Or perhaps you're talking about the status bar. Again, something I can't believe anyone would notice or care about. A largely blank, useless bar that was practically only good for previewing link URLS was removed from the GUI and replaced with something smarter. Again, how is this a major change?
Useless to you, perhaps. But the replacement is a kludge for tiny screens that's a horrible mess on a desktop with a decently sized monitor. I find it's contnually covering up things I want to click on all for the sake of not 'wasting' a few pixels on a 1920x1080 monitor; it's annoying, it's ugly and it provides no benefit over the old status bar.
You make it difficult for people who actually have good, valid criticism and feedback of GNOME 3, etc., to be heard, because you dilute the discussion with completely bizarre, emotional, thoughtless statements.
Or perhaps you just don't bother to understand why people want these 'useless' features.
So yes, this is a windows bug. But it is also a safari bug. Both should be fixed.
So how does Safari know whether Windows can support an 18 million pixel high window without requesting one? If it's a valid value for the request, then an application should be able to assume that the OS will either fulfil the request or return an error, not execute arbitrary code.
It's like owning a Linux desktop without root, or owning a Windows machine and not being allowed Administrator access.
Uh, 'Secure Boot', dude. With Windows 8 you will only have whatever control Microsoft allow you over the Windows computer you thought you owned... if they disable admin access in Windows 9, you won't be able to patch the loader to re-enable it because it will refuse to run.
Though such an airliner will have more than one air speed sensor, no? Relying for such a vital piece of information on just one sensor would be crazy.
According to a TV documentary I watched a while back, one crash about ten years ago happened because one of the three pitot tubes was blocked and it was the only one that was connected to the autopilot. The unblocked tubes were telling the crew that the plane was about to stall, whereas the blocked tube was telling the autopilot that the plane was flying too fast. The autopilot pulled the nose up and the crew had contradictory warnings that they couldn't reconcile, with the plane simultaneously telling them that it was going too fast and too slow. When they decided to believe the autopilot and cut power, the plane stalled and crashed.
I thought that only having one pitot tube connected to the autopilot was a dumb idea too.
big industry, big oil, big auto, and corrupt governments decided to say "fuck the children", abandoned public transit, and went with the mass-car culture we have, on purpose, deliberately, to make money
Yes, it's all the fault of BIG OIL, and nothing to do with the fact that public transit sucks ass.
This sounds very much like the failure of the Pitot tubes (used to measure airspeed) on the A330 that chrashed in the Atlantic on 1 june 2009.
Actually, this would presumably have saved AF447, as the crash was caused by the pilot holding the nose up in a stall. Probably because the stall warning apparently turned off when he pulled the stick back and turned back on when he pushed it forward, so the correct action to get out of the stall seemed to be causing it.
the idea that a bunch of automatically piloted vehicles is somehow a better solution to city transport than mass-transit, it boggles my mind.
While I agree that computer-controlled cars are a joke with current technology levels, the idea that trains are a better solution to city transport than cars boggles my mind. Then again, I spent a couple of years actually commuting to work by train and know just how much they suck ass.
Which is actually Airbus relies on sensor input over the "pilot". Boeing believes in the opposite. I'm inclined to believe Airbus in that the majority of accidents are human error over computer error.
Yeah, right. The computer is unable to fly the plane, so it suddenly dumps control into the hands of the pilot who has spent the last three hours drinking coffee, playing Angry Birds on his iPad and chatting up the head stewardess, and they crash. And it's 'human error'.
The real issue is the designers of email (and the net) didn't take into account that the internet would become so pervasive and the need for encryption and security was not built into the system from the get go and handled automatically behind the scenes.
Even if they'd felt that they should build encryption into the simple email protocol they were designing, public key cryptography was patented and US law prohibited them from exporting encryption software out of America. So they'd have been screwed anyway.
But it is sad that whereas in 1995 my email program had seamless PGP integration, today it's a kludge on the side of Thunderbird. Maybe it's time I created a new PGP key and told people to use it when sending email to me.
Apple has accused HTC of patent infringement through its smartphones, and filed several patent lawsuits against the Taiwan-based company in Delaware in the last two years.
So Apple sued HTC and two years later HTC sued Apple, and HTC are the bad guy?
In a universe where just throwing raw loads of mass into orbit as cheaply as possible is the goal of the space program... that would be useful. But that's not the goal, and never has been.
So what exactly is the goal if it's not to put lots of stuff into space cheap?
If you put stuff in space cheap, then you can do pretty much anything else you want to do up there. I have a hard time imagining a world where we'll be better off if we pay ten times as much to put the same stuff into orbit.
If the Shuttle cost a half a billion per launch, you'd have a point. But the truth is, in cash out of pocket, the shuttle costs less than a hundred million per launch.
That'll be why NASA's shuttle budget was only $500,000,000 a year.
If I remember the sequence of events correctly, turning backwards after the wing broke enough to lose any remaining yaw control was what made it break up.
I really can't stand this *cost effective* bs. People keep coming out and saying how expensive the shuttle was, and how much of a waste of money it was. In reality it was actually very cheap in comparison to other things we spend money on.
And it was very expensive compared to alternative methods of getting things into space. Falcon 9 Heavy should be able to put more payload into space for a tenth of the price.
Slashdot Mirror
Or perhaps you're talking about the status bar. Again, something I can't believe anyone would notice or care about. A largely blank, useless bar that was practically only good for previewing link URLS was removed from the GUI and replaced with something smarter. Again, how is this a major change?
Useless to you, perhaps. But the replacement is a kludge for tiny screens that's a horrible mess on a desktop with a decently sized monitor. I find it's contnually covering up things I want to click on all for the sake of not 'wasting' a few pixels on a 1920x1080 monitor; it's annoying, it's ugly and it provides no benefit over the old status bar.
You make it difficult for people who actually have good, valid criticism and feedback of GNOME 3, etc., to be heard, because you dilute the discussion with completely bizarre, emotional, thoughtless statements.
Or perhaps you just don't bother to understand why people want these 'useless' features.
So yes, this is a windows bug. But it is also a safari bug. Both should be fixed.
So how does Safari know whether Windows can support an 18 million pixel high window without requesting one? If it's a valid value for the request, then an application should be able to assume that the OS will either fulfil the request or return an error, not execute arbitrary code.
Congress today is a large group of poorly educated, self serving, sociopath children.
You say that as though you think it ever wasn't a group of poorly-educated, self-serving, sociopathic children.
It's like owning a Linux desktop without root, or owning a Windows machine and not being allowed Administrator access.
Uh, 'Secure Boot', dude. With Windows 8 you will only have whatever control Microsoft allow you over the Windows computer you thought you owned... if they disable admin access in Windows 9, you won't be able to patch the loader to re-enable it because it will refuse to run.
It hasn't been called into combat because it is a trump card.
That and because it's too expensive to lose. In real terms, a single F-22 probably costs about the same as a dozen squadrons of Spitfires did in WWII.
Please. Lockheed will be getting upgrade contracts for years to come.
Sure, but that's minor compared to producing hundreds of new aircraft.
Hasn't F-22 production been shut down? So 'lessons learned' won't help much.
The local 'liquidation store' was advertising an RC helicopter with video camera for about $50 on the front of their latest flyer.
It's not just you, I don't get them either.
Because Chrome wastes way less space with all that shit.
Yeah, and? I have a 1920x1080 monitor, so I'm totally worried about programs using a few pixels to display useful information at all times.
Though such an airliner will have more than one air speed sensor, no? Relying for such a vital piece of information on just one sensor would be crazy.
According to a TV documentary I watched a while back, one crash about ten years ago happened because one of the three pitot tubes was blocked and it was the only one that was connected to the autopilot. The unblocked tubes were telling the crew that the plane was about to stall, whereas the blocked tube was telling the autopilot that the plane was flying too fast. The autopilot pulled the nose up and the crew had contradictory warnings that they couldn't reconcile, with the plane simultaneously telling them that it was going too fast and too slow. When they decided to believe the autopilot and cut power, the plane stalled and crashed.
I thought that only having one pitot tube connected to the autopilot was a dumb idea too.
big industry, big oil, big auto, and corrupt governments decided to say "fuck the children", abandoned public transit, and went with the mass-car culture we have, on purpose, deliberately, to make money
Yes, it's all the fault of BIG OIL, and nothing to do with the fact that public transit sucks ass.
This sounds very much like the failure of the Pitot tubes (used to measure airspeed) on the A330 that chrashed in the Atlantic on 1 june 2009.
Actually, this would presumably have saved AF447, as the crash was caused by the pilot holding the nose up in a stall. Probably because the stall warning apparently turned off when he pulled the stick back and turned back on when he pushed it forward, so the correct action to get out of the stall seemed to be causing it.
the idea that a bunch of automatically piloted vehicles is somehow a better solution to city transport than mass-transit, it boggles my mind.
While I agree that computer-controlled cars are a joke with current technology levels, the idea that trains are a better solution to city transport than cars boggles my mind. Then again, I spent a couple of years actually commuting to work by train and know just how much they suck ass.
Which is actually Airbus relies on sensor input over the "pilot". Boeing believes in the opposite. I'm inclined to believe Airbus in that the majority of accidents are human error over computer error.
Yeah, right. The computer is unable to fly the plane, so it suddenly dumps control into the hands of the pilot who has spent the last three hours drinking coffee, playing Angry Birds on his iPad and chatting up the head stewardess, and they crash. And it's 'human error'.
The real issue is the designers of email (and the net) didn't take into account that the internet would become so pervasive and the need for encryption and security was not built into the system from the get go and handled automatically behind the scenes.
Even if they'd felt that they should build encryption into the simple email protocol they were designing, public key cryptography was patented and US law prohibited them from exporting encryption software out of America. So they'd have been screwed anyway.
But it is sad that whereas in 1995 my email program had seamless PGP integration, today it's a kludge on the side of Thunderbird. Maybe it's time I created a new PGP key and told people to use it when sending email to me.
Did you actually read the article you linked to?
Apple has accused HTC of patent infringement through its smartphones, and filed several patent lawsuits against the Taiwan-based company in Delaware in the last two years.
So Apple sued HTC and two years later HTC sued Apple, and HTC are the bad guy?
The whole point of the patent system is to increase costs to consumers by reducing competition. There'd be no reason to have it otherwise.
Isn't competition what drives innovation? Where's the innovation if everyone just does what everyone else is doing?
Who's going to be able to innovate if they're being forced to waste their time looking for ways to work around stupid patents instead?
In a universe where just throwing raw loads of mass into orbit as cheaply as possible is the goal of the space program... that would be useful. But that's not the goal, and never has been.
So what exactly is the goal if it's not to put lots of stuff into space cheap?
If you put stuff in space cheap, then you can do pretty much anything else you want to do up there. I have a hard time imagining a world where we'll be better off if we pay ten times as much to put the same stuff into orbit.
If the Shuttle cost a half a billion per launch, you'd have a point. But the truth is, in cash out of pocket, the shuttle costs less than a hundred million per launch.
That'll be why NASA's shuttle budget was only $500,000,000 a year.
Columbia didn't re-enter backwards...
If I remember the sequence of events correctly, turning backwards after the wing broke enough to lose any remaining yaw control was what made it break up.
Almost as bad as Soyuz...which had 2 out of 117 flights fail in ways that killed their crews.
Yes, several decades ago.
Soyuz has also re-entered backwards, the way Columbia did. The Soyuz crew survived, the shuttle crew didn't.
Doesn't the Shuttle have a horrible track record? 2 out of 135 flights blew up? Who would roll those dice anyway?
That's the other problem. A government can get away with killing its employees one time in sixty, but a private company can't.
I really can't stand this *cost effective* bs. People keep coming out and saying how expensive the shuttle was, and how much of a waste of money it was. In reality it was actually very cheap in comparison to other things we spend money on.
And it was very expensive compared to alternative methods of getting things into space. Falcon 9 Heavy should be able to put more payload into space for a tenth of the price.