Omniweb is the web browser you want! 4.0b2 was just released, and fixes a lot of problems with 4.0b1. It's Objective-C/Cocoa, not Carbon, so takes advantage of some of the really cool features like Services. http://www.omnigroup.com/products/omniweb/
Omniweb's damned fast even on my 233MHz Powerbook G3, and by far the prettiest damned browser anywhere:)
Hmm, an official x86 release... that's interesting. Leaves the door open for Apple to cross over to Intel's nasty little architecture if Moto and IBM can't get their act together with the G4.
Of course, porting Carbon would be non-trivial.
Here's hoping the G4e isn't too far away...
On a side note, having a QT streaming server for NT is a good thing... yes, it means your QTSS could be crashy and slow because it's running on NT, but it means few webhosting providers will have an excuse not to provide QTSS, and it'll help fight Windoze Media on its own turf.
It's definitely faster than Comm 4.7, no question. Faster even than the new IE5 (which is fast but unstable). The new rendering engine definitely kicks ass. On the other hand, the memory usage (right now, Netscape 6b1 is eating thirty megs) is horrible (but will hopefully improve).
My take is that while the Gecko engine is a work of art, the application shell and the horrible XML GUI are not. It's not Mac-like - or Linux-like, or Winsuck-like, or anything. It doesn't adhere to any user interface guidelines at all, and sticks out like a sore thumb on any platform. Yes, there's skinning support... but that won't help the bloat and the nonstandard *feel* (it'll only help the *look*). Thanks to it being open source, however, maybe someone will take the Gecko engine and stick it in an open-source Cocoa-based Mac OS X Native app. Hmmm... I'm learning Objective-C now...;-)
Don't misunderstand what this means. The ECC algorithm was not cracked; an encrypted message was cracked after a ridiculously large amount of computing power was applied to it. Perhaps this means larger key sizes are needed, or smaller windows of using the same key. However, unlike DES, there is no known mathematical loophole; the algorithm has not been shown to be insecure. If there is a loophole, then increasing key size doesn't help; the algorithm is flawed. But in this case, all that's needed is larger key sizes. Arbitrarily large keys allow for encryption that can't be cracked with all the computing horsepower on the planet within the age of the universe.
I'd be more interested in real cryptographic algorithm analysis of the algorithm, but that is not by any means my forte.
If Pinkerton pushes this unconstitutional, prior-restraint monstrosity through, there is a fairly easy solution. Ever hear of flooding the courts? It's when everyone gets themselves arrested. Well, the tactic could be modified - flood Pinkerton. Report everyone you know, yourself included. They'll have so many reports to wade through that they'll be unable to do anything about it.
That said, I want to say why I think WAVE America has no business existing at all. Let's put aside the issues that have been mentioned - that schoolmates are not trained to recognize depression & a tendency to violence; that acting on these reports could amount to unconstitutional prior restraint. Let's say that anonymous phone-in ratting-out wasn't part of the equation.
WAVE America still has no business in public schools, for the simple reason that it pushes conformance to some predefined 'norm' that doesn't include geeks, nerds, goths, individualists, radicals... is America pushing its school system to be more like Japan's, where anyone who doesn't fit the 'norm' is punished? Do we want our suicide rate to match Japan's? Schools should be focusing on education - if we need this sort of garbage to keep schools safe, then let's close down the schools.
Apple can't open-source Sorenson; it's not Apple's product. Also, the Windoze version of Quicktime required porting a major subset of the MacOS toolbox to Windoze.
The best solution is probably to release the codecs in binary form (precompiled for many platforms) as suggested.
Any sort of watermark embedded in a scan would be easy to defeat, unless the authors of programs like Photoshop or the Gimp (and thankfully, this would never happen with the Gimp) made it impossible to edit out watermarks. First off, impossible-to-see watermarks would not stand up to jpeg compression. Second, they might not stand up to print output. Finally, if the nature of the watermark was known, it'd be trivial to edit out.
This seems kind of vacuous... it's what I hate about New Scientist... it often tries to avoid any details that might ruin a sensational piece. No mechanism or evidence or theoretical reasoning is proposed here.... just the laws as we currently understand them don't prohibit this sort of thing.
That said... could this reverse time be like a reflection of a wave in time (rather than in space) off the big crunch? does all time just reverse, and thus there'd be a big crunch even if omega >= 1 and the universe is flat or open? Hmmm...
Well, I doubt Napster has a case, because CuteMX and others are borrowing the same idea. And software patents can patent an algorithm... I don't think they can patent accomplishing something (i.e. filesharing, word processing, mp3 sharing, etc).
The RIAA will probably try to bludgeon these poor folk into submission... the RIAA doesn't have a case; this isn't a recording device at all. But we know the RIAA will just use the threat of a lawsuit to get what they want... extortionist bastards. But since all the software will be GPL'ed, this company could always just sell the hardware and the the software sort of 'subsist' on the net... RIAA can never really win:)
Thanks to the RIAA's tactics, I refuse to buy CDs from any major label... I'll mp3 them or not listen at all, but the RIAA gets none of my money! Small independent artists and those with their own labels, I'm happy to support.
What about Hotline? Besides being the seamy realm of warez and pr0n, there are many private or quasi-private true BBS sites... Mac Gaming Ledge has a great Hotline site, for example. And though Hotline is starting to suck hardcore with the newer releases, there are alternatives like Carracho. www.hotlinesw.comwww.carracho.com
The purpose of requiring you to not be a minor is probably to make sure you can legally allow yourself to be bound to the agreement. Of course, if you're a minor, you can't legally be bound anyways, so you can't be considered to be doing anything wrong by downloading the software... right?
This false dichotomy sounds a little like "if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem."
I don't *favor* big government, nor do I oppose big government on principle. I do favor some socialised involvement (universal health care, public schools, etc) and I also favor less government involvement in personal matters (I'm pro-choice, anti-encryption-export-restrictions, and so on). But trying to make people choose between being FOR or AGAINST big government is to miss the point. Government shouldn't be bigger than it needs to be; nor should it be smaller than it needs to be.
What has to happen, is this guy needs to grant permission (if he wants) for his movie to be freely distributable. Then, EVERYONE hosts it. I'll put it up on 3 separate webservers. Is the FBI going to harass a few thousand peoples' different ISPs into shutting them down? If they did, that'd be a BIG news headline, carried in the mainstream media. And that's what the FBI does NOT want.
You're exactly right - there's little mechanical difference between SCSI and IDE drives, but the controller chip on the board is all the difference. Nevermind that IDE uses the host computer's CPU (making it a poor choice for anything but a desktop PC) because in the controller the poster mentioned, IDE is bypassed, implying that there is a separate host controller chip.
However, the SCSI *protocol* has something very important for servers. It's a feature called 'block lockout' as I recall, and it becomes important only when you have a server with multiple disk requests going on at once. Let's say you have several reads and writes going on at once (as you will on a server). SCSI is smart enough not to jump back and forth from block to block in sequence; it does the more efficient thing and tries to read as sequentially as possible. So while IDE can be as fast or faster than many SCSI solutions for a single data stream, when you have multiple data streams going on, IDE can't hold a candle.
This is why it's foolish to use IDE drives in a high-capacity server.
(You often won't notice the difference that much in Win9x or MacOS anyways, because both of those OS's are so inefficient at task-switching anyways).
I don't know what the Firewire protocol allows (though it has the very cool feature of isochronous support) but I'd hope Firewire has some of these features too (though they'd only become useful once there are native firewire hard drives, rather than the current crop of IDE drives with FW-IDE bridge chips that you can buy now)
My god, will the madness end? Honestly, I think the only solution (no, getting rid of patents is NOT a good solution - I don't like software patents, but patents overall are a good thing) is to have a separate department within the patent office for handling software and internet-related patents. And it would be made up, ideally, of people who have some SEMBLANCE of a clue.
In my experience, these self-proclaimed IT Consulting Experts are just as platform-bigoted and dogmatic as the rest of us... maybe worse, because they're even more certain of their infallibility.
But how is this different from your buddy in Iraq calling you up and saying "hey, I'm trying to finish this killer encryption program but I can't remember how to do something simple, does this source code (spoken verbally, and just some little piece of class-definition code) sound right to you?"
Is it illegal to provide programming advice? What if you didn't know it was encryption code? What if it's just a load/store module for encryption code? What if it's just an FFT routine for encryption code?
Slashdot Mirror
Omniweb is the web browser you want! 4.0b2 was just released, and fixes a lot of problems with 4.0b1. It's Objective-C/Cocoa, not Carbon, so takes advantage of some of the really cool features like Services. http://www.omnigroup.com/products/omniweb/
Omniweb's damned fast even on my 233MHz Powerbook G3, and by far the prettiest damned browser anywhere :)
If you want a screenshot of it running on my machine (the screenshots on OmniGroup's site are pre-Aqua) check out http://www.tufts.edu/~ndanie01/images/Desktop.tiff .
Hmm, an official x86 release... that's interesting. Leaves the door open for Apple to cross over to Intel's nasty little architecture if Moto and IBM can't get their act together with the G4.
:)
Of course, porting Carbon would be non-trivial.
Here's hoping the G4e isn't too far away...
On a side note, having a QT streaming server for NT is a good thing... yes, it means your QTSS could be crashy and slow because it's running on NT, but it means few webhosting providers will have an excuse not to provide QTSS, and it'll help fight Windoze Media on its own turf.
QT for unix, pleeeeeze apple??
Running it on Mac OS 9.0.4.
;-)
It's definitely faster than Comm 4.7, no question. Faster even than the new IE5 (which is fast but unstable). The new rendering engine definitely kicks ass. On the other hand, the memory usage (right now, Netscape 6b1 is eating thirty megs) is horrible (but will hopefully improve).
My take is that while the Gecko engine is a work of art, the application shell and the horrible XML GUI are not. It's not Mac-like - or Linux-like, or Winsuck-like, or anything. It doesn't adhere to any user interface guidelines at all, and sticks out like a sore thumb on any platform. Yes, there's skinning support... but that won't help the bloat and the nonstandard *feel* (it'll only help the *look*).
Thanks to it being open source, however, maybe someone will take the Gecko engine and stick it in an open-source Cocoa-based Mac OS X Native app. Hmmm... I'm learning Objective-C now...
Don't misunderstand what this means. The ECC algorithm was not cracked; an encrypted message was cracked after a ridiculously large amount of computing power was applied to it. Perhaps this means larger key sizes are needed, or smaller windows of using the same key. However, unlike DES, there is no known mathematical loophole; the algorithm has not been shown to be insecure. If there is a loophole, then increasing key size doesn't help; the algorithm is flawed. But in this case, all that's needed is larger key sizes. Arbitrarily large keys allow for encryption that can't be cracked with all the computing horsepower on the planet within the age of the universe.
I'd be more interested in real cryptographic algorithm analysis of the algorithm, but that is not by any means my forte.
If Pinkerton pushes this unconstitutional, prior-restraint monstrosity through, there is a fairly easy solution. Ever hear of flooding the courts? It's when everyone gets themselves arrested. Well, the tactic could be modified - flood Pinkerton. Report everyone you know, yourself included. They'll have so many reports to wade through that they'll be unable to do anything about it.
That said, I want to say why I think WAVE America has no business existing at all. Let's put aside the issues that have been mentioned - that schoolmates are not trained to recognize depression & a tendency to violence; that acting on these reports could amount to unconstitutional prior restraint. Let's say that anonymous phone-in ratting-out wasn't part of the equation.
WAVE America still has no business in public schools, for the simple reason that it pushes conformance to some predefined 'norm' that doesn't include geeks, nerds, goths, individualists, radicals... is America pushing its school system to be more like Japan's, where anyone who doesn't fit the 'norm' is punished? Do we want our suicide rate to match Japan's? Schools should be focusing on education - if we need this sort of garbage to keep schools safe, then let's close down the schools.
Apple can't open-source Sorenson; it's not Apple's product. Also, the Windoze version of Quicktime required porting a major subset of the MacOS toolbox to Windoze.
The best solution is probably to release the codecs in binary form (precompiled for many platforms) as suggested.
It was really just an MIS drone who lost a laptop. The 'top secret' info was the 2 gigs of g04t-pr0nZ he'd been downloading on his company's T3.
Any sort of watermark embedded in a scan would be easy to defeat, unless the authors of programs like Photoshop or the Gimp (and thankfully, this would never happen with the Gimp) made it impossible to edit out watermarks. First off, impossible-to-see watermarks would not stand up to jpeg compression. Second, they might not stand up to print output. Finally, if the nature of the watermark was known, it'd be trivial to edit out.
This seems kind of vacuous... it's what I hate about New Scientist... it often tries to avoid any details that might ruin a sensational piece. No mechanism or evidence or theoretical reasoning is proposed here.... just the laws as we currently understand them don't prohibit this sort of thing.
That said... could this reverse time be like a reflection of a wave in time (rather than in space) off the big crunch? does all time just reverse, and thus there'd be a big crunch even if omega >= 1 and the universe is flat or open? Hmmm...
Well, I doubt Napster has a case, because CuteMX and others are borrowing the same idea. And software patents can patent an algorithm... I don't think they can patent accomplishing something (i.e. filesharing, word processing, mp3 sharing, etc).
:)
The RIAA will probably try to bludgeon these poor folk into submission... the RIAA doesn't have a case; this isn't a recording device at all. But we know the RIAA will just use the threat of a lawsuit to get what they want... extortionist bastards. But since all the software will be GPL'ed, this company could always just sell the hardware and the the software sort of 'subsist' on the net... RIAA can never really win
Thanks to the RIAA's tactics, I refuse to buy CDs from any major label... I'll mp3 them or not listen at all, but the RIAA gets none of my money! Small independent artists and those with their own labels, I'm happy to support.
What about Hotline? Besides being the seamy realm of warez and pr0n, there are many private or quasi-private true BBS sites... Mac Gaming Ledge has a great Hotline site, for example. And though Hotline is starting to suck hardcore with the newer releases, there are alternatives like Carracho. www.hotlinesw.com www.carracho.com
The purpose of requiring you to not be a minor is probably to make sure you can legally allow yourself to be bound to the agreement. Of course, if you're a minor, you can't legally be bound anyways, so you can't be considered to be doing anything wrong by downloading the software... right?
This false dichotomy sounds a little like "if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem."
I don't *favor* big government, nor do I oppose big government on principle. I do favor some socialised involvement (universal health care, public schools, etc) and I also favor less government involvement in personal matters (I'm pro-choice, anti-encryption-export-restrictions, and so on). But trying to make people choose between being FOR or AGAINST big government is to miss the point. Government shouldn't be bigger than it needs to be; nor should it be smaller than it needs to be.
What has to happen, is this guy needs to grant permission (if he wants) for his movie to be freely distributable. Then, EVERYONE hosts it. I'll put it up on 3 separate webservers. Is the FBI going to harass a few thousand peoples' different ISPs into shutting them down? If they did, that'd be a BIG news headline, carried in the mainstream media. And that's what the FBI does NOT want.
You're exactly right - there's little mechanical difference between SCSI and IDE drives, but the controller chip on the board is all the difference. Nevermind that IDE uses the host computer's CPU (making it a poor choice for anything but a desktop PC) because in the controller the poster mentioned, IDE is bypassed, implying that there is a separate host controller chip.
However, the SCSI *protocol* has something very important for servers. It's a feature called 'block lockout' as I recall, and it becomes important only when you have a server with multiple disk requests going on at once. Let's say you have several reads and writes going on at once (as you will on a server). SCSI is smart enough not to jump back and forth from block to block in sequence; it does the more efficient thing and tries to read as sequentially as possible. So while IDE can be as fast or faster than many SCSI solutions for a single data stream, when you have multiple data streams going on, IDE can't hold a candle.
This is why it's foolish to use IDE drives in a high-capacity server.
(You often won't notice the difference that much in Win9x or MacOS anyways, because both of those OS's are so inefficient at task-switching anyways).
I don't know what the Firewire protocol allows (though it has the very cool feature of isochronous support) but I'd hope Firewire has some of these features too (though they'd only become useful once there are native firewire hard drives, rather than the current crop of IDE drives with FW-IDE bridge chips that you can buy now)
His must be Strom Thurmond, who probably predates much of patent law ;-)
My god, will the madness end? Honestly, I think the only solution (no, getting rid of patents is NOT a good solution - I don't like software patents, but patents overall are a good thing) is to have a separate department within the patent office for handling software and internet-related patents. And it would be made up, ideally, of people who have some SEMBLANCE of a clue.
In my experience, these self-proclaimed IT Consulting Experts are just as platform-bigoted and dogmatic as the rest of us... maybe worse, because they're even more certain of their infallibility.
But how is this different from your buddy in Iraq calling you up and saying "hey, I'm trying to finish this killer encryption program but I can't remember how to do something simple, does this source code (spoken verbally, and just some little piece of class-definition code) sound right to you?"
Is it illegal to provide programming advice? What if you didn't know it was encryption code? What if it's just a load/store module for encryption code? What if it's just an FFT routine for encryption code?