I'll agree that Firefly is awesome and all, but who hasn't already seen every episode? It seems that by now, everyone is in one of two camps with respect to Firefly:
-- Has seen every episode, many multiple times, and has seen the movie.
-- Has not seen every episode, and doesn't plan to.
In addition to blocking JavaScript on non-whitelisted sites, NoScript also prevents Flash and Java from loading unless you specifically allow them on a case-by-case basis. All of those stupid Flash adds will be gone, but you can still view everything you want to! It's a great extension.
I'm not blaming the judges, I'm blaming the lawyer. He should have known the legal precedent you speak of and planned accordingly, raising all possible arguments at the initial trial.
A quick reading of the brief in the "searching laptops at the border" case suggests that the reason they're considering a laptop search as part of the "routine search" they're already allowed to do at borders is because the defendant's lawyer didn't raise the question of whether this search differed from a routine search during the first phase of the trial, and therefore the appellate court can't look at the issue now. Seems more like a dodge to duck the issue rather than an actual ruling. Here, I'll even give you the specific wording:
Finally, and for the first time in his reply brief, Romm argues the search of his laptop was too intrusive on his First Amendment interests to qualify as a "routine" border search. See generally Okafor, 285 F.3d at 846 (noting the difference between routine and non-routine searches). We decline to consider this issue here because "arguments not raised by a party in its opening brief are deemed waived." See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999). Therefore, evaluating the border search of Romm's laptop solely as a routine search, we hold the district court correctly denied Romm's motion to suppress.
Yep. That's what my warning is about. You might see two options, labeled "Trade Paperback" and "Pocket Size," and think "Pocket Size must be unusually small, while Trade Paperback is the normal size." I wanted to make sure people didn't get confused.
I played around with Lulu.com's print-on-demand service a few months ago; it was surprisingly easy. I layed out the book in OpenOffice, saved it to a PDF, checked it in xpdf, and sent the file to them. A week or so later, I had a hard copy with a professional-looking cover and everything. One thing to note before ordering from them: Lulu's 6" x 9" format is actually larger than most paperback books; if you want yours to look "normal," don't use it. Anyway, overall it was a fairly positive experience; I'd recommend them for low-volume book printing.
I don't really consider those "applications," per se, so much as "things our programmers wrote to make their lives easier that you may also want to look at." Almost all of them are for hard-core coders, and even the less intense ones are for web page designers. Maybe I should have used the phrase "end-user applications" to make my meaning more explicit. The point is, all of their actual branded, pretty-looking applications (Talk, Desktop, Mac Gmail Notifier, IE Toolbar, Firefox Extensions, Picasa, Earth, SketchUp) are not open-sourced, and I don't think will be for the foreseeable future.
Do you people honestly think that any Google software will be released as open source? Even their Firefox extensions aren't open source! They're relatively good about contributing back to existing open source projects, but I don't know of a single novel application they've written and then released as OSS. If you're not going to use any non-open software, don't download stuff from Google.
Ah. Well, yea, naturally that solves the problem of specifically adding ~x86 or ~amd64 to each subpackage of X.org 7.0. I guess I should have known when I saw how bare your package.keywords was; mine has at least 15 entries. Un-keyword-masking is a bit too much "new" for my taste, but it's a legitimate strategy.
I'm pretty sure there is a meta-package. The problem is, even if you put the meta-package in package.keywords, it'll still complain about all its dependencies being masked. If I found a good way to import that entire file into package.keywords (Why oh why didn't they provide a version with ~x86 appended to each line? I'm way too lazy to do it in vim.), a simple "emerge xorg-x11" would work.
There's a difference between hard-masking and keyword masking. Essentially, Gentoo has three levels of packages: "stable," "masked," and "hard-masked." Masking involves just putting a tilde in front of your architecture to get the software. You can use the/etc/portage/package.keywords file to specify packages you always want the masked version of; I've done this with Firefox, for example. There's another level of masking, which is called hard-masking. To remove a hard-mask, you've got to put the package in/etc/portage/package.unmask, and you need to list a specific version of the software you want to unmask. In general, it seems reasonable to have a few masked things installed on your system, but these aren't the same as hard-masked packages.
Have you seen the number of packages you need to add to packages.keywords to switch to X.Org 7.0 in Gentoo? There's no way any sane person will do that until they move it all to the stable branch. echo "=x11-base/xorg-x11-6.9.0-r1" >>/etc/portage/package.unmask is the way to go.
Patent law actually already works this way. If something was published or used in the US over a year before you applied for the patent, you're done. You aren't getting anything.
As a Caltech student, I feel the need to respond to all the "On noes! Grand theft cannon! Involve the police!" comments. By any measure, this was a good prank. I have nothing but admiration for MIT for doing this. Admiration and the need to get even, of course. But no hard feelings.
...or is this a simple as "we've got two lasers a known distance from one another and they shoot in the same direction"? I mean, who couldn't have come up with this "invention"? At least it's not a software patent...
Slashdot Mirror
I'll agree that Firefly is awesome and all, but who hasn't already seen every episode? It seems that by now, everyone is in one of two camps with respect to Firefly:
-- Has seen every episode, many multiple times, and has seen the movie.
-- Has not seen every episode, and doesn't plan to.
Who will watch the SciFi Channel's marathon?
The NSA is the agency charged with turning electricity into civil rights violations...naturally they'd need more electricity nowadays!
In addition to blocking JavaScript on non-whitelisted sites, NoScript also prevents Flash and Java from loading unless you specifically allow them on a case-by-case basis. All of those stupid Flash adds will be gone, but you can still view everything you want to! It's a great extension.
I'm not blaming the judges, I'm blaming the lawyer. He should have known the legal precedent you speak of and planned accordingly, raising all possible arguments at the initial trial.
The original site has been offline for a few years, but this copy of the Black Viper Windows XP Services List should come in very handy.
Yep. That's what my warning is about. You might see two options, labeled "Trade Paperback" and "Pocket Size," and think "Pocket Size must be unusually small, while Trade Paperback is the normal size." I wanted to make sure people didn't get confused.
Ah, so that's what those terms mean. I thought they had to do with the level of distribution.
I played around with Lulu.com's print-on-demand service a few months ago; it was surprisingly easy. I layed out the book in OpenOffice, saved it to a PDF, checked it in xpdf, and sent the file to them. A week or so later, I had a hard copy with a professional-looking cover and everything. One thing to note before ordering from them: Lulu's 6" x 9" format is actually larger than most paperback books; if you want yours to look "normal," don't use it. Anyway, overall it was a fairly positive experience; I'd recommend them for low-volume book printing.
I don't really consider those "applications," per se, so much as "things our programmers wrote to make their lives easier that you may also want to look at." Almost all of them are for hard-core coders, and even the less intense ones are for web page designers. Maybe I should have used the phrase "end-user applications" to make my meaning more explicit. The point is, all of their actual branded, pretty-looking applications (Talk, Desktop, Mac Gmail Notifier, IE Toolbar, Firefox Extensions, Picasa, Earth, SketchUp) are not open-sourced, and I don't think will be for the foreseeable future.
Do you people honestly think that any Google software will be released as open source? Even their Firefox extensions aren't open source! They're relatively good about contributing back to existing open source projects, but I don't know of a single novel application they've written and then released as OSS. If you're not going to use any non-open software, don't download stuff from Google.
Using my excessively-modified Gentoo install, with the Ion window manager, it works perfectly...don't know what everyone else is complaining about.
And before someone says something, no, I didn't try to compile it from source...
if nobody tests new software then how can it ever become stable?
;-)
You're right, of course; I just don't feel that that person has to be me.
Ah. Well, yea, naturally that solves the problem of specifically adding ~x86 or ~amd64 to each subpackage of X.org 7.0. I guess I should have known when I saw how bare your package.keywords was; mine has at least 15 entries. Un-keyword-masking is a bit too much "new" for my taste, but it's a legitimate strategy.
I'm pretty sure there is a meta-package. The problem is, even if you put the meta-package in package.keywords, it'll still complain about all its dependencies being masked. If I found a good way to import that entire file into package.keywords (Why oh why didn't they provide a version with ~x86 appended to each line? I'm way too lazy to do it in vim.), a simple "emerge xorg-x11" would work.
Wait, if you don't even have xorg-x11 in your package.keywords file, wouldn't you get 6.8.2 installed? How'd you manage without that?
There's a difference between hard-masking and keyword masking. Essentially, Gentoo has three levels of packages: "stable," "masked," and "hard-masked." Masking involves just putting a tilde in front of your architecture to get the software. You can use the /etc/portage/package.keywords file to specify packages you always want the masked version of; I've done this with Firefox, for example. There's another level of masking, which is called hard-masking. To remove a hard-mask, you've got to put the package in /etc/portage/package.unmask, and you need to list a specific version of the software you want to unmask. In general, it seems reasonable to have a few masked things installed on your system, but these aren't the same as hard-masked packages.
Have you seen the number of packages you need to add to packages.keywords to switch to X.Org 7.0 in Gentoo? There's no way any sane person will do that until they move it all to the stable branch. echo "=x11-base/xorg-x11-6.9.0-r1" >> /etc/portage/package.unmask is the way to go.
If its not Linus or Stallman, who is the OSS leader or is there no leader but rather just a bizarre style of underground thing?
You misspelled "bazaar."
All you jokers replying to this with ":-(" don't realize the irony of your actions -- fronies are a registered trademark of Despair, Inc.
Patent law actually already works this way. If something was published or used in the US over a year before you applied for the patent, you're done. You aren't getting anything.
I'm wondering if with unlimited resourses, the process could be performed enough times to revert the cell to a stem cell. Just a thought.
No.
That isn't a force field at all! It just shoots you!
As a Caltech student, I feel the need to respond to all the "On noes! Grand theft cannon! Involve the police!" comments. By any measure, this was a good prank. I have nothing but admiration for MIT for doing this. Admiration and the need to get even, of course. But no hard feelings.
...or is this a simple as "we've got two lasers a known distance from one another and they shoot in the same direction"? I mean, who couldn't have come up with this "invention"? At least it's not a software patent...