This would probably also be a good time to remind people of Semacode, previously discussed on Slashdot. It combines using 2D barcodes with common handheld devices (phones, PDAs, etc.).
Basically, it serves the same purpose as simple RFID tags: it lets you put up to a few thousand bits of information anywhere. You could, of course, easily use that for exchanging security keys, etc.
Note that this works both ways: modern phones also can display barcodes, which are then read by cameras (e.g., used for bill payment in Japan).
The problem with capital punishment are that (1) it's irreversible, and (2) it is dangerous to give governments that kind of power. The economic costs resulting from these two properties of capital punishment are probably enormous. The first means that you need a complex judiciary and review process (and, in fact, executions seem to be more expensive than life imprisonment). The second means that it creates a serious risk that governments become totalitarian.
I suspect the evidentiary situation for virus writers is even hazier than for your average murder, so capital punishment would, on balance, probably be worse.
Incidentally, there is an easy way to avoid paying a high cost for the effects of viruses: don't let them infect your systems in the first place. And that's easy: keep them patched and up-to-date. So, while virus writing isn't nice, I think people whose systems get infected are contributing to the damage through their negligence. By comparison, while stealing cars is illegal, if you leave your car unlocked and running with the key in the ignition and it gets stolen, you won't get much sympathy from either the police or your insurance company.
IR is already in widespread use, supported by many phones and most PDAs, and very cheap. Furthermore, you can make it as "near field" as you like simply by where you place the emitter. And unlike any RF technology, IR data can be shielded easily in real-world settings.
We have had these kinds of integrated, extensible systems: Smalltalk-80, Lisp, and others. And we have had the same tired, old arguments against UNIX since its original design (you can read up on them in the UNIX Hater's Handbook). Smalltalk-80 and Lisp didn't fail because there was some grand conspiracy against them, they failed because people voted with their feet.
Most real-world programmers apparently just want to put up a bunch of dialog boxes and windows, interact with the user a little, and interact with a database. They don't want to extend the programming tools or language or modify the optimizer, they want it to just do what they need it to do. And if it doesn't do what they need it to do, they just pick a different language and environment and don't go on a crusade to develop zillions of plug-ins and modifications. Programmers stick with text files not because they believe that they are the best representation, but because they actually work pretty much everywhere.
Some of the changes Wilson advocates are happening. That's not surprising, given that the features he advocates have been around for decades and many people are familiar with them. But they are happening in an incremental way and people pick and choose carefully which aspects of Lisp and Smalltalk-80 they like and which ones they don't. For example, you can get versions of GNU C that output interface definitions in XML format. IBM VisualAge maintains Java sources inside databases (not text files) and permits incremental recompilation. Many Java development environments have plug-in architectures. Many editors now permit structure-based editing operations ("refactoring") and display "styled" source code, using the raw ASCII text just as a formal (non-XML) representation of the program structure. Aspect-oriented programming adds a great deal of extensibility to languages like C++ and Java. On the other hand, general-purpose macros are out--language designers made deliberate decisions not to include them in Java, C#, and similar languages.
Altogether, it looks to me like Wilson is merely restating what is already happening and combining that with a good dose of UNIX hatred. If he would like the industry to move in a different direction, there is a simple way of doing that: he should implement what he thinks needs to be done. I think an XML-based programming language (and several have been proposed) has about as much chance at flying as a lead balloon, but, hey, surprise us.
If this is a single camera, optics will limit its resolution. Furthermore, you don't need to engage in heroics for the scanning--film resolution itself is sufficiently limited that a regular film scanner will be able to capture far more resolution than the film actually contains detail.
If you want really high resolution images, your best bet at this point is to use digital cameras and panoramic software. That approach will get you into the gigapixel range, and it will be cheaper and less hassle as well.
But according to Forbes, IBM has a broader agenda--undermining Bill Gates' company in the battle for a new $21 billion market for Web-linked software.
I don't get where this "but" is coming from. Of course, it is part of a battle for web-linked software. Linux is about open standards, multiple sources, and interoperability, and a big part of that is web-linked software. Windows is about buying everything from a single company in order to make it possible for it to work together.
Talking about "Kill Bill" makes it sound as if it's personal, motivated by envy or hatred, but it is not. Open, interoperable, open source, standard systems are good for users and customers. "Bill" can remove himself from the IBM crosshairs easily by supporting those.
Safe and secure Because it's built on Open Source standards, Mac OS X provides you with time-tested security and reliability not available on proprietary systems.
Both the statement and the reasoning are wrong. Security is a property of the whole system, not something you can implement at one level and then forget about it. The existence of all the stuff that Apple adds on top of a UNIX-like base system (the user interface, Netinfo, fancy file abstractions, NeXTStep libraries, HFS+, Quartz, OS 9 emulation, Macintosh package system, etc.) mean that you can trust OS X much less than a traditional UNIX system.
It seems that a lot of really nifty things (the mouse, the desktop, and apparently Graffiti) were developed at Xerox, and never produced. Then someone else says "wow, that's stunning" and makes millions off of it. Its not like Xerox lacks the resources to go after these things, more like the ambition.
Making a successful product is hard. Keep in mind that Apple failed as badly as Xerox itself with their first copycat version (Lisa) of Xerox technology.
As for Graffiti/Unistrokes, that really wasn't patentable because there was too much prior art (it wasn't invented at Xerox either). Xerox's real contribution was the PARCTab, a very Palm-like device that the Pilot is a pretty blatant clone of.
There is nothing that can be done about that legally, and that's not necessarily a bad thing. What you can do is keep the history of products in mind: celebrate the original inventors. Don't misattribute things to Microsoft, Apple, Palm, or whoever, that were invented elsewhere.
My understanding of the algorithm is that Xerox devides the Graffiti area into 9 ``blocks.'' The recognition algorithm tracks which block the stylus starts in, the end block, and the blocks through which the stylus travels. The recognition is fast and accurate, because each letter is simply an encoding of (start, end, intermediate blocks).
That recognition algorithm (and numerous variants of it) goes back to the 1960's and has been described in standard textbooks and papers (one example is the Ledeen recognizer, discussed here).
It is also not what Xerox patented. The Xerox patent is not about the recognition algorithm, it is about having the writer indicate when one character ends and another one starts; one instance of that approach is to use a single stroke for each character.
In fact, many recognizers using this old algorithm happened to also be unistroke recognizers--it's an obvious idea--which is probably why the unistroke patent got thrown out, and that's a good thing.
Palm copied PARC's Graffiti alphabet because the algorithm was so elegant.
If only they had, but unfortunately, Palm did not copy PARC's Unistroke alphabet. Unistroke is a much more effective alphabet than Graffiti 1 or Graffiti 2 and not significantly harder to learn.
Keep in mind that Xerox had a Palm-like device several years before Palm, complete with networking. Furthermore, the original Palm technical staff apparently knew the PARCTab work quite well. With their patent, Xerox was effectively trying to protect some of their pioneering work in this area, but they failed. That's not necessarily bad, since bad patents may be overall worse than no patents at all.
But keep the history of this in mind: Palm invented very little of what they are shipping. And, to this day, judging by their nearly non-existent publication record, Palm seems to be doing little or no research. Places like Xerox PARC are in trouble, while Palm has more than half of the handheld market. If companies like Palm keep building businesses on other people's ideas but don't invest in research, who is left to pay for the research?
You make it sound as if this is something that people are doing to Apple or that is like a natural disaster.
It is not. If any manufacturer ships software with security holes, it is that manufacturer's choice: they are trading off security against faster shipment and better (=more expensive) software engineering practices.
And the public relations fallout is also Apple's responsibility: it is, after all, Apple that positioned their system in their paid ads as supposedly "more secure".
[electric vehicles produce CO2] Actually, no, they don't.
You seem to have trouble with the English language. The statement "Electric vehicles produce CO2." does not mean the same thing as "Electric vehicles must necessarily and always produce CO2."
But since understanding English in context seems difficult for you, let me spell it out for you: "If you live in the US and replace a fuel-efficient gasoline powered automobile with an electric passenger vehicle of equivalent carrying capacity and maximum speed and you charge the electric vehicle through the public power grid, with high probability, you will increase the amount of CO2 that you generate by using that vehicle for equivalent numbers of miles driven."
Bzzzzz.
Are you also suffering from Tourette's?
Re:Contrast with Mosaic circa 1994
on
Mozilla's Mini-Me
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
HTML4, JavaScript, plug-ins, anti-aliasing, DOM, internationalization, dealing with incorrect HTML and backwards compatibility all make Mozilla as big as it is.
Furthermore, you can get quick release cycles or careful coding, but not both. Most desktop software (Windows, OS X, Gnome, KDE, etc.) is developed and optimized only as much as is needed to make it run on current hardware.
When looking at Mozilla's memory footprint, also keep in mind that most people run it with significant in-memory caching.
A "troll" is a posting that does not actually represent the posters opinion and instead is designed merely to elicit an angry response. How is someone's statement that "A Beautiful Mind" was a good/accurate movie a "troll"?
People like you, who call everything they don't like or agree with a "troll" really kill thoughtful discussion. If you disagree with the story or statement, respond to it, don't moderate it out of existence.
Once we start using the CO2 producing vehicles, we'll have more screams about global warming blah blah blah.
Ummm--both internal combustion engines and electric vehicles produce CO2, and, yes, that is a serious problem for global warming. Electric vehicles hold the promise that the CO2 that is produced can be sequestered rather than released into the atmosphere.
Now, if you'll pardon me, I'm going down to get a grease burger at McDonalds
Please make it a triple grease burger--you'll kill yourself faster that way.
in my 1962 Buick Invicta that has NO polution controls. MU-HAHA HAHAHAHA!
Fortunately, there are so few of those clunkers left that it isn't a big pollution problem anymore. Otherwise, voters would get rid of them.
The reason for using electric vehicles right now is not that they consume less energy, it's that they pollute less at the location where they are used. That's important because cities have real air quality problems, and that's a reason why so many cities use electric vehicles.
In the long term, electric or hydrogen powered vehicles also have the potential advantage that whatever CO2 is generated during energy production can be sequestered away, rather than being released into the atmosphere. Also, once you have switched to electric or hydrogen, you have a much wider choice of energy sources (e.g., solar becomes an option; it isn't if you burn gasoline).
Maybe so, but you don't always have a choice where you work.
But you can live close to where you work, pretty much wherever your work happens to be. Moving in order to reduce the commute, use bicycles, or use public transportation is often a reasonable (and possibly money-saving) option.
That flash plugin installed fine and I wasn't logged in as root.
Well, it sounds like you may have installed the plugin through the Linux distribution's installer. That does usually work without problems.
I guess it's possible I gave my root pass to another installer a little earlier and it cached the password.
Linux installers under Gnome and KDE may cache your permission to act as an Administrator for a few minutes (deliberately), but they don't actually keep the plain password around to do so (they don't have to).
If you can get rid of your card, that's great and it will save you money (keep in mind that you also can always rent something if you need it). But I wouldn't fixate on trying to get rid of the car.
It is probably more important in the short term to reduce fuel consumption, traffic, and congestion. You can do that by buying a more fuel efficient car and by living closer to work. Smaller cars tend to be more fuel efficient, are easier to park, and should also help a little with congestion. I wouldn't even limit myself to hybrids--there are a number of gasoline cars that are more fuel efficient and cheaper, and I'm not convinced that, at this point, the environmental impact of hybrids is actually better than of a fuel-efficient gasoline car.
It's better if people start taking practical smaller steps now than if they keep waiting for some big technological fix.
You have a choice where you live, and it is often possible to live within bicycle distance of work. With the money you save on a car each year, you come out ahead even if it costs a little more. Fortunately, many of the areas with computer jobs (Boston, New York, Bay Area, etc.) have good public transportation.
Let's face it, Windows still has 95% of the desktop market.
Market share is irrelevant when commercial and non-commercial systems are competing. Linux could be the most widely-used desktop operating system and Windows could still have 95% of the "desktop market".
It seems rather implausible that Windows really has 95% of the desktop market, or, in fact, has ever had 95% of the desktop market. Many desktop machines inside corporations, research labs, and schools are UNIX workstations and X terminals. And even desktops that are nominally runing Windows are, in reality, little more than mainframe terminals, X11 servers, and/or web browsers.
I haven't had this problem at all. I have it installed in/home/mike/apps/firefox/. I did have to 'su root' to compile and install java, but otherwise it works fine logged in as a regular user.
You have had exactly this problem.
The way it is supposed to work is that if there is a plugin you don't have (Java, Flash, whatever), you click on the icon representing it and you get taken to a site where you should be able to have an automatic install performed.
If you do that with Firefox on Linux, it downloads the plugin and does something, but you still don't get a working Java or Flash. The same is true for many other plugins and extensions (pie menus, mouse gestures, tab extensions, etc.). With Thunderbird, it's not even clear how to install extensions.
What is supposed to happen is that the plugins and extensions get installed automatically in your home directory. And if the install fails, one should get an informative error message, rather than just just having nothing happen.
(Did you really compile Java? Which one? If you downloaded Sun Java source code, you are basically banned for life from most open source Java projects because the agreement you had to enter into in order to get source access is incompatible with open source projects.)
I'm all for shipping lean applications--not so much because of storage--plugins are usually small--but because it confuses new users less.
The problem I have is that installing plugins over the web for Firefox or Thunderbird is non-trivial, at least on Linux. I haven't been able to get Java to work at all on recent versions. And in order to get any of the "automatic installs" to work, I have to run the browser as root; installing stuff in the user's home directory doesn't work. I haven't figured out at all how to get Thunderbird plugins to work.
Part of the problem seems to be related to the browsers themselves, part of the problem seems to be with the plugins and extensions themselves.
One extension also wiped out my complete bookmark file, even though it wasn't even bookmark related.
Downloading extensions over the web also raises lots of security issues and versioning problems.
If these browsers are going to ship lean-and-mean, then their web-based install features must work correctly, for regular users, on all platforms, and securely.
Since Firefox and Thunderbird still seem to be far from that state, it would probably be better to include most reasonably stable and moderately sized plug-ins with each release for now, but to disable them. That way, novice users don't get confused, but experienced users don't have the hassles and worries of web-based installs.
Slashdot Mirror
This would probably also be a good time to remind people of Semacode, previously discussed on Slashdot. It combines using 2D barcodes with common handheld devices (phones, PDAs, etc.).
Basically, it serves the same purpose as simple RFID tags: it lets you put up to a few thousand bits of information anywhere. You could, of course, easily use that for exchanging security keys, etc.
Note that this works both ways: modern phones also can display barcodes, which are then read by cameras (e.g., used for bill payment in Japan).
RFID tags would be much cheaper and smaller. I don't think you'd be able to embed an IR transmitter easily into a poster.
Why not? You can probably get it down fairly easily to the size of a quarter.
The problem with capital punishment are that (1) it's irreversible, and (2) it is dangerous to give governments that kind of power. The economic costs resulting from these two properties of capital punishment are probably enormous. The first means that you need a complex judiciary and review process (and, in fact, executions seem to be more expensive than life imprisonment). The second means that it creates a serious risk that governments become totalitarian.
I suspect the evidentiary situation for virus writers is even hazier than for your average murder, so capital punishment would, on balance, probably be worse.
Incidentally, there is an easy way to avoid paying a high cost for the effects of viruses: don't let them infect your systems in the first place. And that's easy: keep them patched and up-to-date. So, while virus writing isn't nice, I think people whose systems get infected are contributing to the damage through their negligence. By comparison, while stealing cars is illegal, if you leave your car unlocked and running with the key in the ignition and it gets stolen, you won't get much sympathy from either the police or your insurance company.
IR is already in widespread use, supported by many phones and most PDAs, and very cheap. Furthermore, you can make it as "near field" as you like simply by where you place the emitter. And unlike any RF technology, IR data can be shielded easily in real-world settings.
We have had these kinds of integrated, extensible systems: Smalltalk-80, Lisp, and others. And we have had the same tired, old arguments against UNIX since its original design (you can read up on them in the UNIX Hater's Handbook). Smalltalk-80 and Lisp didn't fail because there was some grand conspiracy against them, they failed because people voted with their feet.
Most real-world programmers apparently just want to put up a bunch of dialog boxes and windows, interact with the user a little, and interact with a database. They don't want to extend the programming tools or language or modify the optimizer, they want it to just do what they need it to do. And if it doesn't do what they need it to do, they just pick a different language and environment and don't go on a crusade to develop zillions of plug-ins and modifications. Programmers stick with text files not because they believe that they are the best representation, but because they actually work pretty much everywhere.
Some of the changes Wilson advocates are happening. That's not surprising, given that the features he advocates have been around for decades and many people are familiar with them. But they are happening in an incremental way and people pick and choose carefully which aspects of Lisp and Smalltalk-80 they like and which ones they don't. For example, you can get versions of GNU C that output interface definitions in XML format. IBM VisualAge maintains Java sources inside databases (not text files) and permits incremental recompilation. Many Java development environments have plug-in architectures. Many editors now permit structure-based editing operations ("refactoring") and display "styled" source code, using the raw ASCII text just as a formal (non-XML) representation of the program structure. Aspect-oriented programming adds a great deal of extensibility to languages like C++ and Java. On the other hand, general-purpose macros are out--language designers made deliberate decisions not to include them in Java, C#, and similar languages.
Altogether, it looks to me like Wilson is merely restating what is already happening and combining that with a good dose of UNIX hatred. If he would like the industry to move in a different direction, there is a simple way of doing that: he should implement what he thinks needs to be done. I think an XML-based programming language (and several have been proposed) has about as much chance at flying as a lead balloon, but, hey, surprise us.
If this is a single camera, optics will limit its resolution. Furthermore, you don't need to engage in heroics for the scanning--film resolution itself is sufficiently limited that a regular film scanner will be able to capture far more resolution than the film actually contains detail.
If you want really high resolution images, your best bet at this point is to use digital cameras and panoramic software. That approach will get you into the gigapixel range, and it will be cheaper and less hassle as well.
But according to Forbes, IBM has a broader agenda--undermining Bill Gates' company in the battle for a new $21 billion market for Web-linked software.
I don't get where this "but" is coming from. Of course, it is part of a battle for web-linked software. Linux is about open standards, multiple sources, and interoperability, and a big part of that is web-linked software. Windows is about buying everything from a single company in order to make it possible for it to work together.
Talking about "Kill Bill" makes it sound as if it's personal, motivated by envy or hatred, but it is not. Open, interoperable, open source, standard systems are good for users and customers. "Bill" can remove himself from the IBM crosshairs easily by supporting those.
Both the statement and the reasoning are wrong. Security is a property of the whole system, not something you can implement at one level and then forget about it. The existence of all the stuff that Apple adds on top of a UNIX-like base system (the user interface, Netinfo, fancy file abstractions, NeXTStep libraries, HFS+, Quartz, OS 9 emulation, Macintosh package system, etc.) mean that you can trust OS X much less than a traditional UNIX system.
It seems that a lot of really nifty things (the mouse, the desktop, and apparently Graffiti) were developed at Xerox, and never produced. Then someone else says "wow, that's stunning" and makes millions off of it. Its not like Xerox lacks the resources to go after these things, more like the ambition.
Making a successful product is hard. Keep in mind that Apple failed as badly as Xerox itself with their first copycat version (Lisa) of Xerox technology.
As for Graffiti/Unistrokes, that really wasn't patentable because there was too much prior art (it wasn't invented at Xerox either). Xerox's real contribution was the PARCTab, a very Palm-like device that the Pilot is a pretty blatant clone of.
There is nothing that can be done about that legally, and that's not necessarily a bad thing. What you can do is keep the history of products in mind: celebrate the original inventors. Don't misattribute things to Microsoft, Apple, Palm, or whoever, that were invented elsewhere.
You are wrong on several counts.
My understanding of the algorithm is that Xerox devides the Graffiti area into 9 ``blocks.'' The recognition algorithm tracks which block the stylus starts in, the end block, and the blocks through which the stylus travels. The recognition is fast and accurate, because each letter is simply an encoding of (start, end, intermediate blocks).
That recognition algorithm (and numerous variants of it) goes back to the 1960's and has been described in standard textbooks and papers (one example is the Ledeen recognizer, discussed here).
It is also not what Xerox patented. The Xerox patent is not about the recognition algorithm, it is about having the writer indicate when one character ends and another one starts; one instance of that approach is to use a single stroke for each character.
In fact, many recognizers using this old algorithm happened to also be unistroke recognizers--it's an obvious idea--which is probably why the unistroke patent got thrown out, and that's a good thing.
Palm copied PARC's Graffiti alphabet because the algorithm was so elegant.
If only they had, but unfortunately, Palm did not copy PARC's Unistroke alphabet. Unistroke is a much more effective alphabet than Graffiti 1 or Graffiti 2 and not significantly harder to learn.
Keep in mind that Xerox had a Palm-like device several years before Palm, complete with networking. Furthermore, the original Palm technical staff apparently knew the PARCTab work quite well. With their patent, Xerox was effectively trying to protect some of their pioneering work in this area, but they failed. That's not necessarily bad, since bad patents may be overall worse than no patents at all.
But keep the history of this in mind: Palm invented very little of what they are shipping. And, to this day, judging by their nearly non-existent publication record, Palm seems to be doing little or no research. Places like Xerox PARC are in trouble, while Palm has more than half of the handheld market. If companies like Palm keep building businesses on other people's ideas but don't invest in research, who is left to pay for the research?
Apple just can't get any breaks lately.
You make it sound as if this is something that people are doing to Apple or that is like a natural disaster.
It is not. If any manufacturer ships software with security holes, it is that manufacturer's choice: they are trading off security against faster shipment and better (=more expensive) software engineering practices.
And the public relations fallout is also Apple's responsibility: it is, after all, Apple that positioned their system in their paid ads as supposedly "more secure".
[electric vehicles produce CO2] Actually, no, they don't.
You seem to have trouble with the English language. The statement "Electric vehicles produce CO2." does not mean the same thing as "Electric vehicles must necessarily and always produce CO2."
But since understanding English in context seems difficult for you, let me spell it out for you: "If you live in the US and replace a fuel-efficient gasoline powered automobile with an electric passenger vehicle of equivalent carrying capacity and maximum speed and you charge the electric vehicle through the public power grid, with high probability, you will increase the amount of CO2 that you generate by using that vehicle for equivalent numbers of miles driven."
Bzzzzz.
Are you also suffering from Tourette's?
HTML4, JavaScript, plug-ins, anti-aliasing, DOM, internationalization, dealing with incorrect HTML and backwards compatibility all make Mozilla as big as it is.
Furthermore, you can get quick release cycles or careful coding, but not both. Most desktop software (Windows, OS X, Gnome, KDE, etc.) is developed and optimized only as much as is needed to make it run on current hardware.
When looking at Mozilla's memory footprint, also keep in mind that most people run it with significant in-memory caching.
... but will this browser be able to do anything that my current Opera install cannot?
Yes: it will be able to be modified freely, ported to more platforms, and incorporated into open source software.
How do you mark an article submission as "Troll"?
A "troll" is a posting that does not actually represent the posters opinion and instead is designed merely to elicit an angry response. How is someone's statement that "A Beautiful Mind" was a good/accurate movie a "troll"?
People like you, who call everything they don't like or agree with a "troll" really kill thoughtful discussion. If you disagree with the story or statement, respond to it, don't moderate it out of existence.
Once we start using the CO2 producing vehicles, we'll have more screams about global warming blah blah blah.
Ummm--both internal combustion engines and electric vehicles produce CO2, and, yes, that is a serious problem for global warming. Electric vehicles hold the promise that the CO2 that is produced can be sequestered rather than released into the atmosphere.
Now, if you'll pardon me, I'm going down to get a grease burger at McDonalds
Please make it a triple grease burger--you'll kill yourself faster that way.
in my 1962 Buick Invicta that has NO polution controls. MU-HAHA HAHAHAHA!
Fortunately, there are so few of those clunkers left that it isn't a big pollution problem anymore. Otherwise, voters would get rid of them.
The reason for using electric vehicles right now is not that they consume less energy, it's that they pollute less at the location where they are used. That's important because cities have real air quality problems, and that's a reason why so many cities use electric vehicles.
In the long term, electric or hydrogen powered vehicles also have the potential advantage that whatever CO2 is generated during energy production can be sequestered away, rather than being released into the atmosphere. Also, once you have switched to electric or hydrogen, you have a much wider choice of energy sources (e.g., solar becomes an option; it isn't if you burn gasoline).
Maybe so, but you don't always have a choice where you work.
But you can live close to where you work, pretty much wherever your work happens to be. Moving in order to reduce the commute, use bicycles, or use public transportation is often a reasonable (and possibly money-saving) option.
I don't think moving is what the OP had in mind.
That's exactly the reason I mentioned it.
That flash plugin installed fine and I wasn't logged in as root.
Well, it sounds like you may have installed the plugin through the Linux distribution's installer. That does usually work without problems.
I guess it's possible I gave my root pass to another installer a little earlier and it cached the password.
Linux installers under Gnome and KDE may cache your permission to act as an Administrator for a few minutes (deliberately), but they don't actually keep the plain password around to do so (they don't have to).
If you can get rid of your card, that's great and it will save you money (keep in mind that you also can always rent something if you need it). But I wouldn't fixate on trying to get rid of the car.
It is probably more important in the short term to reduce fuel consumption, traffic, and congestion. You can do that by buying a more fuel efficient car and by living closer to work. Smaller cars tend to be more fuel efficient, are easier to park, and should also help a little with congestion. I wouldn't even limit myself to hybrids--there are a number of gasoline cars that are more fuel efficient and cheaper, and I'm not convinced that, at this point, the environmental impact of hybrids is actually better than of a fuel-efficient gasoline car.
It's better if people start taking practical smaller steps now than if they keep waiting for some big technological fix.
You have a choice where you live, and it is often possible to live within bicycle distance of work. With the money you save on a car each year, you come out ahead even if it costs a little more. Fortunately, many of the areas with computer jobs (Boston, New York, Bay Area, etc.) have good public transportation.
Well, it has never worked for me, on either Debian or SuSE. Are you sure you aren't talking about Windows? It does work on Windows.
Let's face it, Windows still has 95% of the desktop market.
Market share is irrelevant when commercial and non-commercial systems are competing. Linux could be the most widely-used desktop operating system and Windows could still have 95% of the "desktop market".
It seems rather implausible that Windows really has 95% of the desktop market, or, in fact, has ever had 95% of the desktop market. Many desktop machines inside corporations, research labs, and schools are UNIX workstations and X terminals. And even desktops that are nominally runing Windows are, in reality, little more than mainframe terminals, X11 servers, and/or web browsers.
I haven't had this problem at all. I have it installed in /home/mike/apps/firefox/. I did have to 'su root' to compile and install java, but otherwise it works fine logged in as a regular user.
You have had exactly this problem.
The way it is supposed to work is that if there is a plugin you don't have (Java, Flash, whatever), you click on the icon representing it and you get taken to a site where you should be able to have an automatic install performed.
If you do that with Firefox on Linux, it downloads the plugin and does something, but you still don't get a working Java or Flash. The same is true for many other plugins and extensions (pie menus, mouse gestures, tab extensions, etc.). With Thunderbird, it's not even clear how to install extensions.
What is supposed to happen is that the plugins and extensions get installed automatically in your home directory. And if the install fails, one should get an informative error message, rather than just just having nothing happen.
(Did you really compile Java? Which one? If you downloaded Sun Java source code, you are basically banned for life from most open source Java projects because the agreement you had to enter into in order to get source access is incompatible with open source projects.)
I'm all for shipping lean applications--not so much because of storage--plugins are usually small--but because it confuses new users less.
The problem I have is that installing plugins over the web for Firefox or Thunderbird is non-trivial, at least on Linux. I haven't been able to get Java to work at all on recent versions. And in order to get any of the "automatic installs" to work, I have to run the browser as root; installing stuff in the user's home directory doesn't work. I haven't figured out at all how to get Thunderbird plugins to work.
Part of the problem seems to be related to the browsers themselves, part of the problem seems to be with the plugins and extensions themselves.
One extension also wiped out my complete bookmark file, even though it wasn't even bookmark related.
Downloading extensions over the web also raises lots of security issues and versioning problems.
If these browsers are going to ship lean-and-mean, then their web-based install features must work correctly, for regular users, on all platforms, and securely.
Since Firefox and Thunderbird still seem to be far from that state, it would probably be better to include most reasonably stable and moderately sized plug-ins with each release for now, but to disable them. That way, novice users don't get confused, but experienced users don't have the hassles and worries of web-based installs.