VT is not currently supported by Dell, either. There is no way to turn it on in any Dell system's BIOS, nor is there an ETA on a firmware update coming out to enable it.
That is not true. My Dell Inspiron E1505 has VT disabled by default, but it is definitely enable-able in the BIOS. If it wasn't I would not even know that it was disabled.
Nonsense. Several of the libraries have the contracts posted online. For example University of Michigan: http://www.lib.umich.edu/mdp/ (The contract is listed as "U-M Library/Google Cooperative Agreement")
Perhaps get a lot of RAM and don't bother with swap? It's not strictly required.
Also note that ironically, on some systems, if you have tons of ram, you can increase performance by swapping onto a ramdisk.
Obviously that is a sign of some sort of design problem, but it does happen.
Umm... I question that Wireless DVI dongle. It sounds like the dongle is only used on the screen, and on the compueter end is software that basicly captures the screen image and tramsits it over Wifi to the dongle. If it is simply screen scraping, generally loose any 3d acelleration, and in some cases you lose video playback. So that particular dongle is worthless. What would work fine is a pair of dongles that work over UWB, Appearing to both sides as though it were a standard cable. But there could be latency problems with that.
I have to object to that last sentence. Getting rid of the watermarks en-masse would be a good thing, and satellite photography will continue to be made despite a lack of copyright protection over the imagery. In fact, I doubt copyright on satellite imagery would stand up to a constitutional attack addressing the fact that under Feist such photography is not copyrightable in the first place.
Perhaps the original images are not copyrightable. (I suspect it may be copyrightable, due to the "creative"ness of the decisions related to camera height, location, angle, zoom, focus, exposure, etc. Remember that most photos are protected by copyright, despite recording what is more or less fact.) Even if the original images are not protected by copyright, the images used by Google earth are. The selection of pictures (to avoid clouds, avoid night photos, etc) added creativity. So did the choice of stitching algorithm, etc.
Idiocy. Under the upcoming GPL v. 3, accepting e.g. a GPLd webserver will force me to distribute the source of my programs that run ON TOP OF IT even when no modification has been made to the server itself. So, by accepting GPLd software, you will have to distribute not only the source of any modified version (if you distribute it at all), but also the results of your work if you used the software to actually DO something.
What type of non-sense is that? TTBOMK, There is no clause that says anything at all like that. The closest thing to that is the clause that allows a GPLv3'd application with a web interface to require derivatives to maintain the ability for the users to obtain the source of the web application. That only applies to the web application, not to anything run under it, and it only applies to web applications that already have a means of transmitting its own source to the end user, and only applies if that license Option is invoked.
It's important to understand what exactly constitutes a "child" in this case as well. Pedophilia does not involve 17 year olds unless they look and act like 10 year olds. That is the sexual truth of the matter regardless of the complex and varying legal definitions.
Very true. A 20 year-old with a sexual relationship with a 10 year-old is definitely not the same thing as a 25 year-old with a sexual relationship with a 15 year-old. There is a 10 year age spread in both, but in only one is the child prepubescent. In fact, as far as medicine is concerned they are unrelated. Indeed, I'm not certain that there is a true consensus that the latter is any sort of disorder. Biologically speaking the second relationship is intended to happen, while the first is not.
The proper thing to do is to call only the first pedophilia, and call the second Ephebophilia.
Of course, the related issues are also a mess. One problem is the grouping of all sex offenders into a single group. Perhaps it is just me, but child-sexual-molesters are something very different than flashers, gropers (who grope adults, not children) and prostitutes. Violent Rapists (as opposed to statutory rapists, or those who have sex with somebody too intoxicated to consent) seem like a separate category as well.
Children have nothing from prostitutes and Adult rapists (violent or not). I certainly have no reason to fear prostitutes (unless I engage in sex with them). Nobody who is not related to the "offender" has anything to fear from one whose offense was incest (and it is debatable weather those related have reason to fear the "offender").
All of those are (somewhat) actively developed, and non have been officially abandoned (unlike Seamonkey which is no longer an official project.)
Although only Firefox and Thunderbird appear to be supported by MoCo. The rest appear to be supported by MoFo.
If you invoke your right to remain silent and then later speak up, it can be used against you.
They don't gag you when you decide to remain silent. You can change your mind at any time, of course.
The GP was talking about the fact that you were silent can be used against you.
Similarly for all the other points. The grandparent was only talking about silence being used against you, rather than what you say being used against you. Basically when he says "can be used against you" it means that the DA can mention the fact that you were silent to the jury implying that you must have had something to hide.
Drew,
You have a few choices. If you want to disable the "restore after crash" feature you can use about:config to set "browser.sessionstore.resume_from_crash" to false. That way you can still use session restore when installing new extensions. To completely disable it you can use about:config to set "browser.sessionstore.enabled" to false.
Are you sure you have no page files?
Most operating systems will swap out memory.
Windows defaults to having a page file. (At least 32-bit XP does.) (Mine uses a 1536MB-3072MB paging file).
Linux has the swap partition.
Sure, 64-bit means a memory cap so high it is very unlikely you will ever reach it, but what is the highest one machine is going to have? 8GB? 16GB?
Even with that much memory, a paging file can sometimes increase performance. It may be because of architectural design faults. At one point Linux would run faster with a Swap-FS on a ramdisk than with no swap at all. (I'm completely unaware of when or if that has changed.)
If God created the mess that is the world in six days, He should need a lot more time to create the mess that is HTML.
Very true. Take a look at one of the shortest valid HTML files which uses a standard doctype:
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">
<title</title>a
If you are only counting the length of the body (ignoring the length of the DTD, then this is shorter if one allows a nonstandard DTD):
<!DOCTYPE title PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">
<title</title>
Of course those examples are abusing the language, especially shorttag, but still...
Very true. However if I use Browser.tabs.closeButtons=3 then there is a problem with the drop-down list menu that is intended to be at the far right. If i use closeButtons=3, then the close button is further right than that menu, which then (in the defaulkt skin anyway) looks incorrect.
Really there are quite a few problems. The best thing to do in many cases is to ignore DPI as such.
My screen has a much higher resolution than standard CRT of the same size. (Greater DPI).
I tell windows that I have a normal DPI. This is because I really dont care if the fons' are the correct size.
What I do care about is the font size relative to say, icon sizes remains correct. Windows looks really messed up if I tell it my screens
real DPI.
So my fealing that that there is no good reason for the software to know the screens true DPI unless the DPI of the
screen is so large that it makes text unreadable. In that case most icons are also too small to be usefull, so the text is not the
only problem.
What I find just as annoying is the resolution issue. A screen has a physical resolution. That is what the software should be set to.
Setting it to anything else either wastes pixels (a 4x4 block of pixels being treated as one pixel) or detail is lost as multiple
software pixels are merged into one hardware pixel.
The ideal would be if one could have both the DPI and the resolution set correctly in the OS without any distortion. Thus two screens of
idential size, but one with a higher DPI would display identical content, but the higher DPI display is sharper. (In other words both would have identical screen real-estate, but the text would be sharper. The icons would appear phsyically the same size on both screens, so a higher resolution icon would be used on the higher DPI screen. Etc.)
That is not the way Windows currently works. In fact that really is not the way most things really work. Programmer tend to think about pixels, ignoring the fact that pixels can have very different sizes. Thus increasing the DPI in windows only serves to knock evrything out of proportion. In the ideal model, the resolution slider would become obsolete. If a person wished to have more screen real estate, at the expense of having what should be 1 inch be only 1/2 inch, they would be able to request that through the DPI setting. This would work because the system would see the smaller DPI, and the same resolution, and determine that the screen is larger.
Writely (the word processor component of Google Docs & Spreadsheets) is really not a Word Processor (in the sense that most people use). It is a WYSIWYG html-editor. It is very usefull for word processing blog-posts, etc. It is also useful for callaboratively editing the text of a document. It has somewhat limited type-setting capabilities, but it was not intended to be used for type-setting.
So if you have a TV, a vcr and a computer, that's about $750 a year? Wow. I thought it was about $200 or so, but I hadn't figured the multiples thing. yowch. I can't imagine spending $1000 a year on dvds.
According to Wikipedia:
"""The licence fee is charged on a per household basis. Therefore addresses with more than one television receiver only require a single licence."""
I'm pretty sure you pay for the most expensive licence type based on what you have connected. So If you hvae a color TV you pay the color fee even if you also own a B&W TV, and even if you almost never watch the color TV. However if the Color TV is not set-up to recive TV, but only to play DVDs, and you have no other TV recivers you may pay only the B&W fee.
You get the idea. But, the free licence for over 75 applies even if there are eople in the house younger, and the half-price licence for the blind applies even if there are hearing people in the house.
Or at least use windows as the source of video. A local [very small] Tv station was once broadcating the "Windows is shutting down" screen for days! [This station normally broadcast what was more or less a slideshow, and used a local radio station as thew audio source.]
They started out on Google Personalized Homepage. Then GDS got them. Next Google Pages hosted sitews were able to use them. Now they can be used on any page.
They are claiming based on a list of formats it supports, that other formats are not supported. It seems pretty clear to me that Micosoft did not list protected WMV/WMA simply because that is obviously supported. I'm betting a future slashback including a correction.
Slashdot Mirror
Nonsense. Several of the libraries have the contracts posted online. For example University of Michigan: http://www.lib.umich.edu/mdp/ (The contract is listed as "U-M Library/Google Cooperative Agreement")
Umm... I question that Wireless DVI dongle. It sounds like the dongle is only used on the screen, and on the compueter end is software that basicly captures the screen image and tramsits it over Wifi to the dongle. If it is simply screen scraping, generally loose any 3d acelleration, and in some cases you lose video playback. So that particular dongle is worthless. What would work fine is a pair of dongles that work over UWB, Appearing to both sides as though it were a standard cable. But there could be latency problems with that.
The proper thing to do is to call only the first pedophilia, and call the second Ephebophilia.
Of course, the related issues are also a mess. One problem is the grouping of all sex offenders into a single group. Perhaps it is just me, but child-sexual-molesters are something very different than flashers, gropers (who grope adults, not children) and prostitutes. Violent Rapists (as opposed to statutory rapists, or those who have sex with somebody too intoxicated to consent) seem like a separate category as well.
Children have nothing from prostitutes and Adult rapists (violent or not). I certainly have no reason to fear prostitutes (unless I engage in sex with them). Nobody who is not related to the "offender" has anything to fear from one whose offense was incest (and it is debatable weather those related have reason to fear the "offender").
You think Thunderbird is under advertised?
What about MiniMo? http://www.mozilla.org/projects/minimo/
How about Sunbird? http://www.mozilla.org/projects/calendar/
What about Chatzilla? (Most current users of Chatzilla in Firefox probably used it back when it was a standard part of the Mozilla suite.)
All of those are (somewhat) actively developed, and non have been officially abandoned (unlike Seamonkey which is no longer an official project.)
Although only Firefox and Thunderbird appear to be supported by MoCo. The rest appear to be supported by MoFo.
Similarly for all the other points. The grandparent was only talking about silence being used against you, rather than what you say being used against you. Basically when he says "can be used against you" it means that the DA can mention the fact that you were silent to the jury implying that you must have had something to hide.
Drew,
You have a few choices. If you want to disable the "restore after crash" feature you can use about:config to set "browser.sessionstore.resume_from_crash" to false. That way you can still use session restore when installing new extensions. To completely disable it you can use about:config to set "browser.sessionstore.enabled" to false.
Sure, 64-bit means a memory cap so high it is very unlikely you will ever reach it, but what is the highest one machine is going to have? 8GB? 16GB? Even with that much memory, a paging file can sometimes increase performance. It may be because of architectural design faults. At one point Linux would run faster with a Swap-FS on a ramdisk than with no swap at all. (I'm completely unaware of when or if that has changed.)
If God created the mess that is the world in six days, He should need a lot more time to create the mess that is HTML. Very true. Take a look at one of the shortest valid HTML files which uses a standard doctype:
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">
<title</title>a
If you are only counting the length of the body (ignoring the length of the DTD, then this is shorter if one allows a nonstandard DTD):
<!DOCTYPE title PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">
<title</title>
Of course those examples are abusing the language, especially shorttag, but still...
Do you know of any solution for that?
Please point to a policy document that says that builds with random patches may call themselves: "Unoffical Firefox".
In fact the prinary use of the Debian Offical Use Logo is placing it on the labels of CD's made from Offical CD Images. That is all!
My screen has a much higher resolution than standard CRT of the same size. (Greater DPI). I tell windows that I have a normal DPI. This is because I really dont care if the fons' are the correct size. What I do care about is the font size relative to say, icon sizes remains correct. Windows looks really messed up if I tell it my screens real DPI.
So my fealing that that there is no good reason for the software to know the screens true DPI unless the DPI of the screen is so large that it makes text unreadable. In that case most icons are also too small to be usefull, so the text is not the only problem.
What I find just as annoying is the resolution issue. A screen has a physical resolution. That is what the software should be set to. Setting it to anything else either wastes pixels (a 4x4 block of pixels being treated as one pixel) or detail is lost as multiple software pixels are merged into one hardware pixel.
The ideal would be if one could have both the DPI and the resolution set correctly in the OS without any distortion. Thus two screens of idential size, but one with a higher DPI would display identical content, but the higher DPI display is sharper. (In other words both would have identical screen real-estate, but the text would be sharper. The icons would appear phsyically the same size on both screens, so a higher resolution icon would be used on the higher DPI screen. Etc.)
That is not the way Windows currently works. In fact that really is not the way most things really work. Programmer tend to think about pixels, ignoring the fact that pixels can have very different sizes. Thus increasing the DPI in windows only serves to knock evrything out of proportion. In the ideal model, the resolution slider would become obsolete. If a person wished to have more screen real estate, at the expense of having what should be 1 inch be only 1/2 inch, they would be able to request that through the DPI setting. This would work because the system would see the smaller DPI, and the same resolution, and determine that the screen is larger.
Writely (the word processor component of Google Docs & Spreadsheets) is really not a Word Processor (in the sense that most people use). It is a WYSIWYG html-editor. It is very usefull for word processing blog-posts, etc. It is also useful for callaboratively editing the text of a document. It has somewhat limited type-setting capabilities, but it was not intended to be used for type-setting.
"""The licence fee is charged on a per household basis. Therefore addresses with more than one television receiver only require a single licence."""
I'm pretty sure you pay for the most expensive licence type based on what you have connected. So If you hvae a color TV you pay the color fee even if you also own a B&W TV, and even if you almost never watch the color TV. However if the Color TV is not set-up to recive TV, but only to play DVDs, and you have no other TV recivers you may pay only the B&W fee. You get the idea. But, the free licence for over 75 applies even if there are eople in the house younger, and the half-price licence for the blind applies even if there are hearing people in the house.
Or at least use windows as the source of video. A local [very small] Tv station was once broadcating the "Windows is shutting down" screen for days! [This station normally broadcast what was more or less a slideshow, and used a local radio station as thew audio source.]
The news is thhat any site can use them now, not just the Google Homepage, and pages hosted by Google Pages.
They started out on Google Personalized Homepage. Then GDS got them. Next Google Pages hosted sitews were able to use them. Now they can be used on any page.
RFC 791 is very clear in that it describes version 4 of the internet protocol.
Hell page 33 includes the exact words "version 4 of internet protocol".
They are claiming based on a list of formats it supports, that other formats are not supported. It seems pretty clear to me that Micosoft did not list protected WMV/WMA simply because that is obviously supported. I'm betting a future slashback including a correction.
People will then assume that "Freedom Software" is a euphemism for "French Software".