How the hell does apple get an "unfair advantage" from using Google's search engine exclusively on Safari? Considering Apple's position in the browser market, the only reason why that limitation is bad is because you're getting crap functionality. As much as I like my Mac, I'm not giving away chrome's address bar search engine integration any time soon.
Then don't block cookies. Use something like Chrome's privacy mode (I think at least firefox is getting it too, dunno about others), and let the cookies land and get blasted as soon as you close the window. No long-term tracking, only that which is strictly necessary for the session.
This is a great breakthrough. This means that we can now wear full face tinfoil hats for even more protection without risking to bump into something anymore. Thanks that tinfoil hats are actually made of aluminum nowadays !;-))
Mate, don't do that. It's a trap. I mean, the bloody thing is transparent, there's no way it protects you from the rays. They're trying to make you trade your privacy for some comfort. We know how that ends.
But one side has a much greater financial incentive.
I know, it must be the guys who already control power production, who are raking in the dough at a pretty nice rate.
No, wait. Perhaps it's the guys researching "green" tech, who stand to multiply their investment by an arbitrarily large number by making green energy the rule.
The thing is, Linus is a lucky guy : he managed to get into a position where he doesn't have to do politics. He can focus exclusively on the technical merits of the code. Few of us are that lucky.
He's getting asked, point blank, whether he thinks it's a good idea to even accept that code into the mainline kernel. How, exactly, is that not politics? He just approaches the stuff in a completely no-nonsense sort of way, but there's nothing other than his political game preventing somebody from forking the kernel and forcing him out of control.
What in the same CPUs in the same sockets, the same RAM in the same slots, and the same disks powered by the same power cables and the same SATA connectors makes Macs use "proprietary connectors and form factors"? I guess the motherboards might have an unusual layout, and the cases themselves are quite non-standard, but that's about it, really. Everything else (except for graphics cards' BIOSes, which are different because of EFI) is the same.
Two problems with that: The smaller point is that you just told him a creative way to slaughter a whole family (could be yours next). The bigger one is that we started this with saying that you were unsure whether your idea was good and you just asked an expert on the matter what he thought.
Semi-centralized, really. There is no clean way for me to connect to a "different Kazaa network", yet mostly anybody can host.torrent files and a tracker.
From what I understand, you're correct: you'd at most own copyright for the scan, not the text. So if I were to buy thte OCRed book off you, I'd be legally entitled to copy it word for word, and do whatever. Problem is, AFAIK you need to do something creative to actually qualify for copyright. So scanning the text doesn't give you copyright over the scans, but if you were to typeset the text, you'd have copyright over the layout itself, but not the text.
I wonder how this would work with sound recordings, though. One could theoretically keep the master tapes safely stored, and issue new, slightly tweaked edits every time the edit in the market is about to run out of copyright time. Of course, anybody who still has the old media has a public domain copy, but you're never issuing anything that's already in the public domain yourself.
How often do you say "vacuum leak" during a lifetime?
How often are you confronted with a situation where it might be relevant? You have a container that has something you want inside, and something you don't want outside. The seals on the container are faulty and the stuff is getting mixed up. That's a pretty reasonable definition of a leak. The "something you want" that's inside the container is vacuum. You're losing the vacuum through a leaky container, it's a vacuum leak. It's about as natural a choice of words as you could make it.
To find one terrorist in 3000 people, using a screen that works 90% of the time, you'll end up detaining 300 people, one of whom might be your target.
Anyone can write software to look for a turban
Let me see if I got this straight. If I write a piece of code that detects turbans, I'll pick 300 out of every 3000 people, of which 1 might be a terrorist? I'm confused now.
We're talking about delivery as a freaking system update. Not as a standalone. Also, "Default Browser" is "hidden in plain sight" if you will. It's next to last item on that list (dead last would be more noticeable), everything else in that list is a setting about Explorer itself, and the reasonable expectation is that a system update won't change your default software of choice.
From what I remember from seeing some of this stuff a few years ago, at least some groups actually write full-fledged applications for their artists to "program" procedurally-generated artwork, and the final binaries are at least partially assembled from such generated code.
However, since MS pushed IE8 as a critical update through their automatic update service the user doesn't really have much choice
It's slightly more subtle than that. A forced upgrade from IE7 to IE8 doesn't seem much of an issue to me. It defaulting to changing itself to being the default browser doesn't rattle me too much either (though it does annoy me). What really gets to me is the fact that such a huge change in user preferences is "hidden" behind a "use express settings" tick box.
Here is a hint, you don't need to be blindly obedient to be patriotic. You don't need to blindly trust or accept anything the country is doing to be patriotic.
More to the point, most definitions of patriotism put the ideals of the country above the actions of the government.
Slightly more on topic, is there a law against leaving your network open in Australia? What if I'm just being helpful, will they continue to badger me until I lock down my access point?
Presumably, if you tell them you're aware of the risks but are just being helpful they won't bother you again. But that'd make too much sense...
2) Everyone tests. There is no test team. All developers test things before a release. He does not talk about agile and how everyone should be testing their own stuff anyways.
That's "Agile Development" or "Extreme Programming" or whatever buzzwords people come up with next are just that: buzzwords. Most of what they espouse is essentially codified common sense. If your work process works, it works. If it doesn't, try to see what works for others and see if it works for you. I know, I'll call that "Pragmatic Programming", write a book or bunch of articles on it, do some conferences, and perhaps people will treat me as if I were some sort of guru because I said something elementary that makes sense.
If you just wrote the freaking code to be compilable both for windows and linux in the first place, you'd end up with code that compiles fine under both gcc and msvc. The problem resides, as it often does, in users (developers, in this case) digging their own grave.
Slashdot Mirror
How the hell does apple get an "unfair advantage" from using Google's search engine exclusively on Safari? Considering Apple's position in the browser market, the only reason why that limitation is bad is because you're getting crap functionality. As much as I like my Mac, I'm not giving away chrome's address bar search engine integration any time soon.
Then don't block cookies. Use something like Chrome's privacy mode (I think at least firefox is getting it too, dunno about others), and let the cookies land and get blasted as soon as you close the window. No long-term tracking, only that which is strictly necessary for the session.
This is a great breakthrough. This means that we can now wear full face tinfoil hats for even more protection without risking to bump into something anymore. Thanks that tinfoil hats are actually made of aluminum nowadays ! ;-))
Mate, don't do that. It's a trap. I mean, the bloody thing is transparent, there's no way it protects you from the rays. They're trying to make you trade your privacy for some comfort. We know how that ends.
But one side has a much greater financial incentive.
I know, it must be the guys who already control power production, who are raking in the dough at a pretty nice rate.
No, wait. Perhaps it's the guys researching "green" tech, who stand to multiply their investment by an arbitrarily large number by making green energy the rule.
I'm confused. Are you sure it's just one side?
The thing is, Linus is a lucky guy : he managed to get into a position where he doesn't have to do politics. He can focus exclusively on the technical merits of the code. Few of us are that lucky.
He's getting asked, point blank, whether he thinks it's a good idea to even accept that code into the mainline kernel. How, exactly, is that not politics? He just approaches the stuff in a completely no-nonsense sort of way, but there's nothing other than his political game preventing somebody from forking the kernel and forcing him out of control.
What in the same CPUs in the same sockets, the same RAM in the same slots, and the same disks powered by the same power cables and the same SATA connectors makes Macs use "proprietary connectors and form factors"? I guess the motherboards might have an unusual layout, and the cases themselves are quite non-standard, but that's about it, really. Everything else (except for graphics cards' BIOSes, which are different because of EFI) is the same.
Two problems with that: The smaller point is that you just told him a creative way to slaughter a whole family (could be yours next). The bigger one is that we started this with saying that you were unsure whether your idea was good and you just asked an expert on the matter what he thought.
Semi-centralized, really. There is no clean way for me to connect to a "different Kazaa network", yet mostly anybody can host .torrent files and a tracker.
If you download something and then sell it, I'd call that prima facie evidence that the downloading itself was done for commercial purposes.
IANAL, etc etc.
From what I understand, you're correct: you'd at most own copyright for the scan, not the text. So if I were to buy thte OCRed book off you, I'd be legally entitled to copy it word for word, and do whatever. Problem is, AFAIK you need to do something creative to actually qualify for copyright. So scanning the text doesn't give you copyright over the scans, but if you were to typeset the text, you'd have copyright over the layout itself, but not the text.
I wonder how this would work with sound recordings, though. One could theoretically keep the master tapes safely stored, and issue new, slightly tweaked edits every time the edit in the market is about to run out of copyright time. Of course, anybody who still has the old media has a public domain copy, but you're never issuing anything that's already in the public domain yourself.
How often do you say "vacuum leak" during a lifetime?
How often are you confronted with a situation where it might be relevant? You have a container that has something you want inside, and something you don't want outside. The seals on the container are faulty and the stuff is getting mixed up. That's a pretty reasonable definition of a leak. The "something you want" that's inside the container is vacuum. You're losing the vacuum through a leaky container, it's a vacuum leak. It's about as natural a choice of words as you could make it.
Shouldn't ICANN already have all the backbone it needs? Oh, wait...
Sheesh, with those odds I'll quote Sting and say "I don't ever want to play the part of a statistic on a government chart".
To find one terrorist in 3000 people, using a screen that works 90% of the time, you'll end up detaining 300 people, one of whom might be your target.
Anyone can write software to look for a turban
Let me see if I got this straight. If I write a piece of code that detects turbans, I'll pick 300 out of every 3000 people, of which 1 might be a terrorist? I'm confused now.
Fine, fine. We'll call it the DMPA then.
We're talking about delivery as a freaking system update. Not as a standalone. Also, "Default Browser" is "hidden in plain sight" if you will. It's next to last item on that list (dead last would be more noticeable), everything else in that list is a setting about Explorer itself, and the reasonable expectation is that a system update won't change your default software of choice.
From what I remember from seeing some of this stuff a few years ago, at least some groups actually write full-fledged applications for their artists to "program" procedurally-generated artwork, and the final binaries are at least partially assembled from such generated code.
Last time I checked 'Technology' included the wheel and fire.
Which is why any cool advancements in plasma physics are at least moderately likely to show up on slashdot.
However, since MS pushed IE8 as a critical update through their automatic update service the user doesn't really have much choice
It's slightly more subtle than that. A forced upgrade from IE7 to IE8 doesn't seem much of an issue to me. It defaulting to changing itself to being the default browser doesn't rattle me too much either (though it does annoy me). What really gets to me is the fact that such a huge change in user preferences is "hidden" behind a "use express settings" tick box.
Here is a hint, you don't need to be blindly obedient to be patriotic. You don't need to blindly trust or accept anything the country is doing to be patriotic.
More to the point, most definitions of patriotism put the ideals of the country above the actions of the government.
John Titor is SO 2001.
Don't you mean "SO 2036"?
Slightly more on topic, is there a law against leaving your network open in Australia? What if I'm just being helpful, will they continue to badger me until I lock down my access point?
Presumably, if you tell them you're aware of the risks but are just being helpful they won't bother you again. But that'd make too much sense...
2) Everyone tests. There is no test team. All developers test things before a release. He does not talk about agile and how everyone should be testing their own stuff anyways.
That's "Agile Development" or "Extreme Programming" or whatever buzzwords people come up with next are just that: buzzwords. Most of what they espouse is essentially codified common sense. If your work process works, it works. If it doesn't, try to see what works for others and see if it works for you. I know, I'll call that "Pragmatic Programming", write a book or bunch of articles on it, do some conferences, and perhaps people will treat me as if I were some sort of guru because I said something elementary that makes sense.
If you just wrote the freaking code to be compilable both for windows and linux in the first place, you'd end up with code that compiles fine under both gcc and msvc. The problem resides, as it often does, in users (developers, in this case) digging their own grave.
Only if you read it "coor vet".