That's one of the really nice things about Android... the soft keyboard uses a totally open API that any 3rd party can develop too and give the user the choice to use.
This is such a farce, you need to read a little deeper than the glossy "gold rush" articles. there have been a very *small* number of people who got lucky and struck it rich, but as in all gold rushes, there are now so many people trying to get theirs, that the app store has become a wasteland clusterfuck of shitty me2 apps. Now, like everywhere else in life, you have to a) have a good application b) have good marketing c) have some luck to make money with iphone apps.
seriously, I recently tried uninstalling it to give ad revenue to sites i visit, but as soon as I started hitting abusive ads (flashing, misleading fake dialogs, video with sound, popunder) the adblock went back on. I've whitelisted a few of the more trustworthy ad networks like google adwords because they don't abuse the users.
If you do almost all your computing using "cloud" services like google docs, flickr, gmail/gcalendar/etc, who needs a full fledged desktop os? For most people that accounts for their entire "every day" computing task load. all you need is a lightweight, easy to use, energy efficient OS. Android would be perfect for that use. There are netbooks coming out now with built in 3g cell broadband adapters, so throw android on one of those and you have yourself a cloud computing terminal that is instant on and snappy. sounds badass to me.
There are a number of projects making realy interesting use of outdated hardware, this project in particular focuses on taking outdated palms and cell phones, getting linux mobile distro's and media applications working well with them:
thank you for restating the obvious. i'm dead serious. judging by the comments around here 99% of people didn't bother reading the *second* page of that article where this crack pot was roundly trounced.
its only this way because there is NO large scale mass distribution of old spec systems, OLPC would be that and would totally change the economics here.
the point is the "256 costs more because of low volume" doesnt really come into affect here, especially if OLPC takes off and starts shipping dozens to hundreds of millions of units a year. their economic equation is bring base functionality down to the lowest price point, there is not much point in constantly upping the spec since the whole system works and works well NOW, especially compared to the alternative that the people who's hands these machiens end up in have... which is nothing.
but, if its just my email address that is the only valid one hashed into the list i send them, when they do a diff between their original and cleaned lists, they nicely get my email address out. this is what they did to the B.S. users a few weeks back.
Back in January, Red Hat reversed a longstanding policy and allowed the Mono.NET implementation into the Fedora distribution. A set of Mono applications (Tomboy, Banshee, F-spot) also went in at that time. The move was generally welcomed, but a number of observers wondered what had changed to make the addition of Mono possible. The sticking point had been a set of patents on.NET held by Microsoft; presumably those patents were no longer seen as a threat. But no information on why that might be was released at that time.
We missed it at the time, but Fedora hacker Greg DeKoenigsberg posted an explanation in late March. The answer, as it turns out, may offer some clues of how the software patent battle might play out.
Back in November, the Open Invention Network (OIN) announced its existence. OIN is a corporation which has been set up for one express purpose: to acquire patents and use them to promote and defend free software. The OIN patent policy is this:
Patents owned by Open Invention Network will be available on a royalty-free basis to any company, institution or individual that agrees not to assert its patents against the Linux operating system or certain Linux-related applications.
The list of "certain Linux-related applications" is said to exist, though it has not, yet, been posted publicly. But Mono is apparently on that list. So anybody who files patent infringement suits against Mono users, and who is, in turn, making use of technology covered by OIN's patents is setting himself up for a countersuit. Depending on the value of the patents held by OIN, that threat could raise the risk of attacking Mono considerably.
seeing as they are using the old 1.x gnome logo that hasnt been associated with the project in like 4 years i woudlnt count on an ubuntu logo til at least 2009
the reason he's arguing against just doing gnome 3 in a devel branch is that the timeframe for gnome3 development is over a year long. so essentially, he's saying start a new gnome 3 dev branch *in addition* to continuing the 6 month release cycle for gnome 2.x
sounds good to me
a good idea, but there is no way an admin will be able to go over every page in wikipedia and mark a good version, i would take years:)
i'm thinking there needs to be a script which runs over the pagesa and waits until there is no edit activity for 24 hours or so, if the page reaches a level of stability, you can fairly assume that it is no point of view enough for hte cd.
this issue of never being able to trust an article *at any point in time* is a really interesting conundrum, definitely the biggest obstacle to wikipedia.
i've been thinking that every article should have a slow moving "front page" that changes according to a script like i mention above, and the actual editing happens on another tab out of site... this way you can have more trust that the article isnt being edited right as you see it.
Slashdot Mirror
Show of hands, who the fuck cares what Ray Ozzie thinks?
That's one of the really nice things about Android... the soft keyboard uses a totally open API that any 3rd party can develop too and give the user the choice to use.
"To avoid interruption, you'll need to install a non-expired version of Windows before March 1, 2010"
Or... don't install Windows 7 at all? I'll take that option.
This is such a farce, you need to read a little deeper than the glossy "gold rush" articles. there have been a very *small* number of people who got lucky and struck it rich, but as in all gold rushes, there are now so many people trying to get theirs, that the app store has become a wasteland clusterfuck of shitty me2 apps. Now, like everywhere else in life, you have to a) have a good application b) have good marketing c) have some luck to make money with iphone apps.
seriously, I recently tried uninstalling it to give ad revenue to sites i visit, but as soon as I started hitting abusive ads (flashing, misleading fake dialogs, video with sound, popunder) the adblock went back on. I've whitelisted a few of the more trustworthy ad networks like google adwords because they don't abuse the users.
If you do almost all your computing using "cloud" services like google docs, flickr, gmail/gcalendar/etc, who needs a full fledged desktop os? For most people that accounts for their entire "every day" computing task load. all you need is a lightweight, easy to use, energy efficient OS. Android would be perfect for that use. There are netbooks coming out now with built in 3g cell broadband adapters, so throw android on one of those and you have yourself a cloud computing terminal that is instant on and snappy. sounds badass to me.
the build is already up, just not on their website yet:
http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=121075&package_id=250052
yeah, the G1 has an auto-focus lens. very cool.
There are a number of projects making realy interesting use of outdated hardware, this project in particular focuses on taking outdated palms and cell phones, getting linux mobile distro's and media applications working well with them:
http://dev.eyebeam.org/projects/reware/blog
and this is why everyone should use http://giganticurl.com/
thank you for restating the obvious. i'm dead serious. judging by the comments around here 99% of people didn't bother reading the *second* page of that article where this crack pot was roundly trounced.
no. no they didn't. he used 3 years of data. he's a crack pot and his notion was pretty much trounced on page two of that article (wobble).
its only this way because there is NO large scale mass distribution of old spec systems, OLPC would be that and would totally change the economics here.
the point is the "256 costs more because of low volume" doesnt really come into affect here, especially if OLPC takes off and starts shipping dozens to hundreds of millions of units a year. their economic equation is bring base functionality down to the lowest price point, there is not much point in constantly upping the spec since the whole system works and works well NOW, especially compared to the alternative that the people who's hands these machiens end up in have... which is nothing.
not pointless if there are 10 million customers in the form of OLPC standing in line to buy it.
I fail to see the point.
> How long did it take for callerID and no-call lists to get here? About 125 years
you can run most vst's very nicely in linux http://ladspavst.linuxaudio.org/
but, if its just my email address that is the only valid one hashed into the list i send them, when they do a diff between their original and cleaned lists, they nicely get my email address out. this is what they did to the B.S. users a few weeks back.
http://lwn.net/Articles/179597/
.NET implementation into the Fedora distribution. A set of Mono applications (Tomboy, Banshee, F-spot) also went in at that time. The move was generally welcomed, but a number of observers wondered what had changed to make the addition of Mono possible. The sticking point had been a set of patents on .NET held by Microsoft; presumably those patents were no longer seen as a threat. But no information on why that might be was released at that time.
Back in January, Red Hat reversed a longstanding policy and allowed the Mono
We missed it at the time, but Fedora hacker Greg DeKoenigsberg posted an explanation in late March. The answer, as it turns out, may offer some clues of how the software patent battle might play out.
Back in November, the Open Invention Network (OIN) announced its existence. OIN is a corporation which has been set up for one express purpose: to acquire patents and use them to promote and defend free software. The OIN patent policy is this:
Patents owned by Open Invention Network will be available on a royalty-free basis to any company, institution or individual that agrees not to assert its patents against the Linux operating system or certain Linux-related applications.
The list of "certain Linux-related applications" is said to exist, though it has not, yet, been posted publicly. But Mono is apparently on that list. So anybody who files patent infringement suits against Mono users, and who is, in turn, making use of technology covered by OIN's patents is setting himself up for a countersuit. Depending on the value of the patents held by OIN, that threat could raise the risk of attacking Mono considerably.
seeing as they are using the old 1.x gnome logo that hasnt been associated with the project in like 4 years i woudlnt count on an ubuntu logo til at least 2009
the reason he's arguing against just doing gnome 3 in a devel branch is that the timeframe for gnome3 development is over a year long. so essentially, he's saying start a new gnome 3 dev branch *in addition* to continuing the 6 month release cycle for gnome 2.x sounds good to me
no, it has nothing to do with OSS vs proprietary, it just simple copyright law. you want this code i just wrote? agree to my terms.
a good idea, but there is no way an admin will be able to go over every page in wikipedia and mark a good version, i would take years :)
i'm thinking there needs to be a script which runs over the pagesa and waits until there is no edit activity for 24 hours or so, if the page reaches a level of stability, you can fairly assume that it is no point of view enough for hte cd.
this issue of never being able to trust an article *at any point in time* is a really interesting conundrum, definitely the biggest obstacle to wikipedia.
i've been thinking that every article should have a slow moving "front page" that changes according to a script like i mention above, and the actual editing happens on another tab out of site... this way you can have more trust that the article isnt being edited right as you see it.
read my post above his.