wtf would you need a "screen magnifier" for a word processor anyway? For a browser you can change the text size, and for any word processor there's ZOOM menu option which you can set to 200% or 300%. What am I missing here?
As for screen readers (Text-to-Speech), that should be part of the operating system. Though I imagine it would be far easier for a blind person to be using a simple text editor. I don't imagine they'd be using the formatting options all that much.
I see.. is _THIS_ what stops me from running my DVD player through the Line-In on my VCR so I can watch it on my TV? I often play CDs on my DVD player, so most of the time I leave it plugged in through my VCR to my living room sound system. But every fucking time I try to watch a rented DVD the screen starts flashing to that blue "no signal" screen, and I have to reach back and swear to myself as I pull the plug out of the VCR, unplug the VCR from the TV, and plug the DVD player into the TV. Since there is no line-in on the DVD player this is the only way to set things up. What a pain in the ASS. I'm not even interested in copying these DVDs, I just want to WATCH them, you know, exactly what I bought the player for.
This is really incredible news. One thing -- there is no mention in the article about how _long_ it takes to read the electron's spin. It would be interesting to know. It says they simply have to see whether the two electrons can be placed next to each other. How is this done and how long does it take? I would assume for a quantum computer to be useable this method must be able to be executed quite quickly. (Maybe the speed isn't important?)
Yep, the only time voluntary "safety" devices will be used in businesses is when there is immediate savings of money. Other than that, good luck.
Well, yes, but that just means that the level of safety offered is enough of an advantage that people are willing to pay for it. Within reason, of course -- meaning they have to sell enough of them to bring the price down. Another one of those chicken-or-the-egg problems.
Why wouldn't they want to embrace safety technology like this?
Same reason safety is an afterthought in many industries: expense. New technology is always a bit expensive. They need to make this cheap for it to be widely adopted. Otherwise it will only makes its way into the high-end equipment.
Hopefully they will be able to sell a critical mass quantity to bring the price down and make it available to every tool maker.
Huh.. reading this made me realize that wireless isn't going to change anything..
One of the major complaints about the telecom industry is how it is controlled by a natural monopoly -- that is, there are only so many physical fibers that can be distributed around the country. It means you can't have competition: A competing telecom company can't just tear up the streets and install their own lines to compete with big business.
So we've always been told that wireless will change all that.. as soon as WiMAX is available, suddenly we won't be restricted to physical lines! We'll be able to run community networks and municipal public internet access.
But then.. this article reminds me that of course the people who will be installing all the wireless access points are going to be the big telecom companies. They'll still be the ones charging for access. And there is only so much bandwidth to go around... much less, in fact, than what is available on the wires. So as long as companies like Sprint jump in and take it first, no one will be able to compete.
Sad to see that wireless won't be "the answer" to cheap and available telecom.
Who in their right mind would type their social security number in a search box, in plain text??? I mean, really???
Who in their right mind would give their SSN to AOL? People really don't understand these issues.. I've this to be true recently when an HR person at my university asked me to send my SSN to her over email. Also, a couple weeks ago I booked a room at a hostel over the internet, and apparently I mistyped my credit card information, so they asked me if I could to to them again over email. You know, I just said "No, I'll call you." But it just goes to show that most people just don't even think about privacy issues. Even professionals who should know about these things. They just don't. Either that or they don't understand the technical side of it... like that email is not encrypted, etc.
As for search engines, I've no idea why you'd be searching for one on Google, unless for instance you wanted to see if your own was available somewhere--Which is funny, now that I think about it. How can you search for your own online information (to see what is out there) without giving it away yourself by typing it into a search engine?
I've always thought it should be possible to write a script that would take the text from multi-page articles and just dump them into one page. I guess it would have to be site-specific though, which is unfortunate... oh well, yet one more thing I don't have time for.:)
Ah, interesting. I was wondering about that actually. If I recall, I originally went to the website and it said it supported Firefox but then it rejected me, so, confused and slightly miffed, I proceeded to fill out the paper version. Now I know why... I was using Linux. Good to know they have fixed this.
Strange that it would specifically have a problem with FF on Linux. Strikes me as the symptoms of a script that checks for specific browser versions using an identifier string, instead of checking for browser capabilities as it should be done.
Thanks. Okay, wow, I perfectly understand, and now I see why its such an issue. Given me something to think about actually... each time I try to think of a reply, I contradict myself..
My first inkling thoughts are that it's not really the place of software license to dictate what the hardware specs should be, whether or not this involves trusted computing...
Can someone tell me what the deficiencies are in GPLv2 that have created this need for an upgrade?
I'm just curious what the motivation is. Is it only DRM? All I've heard about GPLv3 regards DRM and encryption keys. Is there anything else noteworthy that it changes from v2?
I'm sure this is exactly what MS is afraid of, but I'll just report it as it happened: I used to use Windows (2000) just like most people. I programmed in Visual C++ and did a lot of audio work in Windows 3rd-party applications like SoundForge. I had installed RedHat 7 to check it out (partly because of some school-related reasons, wanting to understand some of this "Unix" stuff I'd read about in my operating systems classes). I found it cool, though it did take quite a lot of work to get it set up, especially since I was just learning it. I hated the RPM thing, and how I had to find dependancies manually. All in all it was a nice curiosity, but I kept using Windows. I did keep Linux around though, eventually upgrading to RedHat 9.
However, under Windows I was mostly using OSS programs like FireFox and Thunderbird, etc. I realized one day that in fact EVERYTHING I did on my computer, short of some audio applications, was in OSS programs, which were available just as easily under Linux. So I swtiched my email and web browsing over to Linux, and started programming in it.
This led to me spending a lot more time in Linux, and the more comfortable I got with it, the more I started to prefer it. I switched to Debian and enjoyed apt-get which solved the packaging problems (yes I know there are now solutions for RedHat too).. In short, I became a pretty hardcore Linux user, because I really started to like it more. These days, when I do have to use Windows, I still have FireFox and Cygwin installed and the only proprietary stuff I use is for my job, like Visual C++.
That's the thing -- i just don't NEED Windows. I don't need ANY proprietary stuff for my day to day computer usage. And OSS on Windows is what helped me realize that..
In short, I think probably the biggest advantage of opening the source code of an application is that, given sufficient community interest, it will likely be ported to other platforms. The more platforms that an application supports, the easier it is for the users to ween their dependancy on a specific OS. In this day and age, when there are multiple operating systems that provide essentially the same functionality (arguable some better or worse than others), users shouldn't _depend_ on any particular one of them to be able to work with their data. With so many API libraries available for developing cross-platform software, any barriers thrown up to stop applications from being ported are, essentially, artificial.
totally, totally agree. WHY are they still using drive letters.. it's just one more stupid thing left over from their legacy days. I, for one, am tired of seeing documentation that says: "Now browse to C:\path\file, where 'C' is the location of your CD-ROM drive."
Slashdot Mirror
I really don't see how this is a problem.
wtf would you need a "screen magnifier" for a word processor anyway? For a browser you can change the text size, and for any word processor there's ZOOM menu option which you can set to 200% or 300%. What am I missing here?
As for screen readers (Text-to-Speech), that should be part of the operating system. Though I imagine it would be far easier for a blind person to be using a simple text editor. I don't imagine they'd be using the formatting options all that much.
Damn it!
so... angry...
1. 2. 3. phew.. okay. i feel better now.
I see.. is _THIS_ what stops me from running my DVD player through the Line-In on my VCR so I can watch it on my TV?
I often play CDs on my DVD player, so most of the time I leave it plugged in through my VCR to my living room sound system. But every fucking time I try to watch a rented DVD the screen starts flashing to that blue "no signal" screen, and I have to reach back and swear to myself as I pull the plug out of the VCR, unplug the VCR from the TV, and plug the DVD player into the TV. Since there is no line-in on the DVD player this is the only way to set things up. What a pain in the ASS. I'm not even interested in copying these DVDs, I just want to WATCH them, you know, exactly what I bought the player for.
That's quite possibly the best answer I've ever heard...
This is really incredible news.
One thing -- there is no mention in the article about how _long_ it takes to read the electron's spin. It would be interesting to know. It says they simply have to see whether the two electrons can be placed next to each other. How is this done and how long does it take? I would assume for a quantum computer to be useable this method must be able to be executed quite quickly. (Maybe the speed isn't important?)
Well, yes, but that just means that the level of safety offered is enough of an advantage that people are willing to pay for it. Within reason, of course -- meaning they have to sell enough of them to bring the price down. Another one of those chicken-or-the-egg problems.
Same reason safety is an afterthought in many industries: expense. New technology is always a bit expensive. They need to make this cheap for it to be widely adopted. Otherwise it will only makes its way into the high-end equipment.
Hopefully they will be able to sell a critical mass quantity to bring the price down and make it available to every tool maker.
Hm, that wasn't so much a "leak" as it was someone with a hammer and chisel deliberately poking a hole in the bottom of the boat...
Well, I think a lot of them did.
Come on people, this is so definitely a joke. :)
A good one though.
Their flash site is practically written like an Onion article.
Huh.. reading this made me realize that wireless isn't going to change anything..
One of the major complaints about the telecom industry is how it is controlled by a natural monopoly -- that is, there are only so many physical fibers that can be distributed around the country. It means you can't have competition: A competing telecom company can't just tear up the streets and install their own lines to compete with big business.
So we've always been told that wireless will change all that.. as soon as WiMAX is available, suddenly we won't be restricted to physical lines! We'll be able to run community networks and municipal public internet access.
But then.. this article reminds me that of course the people who will be installing all the wireless access points are going to be the big telecom companies. They'll still be the ones charging for access. And there is only so much bandwidth to go around... much less, in fact, than what is available on the wires. So as long as companies like Sprint jump in and take it first, no one will be able to compete.
Sad to see that wireless won't be "the answer" to cheap and available telecom.
!!??!!! Each of your kids has their OWN tv??! lucky kids..!
WE had to fight for the remote when I was young, and I'm under 30...
Honestly, I didn't even know such a possibility existed... sounds really useful.
Who in their right mind would give their SSN to AOL?
People really don't understand these issues.. I've this to be true recently when an HR person at my university asked me to send my SSN to her over email. Also, a couple weeks ago I booked a room at a hostel over the internet, and apparently I mistyped my credit card information, so they asked me if I could to to them again over email. You know, I just said "No, I'll call you." But it just goes to show that most people just don't even think about privacy issues. Even professionals who should know about these things. They just don't. Either that or they don't understand the technical side of it... like that email is not encrypted, etc.
As for search engines, I've no idea why you'd be searching for one on Google, unless for instance you wanted to see if your own was available somewhere--Which is funny, now that I think about it. How can you search for your own online information (to see what is out there) without giving it away yourself by typing it into a search engine?
I've always thought it should be possible to write a script that would take the text from multi-page articles and just dump them into one page. I guess it would have to be site-specific though, which is unfortunate... oh well, yet one more thing I don't have time for. :)
Hm, too bad 7 of those dimensions will only fit one Planck-size bit each.. ;-)
On a government website?? Impossible!
Ah, interesting. I was wondering about that actually. If I recall, I originally went to the website and it said it supported Firefox but then it rejected me, so, confused and slightly miffed, I proceeded to fill out the paper version. Now I know why... I was using Linux. Good to know they have fixed this.
Strange that it would specifically have a problem with FF on Linux. Strikes me as the symptoms of a script that checks for specific browser versions using an identifier string, instead of checking for browser capabilities as it should be done.
But keep in mind Microsoft's speech recognition woes..
A more likely transaction might be: "Enhance 224 to 176. Enhance, stop. Stop. STOP. Dear aunt? Move in, stop. Pull out. No, pull OUT. Pull out. Pullllll out. DAMN IT. Dear aunt? Track right. No, RIGHT. Whoa.. okay... left. Pull left. LEFT. STOP. FUCK!"
Thanks. Okay, wow, I perfectly understand, and now I see why its such an issue.
Given me something to think about actually... each time I try to think of a reply, I contradict myself..
My first inkling thoughts are that it's not really the place of software license to dictate what the hardware specs should be, whether or not this involves trusted computing...
But I'm not sure. *scratches chin*
Can someone tell me what the deficiencies are in GPLv2 that have created this need for an upgrade? I'm just curious what the motivation is. Is it only DRM? All I've heard about GPLv3 regards DRM and encryption keys. Is there anything else noteworthy that it changes from v2?
I'm sure this is exactly what MS is afraid of, but I'll just report it as it happened:
I used to use Windows (2000) just like most people. I programmed in Visual C++ and did a lot of audio work in Windows 3rd-party applications like SoundForge. I had installed RedHat 7 to check it out (partly because of some school-related reasons, wanting to understand some of this "Unix" stuff I'd read about in my operating systems classes). I found it cool, though it did take quite a lot of work to get it set up, especially since I was just learning it. I hated the RPM thing, and how I had to find dependancies manually. All in all it was a nice curiosity, but I kept using Windows. I did keep Linux around though, eventually upgrading to RedHat 9.
However, under Windows I was mostly using OSS programs like FireFox and Thunderbird, etc. I realized one day that in fact EVERYTHING I did on my computer, short of some audio applications, was in OSS programs, which were available just as easily under Linux. So I swtiched my email and web browsing over to Linux, and started programming in it.
This led to me spending a lot more time in Linux, and the more comfortable I got with it, the more I started to prefer it. I switched to Debian and enjoyed apt-get which solved the packaging problems (yes I know there are now solutions for RedHat too).. In short, I became a pretty hardcore Linux user, because I really started to like it more. These days, when I do have to use Windows, I still have FireFox and Cygwin installed and the only proprietary stuff I use is for my job, like Visual C++.
That's the thing -- i just don't NEED Windows. I don't need ANY proprietary stuff for my day to day computer usage. And OSS on Windows is what helped me realize that..
In short, I think probably the biggest advantage of opening the source code of an application is that, given sufficient community interest, it will likely be ported to other platforms. The more platforms that an application supports, the easier it is for the users to ween their dependancy on a specific OS. In this day and age, when there are multiple operating systems that provide essentially the same functionality (arguable some better or worse than others), users shouldn't _depend_ on any particular one of them to be able to work with their data. With so many API libraries available for developing cross-platform software, any barriers thrown up to stop applications from being ported are, essentially, artificial.
totally, totally agree.
WHY are they still using drive letters.. it's just one more stupid thing left over from their legacy days.
I, for one, am tired of seeing documentation that says:
"Now browse to C:\path\file, where 'C' is the location of your CD-ROM drive."
of course, that's assuming you HAVE the windows CD and not a "recovery cd" from your oem that wipes your drive...
but still, thanks for the tip.