What's even more surprising is that the reason for that fix must be that there are a lot of companies (or a few large and important companies) still using OS/2 file servers.
Apple gets sick of computer world copying things they come up with.
Apple announces intent to use case lighting in the future.
Everyone else starts building hideously ugly lighted cases (seriously, it does NOT make your computer cool, and when Dell tries it it will look even worse).
Apple releases computers that look halfway normal and laughs all the way to the bank.
How the hell did you get from "Apple patents illuminated case" to "Apple's marketing and engineering strategy revolves entirely around illuminated cases"? One of Apple's engineers had a good idea and they want to be able to use it in future products without having it immediately ripped off like so many other things in the past.
Also, Apple isn't going to give up on the desktop anytime soon. The iPod may beat it in growth and units sold, but computers still provide far more revenue in absolute terms.
...until someone figures out what to change in the registry to the remove the 3-app limit? You'd think they would have learned not to do this after NT4 (or was it 2K?).
I've always thought that the idea of launching a second copy of an app when the icon was clicked again was one of the dumbest things Windows can do. Are there *any* situations in which this is the preferred behavior, instead of the far more intuitive and intelligent option of finding the most recently launched copy of it and bringing it to the foreground?
That would actually be more like a 350-degree fold, all the way around. The clamshell iBooks had a hinge that could rotate through about 160 degrees; the screen and keyboard were nearly in the same plane at its widest.
(It just occurred to me that I'm misinterpreting you, and you mean the screen could rotate around the vertical axis, so it would point out away from the keyboard without having to be bent over backwards...)
This is almost certainly because there are a few "template" 419 emails written by people with good English, then copied and used with minor modifications by thousands of other scammers.
Re:Restricting Free (as in speech) Software
on
P2P vs. The Clones
·
· Score: 1
The GPL goes into a good bit of detail about what exactly consistutes "part of the software", and it's likely that bundled apps would not be required to be covered under the same license as the original GPLed executable or library depending on how they communicate with it.
iTunes streams to the Airport Express by using the Apple Lossless encoder, which is apparently a form of AAC. They must be encrypting this stream on the way to the Express for all the reasons discussed in this thread. What Jon did was extract the public key from iTunes, so any application can now prepare an audio stream (the encoder is available through an API, and the encryption is standard) for the AE to play.
The patch is being distributed only over Xbox Live, so, yes, they are justified in assuming everybody has broadband. It's a requirement of the service.
I've often wondered what would happen if an audience was shown a movie that mixed live actors and CG humans without being told which of the characters were CG. Given today's graphics technology, would they still be able to determine who was real and who was not? Or what if they weren't even given a reason to think anyone was CG in the first place? How many people would realize what was going on if they weren't consciously looking for clues? What would this do to the uncanny valley effect?
I went through this process myself with a few still images from Final Flight of the Osiris, and I realize that video is a completely different field that can't be directly compared to images in terms of realism, but it won't be too long before this situation is no longer entirely hypothetical.
Thanks to the efforts of search engine optimizers, meta tags are now completely useless. Their intended purpose was to assist search engines, and all the major search engines now ignore them. I see nothing wrong with trying to reclaim this feature.
Maybe that's true now, but what about in 2006 when the card they're releasing right now is "last year's card"?
The real thing you'd be giving up by doing this is features. You wouldn't get the next version shader model support, and probably not as much VRAM as you could have gotten on a high end 2006-era card.
The second key to a successful writing campaign is do not use email. Get off your ass, print out a letter on real paper, put it in an envelope, pay for a stamp, and mail it to them. Everyone knows how easy it is to create thousands of emails; a physical letter carries far more weight and represents proportionately more outrage to the recipient.
The reason video game reviews draw so much "controversy" is that all of the controversy is generated by a small minority of extremely vocal idiot fanboys. Their allegiance to their chosen game is without question, and any reported flaws in the game are either problems with the reviewer's hardware, much less important than the reviewer claimed they were (therefore the game deserves a higher score), and anyone who could possibly hate this game must be a moron anyway because it is obviously perfect. Throw in the fact that there is essentially no penalty for being wrong, being incredibly stubborn, or endlessly prolonging an argument on the Internet, and you have communities which erupt at anything short of glowing praise.
A prediction does not change an outcome. Looping that prediction back into the pool of information on which decisions are based changes the outcome. It would be much easier to predict market activity if you never told anyone what the results were (but, of course, trading based on this secret prediction counts as introducing the prediction into the market and would change the course of events, so you couldn't profit from this prediction even if you were right).
The article says the main threat this targets is outsiders. They don't care if you VPN out from inside the building- physical security is meant stop you from getting in in the first place if you're not authorized. But you won't be able to get on wireless base stations inside the building if you're outside it.
Games are already doing this. Games have come with "extras" like art galleries for a long time, and some current games even have short video clips about their production.
I don't see why territory on the sun should not be ownable by anyone capable of claiming and occupying it - the fact that our technology will probably not ever be capable of doing so is not relevant. As has been so often demonstrated in the past, legal and practical considerations are orthogonal.
They're not hinting at that, they're only trying to counter the flood of half-assed land grabs and legal misinterpretations that have happened so far. All that's needed is some actual disputes regarding space property to hit a real court so precedent can be established and the various world legislatures and treaty organizations can get their two cents (or appropriate currency) in.
(IANAL) It *is* possible to sue without requesting any money- I believe the term is "sue for principles". The result of that would be that the judge simply declares that the plaintiff's argument is superior to the defendant's argument.
How much of the world is being damaged by emissions from the power plants that keep your computer and all the network infrastructure running? TANSTAAFL.
Slashdot Mirror
Also worth pointing out that OS X can do this out of the box. (And if XP can't, I'm surprised...)
What's even more surprising is that the reason for that fix must be that there are a lot of companies (or a few large and important companies) still using OS/2 file servers.
How the hell did you get from "Apple patents illuminated case" to "Apple's marketing and engineering strategy revolves entirely around illuminated cases"? One of Apple's engineers had a good idea and they want to be able to use it in future products without having it immediately ripped off like so many other things in the past.
Also, Apple isn't going to give up on the desktop anytime soon. The iPod may beat it in growth and units sold, but computers still provide far more revenue in absolute terms.
...until someone figures out what to change in the registry to the remove the 3-app limit? You'd think they would have learned not to do this after NT4 (or was it 2K?).
I've always thought that the idea of launching a second copy of an app when the icon was clicked again was one of the dumbest things Windows can do. Are there *any* situations in which this is the preferred behavior, instead of the far more intuitive and intelligent option of finding the most recently launched copy of it and bringing it to the foreground?
They're heroes because they were astronauts, not because they died.
That would actually be more like a 350-degree fold, all the way around. The clamshell iBooks had a hinge that could rotate through about 160 degrees; the screen and keyboard were nearly in the same plane at its widest.
(It just occurred to me that I'm misinterpreting you, and you mean the screen could rotate around the vertical axis, so it would point out away from the keyboard without having to be bent over backwards...)
This is almost certainly because there are a few "template" 419 emails written by people with good English, then copied and used with minor modifications by thousands of other scammers.
The GPL goes into a good bit of detail about what exactly consistutes "part of the software", and it's likely that bundled apps would not be required to be covered under the same license as the original GPLed executable or library depending on how they communicate with it.
iTunes streams to the Airport Express by using the Apple Lossless encoder, which is apparently a form of AAC. They must be encrypting this stream on the way to the Express for all the reasons discussed in this thread. What Jon did was extract the public key from iTunes, so any application can now prepare an audio stream (the encoder is available through an API, and the encryption is standard) for the AE to play.
The patch is being distributed only over Xbox Live, so, yes, they are justified in assuming everybody has broadband. It's a requirement of the service.
I've often wondered what would happen if an audience was shown a movie that mixed live actors and CG humans without being told which of the characters were CG. Given today's graphics technology, would they still be able to determine who was real and who was not? Or what if they weren't even given a reason to think anyone was CG in the first place? How many people would realize what was going on if they weren't consciously looking for clues? What would this do to the uncanny valley effect?
I went through this process myself with a few still images from Final Flight of the Osiris, and I realize that video is a completely different field that can't be directly compared to images in terms of realism, but it won't be too long before this situation is no longer entirely hypothetical.
Thanks to the efforts of search engine optimizers, meta tags are now completely useless. Their intended purpose was to assist search engines, and all the major search engines now ignore them. I see nothing wrong with trying to reclaim this feature.
Maybe that's true now, but what about in 2006 when the card they're releasing right now is "last year's card"?
The real thing you'd be giving up by doing this is features. You wouldn't get the next version shader model support, and probably not as much VRAM as you could have gotten on a high end 2006-era card.
The second key to a successful writing campaign is do not use email. Get off your ass, print out a letter on real paper, put it in an envelope, pay for a stamp, and mail it to them. Everyone knows how easy it is to create thousands of emails; a physical letter carries far more weight and represents proportionately more outrage to the recipient.
The reason video game reviews draw so much "controversy" is that all of the controversy is generated by a small minority of extremely vocal idiot fanboys. Their allegiance to their chosen game is without question, and any reported flaws in the game are either problems with the reviewer's hardware, much less important than the reviewer claimed they were (therefore the game deserves a higher score), and anyone who could possibly hate this game must be a moron anyway because it is obviously perfect. Throw in the fact that there is essentially no penalty for being wrong, being incredibly stubborn, or endlessly prolonging an argument on the Internet, and you have communities which erupt at anything short of glowing praise.
A prediction does not change an outcome. Looping that prediction back into the pool of information on which decisions are based changes the outcome. It would be much easier to predict market activity if you never told anyone what the results were (but, of course, trading based on this secret prediction counts as introducing the prediction into the market and would change the course of events, so you couldn't profit from this prediction even if you were right).
The article says the main threat this targets is outsiders. They don't care if you VPN out from inside the building- physical security is meant stop you from getting in in the first place if you're not authorized. But you won't be able to get on wireless base stations inside the building if you're outside it.
Games are already doing this. Games have come with "extras" like art galleries for a long time, and some current games even have short video clips about their production.
No, that's what the Xbox Next is using.
I don't see why territory on the sun should not be ownable by anyone capable of claiming and occupying it - the fact that our technology will probably not ever be capable of doing so is not relevant. As has been so often demonstrated in the past, legal and practical considerations are orthogonal.
They're not hinting at that, they're only trying to counter the flood of half-assed land grabs and legal misinterpretations that have happened so far. All that's needed is some actual disputes regarding space property to hit a real court so precedent can be established and the various world legislatures and treaty organizations can get their two cents (or appropriate currency) in.
(IANAL) It *is* possible to sue without requesting any money- I believe the term is "sue for principles". The result of that would be that the judge simply declares that the plaintiff's argument is superior to the defendant's argument.
How much of the world is being damaged by emissions from the power plants that keep your computer and all the network infrastructure running? TANSTAAFL.