Just over three years now (oldest email in the inbox is from August 2004), I'm at 430 MB. I never actively delete emails except spam, but I did accidentally remove several months worth of emails when I accidentally had the wrong IMAP settings.
I'm guessing they'd have to be under a LOT of pressure to make storage "unlimited" because of all the people that would very quickly devour that using gmail-drive programs. Personally, I think I would just install Ubuntu on gmail-drive and never worry about space again;)
I notice ZFS has read-only support in Leopard--does this mean only that it is able to read a drive formatted in ZFS, if you happened to plug in such a drive? Or does this mean that the time machine data is being stored in a read only ZFS format? I would think the former (which would definitely be no big deal), because I don't see how the OS would be storing data in ZFS format unless it writes to it. Only having read support for ZFS, I would think that there is no way for the OS to record information in ZFS.
The Linux operating system doesnt run Microsoft Office, Photoshop or any other standard Mac or Windows programs. Wait--I got ripped off. My computer came with windows, but it didn't come standard with Microsoft Office or Photoshop!
In all seriousness, though, the OLPC comes with OpenOffice and Gimp, which seem like fine alternatives to me for a bunch of African kids getting the laptop for free.
It doesn't provide MP3 support out of the box--that was misleading. The first time you try to play an MP3, Amarok says, "You currently can't play this file. Would you like to downloa MP3 support? Yes / No" or something along those lines. So really it's one step away from MP3 support out of the box. The difference looks like a legal fiction to me, but it is technically not shipped with an MP3 codec.
$200 -- I could see a lot of people willing to pay an extra $150 for a 64 GB SSD.
I'm not talking about a 640 GB SSD -- sure, we'll get those someday. But right now we could seriously do 64 GB for an amount people are willing to pay (particularly if mass produced).
These things sound great--I'm just afraid of Dell and other computer companies deciding that consumers don't want flash hard drives because we aren't buying the ones they offer. Then they attempt no development in this regard. The thing is, though, people are just not willing (for the most part) to pay extra to get a small capacity hard drive. They need to offer these things with similar capacies to their conventional hard drives--64GB just isn't that unreasonable for these things.
Then again, perhaps the computer manufacturers have not yet been impressed with the reliability of higher capacity SSDs.
Anyone have any idea why it's hard to find a laptop that comes with a 64GB or larger SSD?
Video calling? It's totally available here in the US for free as long as you have high speed internet and are willing to use AIM or MSNMessenger, etc. But still people say "no, never." I think there are other reasons people don't want to do it. For one thing, due to the desires of consumers, phones have become more and more mobile--we don't have to stand at the phone and speak into the mouthpiece mounted on the wall anymore. Instead the earpiece and mouthpiece are both mounted on the same portable units so we can walk around our house, our yard, and even hop in our car and drive somewhere. A video phone service would immobilize us again.
As far as I can tell, I don't think the videophone thing will take any hold anywhere except for every now-and-again usage by the normal population, and rampant usage among pornographers.
Am I right in assuming that this retarded restriction only applies within the US's jurisdiction? Is there any other jurisdiction? I'm pretty sure there is nothing outside of the US's jurisdiction.
Here's a collection of the code names matched up with version numbers (though, as already pointed out, the fact that the code names slowly move up the alphabet is a pretty good indicator):
I think the code names are intended to be pre-release--once released the code name is officially dropped for a version number (though the code name is unofficially retained by most users including myself). "Silly" or otherwise unusual code names are common in the technology world--My personal favorite is Apple's internal names for the Power Mac 7100.
Ubuntu's version number system is very simple, straightforward, and understandable--it consists of two numbers taken from the date of the release it is applied to: [year].[month]. Very simple, huh?
In Ubuntu's case, it is wise for them to use a code name prior to release, given their version number system, because a any delays could render the version number less meaningful (the author notes that Ubuntu uses a predictable release pattern with new releases every 6 months, but I think the makers of Ubuntu are being cautious because everyone knows delays can occur).
Yes and no, from what I've gathered, the traditional subsidy that would go to you, goes to apple. Uh, I didn't get a check the last time I bought a cell phone with a contract. Was I cheated? I didn't get a check, but I did only pay $29 for a phone that cost a lot more than $29 for Samsung to build. In the case of my first cell phone, I really did get a check--I purchased the phone at full price and received a rebate from my carrier that covered the cost of the phone.
I don't know what the Apple-AT&T contract looks like, but I know in Apple's iTunes contracts, the companies for which it provides protected music require Apple to make "corrections" when someone figures out how to break the protection on the songs.
If the iPhone contract is similar, then Apple may be required to update the iPhone software to attempt to thwart this.
Just keep your eyes open and see what happens to the two sites making claims. If they come down, Apple got to them.
Also, one thing that becomes obvious when reading the article that he doesn't mention: the public at large cares little about sound quality. Now this is only true to a point--crappy sound quality won't do it, but CD is great for most people. You aren't going to get the general public to buy an expensive BR player by telling them the sound quality's good--they are satisfied with the sound quality on DVDs and weren't hoping for something better. There will be people with money to throw around and audiophiles who want absurdly high sound quality, but the general public isn't looking for something better. Being happy with what they've got (heck--we're happy with mp3s, which aren't even as good), the way to get them is to make something that is at least as good as what they've got but is CHEAPER. [Also, I think there is a rapidly increasing number of people who don't like the fact that they can't just save a BR disk on their hard drive/DVR just because of it's immense size (I'm not even talking copy protection here) for use on all of their various devices.]
this article would seem to confirm Ma Bell's worst fears I find it hard to call AT&T "Ma Bell" anymore. Southern Bell Corporation purchased AT&T, then took the name. In other words, one of the "baby bells" grew up and ate it's mother. Then stuck her logo on his forehead. Hence the current AT&T isn't really "Ma Bell" it's some weird and pretty ironic freak of nature.
There's nothing that can be done about it. Is that right or is this a lack of creativity on your part? Yours is the type of thinking that thwarts innovation.
You just don't get it, do you? Why didn't the author of this program succeed in deobfuscating my passwords in Opera?
Three reasons:
1) It closed source, and therefore more difficult to figure out how to get at the passwords
2) The password file is much more heavily obfuscated
3) There aren't as many Opera users out there, and therefore it is less economical to spend time to properly figure out how to get at the passwords (I repeat, the program does attempt to get at Opera's passwords, it merely fails to succeed)
What this boils down to--exactly what I said in my original post. I feel more comfortable using Opera because it is less likely that my passwords will be stolen despite the fact that I don't use a master password (there's the whole convenience vs. security thing).
You're just being overprotective of FF. Face it--no matter the reason, it's easier to steal FF passwords than Opera's. Instead of being protective of a fault, acknowledge the fact and fix the problem. That's the purpose of these discussion boards.
I don't have a master password in Opera--and the program does look for them (reread my post). Additionally, passwords in Opera are saved in "wand.dat"; if you open this file in a text editor is comes out nonsense. Other Opera.dat files (cookies, history, etc) are readable in a text editor (I notice they are more readable in Wordpad than Notepad), which makes me think Opera isn't just saving these as text. FF passwords appear to be saved in "signons2.txt"--this file opens nicely in notepad or wordpad, and is easily readable--except for the usernames and passwords themselves, which are encrypted.
I find it notable that this little program easily gleans the info from FF while not able to pull password info from Opera (though it does try). Another user said this is no big deal because it's a program running locally on my computer. It seems to me that it's still a security risk because a virus like this program could upload that password information to some criminal. Plus--how do I know this information can't be collected remotely?
Last--FF needs a master password set to be even remotely secure with regard to passwords, while Opera does not. This seems like a big hole.
The thing that scared me away from the password manager in Firefox was a program called System Info for Windows. It lists all sorts of things about your computer--click on "Secrets." It searches for passwords in several programs--I have a few passwords saved in FF and the vast majority in Opera. I saw both programs mentioned in its analysis (meaning it searched both FF and Opera for saved passwords). It listed every saved FF password but no Opera passwords.
It seems to me that if this program can do that, then it can't be hard for a more nefarious program on my computer to do the same.
Couldn't they make a sort of spherical container with an exterior shell and an interior shell. The exterior shell would be a completely separate piece from the interior shell and would hold the airbag equipment. The interior shell would be made to move freely inside the exterior shell, kept in proper position with gyroscopic technology. Put some shock absorbers on the astronaut's seats, and then you're set.
This is very rudimentary of course, but it seems plausible with my minuscule knowledge of physics and makes me think that airbags aren't totally out of the question.
I think the reason they don't do this is because NASA has had a hard time finding reliable martians with which it could entrust the construction of the landing strip.
Of course the first sale doctrine would apply. That's why the plaintiffs in these cases will lose.
I would think it could only apply to people who enter a contract. For example, I think the Merle Norman case is groundless. I would distinguish the Merle Norman case from the Supreme Court case because PSKS was arguing that the price floor agreements were anticompetitive. It wanted to sell these leather products but didn't want to enter a price floor agreement.
If the salesperson at the Merle Norman store made every customer sign a contract that says he or she will not sell their purchase for a lower price than that which they paid, then there would be grounds for the Merle Norman suit. And they might be able to rely on this Supreme Court case if someone wanted to defy them on that, but even then their case wouldn't be sure--the court would apply the Rule of Reason test to determine if the agreements are anticompetitive.
Now here's a lesson about IP suits--these things are like investments to these companies (more like gambling sometimes). They find an area of law that isn't settled, but that if it went their way would reap them millions of dollars. Then they throw a couple million at it for the lawsuit, and maybe they win. If they win, they have a return on their investment. I'd say IP is kind of crazy in the degree this game has gone (and the MPAA has taken it just too far), but these suits in this article--these types of stabs are commonplace. It's big companies shifting money around (except in the case of the MPAA, which is why I say they've gone too far). The plaintiffs will lose. The defendants will sue for something just as stupid in just a few years to see if they can exploit another gray area of the law.
Slashdot Mirror
Email attachments are obsolete? Explain.
Some of us use gmail for most of our email and use something less risky for the "naked photos of ourselves."
Just over three years now (oldest email in the inbox is from August 2004), I'm at 430 MB. I never actively delete emails except spam, but I did accidentally remove several months worth of emails when I accidentally had the wrong IMAP settings.
;)
I'm guessing they'd have to be under a LOT of pressure to make storage "unlimited" because of all the people that would very quickly devour that using gmail-drive programs. Personally, I think I would just install Ubuntu on gmail-drive and never worry about space again
I notice ZFS has read-only support in Leopard--does this mean only that it is able to read a drive formatted in ZFS, if you happened to plug in such a drive? Or does this mean that the time machine data is being stored in a read only ZFS format? I would think the former (which would definitely be no big deal), because I don't see how the OS would be storing data in ZFS format unless it writes to it. Only having read support for ZFS, I would think that there is no way for the OS to record information in ZFS.
Someone please clarify for me, please...?
In all seriousness, though, the OLPC comes with OpenOffice and Gimp, which seem like fine alternatives to me for a bunch of African kids getting the laptop for free.
It doesn't provide MP3 support out of the box--that was misleading. The first time you try to play an MP3, Amarok says, "You currently can't play this file. Would you like to downloa MP3 support? Yes / No" or something along those lines. So really it's one step away from MP3 support out of the box. The difference looks like a legal fiction to me, but it is technically not shipped with an MP3 codec.
$200 -- I could see a lot of people willing to pay an extra $150 for a 64 GB SSD.
I'm not talking about a 640 GB SSD -- sure, we'll get those someday. But right now we could seriously do 64 GB for an amount people are willing to pay (particularly if mass produced).
These things sound great--I'm just afraid of Dell and other computer companies deciding that consumers don't want flash hard drives because we aren't buying the ones they offer. Then they attempt no development in this regard. The thing is, though, people are just not willing (for the most part) to pay extra to get a small capacity hard drive. They need to offer these things with similar capacies to their conventional hard drives--64GB just isn't that unreasonable for these things.
Then again, perhaps the computer manufacturers have not yet been impressed with the reliability of higher capacity SSDs.
Anyone have any idea why it's hard to find a laptop that comes with a 64GB or larger SSD?
Video calling? It's totally available here in the US for free as long as you have high speed internet and are willing to use AIM or MSNMessenger, etc. But still people say "no, never." I think there are other reasons people don't want to do it. For one thing, due to the desires of consumers, phones have become more and more mobile--we don't have to stand at the phone and speak into the mouthpiece mounted on the wall anymore. Instead the earpiece and mouthpiece are both mounted on the same portable units so we can walk around our house, our yard, and even hop in our car and drive somewhere. A video phone service would immobilize us again.
As far as I can tell, I don't think the videophone thing will take any hold anywhere except for every now-and-again usage by the normal population, and rampant usage among pornographers.
3D rendering:
Desktop cube, see-through windows, other desktop effects (but not with the detailed configurability of Beryl)
Here's a collection of the code names matched up with version numbers (though, as already pointed out, the fact that the code names slowly move up the alphabet is a pretty good indicator):
I think the code names are intended to be pre-release--once released the code name is officially dropped for a version number (though the code name is unofficially retained by most users including myself). "Silly" or otherwise unusual code names are common in the technology world--My personal favorite is Apple's internal names for the Power Mac 7100.
Ubuntu's version number system is very simple, straightforward, and understandable--it consists of two numbers taken from the date of the release it is applied to: [year].[month]. Very simple, huh?
In Ubuntu's case, it is wise for them to use a code name prior to release, given their version number system, because a any delays could render the version number less meaningful (the author notes that Ubuntu uses a predictable release pattern with new releases every 6 months, but I think the makers of Ubuntu are being cautious because everyone knows delays can occur).
I don't know what the Apple-AT&T contract looks like, but I know in Apple's iTunes contracts, the companies for which it provides protected music require Apple to make "corrections" when someone figures out how to break the protection on the songs.
If the iPhone contract is similar, then Apple may be required to update the iPhone software to attempt to thwart this.
Just keep your eyes open and see what happens to the two sites making claims. If they come down, Apple got to them.
Also, one thing that becomes obvious when reading the article that he doesn't mention: the public at large cares little about sound quality. Now this is only true to a point--crappy sound quality won't do it, but CD is great for most people. You aren't going to get the general public to buy an expensive BR player by telling them the sound quality's good--they are satisfied with the sound quality on DVDs and weren't hoping for something better. There will be people with money to throw around and audiophiles who want absurdly high sound quality, but the general public isn't looking for something better. Being happy with what they've got (heck--we're happy with mp3s, which aren't even as good), the way to get them is to make something that is at least as good as what they've got but is CHEAPER. [Also, I think there is a rapidly increasing number of people who don't like the fact that they can't just save a BR disk on their hard drive/DVR just because of it's immense size (I'm not even talking copy protection here) for use on all of their various devices.]
Just nitpicking.
Three reasons:
1) It closed source, and therefore more difficult to figure out how to get at the passwords
2) The password file is much more heavily obfuscated
3) There aren't as many Opera users out there, and therefore it is less economical to spend time to properly figure out how to get at the passwords (I repeat, the program does attempt to get at Opera's passwords, it merely fails to succeed)
What this boils down to--exactly what I said in my original post. I feel more comfortable using Opera because it is less likely that my passwords will be stolen despite the fact that I don't use a master password (there's the whole convenience vs. security thing).
You're just being overprotective of FF. Face it--no matter the reason, it's easier to steal FF passwords than Opera's. Instead of being protective of a fault, acknowledge the fact and fix the problem. That's the purpose of these discussion boards.
I don't have a master password in Opera--and the program does look for them (reread my post). Additionally, passwords in Opera are saved in "wand.dat"; if you open this file in a text editor is comes out nonsense. Other Opera .dat files (cookies, history, etc) are readable in a text editor (I notice they are more readable in Wordpad than Notepad), which makes me think Opera isn't just saving these as text. FF passwords appear to be saved in "signons2.txt"--this file opens nicely in notepad or wordpad, and is easily readable--except for the usernames and passwords themselves, which are encrypted.
I find it notable that this little program easily gleans the info from FF while not able to pull password info from Opera (though it does try). Another user said this is no big deal because it's a program running locally on my computer. It seems to me that it's still a security risk because a virus like this program could upload that password information to some criminal. Plus--how do I know this information can't be collected remotely?
Last--FF needs a master password set to be even remotely secure with regard to passwords, while Opera does not. This seems like a big hole.
The thing that scared me away from the password manager in Firefox was a program called System Info for Windows. It lists all sorts of things about your computer--click on "Secrets." It searches for passwords in several programs--I have a few passwords saved in FF and the vast majority in Opera. I saw both programs mentioned in its analysis (meaning it searched both FF and Opera for saved passwords). It listed every saved FF password but no Opera passwords.
It seems to me that if this program can do that, then it can't be hard for a more nefarious program on my computer to do the same.
Couldn't they make a sort of spherical container with an exterior shell and an interior shell. The exterior shell would be a completely separate piece from the interior shell and would hold the airbag equipment. The interior shell would be made to move freely inside the exterior shell, kept in proper position with gyroscopic technology. Put some shock absorbers on the astronaut's seats, and then you're set.
This is very rudimentary of course, but it seems plausible with my minuscule knowledge of physics and makes me think that airbags aren't totally out of the question.
I think the reason they don't do this is because NASA has had a hard time finding reliable martians with which it could entrust the construction of the landing strip.
Of course the first sale doctrine would apply. That's why the plaintiffs in these cases will lose.
I would think it could only apply to people who enter a contract. For example, I think the Merle Norman case is groundless. I would distinguish the Merle Norman case from the Supreme Court case because PSKS was arguing that the price floor agreements were anticompetitive. It wanted to sell these leather products but didn't want to enter a price floor agreement.
If the salesperson at the Merle Norman store made every customer sign a contract that says he or she will not sell their purchase for a lower price than that which they paid, then there would be grounds for the Merle Norman suit. And they might be able to rely on this Supreme Court case if someone wanted to defy them on that, but even then their case wouldn't be sure--the court would apply the Rule of Reason test to determine if the agreements are anticompetitive.
Now here's a lesson about IP suits--these things are like investments to these companies (more like gambling sometimes). They find an area of law that isn't settled, but that if it went their way would reap them millions of dollars. Then they throw a couple million at it for the lawsuit, and maybe they win. If they win, they have a return on their investment. I'd say IP is kind of crazy in the degree this game has gone (and the MPAA has taken it just too far), but these suits in this article--these types of stabs are commonplace. It's big companies shifting money around (except in the case of the MPAA, which is why I say they've gone too far). The plaintiffs will lose. The defendants will sue for something just as stupid in just a few years to see if they can exploit another gray area of the law.