Try the Magellan eXplorist series (well, I can only personally speak for the 210) - the MapSend software to export map files runs almost flawlessly under wine (the only problem I've encountered was a crash when trying to enable 3D view in the software - not critical for loading maps). Once they're generated, the GPS unit has a USB Mass Storage mode allowing you to load the new maps as easily as you would copy them onto a flashdrive.
if you want a simple, software-based quasi-raid and you're running *nix, try mhddfs - the only drawback is that it doesn't support splitting large files across multiple volumes (so it may not work for video production, depending on whether you've got a couple huge files or a bunch of smaller ones)
Sounds good to me too, provided they overcome the million-or-so-writes that today's flash chips can handle before failing - it takes a fair amount of time to reach that in normal usage, but when you're using it as swap space you're going to start seeing failures pretty quickly.
Any of you ever played that game? This reminds me of a quote by the evil genius: "Everyone talks about the weather, but nobody ever does anything about the weather. Well, I'm going to do something about it".
Even if it was supported on other distros before, this is still a welcome change. Too many companies consider linux support to mean that they provided a red hat rpm. Which of course is not completely compatible with suse rpm or mandriva rpm. Having it available as a deb will be a welcome change - debian-based packages tend to be far more portable across distros. Yes, I know that you can use alien to convert between formats, but it's not perfect and I'm hesitant to use it on anything non-trivial (for example, my school provides symantec antivirus for linux, but only as an rpm. I don't trust alien with something like that. Good thing there's open source antivirus alternatives and the only real need for them at the moment is if you're feeling altruistic and want to protect the windows users you share files with). What worries me is that fact that unlike most debian-based distros, ubuntu has somewhat broken binary compatibility. Which isn't a problem for the programs in their repository - you can just use apt-get source and compile it yourself. But I doubt the source will be made available for notes. Of course, maybe they'll also release it as a tar.gz which can be uncompressed and run on any platform (provided certain dependencies are in place), on an unsupported basis.
In firefox 2.0, if you look in preferences > security, there are two options for antiphishing. One is the "use a downloaded list" option, and the other is the "check by asking google for each site I visit". But the word google is a dropdown box - it appears that there will eventually be more choices, but they haven't made deals with (or been offered money from, depending on how cynical you are) other providers yet.
If they do implement video ads in their search results, they will probably do it in the same way as the adsense units do, where it doesn't play until you click on it. So its unlikely that you will be forced to watch a video. However, this is still a huge step for google, because it would be the first time that they have had any sort of graphical ads in their search result. This was hinted at as a possibility when they bought 5% of aol, and they denied it then, but I wonder if that influence has finally broken through. Of course, this could all be hype and nothing come of it.
All I have to say is that if google does do this, they had better move really carefully, or risk alienating a lot of users.
The media companies have probably argued their way out of that one by claiming that such free speech is the IP equivalent of shouting fire in a crowded theater - it poses a clear and present danger to their business model.
yeah, but if they're claiming that the software violates their patents making it illegal, and courts have determined that linking to illegal software is illegal, then they'd be either breaking the law or giving up the ability to enforce their patents.
I agree, and I'd like to think that this is a well-supported principle, but the recent AT&T announcement seems to suggest otherwise. It's for different reasons, but at the base level, they're not that different.
php is server side, and thus any php code must be executed by the server, making online operation impossible. Google's trying to suppliment client-side coding here
What people seem to be ignorning is that there are a lot of places that offer free wifi without any conditions of who can and cannot use it. It would not be reasonable to require someone, before connecting to a signal, to triangulate on it (okay, slight exaggeration0, locate the source, and ensure that they have permission to use it. It's for this reason that we have easy-to-configure wireless encryption technologies. If they want to prevent people from using it without paying, they can do what some places by me do: encrypt the network, then have the key posted next to the cash register or give it out with the receipt. If you're really paranoid, you could change it daily. But my feeling is that if the network is open, it's fair game.
It's also the environment of the killing. Killing in a war is still a tragedy, but it's a known consequence. A school shooting is even more tragic because nobody expects it, nobody can defend against it, and the people involved aren't soldiers who have chosen to take that risk. If someone made a game where you're a terrorist flying planes into the twin towers, would you play it? My guess is no.
Exactly. It's difficult enough to defend against cross site cookie attacks, and supporting both cookie and flash-based authentication adds another layer, and one that the site owner cannot as easily defend against. There's not the same standards documentation for flash as there is for cookies. They also fail to mention that what they claim is a feature-that you're less likely to delete your authentication info-is also another large security flaw that makes it more difficult to manually delete your login info in the event that their web-based logout system malfunctions.
Ideally, anything as sensitive as bank accounts should not even have a remember password option, but I guess that's a tradeoff between security and convenience, and many consumers prefer convenience
I'm not saying that they're actually at fault, just that they would "apologize for the inconvenience" in an attempt to smooth things and avoid the bad publicity
I think it's also somewhat a matter of simply "because they can"; they don't necessarily see a use at the moment for those two year old logs, but you never know when they might come in handy...especially when a nosy government issues you a subpoena
To those wondering whether the letter requesting that the logs be deleted will be logged: Yes, it will, unless you submit another letter requesting that it be deleted, but then that letter will be logged, unless you submit another letter...
Or it might teach them an even more serious lesson; don't stick your nose in where it doesn't belong, and learn to just trust people, because they often live up to your expectations. Which is what micro$oft is doing with this. When they generally trusted the public, people didn't hesitate to buy their software. But since they're treating everyone like they're sure they're going to pirate the software, and imposing so many constraints on "genuine" software, many people don't see the "genuine advantage", and would rather pirate the software, because then they don't have to deal with all the validation.
Slashdot Mirror
Try the Magellan eXplorist series (well, I can only personally speak for the 210) - the MapSend software to export map files runs almost flawlessly under wine (the only problem I've encountered was a crash when trying to enable 3D view in the software - not critical for loading maps). Once they're generated, the GPS unit has a USB Mass Storage mode allowing you to load the new maps as easily as you would copy them onto a flashdrive.
if you want a simple, software-based quasi-raid and you're running *nix, try mhddfs - the only drawback is that it doesn't support splitting large files across multiple volumes (so it may not work for video production, depending on whether you've got a couple huge files or a bunch of smaller ones)
Sounds good to me too, provided they overcome the million-or-so-writes that today's flash chips can handle before failing - it takes a fair amount of time to reach that in normal usage, but when you're using it as swap space you're going to start seeing failures pretty quickly.
Any of you ever played that game? This reminds me of a quote by the evil genius: "Everyone talks about the weather, but nobody ever does anything about the weather. Well, I'm going to do something about it".
Even if it was supported on other distros before, this is still a welcome change. Too many companies consider linux support to mean that they provided a red hat rpm. Which of course is not completely compatible with suse rpm or mandriva rpm. Having it available as a deb will be a welcome change - debian-based packages tend to be far more portable across distros. Yes, I know that you can use alien to convert between formats, but it's not perfect and I'm hesitant to use it on anything non-trivial (for example, my school provides symantec antivirus for linux, but only as an rpm. I don't trust alien with something like that. Good thing there's open source antivirus alternatives and the only real need for them at the moment is if you're feeling altruistic and want to protect the windows users you share files with).
What worries me is that fact that unlike most debian-based distros, ubuntu has somewhat broken binary compatibility. Which isn't a problem for the programs in their repository - you can just use apt-get source and compile it yourself. But I doubt the source will be made available for notes.
Of course, maybe they'll also release it as a tar.gz which can be uncompressed and run on any platform (provided certain dependencies are in place), on an unsupported basis.
This isn't a software patent though - many of the claims (camera, removable storage, etc) refer to hardware.
Actually, I'd divide them all into the 10 basic types of people (correlation with those who understand binary and those who don't is unknown)
saves them work - those things tend to be waterproof already.
or, one might now say, the way of the time lady.
In firefox 2.0, if you look in preferences > security, there are two options for antiphishing. One is the "use a downloaded list" option, and the other is the "check by asking google for each site I visit". But the word google is a dropdown box - it appears that there will eventually be more choices, but they haven't made deals with (or been offered money from, depending on how cynical you are) other providers yet.
Of course, the question remains - will it run Sun Java?
Hey Microsoft - Al Gore called. He wants his credit for the internet back
If they do implement video ads in their search results, they will probably do it in the same way as the adsense units do, where it doesn't play until you click on it. So its unlikely that you will be forced to watch a video. However, this is still a huge step for google, because it would be the first time that they have had any sort of graphical ads in their search result. This was hinted at as a possibility when they bought 5% of aol, and they denied it then, but I wonder if that influence has finally broken through. Of course, this could all be hype and nothing come of it. All I have to say is that if google does do this, they had better move really carefully, or risk alienating a lot of users.
Utorrent is also quite powerful on linux, as it runs quite well on wine.
The media companies have probably argued their way out of that one by claiming that such free speech is the IP equivalent of shouting fire in a crowded theater - it poses a clear and present danger to their business model.
yeah, but if they're claiming that the software violates their patents making it illegal, and courts have determined that linking to illegal software is illegal, then they'd be either breaking the law or giving up the ability to enforce their patents.
I agree, and I'd like to think that this is a well-supported principle, but the recent AT&T announcement seems to suggest otherwise. It's for different reasons, but at the base level, they're not that different.
php is server side, and thus any php code must be executed by the server, making online operation impossible. Google's trying to suppliment client-side coding here
What people seem to be ignorning is that there are a lot of places that offer free wifi without any conditions of who can and cannot use it. It would not be reasonable to require someone, before connecting to a signal, to triangulate on it (okay, slight exaggeration0, locate the source, and ensure that they have permission to use it. It's for this reason that we have easy-to-configure wireless encryption technologies. If they want to prevent people from using it without paying, they can do what some places by me do: encrypt the network, then have the key posted next to the cash register or give it out with the receipt. If you're really paranoid, you could change it daily. But my feeling is that if the network is open, it's fair game.
It's also the environment of the killing. Killing in a war is still a tragedy, but it's a known consequence. A school shooting is even more tragic because nobody expects it, nobody can defend against it, and the people involved aren't soldiers who have chosen to take that risk. If someone made a game where you're a terrorist flying planes into the twin towers, would you play it? My guess is no.
Exactly. It's difficult enough to defend against cross site cookie attacks, and supporting both cookie and flash-based authentication adds another layer, and one that the site owner cannot as easily defend against. There's not the same standards documentation for flash as there is for cookies. They also fail to mention that what they claim is a feature-that you're less likely to delete your authentication info-is also another large security flaw that makes it more difficult to manually delete your login info in the event that their web-based logout system malfunctions. Ideally, anything as sensitive as bank accounts should not even have a remember password option, but I guess that's a tradeoff between security and convenience, and many consumers prefer convenience
I'm not saying that they're actually at fault, just that they would "apologize for the inconvenience" in an attempt to smooth things and avoid the bad publicity
And I'm counting down the minutes until they "fix the error" and release the funds with an apology.
I think it's also somewhat a matter of simply "because they can"; they don't necessarily see a use at the moment for those two year old logs, but you never know when they might come in handy...especially when a nosy government issues you a subpoena To those wondering whether the letter requesting that the logs be deleted will be logged: Yes, it will, unless you submit another letter requesting that it be deleted, but then that letter will be logged, unless you submit another letter...
Or it might teach them an even more serious lesson; don't stick your nose in where it doesn't belong, and learn to just trust people, because they often live up to your expectations. Which is what micro$oft is doing with this. When they generally trusted the public, people didn't hesitate to buy their software. But since they're treating everyone like they're sure they're going to pirate the software, and imposing so many constraints on "genuine" software, many people don't see the "genuine advantage", and would rather pirate the software, because then they don't have to deal with all the validation.