My mistake - it redirects to wiki2.dotgnu.info. The actual server knows itself as wiki.dotgnu.org - all the stuff I said about virtual hosting is still true. That is, only www.dotgnu.org virtual dom
Oh please, you may not like it, but hideous is an overstatement. I personally like simple 2D "vector" logos too, and this one lends itself just fine to that. The winner image shows all sorts of different variations, including a very plain contour version, with no fancy shading.
The "3D" version is supposed to be a centerpiece on a box set (as shown in the winner image too), or a booth logo. That's why it is so heavy in sheen and bright colours; yet even there most of the details remain very subtle.
It also seems that they run a virtual host setup. The same server hosts http://wiki2.dotgnu.info/, which appears to be fine. It was probably some web-app 'sploit, localized to dotgnu.org; nothing too special.
You see, if everyone shared the same hate for blogs as you did, they wouldn't be mentioned as much in the media. It seems that people do read those things after all. But, of course, most successful blogs are actually themed after something, so it's not the inane self-centered ramblings that this is all about.
Also, writing about your favourite subject happens to be a very therapeutic thing; you should try it sometime, maybe it'll release some of that anger.
It seems that the team didn't give too much thought to Lua. Which is fine, because Python is much more well-known than Lua. Still, Lua is a very nifty little language, and its integration API is much much cleaner and safer than Python's, IMO. No reference counting, all memory management is done as a black box. Plus, it's supposed to be faster for a lot of things. And, finally, it can be used for both script code and directly storing raw data.
For an agre3able sum of 6 farth1ngs, You could be a happy recipient of Dr. Tomson's Fantastic Marriage Rev1ver 0il. The said amazing Substance is to be applied on Members involved; the forthcoming result may be hard to conceal even with a top hat, and your better half will quite soon be cured of that blasted Headache that has, undoubtedly, been plaguing the good woman every night for the past years.
Caution: mis-use shall certainly ruin a dinner party.
That is sad indeed, although I'm sure that many governments will violate the said patents, if the disease is important enough - like Brazil does wrt AIDS or Taiwan plans to with bird flu. Things like these affect people on too personal a level. But then, that's me being optimistic - hunger is personal too, and look at it go!
Just like with most seemingly dubious security features, it's about making it hard enough to prevent 95% of the potential perps. This is not really about terrorists, probably, since, as you said, there are extremely covert ways to transfer information. Most of us have surprisingly "flexible" morals, if the crime looks easy enough to get away with; so the idea is to scare an average person and make them think twice before doing stupid things. If only that could be enough...
I know a lot of people that would prefer a physical book over online docs anytime. The key difference between the manpages and a guide like this is how the latter places everything into some sort of context. That is, a novice would get a much more useful "bird's eye" view of the available toolset by reading a guide on Unix user management as opposed to directly researching manpages for adduser, passwd, finger, etc. Mind you, I love reading manpages, but I think I could have saved a lot of my own learning time back in the day, if there was a nice tutorial nearby and I wasn't so stubborn to do things the hard way.
Of course, manpages are impossible to avoid in day-to-day work, but a good guide is invaluable as a kick-start.
I think that's a very pessimistic description. InfoPath is essentially a knockoff from XForms, which is essentially a DTD with hints on data input. That means that very complex XML docs with nested tree-like structures, etc, can be created as a direct result of an XForms (or InfoPath) engine. Trust me, INPUT tags have nothing on that.
Google relies on ads for its revenue. So they will either want licensing fees or ad display for this sort of collaboration. The current web-services API they expose shows just that - they intend for corporations to license bulk quantities of it; the free usage of it is mostly for PR/mindshare value.
Also, what is it with the Not Invented Here syndrome? Use bash or perl damnit. Yes, builtin XML (de)serialization is nice, but it is useless for an average admin anyway. And a programmer that knows what it even means would probably be using a proper language, like, I don't know, C# or Java!
I see this as being pretty exhausting after prolonged use. Perhaps if minute hand movements were translated into large gestures on the big screen... but that's what a conventional mouse does. I think the most revolutionary part would be to make "drag-drop" thing a lot more physical, i.e. add small amounts of inertia to dragged objects. Also, Google for the copy-paste pen device - really nifty stuff.
The deadly Canadian mafia is not to be meddled with. They will sign you up to furniture catalogues, topple your lawn gnomes and even put flaming bags of poo on your porch! Heh heh[ NO CARRIER ]
(yes, I live in Canada, and yes, I am aware that there is a lot of dangerous mob activity, despite the friendly image of the country)
If this was a truly inventive April Fools joke, they would use some sort of a phishing exploit to make it LOOK like it came from microsoft.com. E.g. Javascript status bar spoofing, at least (that would have to be added in by a Slashdot editor though).
I for one don't care about the whole increased storage cap. But the new rich-text formatting feature makes me glad and upset at the same time.
For a long time now I've been thinking of making a rich-text editor in pure Javascript, so that it works in any browser, unlike past offerings from Hotmail. And now, it looks like that idea wasn't that crazy after all. Of course, I missed the boat to fame, pretty badly, now that Google made it so public. Yeah, I know, someone else probably did it before, but those efforts were obviously pretty obscure.
Most importantly, though, I think this shows the tidings of the new application: built entirely using the browser as a client interface, and the server as the app-logic/storage. Don't buy Microsoft Office, get a free consumer version from Google. Of course, business-features are also rentable, for a small pay-as-you-go rate of $.05 per minute. The customer is happy - all they need is a browser on ANY PC with teh intarweb; the vendor is happy - no more piracy issues, EVER. Plus, the software "seller" doesn't need to bother with tech support nearly as much - only need to answer the occasional "my JavaScript is turned off/I use Lynx" call.
I'd like to hear what you folks think of this vision of the future. And of course, links to existing examples that prove that these sentiments are soooo 1999.
Blackbox is very configurable and easy to extend. It fits into the "small tools" Unix paradigm much better than most other WMs. Because of that, it has a lot of positive sentiment among us geeks.
By the way, this screenshot looks mighty sexy. Also, I am surprised I don't see more pre-made integrated desktop packages that glue blackbox and other small tools in a cohesive magical way, like Knoppix does.
There is a big difference between sequential stream writing (as when recording video) and random access to small files (as when compiling). Constantly accessing different files may cause a lot of switching between HDD cylinders, which may wear out the head movement motors. Writing out a stream of blocks requires a lot less head shifts (in the order of 10-100 times probably).
But anyway, I actually agree with the overall point of the parent. Compile time is only a fraction of overall day-to-day HDD usage. And a good filesystem will optimize away a lot of direct HDD operations.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm turning in my Slashdot badge as I type this. *rolls eyes*
As usual, the pron industry will decide which format wins.
The Illuminati.
No we haven't.
Er...
Sort of like JavaOS? It's too bad that project didn't get much publicity...
Disappointment... or relief?
My mistake - it redirects to wiki2.dotgnu.info. The actual server knows itself as wiki.dotgnu.org - all the stuff I said about virtual hosting is still true. That is, only www.dotgnu.org virtual dom
Oh please, you may not like it, but hideous is an overstatement. I personally like simple 2D "vector" logos too, and this one lends itself just fine to that. The winner image shows all sorts of different variations, including a very plain contour version, with no fancy shading. The "3D" version is supposed to be a centerpiece on a box set (as shown in the winner image too), or a booth logo. That's why it is so heavy in sheen and bright colours; yet even there most of the details remain very subtle.
It also seems that they run a virtual host setup. The same server hosts http://wiki2.dotgnu.info/, which appears to be fine. It was probably some web-app 'sploit, localized to dotgnu.org; nothing too special.
Also, writing about your favourite subject happens to be a very therapeutic thing; you should try it sometime, maybe it'll release some of that anger.
It seems that the team didn't give too much thought to Lua. Which is fine, because Python is much more well-known than Lua. Still, Lua is a very nifty little language, and its integration API is much much cleaner and safer than Python's, IMO. No reference counting, all memory management is done as a black box. Plus, it's supposed to be faster for a lot of things. And, finally, it can be used for both script code and directly storing raw data.
For an agre3able sum of 6 farth1ngs, You could be a happy recipient of Dr. Tomson's Fantastic Marriage Rev1ver 0il. The said amazing Substance is to be applied on Members involved; the forthcoming result may be hard to conceal even with a top hat, and your better half will quite soon be cured of that blasted Headache that has, undoubtedly, been plaguing the good woman every night for the past years.
Caution: mis-use shall certainly ruin a dinner party.
That is sad indeed, although I'm sure that many governments will violate the said patents, if the disease is important enough - like Brazil does wrt AIDS or Taiwan plans to with bird flu. Things like these affect people on too personal a level. But then, that's me being optimistic - hunger is personal too, and look at it go!
Just like with most seemingly dubious security features, it's about making it hard enough to prevent 95% of the potential perps. This is not really about terrorists, probably, since, as you said, there are extremely covert ways to transfer information. Most of us have surprisingly "flexible" morals, if the crime looks easy enough to get away with; so the idea is to scare an average person and make them think twice before doing stupid things. If only that could be enough...
I know a lot of people that would prefer a physical book over online docs anytime. The key difference between the manpages and a guide like this is how the latter places everything into some sort of context. That is, a novice would get a much more useful "bird's eye" view of the available toolset by reading a guide on Unix user management as opposed to directly researching manpages for adduser, passwd, finger, etc. Mind you, I love reading manpages, but I think I could have saved a lot of my own learning time back in the day, if there was a nice tutorial nearby and I wasn't so stubborn to do things the hard way.
Of course, manpages are impossible to avoid in day-to-day work, but a good guide is invaluable as a kick-start.
/me secretly winks at author for placing the vim chapter first
less functional
I think that's a very pessimistic description. InfoPath is essentially a knockoff from XForms, which is essentially a DTD with hints on data input. That means that very complex XML docs with nested tree-like structures, etc, can be created as a direct result of an XForms (or InfoPath) engine. Trust me, INPUT tags have nothing on that.
Google relies on ads for its revenue. So they will either want licensing fees or ad display for this sort of collaboration. The current web-services API they expose shows just that - they intend for corporations to license bulk quantities of it; the free usage of it is mostly for PR/mindshare value.
HAH!
Also, what is it with the Not Invented Here syndrome? Use bash or perl damnit. Yes, builtin XML (de)serialization is nice, but it is useless for an average admin anyway. And a programmer that knows what it even means would probably be using a proper language, like, I don't know, C# or Java!
I see this as being pretty exhausting after prolonged use. Perhaps if minute hand movements were translated into large gestures on the big screen... but that's what a conventional mouse does. I think the most revolutionary part would be to make "drag-drop" thing a lot more physical, i.e. add small amounts of inertia to dragged objects. Also, Google for the copy-paste pen device - really nifty stuff.
The deadly Canadian mafia is not to be meddled with. They will sign you up to furniture catalogues, topple your lawn gnomes and even put flaming bags of poo on your porch! Heh heh[ NO CARRIER ]
(yes, I live in Canada, and yes, I am aware that there is a lot of dangerous mob activity, despite the friendly image of the country)
If this was a truly inventive April Fools joke, they would use some sort of a phishing exploit to make it LOOK like it came from microsoft.com. E.g. Javascript status bar spoofing, at least (that would have to be added in by a Slashdot editor though).
For a long time now I've been thinking of making a rich-text editor in pure Javascript, so that it works in any browser, unlike past offerings from Hotmail. And now, it looks like that idea wasn't that crazy after all. Of course, I missed the boat to fame, pretty badly, now that Google made it so public. Yeah, I know, someone else probably did it before, but those efforts were obviously pretty obscure.
Most importantly, though, I think this shows the tidings of the new application: built entirely using the browser as a client interface, and the server as the app-logic/storage. Don't buy Microsoft Office, get a free consumer version from Google. Of course, business-features are also rentable, for a small pay-as-you-go rate of $.05 per minute. The customer is happy - all they need is a browser on ANY PC with teh intarweb; the vendor is happy - no more piracy issues, EVER. Plus, the software "seller" doesn't need to bother with tech support nearly as much - only need to answer the occasional "my JavaScript is turned off/I use Lynx" call.
I'd like to hear what you folks think of this vision of the future. And of course, links to existing examples that prove that these sentiments are soooo 1999.
Heh, you don't think that your fingerprints can be easily copied? You must be wearing gloves all the time.
At least if this RFID tag is compromised, he can take it out and replace it with another. Try to do that with your retinas.
By the way, this screenshot looks mighty sexy. Also, I am surprised I don't see more pre-made integrated desktop packages that glue blackbox and other small tools in a cohesive magical way, like Knoppix does.
There is a big difference between sequential stream writing (as when recording video) and random access to small files (as when compiling). Constantly accessing different files may cause a lot of switching between HDD cylinders, which may wear out the head movement motors. Writing out a stream of blocks requires a lot less head shifts (in the order of 10-100 times probably).
But anyway, I actually agree with the overall point of the parent. Compile time is only a fraction of overall day-to-day HDD usage. And a good filesystem will optimize away a lot of direct HDD operations.