There are amplifying fibers that theoreticaly don't have an upper bound on the distance they can carry digital signals without corruption. But I don't know about any on the field application of them.
Google Frame is an atempt of making IE stop being most used browser. And realisticaly, there is no guarantee it will stay so, even if Google Frame fails, it has being losing market share quite fast just on its own demerits.
Just wait untill Google starts bundling this beast with Google Earth, like it is already doing with the Google Toolbar.
Well, yes, you do (A) use your default engine, unless it can't render newer codes. (B) wouldn't also be a lot of trouble, since WebKit is the most standars compilant browser out there, in fact you should be tring to reach strict adherence to standards long before that anyway, leanding (C) not necessary at all.
Who codes for the bugs on WebKit? Everybody that codes for anything that isn't IE simply codes for the standars and work around the bugs (mainly within the stantdars, since there aren't tips on how to use the bugs all over the web, and they tend to change on a daily basis).
Were did you see people going "Oh noes, everybody will continue using IE now!!!"? In fact, if this thing becomes widespread, it will take the internet out of the control f Microsoft, where it will be able to develop, like everybody wants. No need of getting ride of the IE frame, outside of the browser.
Or sometimes people take the worse route, and create the release 2. Rewriting a few things that you did badly on a single release ins't much of a problem (and now you have a revenue stream, and some confidence on the software's potential). But this time greed often speaks loud, and people let the rewriting for later, adding to the cluter until development almost stals, and all the revenue is spent maintaning the system.
That is funny, when I read that, I assume he's talking about himself (as in he's not as good as needed to do duck taping, and that is why he admires it). He can't really know what every reader "looks like"...
I usualy think he's quite locked into the Microsoft way of thinking, but this one is an article that makes a lot of sense. If you didn't pay atention, both avoiding unit test and xoring the pointers leaded to the same "feature" on the software, it shipped. Yeah, it would be great if you could do unit tests, refactor everything until you fit at the intended memory footprint and still ship on time. Problem is, it isn't possible. You can add unit tests later, when they are really needed, you can also remove the xor, once you realize a way of reducing the overall size of your data, or may never touch it later, if the first programer did it right the first time (yes, that is a characteristic of some hacks, they tend to stay there untouched, and are only removed when the functionality they enabled is made obsolete). What you'll never be able to fix are all the oportunities you lost because you were polishing your code, and couldn't ship it.
But hell, Here am I again, posting on/. instead of hacking away...
Yes, automated tests are essential for the long term viability of any program. But they are also a sgnificative delay for the first few iterations. There is a time when it makes sense adding them, but it not alsways at the begining of development.
"All the normal things that most users generally use are pretty easy to find"
Well, it seems tha normal users don't need file, formating and printing operations that much, sice they are on quite different places, and printing is well hidden on that namles tab outside the tabs line, where used to be a useless window menu.
"many of the mid-level and intermediate things they weren't already aware of are presented more easily"
Yeah, that is right, MS throwed a lot of intermediate functions on the face of the user. Using pictures, instead of words to describe what those intermediate functions do help a lot, adding to the confusion and forcing users to pass the mouse over every place every time he'll do any non-usual thing.
"And, the shortcut keys for advanced users weren't changed for the most part."
They didn't break that, but almost completely hide advanced options within tabs that disapear depending on context and that huge badly categorized list of options at the non-alignet tab.
But none of those problems are intrisical to the ribon, they are problems of MS Office. The only intrisical problem I see with the ribon is the lost of vertical area that a previous poster already commented.
Thre are lots of imediate gains with just paralel init scripts, no need to start with defered ones. If Init could simply work on one thing while another is waiting for I/O, my system as an example would start on near 10% of the time.
Slackware tries to do that (with limited success), just compare it with Red Hat, Suse or any other Linux with a normal init process to have an idea. But Debian is an special case, it does not try to boot fast, it tries to be stable on 80,000! possible combinations of scripts, and does so in a way so simple that it is genial.
Oh, no. Closed software does also play by darwinian rules. The only difference is that open source has reproductive and recombinatorial habilities, while closed source tries to get sucessfull restarting from nothing every time, and can't recombine.
It is as if closed source was always the product of abiogenesis, while open source evolved as normal organisms we know. Of course, it is much easier to software get it right on the first try, being inteligently designed. Evolution is not as important for it as it is for life.
The question is how to get the maximum improvement on RELIABLE for a given lose of CHEAP. That is the meaning you didn't find because you are thinking in binary.
It applies only to that specifc website, because it was a (not supreme) court rulling. Now, in Brazil rullings don't apply to specific states, all of them follow the same criminal law, and the same jurisprudence.
Brazil can't come as hard against pirates as China, because we are a democracy. Fighting piracy here means getting a few merchants of pirated material on jail for a (short) time, and displaying that on TV. Fighting non-profit piracy throught the internet proved itself non-successfull after our RIAA equivalent discovered they would need to push criminal charges (with the increased need of proof and everything, let's not forget that pushing criminal charges witout any reason to think that a crime really occured is a crime on itself - let's say that an original push of copyright ofenses into criminal law backfired badly). Now, for profit piracy has very little odds of succeding at the courts.
That said, the Brazilian government does promote Linux, but at the same time is completely dependent on Microsoft products and is quite wiling to make that dependence eve stronger, despite laws that mandates adopting free software. MS marketing does not make a lot of noise, but is quite successful.
MPlayer already takes advantaje of several different processors characteristics, requiring a simple recopile. If it doesn't aready, it doesn't take a lot to take full advantaje of this chip.
Also, flash does run on ARM, but I guess it doesn't optimize for each processor. If we are luck, that will make Google start streaming Youtube videos on a way that uses mplayer. They can even keep the flv format.
Define "proper Unix". Unix can be anything from the old PDP-10's OS to modern Linux with KDE and Gnome libraries loaded at the same time, Firefox displaying tens of tabs and a ton of sleeping servers, including 4 different database managers (that is my current configuration, by the way).
My experience was that X11 was way too slow by 95-97, Windows did use more memory than Linux + X11, but was much faster. Some people disagree.
Slashdot Mirror
Yep, a big company can have a little inconsistency, but not on its main line of thought.
"It's not foolish to think people or groups can change..."
No, but it is still foolish to belive that someone changed just because he said so.
There are amplifying fibers that theoreticaly don't have an upper bound on the distance they can carry digital signals without corruption. But I don't know about any on the field application of them.
It wouldn't be a killer app if it didn't require people to ditch IE.
Google Frame is an atempt of making IE stop being most used browser. And realisticaly, there is no guarantee it will stay so, even if Google Frame fails, it has being losing market share quite fast just on its own demerits.
Just wait untill Google starts bundling this beast with Google Earth, like it is already doing with the Google Toolbar.
Well, yes, you do (A) use your default engine, unless it can't render newer codes. (B) wouldn't also be a lot of trouble, since WebKit is the most standars compilant browser out there, in fact you should be tring to reach strict adherence to standards long before that anyway, leanding (C) not necessary at all.
Who codes for the bugs on WebKit? Everybody that codes for anything that isn't IE simply codes for the standars and work around the bugs (mainly within the stantdars, since there aren't tips on how to use the bugs all over the web, and they tend to change on a daily basis).
Were did you see people going "Oh noes, everybody will continue using IE now!!!"? In fact, if this thing becomes widespread, it will take the internet out of the control f Microsoft, where it will be able to develop, like everybody wants. No need of getting ride of the IE frame, outside of the browser.
You should try. It is great to be able to work at windows without raising them.
Or sometimes people take the worse route, and create the release 2. Rewriting a few things that you did badly on a single release ins't much of a problem (and now you have a revenue stream, and some confidence on the software's potential). But this time greed often speaks loud, and people let the rewriting for later, adding to the cluter until development almost stals, and all the revenue is spent maintaning the system.
That is funny, when I read that, I assume he's talking about himself (as in he's not as good as needed to do duck taping, and that is why he admires it). He can't really know what every reader "looks like"...
I usualy think he's quite locked into the Microsoft way of thinking, but this one is an article that makes a lot of sense. If you didn't pay atention, both avoiding unit test and xoring the pointers leaded to the same "feature" on the software, it shipped. Yeah, it would be great if you could do unit tests, refactor everything until you fit at the intended memory footprint and still ship on time. Problem is, it isn't possible. You can add unit tests later, when they are really needed, you can also remove the xor, once you realize a way of reducing the overall size of your data, or may never touch it later, if the first programer did it right the first time (yes, that is a characteristic of some hacks, they tend to stay there untouched, and are only removed when the functionality they enabled is made obsolete). What you'll never be able to fix are all the oportunities you lost because you were polishing your code, and couldn't ship it.
But hell, Here am I again, posting on /. instead of hacking away...
Yes, automated tests are essential for the long term viability of any program. But they are also a sgnificative delay for the first few iterations. There is a time when it makes sense adding them, but it not alsways at the begining of development.
Well, it seems tha normal users don't need file, formating and printing operations that much, sice they are on quite different places, and printing is well hidden on that namles tab outside the tabs line, where used to be a useless window menu.
Yeah, that is right, MS throwed a lot of intermediate functions on the face of the user. Using pictures, instead of words to describe what those intermediate functions do help a lot, adding to the confusion and forcing users to pass the mouse over every place every time he'll do any non-usual thing.
They didn't break that, but almost completely hide advanced options within tabs that disapear depending on context and that huge badly categorized list of options at the non-alignet tab.
But none of those problems are intrisical to the ribon, they are problems of MS Office. The only intrisical problem I see with the ribon is the lost of vertical area that a previous poster already commented.
Thre are lots of imediate gains with just paralel init scripts, no need to start with defered ones. If Init could simply work on one thing while another is waiting for I/O, my system as an example would start on near 10% of the time.
Slackware tries to do that (with limited success), just compare it with Red Hat, Suse or any other Linux with a normal init process to have an idea. But Debian is an special case, it does not try to boot fast, it tries to be stable on 80,000! possible combinations of scripts, and does so in a way so simple that it is genial.
Oh, no. Closed software does also play by darwinian rules. The only difference is that open source has reproductive and recombinatorial habilities, while closed source tries to get sucessfull restarting from nothing every time, and can't recombine.
It is as if closed source was always the product of abiogenesis, while open source evolved as normal organisms we know. Of course, it is much easier to software get it right on the first try, being inteligently designed. Evolution is not as important for it as it is for life.
Wrong, you pay 10 cents per KWh.
The question is how to get the maximum improvement on RELIABLE for a given lose of CHEAP. That is the meaning you didn't find because you are thinking in binary.
Jurisprucende is much harder to create, but otherwise yes, it is similar.
It applies only to that specifc website, because it was a (not supreme) court rulling. Now, in Brazil rullings don't apply to specific states, all of them follow the same criminal law, and the same jurisprudence.
Brazil can't come as hard against pirates as China, because we are a democracy. Fighting piracy here means getting a few merchants of pirated material on jail for a (short) time, and displaying that on TV. Fighting non-profit piracy throught the internet proved itself non-successfull after our RIAA equivalent discovered they would need to push criminal charges (with the increased need of proof and everything, let's not forget that pushing criminal charges witout any reason to think that a crime really occured is a crime on itself - let's say that an original push of copyright ofenses into criminal law backfired badly). Now, for profit piracy has very little odds of succeding at the courts.
That said, the Brazilian government does promote Linux, but at the same time is completely dependent on Microsoft products and is quite wiling to make that dependence eve stronger, despite laws that mandates adopting free software. MS marketing does not make a lot of noise, but is quite successful.
MPlayer already takes advantaje of several different processors characteristics, requiring a simple recopile. If it doesn't aready, it doesn't take a lot to take full advantaje of this chip.
Also, flash does run on ARM, but I guess it doesn't optimize for each processor. If we are luck, that will make Google start streaming Youtube videos on a way that uses mplayer. They can even keep the flv format.
Well, you could always install some voice recognition application on emacs... By the way, is one already available?
FreeDOS is still maintaned, gets new drivers all the time, and so on. I can't see how DOS can be dead either.
He is just using Windows for serious stuff, he probably plays around with OS2.
Define "proper Unix". Unix can be anything from the old PDP-10's OS to modern Linux with KDE and Gnome libraries loaded at the same time, Firefox displaying tens of tabs and a ton of sleeping servers, including 4 different database managers (that is my current configuration, by the way).
My experience was that X11 was way too slow by 95-97, Windows did use more memory than Linux + X11, but was much faster. Some people disagree.
It would quite literaly blow all the intelectual capacity around it, like near all steam machines did by that time :)