I have an original SONY 5 disc changer from 1980-something. It works great and I don't intend to buy another one until it breaks, which should be a long time. Any music that doesn't play on it will be going back to the store. Same goes for movies that don't play on my more recent DVD player.
Never mind L1. No amount of mass there is a viable anchor because it's stable without a cable (so the cable would pull it down). Extend the cable closer to earth so our gravity gives a nice pull on the mass to hold the cable tight. Besides, what's wrong with a large mass? You want something large enough to dock with and have people inside right? Perhaps have spare climbers/cablecars lying around (attached to the outside of the mass/station). The cable should come as close to earth as possible, while still able to support the counterweight/station and anything docked with it. You want to reduce the cost of getting up there as much as possible.
All this makes me want to write a quick simulation to prove to myself that it's stable;-)
Is it possible to make my own style sheets and view slashdot with them? Should I save a page and then change the reference to my own style sheet and reload the saved page? Should I not worry about it because the editors will select styles using the same wisdom they use to select headlines?
With an earth-side lunar elevator, you wouldn't need to reach LEO to get stuff to the moon. You'd only need to reach the altitude of the cable end, not orbital velocity. You'd launch almost straight up and dock with it. Have another X-prize with that goal for altitude. The cable also doesn't have to deal with weather. You could run a loop with pullys on each end - no climbers. Just attach stuff and let it go - like the hanging cable cars at amusement parks.
I agree, if this can be done with Kevlar, someone should be trying it. Even if they just hang a mass on it as proof of concept.
From TFA "As consumers are exposed only to the types of things they're interested in, there's a danger that their tastes can narrow and that society may balkanize into groups with obscure interests."
I'd rather be exposed to the types of stuff other people like me are interested in than only be exposed to the stuff some big company wants me to be interested in. The result of course is lots of smaller markets. A company that wants to survive will have to deal with a wider range of products with not very many blockbusters. People will actually be exposed to more variety as they will see and hear what their friends bought - friends who are in a different nich. I imagine this is also good for small businesses. Big companys can't deal with "obscure interests" but small ones thrive on it.
If the Korean mozilla repackager provides their own signature, the problem still persists. If they are making changes to the base mozilla stuff for the Korean market, they'd need their own signature. If they are not adding any value, then users should be getting their stuff straight from the source - mozilla.org.
If the korean site is just redistributing (perhaps mozilla downloads to Korea are slow) then digital signatures would have worked. So the quesitons are: What benefit did this site offer? and if none, Why then did they repackage?
I know the debian port for AMD64 decided to make the 64bit arch a first class citizen. i.e. there is a/lib directory. Fedora OTOH uses a/lib64 directory. This is like saying there is something special about 64bit libraries on a 64bit arch. Does the new LSB specify how this should be handled? Who will have to change, debian or Red Hat? I run Fedora and am disappointed to have a/lib64 full of stuff and/lib that is almost empty. Thoughts on this?
"This wouldn't be a problem if operating systems required a trusted signature for software to be installed."
That's just stupid. That requires an authority to sign anything you install. That means an end to free software and independant development. That mean you won't be able to write software on your own computer. Why? Because if an independant can get his code signed, so can a virus author. If it's voluntary, you can already install signed code today. Another option is to use a popular distribution and only install the prepackaged apps (ie use yum or apt only with offical repositories). In the end, you must trust the source you got your software from. Apparently this Korean Mozilla repackager is not trustworthy.
At least for movies, just shine a big infrared source at the movie screen. This will wash out the picture of all cameras in the theater while not having any effect on the audience. If that much IR exposure is bad for peoples eyes, flash it or move a blob around the screen so it's not as much energy on the eyeball lens.
In any case, a good IR filter might circumvent it.
You can use a technology even if don't like it. They're trying to ban the P2P stuff, but until then why not collect marketing data from it. Sheesh, these two activities are probably handled by different parts of the organization. If you think any use of P2P (even looking at usage stats) is an endorsement of the technology, then you should also support the RIAA on most of their claims - i.e. that technology xyz is infringing copyrights. Or that since some guy in BFE would have bought a song if it weren't available for free, we may conclude that all downloads are lost sales, etc...
I recently submitted a blurb to slashdot about the upcomming release of the Stix fonts and the fact that they are asking for feedback on the license right now. I was nonthreatening, so it got rejected of course. So now I'm considering a rewrite mentioning "License" in the title and some BS about YRO and copyrighting the very fonts your documents are created with. I think/. would be interested in these new fonts, and also interested in the license terms. It's unfortunate that it takes a line of fearmongering to get a story accepted these days. How about if several readers try to submit this one with various slants;-)
Yes, it's a remote controlled gizmo that can only operate on a special surface full of electrodes. Nothing to see here. Why this is worthy of posting to/. is beyond me.
"You can't create a security proof on huge volumes on code. "
So we need to write smaller code. Perhaps the "kernel" of the OS should not be responsible for memory management and device drivers, but security of communication between all parts built on top of it (including APIs and hardware access). Perhaps the micro-kernel will have its day after all. How does the security model of the Hurd differ from that of Linux?
I got my wife one of those HP printer/scanner/card-reader things. It sounded cool and was relatively cheap. My favorite feature is this: 1) put SM card in and print thumbnails 2) check box next to thumbnails of pics you want 3) put sheet on scanner 4) it prints the checked pics. Scanner works nice, pictures are beautiful. Problem: Paper doesn't feed for crap. Pics are great, but if you ever want to print a sheet of business cards you can forget it - the alignment is very sloppy. She didn't think that was such an issue, but there have been so many things (cards, invitations etc) that this issue shows up on, she now thinks the printer/scanner was a mistake.
Do research on paper alignment for any HP model you may consider - assuming your scanner quest leads you to look at combo devices. Many of them suck.
"Fedora Core are every bit as easy to install than W2k/XP, and work equally well."
I've been running FC3 (and now 4) since January on my home PC. It does almost everything I want right out of the box. Media apps are still a problem. On FC3, I ripped a couple CDs to FLAC only to find the installed player didn't do FLAC. Not sure if this carried over to FC4. Also, you can't play DVDs out of the box - gotta "yum install" libdvdcss or some such. Oh, but I don't think you can just type the command, you have to configure yum to use the correct repository first. I recently upgraded my kernel and now the machine hangs when I insert a DVD. Media apps are just not the same as other OSes. My USB flash stick auto-mounts if it's plugged in at startup, but not if it's plugged in later. When I setup my printer, one of the dialogs was some old Motif thing and I completely missed one of the pull-down menus for some time because of this (It was obvious when I figured it out - I flashed back to 1995).
These are all minor things that can be fixed relatively easily by the right people. I'm not flaming, I really like my FC4 box. It's just not as easy as Windows 98 yet. OTOH, as FC gets better with each release I feel windows gets worse over time - I can hardly function with XP. My guess is that FC5 will be almost perfect for most people, but still rough in a few spots.
"But we shouldn't lose track of basics, like "the browser is not just a window frame; inbuilt functionality is important and if you make your own back buttons, you're missing the point.
Actually, a web browser if first and foremost a window frame. From a user point of view, most web pages don't need any state information. I would suggest that the standards guys devise a tag or something to indicate when a page should NOT be rerendered without contacting the server. Most pages need not worry, but you web app guys would have to add this little tag.
I do agree though, that there are some things in common use that can't be handled with a back-cache. These are not in 90 percent of web pages. For developers just remember, it's MY browser not yours.
"I don't think "lower power consumption" is going to move a lot of cards."
I've got a shuttle XPC sitting next to my monitor with a GF6600GT sounding like a vacuum cleaner. I'd buy anything with comparable performance for $200 if it didn't have a fan or any funny "2 slot heatpipe to the back blocking PCI cooler. That said, I don't think my card is available yet. Nor am I a large market.
The big guys have given up on fanless cards. If S3 says they're low power, I hope they don't need one. Fanless actually is a market.
"The only 'responsible disclosure' is full and immediate disclosure."
I'd argue that giving the software company a heads up to find a fix would be more responsible than immediate disclosure. There is no fixed amount of time either. If the company is unresponsive, wait as long as you feel appropriate and go public. If the company responds and appears to be making reasonable efforts to fix it, give them time. The public isn't going to fix the problem, so blabbing to them isn't going to help. Blabbing to them that the company has known for X months and isn't doing anything will help the public form an opinion about the company and move away from their products.
"And if a program can't do that, you as a user probably couldn't either. That would be damned inconvenient."
Too many people stop with the first sign of inconvenience. OTOH it is a sign that an idea would require many changes that may be hard to coordinate. As a user I should be able to check what processes I have runing. An application should not. The issue then is that I check this by running an application (ps). This brings to mind the phrase "fine grained security policy". i.e. only the "ps" process should be allowed to do this. What's to stop other apps from running ps? Well duh, programs should never be allowed to run other programs unless explicitly enabled. Another option is to allow programs to launch other programs (i.e. email prog opens web browser on link click) but not allow them to communicate without user intervention. See where this is leading? You really need to start with high level design priciples and goals and then change everything to fit - a roadmap would be needed to minimize the pain, but it still sucks to make fundamental changes to desktop behavior. That's why we're stuck with such old ideas.
IMHO no application should be able to modify the environment it is runnning in without input from the user. This would eliminate your task bar popping out at random times. It also eliminates those stupid popups telling you stuff you don't care about.
As for the "instance"... First, the app should not be able to query the environment to see what you've got running (security). Second, if it can tell the app is already running, just bring the other instance to focus and don't start another one. No message required. DUH. Lots of programs get this right, but it should be a function of the OS/Desktop so they all work that way without adding that same chunk of code to every app to check for this condition.
One problem is that people will find all sort of reasons not to fix these issues. Another problem is that in many cases, getting the desired behaviour requires changes to both the OS and the applications.
I'm still waiting for a document viewer that just shows a piece of paper (the document) on the desktop with no application visible at all - that's document centric. Click and drag should move it around, no need for even a title bar. For Word processing, some mechanism (right click menu?) should enable editing and perhaps bring up some additional interface elements to support editing.
Short term, why not partition the top bar into a menu (left portion) and a title (right justified) so we don't waste so much space across the top of every application window?
I believe the intent is to clarify the following: Taking free software, adding patented features, releasing, and then enforcing those patents (on code derived from yours) is in violation of the GPL. You'd be putting additional restrictions on the use of that software - although not by explicitly adding license terms. Adding restrictions like this is a violation of the GPL, and I think they just want the license to automaticlly terminate when you enforce the patent (i.e. violate the terms of the license). They will not try to revoke your right to use all free software - just that for which you violated the license by enforcing a patent you put into that software.
i.e. putting a patented feature in Free software effectively allows free use of that patent in free software and derived works. This is already many peoples interpretation of the license. They just want to clarify it.
Slashdot Mirror
I have an original SONY 5 disc changer from 1980-something. It works great and I don't intend to buy another one until it breaks, which should be a long time. Any music that doesn't play on it will be going back to the store. Same goes for movies that don't play on my more recent DVD player.
Never mind L1. No amount of mass there is a viable anchor because it's stable without a cable (so the cable would pull it down). Extend the cable closer to earth so our gravity gives a nice pull on the mass to hold the cable tight. Besides, what's wrong with a large mass? You want something large enough to dock with and have people inside right? Perhaps have spare climbers/cablecars lying around (attached to the outside of the mass/station). The cable should come as close to earth as possible, while still able to support the counterweight/station and anything docked with it. You want to reduce the cost of getting up there as much as possible.
All this makes me want to write a quick simulation to prove to myself that it's stable ;-)
Is it possible to make my own style sheets and view slashdot with them? Should I save a page and then change the reference to my own style sheet and reload the saved page? Should I not worry about it because the editors will select styles using the same wisdom they use to select headlines?
I agree, if this can be done with Kevlar, someone should be trying it. Even if they just hang a mass on it as proof of concept.
I'd rather be exposed to the types of stuff other people like me are interested in than only be exposed to the stuff some big company wants me to be interested in. The result of course is lots of smaller markets. A company that wants to survive will have to deal with a wider range of products with not very many blockbusters. People will actually be exposed to more variety as they will see and hear what their friends bought - friends who are in a different nich. I imagine this is also good for small businesses. Big companys can't deal with "obscure interests" but small ones thrive on it.
TFA is just spreading FUD.
If the korean site is just redistributing (perhaps mozilla downloads to Korea are slow) then digital signatures would have worked. So the quesitons are: What benefit did this site offer? and if none, Why then did they repackage?
I know the debian port for AMD64 decided to make the 64bit arch a first class citizen. i.e. there is a /lib directory. Fedora OTOH uses a /lib64 directory. This is like saying there is something special about 64bit libraries on a 64bit arch. Does the new LSB specify how this should be handled? Who will have to change, debian or Red Hat? I run Fedora and am disappointed to have a /lib64 full of stuff and /lib that is almost empty. Thoughts on this?
That's why Microsoft says .doc is a standard document format. Just because a majority use something doesn't make it a standard.
That's just stupid. That requires an authority to sign anything you install. That means an end to free software and independant development. That mean you won't be able to write software on your own computer. Why? Because if an independant can get his code signed, so can a virus author. If it's voluntary, you can already install signed code today. Another option is to use a popular distribution and only install the prepackaged apps (ie use yum or apt only with offical repositories). In the end, you must trust the source you got your software from. Apparently this Korean Mozilla repackager is not trustworthy.
In any case, a good IR filter might circumvent it.
Think before you type.
I recently submitted a blurb to slashdot about the upcomming release of the Stix fonts and the fact that they are asking for feedback on the license right now. I was nonthreatening, so it got rejected of course. So now I'm considering a rewrite mentioning "License" in the title and some BS about YRO and copyrighting the very fonts your documents are created with. I think /. would be interested in these new fonts, and also interested in the license terms. It's unfortunate that it takes a line of fearmongering to get a story accepted these days. How about if several readers try to submit this one with various slants ;-)
Yes, it's a remote controlled gizmo that can only operate on a special surface full of electrodes. Nothing to see here. Why this is worthy of posting to /. is beyond me.
So we need to write smaller code. Perhaps the "kernel" of the OS should not be responsible for memory management and device drivers, but security of communication between all parts built on top of it (including APIs and hardware access). Perhaps the micro-kernel will have its day after all. How does the security model of the Hurd differ from that of Linux?
Clearly this is nothing more than an ad trying to pretend it's a story. WTF?
Do research on paper alignment for any HP model you may consider - assuming your scanner quest leads you to look at combo devices. Many of them suck.
I've been running FC3 (and now 4) since January on my home PC. It does almost everything I want right out of the box. Media apps are still a problem. On FC3, I ripped a couple CDs to FLAC only to find the installed player didn't do FLAC. Not sure if this carried over to FC4. Also, you can't play DVDs out of the box - gotta "yum install" libdvdcss or some such. Oh, but I don't think you can just type the command, you have to configure yum to use the correct repository first. I recently upgraded my kernel and now the machine hangs when I insert a DVD. Media apps are just not the same as other OSes. My USB flash stick auto-mounts if it's plugged in at startup, but not if it's plugged in later. When I setup my printer, one of the dialogs was some old Motif thing and I completely missed one of the pull-down menus for some time because of this (It was obvious when I figured it out - I flashed back to 1995).
These are all minor things that can be fixed relatively easily by the right people. I'm not flaming, I really like my FC4 box. It's just not as easy as Windows 98 yet. OTOH, as FC gets better with each release I feel windows gets worse over time - I can hardly function with XP. My guess is that FC5 will be almost perfect for most people, but still rough in a few spots.
Actually, a web browser if first and foremost a window frame. From a user point of view, most web pages don't need any state information. I would suggest that the standards guys devise a tag or something to indicate when a page should NOT be rerendered without contacting the server. Most pages need not worry, but you web app guys would have to add this little tag.
I do agree though, that there are some things in common use that can't be handled with a back-cache. These are not in 90 percent of web pages. For developers just remember, it's MY browser not yours.
I've got a shuttle XPC sitting next to my monitor with a GF6600GT sounding like a vacuum cleaner. I'd buy anything with comparable performance for $200 if it didn't have a fan or any funny "2 slot heatpipe to the back blocking PCI cooler. That said, I don't think my card is available yet. Nor am I a large market.
The big guys have given up on fanless cards. If S3 says they're low power, I hope they don't need one. Fanless actually is a market.
I'd argue that giving the software company a heads up to find a fix would be more responsible than immediate disclosure. There is no fixed amount of time either. If the company is unresponsive, wait as long as you feel appropriate and go public. If the company responds and appears to be making reasonable efforts to fix it, give them time. The public isn't going to fix the problem, so blabbing to them isn't going to help. Blabbing to them that the company has known for X months and isn't doing anything will help the public form an opinion about the company and move away from their products.
Too many people stop with the first sign of inconvenience. OTOH it is a sign that an idea would require many changes that may be hard to coordinate. As a user I should be able to check what processes I have runing. An application should not. The issue then is that I check this by running an application (ps). This brings to mind the phrase "fine grained security policy". i.e. only the "ps" process should be allowed to do this. What's to stop other apps from running ps? Well duh, programs should never be allowed to run other programs unless explicitly enabled. Another option is to allow programs to launch other programs (i.e. email prog opens web browser on link click) but not allow them to communicate without user intervention. See where this is leading? You really need to start with high level design priciples and goals and then change everything to fit - a roadmap would be needed to minimize the pain, but it still sucks to make fundamental changes to desktop behavior. That's why we're stuck with such old ideas.
Yeah, so what's your point?
As for the "instance"... First, the app should not be able to query the environment to see what you've got running (security). Second, if it can tell the app is already running, just bring the other instance to focus and don't start another one. No message required. DUH. Lots of programs get this right, but it should be a function of the OS/Desktop so they all work that way without adding that same chunk of code to every app to check for this condition.
One problem is that people will find all sort of reasons not to fix these issues. Another problem is that in many cases, getting the desired behaviour requires changes to both the OS and the applications.
I'm still waiting for a document viewer that just shows a piece of paper (the document) on the desktop with no application visible at all - that's document centric. Click and drag should move it around, no need for even a title bar. For Word processing, some mechanism (right click menu?) should enable editing and perhaps bring up some additional interface elements to support editing.
Short term, why not partition the top bar into a menu (left portion) and a title (right justified) so we don't waste so much space across the top of every application window?
i.e. putting a patented feature in Free software effectively allows free use of that patent in free software and derived works. This is already many peoples interpretation of the license. They just want to clarify it.
Is this book available in hard cover?