Each version of Firefox has had a slightly different way to turn off the add-on compatibility checking, but this method method should work for all of them, including the current RC. First, an explanation for how/why this works:
The add-ons include an XML file which indicates which versions the add-on is intended for. This is what Firefox checks when it runs to ensure the add-ons are compatible. You can edit the add-ons and "lie" about which versions of Firefox the add-on is intended for, and Firefox won't complain any more. This doesn't mean the add-on will work, though, and if you do this please don't complain about Firefox being unstable or having memory issues. In my experience, every add-on that has worked on Firefox 3.5 works on Firefox 3.6RC1 without any noticeable problems. YMMV - I haven't used any of the add-ons you've listed as incompatible.
If you're savvy with shell scripting, it's pretty easy to automate this, but since I don't know what OS you're running I'll give you the OS- and tool-agnostic instructions:
Download the extension you want (don't install it quite yet, just download it to a folder - right click, save as...). Despite the extension, the Firefox add-on is actually just a.zip file. Unzip it (this may require you rename it to.zip if you're not savvy with all your tools quite yet). There should be a file called "install.rdf" - edit this with your favorite editor. Despite the extension it's just XML, and don't worry if you don't know XML - you don't really have to. Look for the tags "em:minVersion" and "em:maxVersion". Increase the Firefox version between the "em:maxVersion" tags to something more then what you need, such as "3.7" or "4.0". Then just save the file, and re-zip the entire unzipped structure. Be wary you don't nest the file (ie zip -> folder -> items), the "index.rdf" and it's cohorts should be at the highest level in the zip. Rename to have the ".xpi" extension.
Do this for all your Firefox extensions you want to work with the latest version of Firefox. Now, when you tell Firefox to install these it will just assume the "index.rdf" file is telling the truth and the extension will work with the current version of Firefox. Before installing, make sure you remove your old, non-fixed-up add-ons so there's no conflict. Finally, go to your address bar and navigate to where the fixed ".xpi" file is. That is, instead of going to "http://..." just go to "C:/..." on Windows or "/..." if you're on Unix. Firefox is smart enough to know what protocol to use. It should install like it would from a website, except this time without complaining about the add-on being incompatible.
Yes, this can be a bit tedious for a lot of extensions if you're not used to scripting or don't use a badass text editor like vim. There may be a faster way, but it's likely it won't work in the next-next version of Firefox while this one should always work.
The problem here is that people are forgetting that the entire purpose of these gadgets is for reading books
Not necessarily. The purpose of the e-ink tech is to be a low-power-usage display. However, there's drawbacks (limited/no colors, poor refresh time) that have forced it to be stuffed in to the niche of being a display for books. If/when the technologies improves, it can be used to display other things.
All of those things are what matters for an actual book reader...not color or video.
Other uses for this improved tech aren't going to somehow mean everyone stops using it to read books. All it does is expand the market, which in turn will probably mean more funding for better e-book readers. Use your imagination a little bit. Consider:
I use my netbook in class to type notes in vim. That's *it.* I made a point of disabling pretty much all the background processes possible and underclocked/undervoltaged the CPU - when I'm not hitting a key, the only real power draw is the display. Yet I still have to charge it every night. If the e-ink stuff improves sufficiently, I could use it here. It just needs a slightly better refresh rate, and maybe some colors for syntax highlighting (I take my notes in LaTeX).
Then, as more people buy e-ink-based tech, the prices drop and quality goes up. Soon ebook readers won't cost an arm and a leg as they do today, and will last even longer on the same charge. Imagine going months or even years without having to plug the thing in. AND other people benefit by using the tech for other things.
that's OK because what I actually WANTED was an eBook reader.
The only weird part is, the engineers behind these things aren't forgetting how to make the old tech, and the marketing people aren't forgetting about the money being made by selling ebooks readers. It's almost like ebook readers aren't going to disappear as these gadgets are pushed into new markets! Wouldn't that be horrible - people using technology for things other then what you bless it for?
While my experience in this matter does not extend to Canada, I know that in the US that would most definitely not be the case. Disabilities that are unrelated to mobility don't get to use disabled parking (I'm not sure how it's put in legaleze). Learning disabilities are an obvious example.
That's a nice try to abuse the system, but I don't think it'll fly (teehee).
It's version 2.1 of the software, which is the part Google did. HTC did the hardware, and not only have they released phones before but a number of Android-based phones.
It's really not all that much of reach to expect that, by now, they'd have it pretty close to bug-free, especially considering the (relatively) quiet front with regards to previous problems on Android-based HTC phones.
I agree with your point about avoiding the bleeding-edge, I just don't think it applies here.
The disappointment over OGL3 that you're referring to was due to the fact it had quite a lot of promise and potential, which all fell short. It *would* have been far ahead of DirectX if Khronos kept their promises.
From a technical make-the-best-pretty-pictures standpoint, most of DirectX's technological superiority gets implemented on OpenGL soon afterward. nVidia and AMD don't want the two standards to spread to far apart, as it would make work much harder on the both of them.
With regards to everything else, they go back and forth depending on who you ask and where the priority is placed. OpenGL runs on more platforms (Win, Mac, Nix, Nintendo, Playstation, iPhone, Android, etc), but DirectX's platforms are huge for gaming (Win & Xbox). OpenGL completely owns the CAD market, but it's extensions aren't part of the standard and may change depending on which card vendor you're running on. Some say DX is easier to learn, others say OpenGL. It all depends on what exactly who you are and exactly what you want.
But yet, for a netbook, Chrome is the best choice because it uses the smallest amount of real estate for non-browser window information.
By default, yes. After configuring, not necessarily. Firefox's UI is *very* configurable, and I wouldn't be surprised if fans of other browsers can make similar claims for their preferred browsers. I expect most people who care enough about their screen real estate to chose their browser based on that fact, would also be willing to learn to configure their browser to get even more real estate, thereby nullifying any advantage Chrome may have by default. I own an eeepc 701 - you know, with the 7" screen. I'm one of those people where the screen real estate really matters.
installed vimperator so firefox can do everything from the keyboard alone, as well as fire gestures so I can do (almost) everything from the mouse alone, all without any of the standard buttons and bars and what not. There is no address bar or search box or stop button or home button. All I've got, beyond the webpage itself: the tab bar if there's multiple tabs (which I could disable if I chose too), the status bar (which I could also disable if I chose too), and one line for vimperator. I'm tempted to see if I can patch vimperator to get that to autohide, so that I could have 100% of firefox's window dedicated to the page itself when I'm not using vimperator's ex line.
Chrome is fast, which is great for underpowered netbooks. Even the latest firefox beta's, which are aimed at improving speed, aren't quite where Chrome is. However, in terms of screen real estate, Chrome's default advantage isn't worth much if anything for those who care about it.
Why was the epoch chosen to be 00:00:00 UTC on 1 January 1970?
I know the epoch was changed around a bit because early versions of the unix time system functioned at rates greater then 1hz, and hence would run out of room in the 32bit space really really fast. I'm not sure why that particular date was the one they settled on, hopefully someone else can fill in.
Why didn't we restart it at 2000 amidst the Y2K mess?
I'm not 100% on this, but I believe the Y2K mess didn't effect Unix-y systems at all. The way Unix time works, if you're not familiar, is that it just counts the seconds after the epoch. Whether the year is represented as two of four digits doesn't matter, and doesn't cause problems. The 32bit limit on the counter is a problem, but that's another matter we can procrastinate on for another 25~30 years or so then panic at the last minute. There's no reason for the Unix time stuff to change because other systems had date problems - if anything, it's more of a reason *not* to change since the system clearly works when others were failing.
When you can pick up 4GB of RAM memory for a song, why not load the whole OS into memory?
For what it's worth, you can do this with most Linux distros if you know what you're doing. Linux is pretty well designed to act from a ramdisk - you can set it up to copy the system files into RAM on boot and continue from there all in RAM. I've been doing this on my Debian (stable) boxes when I realized I couldn't afford a decent SSD and wanted a super-responsive system. Firefox (well, Iceweasel) starts cold in about two seconds on an eeepc when set up this way, and it starts cold virtually instantly on my C2D box. In fact, everything seems instant on my C2D box. It's really snazzy.
As long as you don't suffer a system crash, you can unload it back to disk when you're done.
Depending on what you're doing, even that may not be an issue. If you're doing massive database stuff, then yes. However, if your disk I/O isn't all heavy you can set a daemon up to automatically mirror changes made in the RAMdisk to the "hard" copy. From your POV everything is instant, but any crash will only result in the loss of data from however far behind the harddrive copy is lagging. Personally, what little I do need saved is simply text files - my notes in class, my homework, etc, and so I can just write to a partition on the harddrive that isn't loaded to RAM. It doesn't suffer at all from the harddrive I/O - I can't really type faster then a harddrive can write.
tl;dr: It's perfectly feasible for (some) people to do as you've described, and it works quite nicely. It's not really necessary to wait for this perpetually will-be-released-in-5-to-10-years technology, it's available today.
One of the key selling points of this service is directed towards developers and publishers: no piracy, and no used game sales. Every game played is controlled remotely. With movies or music, you could still record the media, but with interactive games in this fashion it's not possible. The key selling point to end users is you don't need the traditionally high-end hardware needed to play games. For the most part, other media plays fine on low-end hardware (high definition movies being a possible exception, although even that is getting pretty rare).
There are theoretical benefits for games that you just can't get any other way, which don't carry over to music or movies (although I'd be surprised if those aren't also offered on this service). That's why games.
What happens to all the folks (us?) who have been gloating over the security of our Macs, Linux, smartphones etc. when these apps get broken? Time to eat crow?
I can't speak for Macs or smartphones (who gloats over the security of smartphones? Things like the amount of iphone jailbreaking going on or the Tmobile sidekick crash make it pretty clear smartphones have issues...), but Linux is still more secure the Windows in this respect. There's numerous ways to isolate the damage that could be done from a hole in flash. MAC like SELinux or AppArmor are perfect for this, and Windows still doesn't have a competent MAC implementation (MIC is insufficient). There's ways to sandbox firefox without MAC, too, such as setting everything up to sudo to another user every time firefox is called. There's a LOT of ways to deal with this.
Now, all of these take some work on the user's part. Stupid/lazy Windows users can be pwned just as badly as stupid/lazy Linux people. But it's not as though a competent individual is just as badly off on both platforms... Linux has solutions for dealing with untrusted things like flash where Windows does not. If you actually and actively care about security, you can continue to gloat about Linux's superiority in this respect. If you're too lazy to take security seriously, you can be pwned on both counts.
Why do people forget that google isn't even trying to compete or replace Windows
Two reasons:
(1) Because if we kept this in mind, we wouldn't have anything to complain about.
(2) This is something somewhat new. It's hard for people to grasp changes, even small ones. It's easier to just assume this is another netbook (heck, that's what TFT/S/A refers to it as) and rate it on those grounds. The fact is, it's not a netbook as seen by the current market. Although the name seems more fitting for it then other "netbooks."
#1) Google will SUBSIDIZE the cost of the netbook (aka NetPC, which was hacked out of existence).
Something will be subsidizing it, yes. Probably a required monthly fee for the 3G.
#2) Unlike NetPC, they won't be using an intel processor, locking out Windows.
--- so when joey or jane try to download and install their favorite game or chat client, it will fail.
--- so when grandma can't load in her quickbooks document for the church, it will fail.
People who want those things will most likely be informed at some point that this machine can't do that. Macs aren't failing, and they can't run Windows software. Neither are smartphones, which can't run Windows software. So long as it isn't marketed as a generic PC, it's not really an issue. It's targeting a limited audience, yes. This won't be replacing all laptops everywhere. It wasn't intended too.
#3) As someone who has lurked in many a netbook forum, I can tell you the number one question will be "How do I install Windows XP on it?"
The people who go to these forums are people who hear somewhere that such a thing is possible - because it is. If it isn't, these people won't go to the forums and ask. I haven't seen people ask how to install Windows on an iphone anywhere, have you?
#4) Someone will figure out how to install alternative OSes on it,
If I understand correctly, it may be a bit of trouble to install another OS on it. You're locked out of the BIOS - you can't boot off of a USB drive. There may be some security problem that will allow jailbreaking of sorts, from which you may be able to chroot a Linux distro on there or something. The only alternative I can think of would require physically opening the machine up, and pray the flash drive is connected via some standard connection inside and not sitting directly on the mobo. Even if it's possible, it won't be easy or common - much more difficult then just jailbreaking an iphone. Most people will either use Google's OS or not use the device at all.
maybe even write some kind of intel CPU emulator, or real-time recompiler, and then hack Windows into running on it, and then the lawsuits begin.
CPU emulation has a substantial performance hit. Additionally, the processor on the netbook will be pretty weak - one goal is to have a long battery life, which means the performance will be poor. Even if people do get their own OS on there, and do get it to do some sort of CPU emulation (probably QEMU), the performance will be miserable - worthless.
Getting your own linux distro on there may be possible, but difficult - not something Joe Sixpack could do. Getting Windows on there, even if possible, wouldn't be worthwhile. And even if it was, I don't see why any lawsuites would result. If you buy Windows and put it on there, MS is happy. If you pirate windows, MS will try to update WGA to stop you. That's... it. I don't foresee any lawsuits, even if it was feasible to get Windows on there.
#5) As soon as people get bored with it, into the trash heap it goes.
I don't see how this device would be any different from other electronics... maybe trash, maybe given as a gift, maybe left in the basement in a box somewhere never to be seen again. Unless I'm missing something, I don't see why this is even worth mentioning.
Abortion is complicated, but the aspects of the other things you've mentioned, such as gun violence, which make them evil is that they (unjustly) hurts others. The reasons the possibility is allowed is because there are justified uses for these actions/tools that don't (unjustly) harm others. For example, guns: target shooting doesn't hurt anyone, and self-defense is justified. There is no aspect of spam which makes the possibility of spam acceptable. It actively harms others... and that's it.
You're right that action against spammers could be used against "good guys," but that alone isn't enough to make it unacceptable. Things which stop murders and rapists can also be used to stop "good guys," but are necessary nonetheless.
There is a line which shouldn't be crossed in the name of stopping it - raping and killing someone's family members as torture to force someone to find the ISP of a spammer, for example, isn't justified. But the actions described in TFA are certainly acceptable against spam, even if the same actions could be used against the innocent.
Yes, spam really is that evil, and it should be stopped.
I'm usually not trying for "insightful" when I quote comedians, but: "You can't fix stupid." - Ron White
As long as there are stupid people out there using computers which are connected to the internet, they'll find a way to get their machines pwned. Unless you're proposing the anti-botnet efforts be directed towards keeping stupid people off internet-connected computers, I don't see a viable way to "treat the illness."
This is news, but not because of the potential problems that could arise. It's interesting from a technological standpoint. Why/how would changing the sector size effect performance? What are the downsides - why wasn't it done before? Why is it now chosen at 4k, why not something even larger? Those questions are what make it news (for nerds). It doesn't have to break something to be newsworthy.
With Linux, there's really very little need for an optical drive for day-to-day use. You can install the OS from a USB drive, and get all your software online (through the distro's package manager, downloading the straight binaries, or from source).
With Windows it can be a little trickier, since the Windows ecosystem is used to installing most software from disks. However, the target use for a netbook is mostly for lighter apps you wouldn't get from a disk anyways. Install Firefox and maybe OpenOffice.org or some such thing, and you use that. If you really need something from a disk, you can get an external drive or get another machine with an optical drive to make an image.
This class of subnotebook wasn't originally intended to be a primary machine. Just something small enough that you can carry with you for lighter tasks like browsing the web and taking notes in class. Of course now that this class of subnotebook has fancy graphics and a 12" screen, I'm not sure what it's intended for anymore.
It's not really an Ubuntu problem, per se. I don't know of an OS (designed for HDD's) that doesn't do this. If you install Windows on a box whose BIOS looks to another HDD on booting, Windows'll try to write all over the other HDD for it's bootloader, too.
Ubuntu's install process tries to ask as few questions as possible, aiming at those who don't know what something like GRUB is. I don't think they'll change this for quite a while to come.
For future reference, rather than yanking the other HDD's just make sure the BIOS is set to boot from the flash drive as the primary HDD (but put CD's before HDD's). That *should* solve the problem, but you may want to yank anyways just in case.
Another idea to consider would be to install an OS designed for flash drives, like SLAX, which doesn't have this kind of problem - it only touches the flash drive.
If they push ARM hardware heavily enough, software will follow.
(1) It doesn't matter how hard they push ARM, all the legacy x86 software won't magically work.
(2) I don't think Nvidia has what it takes to push Microsoft hard enough to get a mainstream version of Windows or Office on ARM, and without Windows goes a huge number of people who refuse to try something different.
(3) Nvidia's strength - the GPU - is best used in games. Without focus there, there is no reason to go with Nvidia's solution over Intel's or AMD's or Via's. Without Windows that just isn't going to happen.
ARM just doesn't make sense for Nvidia. They don't have much choice but to stick with x86 - either work with something like the Nano or Atom, or roll their own.
Wouldn't that mean that the trademark on anything is forfeit if another company (or group of companies) is able to use the name more successfully? Breaking trademark laws is only a bad thing if you don't do a good enough job at it?
Slashdot Mirror
Each version of Firefox has had a slightly different way to turn off the add-on compatibility checking, but this method method should work for all of them, including the current RC. First, an explanation for how/why this works:
.zip file. Unzip it (this may require you rename it to .zip if you're not savvy with all your tools quite yet). There should be a file called "install.rdf" - edit this with your favorite editor. Despite the extension it's just XML, and don't worry if you don't know XML - you don't really have to. Look for the tags "em:minVersion" and "em:maxVersion". Increase the Firefox version between the "em:maxVersion" tags to something more then what you need, such as "3.7" or "4.0". Then just save the file, and re-zip the entire unzipped structure. Be wary you don't nest the file (ie zip -> folder -> items), the "index.rdf" and it's cohorts should be at the highest level in the zip. Rename to have the ".xpi" extension.
The add-ons include an XML file which indicates which versions the add-on is intended for. This is what Firefox checks when it runs to ensure the add-ons are compatible. You can edit the add-ons and "lie" about which versions of Firefox the add-on is intended for, and Firefox won't complain any more. This doesn't mean the add-on will work, though, and if you do this please don't complain about Firefox being unstable or having memory issues. In my experience, every add-on that has worked on Firefox 3.5 works on Firefox 3.6RC1 without any noticeable problems. YMMV - I haven't used any of the add-ons you've listed as incompatible.
If you're savvy with shell scripting, it's pretty easy to automate this, but since I don't know what OS you're running I'll give you the OS- and tool-agnostic instructions:
Download the extension you want (don't install it quite yet, just download it to a folder - right click, save as...). Despite the extension, the Firefox add-on is actually just a
Do this for all your Firefox extensions you want to work with the latest version of Firefox. Now, when you tell Firefox to install these it will just assume the "index.rdf" file is telling the truth and the extension will work with the current version of Firefox. Before installing, make sure you remove your old, non-fixed-up add-ons so there's no conflict. Finally, go to your address bar and navigate to where the fixed ".xpi" file is. That is, instead of going to "http://..." just go to "C:/..." on Windows or "/..." if you're on Unix. Firefox is smart enough to know what protocol to use. It should install like it would from a website, except this time without complaining about the add-on being incompatible.
Yes, this can be a bit tedious for a lot of extensions if you're not used to scripting or don't use a badass text editor like vim. There may be a faster way, but it's likely it won't work in the next-next version of Firefox while this one should always work.
The problem here is that people are forgetting that the entire purpose of these gadgets is for reading books
Not necessarily. The purpose of the e-ink tech is to be a low-power-usage display. However, there's drawbacks (limited/no colors, poor refresh time) that have forced it to be stuffed in to the niche of being a display for books. If/when the technologies improves, it can be used to display other things.
All of those things are what matters for an actual book reader...not color or video.
Other uses for this improved tech aren't going to somehow mean everyone stops using it to read books. All it does is expand the market, which in turn will probably mean more funding for better e-book readers. Use your imagination a little bit. Consider:
I use my netbook in class to type notes in vim. That's *it.* I made a point of disabling pretty much all the background processes possible and underclocked/undervoltaged the CPU - when I'm not hitting a key, the only real power draw is the display. Yet I still have to charge it every night. If the e-ink stuff improves sufficiently, I could use it here. It just needs a slightly better refresh rate, and maybe some colors for syntax highlighting (I take my notes in LaTeX).
Then, as more people buy e-ink-based tech, the prices drop and quality goes up. Soon ebook readers won't cost an arm and a leg as they do today, and will last even longer on the same charge. Imagine going months or even years without having to plug the thing in. AND other people benefit by using the tech for other things.
that's OK because what I actually WANTED was an eBook reader.
The only weird part is, the engineers behind these things aren't forgetting how to make the old tech, and the marketing people aren't forgetting about the money being made by selling ebooks readers. It's almost like ebook readers aren't going to disappear as these gadgets are pushed into new markets! Wouldn't that be horrible - people using technology for things other then what you bless it for?
I could be wrong, but I believe the sentence you're trying to tear apart meant two different things:
(1) This is the world's first transparent OLED laptop.
(2) This is the world's largest transparent OLED laptop.
If interpreted that way, it makes sense.
While my experience in this matter does not extend to Canada, I know that in the US that would most definitely not be the case. Disabilities that are unrelated to mobility don't get to use disabled parking (I'm not sure how it's put in legaleze). Learning disabilities are an obvious example.
That's a nice try to abuse the system, but I don't think it'll fly (teehee).
It's version 2.1 of the software, which is the part Google did. HTC did the hardware, and not only have they released phones before but a number of Android-based phones.
It's really not all that much of reach to expect that, by now, they'd have it pretty close to bug-free, especially considering the (relatively) quiet front with regards to previous problems on Android-based HTC phones.
I agree with your point about avoiding the bleeding-edge, I just don't think it applies here.
The disappointment over OGL3 that you're referring to was due to the fact it had quite a lot of promise and potential, which all fell short. It *would* have been far ahead of DirectX if Khronos kept their promises.
From a technical make-the-best-pretty-pictures standpoint, most of DirectX's technological superiority gets implemented on OpenGL soon afterward. nVidia and AMD don't want the two standards to spread to far apart, as it would make work much harder on the both of them.
With regards to everything else, they go back and forth depending on who you ask and where the priority is placed. OpenGL runs on more platforms (Win, Mac, Nix, Nintendo, Playstation, iPhone, Android, etc), but DirectX's platforms are huge for gaming (Win & Xbox). OpenGL completely owns the CAD market, but it's extensions aren't part of the standard and may change depending on which card vendor you're running on. Some say DX is easier to learn, others say OpenGL. It all depends on what exactly who you are and exactly what you want.
You are ignorant. Interpol has no agents
Ah-hah! Gotcha, Lupin! Take off that wig!
/Zenigata
Hmm, doesn't seem to be coming off...
Sorry Mr. jjohnson, it w-- wait, was that Lupin?
*runs off waving handcuffs furiously*
But yet, for a netbook, Chrome is the best choice because it uses the smallest amount of real estate for non-browser window information.
By default, yes. After configuring, not necessarily. Firefox's UI is *very* configurable, and I wouldn't be surprised if fans of other browsers can make similar claims for their preferred browsers. I expect most people who care enough about their screen real estate to chose their browser based on that fact, would also be willing to learn to configure their browser to get even more real estate, thereby nullifying any advantage Chrome may have by default. I own an eeepc 701 - you know, with the 7" screen. I'm one of those people where the screen real estate really matters.
installed vimperator so firefox can do everything from the keyboard alone, as well as fire gestures so I can do (almost) everything from the mouse alone, all without any of the standard buttons and bars and what not. There is no address bar or search box or stop button or home button. All I've got, beyond the webpage itself: the tab bar if there's multiple tabs (which I could disable if I chose too), the status bar (which I could also disable if I chose too), and one line for vimperator. I'm tempted to see if I can patch vimperator to get that to autohide, so that I could have 100% of firefox's window dedicated to the page itself when I'm not using vimperator's ex line.
Chrome is fast, which is great for underpowered netbooks. Even the latest firefox beta's, which are aimed at improving speed, aren't quite where Chrome is. However, in terms of screen real estate, Chrome's default advantage isn't worth much if anything for those who care about it.
Why was the epoch chosen to be 00:00:00 UTC on 1 January 1970?
I know the epoch was changed around a bit because early versions of the unix time system functioned at rates greater then 1hz, and hence would run out of room in the 32bit space really really fast. I'm not sure why that particular date was the one they settled on, hopefully someone else can fill in.
Why didn't we restart it at 2000 amidst the Y2K mess?
I'm not 100% on this, but I believe the Y2K mess didn't effect Unix-y systems at all. The way Unix time works, if you're not familiar, is that it just counts the seconds after the epoch. Whether the year is represented as two of four digits doesn't matter, and doesn't cause problems. The 32bit limit on the counter is a problem, but that's another matter we can procrastinate on for another 25~30 years or so then panic at the last minute. There's no reason for the Unix time stuff to change because other systems had date problems - if anything, it's more of a reason *not* to change since the system clearly works when others were failing.
When you can pick up 4GB of RAM memory for a song, why not load the whole OS into memory?
For what it's worth, you can do this with most Linux distros if you know what you're doing. Linux is pretty well designed to act from a ramdisk - you can set it up to copy the system files into RAM on boot and continue from there all in RAM. I've been doing this on my Debian (stable) boxes when I realized I couldn't afford a decent SSD and wanted a super-responsive system. Firefox (well, Iceweasel) starts cold in about two seconds on an eeepc when set up this way, and it starts cold virtually instantly on my C2D box. In fact, everything seems instant on my C2D box. It's really snazzy.
As long as you don't suffer a system crash, you can unload it back to disk when you're done.
Depending on what you're doing, even that may not be an issue. If you're doing massive database stuff, then yes. However, if your disk I/O isn't all heavy you can set a daemon up to automatically mirror changes made in the RAMdisk to the "hard" copy. From your POV everything is instant, but any crash will only result in the loss of data from however far behind the harddrive copy is lagging. Personally, what little I do need saved is simply text files - my notes in class, my homework, etc, and so I can just write to a partition on the harddrive that isn't loaded to RAM. It doesn't suffer at all from the harddrive I/O - I can't really type faster then a harddrive can write.
tl;dr: It's perfectly feasible for (some) people to do as you've described, and it works quite nicely. It's not really necessary to wait for this perpetually will-be-released-in-5-to-10-years technology, it's available today.
where'd you get the idea that it's a sin?
RTFS d:
Could anyone explain the reason why simply extending vim is being ruled out? Why is it considered a "mortal sin"?
One of the key selling points of this service is directed towards developers and publishers: no piracy, and no used game sales. Every game played is controlled remotely. With movies or music, you could still record the media, but with interactive games in this fashion it's not possible. The key selling point to end users is you don't need the traditionally high-end hardware needed to play games. For the most part, other media plays fine on low-end hardware (high definition movies being a possible exception, although even that is getting pretty rare).
There are theoretical benefits for games that you just can't get any other way, which don't carry over to music or movies (although I'd be surprised if those aren't also offered on this service). That's why games.
What happens to all the folks (us?) who have been gloating over the security of our Macs, Linux, smartphones etc. when these apps get broken? Time to eat crow?
I can't speak for Macs or smartphones (who gloats over the security of smartphones? Things like the amount of iphone jailbreaking going on or the Tmobile sidekick crash make it pretty clear smartphones have issues...), but Linux is still more secure the Windows in this respect. There's numerous ways to isolate the damage that could be done from a hole in flash. MAC like SELinux or AppArmor are perfect for this, and Windows still doesn't have a competent MAC implementation (MIC is insufficient). There's ways to sandbox firefox without MAC, too, such as setting everything up to sudo to another user every time firefox is called. There's a LOT of ways to deal with this.
Now, all of these take some work on the user's part. Stupid/lazy Windows users can be pwned just as badly as stupid/lazy Linux people. But it's not as though a competent individual is just as badly off on both platforms... Linux has solutions for dealing with untrusted things like flash where Windows does not. If you actually and actively care about security, you can continue to gloat about Linux's superiority in this respect. If you're too lazy to take security seriously, you can be pwned on both counts.
Why do people forget that google isn't even trying to compete or replace Windows
Two reasons:
(1) Because if we kept this in mind, we wouldn't have anything to complain about.
(2) This is something somewhat new. It's hard for people to grasp changes, even small ones. It's easier to just assume this is another netbook (heck, that's what TFT/S/A refers to it as) and rate it on those grounds. The fact is, it's not a netbook as seen by the current market. Although the name seems more fitting for it then other "netbooks."
#1) Google will SUBSIDIZE the cost of the netbook (aka NetPC, which was hacked out of existence).
Something will be subsidizing it, yes. Probably a required monthly fee for the 3G.
#2) Unlike NetPC, they won't be using an intel processor, locking out Windows. --- so when joey or jane try to download and install their favorite game or chat client, it will fail. --- so when grandma can't load in her quickbooks document for the church, it will fail.
People who want those things will most likely be informed at some point that this machine can't do that. Macs aren't failing, and they can't run Windows software. Neither are smartphones, which can't run Windows software. So long as it isn't marketed as a generic PC, it's not really an issue. It's targeting a limited audience, yes. This won't be replacing all laptops everywhere. It wasn't intended too.
#3) As someone who has lurked in many a netbook forum, I can tell you the number one question will be "How do I install Windows XP on it?"
The people who go to these forums are people who hear somewhere that such a thing is possible - because it is. If it isn't, these people won't go to the forums and ask. I haven't seen people ask how to install Windows on an iphone anywhere, have you?
#4) Someone will figure out how to install alternative OSes on it,
If I understand correctly, it may be a bit of trouble to install another OS on it. You're locked out of the BIOS - you can't boot off of a USB drive. There may be some security problem that will allow jailbreaking of sorts, from which you may be able to chroot a Linux distro on there or something. The only alternative I can think of would require physically opening the machine up, and pray the flash drive is connected via some standard connection inside and not sitting directly on the mobo. Even if it's possible, it won't be easy or common - much more difficult then just jailbreaking an iphone. Most people will either use Google's OS or not use the device at all.
maybe even write some kind of intel CPU emulator, or real-time recompiler, and then hack Windows into running on it, and then the lawsuits begin.
CPU emulation has a substantial performance hit. Additionally, the processor on the netbook will be pretty weak - one goal is to have a long battery life, which means the performance will be poor. Even if people do get their own OS on there, and do get it to do some sort of CPU emulation (probably QEMU), the performance will be miserable - worthless.
Getting your own linux distro on there may be possible, but difficult - not something Joe Sixpack could do. Getting Windows on there, even if possible, wouldn't be worthwhile. And even if it was, I don't see why any lawsuites would result. If you buy Windows and put it on there, MS is happy. If you pirate windows, MS will try to update WGA to stop you. That's... it. I don't foresee any lawsuits, even if it was feasible to get Windows on there.
#5) As soon as people get bored with it, into the trash heap it goes.
I don't see how this device would be any different from other electronics... maybe trash, maybe given as a gift, maybe left in the basement in a box somewhere never to be seen again. Unless I'm missing something, I don't see why this is even worth mentioning.
Abortion is complicated, but the aspects of the other things you've mentioned, such as gun violence, which make them evil is that they (unjustly) hurts others. The reasons the possibility is allowed is because there are justified uses for these actions/tools that don't (unjustly) harm others. For example, guns: target shooting doesn't hurt anyone, and self-defense is justified. There is no aspect of spam which makes the possibility of spam acceptable. It actively harms others... and that's it.
You're right that action against spammers could be used against "good guys," but that alone isn't enough to make it unacceptable. Things which stop murders and rapists can also be used to stop "good guys," but are necessary nonetheless.
There is a line which shouldn't be crossed in the name of stopping it - raping and killing someone's family members as torture to force someone to find the ISP of a spammer, for example, isn't justified. But the actions described in TFA are certainly acceptable against spam, even if the same actions could be used against the innocent.
Yes, spam really is that evil, and it should be stopped.
I'm usually not trying for "insightful" when I quote comedians, but: "You can't fix stupid." - Ron White
As long as there are stupid people out there using computers which are connected to the internet, they'll find a way to get their machines pwned. Unless you're proposing the anti-botnet efforts be directed towards keeping stupid people off internet-connected computers, I don't see a viable way to "treat the illness."
This is news, but not because of the potential problems that could arise. It's interesting from a technological standpoint. Why/how would changing the sector size effect performance? What are the downsides - why wasn't it done before? Why is it now chosen at 4k, why not something even larger? Those questions are what make it news (for nerds). It doesn't have to break something to be newsworthy.
With Linux, there's really very little need for an optical drive for day-to-day use. You can install the OS from a USB drive, and get all your software online (through the distro's package manager, downloading the straight binaries, or from source).
With Windows it can be a little trickier, since the Windows ecosystem is used to installing most software from disks. However, the target use for a netbook is mostly for lighter apps you wouldn't get from a disk anyways. Install Firefox and maybe OpenOffice.org or some such thing, and you use that. If you really need something from a disk, you can get an external drive or get another machine with an optical drive to make an image.
This class of subnotebook wasn't originally intended to be a primary machine. Just something small enough that you can carry with you for lighter tasks like browsing the web and taking notes in class. Of course now that this class of subnotebook has fancy graphics and a 12" screen, I'm not sure what it's intended for anymore.
It's not really an Ubuntu problem, per se. I don't know of an OS (designed for HDD's) that doesn't do this. If you install Windows on a box whose BIOS looks to another HDD on booting, Windows'll try to write all over the other HDD for it's bootloader, too.
Ubuntu's install process tries to ask as few questions as possible, aiming at those who don't know what something like GRUB is. I don't think they'll change this for quite a while to come.
For future reference, rather than yanking the other HDD's just make sure the BIOS is set to boot from the flash drive as the primary HDD (but put CD's before HDD's). That *should* solve the problem, but you may want to yank anyways just in case.
Another idea to consider would be to install an OS designed for flash drives, like SLAX, which doesn't have this kind of problem - it only touches the flash drive.
I see it as refreshing that they're at least not trying to deny its existence like the ID crowd do with evolution.
There's no way evolution could have created imps, pinkys, cyberdemons... oh, that ID crowd. Nevermind.
If they push ARM hardware heavily enough, software will follow.
(1) It doesn't matter how hard they push ARM, all the legacy x86 software won't magically work.
(2) I don't think Nvidia has what it takes to push Microsoft hard enough to get a mainstream version of Windows or Office on ARM, and without Windows goes a huge number of people who refuse to try something different.
(3) Nvidia's strength - the GPU - is best used in games. Without focus there, there is no reason to go with Nvidia's solution over Intel's or AMD's or Via's. Without Windows that just isn't going to happen.
ARM just doesn't make sense for Nvidia. They don't have much choice but to stick with x86 - either work with something like the Nano or Atom, or roll their own.
Wouldn't that mean that the trademark on anything is forfeit if another company (or group of companies) is able to use the name more successfully? Breaking trademark laws is only a bad thing if you don't do a good enough job at it?
From what I understand of your logic, it could be extended thusly:
jackspenn.com is available, and consequently you don't take yourself seriously and your name is forfeit.
Correct, or am I missing something? If it is correct the repercussions are scary.