Have you looked at ReactOS? It's still in alpha at the moment, but it's basically what you're talking about, a "Windows-Compatible, Windows-Alternative-OS"
If it's taller than it's wide, then it's phallic
If it's taller than it's wide, then it's phallic
If it's longer than it's wide, then you turn it on its side
Then it's taller than it's wide, then it's phallic
It's about entropy. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_entropy)
Because there are only 26 lowercase letters, a sequence of lowercase letters has a little less than 5 bits per character. By doubling the number of possible characters, using a combination of uppercase and lowercase adds another bit of entropy to each character. The fact that it's all stored in ASCII with a constant number of bits per character is irrelevant to the actual amount of information entropy in the message.
Is XSL:FO suitable for describing on-screen layout? Wikipedia says:
The XSL-FO language was designed for paged media, in much the same way that HTML and CSS were designed for unpaged (or screen-based) media. As such, the concept of pages is an integral part of XSL-FO's structure,
I certainly wouldn't want web pages to end up being like PDFs, with a page-based layout. It would be annoying and waste a lot of space when generally the users just want to read the document on the screen.
On my system networking is done by deleting the mess of scripts that came with the distro and writing a simple script with a few ifconfig and iwconfig commands.
on Gentoo, I know I can stop a network device by doing/etc/init.d/net.eth1 stop.
What's wrong with "ifconfig eth1 down"? That works on every distro.
That's like saying that DRM encourages innovation by causing people to create cracks for it, or that computer viruses encourage innovation in antivirus programs. While both of these statements are true, they don't necessarily mean that innovation is a good thing.
In general, I don't think there's a net benefit to society from a company pointlessly having to come up with a new way of doing something that we already know how to do. What the patent system does is create obstacles to progress, and then say it must be good because it's making us pointlessly innovate to work around these obstacles.
And remember that safeguarding a password from the administrator is ineffective anyway, because all the administrator has to do is wait until the next time you log in, and sniff your password then.
But it wouldn't cut into their employees' bandwidth. With the right software, Comcast could just monitor their customers' downloads and get copies of all the anime for their own use.... I think I just realised why the NSA tries to intercept so much traffic.
Vista is just as bad. The first time I used Vista, I tried to copy a file from a network share to my desktop, and it wouldn't let me because of permissions or something. I couldn't work it out, and eventually had to copy the file using a USB flash drive instead.
How many people really care about encoding video? 5% of the market? Less?
I don't know why you seem to think video encoding is some sort of niche technical application that no one uses. A huge number of people record video on digital cameras and want to email it or upload it without taking too long. Many people now use Skype and other VOIP software supporting real-time video communication. Many people rip DVDs. Many people (although not a huge number) have "media center" PCs which can record video from TV broadcasts.
north korea, china and most of the middle east actively filters what its citizens are allowed to read. china has imprisoned journalists for publishing information it does not want posted, and have frequently deemed things 'state secrets' to cover up goings on inside their borders.
The USA actively filters what its citizens are allowed to read. The USA has imprisoned journalists for publishing information it does not want posted, and has frequently deemed things 'state secrets' to cover up goings on inside their borders.
PS: The intent of this post is not to criticize the US, just to point out that the things you accuse other countries of doing are mostly completely normal government activities which are done in your country also.
It's more like they're putting targeted ads next to a notification to your friends that they would have received anyway. It doesn't really have much in common with having your image stolen and being used as an "unpaid spokesperson" in a public advertising campaign.
A webmaster knowing what you click on is not a privacy violation. You're accessing their server, and of course they know what requests you make to their server. It's like how if you go to the shop and buy some bread, the person who sells you the bread is not violating your privacy by knowing you bought some bread.
Also, you can't say that there's no benefit to you from this monitoring. The ads are what provide the money to allow the website to run.
"finally succumbing to the power of the almighty dollar."
They're a business. A profit-making enterprise. There was no point at which they did not care about the "almighty dollar." By using one type of media instead of another in ads, they are not somehow becoming more greedy or more evil or more Satanic. They'll show these ads, and if it increases their profits, they'll keep showing them, and if it decreases their profits, they'll remove them.
The summary for this article is basically a troll, intended to give people the feeling that Google is somehow surrendering to evil, just because they decided to try a new type of advertising.
Given Google's track record of some of the best and most non-intrusive advertisements on the web, shouldn't we at least let them try it and see how it looks before we criticize them?
Slashdot Mirror
Have you looked at ReactOS? It's still in alpha at the moment, but it's basically what you're talking about, a "Windows-Compatible, Windows-Alternative-OS"
Or a VNC client. The X protocol is inefficient and complex and generally not as usable over internet connections as VNC is.
If it's taller than it's wide, then it's phallic If it's taller than it's wide, then it's phallic If it's longer than it's wide, then you turn it on its side Then it's taller than it's wide, then it's phallic
Because there are only 26 lowercase letters, a sequence of lowercase letters has a little less than 5 bits per character. By doubling the number of possible characters, using a combination of uppercase and lowercase adds another bit of entropy to each character. The fact that it's all stored in ASCII with a constant number of bits per character is irrelevant to the actual amount of information entropy in the message.
I am silly enough to pay money for entertainment. Is there a problem with that?
It is true that some neurons aren't replaced. The molecules making up those neurons still get replaced, though.
That's like saying that DRM encourages innovation by causing people to create cracks for it, or that computer viruses encourage innovation in antivirus programs. While both of these statements are true, they don't necessarily mean that innovation is a good thing. In general, I don't think there's a net benefit to society from a company pointlessly having to come up with a new way of doing something that we already know how to do. What the patent system does is create obstacles to progress, and then say it must be good because it's making us pointlessly innovate to work around these obstacles.
And remember that safeguarding a password from the administrator is ineffective anyway, because all the administrator has to do is wait until the next time you log in, and sniff your password then.
But it wouldn't cut into their employees' bandwidth. With the right software, Comcast could just monitor their customers' downloads and get copies of all the anime for their own use. ... I think I just realised why the NSA tries to intercept so much traffic.
Actually, the minimum for XP is 64MB. It's slow, but usable.
Vista is just as bad. The first time I used Vista, I tried to copy a file from a network share to my desktop, and it wouldn't let me because of permissions or something. I couldn't work it out, and eventually had to copy the file using a USB flash drive instead.
I don't know why you seem to think video encoding is some sort of niche technical application that no one uses. A huge number of people record video on digital cameras and want to email it or upload it without taking too long. Many people now use Skype and other VOIP software supporting real-time video communication. Many people rip DVDs. Many people (although not a huge number) have "media center" PCs which can record video from TV broadcasts.
The goggles do nothing!
PS: The intent of this post is not to criticize the US, just to point out that the things you accuse other countries of doing are mostly completely normal government activities which are done in your country also.
It's more like they're putting targeted ads next to a notification to your friends that they would have received anyway. It doesn't really have much in common with having your image stolen and being used as an "unpaid spokesperson" in a public advertising campaign.
In Windows, when you "cut" a file it just makes the file hidden. It doesn't actually delete the file until it's been "pasted" somewhere else.
Also, you can't say that there's no benefit to you from this monitoring. The ads are what provide the money to allow the website to run.
Actually it's quoted from Snow Crash.
Surely you can't seriously be claiming that you understand the GPL better than the FSF does.
Actually that has nothing to do with US-centric stupidity. I think the World Series was named after a newspaper called the World.
The obvious solution for ISPs is a transparent caching proxy, so they only need to transfer the videos over their upstream connection once.
They're a business. A profit-making enterprise. There was no point at which they did not care about the "almighty dollar." By using one type of media instead of another in ads, they are not somehow becoming more greedy or more evil or more Satanic. They'll show these ads, and if it increases their profits, they'll keep showing them, and if it decreases their profits, they'll remove them.
The summary for this article is basically a troll, intended to give people the feeling that Google is somehow surrendering to evil, just because they decided to try a new type of advertising.
Given Google's track record of some of the best and most non-intrusive advertisements on the web, shouldn't we at least let them try it and see how it looks before we criticize them?
What's the point of having a car if it's spent the last 5 years in your driveway?