You're right, firefox should support all code that some webmaster decides to make up. I'm considering a tag, and I'll be pretty pissed off when everyone does not support it.
How much sympathy am I expected to have for a site that has hundreds of deviations from the code set the claim to follow (a problem they recently kind of solved by switching from claiming HTML 3.2, I believe, to claiming plaintext, which is clearly BS.)
Yes, I realize that this is what you were trolling for, but who cares?
I've been using PDAs for my portable music player needs for years. I have had decent success, but am soon getting an iPod (via freeipods.com, shockingly enough). I originally was just going to resell my iPod, but am thinking it might be my prefered solution. It will be really nice to be able to take my whole music collection. It will be nice not to have to whip out the stylus to skip a song. It will be nice to have a well thought out navigation system, which no PocketPC Media player I've seen has. I would love to use a PDA for my music, but I need something that was built for it.
Had to retype "slashdot" in the URL bar to make sure that nothing was wrong, seeing as that did not read "Can it run linux?"
That being said, I would be suprized if it could, because OSX has very limited compatibility (seeing as there are only a few dozen Apple products it's supposed to run on.)
This can help crush myths (and not-so-myths) about Hybrids being slow and laggy.
Though they are not built for speed, most people would like to know that their car can easily go 80. Further, Hybrid racing is an interesting idea. Virtually all types of races are about getting good speed under certain limiting conditions... what an interesting limit to be up against.
Sorry to reply to my own post, but I thought I'd throw in a quick caveat. I realize people who post things like this of/. often get "you just want to download copyrighted material" flames, and that really isn't my intent. If the answer is "yes, but that is a sacrifice that will be made," that makes some sense, and I've yet to see a site offering only torrent downloads for non-copyrighted material. I don't have a good grasp of the works of networking, let alone the ins and outs of p2p protocols (I rarely pirate, and when I do I use Direct Connect filesharing.) I did not know if there was some way to differentiate.
I would prefer not to have to worry about replication every few years or even decades, no matter how accurate. I would recommend replication every few decades on paper... it can be destroyed very easily. Though proven to be possible to last a long time, you are pprobably spreading oils all over non-archival paper, which will start having problems in not all that long.
It's still more likely to suffer from that old game of "telephone", eventually subject to someone's interpretation Do you have no concept of digital replication? We can replicate digital information bit-for-bit, verifying each of them with 0% degredation. There is no interpretation necesary, something is either a 1 or a 0.
(Ooops...kind of like the Bible? Note:Any replies to the "Bible" comment will be considered offtopic...To me anyway. I'm talking about accurate long term, low maintenace archiving of records. I'm using the Bible as a convenient analogy of what can go wrong as records are translated into differnet formats(ie:languages) over time.) You refer to the Bible then tell me I'm not supposed to address what you say. I believe you have a misunderstanding of what ways the Bible has been preserved. It was most likely written in Hebrew and Koine Greek, and we have ancient manuscripts in those languages that line up very well, though admittedly not without any variation, and without translation into different languages. Unless you were refering only to the problem of translation, which is indeed a problem with ancient and even modern writings, but one that is not a problem with computers which needn't be translated, and even if we did the "languages" are strictly defined.
As to replication, with the Bible monks and such copied word for word, tons of time, and did indeed err, we can tell because there is some manuscript variation. However, using electronic scriveners to copy the data, and to reverify that it is correct to the bit there is no replication error.
"Old" media has a proven record of extremely low mainrenace over hundreds or even thousands of years. Unless there's someone to maintain our records, they could be gone in less than two generations. Newsflash: old media does have a longer lifespan, but it is extremely likely to last anywhere near on the order of thousands of years, especially with the crap we print on today, it is not apt to last nearly as long, and cannot easily be perfectly replicated.
Plus all this high tech requires a lot of energy just to run. What it does provide is convenience, but for true archiving that requires so little effort there's nothing like low tech. I have no problem with low tech preservation, but it also has its limits. Preserving audio or 3-d information is extremely difficult for example.
because to me anyway, it is considered inbreeding when you link to yourself or an affiliate for a news story. something like "here's another site's take on it, if you don't like ours. oh yeah we're the same company as them."/. provides very little commentary, presents minimal "take" on anything. Or content./. generally provides links to other sites to present all significant content. It seems only natural to sometimes link to a site that has similar goals as and good standing with slashdot, which newsforge has extremely as part of the same company.
personally i don't like it at all. I especially hate it when slashdot links to itself about things that have happened in the past. other sites do it, and it hate it when they do it too.
If you are going to link to a biased source, why not have it be yourself?
Slashdot Mirror
Props for linking to Rob.
You're right, firefox should support all code that some webmaster decides to make up. I'm considering a tag, and I'll be pretty pissed off when everyone does not support it.
How much sympathy am I expected to have for a site that has hundreds of deviations from the code set the claim to follow (a problem they recently kind of solved by switching from claiming HTML 3.2, I believe, to claiming plaintext, which is clearly BS.)
Yes, I realize that this is what you were trolling for, but who cares?
They might even have the CPU power to do adequate speech recognotion.
They have one major thing going for them there: the speech recognition can be crappy, there are still plenty of ads.
My wireless phone and palm pilot are already chargable, otherwise they would have died long ago...
That's one of the most beautiful things I've ever heard.
I think parent was not talking about frontpage, but making a joke about how Internet Explorer is not Standards Complient.
Creatively and technically speaking, there are a lot of things you can do in a dark room that will probably never be duplicated by any digital camera
There are technologies that you can use to develop prints from digital data in a dark room by the same chemical processes.
I've been using PDAs for my portable music player needs for years. I have had decent success, but am soon getting an iPod (via freeipods.com, shockingly enough). I originally was just going to resell my iPod, but am thinking it might be my prefered solution. It will be really nice to be able to take my whole music collection. It will be nice not to have to whip out the stylus to skip a song. It will be nice to have a well thought out navigation system, which no PocketPC Media player I've seen has. I would love to use a PDA for my music, but I need something that was built for it.
Had to retype "slashdot" in the URL bar to make sure that nothing was wrong, seeing as that did not read "Can it run linux?"
That being said, I would be suprized if it could, because OSX has very limited compatibility (seeing as there are only a few dozen Apple products it's supposed to run on.)
It's been done with traditional toasters a number of times.
p c.htm/
Some of the better looking ones:
http://www.casemodgod.com/kitchen_toaster_
http://www.mini-itx.com/projects/toasterpc
OTOH, if they do need Longhorn, then it will probably have come pre-installed on the computer they buy.
I'll pretend I have the foggiest what "OTOH" means.
Yes, and they'll have to pay for their computer with Longhorn, which might have been cheaper, is the idea.
That being said, I don't necesarily think that this is a bad idea altogether.
I'd lay money it's running Linux
Yes, but can it run linux?
Places with free wifi really expect plugging in, and often make the outlets frequent and convinient.
But also imagine how fast it would be to have Google and its entire internet cache on your LAN?
And how convinient it would be to access slashdotted sites like this on it.
This can help crush myths (and not-so-myths) about Hybrids being slow and laggy.
Though they are not built for speed, most people would like to know that their car can easily go 80. Further, Hybrid racing is an interesting idea. Virtually all types of races are about getting good speed under certain limiting conditions... what an interesting limit to be up against.
This person made a bog themed case, though it isn't actually a cube.
Sorry to reply to my own post, but I thought I'd throw in a quick caveat. I realize people who post things like this of /. often get "you just want to download copyrighted material" flames, and that really isn't my intent. If the answer is "yes, but that is a sacrifice that will be made," that makes some sense, and I've yet to see a site offering only torrent downloads for non-copyrighted material. I don't have a good grasp of the works of networking, let alone the ins and outs of p2p protocols (I rarely pirate, and when I do I use Direct Connect filesharing.) I did not know if there was some way to differentiate.
I have seen a couple sites lately offering .torrent files to reduce traffic on their server. Would these also be blocked?
I would prefer not to have to worry about replication every few years or even decades, no matter how accurate.
I would recommend replication every few decades on paper... it can be destroyed very easily. Though proven to be possible to last a long time, you are pprobably spreading oils all over non-archival paper, which will start having problems in not all that long.
It's still more likely to suffer from that old game of "telephone", eventually subject to someone's interpretation
Do you have no concept of digital replication? We can replicate digital information bit-for-bit, verifying each of them with 0% degredation. There is no interpretation necesary, something is either a 1 or a 0.
(Ooops...kind of like the Bible? Note:Any replies to the "Bible" comment will be considered offtopic...To me anyway. I'm talking about accurate long term, low maintenace archiving of records. I'm using the Bible as a convenient analogy of what can go wrong as records are translated into differnet formats(ie:languages) over time.)
You refer to the Bible then tell me I'm not supposed to address what you say. I believe you have a misunderstanding of what ways the Bible has been preserved. It was most likely written in Hebrew and Koine Greek, and we have ancient manuscripts in those languages that line up very well, though admittedly not without any variation, and without translation into different languages. Unless you were refering only to the problem of translation, which is indeed a problem with ancient and even modern writings, but one that is not a problem with computers which needn't be translated, and even if we did the "languages" are strictly defined.
As to replication, with the Bible monks and such copied word for word, tons of time, and did indeed err, we can tell because there is some manuscript variation. However, using electronic scriveners to copy the data, and to reverify that it is correct to the bit there is no replication error.
"Old" media has a proven record of extremely low mainrenace over hundreds or even thousands of years. Unless there's someone to maintain our records, they could be gone in less than two generations.
Newsflash: old media does have a longer lifespan, but it is extremely likely to last anywhere near on the order of thousands of years, especially with the crap we print on today, it is not apt to last nearly as long, and cannot easily be perfectly replicated.
Plus all this high tech requires a lot of energy just to run. What it does provide is convenience, but for true archiving that requires so little effort there's nothing like low tech.
I have no problem with low tech preservation, but it also has its limits. Preserving audio or 3-d information is extremely difficult for example.
That would be a little excessive, man. Who would need that much processing power?
The hard disk? Who said anything about a single hard disk? I could get it on three or four of them for about $300.
Speaking of which, I will gladly sell you 1TB of storage for $500.
Who said anything about storing in the same medium? The information can be preserved to the bit by replication in new media.
because to me anyway, it is considered inbreeding when you link to yourself or an affiliate for a news story. something like "here's another site's take on it, if you don't like ours. oh yeah we're the same company as them." /. provides very little commentary, presents minimal "take" on anything. Or content. /. generally provides links to other sites to present all significant content. It seems only natural to sometimes link to a site that has similar goals as and good standing with slashdot, which newsforge has extremely as part of the same company.
personally i don't like it at all. I especially hate it when slashdot links to itself about things that have happened in the past. other sites do it, and it hate it when they do it too.
If you are going to link to a biased source, why not have it be yourself?
A 16 year old girl...
For the record, the AP article says she's 17.
Mod parent down... way down.