I see a lot of people here commenting that if the open-source server simply did a check for CD keys or whatnot, that the case probably wouldn't have even been brought. That is, they're facilitiating piracy, so they must be shut down.
But I ask -- whose responsibility is it to ensure that the players are using a legitimate copy of the game? Should that be done at the network level, by the open-source game server, or at the client / cpu level, by the software that should have actually been paid for?
I say that the key-checking isn't anyone's responsibility but their own -- if you write software, and it doesn't check, then nobody else should be forced (or even expected) to do that job for you.
Look at it this way -- does HP have a responsibility to ensure that all users sending print jobs to its printers are doing so with properly licensed installations of Microsoft Office? 'cause that's about what the people here are asking for. There's no method for a printer to check whether a printjob came from a paid copy of Word, just as there's no way for bnet to check the validity of an incoming connection. Nor should there be.
They came up with a lousy copy protection / validation scheme. Too bad for them.
[note -- I admit that I'm not particurlarly versed on the specifics of this case, so if I zigged when I should have zagged up there, try to ignore that and focus on my argument, eh? thanks..:) ]
one trick that could work would be to add some functions in the postscript header. Basically, overload all color operators so that if they are called, they flag the current page (or better they check if the color or image they are passed is really color). If the flag is present ignore the next showpage operator and flush the graphic state.
Oooh, I like this one. Combine this with what I'd described earlier -- have the input filter add this to the heder, with "ignore==color" and send to the B&W printer, then again with "ignore==b&w" and send to the color printer.
Again, though, I think you're going to depend on having a geeky-geek there to write it for you (and more importantly, fix it when it runs across really weird data that doesn't quite fit right...)
To answer the question: I have no idea if such a filter exists, sorry. But it's a cool idea.
On the other hand, don't most "modern" color printers (especially the toner-based ones) print b&w almost as cheaply as regular printers? I seem to recall that some Tek wax printers even came with "free black for life" to encourage use of the printer as the primary output device (you'd short-circuit their moneymaking strategy by making sure that only a few pages in the run contain any color).
The only other thing I can think of is to send the whole document to a B&W printer, then only the color pages to the color printer, but then again, that's probably the way you do it already.:(
If you're working with unix print servers and postscript printers, then I'd think it should be relatively easy to write such a filter. It'd get a bit hairy when you try to do double-sided stuff, as you'd have to track which side you were currently processing and send both sides (where one is color) to the color printer. But it should be reasonable to do, I'd think...
input filter:
- receive pages
- scan page (or pair of pages on a single sheet)
- is color there?
? yes, write this postscript snippet to file A
? no, write the snippet ode to file B
- when done:
- lpr -Pcolor a
- lpr -Pgreyscale b
- lprm self
Or somesuch. Of course, I haven't screwed around with lpd print filters in, oh, 5+ years, so I may be way off base.
My advice: Find a unix geek (preferably a PS-aware perl programmer) and promise them a six-pack of really nice beer if they can solve the problem for you.:) [of course, if you're using a windows print server, you'd better make it a case.]
Were they bad parents? They didn't educate him enough on the "right" way to behave as part of our society. He left to another society, and got involved in a war on the wrong side.
But then they're not to blame. They did (in this hypothetical) educate him. He simply chose to ignore it. He, as you said, "left to another society," where the rules were different.
Put another way -- parents don't create automatons. All the education, socialization, and medication in the world won't take away the free will of someone to go "to the dark side."
I see quite a few posts already saying that this decision helps to place the blame where it "belongs" -- on the parents.
But what about parents who do a good job? Parents who read Dr. Spock, have family dinners, spend a night a week with no TV but playing games and talking to their children, and yet STILL have children who grow up to be Charles Manson?
It's entirely possible that even the best parents in the world could have evil, maladjusted, sociopathic children.
We, as a society, are very quick to (1) Assume that someone "must" be responsible for anything that goes wrong, and (2) sue the crap out of whomever is currently assigned blame for #1.
For a while it was ADHD and Ritalin. It's often lousy teachers. Then it was rap music and/or video games. Sprinkled in there occasionally are parents, teachers, and school administrators (not to mention on-site security officers or the bus driver).
Hasn't anyone thought to blame the people who actually commit the crimes?
We as a society have to get used to the fact that you don't always know why, that there isn't always someone who has the power to stop things, and that we aren't always entitled to restitution.
Alright, everyone, repeat after me: "Shit happens."
I've always hoped that Disney would purchase Pixar.
Funny, I've always hoped that Pixar would get big enough that they could buy Disney, or at least Disney's feature animation division. Maybe then we'd start seeing decent Disney movies again.
Not to mention that, inevitably, the two versions will go out of sync.
Not necessarily. The two sites I maintain are built dynamically (well, at home, then copied statically to the server) from XML sources. All navigation, menus, and content for both the "fancy" and "plain" HTML versions come from the same source tree, and both are pretty much always in synch. Whenever they're not, it's a failure in my site-generation code, not anything to do with whether I've remembered to update both sides.
Best trick: All the "plain" stuff shows up in the 'No frames' tag, so if you surf to the main site w/lynx, you don't get "clikc here for the plain version," you just get the plain version. Simple, stupid, but something that used to annoy the crap out of me and so I'm quite proud of myself for doing it "right" (or at least "better").
Downside: You gotta make (or find, or buy) an XML-to-multiple-output website generation system. But, then, that's half the fun!
There was this thing called a "Revolution" a few hundred years ago, which means the American colonies threw off Brittish rule and formed a new government, with new laws and such.
No shit, really?!?
Look. Just because we've formed a new country and disconnected ourselves from England doesn't mean that we don't accept some of her principles of law. I believe, for example, that much of US property law is derived from English law, though I'm having a devil of a time verifying any of this online right now. Which is why I asked if anyone here could comment on it.
No, we are not *bound* by England's laws. We certainly can't point to new laws in the British Commonwealth as precedent for our own. But we grew out of the British system -- our colonial laws were British laws, and our Constitution was written by people who'd grown up accustomed to those laws. It's my understanding that, in cases where current law is unclear or ambiguous, the courts have looked back to pre-colonial laws and practices for prececent.
The article didn't go into too many details as to what the 1610 law specified ("The ancient law forbids a person from interfering with the goods and chattels of another person without their consent" was about all I could find).
But the line "The law was brought in under King James I, and by extension it can be valid throughout the Commonwealth" intrigues me. Much of the legal system in the US is based on English law, from what I understand, and I believe that we often refer to precedent set by the laws governing the colonies, or England, before the creation of the US.
So, there's even a chance that a good lawyer could make use of this law in the US. I think. Anyone care to comment on this angle?
I've always liked Cybex SwitchView, though at least one person here doesn't like the Cybex-branded ones (they're now all Avocent, I think). I've used a bunch of them, all at relatively high (regularly 1600x1200, I once tried something like 1920xIForgetButItWasTooTinyToReadOnA19"Monitor, and it came through crisp (but tiny).
Also has MS Intellimouse support. Plus, the keyboard switching is easy and generally doesn't intrude into the computer -- while at least one brand (Belkin?) regularly leaked the display number (scroll-scroll-3, switches to display 3) into the current window.
Of course, as someone else points out, try getting something with USB support (if you wanna hook up your cool Dual-1G G4, for example), or DVI, you're mostly out of luck. And I have yet to find any name-brand normal-source (CDW or MicroWarehouse catalog) multi-head switch. I've even taken apart a Cybex, but the circuitry wasn't terribly obvious as far as tapping in to slave a second unit...if anyone's done *that*, that'd make for a quickly slashdotted website.
The sad thing was, until I finally convinced the executive VP to bring the hammer down on the project, I was forced to compose graphical HTML-ized spam emails.
I hope you were at least considering putting some obvious, easily-recognized string in, say, subject, so that most people's existing filters would trash the SPAM immediately.:)
Does anyone have any thoughts about IDE raid, especially the offerings from Promise Technology? They've got cards that do RAID 5 with regular IDE drives, including hot failover capability. They've also got subsystems that put a full 8 disks into a RAID array, but presents it to the controller as a single SCSI device.
Advantages: Cheap drives.
Disadvantages: Speed, maybe, though since it's all going directly into the PCI bus, I'm not sure this is an issue.
Anyone used these? Comments? I figure with their SuperTrax controller and a bunch of 80 or 100-G drives, you could have half a terabyte in your basement for under two grand.
Vivisimo? Never heard of it. Looks very nice, though. I'll have to add that to my bag-o-tricks...
To the other respondents, yes, I know all about directories, and even mentioned both google and yahoo in my message.
I guess what I was really wondering was if there were any effort to standardize a set of meta tags with a nice interface to get a better subject-based lookup. I know that 90% of websites don't have the info, but then, that helps to enforce that people would actively try to get added to such a directory, so maybe the info added would be more useful.
I know I tried to get a site added to yahoo and dmoz, and it was MONTHS before it showed up. There oughta be an easier way to simply add your own directory entry, though problems with vetting still remain.
Something I've been talking about for years is the concept of a "subject based directory." Pretty much all the web search engines work based on the content of a page, not the more abstract subject matter of the page. Some of the directories Google, Yahoo) get close to a good subject-based lookup, but they're not quite what I (think) I've been looking for.
What I'd like would be to go to a search engine, type in "ford," and get a list of websites, with a brief description of each. Not pages on a website, but a list of things like "Ford Automotive," "Ford Aerospace" (are they even still around?), "John Ford", "Ford's Theatre," etc. Maybe in decreasing order by some kind of popularity rating.
Or are the directories now pretty good at this kind of lookup? Google Directory did a passable job with "ford," but it's not well organized and still (apparently) takes its description information straight from the web page, rather than from a carefully crafted, entered-directly-into-the-directory abstract of the site. The "Realnames" service looks like it might have been a solution, but I think it's just moved the problem from a for-pay DNS issue to a for-pay keyword issue. (use "ford" there, and you get FordVehicles.com, no other choices).
This'd be easy enough to implement with some kind of meta tag, in which someone could place the legal and common name for their organization, or for the specific information on their site, along with a one-paragraph description. Search engines could then let people search against that "abstract" database.
Does this make sense? Is anyone doing anything like this (and I've just missed out, being under a rock)? Or are there big feasibility problems (like people stacking meta data) that I haven't addressed?
However, many of the servers are looked after on an ad hoc basis by very different companies. Icann does not pay the wages of the people that oversee the servers, nor has it signed contracts with the organisations that look after the root servers to establish service levels, standards of reliability or ecurity.
If ICANN can't legally hold accountable the people running the root servers, then there's no way they'd provide any guarantees to anyone. That much makes sense.
Furthermore, the root servers (again, from the article, don't flame me if I'm missing a nuance or two) don't really DO much. They just tell you where to go to get info for each of the top-level domains. Not exactly a whole lot to running one of these other than keeping it from crashing.
My question, though, is why is anyone worried about a root server crashing? There are 13 of 'em. Wouldn't your DNS server ask someone else if the "preferred" root server suddenly went Tango Uniform? Are there backup root servers out there to jump in? Ways to route around the damage, as it were?
What I still find amazing is that ICANN hasn't managed to take full physical and financial control of all the root servers. When I was in school, I remember thinking it was cool that we had one of the root servers (terp) in my building. It was amazing to see how a loose group of unrelated institutions had somehow set up a reliable, workable, DNS system.
In fact, it sounds like this is still the case, somewhat. Do these root server operators have ANY contractual controls on what they do? If not, then why the hell can't we just get THEM to add new top level domains? Screw ICANN. The servers don't belong to them, they belong to the people running 'em. As long as the guys running the roots don't point.com to some other universe, they should be able to avoid getting sued into oblivion, right?
And, if they were to do this, could ICANN even stop them? They'd have to repoint all the root.hints files across the entire globe, wouldn't they?
Or is this the kind of Chaos that the EU is afraid of?
Price. Unless you've been living under a rock, you know that LCDs cost about 5-7 times a comparable CRT
Yes, they're expensive. But getting cheaper, especially the 15" ones. OLEDs won't be any cheaper when they start getting produced, either, I'm sure...
All of my LCDs had a terrible viewing angle - no better than 15 degrees to either side.
I think that's improved dramatically -- most of the units in the review (which I only had time to skim) look like they do 120-160 degrees, not 30 degrees like you seem to have gotten...
OLED products promise to significantly reduce the weight of the display, because they will not require so much glass to produce.
Huh? I'm not sure that they'll really use any less glass, as I'd bet that the OLED screen will be behind some kind of protective screen, anyway. Regardless, as someone else pointed out, OLEDs are way off. And it's not like the LCD panels weigh 50 pounds like the old 21" monitors I used to lug around...
Durability. LCD displays are scads more sensitive to EMF, shock, and time than CRT displays are. Dropping my CRT resulted in a few scratches; dropping an LCD results in a sloppy mess and a couple hundred dollars down the tubes. And who knows if OLEDs won't be just as fragile -- they might be a really thin film that gets torn the second the glass breaks, leaving you with just as useless a monitor (though without the funky LCD ooze).
The same goes for laptops. Solution? Try not to drop it. Seriously. As long as they don't break in normal use (like, say, if your framed MCSE falls off the wall onto it when your office neighbor slamdances the wall), then this isn't that big a deal.
Compatibility. I had problems getting two out of the three LCD monitors to run with Linux. Since they rarely use a standard VGA connector, they require a proprietary video card which sometimes will not have open source driver support.
I really don't understand this one. Almost all displays have at least one standard VGA port. I've seen flat panels on all kinds of systems. There are some with digital video ports, and for those, yes, you need a special card and thus enter driver hell. But (again, I only skimmed) it looked like all the screens the review looked at should support Linux over standard VGA.
What kinds of screens were you trying? Were they all the same make/model, or did you try a sampling? Were they wacky mega-advanced things like the 16x9 SGI panel, or simple stuff you found at CompUSA?
Please send your document in a format that I can read, such as ASCII Text or PDF
Someone in my company actually got the idea that they should send "Official Messages" out in Word and PDF format. That seems to be a pretty good compromise, and generally works for most peope, I'd think.
What bugs me is when I get an email that says only "Please read the attached memo." Then you open the memo (starting Word or Acrobat for the first time that day, and thus taking about 30 seconds to load up), and I see "We're closed next Monday for the holiday. Please turn in your timesheets a day early." or something else like that. I mean, like two lines or so -- not even a nice letterhead! THAT makes me want to scream.
There's a nice Red-bound LOTR and green-bound Hobbit that's available off and on at typical big stores. You might also find 'em on amazon.
I just found these two pages with lists of all the past tolkien cover art. I used to have the "fourth issue" (or silver anniversary) edition, except for Two Towers, which I just learned was a first edition paperback (which my father had given to me). Damned if I can find any of them anymore. Urgh.
Anyway, these were pretty cool, if anyone's actually still reading this thread after some jerk moderated my first post as a Troll.:(
....
> 3) Two Towers, with redesigned packaging
> 4) Fellowship of the ring with packaging to match
...
How's this any different than what's already done by the publisher for the books? How many different versions (covers, sizes, sets, etc.) of LOTR are there on the shelves at your local Borders *right now*? It's flat-out amazing.
The sad thing is that most of the new paperback copies of LOTR all feature covers with photos from the movie. I used to have a paperback (maybe early 80's) with some really nice artwork, that I'd much prefer to have on hand for casual reading (so I don't damage my nice red-leather copy), but they've disappeared. And they were probably 5 covers ago.
So, really, in a way, it's a new thing that you buy some kind of software (book, movie) in a package that's the same forever. Publishers are (or seem to be ) used to repackaging stuff every now and then...
I just sent this off to EFF. Any further elaborations (or conversions to slogans)? Anyone?
----------
Hi...this isn't really a slogan, per se, but some notes I put together for a "call to arms" that I never was able to finish. The big thing I was trying to accomplish was to point out the things that *could* be possible, and legal, and un-circumventable, if SSSCA were passed or if DMCA were to remain unchallenged and unchanged.
The thrust of it was:
"Well, that sounds bad, but it'll never affect me, anyway."
Oh yeah? Have you ever:
Bought or sold an album at a yard sale? This could make that useless -- they could buy the CD, but wouldn't be able to play it until they "registered" it, for a charge, with their own CD player.
Copied a CD for use in the car? This could make that impossible, unless you buy a new copy specifically coded for the car player.
Taped a pay-per-view show, that you paid for, from cable, to watch next week? This could make that impossible, by remotely turning off the record button on your digital VCR or TiVo.
Copied a song from CD to an MP3 player? This could make those devices illegal, by ensuring the CD wasn't readable by a computer or that the MP3 player wouldn't play anything without a special code.
Loaned a friend a copy of the big game he missed? This could make that impossible, by coding all your time-shifted tapes to your own VCR, and refusing to play those on other systems.
And if you try to get around any of these restrctions, you're subject to imprisonment and/or a fine of up to a half million dollars. If you even *think* about how to get around these restrictions (and discuss it in a public forum), you could be subject to imprisonment and/or fines.
[most of these things are typical, real-world uses of technology that people take for granted and could lose with further format changes (protected by DMCA) or technology restrictions (mandated by SSSCA).] I then wanted to highlight the fact that many of the "unthinkable" things are already happening, in one way or another:
And, lest people believe that "well, they'd never do *that*," here are some things that the big corporations are already doing:
"They'd never force you to relicense / re-register something you've already paid for." Windows XP already does this -- try deleting it from one computer and moving it to another, it won't work until you re-register with Microsoft.
"They'd never create a DVD (or CD) that you could only play a few times." DIVX DVDs tried this -- even if you paid the full cost to "unlock" a DVD, if you then GAVE that DVD to a friend to keep, forever, they'd have to re-pay themselves, even though you no longer own the DVD. The product, however, failed. SSSCA would require manufacturers to include features in all hardware that could be used to bring that back, without warning or recourse.
"They'd never sell DVDs configured so you are forced to watch them in the way the publisher wants -- if I want to skip a scene, I just hit a button..." This is already happening. The 6th Sense DVD forces you (and it's difficult to get around) to watch previews first, for example. Many DVDs don't allow you to skip the FBI copyright warning. They could easily include ads on the DVD that you have no way of bypassing.
"They'd never make CDs that you can't copy to MP3." They're already selling these. They're labelled as CDs, but fail to conform to the official CD-Audio specifications, so they fail in many legitimate devices that should be able to play CDs, like DVD players, computers, or video game consoles. And good luck getting the clerk at Best Buy to refund your money when it plays in *their* CD player.
"They'd never try to stop me from selling used software I no longer need." Microsoft has a regular policy of forcing eBay to yank any auction featuring Microsoft products. You buy a computer, it comes with Windows XP, you don't want XP, so you sell the CD on eBay (without ever even installing it), and Microsoft makes them stop the auction, with no recourse to the seller.
"They'd never force me to open my system or home so they can look for copied material." The RIAA has tried, already, to get legislation passed which would indemnify them from any damages caused by their remotely hacking into people's computers to look for pirated songs. They wanted an exemption to Computer Crime law to make it legal for them to, essentially, perform illegal search and seizure (and even destruction). More power than even our own government has. Fortunately, the language was dropped from the final bill.
Hopefully, these examples will help inspire new ones, and maybe quick-n-easy things that can be used in an interview or in a mailing.
Re:Empeg/SonicBlue/Rio Receiver
on
Review: SliMP3
·
· Score: 2
So I ask again, why should I get excited about this when it costs over $250?
Um, well... Hm.
You should be excited by the concept of a simple, lean, network-based front end to an MP3 player. It's part of a first generation of devices that begin to blur the line between computers and consumer electronic devices. Unlike some other "bridging" technologies (like, say, the internet-enabled fridge), this actually has applications for typical daily use.
In short, things like AudioTron, Rio, or SliMP3 are cool precisely because they take the power of computer networks and put it into a simple, non-computer-looking system that even grandma can use.
Why should you be excited about this particular device, for $250, when you can find things like Rio for $200 or less? Well, okay, you shouldn't be necessarily excited about THIS one, 'casue it is more expensive than other solutions. However, several things about it do spark my interest:
Bright, flourescent display (more readable than Rio, but, you're right, not as much info as it or some CD/MP3 players)
Very small footprint (mount it in a picture frame on the wall and it takes up zero desk space)
Open-source mentality
but, above all:
Made by geeks, for geeks, and got enough interest that the geeks what made it are actually getting it professionally manufacturered.
If this were $250 for something from, say, Sony, I'd agree with you. But it's a first-generation, custom-built, almost "vanity press" product. If it's a success, it'll get cheaper -- possibly much cheaper. Don't belittle it too much 'cause the early adoption price is (relatively) high.
Ultimately, to me, it's not about the product (though it is way cool), nor even about its potential (which, if its successful in these early models, could be great). It's exciting because these are two (or more? I forget) guys "in a garage" designing, and now professionally building, something that normally would only be in the reach of big corporate giants. It's like the Apple I -- looked like crap, but enough geeks at the time were excited by it that Steve and Woz built a sequel.
(ps -- sorry about the network crack.:) )
Empeg/SonicBlue/Rio Receiver
on
Review: SliMP3
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
The closest competitor to the SliMP3 is the Audiotron.
I'm amazed how few people know of the Rio Receiver. It's a great little box, can be found on eBay fairly cheaply, and there's even a couple of Linux servers out for it (check out JReceiver for a hideously-complicated but wicked-cool mpeg server back-end. It's designed to interface to multiple types of systems, and could probably even have an interface built for the SliMP3.)
$250+ for an MP3 player that doesn't have it's own storage
I'm further amazed by how many people on slashdot apparently don't have networks. If I've got 30G (or more, maybe, haven't looked at the total lately) of MP3s, I don't want to have to deal with replicating that collection on different MP3 players scattered all over the house. Put it all on one box, and let smart devices do the playing. That's what SliMP3, AudioTron, and Rio are all about. Store once, play anywhere.
Now if we could only get this to be a VideoLAN client, too...:)
(yes, I suppose I should have spent a couple minutes searching on google before I posted my question).
I just found two comparisons:
Extreme Tech from June 18, 2001, compares Windows Media Video 3, 7 and 8, Real 8, MPEG-4, Sorenson MPEG-4, and QuickTime (Sorenson V3 and V2). Hard to get clear results, though it looks like they liked WMV and Real about the best.
Also, Digital Video.com (looks like it's from november) compares WMV8, Real 8, QT 5, Sorenson 3, H.263, VP3, and ZyGoVideo. Like many magazine articles, he declines to pick a "best", since it's so usage-dependant. He thought you needed to get to at least 800 kbps for VP3, didn't like ZyGo, liked Sorenson V3 better than H.263 (which he liked better than SV2), but thought WMV8 was better. Also RV8 wasn't as good, in his opinion, as WMV8.
Slashdot Mirror
I see a lot of people here commenting that if the open-source server simply did a check for CD keys or whatnot, that the case probably wouldn't have even been brought. That is, they're facilitiating piracy, so they must be shut down.
:) ]
But I ask -- whose responsibility is it to ensure that the players are using a legitimate copy of the game? Should that be done at the network level, by the open-source game server, or at the client / cpu level, by the software that should have actually been paid for?
I say that the key-checking isn't anyone's responsibility but their own -- if you write software, and it doesn't check, then nobody else should be forced (or even expected) to do that job for you.
Look at it this way -- does HP have a responsibility to ensure that all users sending print jobs to its printers are doing so with properly licensed installations of Microsoft Office? 'cause that's about what the people here are asking for. There's no method for a printer to check whether a printjob came from a paid copy of Word, just as there's no way for bnet to check the validity of an incoming connection. Nor should there be.
They came up with a lousy copy protection / validation scheme. Too bad for them.
[note -- I admit that I'm not particurlarly versed on the specifics of this case, so if I zigged when I should have zagged up there, try to ignore that and focus on my argument, eh? thanks..
one trick that could work would be to add some functions in the postscript header. Basically, overload all color operators so that if they are called, they flag the current page (or better they check if the color or image they are passed is really color). If the flag is present ignore the next showpage operator and flush the graphic state.
Oooh, I like this one. Combine this with what I'd described earlier -- have the input filter add this to the heder, with "ignore==color" and send to the B&W printer, then again with "ignore==b&w" and send to the color printer.
Again, though, I think you're going to depend on having a geeky-geek there to write it for you (and more importantly, fix it when it runs across really weird data that doesn't quite fit right...)
To answer the question: I have no idea if such a filter exists, sorry. But it's a cool idea.
:(
:) [of course, if you're using a windows print server, you'd better make it a case.]
On the other hand, don't most "modern" color printers (especially the toner-based ones) print b&w almost as cheaply as regular printers? I seem to recall that some Tek wax printers even came with "free black for life" to encourage use of the printer as the primary output device (you'd short-circuit their moneymaking strategy by making sure that only a few pages in the run contain any color).
The only other thing I can think of is to send the whole document to a B&W printer, then only the color pages to the color printer, but then again, that's probably the way you do it already.
If you're working with unix print servers and postscript printers, then I'd think it should be relatively easy to write such a filter. It'd get a bit hairy when you try to do double-sided stuff, as you'd have to track which side you were currently processing and send both sides (where one is color) to the color printer. But it should be reasonable to do, I'd think...
input filter:
- receive pages
- scan page (or pair of pages on a single sheet)
- is color there?
? yes, write this postscript snippet to file A
? no, write the snippet ode to file B
- when done:
- lpr -Pcolor a
- lpr -Pgreyscale b
- lprm self
Or somesuch. Of course, I haven't screwed around with lpd print filters in, oh, 5+ years, so I may be way off base.
My advice: Find a unix geek (preferably a PS-aware perl programmer) and promise them a six-pack of really nice beer if they can solve the problem for you.
good luck!
Were they bad parents? They didn't educate him enough on the "right" way to behave as part of our society. He left to another society, and got involved in a war on the wrong side.
But then they're not to blame. They did (in this hypothetical) educate him. He simply chose to ignore it. He, as you said, "left to another society," where the rules were different.
Put another way -- parents don't create automatons. All the education, socialization, and medication in the world won't take away the free will of someone to go "to the dark side."
I see quite a few posts already saying that this decision helps to place the blame where it "belongs" -- on the parents.
But what about parents who do a good job? Parents who read Dr. Spock, have family dinners, spend a night a week with no TV but playing games and talking to their children, and yet STILL have children who grow up to be Charles Manson?
It's entirely possible that even the best parents in the world could have evil, maladjusted, sociopathic children.
We, as a society, are very quick to (1) Assume that someone "must" be responsible for anything that goes wrong, and (2) sue the crap out of whomever is currently assigned blame for #1.
For a while it was ADHD and Ritalin. It's often lousy teachers. Then it was rap music and/or video games. Sprinkled in there occasionally are parents, teachers, and school administrators (not to mention on-site security officers or the bus driver).
Hasn't anyone thought to blame the people who actually commit the crimes?
We as a society have to get used to the fact that you don't always know why, that there isn't always someone who has the power to stop things, and that we aren't always entitled to restitution.
Alright, everyone, repeat after me: "Shit happens."
I've always hoped that Disney would purchase Pixar.
Funny, I've always hoped that Pixar would get big enough that they could buy Disney, or at least Disney's feature animation division. Maybe then we'd start seeing decent Disney movies again.
Not to mention that, inevitably, the two versions will go out of sync.
Not necessarily. The two sites I maintain are built dynamically (well, at home, then copied statically to the server) from XML sources. All navigation, menus, and content for both the "fancy" and "plain" HTML versions come from the same source tree, and both are pretty much always in synch. Whenever they're not, it's a failure in my site-generation code, not anything to do with whether I've remembered to update both sides.
Best trick: All the "plain" stuff shows up in the 'No frames' tag, so if you surf to the main site w/lynx, you don't get "clikc here for the plain version," you just get the plain version. Simple, stupid, but something that used to annoy the crap out of me and so I'm quite proud of myself for doing it "right" (or at least "better").
Downside: You gotta make (or find, or buy) an XML-to-multiple-output website generation system. But, then, that's half the fun!
There was this thing called a "Revolution" a few hundred years ago, which means the American colonies threw off Brittish rule and formed a new government, with new laws and such.
No shit, really?!?
Look. Just because we've formed a new country and disconnected ourselves from England doesn't mean that we don't accept some of her principles of law. I believe, for example, that much of US property law is derived from English law, though I'm having a devil of a time verifying any of this online right now. Which is why I asked if anyone here could comment on it.
No, we are not *bound* by England's laws. We certainly can't point to new laws in the British Commonwealth as precedent for our own. But we grew out of the British system -- our colonial laws were British laws, and our Constitution was written by people who'd grown up accustomed to those laws. It's my understanding that, in cases where current law is unclear or ambiguous, the courts have looked back to pre-colonial laws and practices for prececent.
Sheesh.
The article didn't go into too many details as to what the 1610 law specified ("The ancient law forbids a person from interfering with the goods and chattels of another person without their consent" was about all I could find).
But the line "The law was brought in under King James I, and by extension it can be valid throughout the Commonwealth" intrigues me. Much of the legal system in the US is based on English law, from what I understand, and I believe that we often refer to precedent set by the laws governing the colonies, or England, before the creation of the US.
So, there's even a chance that a good lawyer could make use of this law in the US. I think. Anyone care to comment on this angle?
I've always liked Cybex SwitchView, though at least one person here doesn't like the Cybex-branded ones (they're now all Avocent, I think). I've used a bunch of them, all at relatively high (regularly 1600x1200, I once tried something like 1920xIForgetButItWasTooTinyToReadOnA19"Monitor, and it came through crisp (but tiny).
Also has MS Intellimouse support. Plus, the keyboard switching is easy and generally doesn't intrude into the computer -- while at least one brand (Belkin?) regularly leaked the display number (scroll-scroll-3, switches to display 3) into the current window.
Of course, as someone else points out, try getting something with USB support (if you wanna hook up your cool Dual-1G G4, for example), or DVI, you're mostly out of luck. And I have yet to find any name-brand normal-source (CDW or MicroWarehouse catalog) multi-head switch. I've even taken apart a Cybex, but the circuitry wasn't terribly obvious as far as tapping in to slave a second unit...if anyone's done *that*, that'd make for a quickly slashdotted website.
The sad thing was, until I finally convinced the executive VP to bring the hammer down on the project, I was forced to compose graphical HTML-ized spam emails.
:)
I hope you were at least considering putting some obvious, easily-recognized string in, say, subject, so that most people's existing filters would trash the SPAM immediately.
Does anyone have any thoughts about IDE raid, especially the offerings from Promise Technology? They've got cards that do RAID 5 with regular IDE drives, including hot failover capability. They've also got subsystems that put a full 8 disks into a RAID array, but presents it to the controller as a single SCSI device.
Advantages: Cheap drives.
Disadvantages: Speed, maybe, though since it's all going directly into the PCI bus, I'm not sure this is an issue.
Anyone used these? Comments? I figure with their SuperTrax controller and a bunch of 80 or 100-G drives, you could have half a terabyte in your basement for under two grand.
Vivisimo? Never heard of it. Looks very nice, though. I'll have to add that to my bag-o-tricks...
To the other respondents, yes, I know all about directories, and even mentioned both google and yahoo in my message.
I guess what I was really wondering was if there were any effort to standardize a set of meta tags with a nice interface to get a better subject-based lookup. I know that 90% of websites don't have the info, but then, that helps to enforce that people would actively try to get added to such a directory, so maybe the info added would be more useful.
I know I tried to get a site added to yahoo and dmoz, and it was MONTHS before it showed up. There oughta be an easier way to simply add your own directory entry, though problems with vetting still remain.
Something I've been talking about for years is the concept of a "subject based directory." Pretty much all the web search engines work based on the content of a page, not the more abstract subject matter of the page. Some of the directories Google, Yahoo) get close to a good subject-based lookup, but they're not quite what I (think) I've been looking for.
What I'd like would be to go to a search engine, type in "ford," and get a list of websites, with a brief description of each. Not pages on a website, but a list of things like "Ford Automotive," "Ford Aerospace" (are they even still around?), "John Ford", "Ford's Theatre," etc. Maybe in decreasing order by some kind of popularity rating.
Or are the directories now pretty good at this kind of lookup? Google Directory did a passable job with "ford," but it's not well organized and still (apparently) takes its description information straight from the web page, rather than from a carefully crafted, entered-directly-into-the-directory abstract of the site. The "Realnames" service looks like it might have been a solution, but I think it's just moved the problem from a for-pay DNS issue to a for-pay keyword issue. (use "ford" there, and you get FordVehicles.com, no other choices).
This'd be easy enough to implement with some kind of meta tag, in which someone could place the legal and common name for their organization, or for the specific information on their site, along with a one-paragraph description. Search engines could then let people search against that "abstract" database.
Does this make sense? Is anyone doing anything like this (and I've just missed out, being under a rock)? Or are there big feasibility problems (like people stacking meta data) that I haven't addressed?
If ICANN can't legally hold accountable the people running the root servers, then there's no way they'd provide any guarantees to anyone. That much makes sense.
Furthermore, the root servers (again, from the article, don't flame me if I'm missing a nuance or two) don't really DO much. They just tell you where to go to get info for each of the top-level domains. Not exactly a whole lot to running one of these other than keeping it from crashing.
My question, though, is why is anyone worried about a root server crashing? There are 13 of 'em. Wouldn't your DNS server ask someone else if the "preferred" root server suddenly went Tango Uniform? Are there backup root servers out there to jump in? Ways to route around the damage, as it were?
What I still find amazing is that ICANN hasn't managed to take full physical and financial control of all the root servers. When I was in school, I remember thinking it was cool that we had one of the root servers (terp) in my building. It was amazing to see how a loose group of unrelated institutions had somehow set up a reliable, workable, DNS system.
In fact, it sounds like this is still the case, somewhat. Do these root server operators have ANY contractual controls on what they do? If not, then why the hell can't we just get THEM to add new top level domains? Screw ICANN. The servers don't belong to them, they belong to the people running 'em. As long as the guys running the roots don't point
And, if they were to do this, could ICANN even stop them? They'd have to repoint all the root.hints files across the entire globe, wouldn't they?
Or is this the kind of Chaos that the EU is afraid of?
Price. Unless you've been living under a rock, you know that LCDs cost about 5-7 times a comparable CRT
Yes, they're expensive. But getting cheaper, especially the 15" ones. OLEDs won't be any cheaper when they start getting produced, either, I'm sure...
All of my LCDs had a terrible viewing angle - no better than 15 degrees to either side.
I think that's improved dramatically -- most of the units in the review (which I only had time to skim) look like they do 120-160 degrees, not 30 degrees like you seem to have gotten...
OLED products promise to significantly reduce the weight of the display, because they will not require so much glass to produce.
Huh? I'm not sure that they'll really use any less glass, as I'd bet that the OLED screen will be behind some kind of protective screen, anyway. Regardless, as someone else pointed out, OLEDs are way off. And it's not like the LCD panels weigh 50 pounds like the old 21" monitors I used to lug around...
Durability. LCD displays are scads more sensitive to EMF, shock, and time than CRT displays are. Dropping my CRT resulted in a few scratches; dropping an LCD results in a sloppy mess and a couple hundred dollars down the tubes. And who knows if OLEDs won't be just as fragile -- they might be a really thin film that gets torn the second the glass breaks, leaving you with just as useless a monitor (though without the funky LCD ooze).
The same goes for laptops. Solution? Try not to drop it. Seriously. As long as they don't break in normal use (like, say, if your framed MCSE falls off the wall onto it when your office neighbor slamdances the wall), then this isn't that big a deal.
Compatibility. I had problems getting two out of the three LCD monitors to run with Linux. Since they rarely use a standard VGA connector, they require a proprietary video card which sometimes will not have open source driver support.
I really don't understand this one. Almost all displays have at least one standard VGA port. I've seen flat panels on all kinds of systems. There are some with digital video ports, and for those, yes, you need a special card and thus enter driver hell. But (again, I only skimmed) it looked like all the screens the review looked at should support Linux over standard VGA.
What kinds of screens were you trying? Were they all the same make/model, or did you try a sampling? Were they wacky mega-advanced things like the 16x9 SGI panel, or simple stuff you found at CompUSA?
Please send your document in a format that I can read, such as ASCII Text or PDF
Someone in my company actually got the idea that they should send "Official Messages" out in Word and PDF format. That seems to be a pretty good compromise, and generally works for most peope, I'd think.
What bugs me is when I get an email that says only "Please read the attached memo." Then you open the memo (starting Word or Acrobat for the first time that day, and thus taking about 30 seconds to load up), and I see "We're closed next Monday for the holiday. Please turn in your timesheets a day early." or something else like that. I mean, like two lines or so -- not even a nice letterhead! THAT makes me want to scream.
Ever load a 9 track mag tape?
Does "LOAD TAPE" or "@load" or somesuch count?
(it's been so damn long that I can't remember the command. I do know that I used to be a wizard at EBCDIC->ASCII and block conversions, though.)
(*used* to be. the things I've forgotten...*sigh*)
It's obvious.
fnord!
There's a nice Red-bound LOTR and green-bound Hobbit that's available off and on at typical big stores. You might also find 'em on amazon.
:(
I just found these two pages with lists of all the past tolkien cover art. I used to have the "fourth issue" (or silver anniversary) edition, except for Two Towers, which I just learned was a first edition paperback (which my father had given to me). Damned if I can find any of them anymore. Urgh.
Anyway, these were pretty cool, if anyone's actually still reading this thread after some jerk moderated my first post as a Troll.
Gallery of Cover Art
A list of different editions with descriptions, pics, etc.
....
> 3) Two Towers, with redesigned packaging
> 4) Fellowship of the ring with packaging to match
...
How's this any different than what's already done by the publisher for the books? How many different versions (covers, sizes, sets, etc.) of LOTR are there on the shelves at your local Borders *right now*? It's flat-out amazing.
The sad thing is that most of the new paperback copies of LOTR all feature covers with photos from the movie. I used to have a paperback (maybe early 80's) with some really nice artwork, that I'd much prefer to have on hand for casual reading (so I don't damage my nice red-leather copy), but they've disappeared. And they were probably 5 covers ago.
So, really, in a way, it's a new thing that you buy some kind of software (book, movie) in a package that's the same forever. Publishers are (or seem to be ) used to repackaging stuff every now and then...
----------
Hi...this isn't really a slogan, per se, but some notes I put together for a "call to arms" that I never was able to finish. The big thing I was trying to accomplish was to point out the things that *could* be possible, and legal, and un-circumventable, if SSSCA were passed or if DMCA were to remain unchallenged and unchanged.
The thrust of it was:
"Well, that sounds bad, but it'll never affect me, anyway."
Oh yeah? Have you ever:
And if you try to get around any of these restrctions, you're subject to imprisonment and/or a fine of up to a half million dollars. If you even *think* about how to get around these restrictions (and discuss it in a public forum), you could be subject to imprisonment and/or fines.
[most of these things are typical, real-world uses of technology that people take for granted and could lose with further format changes (protected by DMCA) or technology restrictions (mandated by SSSCA).] I then wanted to highlight the fact that many of the "unthinkable" things are already happening, in one way or another:
And, lest people believe that "well, they'd never do *that*," here are some things that the big corporations are already doing:
Hopefully, these examples will help inspire new ones, and maybe quick-n-easy things that can be used in an interview or in a mailing.
Um, well... Hm.
You should be excited by the concept of a simple, lean, network-based front end to an MP3 player. It's part of a first generation of devices that begin to blur the line between computers and consumer electronic devices. Unlike some other "bridging" technologies (like, say, the internet-enabled fridge), this actually has applications for typical daily use.
In short, things like AudioTron, Rio, or SliMP3 are cool precisely because they take the power of computer networks and put it into a simple, non-computer-looking system that even grandma can use.
Why should you be excited about this particular device, for $250, when you can find things like Rio for $200 or less? Well, okay, you shouldn't be necessarily excited about THIS one, 'casue it is more expensive than other solutions. However, several things about it do spark my interest:
Bright, flourescent display (more readable than Rio, but, you're right, not as much info as it or some CD/MP3 players)
Very small footprint (mount it in a picture frame on the wall and it takes up zero desk space)
Open-source mentality
but, above all:
Made by geeks, for geeks, and got enough interest that the geeks what made it are actually getting it professionally manufacturered.
:) )
If this were $250 for something from, say, Sony, I'd agree with you. But it's a first-generation, custom-built, almost "vanity press" product. If it's a success, it'll get cheaper -- possibly much cheaper. Don't belittle it too much 'cause the early adoption price is (relatively) high.
Ultimately, to me, it's not about the product (though it is way cool), nor even about its potential (which, if its successful in these early models, could be great). It's exciting because these are two (or more? I forget) guys "in a garage" designing, and now professionally building, something that normally would only be in the reach of big corporate giants. It's like the Apple I -- looked like crap, but enough geeks at the time were excited by it that Steve and Woz built a sequel.
(ps -- sorry about the network crack.
The closest competitor to the SliMP3 is the Audiotron.
:)
I'm amazed how few people know of the Rio Receiver. It's a great little box, can be found on eBay fairly cheaply, and there's even a couple of Linux servers out for it (check out JReceiver for a hideously-complicated but wicked-cool mpeg server back-end. It's designed to interface to multiple types of systems, and could probably even have an interface built for the SliMP3.)
$250+ for an MP3 player that doesn't have it's own storage
I'm further amazed by how many people on slashdot apparently don't have networks. If I've got 30G (or more, maybe, haven't looked at the total lately) of MP3s, I don't want to have to deal with replicating that collection on different MP3 players scattered all over the house. Put it all on one box, and let smart devices do the playing. That's what SliMP3, AudioTron, and Rio are all about. Store once, play anywhere.
Now if we could only get this to be a VideoLAN client, too...
(yes, I suppose I should have spent a couple minutes searching on google before I posted my question).
I just found two comparisons:
Extreme Tech from June 18, 2001, compares Windows Media Video 3, 7 and 8, Real 8, MPEG-4, Sorenson MPEG-4, and QuickTime (Sorenson V3 and V2). Hard to get clear results, though it looks like they liked WMV and Real about the best.
Also, Digital Video.com (looks like it's from november) compares WMV8, Real 8, QT 5, Sorenson 3, H.263, VP3, and ZyGoVideo. Like many magazine articles, he declines to pick a "best", since it's so usage-dependant. He thought you needed to get to at least 800 kbps for VP3, didn't like ZyGo, liked Sorenson V3 better than H.263 (which he liked better than SV2), but thought WMV8 was better. Also RV8 wasn't as good, in his opinion, as WMV8.
Anyway, they might be worth a read...