That's ok, though, because as it stands I'm basically in the same generation as a couple of my aunts & uncles (if GenX goes beyond 78), but not in the same generation as my youngest step-brother (or my own sister if it stops at 79). That being said, I identify more with those aunts & uncles, too (and THAT being said, I don't identify with many people my own age anyway). Damned if you do, damned if you don't. I have nieces and nephews the same age as some of my cousins.
It's exactly this kind of interface that I'm suggesting. They are vastly easier to use than mice or trackballs (BTW, I too find the trackball to be ergonomically superior).
Part of my point, though, is that the majority of the computer UI doesn't support this system as well as it does a mouse. I have 4 buttons and a wheel on my trackball, and for certain operations I can't live without it. The pen and pad interface is ideal for drawing and taking notes, but not for many (if not most) other tasks. As you said, it works for palmtops, but look at both the interface for those systems and the normal tasks for those systems. Both are vastly different from the home PC.
With CRTs such an interface posed similar problems to the mouse: less motor control issues (since you probably already know how to write) but very difficult hand/eye coordination because you're watching the screen but manipulating the stylus on a separate pad. I never did get the hang of that. With flat screen panels being all the rage today there's no reason we can't apply a touchscreen to the flat screen and use it as a tablet interface.
Personally, I'm considering one of those hybrid TabletPCs (the ones that operate either as a tablet or a normal notebook), but not as a replacement for any of my current systems. The interface method has it's high points for things I would normally use a notebook to do, and I still doubt that I'll ever use something like a palm or WinCE device until they become more capable (which might not even be possible with that size of an interface).
Touch screens are, in my opinion, vastly easier to use than mouse-based systems. Motor control necessary for the mouse is difficult to learn; not only for children, but also for adults
I would agree if the interface was dumbed down to make the touch screen useful. It would also help if you have smaller fingers (such as children), which would allow you to use smaller interface elements. I left 640x480 behind as soon as I had a video card that could do better, and 1280x1024 doesn't get along well with touch screens. Touch pads work well in one-button-oriented systems, such as the Mac, but have some of the same usability issues as mice (one of the big ones is what happens when you get to the edge of the touch pad, much like getting to the edge of the mouse pad; some people figure this out quite quickly, while others always have a hard time with it), and some of the issues of a touch screen (try keeping your finger on a touch screen for an entire drag&drop operation, try drag&drop over a long distance on a touch pad). It's easier to learn, but not always easier to use nor is the system designed for it.
It takes weeks or months for an adult to become adept with a mouse, and many never do for particularly fine tasks (like drawing).
The first system I ever used with a mouse was an Apple IIgs, which came with a little game that taught you how to use the mouse. I picked it up in less than 2 hours, and I don't think I was 10 years old at the time. Before that I had simply memorized a couple of simple commands which did everything I needed to do (at that age) with the computer, all of which had to be typed (though my typing didn't really become good until I was 18 or so and started playing FPS games using the WASD control system). Some tasks (like drawing) I'd never do with a trackball (I dont use mice on my systems because they cause problems for me with carpal tunnel), but I wouldn't do them with a touch pad or touch screen, either, I'd buy a proper tablet & stylus which is sensitive enough for those tasks (not to mention that the pen interface is familiar enough to those that draw on paper). On the other hand, some people draw perfectly well on the computer with a mouse/trackball.
This is made all the harder by the idiocy of using hieroglyphics as a user interface design element in mouse-based interfaces.
My agreement with that really depends on what you mean by using hieroglyphics. If you mean using icons as the only indicator for particular functions then I agree, as I tend to find that icons rarely help except to distinguish between types of files quickly (in those cases where two types of file don't use the same icon). I even setup my home WinXP computer with a large task bar that used only icons for a while (might as well give it a try since it's possible to do just about anything with the interface if you know the programs that'll do it), and found that it slowed me down so much as to be nearly useless.
Apple got at least this much right -- give them one button, and don't make them push it more than once. But, for my money, a touch-screen is still the most intuitive interface.
The touch-screen may be the most intuitive (after all, people that first encounter a computer will usually want to simply reach up and touch the screen). However, it is one of the hardest interfaces to actually use. Part of the problem is due to the current user interface being designed for a mouse (ever try to double-click a touch-screen, how about right-click, drag & drop?). The other part is that it's simply uncomfortable with the screen perpendicular to the desk (as are most) and usually only partially below shoulder-level with the user. In order for touch-screens to be usable, they have to be calibrated to the user and the software has to be designed specifically for a touch-screen interface (which usually results in large buttons and little else for an interface). If you have to use a keyboard in addition to the touch-screen, your speed with the interface gets significantly worse than if you had simply used a mouse, as well.
Re:ID are mentoined but not Commander Keen ?
on
High Score
·
· Score: 1
You also have the Dope Fish, first seen in Keen's Well of Wishes, then in Quake's Crypt of Decay,
Also underneath one of the Quake3 space maps, which you can either see in no-clip mode or when you're falling to your death.
Are there any lawsuits involving fixed/wrong machines? Anyone ever fought a rigged red light ticket?
Actually, a lot of people fight the policy in general, not just the rigging (or malfunctioning) of the cameras. Here's a couple of clips I found, since I remembered hearing about this a while back, while I was living in San Diego:
hwysafety.com June 1, 2001 - San Diego, CA red light camera program in turmoil due to evidence of tampering with camera equipment and discovery of yellow light timing problems: "San Diego city attorneys decided yesterday to throw out traffic tickets generated by red-light cameras at three intersections where police discovered problems with underground sensors.".... "San Diego Councilman Jim Madaffer wants the city to turn off the cameras until an independent study shows not only that the systems are flaw-free, but that they are improving safety." ["City attorneys drop camera-based traffic tickets - Action applies to 3 sites, but whole program stalls", Jenifer Hanrahan and Mark Arner, San Diego Union Tribune, 6/1/01]
San Diego resident describes fear of San Diego intersections: ""I feel safer walking across this street knowing the cameras are there," said Nguyen, who crosses nine lanes of Mira Mesa Boulevard traffic at Black Mountain Road -- the site of one of the city's 19 red-light cameras -- en route to work. "But it scares me to drive through the same intersection -- I don't know whether to speed up or slam on the brakes," she said." ["Public's reaction runs both ways over freeze", Joe Hughes, San Diego Union Tribune, 6/1/01]
[Total number of red light camera citations issued when red light camera enforcement program suspended = 83,931]
June 3, 2001 - San Diego red light camera program suspended: "This city's effort to catch red-light runners with computerized cameras at busy intersections was meant to reduce traffic accidents. What it has done, however, is provoke a civic backlash like few other issues in this politically placid city: a tangle of litigation, political foment, radio talk show meltdown, and now an embarrassing admission by the city that the controversial system has bugs. As a result, 5,000 tickets issued to drivers who supposedly ran red lights were canceled last week, while the police chief promised to find an outside consultant to do an audit of the mess and reestablish the system's credibility. Further, a moratorium was placed on photo-tickets at any of the 19 intersections equipped with cameras until the consultant's work is finished."..... "The consensus of the traffic-engineering fraternity, however, is that the cameras decrease accidents and are quite fair. Camera proponents point to a study showing a sharp drop in accidents in Oxnard. "The Armey report is wrong on completely everything," said Richard Retting, senior transportation engineer with the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. "To say that traffic-safety professionals are incompetent and conspiring to shorten yellow lights is lunacy." ["The State; Capturing Red-Light Runners Creates Red-Faced Officials; Traffic: Flaws are found in camera system used to nab violators. Firm's profit from tickets is questioned.", TONY PERRY, The Los Angeles Times, 6/3/2001]
San Diego, CA: "The most significant change in the number of violations occurred at the intersection of Mission Bay Drive and Grand (1541) where the yellow change interval was extended from 3.1 seconds to 4.7 seconds. This change resulted in an 88-percent decrease in the number of violations. At the five other intersections, the number of violations dropped significantly in response to longer yellow times." ["City of San Diego Enforcement System Review Final Report", PB Farradyne Inc., January 14, 2002, Chapter 6 (Traffic Engineering and Traffic Operations Improvements", page 78] (see entries 1/14/2002 for greater detail)
July 6, 2001 - "Tait [Arthur Tait, Attorney, San Diego] cites a report drafted by House staff members for Majority Leader Dick Armey. The report asserts that the cameras have compromised safety at intersections nationwide. It contends that at intersections with cameras, traffic engineers intentionally reduced yellow-light times, which makes rear-end collisions more likely. The yellow-light phase has been shortened, the report says, to increase the number of violators and generate more fines, which are split between municipalities and operating companies, such as Lockheed. That charge, Lockheed spokesman Mark Maddox says, is ''inaccurate and misinformed.'' Armey's allegations are ''insulting'' to the integrity of traffic engineers, says Thomas Brahms, executive director of the Institute of Transportation Engineers. ''We as a profession care very much about reducing injuries and reducing accidents.'' Brahms and Maddox say there is no question that cameras reduce the number of red-light runners and enhance public safety. In Mesa, Ariz., police credit a combination of increased yellow-light times and cameras with reducing fatalities from 20 in 1995 to eight last year. San Diego officials say there has been about a 45% drop in red-light violations at the 19 intersections where the cameras are installed." ["Motorists race to court to challenge red-light cameras Photos called privacy threat", By Valerie Alvord, Special to USA TODAY, July 6, 2001]
I started using it when I heard about the.1 release, and upgraded to.2 yesterday. My one major gripe about.1 was fixed in.2: CTRL+mwheel for font size changes.
1) Customizable Toolbars
One of my biggest reasons for using it;)
2) Home button where it SHOULD BE!
Yes, GONE! No home button at all is exactly as it should be.
4) Theme that respects my system colors! (Go ahead, change your system colors, Phoenix changes with them!)
Exactly. WTF should my browser be blue when my system is silver or grey?
5) No bundled on software--I just want a browser!
Again, exactly. If I wanted the other software, I would download it.
There are tons of other things to mention here like the extensions manager, default popup blocking, tabs, worthwhile sidebars, ability to remove the throbber, a clean statusbar that actually works, etc.
Sidebar hidden by default, some of the mozilla preferences have returned, such as keeping scripts from screwing up your browser window and status bar, return of a normal download progress dialog.
The best part, imo, is that even without loading crap up at system startup, it loads almost as quickly as IE. There are only a few sites I still use IE to load any more, the vast majority of my browsing is in Phoenix (even hotmail is just better under Phoenix).
IANAP, but the way I understand itis that you write to the kernel and libraries and then put packages together for the different distros (if'n you're nice and so inclined). Actually sounds like a good plan to me. It's not a lot different than writing for Windows. There are almost as many flavors of Windows as there are Linux distros.
In most cases you just have to test your software on different versions of Windows to make sure you didn't do anything that would cause it not to work on a particular version. In that way, it's the same as writing Linux software. The difference is that there's a rather small number of things that will be different between versions of Windows, from a programmer's perspective, unless you're trying to take advantage of a lot of new features in a newer version and still have it run on older versions. Even then, you can have one set of binaries and installer that works with all versions if you do it right. The things most likely to trip up Windows compatibility are unicode support, threading, and hardware (NT and 9x have different methods for interfacing all 3 of these, so you use ifdefs and release separate binaries or you check your Windows version at run-time and use different calling methods/arguments). The things that continually trip up Linux developers are getting better over time, such as what combination of software is being run to generate a GUI on the machine, what library/compiler versions are there, and so on. It's still a bit rare that you'd be able to just download a binary and run with it on Linux, unless they've specifically developed or tested it on your distro. Of course, that's what open source is really good for, just download the source and compile to your platform and, in most cases, it'll work with at most minor changes;)
If different versions of Windows with varying levels of driver support aren't a moving target, I don't know what is.
Windows has a fairly stable record of backwards compatibility, and driver support is not an issue for the majority of software (when it is an issue, there's usually an abstraction layer in Windows that you should be using anyway, at least for the basic support, since wtf knows what hardware is on the end-user's system). Just like anywhere else, you write for the lowest common platform that you want to support, and then add options/#ifdefs for the extra features that may be available based on hardware or software versions (MMX, SSE, hardware T&L, ActiveDirectory, and so on). Obviously, if your software is absolutely dependant on something being there, you have a requirement for a particular version of the platform.
I believe you should make the program plataform independent, and then let the guys working at each distro port it - they probably can do it better than you anyway
Umm if it needs to be ported, it's not platform independant.
Anyway, the easiest thing to do is just keep track of your dependencies when building your software. If you know exactly what your software requires to run, you can look at the items included with each distro and get some idea of where it *should* run properly. If you're going for the broadest base possible, look around to see what's supported on each platform and try to avoid using the latest bleeding edge build of everything your software depends on.
From the UD article: Elias explained the touch pad acts like a video camera, recording the objects touching its surface. An embedded microprocessor then applies an algorithmic process to convert those touches into commands understood by the computer.
But wouldn't you agree that this makes Debian a better distro for people who want to learn any kind of serious syadmin chops vs. something like Red Hat?
I think he was trying to imply that while this makes Debian a better distro for most people, it causes problems for people trying to sell it. If it's easy to update a system via apt-get or whatever method that OS uses, even to new versions of the distro, then the users will probably not go out and buy the box for the new version.
What happens in this case - do the laws nullify each other? Do they both apply and it gets left up to the courts to decide which has priority?
If you read the text of the bill, it specifically ammends those laws which are 'contradicted' by it's statements. If you read the DMCA text, it does pretty much the same thing. In theory, this helps to simplify the laws because rather than having 20 different laws that apply to the same thing, you have 20 bills that ammend the 1 law in chronilogical order. Unfortunately, the bills sometimes have affects outside of the original scope of the law being ammended.
To be more specific, the DMCA added Chapter 12 to Title 17 of the United States code (and ammended various other sections of the title), and this bill ammends Chapter 12 and other sections of the title.
How long will it be before someone throws together a P2P server package that runs off read-only media?
Personally, I don't use P2P, but I'd be surprised if there aren't multiple P2P packages for Linux. These days you can boot a fully working system off a cdrom, and with the price of DVD burners dropping, it wouldn't be too hard to make up a completely read-only system with Gb's of storage.
It's rather simple to do anyway, as long as your OS properly handles marking of files and directories as read-only. You can simply mark your shared directory as read-only and download to a different directory, then move the files to the read-only share directory as you confirm that they are good files. Alternatively, you could control access to those files/directories, making them read-only to anything other than root/administrator-level users, or only allow adding new files, no delete or edit access. Essentially, as long as the OS handles it properly and they don't find a way to circumvent it, it's completely possible to make files accessed by P2P programs read-only anyway, without even dealing with CD-/DVD- ROM formats.
Eventually the P2P programs themselves could have that type of functionality. Unfortunately, most of the descriptions I've seen of what the RIAA claims to want to do under this bill involve sending so many requests for that particular file that no legitimate requests for it can be filled. Of course, that also blocks legitimate use of the P2P software in most cases, and given the bandwidth usage of most P2P programs (unless you limit them) can shut down all other uses of that network connection as well (not to mention the hard drive thrashing caused by trying to send the same file to multiple requests if the P2P program doesn't handle caching the file in RAM very well, or if the system's RAM is already full).
Funny thing is, I can see this vigilante law backfiring. If I were unfairly attacked, I'd probably overreact and do something worse. Like, in the example above, put that image up on a bunch of forums around the web.
Unfortunately, the law doesn't permit self-defense in the form of a counter-attack. You could probably defend yourself from the attack by preventing it from being effective, but you couldn't take any measures that prevent them from attempting or continuing the attack. As an added bonus, preventing the attack from being effective might count as circumventing copy-protection under the DMCA if they want to be really loose with their terms.
There are a few protocols out there for massive duplication of content when a DoS attack is suspected. I wonder how long it will take for P2P to take up these types of measures if this bill passes. It could easily be modified to duplicate the content when any suspicious activity occurs which might block the content, not just DoS attacks.
When you put it that way, it sounds to me more like a deficiency in the open source DVD playing software, not the DVD itself.
and the deficiency was artificially created by a combination of new laws and the actions of the MPAA. You *could* play it on an open source DVD player, but, in the US, the software that you would use to do so is illegal.
That's ok, though, because they've also got to translate from Slashdot to TFC when the read my name thanks to the wonders of not being permitted to use anything resembling a complete character set in user names.
As for the simplicity of the rules, it's bogus, because its doesn't follow the rules applied to posessive nouns. English is one of the worst languages for these types of problems.
but, again, less is one less keystroke than fewer;p, and I think the whole singular/plural thing comes into play somewhere, as well (or maybe that's in my head).
If the description of the bill is accurate, the only way this will change how much money you get is if people are currently buying multiple copies of your CDs rather than recording copies for their personal use.
My suggestion is that if you believe people *should* buy multiple copies of your CDs for themselves, you need to get your head examined. Sure, it'd be nice if people *wanted* to do that, but there's no reason for them to do so.
Oops, I was just going from memory because, either way, it doesn't work in phoenix and I don't have a quick IE shortcut available on this machine any more. Still, the ALT+mousewheel behavior is as I described in phoenix.
But there's an obvious explanation for lagging CD sales. As anyone who's bought a new CD recently can tell you, they've over priced by about 100%. The list price on the newly remaster Stones' discs is $18.98, and that's with NO "bonus" material. Really, how many do they expect to sell?
While I agree that most CDs are over-priced and that the Stones discs probably are, as well... IIRC the Stones remasters are SuperCD format, meaning they have the higher quality tracks on the discs if you have the player to play them back. So, for those people, there is bonus material on those discs.
When music sales were peaking, Slashdotters were lining up in droves to proclaim that P2P "exposes" them to new music, and encouraged them to buy more CDs, and this led to quite a few articles and comments by "Slashdotters" proclaiming "evidence" that P2P was responsible for an increase in CD sales. In the grand tradition of Slashdotter hypocrisy.
I just have to wonder if the fact that over 90% of my CD purchases in the last year have been from non-RIAA labels has anything to do with this drop. I just wonder if their statistics cover other labels and whether or not SoundScan (or wtf it's called) even tracks them. There was a time when I bought a lot of my stuff from major labels, mostly because the majors were (and still do to some extent) subsidizing smaller labels (and doing their distribution), but lately a lot of bands have moved off of the majors and I've found a lot of new (or discovered older) bands on the smaller labels. Perhaps that's not the case for most consumers, but then most of the people I know have maybe 10% of the number of CDs that I have (with maybe 3 or 4 exceptions).
An omitted apostrophe can easily be excused as a typo.
Or as not really caring because it's a post on slashdot. As a bonus, the use of apostrophe in it's vs. its has to be harder to remember than the fewer vs. less usage.
Personally, there are a lot of things I don't really use in typing unless it's for something like an assignment or document for work, or something more important than a forum post or personal communication. If I leave the apostrophe out of theres, therere, hes, shes, etc, most people will still understand it, and it's one less keystroke and set of rules to think about. I also tend to care less about capitalization.
The beautiful thing about spelling and grammar is that they only matter if your use of them is so poor that people have problems understanding what you're trying to get across. The more important it is to you that your point does get across, the more likely it is that you will pay attention to the rules. Those that think they care about getting their point across but don't feel that spelling and grammar are important enough, obviously just don't care enough.
All of that being said, moderators can feel free wasting mod points to mod this down, maybe next time I'll even use my +1 posting bonus on an off-topic post for improved wastefulness.
doesn't this just cry out for an option for the delay time (or no delay), or even whether or not the menu ever becomes visible?
Of course, it seems the most cited example of what this is good for (back/forward in history) are exactly the things I have 2 of my mouse buttons already dedicated to, and would not want to do any other way at this point. CTRL+R will always be better, for me, to reload the page, so all that really remains are things like changing text size (keyboard shortcuts are made primarily for the right hand on that, which is pointless, and the IE shortcut of alt+mousewheel to change font size goes through the history in phoenix) and cycling through tabs.
Slashdot Mirror
That's ok, though, because as it stands I'm basically in the same generation as a couple of my aunts & uncles (if GenX goes beyond 78), but not in the same generation as my youngest step-brother (or my own sister if it stops at 79). That being said, I identify more with those aunts & uncles, too (and THAT being said, I don't identify with many people my own age anyway). Damned if you do, damned if you don't. I have nieces and nephews the same age as some of my cousins.
It's exactly this kind of interface that I'm suggesting. They are vastly easier to use than mice or trackballs (BTW, I too find the trackball to be ergonomically superior).
Part of my point, though, is that the majority of the computer UI doesn't support this system as well as it does a mouse. I have 4 buttons and a wheel on my trackball, and for certain operations I can't live without it. The pen and pad interface is ideal for drawing and taking notes, but not for many (if not most) other tasks. As you said, it works for palmtops, but look at both the interface for those systems and the normal tasks for those systems. Both are vastly different from the home PC.
With CRTs such an interface posed similar problems to the mouse: less motor control issues (since you probably already know how to write) but very difficult hand/eye coordination because you're watching the screen but manipulating the stylus on a separate pad. I never did get the hang of that. With flat screen panels being all the rage today there's no reason we can't apply a touchscreen to the flat screen and use it as a tablet interface.
Personally, I'm considering one of those hybrid TabletPCs (the ones that operate either as a tablet or a normal notebook), but not as a replacement for any of my current systems. The interface method has it's high points for things I would normally use a notebook to do, and I still doubt that I'll ever use something like a palm or WinCE device until they become more capable (which might not even be possible with that size of an interface).
Touch screens are, in my opinion, vastly easier to use than mouse-based systems. Motor control necessary for the mouse is difficult to learn; not only for children, but also for adults
I would agree if the interface was dumbed down to make the touch screen useful. It would also help if you have smaller fingers (such as children), which would allow you to use smaller interface elements. I left 640x480 behind as soon as I had a video card that could do better, and 1280x1024 doesn't get along well with touch screens. Touch pads work well in one-button-oriented systems, such as the Mac, but have some of the same usability issues as mice (one of the big ones is what happens when you get to the edge of the touch pad, much like getting to the edge of the mouse pad; some people figure this out quite quickly, while others always have a hard time with it), and some of the issues of a touch screen (try keeping your finger on a touch screen for an entire drag&drop operation, try drag&drop over a long distance on a touch pad). It's easier to learn, but not always easier to use nor is the system designed for it.
It takes weeks or months for an adult to become adept with a mouse, and many never do for particularly fine tasks (like drawing).
The first system I ever used with a mouse was an Apple IIgs, which came with a little game that taught you how to use the mouse. I picked it up in less than 2 hours, and I don't think I was 10 years old at the time. Before that I had simply memorized a couple of simple commands which did everything I needed to do (at that age) with the computer, all of which had to be typed (though my typing didn't really become good until I was 18 or so and started playing FPS games using the WASD control system). Some tasks (like drawing) I'd never do with a trackball (I dont use mice on my systems because they cause problems for me with carpal tunnel), but I wouldn't do them with a touch pad or touch screen, either, I'd buy a proper tablet & stylus which is sensitive enough for those tasks (not to mention that the pen interface is familiar enough to those that draw on paper). On the other hand, some people draw perfectly well on the computer with a mouse/trackball.
This is made all the harder by the idiocy of using hieroglyphics as a user interface design element in mouse-based interfaces.
My agreement with that really depends on what you mean by using hieroglyphics. If you mean using icons as the only indicator for particular functions then I agree, as I tend to find that icons rarely help except to distinguish between types of files quickly (in those cases where two types of file don't use the same icon). I even setup my home WinXP computer with a large task bar that used only icons for a while (might as well give it a try since it's possible to do just about anything with the interface if you know the programs that'll do it), and found that it slowed me down so much as to be nearly useless.
Apple got at least this much right -- give them one button, and don't make them push it more than once. But, for my money, a touch-screen is still the most intuitive interface.
The touch-screen may be the most intuitive (after all, people that first encounter a computer will usually want to simply reach up and touch the screen). However, it is one of the hardest interfaces to actually use. Part of the problem is due to the current user interface being designed for a mouse (ever try to double-click a touch-screen, how about right-click, drag & drop?). The other part is that it's simply uncomfortable with the screen perpendicular to the desk (as are most) and usually only partially below shoulder-level with the user. In order for touch-screens to be usable, they have to be calibrated to the user and the software has to be designed specifically for a touch-screen interface (which usually results in large buttons and little else for an interface). If you have to use a keyboard in addition to the touch-screen, your speed with the interface gets significantly worse than if you had simply used a mouse, as well.
You also have the Dope Fish, first seen in Keen's Well of Wishes, then in Quake's Crypt of Decay,
Also underneath one of the Quake3 space maps, which you can either see in no-clip mode or when you're falling to your death.
Are there any lawsuits involving fixed/wrong machines? Anyone ever fought a rigged red light ticket?
.... "San Diego Councilman Jim Madaffer wants the city to turn off the cameras until an independent study shows not only that the systems are flaw-free, but that they are improving safety." ["City attorneys drop camera-based traffic tickets - Action applies to 3 sites, but whole program stalls", Jenifer Hanrahan and Mark Arner, San Diego Union Tribune, 6/1/01]
..... "The consensus of the traffic-engineering fraternity, however, is that the cameras decrease accidents and are quite fair. Camera proponents point to a study showing a sharp drop in accidents in Oxnard. "The Armey report is wrong on completely everything," said Richard Retting, senior transportation engineer with the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. "To say that traffic-safety professionals are incompetent and conspiring to shorten yellow lights is lunacy." ["The State; Capturing Red-Light Runners Creates Red-Faced Officials; Traffic: Flaws are found in camera system used to nab violators. Firm's profit from tickets is questioned.", TONY PERRY, The Los Angeles Times, 6/3/2001]
Actually, a lot of people fight the policy in general, not just the rigging (or malfunctioning) of the cameras. Here's a couple of clips I found, since I remembered hearing about this a while back, while I was living in San Diego:
hwysafety.com
June 1, 2001 - San Diego, CA red light camera program in turmoil due to evidence of tampering with camera equipment and discovery of yellow light timing problems: "San Diego city attorneys decided yesterday to throw out traffic tickets generated by red-light cameras at three intersections where police discovered problems with underground sensors."
San Diego resident describes fear of San Diego intersections: ""I feel safer walking across this street knowing the cameras are there," said Nguyen, who crosses nine lanes of Mira Mesa Boulevard traffic at Black Mountain Road -- the site of one of the city's 19 red-light cameras -- en route to work. "But it scares me to drive through the same intersection -- I don't know whether to speed up or slam on the brakes," she said." ["Public's reaction runs both ways over freeze", Joe Hughes, San Diego Union Tribune, 6/1/01]
[Total number of red light camera citations issued when red light camera enforcement program suspended = 83,931]
June 3, 2001 - San Diego red light camera program suspended: "This city's effort to catch red-light runners with computerized cameras at busy intersections was meant to reduce traffic accidents. What it has done, however, is provoke a civic backlash like few other issues in this politically placid city: a tangle of litigation, political foment, radio talk show meltdown, and now an embarrassing admission by the city that the controversial system has bugs. As a result, 5,000 tickets issued to drivers who supposedly ran red lights were canceled last week, while the police chief promised to find an outside consultant to do an audit of the mess and reestablish the system's credibility. Further, a moratorium was placed on photo-tickets at any of the 19 intersections equipped with cameras until the consultant's work is finished."
San Diego, CA: "The most significant change in the number of violations occurred at the intersection of Mission Bay Drive and Grand (1541) where the yellow change interval was extended from 3.1 seconds to 4.7 seconds. This change resulted in an 88-percent decrease in the number of violations. At the five other intersections, the number of violations dropped significantly in response to longer yellow times." ["City of San Diego Enforcement System Review Final Report", PB Farradyne Inc., January 14, 2002, Chapter 6 (Traffic Engineering and Traffic Operations Improvements", page 78] (see entries 1/14/2002 for greater detail)
July 6, 2001 - "Tait [Arthur Tait, Attorney, San Diego] cites a report drafted by House staff members for Majority Leader Dick Armey. The report asserts that the cameras have compromised safety at intersections nationwide. It contends that at intersections with cameras, traffic engineers intentionally reduced yellow-light times, which makes rear-end collisions more likely. The yellow-light phase has been shortened, the report says, to increase the number of violators and generate more fines, which are split between municipalities and operating companies, such as Lockheed. That charge, Lockheed spokesman Mark Maddox says, is ''inaccurate and misinformed.'' Armey's allegations are ''insulting'' to the integrity of traffic engineers, says Thomas Brahms, executive director of the Institute of Transportation Engineers. ''We as a profession care very much about reducing injuries and reducing accidents.'' Brahms and Maddox say there is no question that cameras reduce the number of red-light runners and enhance public safety. In Mesa, Ariz., police credit a combination of increased yellow-light times and cameras with reducing fatalities from 20 in 1995 to eight last year. San Diego officials say there has been about a 45% drop in red-light violations at the 19 intersections where the cameras are installed." ["Motorists race to court to challenge red-light cameras Photos called privacy threat", By Valerie Alvord, Special to USA TODAY, July 6, 2001]
I started using it when I heard about the .1 release, and upgraded to .2 yesterday. My one major gripe about .1 was fixed in .2: CTRL+mwheel for font size changes.
;)
1) Customizable Toolbars
One of my biggest reasons for using it
2) Home button where it SHOULD BE!
Yes, GONE! No home button at all is exactly as it should be.
4) Theme that respects my system colors! (Go ahead, change your system colors, Phoenix changes with them!)
Exactly. WTF should my browser be blue when my system is silver or grey?
5) No bundled on software--I just want a browser!
Again, exactly. If I wanted the other software, I would download it.
There are tons of other things to mention here like the extensions manager, default popup blocking, tabs, worthwhile sidebars, ability to remove the throbber, a clean statusbar that actually works, etc.
Sidebar hidden by default, some of the mozilla preferences have returned, such as keeping scripts from screwing up your browser window and status bar, return of a normal download progress dialog.
The best part, imo, is that even without loading crap up at system startup, it loads almost as quickly as IE. There are only a few sites I still use IE to load any more, the vast majority of my browsing is in Phoenix (even hotmail is just better under Phoenix).
IANAP, but the way I understand itis that you write to the kernel and libraries and then put packages together for the different distros (if'n you're nice and so inclined). Actually sounds like a good plan to me. It's not a lot different than writing for Windows. There are almost as many flavors of Windows as there are Linux distros.
;)
In most cases you just have to test your software on different versions of Windows to make sure you didn't do anything that would cause it not to work on a particular version. In that way, it's the same as writing Linux software. The difference is that there's a rather small number of things that will be different between versions of Windows, from a programmer's perspective, unless you're trying to take advantage of a lot of new features in a newer version and still have it run on older versions. Even then, you can have one set of binaries and installer that works with all versions if you do it right. The things most likely to trip up Windows compatibility are unicode support, threading, and hardware (NT and 9x have different methods for interfacing all 3 of these, so you use ifdefs and release separate binaries or you check your Windows version at run-time and use different calling methods/arguments). The things that continually trip up Linux developers are getting better over time, such as what combination of software is being run to generate a GUI on the machine, what library/compiler versions are there, and so on. It's still a bit rare that you'd be able to just download a binary and run with it on Linux, unless they've specifically developed or tested it on your distro. Of course, that's what open source is really good for, just download the source and compile to your platform and, in most cases, it'll work with at most minor changes
If different versions of Windows with varying levels of driver support aren't a moving target, I don't know what is.
Windows has a fairly stable record of backwards compatibility, and driver support is not an issue for the majority of software (when it is an issue, there's usually an abstraction layer in Windows that you should be using anyway, at least for the basic support, since wtf knows what hardware is on the end-user's system). Just like anywhere else, you write for the lowest common platform that you want to support, and then add options/#ifdefs for the extra features that may be available based on hardware or software versions (MMX, SSE, hardware T&L, ActiveDirectory, and so on). Obviously, if your software is absolutely dependant on something being there, you have a requirement for a particular version of the platform.
I believe you should make the program plataform independent, and then let the guys working at each distro port it - they probably can do it better than you anyway
Umm if it needs to be ported, it's not platform independant.
Anyway, the easiest thing to do is just keep track of your dependencies when building your software. If you know exactly what your software requires to run, you can look at the items included with each distro and get some idea of where it *should* run properly. If you're going for the broadest base possible, look around to see what's supported on each platform and try to avoid using the latest bleeding edge build of everything your software depends on.
From the UD article:
Elias explained the touch pad acts like a video camera, recording the objects touching its surface. An embedded microprocessor then applies an algorithmic process to convert those touches into commands understood by the computer.
But wouldn't you agree that this makes Debian a better distro for people who want to learn any kind of serious syadmin chops vs. something like Red Hat?
I think he was trying to imply that while this makes Debian a better distro for most people, it causes problems for people trying to sell it. If it's easy to update a system via apt-get or whatever method that OS uses, even to new versions of the distro, then the users will probably not go out and buy the box for the new version.
What happens in this case - do the laws nullify each other? Do they both apply and it gets left up to the courts to decide which has priority?
If you read the text of the bill, it specifically ammends those laws which are 'contradicted' by it's statements. If you read the DMCA text, it does pretty much the same thing. In theory, this helps to simplify the laws because rather than having 20 different laws that apply to the same thing, you have 20 bills that ammend the 1 law in chronilogical order. Unfortunately, the bills sometimes have affects outside of the original scope of the law being ammended.
To be more specific, the DMCA added Chapter 12 to Title 17 of the United States code (and ammended various other sections of the title), and this bill ammends Chapter 12 and other sections of the title.
well, if you could get together matching funds + 1 indefinitely to fight the RIAA then it'd be possible to find conclusive proof.
How long will it be before someone throws together a P2P server package that runs off read-only media?
Personally, I don't use P2P, but I'd be surprised if there aren't multiple P2P packages for Linux. These days you can boot a fully working system off a cdrom, and with the price of DVD burners dropping, it wouldn't be too hard to make up a completely read-only system with Gb's of storage.
It's rather simple to do anyway, as long as your OS properly handles marking of files and directories as read-only. You can simply mark your shared directory as read-only and download to a different directory, then move the files to the read-only share directory as you confirm that they are good files. Alternatively, you could control access to those files/directories, making them read-only to anything other than root/administrator-level users, or only allow adding new files, no delete or edit access. Essentially, as long as the OS handles it properly and they don't find a way to circumvent it, it's completely possible to make files accessed by P2P programs read-only anyway, without even dealing with CD-/DVD- ROM formats.
Eventually the P2P programs themselves could have that type of functionality. Unfortunately, most of the descriptions I've seen of what the RIAA claims to want to do under this bill involve sending so many requests for that particular file that no legitimate requests for it can be filled. Of course, that also blocks legitimate use of the P2P software in most cases, and given the bandwidth usage of most P2P programs (unless you limit them) can shut down all other uses of that network connection as well (not to mention the hard drive thrashing caused by trying to send the same file to multiple requests if the P2P program doesn't handle caching the file in RAM very well, or if the system's RAM is already full).
Funny thing is, I can see this vigilante law backfiring. If I were unfairly attacked, I'd probably overreact and do something worse. Like, in the example above, put that image up on a bunch of forums around the web.
Unfortunately, the law doesn't permit self-defense in the form of a counter-attack. You could probably defend yourself from the attack by preventing it from being effective, but you couldn't take any measures that prevent them from attempting or continuing the attack. As an added bonus, preventing the attack from being effective might count as circumventing copy-protection under the DMCA if they want to be really loose with their terms.
There are a few protocols out there for massive duplication of content when a DoS attack is suspected. I wonder how long it will take for P2P to take up these types of measures if this bill passes. It could easily be modified to duplicate the content when any suspicious activity occurs which might block the content, not just DoS attacks.
When you put it that way, it sounds to me more like a deficiency in the open source DVD playing software, not the DVD itself.
and the deficiency was artificially created by a combination of new laws and the actions of the MPAA. You *could* play it on an open source DVD player, but, in the US, the software that you would use to do so is illegal.
That's ok, though, because they've also got to translate from Slashdot to TFC when the read my name thanks to the wonders of not being permitted to use anything resembling a complete character set in user names.
As for the simplicity of the rules, it's bogus, because its doesn't follow the rules applied to posessive nouns. English is one of the worst languages for these types of problems.
but, again, less is one less keystroke than fewer ;p, and I think the whole singular/plural thing comes into play somewhere, as well (or maybe that's in my head).
If the description of the bill is accurate, the only way this will change how much money you get is if people are currently buying multiple copies of your CDs rather than recording copies for their personal use.
My suggestion is that if you believe people *should* buy multiple copies of your CDs for themselves, you need to get your head examined. Sure, it'd be nice if people *wanted* to do that, but there's no reason for them to do so.
Its control+mousewheel in IE.
Oops, I was just going from memory because, either way, it doesn't work in phoenix and I don't have a quick IE shortcut available on this machine any more. Still, the ALT+mousewheel behavior is as I described in phoenix.
But there's an obvious explanation for lagging CD sales. As anyone who's bought a new CD recently can tell you, they've over priced by about 100%.
The list price on the newly remaster Stones' discs is $18.98, and that's with NO "bonus" material.
Really, how many do they expect to sell?
While I agree that most CDs are over-priced and that the Stones discs probably are, as well... IIRC the Stones remasters are SuperCD format, meaning they have the higher quality tracks on the discs if you have the player to play them back. So, for those people, there is bonus material on those discs.
When music sales were peaking, Slashdotters were lining up in droves to proclaim that P2P "exposes" them to new music, and encouraged them to buy more CDs, and this led to quite a few articles and comments by "Slashdotters" proclaiming "evidence" that P2P was responsible for an increase in CD sales. In the grand tradition of Slashdotter hypocrisy.
I just have to wonder if the fact that over 90% of my CD purchases in the last year have been from non-RIAA labels has anything to do with this drop. I just wonder if their statistics cover other labels and whether or not SoundScan (or wtf it's called) even tracks them. There was a time when I bought a lot of my stuff from major labels, mostly because the majors were (and still do to some extent) subsidizing smaller labels (and doing their distribution), but lately a lot of bands have moved off of the majors and I've found a lot of new (or discovered older) bands on the smaller labels. Perhaps that's not the case for most consumers, but then most of the people I know have maybe 10% of the number of CDs that I have (with maybe 3 or 4 exceptions).
An omitted apostrophe can easily be excused as a typo.
Or as not really caring because it's a post on slashdot. As a bonus, the use of apostrophe in it's vs. its has to be harder to remember than the fewer vs. less usage.
Personally, there are a lot of things I don't really use in typing unless it's for something like an assignment or document for work, or something more important than a forum post or personal communication. If I leave the apostrophe out of theres, therere, hes, shes, etc, most people will still understand it, and it's one less keystroke and set of rules to think about. I also tend to care less about capitalization.
The beautiful thing about spelling and grammar is that they only matter if your use of them is so poor that people have problems understanding what you're trying to get across. The more important it is to you that your point does get across, the more likely it is that you will pay attention to the rules. Those that think they care about getting their point across but don't feel that spelling and grammar are important enough, obviously just don't care enough.
All of that being said, moderators can feel free wasting mod points to mod this down, maybe next time I'll even use my +1 posting bonus on an off-topic post for improved wastefulness.
doesn't this just cry out for an option for the delay time (or no delay), or even whether or not the menu ever becomes visible?
Of course, it seems the most cited example of what this is good for (back/forward in history) are exactly the things I have 2 of my mouse buttons already dedicated to, and would not want to do any other way at this point. CTRL+R will always be better, for me, to reload the page, so all that really remains are things like changing text size (keyboard shortcuts are made primarily for the right hand on that, which is pointless, and the IE shortcut of alt+mousewheel to change font size goes through the history in phoenix) and cycling through tabs.