Actually, given the nature of Acid2, it would only allow us to code _broken_ css on these browsers, and have it break _correctly_.
Acid2 tests a lot of corner-case mis-constructions of CSS, and tests that the browser handles the cock-up in the prescribed manner. It doesn't actually test that _correct_ CSS is handled correctly.
Its a good test, but its NOT a full CSS compliance test.
"I think it would be cool to have a cheap, very tiny LAN box to play Quake 3 engine based games (since most of them have Mac ports) or Blizzard titles."
The thing is; loads of people harp on about the mini being "seriously underpowered for any sort of PVR work", "For a computer that seems to be designed to fit near your TV".
The thing is; look at the rear of a mac mini; no digital audio out, no TV-friendly output.
Why do people not take the hint? The mini is NOT designed to work with a TV, it is lacking ALL of the elements you would want. That doesn't make it designed for the TV, but lacking: it make it what it is; a cheap, no integrated display, desktop computer that runs OS X. Nothing more.
And for that job, its pretty good; it seriously dropped the minimum price of entry for OS X. Job done, design complete.
Right handed reviewer bias
on
Top Mice Compared
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Anybody else notice that the reviewer never tested ANY of the mice with a left-handed user?
All those "its ergonomic" Pro points would have been reversed, and suddenly the 2 Razers and the Starck thing would be the more ergonomic mice.
This means what they said; their changes to GPL code rely on proprietary code. They don't have to, and hence have not, released the proprietary code. Therefore, you can't make a working system from whats relesed.
Example:
if this is GPL code:
int func_a() {
return 3; }
and this is your own PRIVATE code:
int func_mine_all_mine() {
return 3003; }
and you change the GPL code thus:
int func_a() {
return (fun_mine_all_min() % 3); }
You have to release your changed func_a to the world. But you DON'T have to release ANY VERSION of func_min_all_mine to anyone. And without that function, the new version of func_a does nothing but cause a compiler error.
If you ask for "publish the source code" (i.e. GPL), and that is what you get, you have NO GROUNDS (moral, legal, ethical, or any other-al) to complain: you got 100% of what was asked.
If you meant that you wanted carefully back-ported submissions of improvements to slot into another project; that is what you should ask for.
I put it to you that there are a bunch of tree hugging hippies on slashdot that think the whole world should just play nice...because...
Only a true idiot would bear a grudge against someone/a company for COMPLYING with the terms of the licence they agreed to.
Apple forked the KHTML engine under the GPL, this requires them to publish their source. Which they do. It does NOT require them to "submit" code patches on ANY OTHER FORK (including the main trunk) at any time, at all. So, mostly or totally, they don't.
At some point, some OSS and Mac zealot saw that Apple had chosen to fork an OSS project to kick off their COMMERCIAL project, and had conflated this in their tiny mind into "Ko0lzors; Apple will be writing many updates for KHTML!!!!".
That zealot was a fool. You are the bigger fool for having believed the first fool.
If the KHTML team had wanted anyone who used their source to build something else from it to contribute back into THEIR project any improvements they made, they WOULD HAVE written themselves such a license. And then Apple would very likely never have picked up KHTML.
You can draw the assertion from their choice of license that this was NOT what they wanted or expected.
In fact if you read the actual KHTML developer blogs, youd find that they don't really CARE that Apple does their own thing and kust posts the output. They DO CARE that people give them grief for being "lazy" for not having done "simple merges" on code that calls a whole bunch of OSX api functions; that aren't available for them to call in the first place.
"It's not that Linus is cheap, I think his decision is based on principle of free and open software but I think he should use the right tool for the right job. my two cents."
No, you are being incredibly narrow-minded and short-sighted simultaneously.
Linus was using a FREE version/license of BitKeeper; because he is in charge of the kernel development, that meant EVERYONE who wanted to work on the kernel HAD to use the FREE version/license of BitKeeper.
If Linus had simply paid for a full license to keep using the same tool, he would have been forcing EVERYONE who works on the kernel to either pay for a full license also, or GIVE UP working on the kernel.
Given the grief he already got from some circles for using a FREE but NOT-OPEN tool (BitKeeper), the move to a paid-for and non-open tool would have decimated the kernel development community.
Windows through to WinXPSP2 _still_ does not have TRUE pre-emptive multitasking.
Witness the trials of "program not responding."...
Hit 'X'. Nothing.
Hit Ctrl-Alt-Delete...wait LONG time for task manager to get a time slice and run. (under TRUE pre-emption everything else would get blocked on Ctrl-Alt-Delete, but it doesn't)
Select rogue Task, click "End Task". Nothing. Do it again. Nothing. Do it again. Nothing. (repeat ad nauseum) Wait a while, program gives in and dies.
(under TRUE pre-emption the scheduler would terminate it; under windows it gets politely "asked" to die...)
Alternatively; stop ever using the task pane in task manager and terminate processes (except the task manager doesn't tell you what tasks each process belongs to - great task _management_ there...), which works somewhat better (usually only 2 instructions before the process complies.
Essentially Windows is a different computing paradigm to any other; in most OS environments the user is seen as giving "commands". Windows treats everything you tell it to do as a "request", and feels at libery to refuse that request on a whim.
Take unmounting USB drives; Windows will refuse if it thinks the drive is in use - OSX will just unmount the drive when told to, I assume linux is suitably obedient too...
"And before Slashdotters start asking why it's ok for developers to license code and not for the RIAA to license music, remember that the former means profit for the violator, while the latter doesn't."
allofmp3.com would like to disagree with your assertion that you don't make money by violating music "licensing"...
The thing with closed-source drivers for cards is; who else _really_ has any business using taht code? Its whole job is to be the interface between proprietary (closed, even secret) hardware, and (possibly open, certainly someon-else's) software.
It is, bluntly, the card manufacturer's bailiwick to go around writing that interfac layer; and if the workings of the HW are secrets, to be guarded because that's where their business gets its competetive edge, then the source code that buts up directly to those secrets is legitimately secret too.
The PROBLEM is the retarded method required to get a video driver INTO linux - since when did installing the WinXP detonator drivers involve a recompiled windows kernel?!?
make the device driver interface to linux one that properly supports binary-delivered (installer wrapped?) device driver downloads, and you'd possibly make the job of writing the damn things easier enough (and certainly the job of installing the fuckers!), that it would not be the onerous (and hence very low priority) job that it is for NVidia and ATI.
Then you'd likely see better / more frequent drivers, and the closed source nature would not be an issue.
But no; the zealots would rather bitch and whine about "they're not open source, boo hoo!" and create a straw-man argument for not fixing the Linux-side mess of issue, either...
Begin troll-mod of sensible but not oss-zealot opinion...now.
Re:let me get this straight
on
PSPCasting
·
· Score: 1
It wouldn't be a proper sony product if it wasn't folornly pushing its own, niche, format of doom.
I mean, when they use the same formats as the whole rest of the world, just look what happens; __nobody__ buys Sony TVs, DVD players, CD Players etc, do they? And as for that "walkman" - see where playing standard Cassettes got them!!
"What I DO find rather interesting is the stance the EU has taken in regard to MSFT's monopolistic ploy, versus the EU's apparent infatuation with the adoption of software patents. There would appear to be a disconnect between these two conflicting mindsets. So now I am confused..."
You would likely be far less confused if you remembered to think of "the EU" as not a single entity, with a conciousness of its own.
Different people, who work in different parts of "the EU", have different minds. And therefore can take different attitudes to the same thing (let alone different attitudes to different things) This is fairly basic "nature of reality" stuff; surely its not really beyond you?
I believe the patent issue was a European Parliament issue, and the monopoly issue is a European Commission issue - they are different entities, therefore unlikely to directly share any personnel. Threfore unlikely to present a singular attitude on any single issue, let alone two separate issues.
Add to that the fact that the patents issue was related to a lobbying/corrupting faction, and their paid-for stooges attempting to bypass the European Parliament, rather than representing the corporate (as in corporate entity, not "business") attitude of the European Union as a whole.
From TFA: "Now, before you freak out (literally every person I've suggested this to said, "People don't want to turn over their data to someone else"), think about this logically."
When EVERYONE is telling you its bollocks; its bollocks.
You just have evidence that the MSN spider is running around in circles; endlessly re-spidering sites it has already spidered - maybe google's spiders are:
A - spidering more different sites than MSN's
B - better at realising they've already spidered a site recently
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, given the nature of Acid2, it would only allow us to code _broken_ css on these browsers, and have it break _correctly_.
Acid2 tests a lot of corner-case mis-constructions of CSS, and tests that the browser handles the cock-up in the prescribed manner. It doesn't actually test that _correct_ CSS is handled correctly.
Its a good test, but its NOT a full CSS compliance test.
Actually, my bet for most likely to make a real go of machine translation would be...
IBM
Look how far they ran with chess programs, because they felt like it...
If they decided to go the same distance with translation...
The (last time I checked really hard to get hold of) NanoITX format is roughly the same size as the mini.
(its actually smaller footprint, but machines tended to be built taller)
"I think it would be cool to have a cheap, very tiny LAN box to play Quake 3 engine based games (since most of them have Mac ports) or Blizzard titles."
PowerBook.
The thing is; loads of people harp on about the mini being "seriously underpowered for any sort of PVR work", "For a computer that seems to be designed to fit near your TV".
The thing is; look at the rear of a mac mini; no digital audio out, no TV-friendly output.
Why do people not take the hint? The mini is NOT designed to work with a TV, it is lacking ALL of the elements you would want. That doesn't make it designed for the TV, but lacking: it make it what it is; a cheap, no integrated display, desktop computer that runs OS X. Nothing more.
And for that job, its pretty good; it seriously dropped the minimum price of entry for OS X. Job done, design complete.
Anybody else notice that the reviewer never tested ANY of the mice with a left-handed user?
All those "its ergonomic" Pro points would have been reversed, and suddenly the 2 Razers and the Starck thing would be the more ergonomic mice.
This means what they said; their changes to GPL code rely on proprietary code. They don't have to, and hence have not, released the proprietary code. Therefore, you can't make a working system from whats relesed.
Example:
if this is GPL code:
int func_a()
{
return 3;
}
and this is your own PRIVATE code:
int func_mine_all_mine()
{
return 3003;
}
and you change the GPL code thus:
int func_a()
{
return (fun_mine_all_min() % 3);
}
You have to release your changed func_a to the world. But you DON'T have to release ANY VERSION of func_min_all_mine to anyone. And without that function, the new version of func_a does nothing but cause a compiler error.
The corrollary to this is:
If you want something; ask for it.
If you ask for "publish the source code" (i.e. GPL), and that is what you get, you have NO GROUNDS (moral, legal, ethical, or any other-al) to complain: you got 100% of what was asked.
If you meant that you wanted carefully back-ported submissions of improvements to slot into another project; that is what you should ask for.
I put it to you that there are a bunch of tree hugging hippies on slashdot that think the whole world should just play nice...because...
Welcome to the real world!
Only a true idiot would bear a grudge against someone/a company for COMPLYING with the terms of the licence they agreed to.
Apple forked the KHTML engine under the GPL, this requires them to publish their source. Which they do. It does NOT require them to "submit" code patches on ANY OTHER FORK (including the main trunk) at any time, at all. So, mostly or totally, they don't.
At some point, some OSS and Mac zealot saw that Apple had chosen to fork an OSS project to kick off their COMMERCIAL project, and had conflated this in their tiny mind into "Ko0lzors; Apple will be writing many updates for KHTML!!!!".
That zealot was a fool. You are the bigger fool for having believed the first fool.
If the KHTML team had wanted anyone who used their source to build something else from it to contribute back into THEIR project any improvements they made, they WOULD HAVE written themselves such a license. And then Apple would very likely never have picked up KHTML.
You can draw the assertion from their choice of license that this was NOT what they wanted or expected.
In fact if you read the actual KHTML developer blogs, youd find that they don't really CARE that Apple does their own thing and kust posts the output. They DO CARE that people give them grief for being "lazy" for not having done "simple merges" on code that calls a whole bunch of OSX api functions; that aren't available for them to call in the first place.
In summary; you are an ignoramus.
Because at the time safari began, mozilla was the whole bloated suite.
Firefox as a seperate browser came after, and therefore too late.
Also; because they didn't want to?
"OSX is really no different than Windows XP with Cygwin installed."
lies.
The basic filesystem hooks (the basic os filehandling) is FreeBSD, its a LOT more than a few BSD apps.
OSX is _really_ a mach kernel, with a BSD derived OS on top, and a proprietary window manager on top of that.
"Too bad you don't use KDE then, or you'd have been enjoying this feature for the past 5 years."
Pffffh...
You should actually go and LOOK at automator; watch the example video, then go back to your linked page, before comparing the two.
Note the lack of needing to understand what "void refresh()" means in order to use Automator.
Honestly, a little empathy would do the average "linux-power-user" a world of good; granny don't do void
"It's not that Linus is cheap, I think his decision is based on principle of free and open software but I think he should use the right tool for the right job.
my two cents."
No, you are being incredibly narrow-minded and short-sighted simultaneously.
Linus was using a FREE version/license of BitKeeper; because he is in charge of the kernel development, that meant EVERYONE who wanted to work on the kernel HAD to use the FREE version/license of BitKeeper.
If Linus had simply paid for a full license to keep using the same tool, he would have been forcing EVERYONE who works on the kernel to either pay for a full license also, or GIVE UP working on the kernel.
Given the grief he already got from some circles for using a FREE but NOT-OPEN tool (BitKeeper), the move to a paid-for and non-open tool would have decimated the kernel development community.
Thus, not being a total idiot, he didn't do it.
Windows through to WinXPSP2 _still_ does not have TRUE pre-emptive multitasking.
Witness the trials of "program not responding."...
Hit 'X'. Nothing.
Hit Ctrl-Alt-Delete...wait LONG time for task manager to get a time slice and run.
(under TRUE pre-emption everything else would get blocked on Ctrl-Alt-Delete, but it doesn't)
Select rogue Task, click "End Task". Nothing.
Do it again. Nothing.
Do it again. Nothing. (repeat ad nauseum)
Wait a while, program gives in and dies.
(under TRUE pre-emption the scheduler would terminate it; under windows it gets politely "asked" to die...)
Alternatively; stop ever using the task pane in task manager and terminate processes (except the task manager doesn't tell you what tasks each process belongs to - great task _management_ there...), which works somewhat better (usually only 2 instructions before the process complies.
Essentially Windows is a different computing paradigm to any other; in most OS environments the user is seen as giving "commands". Windows treats everything you tell it to do as a "request", and feels at libery to refuse that request on a whim.
Take unmounting USB drives; Windows will refuse if it thinks the drive is in use - OSX will just unmount the drive when told to, I assume linux is suitably obedient too...
"And before Slashdotters start asking why it's ok for developers to license code and not for the RIAA to license music, remember that the former means profit for the violator, while the latter doesn't."
allofmp3.com would like to disagree with your assertion that you don't make money by violating music "licensing"...
Evaluating a submitted prior-art claim is actually quite a shot & simple process:
Does the prior-art quoted really exist?
Is it really "prior"?
If Yes & Yes; kill patent, if not; don't.
Since submissions would need to consist of evidence of the 2 things to be verified, the work is really minimal; a quick check for false evidence.
The thing with closed-source drivers for cards is; who else _really_ has any business using taht code? Its whole job is to be the interface between proprietary (closed, even secret) hardware, and (possibly open, certainly someon-else's) software.
It is, bluntly, the card manufacturer's bailiwick to go around writing that interfac layer; and if the workings of the HW are secrets, to be guarded because that's where their business gets its competetive edge, then the source code that buts up directly to those secrets is legitimately secret too.
The PROBLEM is the retarded method required to get a video driver INTO linux - since when did installing the WinXP detonator drivers involve a recompiled windows kernel?!?
make the device driver interface to linux one that properly supports binary-delivered (installer wrapped?) device driver downloads, and you'd possibly make the job of writing the damn things easier enough (and certainly the job of installing the fuckers!), that it would not be the onerous (and hence very low priority) job that it is for NVidia and ATI.
Then you'd likely see better / more frequent drivers, and the closed source nature would not be an issue.
But no; the zealots would rather bitch and whine about "they're not open source, boo hoo!" and create a straw-man argument for not fixing the Linux-side mess of issue, either...
Begin troll-mod of sensible but not oss-zealot opinion...now.
Thats when you do this:
Take video camera, make home movie.
Load onto PC, encode for PSP.
Host PSP-friendly file on internet.
voila; PSP-casting...
It wouldn't be a proper sony product if it wasn't folornly pushing its own, niche, format of doom.
I mean, when they use the same formats as the whole rest of the world, just look what happens; __nobody__ buys Sony TVs, DVD players, CD Players etc, do they? And as for that "walkman" - see where playing standard Cassettes got them!!
"What I DO find rather interesting is the stance
the EU has taken in regard to MSFT's monopolistic
ploy, versus the EU's apparent infatuation with
the adoption of software patents. There would
appear to be a disconnect between these two
conflicting mindsets. So now I am confused..."
You would likely be far less confused if you remembered to think of "the EU" as not a single entity, with a conciousness of its own.
Different people, who work in different parts of "the EU", have different minds. And therefore can take different attitudes to the same thing (let alone different attitudes to different things) This is fairly basic "nature of reality" stuff; surely its not really beyond you?
I believe the patent issue was a European Parliament issue, and the monopoly issue is a European Commission issue - they are different entities, therefore unlikely to directly share any personnel. Threfore unlikely to present a singular attitude on any single issue, let alone two separate issues.
Add to that the fact that the patents issue was related to a lobbying/corrupting faction, and their paid-for stooges attempting to bypass the European Parliament, rather than representing the corporate (as in corporate entity, not "business") attitude of the European Union as a whole.
From TFA: "Now, before you freak out (literally every person I've suggested this to said, "People don't want to turn over their data to someone else"), think about this logically."
When EVERYONE is telling you its bollocks; its bollocks.
Why?
You just have evidence that the MSN spider is running around in circles; endlessly re-spidering sites it has already spidered - maybe google's spiders are:
A - spidering more different sites than MSN's
B - better at realising they've already spidered a site recently
You probably ought to have a few more thoughts about the google cookie, and what they are tracking (hint; the same information)...
" Have you priced media? The difference is + and - media is signifcant, like double."
I work in a computer retail shop.
You need to find a better supplyer for one or other of those.
I couldn't even tell which you think is more expensive; we buy AND sell at the same price.
Plus, a DVR-107 is NOT a first generation device, which is what I was clearly talking about.