Still no client side include (no, object doesn't cut it...). People are talking about browser support, it seems to be written in such a way as they should already be able to support it if they support either HTML 4 or XHTML. It removes lots of sylistic tags, CSS way to go.
New section tag is good.
Overall, looks interesting, cleaning up HTML a bit more, forcing it to be more of a structure rather then presentation language.
Anyway, I'll start using it, when and if, it becomes useful for my work. Otherwise, XHTML and HTML 4 are it.
I remember reading an article in 2001 in a computer magazine about the marvellous things that were going to be in Longhorn (now Vista). A wonderful new database-like file system, brilliant UI and other great things. I thought how wonderful this system was going to be compared to WinXP (which had just come out).
Then later I read about how the new file system (WinFS) was based on something called 'Cairo' and about how that too had been scrapped.
At that stage I was using Mandrake Linux (I switched to Ubuntu at the start of 2007), and wanted something better.
Anyway, so this chain of thought ends in, well now I am using Ubuntu, it does keep getting better all the time. I don't use MS Windows really at all now on my computers. Why do I care?
Meh, lets try and get back to where I stared. Can we expect a new file system? Can we expect radical 'new' technologies? Perhaps even voice commands? (Computer: open http colon slash slash slash dot dot org)
Really? You have one person read the source, document it and put the documentation online somewhere.
You have second person read documentation and re-write functionality of code.
ReactOS does this exact same thing to re-implement the Win32 API, except that they have to 'break' the executable files. (My memory is shot, I can't remember the term for this, or the process as a whole...)
So long as the documentation does not contain source, merely what each function does, and so long as there is no obvious link between the two persons, there should be no problem.
Hippie has a specific meaning, learn it before using it. Who says the person you are responding to does not have a job? Copying information is not stealing. Besides which, how do you steal stuff with permission? (Not to mention fair-use...).
And a final statement, guess which country sold shit loads of stuff to Germany in the 1930s? The USA...
Guess which country never actually declared war on Germany during WW2, but only went to war against them after being bombed by Japan, and then having Germany declare war on them first? The USA again...
Troll.
Re:Why only 4 words on the main page?
on
KDE 4.0 Is Out
·
· Score: 1
Probably because everyone who has been keeping up with the whole affair knows that this is going to be a buggy release, and that the next version (4.1) is going to be the actual version to use.
Personally I'm a GMONE user, so this isn't going to affect me at all. But it is still good to know that there are alternatives, especially for people who prefer there X/GNU/Linux desktop to be slightly more Windoze like.
*Insert joke about MS Windows versioning (point zero releases and all that) here.
I don't know if vi or vim has a mail client (though I do sometimes use it to edit text), but your comment reminds me of an old quote, which I can't just recall exactly, about programs expanding until they have a mail client... "All programs expand until they can read mail..." perhaps?
Meh, I'm just as happy using mutt if I have to check my email without a GUI, and if I'm doing that it almost always means that I have access to webmail as well ('cause I'd be using SSH to use mutt...).
You know, what planes used to run on. Of course, we will have to stop using jets...
That'll mean taking longer to get from point A to point B, using less people etc. But I'm sure none of us will mind, what with the development of remote communications devices, soon all that pesky business travellers will be able to stay at home! (And go yachting remotely as well, sham that...)
Planes were in the air before jet fuel was created, and I'm sure they can keep going after the rock oil is all gone.
You obviously flunked recent history. Switzerland has joined the UN, the Schengen Agreement and EFTA, it was almost attacked during WW2 (and if that had have happened it's neutrality would have gone the way of Belguim's (WW1) and Holland's (WW2), to quote from the Wikipedia article, "Swiss law is gradually being adjusted to conform with that of the EU and the government has signed a number of bilateral agreements with the European Union." As well, "Switzerland is a party to the Statute of the International Court of Justice."
Switzerland is a member of many international organisations, including the World Trade Organization, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, European Free Trade Association, Council of Europe, Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, International Atomic Energy Agency, and INTELSAT. Its central bank is a member of the Bank for International Settlements, based in Basel.
I think it is safe to say that Switzerland is neutral, but only so much as, for example, Sweden, Norway, New Zealand and other small countries like these.
J&J have the trademark in the area of medicines and so on, and now the ARC is using that trademark to promote their own produces.
I think that J&J have the law on their side in this case. Of course, whether the law is good or not is a different debate (and those of you who know my politics will know my opinion on laws in general...).
This is hardly worthy of front page news, except for the fact that most people think the Red Cross is a good organisation. Doesn't make them immune from trademark law though.
I'm not. I use this name on two places here (where it doesn't even turn up as the first link) and on http://www.revleft.com/ (which doesn't turn up on the first two pages).
It would be possible to work out who I really was just from that information, but it is probably difficult.
I use a different name everywhere else on the web, mostly common names or phrases. I don't sign into search, and I don't save my search preferences. I auto-delete cookies, and have JavaScript disabled (NoScript) on most places.
Of course, I'm not an uneducated member of the public. Bugger that hey.
Of course, if an OS has a decent driver system, then having a GPL driver shouldn't limit anyone from using it. As well (an I am not an expert in the field at all...), if people can write proprietary drivers using DRI, why can't people use GPLed DRI drivers on software such as FreeBSD? Or do you just mean that people won't distribute it?
And of course, it wasn't me saying "GPL or nothing".
All the meaty goodness you could want, along with links to everything mentioned in the article (including the news groups, and all that other random crap).
As well, if you do a Search for "linux history" (with or without the "), you get Linux the big picture, Linux History and a much better history then the one in the article, History of Linux (though not the first from the search result).
Basically, the article is rehashing stuff that is very easily found, presenting it in a format that isn't even very interesting (a short blurb at the beginning and then a copy of all the other stuff..., sounds hard to do!) and leaves out a bunch of relevant information (such as all the GNU stuff that made it usable...)!
And also something that anyone who actually cares about already knows.
Come on, this is like doing a history of the First World War again, complete with photos of the Arch-Duke. Anyone who cares already knows. Anyone who wants to find out, can find out.
And it isn't something the is deserving of a place on this website!
What if they were 2 clause BSD licensed? Would that be good enough for you?
Though, I'm sure they would prefer to release it under something more like the GPL so that they can poach any changes back again (just like they are allowed too of course...).
This reminds me off how QANTAS were going to (still going to?) offer the ability to send and receive text messages on board the plane. The "tower" had its own country code, and thus sending messages was sending them internationally, which costs a lot of course...
This Internet access won't be free, in fact it will probably cost much more then the prices at the airport. Personally, I don't think I would use such a facility (unless it was free), if I have my laptop, well I have NetHack, lots of E-Books (though I dislike reading them on the screen) and similar. Plus, even in economy, don't they have games and movies and stuff to watch on the seat in front of you? (Malaysian Airlines do.)
(Random fun fact, QANTAS has the best safety record of any international airline. But their worker policies are often crap.)
Many airline websites don't function if you have JavaScript and cookies turned off. Of course, they don't tell you that they need these things, they just silently fail.
Some sites, such as Slashdot and Wikipedia, use JavaScript, but only for extra functionality. You don't actually need it.
Some sites that do require JavaScript actually are kind enough to tell you if have JavaScript disabled, but there aren't that many that I've noticed.
While that is a possibility, you could easily implement have it implemented so that the standard says that only things from the same place could be included (this way you couldn't include local documents in external documents and vis versa). Or you could just build a secure fucking browser that didn't do that sort of thing...
Can I have a client side include this time around?
Server side includes are very nice, except that they require a server!
Client side includes have the potential to be much nicer! Two quick reasons: the first is when (X)HTML is used on (for example) CDs or similar, there isn't a server, and trying to make each page the same either requires fucking around with templates and software, or else using forms...; the second is it would work the same was as having external CSS, saves on download time, allows parts of the page to be downloaded only once and so on. (This second point would also make it really easy to offer different versions of the same page, include header and footer, and don't for example.)
I know that JavaScript client side includes exist. They, however, are a kludge. They need JavaScript for one!, they might not work on all browsers, they might not be standard and so on. No thanks.
A simple client side include that worked on the client side the same way the PHP include does, and I'll be happy.
Funny, with a handle like "Christian Anarchist", I would have thought you were an anarchist...
Funnily enough, I am. And I did suggest that the solution to all our identity "theft" problems was to get rid of capitalism and the state. (Just up the thread a bit).
Indeed, the problems you mention, and a heck of a lot more, are problems of government.
Anyway, just a final plug for this other board I goto... http://revleft.com/ you'll find lots of anarchists, Marxists, and various other sorts there. Fun place.
I've a better idea, how about we abolish government (along with capitalism), removing the vast majority of incentives to try and pretend to be someone else.
Failing that, we could just abolish identities, except that capitalism and the government couldn't work then could they... The government needs to link you with a number, they need to be able to find you in their file, similarly so do the corporations.
The problem with the current system of government is that it actively discourages citizen participation in any meaningful sense. In the USA for example, elections are on a Tuesday (!), and there is no incentive to change that, because it would mean more poor people voting. As well, once elected (in most "democratic" systems currently in place), there is no way to recall a bad (or whatever other adjective you like) politician. California seems to try and have the most citizen participation in its governmental process, and you see the mess they have there. The trouble is that they don't try hard enough, and try to keep the politicians around (who basically aren't needed).
Oh, and my method of protecting my identity? I use other people's identity, that way mine doesn't get out...
Haven't quite managed to grasp evolution yet have we?
Basically, it isn't "dumb luck" or chance at all!
I can't find the exact phrase used by Richard Dawkins in my copy of The God Delusion, but I did find an interview on line, here is a quote,
That's ludicrous. That's ridiculous. Mutation is random in the sense that it's not anticipatory of what's needed. Natural selection is anything but random. Natural selection is a guided process, guided not by any higher power, but simply by which genes survive and which genes don't survive. That's a non-random process. The animals that are best at whatever they do-hunting, flying, fishing, swimming, digging-whatever the species does, the individuals that are best at it are the ones that pass on the genes. It's because of this non-random process that lions are so good at hunting, antelopes so good at running away from lions, and fish are so good at swimming.
I'm not meaning to insult you, merely to attempt to fix a common miss conception. Yes the mutations are "random", but the ones that survive or not isn't, it is the environment that affects such things, not luck.
I'm an anarchist. I hate your civilisation, I want to destroy capitalism, states and all hierarchy.
My use of computers is an endorsement to a limited extent of technology, not "civilisation" (whatever that means...). See also my "blog" entry over at RevLeft on subject of "civilisation".
Basically, I love clean green technology (though I know computers aren't great in that regard, but the concept is great), but I hate the system of government, capitalism and so on. I'm also not interested in discussing this here, head over to http://www.revleft.com/ if you want to debate how capitalism is needed for technology (if you think it is), there are a few people who disagree.
Of course, and it has been said a number of times before (I'm just karma whoring:P), if the BBC don't develop a product that can be used on a number of different operating systems (and I don't mean just MS Windows XP and Vista...), then they are breaking their trust to the British public. The public (well most of them) pay a TV licence (which you have to pay if you have a TV capable of receiving the broadcasts, unless you can show that you don't use it for that) for access to the BBC. The BBC makes their programs available on the Internet for people allowed to watch them (i.e. people who paid (stupid English, why isn't that word "payed"?) up). If people can't watch the shows because they don't run MS Windows, then they are being ripped off! They miss out. Of course, people who don't even own a computer miss out as well, perhaps they should get a discount on their compulsory licence?
(Usual disclaimer, I'm not British, in fact, I've never even been there. I'm also not a lawyer, or a monkey.)
Slashdot Mirror
Still no client side include (no, object doesn't cut it...).
People are talking about browser support, it seems to be written in such a way as they should already be able to support it if they support either HTML 4 or XHTML.
It removes lots of sylistic tags, CSS way to go.
New section tag is good.
Overall, looks interesting, cleaning up HTML a bit more, forcing it to be more of a structure rather then presentation language.
Anyway, I'll start using it, when and if, it becomes useful for my work. Otherwise, XHTML and HTML 4 are it.
I remember reading an article in 2001 in a computer magazine about the marvellous things that were going to be in Longhorn (now Vista). A wonderful new database-like file system, brilliant UI and other great things. I thought how wonderful this system was going to be compared to WinXP (which had just come out).
Then later I read about how the new file system (WinFS) was based on something called 'Cairo' and about how that too had been scrapped.
At that stage I was using Mandrake Linux (I switched to Ubuntu at the start of 2007), and wanted something better.
Anyway, so this chain of thought ends in, well now I am using Ubuntu, it does keep getting better all the time. I don't use MS Windows really at all now on my computers. Why do I care?
Meh, lets try and get back to where I stared. Can we expect a new file system? Can we expect radical 'new' technologies? Perhaps even voice commands? (Computer: open http colon slash slash slash dot dot org)
Really?
You have one person read the source, document it and put the documentation online somewhere.
You have second person read documentation and re-write functionality of code.
ReactOS does this exact same thing to re-implement the Win32 API, except that they have to 'break' the executable files. (My memory is shot, I can't remember the term for this, or the process as a whole...)
So long as the documentation does not contain source, merely what each function does, and so long as there is no obvious link between the two persons, there should be no problem.
Troll.
Hippie has a specific meaning, learn it before using it.
Who says the person you are responding to does not have a job?
Copying information is not stealing. Besides which, how do you steal stuff with permission? (Not to mention fair-use...).
And a final statement, guess which country sold shit loads of stuff to Germany in the 1930s? The USA...
Guess which country never actually declared war on Germany during WW2, but only went to war against them after being bombed by Japan, and then having Germany declare war on them first? The USA again...
Troll.
Probably because everyone who has been keeping up with the whole affair knows that this is going to be a buggy release, and that the next version (4.1) is going to be the actual version to use.
Personally I'm a GMONE user, so this isn't going to affect me at all. But it is still good to know that there are alternatives, especially for people who prefer there X/GNU/Linux desktop to be slightly more Windoze like.
*Insert joke about MS Windows versioning (point zero releases and all that) here.
I don't know if vi or vim has a mail client (though I do sometimes use it to edit text), but your comment reminds me of an old quote, which I can't just recall exactly, about programs expanding until they have a mail client... "All programs expand until they can read mail..." perhaps?
Meh, I'm just as happy using mutt if I have to check my email without a GUI, and if I'm doing that it almost always means that I have access to webmail as well ('cause I'd be using SSH to use mutt...).
I read it as "porn"...
I miss my GF.
Kerosene. Vegetable oil. Etc.
You know, what planes used to run on. Of course, we will have to stop using jets...
That'll mean taking longer to get from point A to point B, using less people etc. But I'm sure none of us will mind, what with the development of remote communications devices, soon all that pesky business travellers will be able to stay at home! (And go yachting remotely as well, sham that...)
Planes were in the air before jet fuel was created, and I'm sure they can keep going after the rock oil is all gone.
I think it is safe to say that Switzerland is neutral, but only so much as, for example, Sweden, Norway, New Zealand and other small countries like these.
J&J have the trademark in the area of medicines and so on, and now the ARC is using that trademark to promote their own produces.
I think that J&J have the law on their side in this case. Of course, whether the law is good or not is a different debate (and those of you who know my politics will know my opinion on laws in general...).
This is hardly worthy of front page news, except for the fact that most people think the Red Cross is a good organisation. Doesn't make them immune from trademark law though.
I'm not. I use this name on two places here (where it doesn't even turn up as the first link) and on http://www.revleft.com/ (which doesn't turn up on the first two pages).
It would be possible to work out who I really was just from that information, but it is probably difficult.
I use a different name everywhere else on the web, mostly common names or phrases. I don't sign into search, and I don't save my search preferences. I auto-delete cookies, and have JavaScript disabled (NoScript) on most places.
Of course, I'm not an uneducated member of the public. Bugger that hey.
Nope, I mean the two clause BSD licence. Of course it is basically the same as the MIT licence, but is different from three clause BSD and of course the four clause BSD. The Free BSD licence is two clause as well.
Of course, if an OS has a decent driver system, then having a GPL driver shouldn't limit anyone from using it. As well (an I am not an expert in the field at all...), if people can write proprietary drivers using DRI, why can't people use GPLed DRI drivers on software such as FreeBSD? Or do you just mean that people won't distribute it?
And of course, it wasn't me saying "GPL or nothing".
Linux.
All the meaty goodness you could want, along with links to everything mentioned in the article (including the news groups, and all that other random crap).
As well, if you do a Search for "linux history" (with or without the "), you get Linux the big picture, Linux History and a much better history then the one in the article, History of Linux (though not the first from the search result).
Basically, the article is rehashing stuff that is very easily found, presenting it in a format that isn't even very interesting (a short blurb at the beginning and then a copy of all the other stuff..., sounds hard to do!) and leaves out a bunch of relevant information (such as all the GNU stuff that made it usable...)!
And also something that anyone who actually cares about already knows.
Come on, this is like doing a history of the First World War again, complete with photos of the Arch-Duke. Anyone who cares already knows. Anyone who wants to find out, can find out.
And it isn't something the is deserving of a place on this website!
What if they were 2 clause BSD licensed? Would that be good enough for you?
Though, I'm sure they would prefer to release it under something more like the GPL so that they can poach any changes back again (just like they are allowed too of course...).
Obviously you aren't a real Australian...
It would be CUNTARSE if you were.
'Cause an ass is a fucking donkey you arse!
This reminds me off how QANTAS were going to (still going to?) offer the ability to send and receive text messages on board the plane. The "tower" had its own country code, and thus sending messages was sending them internationally, which costs a lot of course...
This Internet access won't be free, in fact it will probably cost much more then the prices at the airport. Personally, I don't think I would use such a facility (unless it was free), if I have my laptop, well I have NetHack, lots of E-Books (though I dislike reading them on the screen) and similar. Plus, even in economy, don't they have games and movies and stuff to watch on the seat in front of you? (Malaysian Airlines do.)
(Random fun fact, QANTAS has the best safety record of any international airline. But their worker policies are often crap.)
Many airline websites don't function if you have JavaScript and cookies turned off. Of course, they don't tell you that they need these things, they just silently fail.
Some sites, such as Slashdot and Wikipedia, use JavaScript, but only for extra functionality. You don't actually need it.
Some sites that do require JavaScript actually are kind enough to tell you if have JavaScript disabled, but there aren't that many that I've noticed.
While that is a possibility, you could easily implement have it implemented so that the standard says that only things from the same place could be included (this way you couldn't include local documents in external documents and vis versa). Or you could just build a secure fucking browser that didn't do that sort of thing...
Can I have a client side include this time around?
Server side includes are very nice, except that they require a server!
Client side includes have the potential to be much nicer! Two quick reasons: the first is when (X)HTML is used on (for example) CDs or similar, there isn't a server, and trying to make each page the same either requires fucking around with templates and software, or else using forms...; the second is it would work the same was as having external CSS, saves on download time, allows parts of the page to be downloaded only once and so on. (This second point would also make it really easy to offer different versions of the same page, include header and footer, and don't for example.)
I know that JavaScript client side includes exist. They, however, are a kludge. They need JavaScript for one!, they might not work on all browsers, they might not be standard and so on. No thanks.
A simple client side include that worked on the client side the same way the PHP include does, and I'll be happy.
Funny, with a handle like "Christian Anarchist", I would have thought you were an anarchist...
Funnily enough, I am. And I did suggest that the solution to all our identity "theft" problems was to get rid of capitalism and the state. (Just up the thread a bit).
Indeed, the problems you mention, and a heck of a lot more, are problems of government.
Anyway, just a final plug for this other board I goto... http://revleft.com/ you'll find lots of anarchists, Marxists, and various other sorts there. Fun place.
I've a better idea, how about we abolish government (along with capitalism), removing the vast majority of incentives to try and pretend to be someone else.
Failing that, we could just abolish identities, except that capitalism and the government couldn't work then could they... The government needs to link you with a number, they need to be able to find you in their file, similarly so do the corporations.
The problem with the current system of government is that it actively discourages citizen participation in any meaningful sense. In the USA for example, elections are on a Tuesday (!), and there is no incentive to change that, because it would mean more poor people voting. As well, once elected (in most "democratic" systems currently in place), there is no way to recall a bad (or whatever other adjective you like) politician. California seems to try and have the most citizen participation in its governmental process, and you see the mess they have there. The trouble is that they don't try hard enough, and try to keep the politicians around (who basically aren't needed).
Oh, and my method of protecting my identity? I use other people's identity, that way mine doesn't get out...
Basically, it isn't "dumb luck" or chance at all!
I can't find the exact phrase used by Richard Dawkins in my copy of The God Delusion, but I did find an interview on line, here is a quote, http://www.beliefnet.com/story/178/story_17889_1.
I'm not meaning to insult you, merely to attempt to fix a common miss conception. Yes the mutations are "random", but the ones that survive or not isn't, it is the environment that affects such things, not luck.
I'm an anarchist. I hate your civilisation, I want to destroy capitalism, states and all hierarchy.
My use of computers is an endorsement to a limited extent of technology, not "civilisation" (whatever that means...). See also my "blog" entry over at RevLeft on subject of "civilisation".
Basically, I love clean green technology (though I know computers aren't great in that regard, but the concept is great), but I hate the system of government, capitalism and so on. I'm also not interested in discussing this here, head over to http://www.revleft.com/ if you want to debate how capitalism is needed for technology (if you think it is), there are a few people who disagree.
Of course, and it has been said a number of times before (I'm just karma whoring :P), if the BBC don't develop a product that can be used on a number of different operating systems (and I don't mean just MS Windows XP and Vista...), then they are breaking their trust to the British public. The public (well most of them) pay a TV licence (which you have to pay if you have a TV capable of receiving the broadcasts, unless you can show that you don't use it for that) for access to the BBC. The BBC makes their programs available on the Internet for people allowed to watch them (i.e. people who paid (stupid English, why isn't that word "payed"?) up). If people can't watch the shows because they don't run MS Windows, then they are being ripped off! They miss out. Of course, people who don't even own a computer miss out as well, perhaps they should get a discount on their compulsory licence?
(Usual disclaimer, I'm not British, in fact, I've never even been there. I'm also not a lawyer, or a monkey.)