Yeah. NeoOffice on PowerPC is extremely slow, even on a 1.6Ghz G4. The X11 port is much faster, except for scrolling. On Intel, this seems to be a non-issue.
I do not understand why this is. Freetype has supported OpenType for ages. The Windows version of OpenOffice supports OpenType fonts. Why is this so hard to implement universally in every port of the product?
I realize that the Windows port uses the Windows font API, and thus provides the ability that way. NeoOffice does the same on OS X. Yes, it's not so easy to use OS X Core services from X11, but why not switch to a decent type library like FreeType that already has the support? Not robust enough for typography? I just don't get it. You would think this would be a priority.
RTFA. It's the same algorithm. Just uses less memory and handles 16 and 32 bit images. So, well, guess what - people were using this a year ago, and it worked exactly the same way then as it does now.
I see that Slashdot is becoming Digg, where I first read this story two years ago. I have been using this algorithm on occasion from the command line since that time.
I did climate modeling in grad school. If you think it's so bloody simple and we're all just idiots, let's see you build a model than predicts anything useful.
In that case, you should not be surprised if the standard model regarding anthropocentric climate change turns out to be wrong. It is that very complexity, the intellectual taming of a massively chaotic system, that should introduce an element of humility and caution into the discussion, rather than the hysteria and hyperbole that has, up until now, characterized it.
It's very simple. I can't get OEM XP on the cheap generic PC's we buy, just Vista. More and more people will have this problem. There are still some machines out there, but even the cheap eMachines, the Microcenter generic line, etc., have all switched over 100%.
Also, I have a line to get Microsoft employee discounts on their software, but they only let you buy the most current version. Thus my Office 2007 woes.
I didn't think Vista was all that bad, once I switched the desktop and start menu to Windows Classic, turned off UAC, and killed about 20 unneeded services.
I found the new icons annoying, and the fact that the User folder has now taken the place of My Documents, leading to much confusion for my end users.
Hmm... User folder, with Documents, Pictures, etc., inside. Kind of like exactly what a User folder looks like on OS X.
What really pissed me off is Office 2007. It makes me want to scream. I now have to retrain my users (as they get new machines) how to use Office from scratch. I'm sorry, when you are used to working productively, and know exactly where everything is, it is really disgusting that every bloody thing you know how to do is now wrong.
You people who believe that Bush is some sort of religious wacko crack me up. He's the last guy on planet earth who is driven by some sort of Biblical agenda. I for one find almost everything he has said about religion to be pretty light-weight shallow, say nothing, stuff. Would anyone care to point me to any of his alleged religious rants?
By the way - I despise this man's policies, and will never vote for another Republican again in a presidential race.
Is that before or after the "Looking up slashdot.org" message disappears? Seriously, for a site you've never visited, it can easily longer (much longer) than 4 seconds, just to look up the DNS record.
As far as such executive orders go, this administration, as well as the prior two, have been extremely prolific. Look up the powers that the Clinton administration granted FEMA in case of a national emergency, and which Bush has extended.
The interesting question is not why Republicans do not object when their Republican president issues these orders, but why these same Republicans also held their peace when Clinton was signing them like mad, and why the Democrats are silent about the executive orders which Bush is currently issuing, when they are so vocal about everything else this President does.
When the Presidency makes a power grab, suddenly bi-partisanship is the name of the game? This is clearly not a republican vs. democrat issue. It's freedom vs. fascism which cuts across all party lines.
As much as I hate the mentality, I have to agree in this case: If you are not angry, you are not paying attention.
The only pure hardware solutions would be mechanical, not electronic.
Anything with a CPU is a software based solution. The software may be permanently burned into silicon, but it's still software. Swap chips. Swap bits on a storage device. Same thing. One's just a little easier.
Technology will not solve this problem - hardware, software, or otherwise.
I tell you, I'm not much of a programmer, but I am convinced that, given a year, I could design and program an effective voting software with: 1) A paper trail sufficient to be used for a manual recount. 2) Reasonable measures to ensure 1 voter 1 vote. 3) A barcode crypto scheme to tie #1 and #2 together so that every database record can, if required, be verified against every paper record. 4) A completely open and peer-reviewed code base.
But as many people have already noted, this problem is not technical, but political. They keep it political by leveraging the ignorance of the populace regarding all things technical. The classic magic black box syndrome.
How elitist of you. Meanwhile, we web developers who actually expect to get paid, have to face the reality of the market. Try to pitch this to the CEO of XYZ corp: "Oh, and by the way, 50% of your potential customers will have to change to a different browser." Get real.
"decades" ago (assuming 20 years to match your plural), most computing was still 8-bit and most personal computers had either monochrome text displays or EGA (16 color 640x480) graphics at best? Make it 30 years and there were no personal computers of note at all.
Windows has color management support that goes far beyond sRGB. It is capable of doing color space conversions, and its printing subsystem does support this. It's up to the application to spec the source profiles of artwork, and to invoke the ICC support to do the conversion. All that said, Windows color management is crap. That's why all the commercial print products such as Adobe's stuff, disable it.
As to the browers, you are correct. However, this is more a problem of a lack of web standards than a browser issue. In fact, the www standard IS sRGB, and I hope that changes someday. There is no reason that browsers couldn't support embedded profiles in JPG's. A better solution would be some sort of HTML attribute which lets the browsers download an ICC profile and apply it to an image. You could spec it in an image tag. The browser would not need to download the profile but once and cache it.
As one who works in one of those commercial wide-gamut digital color shops, I am chomping at the bit for a wide-gamut laser display such as this. If it lives up, the display would exceed the gamut of even our 8 color high-gamut ink-jet printers. Must current displays are very poor at reaching even Adobe98's gamut.
Yes, there are wider gamuts than Adobe98. However the problem with virtually all software in the desktop-to-press chain (including most high-end rips), is that they are all 8 bit. You are stuck with 256 shades or Red Green and Blue no matter how wide your profile is. That makes the wide gamut profiles LESS accurate, not more. It is particularly noticeable in the darker areas of a picture. Stippling and solarization are common side effects. 16 bit solves the problem by allowing over 65,000 shades.
Besides this, most printing devices, even the high-gamut ones, do not have gamuts significantly beyond Adobe98. The exception being when spot color inks are used, but then you are bypassing ICC profiling anyway. For this reason it is almost always more of a headache to use something beyond Adobe98 for source images.
Everything above is subject to rapid change, of course. The color printing and profiling industry is in a state of flux right now. The technical advances are coming hard and fast. It should be a fun ride.
Correct. A prop only. The dubbed music was played by Brice Martin. We penny-whistlers have had an obsession about the Picard whistle for a long long time. Owning this thing is the ultimate prize for those with WhOA Disorder.
Now that the gents at Codeweavers have done such fabulous work (and believe me, running x86 Office natively on a Mac is a HUGE deal for me since I still make lots of money doing Access programming), I wonder if we will see any companies using the OS X port of Winelib. I know that there were a trickle of Windows vendors porting to the Linux version of Winelib (Corel comes to mind), but let's face it: OS X has a vastly larger chunk of the desktop market than does Linux. (No criticism here from me; I use all three all the time.)
Shows what you know. We WERE on Mars 15 years ago. In fact, we are there now. Who do you think wipes off the solar panels on the rovers after a dust storm?
To all you who call this nothing but a database scam, ala the darknet DNS registries, you're dead wrong. i-Names is the popular name for XRI, which is an OASIS standard. Those who sell i-Names are not fly-by-nighters just trying to make a money grab. They authorized by the XRI governing body to do so, and are the exact equiavalent of a DNS registry. There are a dozen or so i-Names brokers. The entire system interoperates. Many of the i-Name brokers are also DNS registries, such as Neustar.
XRI is an open standard, and the only such standard that there is. Saying that an "open source" free alternative will soon present itself is absolute nonsense. That's like saying, "Soon a free alternative to DNS will be available". Almost every post I have seen here is treating i-Names like some company. It's not. Stop arguing with me. You don't know what you are talking about.
I think you guys should stop shooting from the hip, and actually (I know this is asking a lot on/.) do a little research. Yes, centralized authentication is one part of this. But there's a whole bunch more. In XRI, services are user-centric, not server-centric. i-Names have i-Numbers in a similar manner to which DNS records have IP's. iNumbers map to a particular broker's server which obey's the iName's contact restrictions, and allows a person to provide services associated with themselves as a person. These services may, for instance, be include a basic web page, and in that way would be similar to a URL. But the service might just as well be email, a VOIP address, heck a dating service even (who want's a piece of me?). The services do not replace things like email and VOIP. They abstract them. They provide a layer where you control who communicates with you and how.
The key point here is that while the services may have backward compatibility bridges in place to allow interaction with the non-XRI world, they are particularly designed for comunication between two different identities, which communication is arbitrated by the rules which both parties establish. It's a new way of thinking about services on the net, and as such it's going to take you all a while to wrap your minds around it.
Don't let the similarities to MS passport scare you. Yes, there are some common ideas, but XRI goes much further, for it provides a generic framework for a wide variety of open source services, vs. a closed system which is little more than a single-sign-on.
Slashdot Mirror
Check the article date.
Yeah. NeoOffice on PowerPC is extremely slow, even on a 1.6Ghz G4. The X11 port is much faster, except for scrolling. On Intel, this seems to be a non-issue.
I do not understand why this is. Freetype has supported OpenType for ages. The Windows version of OpenOffice supports OpenType fonts. Why is this so hard to implement universally in every port of the product?
I realize that the Windows port uses the Windows font API, and thus provides the ability that way. NeoOffice does the same on OS X. Yes, it's not so easy to use OS X Core services from X11, but why not switch to a decent type library like FreeType that already has the support? Not robust enough for typography? I just don't get it. You would think this would be a priority.
RTFA. It's the same algorithm. Just uses less memory and handles 16 and 32 bit images. So, well, guess what - people were using this a year ago, and it worked exactly the same way then as it does now.
I see that Slashdot is becoming Digg, where I first read this story two years ago. I have been using this algorithm on occasion from the command line since that time.
I did climate modeling in grad school. If you think it's so bloody simple and we're all just idiots, let's see you build a model than predicts anything useful.
In that case, you should not be surprised if the standard model regarding anthropocentric climate change turns out to be wrong. It is that very complexity, the intellectual taming of a massively chaotic system, that should introduce an element of humility and caution into the discussion, rather than the hysteria and hyperbole that has, up until now, characterized it.
It's very simple. I can't get OEM XP on the cheap generic PC's we buy, just Vista. More and more people will have this problem. There are still some machines out there, but even the cheap eMachines, the Microcenter generic line, etc., have all switched over 100%.
Also, I have a line to get Microsoft employee discounts on their software, but they only let you buy the most current version. Thus my Office 2007 woes.
I didn't think Vista was all that bad, once I switched the desktop and start menu to Windows Classic, turned off UAC, and killed about 20 unneeded services.
I found the new icons annoying, and the fact that the User folder has now taken the place of My Documents, leading to much confusion for my end users.
Hmm... User folder, with Documents, Pictures, etc., inside. Kind of like exactly what a User folder looks like on OS X.
What really pissed me off is Office 2007. It makes me want to scream. I now have to retrain my users (as they get new machines) how to use Office from scratch. I'm sorry, when you are used to working productively, and know exactly where everything is, it is really disgusting that every bloody thing you know how to do is now wrong.
You people who believe that Bush is some sort of religious wacko crack me up. He's the last guy on planet earth who is driven by some sort of Biblical agenda. I for one find almost everything he has said about religion to be pretty light-weight shallow, say nothing, stuff. Would anyone care to point me to any of his alleged religious rants?
By the way - I despise this man's policies, and will never vote for another Republican again in a presidential race.
And my point was the time scale involved, not whether the sun is physically capable of going supernova.
Slashdot: the biggest bunch of nitpickers (myself included) on planet earth.
I apologize for misreading your comment about time_t, but I'm still right about the supernova part:
The current maximum value of time_t is about 68 years. 68(2^32) = 292,057,776,130 years.
Um, the "doubling" of the value returned by time_t()? That would be 33 bits, not 64.
Let's just say with 64 bit time, the sun will have gone super-nova before we need to worry about the end of the Unix era.
Ok, so we all have our Homer moments.
Is that before or after the "Looking up slashdot.org" message disappears? Seriously, for a site you've never visited, it can easily longer (much longer) than 4 seconds, just to look up the DNS record.
As far as such executive orders go, this administration, as well as the prior two, have been extremely prolific. Look up the powers that the Clinton administration granted FEMA in case of a national emergency, and which Bush has extended.
The interesting question is not why Republicans do not object when their Republican president issues these orders, but why these same Republicans also held their peace when Clinton was signing them like mad, and why the Democrats are silent about the executive orders which Bush is currently issuing, when they are so vocal about everything else this President does.
When the Presidency makes a power grab, suddenly bi-partisanship is the name of the game? This is clearly not a republican vs. democrat issue. It's freedom vs. fascism which cuts across all party lines.
As much as I hate the mentality, I have to agree in this case: If you are not angry, you are not paying attention.
The only pure hardware solutions would be mechanical, not electronic.
Anything with a CPU is a software based solution. The software may be permanently burned into silicon, but it's still software. Swap chips. Swap bits on a storage device. Same thing. One's just a little easier.
Technology will not solve this problem - hardware, software, or otherwise.
I tell you, I'm not much of a programmer, but I am convinced that, given a year, I could design and program an effective voting software with: 1) A paper trail sufficient to be used for a manual recount. 2) Reasonable measures to ensure 1 voter 1 vote. 3) A barcode crypto scheme to tie #1 and #2 together so that every database record can, if required, be verified against every paper record. 4) A completely open and peer-reviewed code base.
But as many people have already noted, this problem is not technical, but political. They keep it political by leveraging the ignorance of the populace regarding all things technical. The classic magic black box syndrome.
Am I ever so glad that I grabbed my copy 30 minutes before somebody told Slashdot about it.
How elitist of you. Meanwhile, we web developers who actually expect to get paid, have to face the reality of the market. Try to pitch this to the CEO of XYZ corp: "Oh, and by the way, 50% of your potential customers will have to change to a different browser." Get real.
Just as long as you don't forget that IE7 is >= XP-SP2. There are a massive number of W2K machines out there that are SOL for IE7.
I am hoping this is a joke.
"decades" ago (assuming 20 years to match your plural), most computing was still 8-bit and most personal computers had either monochrome text displays or EGA (16 color 640x480) graphics at best? Make it 30 years and there were no personal computers of note at all.
Windows has color management support that goes far beyond sRGB. It is capable of doing color space conversions, and its printing subsystem does support this. It's up to the application to spec the source profiles of artwork, and to invoke the ICC support to do the conversion. All that said, Windows color management is crap. That's why all the commercial print products such as Adobe's stuff, disable it.
As to the browers, you are correct. However, this is more a problem of a lack of web standards than a browser issue. In fact, the www standard IS sRGB, and I hope that changes someday. There is no reason that browsers couldn't support embedded profiles in JPG's. A better solution would be some sort of HTML attribute which lets the browsers download an ICC profile and apply it to an image. You could spec it in an image tag. The browser would not need to download the profile but once and cache it.
As one who works in one of those commercial wide-gamut digital color shops, I am chomping at the bit for a wide-gamut laser display such as this. If it lives up, the display would exceed the gamut of even our 8 color high-gamut ink-jet printers. Must current displays are very poor at reaching even Adobe98's gamut.
Yes, there are wider gamuts than Adobe98. However the problem with virtually all software in the desktop-to-press chain (including most high-end rips), is that they are all 8 bit. You are stuck with 256 shades or Red Green and Blue no matter how wide your profile is. That makes the wide gamut profiles LESS accurate, not more. It is particularly noticeable in the darker areas of a picture. Stippling and solarization are common side effects. 16 bit solves the problem by allowing over 65,000 shades.
Besides this, most printing devices, even the high-gamut ones, do not have gamuts significantly beyond Adobe98. The exception being when spot color inks are used, but then you are bypassing ICC profiling anyway. For this reason it is almost always more of a headache to use something beyond Adobe98 for source images.
Everything above is subject to rapid change, of course. The color printing and profiling industry is in a state of flux right now. The technical advances are coming hard and fast. It should be a fun ride.
Correct. A prop only. The dubbed music was played by Brice Martin. We penny-whistlers have had an obsession about the Picard whistle for a long long time. Owning this thing is the ultimate prize for those with WhOA Disorder.
Now that the gents at Codeweavers have done such fabulous work (and believe me, running x86 Office natively on a Mac is a HUGE deal for me since I still make lots of money doing Access programming), I wonder if we will see any companies using the OS X port of Winelib. I know that there were a trickle of Windows vendors porting to the Linux version of Winelib (Corel comes to mind), but let's face it: OS X has a vastly larger chunk of the desktop market than does Linux. (No criticism here from me; I use all three all the time.)
Shows what you know. We WERE on Mars 15 years ago. In fact, we are there now. Who do you think wipes off the solar panels on the rovers after a dust storm?
To all you who call this nothing but a database scam, ala the darknet DNS registries, you're dead wrong. i-Names is the popular name for XRI, which is an OASIS standard. Those who sell i-Names are not fly-by-nighters just trying to make a money grab. They authorized by the XRI governing body to do so, and are the exact equiavalent of a DNS registry. There are a dozen or so i-Names brokers. The entire system interoperates. Many of the i-Name brokers are also DNS registries, such as Neustar.
/.) do a little research. Yes, centralized authentication is one part of this. But there's a whole bunch more. In XRI, services are user-centric, not server-centric. i-Names have i-Numbers in a similar manner to which DNS records have IP's. iNumbers map to a particular broker's server which obey's the iName's contact restrictions, and allows a person to provide services associated with themselves as a person. These services may, for instance, be include a basic web page, and in that way would be similar to a URL. But the service might just as well be email, a VOIP address, heck a dating service even (who want's a piece of me?). The services do not replace things like email and VOIP. They abstract them. They provide a layer where you control who communicates with you and how.
XRI is an open standard, and the only such standard that there is. Saying that an "open source" free alternative will soon present itself is absolute nonsense. That's like saying, "Soon a free alternative to DNS will be available". Almost every post I have seen here is treating i-Names like some company. It's not. Stop arguing with me. You don't know what you are talking about.
I think you guys should stop shooting from the hip, and actually (I know this is asking a lot on
The key point here is that while the services may have backward compatibility bridges in place to allow interaction with the non-XRI world, they are particularly designed for comunication between two different identities, which communication is arbitrated by the rules which both parties establish. It's a new way of thinking about services on the net, and as such it's going to take you all a while to wrap your minds around it.
Don't let the similarities to MS passport scare you. Yes, there are some common ideas, but XRI goes much further, for it provides a generic framework for a wide variety of open source services, vs. a closed system which is little more than a single-sign-on.