about the perl server was a piece of dry wit for reasons I've previously stated. It wasn't meant as an insult. That you took it that way shows you aren't a true perl affectionado, so stop complaining.
If I remember apache defaults to options to set case insensitivity. So they'd have to explicitly disable case insensitivity to enable this vulnerability.
My, seems like I struck a nerve. The the web server doesn't have to be written in perl for it not to ignore case. The point was it doesn't.
As for my comment about them writing a web server in perl being wacky -- you obviously know nothing about the perl community. There is nothing that can not be done better in perl -- including a web server. I don't seen that being an unwarranted comment. May not be true in this circumstance, but I'm sure it's been done. Did you even bother to check cpan for a cpan webserver? I'll take my bemusings, that you erroneously call speculations, over your sad, dim existence speculation any day. Tell me "CPAN::Mini::Webserver" isn't meant to server up a copy of cpan -- maybe not used for the main site, but...maybe with a squid accelerator front end -- yeah...I could see it!
Too bad you are such a hateful, spiteful diseased thing. You really should get some help or consider doing mankind a favor and stop wasting the planet's resources with your continued existence. It would be the responsible thing to do.
The spec for robots.txt says that strings matched internally in the text file should be done in a case insensitive manner.
It would only make sense for a "reasonable person" to assume" that any web fetches for a file name for 'robots.txt' should also match in a case insensitive manner.
This sounds like Microsoft being used to Uppercasing the first letter of words -- which looks aesthetically pleasing, and not having it make any real difference on 70% of the computers on the planet (running Microsoft) and (in my experience, on most webservers running apache). Never noticed any case sensitivity.
This looks like a case of the perl guys being at fault. They likely have a web-server written in perl and DIDn't do a case ignore when processing requests for 'robots.txt'. This violates the intent if not the letter of the spec.
Check out http://www.robotstxt.org/orig.html. It specifies that all of its strings should be matched in a case insensitive manner. IT doesn't explicitly say that the filename 'robots.txt' should also be matched by the webserver, in a case insensitive manner, but if if specifies that all of the web-addresses in the file should be handled in a case-insensitive manner, doesn't it makes sense that the file name it-self should also be case insensitive?
People should use a little common sense before going off and blaming microsoft for doing something that is perfection natural and perfectly understandable, while the supposed victims should be a bit more robust in the design of the web server.
At least, that's how it appears to me -- anyone care to show me a sound reasoning why it should be otherwise or why one would expect otherwise?
I like png as well --- but it has no color management support. No profiles...Sigh, so it's sorta worthless for the web if you want your colors to look consistent across other people's computers...(*cough*)... You see what I mean? Depending on your focus, you can eliminate almost any technology for its short comings.
But for the things that do work in svg, you can make decent graphics on it and use those on a website. That's not experimental and its there today.
As for Stellarium -- until your friend makes the data available in SVG format for plotting in a standard browser, I'm afraid it's usefulness will be limited to a 32-bit toy (a very snazzy one, albeit). You can't even load all the data bases in the 32bit version. It poops out around DB 5 with an out-of-memory error. It really needs 64bits...to hold all of its extended dataset (there's about 7 db's right now, only the first 2-3 are included with the product because they keep growing as more gets added to them). If they were rewritten to SVG, then Stellarium could be come a gigantic SVG plotting engine! Talk about insane ideas!:-) Maybe it could do VRML as well and it can become a galaxy or universal 3-D mapping engine... Can tell I'm operating on no sleep again...;-)
Sorry if I snarked, must have been something in my throat. *cough*... SVG isn't super trivial -- learning it could take between now and when Mozilla gets a perfect implementation.:-) Check out the 'inkscape.org' website -- it's a free downloadable creator/editor for SVG -- and the focus is more on artwork than text. You can see lots of examples there, and it's amazing how many already work -- there's an entire website of clip art examples at www.openclipart.org. Also, if you google up SVG clipart, you'll find a bunch of stuff that already works in FF. So it's not a matter of 'when FF will be ready to display and use SVG', there are websites based on it already.
It is well known that many if not most web pages DON'T display the same on different browsers and different OS's. That's why there's so many hacks to work around display problems. I have a whole book on how to write web pages that *DOESN'T* display the same on every browser, because to do that would be *dumbing down* the web experience.
I.e. that's a bad excuse for dismissing a web technology -- since it is true of HTML, CSS, Fonts and just about every thing displayed on the web today. Even pictures will display at different sizes and with different colors. So by your logic, they should all be thrown out? Sorry. Maybe you need to get a reality clue. Things are not as uniform as you believe. You just don't see it because you don't run different browsers on different OS's on all your web pages side-by-side.
But starting a few years ago, people started designing for advanced browsers and created dumber pages that don't display as much for dumber browsers. People never know they've gotten a dumbed down version unless they run it side-by-side with an intelligent browser. But many designers are designing to the *highest common denominator*, and displaying lower quality substitutions for those using old technology. It's like TV. Some people will continue to use standard-def for many years, but will miss out on detail provided in hi-def displays. The same was true for color after a while -- content was designed for color, and if you didn't get color -- you just missed the subtleties.
If the png's weren't next to the SVG's you wouldn't know how they were supposed to look -- and as someone else (and I agree w/them), the text on the SVG side was more clear. If we didn't know it was suppose to look bad (like on the png side), we wouldn't know it was wrong and would think the crisper, sharper text was better. In most cases, the png won't be there for you to compare against. So you won't know. If the page is legible and gets its message across, are you going to know some pixel or dot is off? Most people didn't notice such bugs with IE for a decade or more -- designers did, but on the other end, if it spelled a word and was readable, it was 'correct'.
Why would SVG be any different? Now don't get me wrong -- I do believe FF's SVG should be fixed, ASAP, but going around saying it's completely flamboozeled or unusable just isn't true.
Slashdot Mirror
History != Destiny.
They may get their act together if they hire the right people.
By the time it's designed for the road, the old foggies who botched the last one may not be around to botch this one.
Same with the engineers.
Nations' power and technical abilities and areas of excellence ARE NOT STAGNANT over long periods of time.
Belief that they are is wishful or deliberately hopeful thinking at best.
That which you get the people and the engineering to believe -- so shall they be.
In 1957, who'd of believed we'd put a man in space, or a man on the moon 11 years later?
What I wanna know is if I can put my feet out the bottom and run and make em run when they run down on batteries ala Flinstone style..(forget Shatner...wrong temporal direction for this option!)...
If they don't recommend all (2) of the major browsers, what browsers are they using / do they recommend?
Pray tell?
This sounds like FUD to stay off the internet.
While the bill stops explicit charging in future data provided to the public, it allows any existing "pay walls" to keep the public from _freely_ accessing the information over the internet to remain in place. It will be interesting to see how many future cases will be _*claimed*_ to have been covered by prior "paywalls" (fees, cost recovery, licensing for maintenance...etc...) agreements _if_ this law passes...
IT certainly would never pass under a Republican administration or if the Republicans have their way, as they have, especially in the Bush era, shown a propensity toward "privatizing" all of these information sources in order to make the government "self-sustaining" -- i.e. affordable only to those who can afford to pay.
It's a very different mindset -- government, and its services, only for those who can pay for those services, vs. a government for all of the people. It's said those ideals weren't further established into explicit constitutional protections before "fiscal conservatives" decided that government should strive for being a "for-profit" business.
When have then been allowed to?
It's always ship ship ship...never optimize.
I got marked down in job reviews for spending my own time doing optimizations -- even though I got my daily work done -- if I had so much extra energy or 'cycles' to do my own optimization or , then when I worked for managers, they always coveted *my* cycles.
Stupid managers -- always greedy.
Customers don't pay big bucks for efficiency -- they pay to have something WORK. It's always the next big feature that they think they need (or they've been sold on). So optimizing and testing take second and third seat.
You have a choice of what to do with your computer or doodling equipment. If you want to learn, you learn -- if you don't, why are professors trying to force students to learn the way they want them to. Either they will learn it and if the professor is any good, his tests will turn up who knows it and who doesn't How much attention you pay while a professor is blabbing in Slow motion, in front, is irrelevant. Are you learning the material and can you perform.
Anything else should be inconsequential.
Some of them also tend toward being very cliquish with superiority complexes.
Can be alot to take.
Them: "I'm a Mac, and you're a PC...isn't it obvious?"
As for solutions....
My first thought was to use a linux file server. But if that's out,
What does your designer use the network for? Would he be heavily impacted by a slower network?
The best would be to place the offender on a 10Mbit Half-Duplex hub. But he might too easily trace the connection. But if you can find a way to work that 10Mb-HD hub in between them, that'd slow down file transfers by a good bit. Maybe you have an old PC around running XP? I wonder how it would perform as a network bridge?
Oh well...extra network equipment might be too noticeable.
Perhaps a USB-1.1 ethernet adapter can be worked in somewhere? :-)
You are aware that today's scifi becomes tomorrow future...well, just another example of scifi becoming reality...
Classical music as social control? This very much fits the UK "archetype". :-)
If you are behind a proxy or firewall you are s-o-l With EA's DLC. They don't use standard ports they use proprietary ports that you'd have to analyze and adapt for on a per-vendor or per-game basis. It's pretty sucky.
It doesn't say the RAM is in use for cached data.
It says the RAM is FULL...read the lines of the original post carefully -- it says the consequence of of this full RAM is requiring programs to turn to virtual memory to handle tasks....MY GAWD! you even quoted it, you twit.
The OS doesn't use virtual memory unless it is OUT of memory -- that means it's way past the point of cached data being dropped.
I pity anyone stupid enough to move to Win7 and choose to stay at 32 bits. At 64 bits, 4G is a good start system for those doing simple desktop tasks. You want to use 64 bit programs that use large address spaces? 4G is low end, and you will page.
**I** page (though rarely) with 24G (maxed until 8G Ram chips become available and cheap enough) of memory. But that's with things like Mass Effect-II and Photoshop, and a 1.5G copy of FF in memory, among many other things all in memory at the same time -- isn't that what a multitasking computer is for?
-l
I'm playing devil's advocate here a bit, as my first tendency was to write what you wrote. However, I'd like to point out that when bands sample other's works, I may recognize those other works if I've heard them first -- but I certainly don't hear any quotes where they say "quote "hey there[repeated 3 times in staccato succession]". It just doesn't happen -- it would ruin the flow of the song. Why in writing? I would suggest, alternatively the ability to have endnotes that lists sources -- BUT not annotation that again would ruin the flow of the writing.
In thinking about this -- given the wide use of sampling in music, I don't see why such shouldn't be the norm in writing.
However--whole sale copying of more than a paragraph, or about 30-50 words, I would say would violate the spirit of sampling (depending on the length of the larger work). I would say that depending on the venue for which they are writing, they would be safer to use quotes and footnotes -- especially in scholarly works, but in 'fiction' or works for public sale?
It really would depend on what was used and where, but I could easily see that a blanket ban would be wrong -- just as it would support repeating lines from other people in speeches or songs. Sound bites are catchy.
Four score and seven years ago, our forefathers could never have brought forth, on this continent, a new digital nation, conceived in Liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all people are created equal. We should dedicate our selves to the great task remaining before us -- that from those unjustly imprisoned or executed for crimes against freedom of speech and liberty on the net, shall not have suffered in vain -- that this digital nation -- formed by no geographical borders, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that internet of the people, by the people and their just representatives shall not perish from the earth.
q.e.d.
-lpq
endnote -- apologies to A. Lincoln for butchering parts of body of work.
Anyone who thinks they can predict that which has not been done before, is full of it. If it can be predicted with any accuracy its because it has been done before -- in which case, why are you doing it AGAIN!?
People who can give schedules are people who are pulling the wool over management's eye. But software isn't like manufacturing, where you take known parts, and known formula and combine them in a known way to get a the same result as you got last week. It's doing something that hasn't been done before. How people think they can accurately predict that is beyond me. You have to do the project to know how long it's really going to take.
The closer you get to the end, the more accurate your estimates may get. OR not, if you succumb to some 90/10
rule.
If you can teleport E, then given m=E/c^2, then you can teleport 'M'. It's a slow build up from 1 bit of 'E', to many bits of E, but the referred to article also mentions the ability to transfer small bits of matter in the not too distant future being a possibility -- from there, it's only a matter of scale and time (perhaps money and energy) before such technology could feasibly transport humans. Theoretically, that is...
But today's theory and sci-fi could easily be tomorrow's science fact.
Ditto on this balanced bit -- games need to quickly adapt (automatically would be best, but manually is better than nothing) to the player -- to scale up their difficulty as the player shows they are having it too easy, but scaling down difficult if the player is clueless or dying alot. That's, IMO, should be a grail of game programming.
Even if someone improves -- game play can be stepped up to provide a challenge.
It's like in 'learning' any skill -- challenge too hard = discouraging. Challenge too easy = boring.
Either way the 'attention' falls off and the player gets tired of the game.
-l
The one who moves first is 'moving' (in place). That bit of action focuses the eye of a responder and gives them a better visual target than the first guy has. If you stand absolutely still when someone shoots you, you don't present as good a target as if you are moving your arms or making some motion (but not large enough motion that it would throw off the other person's perspective of your center of target.
It's like bull fighting -- if you stand still with the red-cape, the bull may or may not go at you or the cape. But if you wave the red cape, the bull goes after the target that is moving.
Our visual system is designed to pick up *differences* faster than 'sameness'. The motion of drawing the gun would often generate a 'difference' in an opponent's visual field, thus providing a better target.
At least that's my observations....I suppose I could read the article, but they are just researchers.
What do they know? :-)
-l
So are they going to ban passengers in cars as well -- as you might carry on distracting conversations with people in the car -- or worse, since they are there, you might be more likely to actually try to *look* at them during the conversation -- or observe children or passengers in the rearview mirror.
Certainly if one insists on banning cell phone conversations, one should ban passengers as well unless they are separated by a soundproof barrier. Yeah -- this sounds real useful. People think cell phones are some bad thing but there's no reason why one can't use a cell phone and yet keep focus on the here and now -- on the road, but I'd go so far as to say it would take 'training'. However, most people don't even have proper training to drive properly.
For me, my attention is increased by anything that makes the task more interesting. That might be a cell phone. For me, inattention is bred by a lack of distractions -- pure sameness -- boredom -- brain tunes out. I can't imagine that it's not the same for many or most people, but I'm told that I'm not entirely normal in this regard, so I accept that my experience may not be everyone's. But this is why rules designed for the masses may not be best for individuals. Laws designed for the masses may increase problems for some individuals.
A parallel observation was made for many veteran pot smokers and driving. Those who were regular smokers didn't perform worse on driving tests. To the contrary, many drove *better*. That's why it's a _medicine_, though I don't think the DMV is quite up to speed on medical facts and applies Lowest Common Denominator rules to the masses that are drivers. Way too many of our laws are being crafted for LCD folks -- like Windows interfaces being designed for LCD users. It doesn't make for an optimal experience for many.
So any distraction can be bad for driving....but some distractions can be useful to improve and sharpen the concentration of some drivers (obviously there are different levels of distractions, where too high on the intensity scale becomes counter-productive).
The opposite of people's 'attention state', is the 'sleep state' -- lack of "arousal" or "stimulation" breeds a tendency toward sleep...So conversations...more research needs to be done to see why cell phones are supposedly more distracting that the host of things that can be done with live passengers (including unruly children).
Is it looking away from the the driving visual field to operate the device? Would a heads-up display would provide increased safety?
-l
I and a fair number of citizens don't see a problem with that.
Instead, they get the political clout of virtually unlimited citizenry to prevent citizens being informed enough to demand such reform.
They can open up this but not Mickey Mouse? What does that say about this software? :-)
You miss this the main point. Funny how people focus on the unimportant details when they don't like the main statement of the post. Robots.txt says to ignore case. It only makes sense for their webserver to
also ignore case for the file name. It sure would make retrieving cpan modules much easier. I'm always forgetting where some specific author has decided to put caps - because it isn't done consistently. It would be far smarter to allow case insensitive searching and usage given how capricious case usage is. They got hoisted by their own petard.
Most web servers ignore case. Theirs doesn't because they like to give authors the ability to randomly force
users to remember random combination of case. Yipee. The bit about the perl server was a piece of dry wit for reasons I've previously stated. It wasn't meant as an insult. That you took it that way shows you aren't a true perl affectionado, so stop complaining.
If I remember apache defaults to options to set case insensitivity. So they'd have to explicitly disable case insensitivity to enable this vulnerability.
My, seems like I struck a nerve. The the web server doesn't have to be written in perl for it not to ignore case. The point was it doesn't.
As for my comment about them writing a web server in perl being wacky -- you obviously know nothing about the perl community. There is nothing that can not be done better in perl -- including a web server. I don't seen that being an unwarranted comment. May not be true in this circumstance, but I'm sure it's been done. Did you even bother to check cpan for a cpan webserver? I'll take my bemusings, that you erroneously call speculations, over your sad, dim existence speculation any day. Tell me "CPAN::Mini::Webserver" isn't meant to server up a copy of cpan -- maybe not used for the main site, but...maybe with a squid accelerator front end -- yeah...I could see it!
Too bad you are such a hateful, spiteful diseased thing. You really should get some help or consider doing mankind a favor and stop wasting the planet's resources with your continued existence. It would be the responsible thing to do.
-l
The spec for robots.txt says that strings matched internally in the text file should be done in a case insensitive manner.
It would only make sense for a "reasonable person" to assume" that any web fetches for a file name for 'robots.txt' should also match in a case insensitive manner.
This sounds like Microsoft being used to Uppercasing the first letter of words -- which looks aesthetically pleasing, and not having it make any real difference on 70% of the computers on the planet (running Microsoft) and (in my experience, on most webservers running apache). Never noticed any case sensitivity.
This looks like a case of the perl guys being at fault. They likely have a web-server written in perl and DIDn't do a case ignore when processing requests for 'robots.txt'. This violates the intent if not the letter of the spec.
Check out http://www.robotstxt.org/orig.html. It specifies that all of its strings should be matched in a case insensitive manner. IT doesn't explicitly say that the filename 'robots.txt' should also be matched by the webserver, in a case insensitive manner, but if if specifies that all of the web-addresses in the file should be handled in a case-insensitive manner, doesn't it makes sense that the file name it-self should also be case insensitive?
People should use a little common sense before going off and blaming microsoft for doing something that is perfection natural and perfectly understandable, while the supposed victims should be a bit more robust in the design of the web server.
At least, that's how it appears to me -- anyone care to show me a sound reasoning why it should be otherwise or why one would expect otherwise?
Ditto on the vim issue... I'll switch to a proportional font in a heartbeat if vim supports it.
Sigh
Maybe vim is in need of a fork?
In some sense, what isn't?
Is it practical to defend against terrorism attacks on such a vulnerable target?
I like png as well --- but it has no color management support. No profiles...Sigh, so it's sorta worthless for the web if you want your colors to look consistent across other people's computers...(*cough*)... You see what I mean? Depending on your focus, you can eliminate almost any technology for its short comings.
But for the things that do work in svg, you can make decent graphics on it and use
those on a website. That's not experimental and its there today.
As for Stellarium -- until your friend makes the data available in SVG format for :-) Maybe it could do VRML as well and it can become a galaxy or universal 3-D mapping engine... Can tell I'm operating on no sleep again...;-)
plotting in a standard browser, I'm afraid it's usefulness will be limited to a
32-bit toy (a very snazzy one, albeit). You can't even load all the data bases in the 32bit version. It poops out around DB 5 with an out-of-memory error. It really needs 64bits...to hold all of its extended dataset (there's about 7 db's right now, only the first 2-3 are included with the product because they keep growing as more gets added to them). If they were rewritten to SVG, then Stellarium could be come a gigantic SVG plotting engine! Talk about insane ideas!
-l
Sorry if I snarked, must have been something in my throat. *cough*... SVG isn't super trivial -- learning it could take between now and when Mozilla gets a perfect implementation. :-) Check out the 'inkscape.org' website -- it's a free downloadable creator/editor for SVG -- and the focus is more on artwork than text. You can see lots of examples there, and it's amazing how many already work -- there's an entire website of clip art examples at www.openclipart.org. Also, if you google up SVG clipart, you'll find a bunch of stuff that already works in FF. So it's not a matter of 'when FF will be ready to display and use SVG', there are websites based on it already.
It is well known that many if not most web pages DON'T display the same on different browsers and different OS's. That's why there's so many hacks to work around display problems. I have a whole book on how to write web pages that *DOESN'T* display the same on every browser, because to do that would be *dumbing down* the web experience.
I.e. that's a bad excuse for dismissing a web technology -- since it is true of HTML, CSS, Fonts and just about every thing displayed on the web today. Even pictures will display at different sizes and with different colors. So by your logic, they should all be thrown out? Sorry. Maybe you need to get a reality clue. Things are not as uniform as you believe. You just don't see it because you don't run different browsers on different OS's on all your web pages side-by-side.
But starting a few years ago, people started designing for advanced browsers and created dumber pages that don't display as much for dumber browsers. People never know they've gotten a dumbed down version unless they run it side-by-side with an intelligent browser. But many designers are designing to the *highest common denominator*, and displaying lower quality substitutions for those using old technology. It's like TV. Some people will continue to use standard-def for many years, but will miss out on detail provided in hi-def displays. The same was true for color after a while -- content was designed for color, and if you didn't get color -- you just missed the subtleties.
If the png's weren't next to the SVG's you wouldn't know how they were supposed to look -- and as someone else (and I agree w/them), the text on the SVG side was more clear. If we didn't know it was suppose to look bad (like on the png side), we wouldn't know it was wrong and would think the crisper, sharper text was better. In most cases, the png won't be there for you to compare against. So you won't know. If the page is legible and gets its message across, are you going to know some pixel or dot is off? Most people didn't notice such bugs with IE for a decade or more -- designers did, but on the other end, if it spelled a word and was readable, it was 'correct'.
Why would SVG be any different? Now don't get me wrong -- I do believe FF's SVG should be fixed, ASAP, but going around saying it's completely flamboozeled or unusable just isn't true.