Maybe not, but I have found myself wondering of late how I have a number of peripherals that are useful to me on several computers, yet I'd rather not have to unplug them from one to put into the other. Notably, my USB webcam, my USB printer, and my USB memory stick reader.
I just use my USB-enabled KVM switch. I just have to be careful when switching whether any of the devices are currently in use.
This USB switch (if I can call it that) would be great if it has enough intelligence to accurately track whether a device is already in use vs. when it is idle and switchable so I don't have to worry about mounted volumes suddenly disappearing (esp. during writes) or scanners or printers disappearing in the middle of jobs. Even better if its logic could be incorporated into a KVM.
Of course, devices that are USB just for the power don't matter.
What happened to the protections under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986? The ECPA is supposed to prohibit unlawful access and certain disclosures of electronic communication contents and prevents government entities from requiring disclosure of electronic communications from a provider without proper procedure.
Did it suddenly get repealed or gutted by amendments?
If it is as you say that the message count per page can be exceeded by a long thread and threads are never split between pages (whole threads are reported on the same page as their roots, be it the only or last thread on the page), then a patch could be to not thread back from post 51 on page 2 but thread forward from 51 to the next thread and start the page there. It wouldn't eliminate duplicate pages if a thread was longer than the jump index, but I think that would keep threads from falling between pages.
That's the curse of Slashdot. You can make a hurried post that will make it to the upper area of the thread, or you can spend your time making a well-thought out post, and see it wallow in obscurity at post #1990999 in the thread.
There's worse: having your posting buried between pages because the first post on the first page is also the first post on the second and third pages. (I prefer to read in Nested mode.)
This is like someone suing a bridge designer because they were able to plow through the side wall and their car ended up in the river.
Bad analogy(*). Adequate safety barriers are required in modern bridge design and their failure would not be at issue if the driver was intent on driving off the bridge.
Nintendo produces games like bowling and baseball where people are making throwing motions with the (motion sensing) remote. Are they really amazed that it could slip from a person's hand and go flying?
You know, the XaviX(*) system uses controllers that you swing toward the screen for bowling, baseball, tennis, and golf.
And I did think that it was rather crazy that they show people swinging miniature bowling balls, baseball bats, tennis rackets, and golf clubs in the direction of plasma TVs in their TV ads. That was my very first thought on seeing the ads.
I haven't heard any reports of people actually damaging their equipment with those game systems. Maybe they have better restraint systems, but I doubt that's why. I'd bet that either the XaviX systems aren't as popular amongst the accident prone or that Nintendo just has deeper pockets (or both).
One, transparent encryption is still under development for ZFS, and two, encryption is only good for data that needs to be confidential in the relatively short term. Anything for which you really need total deniability in perpetuity, encryption is insufficient to protect you.
I think it would pose a problem for secure deletes. Try to obliterate a file by overwriting it with garbage, you end up writing somewhere else instead? Would the next overwrite attempt get the original location or would you have to write enough garbage to cycle over all the free space of the volume? Considering how large these volumes can get, that's a lot of boiled oceans for a multi-pass secure delete.
There are things in the world that require actual secrecy. It's useful to have the codes to launch the missiles be secret. But that doesn't mean it has to be secret that you have nuclear missiles. In fact, it's the kind of thing one might want to know in order to decide if one likes the government that they elect in a supposedly informed way.
"Of course, the whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost if you keep it a secret!" -- Dr. Strangelove
Whether or not F2 to rename a file "makes sense" is rather a silly argument (does F7 for spell check make sense? we all seem to have learned that one).
F7 does a spell check? Wh-- what does an operating system need with a spelling checker?
Another hit of Return/Enter gets out of renaming mode by renaming the file to itself. Also, Escape will cancel the rename operation. Also, if you'd intended to open it, Command-O (or any other Command-key operation) would also cancel the rename operation.
Apart from the operation expense argument, generally, someone using the mouse to select a file isn't likely to want to use the keyboard to open a file, but will use the keyboard to rename a file. Further. Enter/Return is along the path a right-handed mouse user will be moving his hand to get it to the keyboard. (Left-handed mouse users and touchpad users tend to already have the right hand near the Return key.)
If your hands are already keyboard bound and you are opening a file, Command-O is uniformly Open across all properly designed Macintosh applications since the original Mac 128K already and another binding for that operation is not needed. So why not have Return/Enter start a rename operation when it already finishes one?
It makes more sense than going to the Start menu to shutdown.
That is only for web browser. On a mac Control-Wheel enlarge the whole screen, whatever the applicaiton you use is.
Not a very nice feature (could have been better graphically),
I like it better than the options I see under Windows: drag a large magnifier around or have another window in a corner magnifying your mouse. Hopefully what you want magnified doesn't need to be rendered bigger than the magnifying glass or isn't obscured by the magnified-view window. Expanding to the whole screen is much more preferable.
Or do you mean that it smooths out the magnification, not giving fatter square pixels with delineations between them?
the shortcut is too easy (it is something you seldom want) but can be changed.
I have yet to accidentally trigger it. Macs bind commands to the Command key; Control is for modifying operations. Which is why Control-Scroll in Firefox on Linux and Windows is so damn annoying to me: I keep triggering it when I really just want to scroll the in-page search results up for more context.
Biggest issue is that it doesn't support multiple monitors correctly...
Well, it expands the whole covered area across all screens to all screens. Whether or not that is "correct" is a matter of opinion. I do grant that it does glitch if you try to magnify the areas that don't correspond to visible screen space.
But then I'd like to see an improvement in how all systems handle multiple displays. Maybe I don't want them docked right next to each other in memory. Maybe I want a gap between them to account for the bezel. Maybe I want them to overlap so that part of a display can be the same as the S-Video out going to the TV or NTSC recorder. Even better if I can reposition their relative positions on the fly without having to go into a control panel. And maybe I want the system to realize that the two displays have different dpi, so games should render in one with more or less detail than the other. Only Linux comes closest to this level of functionality.
"After intensive investigation, comma, of the markings on the alien pod, comma, it has become clear, comma, to me, comma, that we are dealing, comma, with a species of awesome intellect, colon."
"Good. Perhaps they might be able to give you a hand with your punctuation."
If I don't want to see you internet access to a given site, well, that's my right under free market principles. If you don't like it, find another provider.
The goal being de facto censorship by pressuring all ISPs to filter. If an ISP won't filter, you organize a boycott coupled with a shame campaign so that not only do they lose the people who actively boycott, but also people who don't want to be labeled as a pervert for staying. That leaves just the perverts. And then once you have all the perverts using one ISP, you hit it with a raid, seize the user records, and bust all their users, wiping out that ISP.
"The Rangers say that many refugee ships fleeing the war have been heading toward this area of space because so far, it hasn't been attacked!"
"That's interesting. What if they wanted to drive the refugees into one area, corral them? Make it easier to hit them all at once?"
"Could be. The effect would be devastating, demoralizing!"
"That could be their intent. Maybe this is as much about terror as it is about territory! When we've had wars back home, sometimes one side would leave a, a few areas of enemy territory undamaged. That way you'd get maximum results when you finally hit them with something big! Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden, San Diego!"
"They could be doing the same thing here! Drawing in thousands of ships, escorts, and refugees from a dozen worlds in preparation for a major offensive!"
But it's different from, say, Star Trek: Voyager, which had its share of deus ex machina moments
Warp Particles! Intelligent Deuterium Ore!
Makes you long for someone reversing the polarity of the neutron flow, making the Kessel Run in less than twelve parsecs, or being lightyears ahead of one's time.
And the symbols on the Stargate first being constellations as seen from Earth with other gates having symbols relating to their constellations, then to all gates having the same symbols except for the point-of-origin symbol, to the symbols actually being pronounceable in the ancients' language and a planet's future fate being predicted by its location and what the symbols spell (Proclarush Taonas, "lost in fire") (though more likely coined to mean that after its fate, like the verb "to burke" coined after the name of murderer William Burke (1792-1829)), to the gates in the Pegasus galaxy having completely different symbols than found in the Milky Way and again resembling constellations, but don't spin or change position. Gates in the Asgard home galaxy (of which we've seen only one) have symbols like Milky Way gates.
All one can say about gates in the Ori galaxy is that the supergates they build in the Milky Way don't appear to have symbols, yet can also be dialed in extreme conditions by Pegasus gates.
Actually, not all of the Star Trek animated series is considered retconned. IIRC, two things survive as canon, one of them being the story of Spock's childhood (though not necessarily the adult Spock's interference). I don't recall what the other was, thus the "IIRC".
absolutely nothing is the same between the SG1/Atlantis and the Infinity universe - with the exception of the gate and a few sound effects.
And they couldn't even get that right, making it seem like every time you went through the gate you got shot with a Zat'nik'tel. (Didn't even the Tlak'kahn staff weapons sound like Zats?) And don't get me started on them having gates that would have from 5 to 10 chevron locks on them, the number changing with the viewing angle of the same gate, and DHDs that dialed like a rotary telephone.
I find from time to time I try to click to open a file and the Windows GUI thinks I want to rename it - incredibly annoying.
Here's something that works for me for both Windows and Mac OS: if I want to open or select a file, I do my clicks the icon; if I want to rename a file, I click the name.
Anyone not familiar with apple peculiarities would assume "enter" would open the file with the associated application.
And thus would quickly discover that it renames files.
That someone familiar with Windows where, apparently, Enter opens files, would not discover this strains credulity.
Do Windows users regularly hit function keys in every application searching for command bindings?
Meanwhile, Command-O is advertised under the File menu as opening files in every application, including the Finder. So, is there a non-movie example of how "ribbons" work on Vista? I'd like to see how they advertise keyboard command bindings.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe not, but I have found myself wondering of late how I have a number of peripherals that are useful to me on several computers, yet I'd rather not have to unplug them from one to put into the other. Notably, my USB webcam, my USB printer, and my USB memory stick reader.
I just use my USB-enabled KVM switch. I just have to be careful when switching whether any of the devices are currently in use.
This USB switch (if I can call it that) would be great if it has enough intelligence to accurately track whether a device is already in use vs. when it is idle and switchable so I don't have to worry about mounted volumes suddenly disappearing (esp. during writes) or scanners or printers disappearing in the middle of jobs. Even better if its logic could be incorporated into a KVM.
Of course, devices that are USB just for the power don't matter.
What happened to the protections under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986? The ECPA is supposed to prohibit unlawful access and certain disclosures of electronic communication contents and prevents government entities from requiring disclosure of electronic communications from a provider without proper procedure.
Did it suddenly get repealed or gutted by amendments?
Oh, I understand it perfectly: "Anything that I can see unaided is not private. Anything I can see with aid of a device was never private."
When it comes to privacy, the government is a kleptomaniac.
If it is as you say that the message count per page can be exceeded by a long thread and threads are never split between pages (whole threads are reported on the same page as their roots, be it the only or last thread on the page), then a patch could be to not thread back from post 51 on page 2 but thread forward from 51 to the next thread and start the page there. It wouldn't eliminate duplicate pages if a thread was longer than the jump index, but I think that would keep threads from falling between pages.
That's the curse of Slashdot. You can make a hurried post that will make it to the upper area of the thread, or you can spend your time making a well-thought out post, and see it wallow in obscurity at post #1990999 in the thread.
There's worse: having your posting buried between pages because the first post on the first page is also the first post on the second and third pages. (I prefer to read in Nested mode.)
I thought that the real time strategy game for PC was the sequel. It was distributed by MGM Interactive.
I saw it on the shelf at Best Buy, didn't buy it, probably for the best. Licensed games tend to suck.
Still, I wonder if they would release it for free download to promote the new movie or bury it and hope people forget about it.
Bad analogy(*). Adequate safety barriers are required in modern bridge design and their failure would not be at issue if the driver was intent on driving off the bridge.
(*) Why is it always a car analogy?
Nintendo produces games like bowling and baseball where people are making throwing motions with the (motion sensing) remote. Are they really amazed that it could slip from a person's hand and go flying?
You know, the XaviX(*) system uses controllers that you swing toward the screen for bowling, baseball, tennis, and golf.
And I did think that it was rather crazy that they show people swinging miniature bowling balls, baseball bats, tennis rackets, and golf clubs in the direction of plasma TVs in their TV ads. That was my very first thought on seeing the ads.
I haven't heard any reports of people actually damaging their equipment with those game systems. Maybe they have better restraint systems, but I doubt that's why. I'd bet that either the XaviX systems aren't as popular amongst the accident prone or that Nintendo just has deeper pockets (or both).
(*) Site uses Flash over substance.
One, transparent encryption is still under development for ZFS, and two, encryption is only good for data that needs to be confidential in the relatively short term. Anything for which you really need total deniability in perpetuity, encryption is insufficient to protect you.
Meh, every sitting US President gets Man/Person of the Year at least once.
Then why put it in the passport?
Anyway, it isn't hard to see why:
Wouldn't that pose a problem for mmap?
I think it would pose a problem for secure deletes. Try to obliterate a file by overwriting it with garbage, you end up writing somewhere else instead? Would the next overwrite attempt get the original location or would you have to write enough garbage to cycle over all the free space of the volume? Considering how large these volumes can get, that's a lot of boiled oceans for a multi-pass secure delete.
There are things in the world that require actual secrecy. It's useful to have the codes to launch the missiles be secret. But that doesn't mean it has to be secret that you have nuclear missiles. In fact, it's the kind of thing one might want to know in order to decide if one likes the government that they elect in a supposedly informed way.
"Of course, the whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost if you keep it a secret!" -- Dr. Strangelove
Whether or not F2 to rename a file "makes sense" is rather a silly argument (does F7 for spell check make sense? we all seem to have learned that one).
F7 does a spell check? Wh-- what does an operating system need with a spelling checker?
Another hit of Return/Enter gets out of renaming mode by renaming the file to itself. Also, Escape will cancel the rename operation. Also, if you'd intended to open it, Command-O (or any other Command-key operation) would also cancel the rename operation.
Apart from the operation expense argument, generally, someone using the mouse to select a file isn't likely to want to use the keyboard to open a file, but will use the keyboard to rename a file. Further. Enter/Return is along the path a right-handed mouse user will be moving his hand to get it to the keyboard. (Left-handed mouse users and touchpad users tend to already have the right hand near the Return key.)
If your hands are already keyboard bound and you are opening a file, Command-O is uniformly Open across all properly designed Macintosh applications since the original Mac 128K already and another binding for that operation is not needed. So why not have Return/Enter start a rename operation when it already finishes one?
It makes more sense than going to the Start menu to shutdown.
That is only for web browser. On a mac Control-Wheel enlarge the whole screen, whatever the applicaiton you use is.
Not a very nice feature (could have been better graphically),
I like it better than the options I see under Windows: drag a large magnifier around or have another window in a corner magnifying your mouse. Hopefully what you want magnified doesn't need to be rendered bigger than the magnifying glass or isn't obscured by the magnified-view window. Expanding to the whole screen is much more preferable.
Or do you mean that it smooths out the magnification, not giving fatter square pixels with delineations between them?
the shortcut is too easy (it is something you seldom want) but can be changed.
I have yet to accidentally trigger it. Macs bind commands to the Command key; Control is for modifying operations. Which is why Control-Scroll in Firefox on Linux and Windows is so damn annoying to me: I keep triggering it when I really just want to scroll the in-page search results up for more context.
Biggest issue is that it doesn't support multiple monitors correctly...
Well, it expands the whole covered area across all screens to all screens. Whether or not that is "correct" is a matter of opinion. I do grant that it does glitch if you try to magnify the areas that don't correspond to visible screen space.
But then I'd like to see an improvement in how all systems handle multiple displays. Maybe I don't want them docked right next to each other in memory. Maybe I want a gap between them to account for the bezel. Maybe I want them to overlap so that part of a display can be the same as the S-Video out going to the TV or NTSC recorder. Even better if I can reposition their relative positions on the fly without having to go into a control panel. And maybe I want the system to realize that the two displays have different dpi, so games should render in one with more or less detail than the other. Only Linux comes closest to this level of functionality.
The goal being de facto censorship by pressuring all ISPs to filter. If an ISP won't filter, you organize a boycott coupled with a shame campaign so that not only do they lose the people who actively boycott, but also people who don't want to be labeled as a pervert for staying. That leaves just the perverts. And then once you have all the perverts using one ISP, you hit it with a raid, seize the user records, and bust all their users, wiping out that ISP.
But it's different from, say, Star Trek: Voyager, which had its share of deus ex machina moments
Warp Particles! Intelligent Deuterium Ore!
Makes you long for someone reversing the polarity of the neutron flow, making the Kessel Run in less than twelve parsecs, or being lightyears ahead of one's time.
And the symbols on the Stargate first being constellations as seen from Earth with other gates having symbols relating to their constellations, then to all gates having the same symbols except for the point-of-origin symbol, to the symbols actually being pronounceable in the ancients' language and a planet's future fate being predicted by its location and what the symbols spell (Proclarush Taonas, "lost in fire") (though more likely coined to mean that after its fate, like the verb "to burke" coined after the name of murderer William Burke (1792-1829)), to the gates in the Pegasus galaxy having completely different symbols than found in the Milky Way and again resembling constellations, but don't spin or change position. Gates in the Asgard home galaxy (of which we've seen only one) have symbols like Milky Way gates.
All one can say about gates in the Ori galaxy is that the supergates they build in the Milky Way don't appear to have symbols, yet can also be dialed in extreme conditions by Pegasus gates.
Actually, not all of the Star Trek animated series is considered retconned. IIRC, two things survive as canon, one of them being the story of Spock's childhood (though not necessarily the adult Spock's interference). I don't recall what the other was, thus the "IIRC".
absolutely nothing is the same between the SG1/Atlantis and the Infinity universe - with the exception of the gate and a few sound effects.
And they couldn't even get that right, making it seem like every time you went through the gate you got shot with a Zat'nik'tel. (Didn't even the Tlak'kahn staff weapons sound like Zats?) And don't get me started on them having gates that would have from 5 to 10 chevron locks on them, the number changing with the viewing angle of the same gate, and DHDs that dialed like a rotary telephone.
I find from time to time I try to click to open a file and the Windows GUI thinks I want to rename it - incredibly annoying.
Here's something that works for me for both Windows and Mac OS: if I want to open or select a file, I do my clicks the icon; if I want to rename a file, I click the name.
Anyone not familiar with apple peculiarities would assume "enter" would open the file with the associated application.
And thus would quickly discover that it renames files.
That someone familiar with Windows where, apparently, Enter opens files, would not discover this strains credulity.
Do Windows users regularly hit function keys in every application searching for command bindings?
Meanwhile, Command-O is advertised under the File menu as opening files in every application, including the Finder. So, is there a non-movie example of how "ribbons" work on Vista? I'd like to see how they advertise keyboard command bindings.