A windows user who doesn't have the fancy "everything works as advertised" iTunes software of course.
But there are a couple of weird cases in MacLand as well. Like the time I couldn't get it to turn on. Easy, press a button. Nope. Had to reset the system (doesn't lose data) by holding the menu and play button down for ~7 seconds.
Needless to say, there are some possible problems, but Apple's support pages cover the hardware issues.
My HP printer isn't supported on Mac. What's your point? You'd think a LaserJet III would be, but no PPD available. I'm awaiting CUPS in 10.2, the rest is just iCandy.
So what, Apple's way of being unfair is hella better than Microsoft's way of being unfair.
Apple: Check out this cool toy I have but if you wanna play, you have to use it in my house with me watching.
MS: Oooo, cool toy, lemme see that. <runs away>
Btw, last I checked, Epson wasn't a "PC company", HP wasn't a "PC company" either. Epson sells printers, HP sells anything they think will sell. Name a true PC company that supports Mac. Dell? Gateway?
It probably intercepts system calls and "fixes" things. Unfortunately, this means that you have to have an extra layer to capture the calls and it adds overhead. This is, as they say, an elegant hack for the meantime.
As an owner of an iBook and an iPod, I'd be pissed off if my iBook didn't have the FireWire port as designed by Apple (read: it's a 6-pin port. RTFSpec)
Most firewire hard drives are bus-powered for portability reasons. The iPod uses the FireWire for recharging the battery while you mess around with transfering files. It's nice to plug in only one cable.
Everyone else I saw in the movie being killed was either an ugly alien, a droid, or someone who was covered head to toe in battle armor to hide their "human-ness." Did anybody else notice this?
No. What about the large group of Jedi on Genosia? Or the fact that we see Jango without his armor on? Then focusing on humanoid forms, Jango's assistant didn't initially appear to be an ugly alien. I think you're reaching, and therefore blocked out parts that would invalidate your point. The only valid point you raise is that of innocent people dying, of which Shmi and Padme are the only two who are not militarily obligated (note Lucas' revisionist history at work, since in the first episode, Padme was the double and Amidala was the queen). But even Padme knew the risks of her job, so Shmi was really the only innocent to die.
Seriously, when was this golden age you speak of? The majority of film producers are, and always have been, businessmen more interested in the bottom line than in artisitc integrity.
A friend of mine who went to film school likes to point out a simple fact. Before 1977 there were no movies that reached "blockbuster" status. Since then all studio films are produced to reach the lowest common denominator in order to maximize the "blockbuster" appeal. This is not to say that there weren't any successful movies, just that after a little space opera became the highest grossing movie ever (up to that point in time) all bets were off and the quality of what is pushed out by the studios deteriorated.
In other words, the studios went from pushing movies that had a guaranteed audience in specific genres to pushing movies that were fantastical conglomerations of these various genres that may not appeal directly but held enough appeal to produce a higher draw.
P-T: Why is Vivendi suing on the claims of making the BNetD software for money? It's open source, no one is making any money off of it.
Vivendi Rep: The basis upon this charge lies on the idea that BNetD will eventually begin using their software, that they did not create, in order to make a profit. Though they have not used it yet for a profit, Vivendi believes that they would have or will use it in the future for a profit.
What gets me is the "that they did not create" portion. Seems that's the fulcrum of this case, and not the smokescreen questions regarding OSS and DMCA. Burden of proof would seem to favor the little guys here, simply because you have to prove that code from Blizzard entered into the codebase from an employee (former or current) or that an intrusion occurred.
Sure it is. It's when you break the big prong off of the 3-prong plug, and plug the computer in anyway. The computer is then "ungrounded".
Alternatively, it's when you do something to redeem yourself in the eyes of your parents when you had previously been in trouble for mischief. When the sentence is lifted, you have been "ungrounded".
Finally, it's what happened a few days after September 11 when the planes started flying again, as the FAA had stopped all flights while security measures were enhanced. The first plane to lift off that day became "ungrounded".
It appears that the license from MS is for the right to use the Technical Reference. So, any product developed from the information in the technical reference is subject to the license. I saw no reference to reverse engineered programs, so they (sh|w)ould fall under a separate legal domain.
Now that the other reference is out, and presumably will not carry any of the baggage associated with the MSTR, obviously this will be the reference used and distributed to Samba developers. The most important message regarding all of this is that it appears that sworn notarized affidavits will now be required to work on Samba. That's just extra hassle, but it's best to do this as safely as possible to avoid the legal stranglehold.
Well, this wireless stuff at the drafthouse is pretty nice. I haven't browsed all of the posts, so I don't know if this is the first post from the drafthouse, but w00t!
1. They won't show movies like Queen of the Damned. 2. They don't have THX sound.
Why go? Well, namely the beer and the cult movies. I'm sure that this will play highly in the geek world of Austin come Friday when they have an encore showing of Revolution OS.
Oh the joys of TiVo. Last year, I set mine up to record the super bowl and in a reverse twist of usual watching habits, I fast forwarded through the game and only watched the commercials. That required some weird reprogramming of my mind, since something just didn't feel right.
Guess I'll have to figure out when the game is so I can do the same this year. (Yes, I really don't know when the game is.)
Re:Why not UTC instead of antiquated GMT?
on
Farewell, 11111010001
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Sorry, but you're wrong. The link is wrong too.
UTC is GMT with the following exception: leap seconds. Leap seconds are added to and subtracted from (when necessary) UTC. GMT does not reflect leap seconds, hence the term Mean in the title. UTC is calibrated for scientific purposes.
Third Party Links are provided as a convenience to our users. KPMG does not control and is not responsible for any of these sites or their content. KPMG is obligated to protect its reputation and trademarks and KPMG reserves the right to request removal of any link to our website.
Explicit permission is required to use the KPMG logo. To request this written approval, contact the Webmaster or send an e-mail under "Contact Us."
The following web link activities are explicitly prohibited by KPMG and may present trademark and copyright infringement issues:
Links that involve unauthorized use of our logo
Framing, inline links or metatags
Hyperlinks or a form of link that disguises the URL and bypass the homepage
Of course, the Wired story had an editor that took the first few words from the sentence after my bold emphasis and attached it to the concept of linking. It's not quite as oppressive as first reported, but still pretty asinine.
Why did God design us with two feet (or why is it that we were naturally selected to only need two feet)?
If you read all of the Time article, you'll understand that it works on the same principle as walking (aka controlled-falling). The difference between the users of FRED and the users of GINGER is presumed mobility. Users of FRED are less likely to have the motor controls required to maintain balance, so the system does it for them. The concept with Ginger is that you provide the information and the mechanics interpret the intention.
Course, this has simply been a regurgitation of the article for those of you too lazy to actually read. Cool flash picture, huh?
...even modern digital images show too much of the medium.
And this is why art critics always complain about texture and brush lines and whatnot when they look at what should otherwise be considered a beautiful painting? That's bullshit, and you know it. The medium chosen for a particular piece is considered as important as the piece itself. Warhol would not be Warhol without silkscreening. Pollack (though I despise his work on my own objections) would not be considered the artist he was without the texture inherent in the bubbles of paint smattered across the canvas.
I doubt you've ever really looked beyond the forest when considering art and thus do not fully enjoy the beauty of the trees that is created by layers of oil that create more than the two-dimensional image your mind can barely wrap around.
The medium is to be used as the vehicle of your art, while not betraying its integrity. Admittedly, many digital images do fail this requirement, but then again, there are a lot of starving artists out there using traditional media as well. And that would suggest that they too must be doing something wrong.
My own understanding of the article seems to be that the IETF is using strong arm tactics positively. It's not a matter of who came up with what. Both sides claim that they innovated this idea. Furthermore, people here trying to use claims of prior art with the fact that HTTP can handle encoded values is not worth much.
The important piece to understand is that the IETF, which has been given to such tasks as making the Internet usable worldwide by various means of communications has done two good things this month.
Telling SSH (the company) to basically F- Off. By naming the protocol first and not pursuing trademark name infringement, ssh (the protocol name) has gained common acceptance and a change of protocol name would be confusing.
Telling Walid to basically F- Off. IETF is the group to persuade if you have an innovative solution to a problem and if you attempt to strong arm them, they'll just say "eh, we'll figure something else out, thanks."
I think that this stance is a very good stance for a Open Standards body. It should choose open solutions that don't require licensing. But of course, IETF fails in some regards by not actively enforcing the standards in all situations. That's merely an aside, though. I don't think the IETF should be tasked with usage, because that's the job of the Internet Police.
And as a personal aside to all comments regarding the U.S.-centric Internet and how it shouldn't be forced that way, I have one simple word: ARPANet. That's right, all of you non-U.S. whiners. We dominate the Internet, because from the beginning it has always been our bitch. Our standards body is being nice and giving you a chance to fully enjoy the playground we built. If anything, you should stop whining and bow down to the gods responsible for the Internet, your PC (invented in the U.S.), and the rest of the things that we did to create the Internet.
Please excuse this brief tirade concerning a very important subject.
While SGC2C is slightly amusing in the offhanded way, it is important to remember that many people here and in the larger portion of the population seem to believe that Cartoon Planet (the show that featured SG, Zorak, and Brak exclusively) is in fact the same show, even though it is not. SGC2C is a "talk show", and while it has featured such characters as Brak, Tanzit and SG's grandfather (with the voice of Randy "Macho Man" Savage, OH YEAH!), the principles are SG, Zorak and Moltar. I have personally only seen 3 episodes with Brak in it, so I am uncertain as to why people confuse him as being a part of this show.
Of his small appearances on C2C, Brak has never sung one of his funny songs that have reached cult classic status. When you reminisce about getting high and watching SG, you are thinking about Cartoon Planet. When you start singing "Don't Touch Me" for no apparent reason in the middle of traffic, you are paying homage to the classic from Cartoon Planet.
AFAIK, C2C is still in production, considering that two weeks ago, the second episode (most are only 10-11 minutes long, while this past week had a full 22 minute episode that was truly bizarre with Conan O'Brien) had a guest appearance by Brak where someone told him he was on the wrong show, and he stated that "That show's not on anymore!" The attempt to recreate the magic of Cartoon Planet with Brak Presents the Brak Show starring Brak! failed because the irreverence just wasn't there. I think the pitch went something like "It's like you take Cartoon Planet and C2C and you throw it in a blender and the result is this." It was in fact just that, a giant mess that didn't work.
So, please for the love of god, look closely at the Musical Bar-B-Q CD and notice that these songs are indeed from the wonderfully erratic Cartoon Planet, the likes of which have never been recreated on either C2C or BPTBSSB.
People might complain about Texas politicians being amateur, but this kind of thinking often happens at the national level too!
Especially now that the national level is headed by a "Texas politician". I'm allowed to complain since I'm from Texas. Does anyone know which district Mr. Garcia represents? (No I haven't read the bill yet or read further here. But I do plan on making a couple of phone calls in a minute.)
This is also a very unusual piece of legislation given that both Compaq and Dell have their HQs here. Note that both of these two provide systems that are sold with non-Redmond based OSes, and it would probably be in their best interests to lobby against the passage for this bill (yes, even given the comfortable position each of these have with MS.) Being able to sell 50,000 units a month with only MS vs. 60,000 units a month equates to profits lost by the passage of this bill. With Texas being as business friendly as you can get under the current federal requirements (voluntary EPA cooperation, anyone?), it'd be a real shock to see anything short of a grassroots movement pass this thing. I haven't seen any in the works, so I guess we'll see.
Slashdot Mirror
A windows user who doesn't have the fancy "everything works as advertised" iTunes software of course.
But there are a couple of weird cases in MacLand as well. Like the time I couldn't get it to turn on. Easy, press a button. Nope. Had to reset the system (doesn't lose data) by holding the menu and play button down for ~7 seconds.
Needless to say, there are some possible problems, but Apple's support pages cover the hardware issues.
"floppy compatibility" is hardly a compelling reason to switch OSes.
Especially when Macs haven't had a built-in floppy since Jobs came back.
My HP printer isn't supported on Mac. What's your point? You'd think a LaserJet III would be, but no PPD available. I'm awaiting CUPS in 10.2, the rest is just iCandy.
So what, Apple's way of being unfair is hella better than Microsoft's way of being unfair.
Apple: Check out this cool toy I have but if you wanna play, you have to use it in my house with me watching.
MS: Oooo, cool toy, lemme see that. <runs away>
Btw, last I checked, Epson wasn't a "PC company", HP wasn't a "PC company" either. Epson sells printers, HP sells anything they think will sell. Name a true PC company that supports Mac. Dell? Gateway?
So, is it just me or does it bother you that the "Rosetta Stone" states "This custom drawing feature requires IE 5"?
It probably intercepts system calls and "fixes" things. Unfortunately, this means that you have to have an extra layer to capture the calls and it adds overhead. This is, as they say, an elegant hack for the meantime.
As an owner of an iBook and an iPod, I'd be pissed off if my iBook didn't have the FireWire port as designed by Apple (read: it's a 6-pin port. RTFSpec)
Most firewire hard drives are bus-powered for portability reasons. The iPod uses the FireWire for recharging the battery while you mess around with transfering files. It's nice to plug in only one cable.
Everyone else I saw in the movie being killed was either an ugly alien, a droid, or someone who was covered head to toe in battle armor to hide their "human-ness." Did anybody else notice this?
No. What about the large group of Jedi on Genosia? Or the fact that we see Jango without his armor on? Then focusing on humanoid forms, Jango's assistant didn't initially appear to be an ugly alien. I think you're reaching, and therefore blocked out parts that would invalidate your point. The only valid point you raise is that of innocent people dying, of which Shmi and Padme are the only two who are not militarily obligated (note Lucas' revisionist history at work, since in the first episode, Padme was the double and Amidala was the queen). But even Padme knew the risks of her job, so Shmi was really the only innocent to die.
A friend of mine who went to film school likes to point out a simple fact. Before 1977 there were no movies that reached "blockbuster" status. Since then all studio films are produced to reach the lowest common denominator in order to maximize the "blockbuster" appeal. This is not to say that there weren't any successful movies, just that after a little space opera became the highest grossing movie ever (up to that point in time) all bets were off and the quality of what is pushed out by the studios deteriorated.
In other words, the studios went from pushing movies that had a guaranteed audience in specific genres to pushing movies that were fantastical conglomerations of these various genres that may not appeal directly but held enough appeal to produce a higher draw.
Three words: Apple Remote Desktop
I prefer the classis "w00t! There it is!" (by 31337 h4x0rZ)
Vivendi Rep: The basis upon this charge lies on the idea that BNetD will eventually begin using their software, that they did not create, in order to make a profit. Though they have not used it yet for a profit, Vivendi believes that they would have or will use it in the future for a profit.
What gets me is the "that they did not create" portion. Seems that's the fulcrum of this case, and not the smokescreen questions regarding OSS and DMCA. Burden of proof would seem to favor the little guys here, simply because you have to prove that code from Blizzard entered into the codebase from an employee (former or current) or that an intrusion occurred.
Sure it is. It's when you break the big prong off of the 3-prong plug, and plug the computer in anyway. The computer is then "ungrounded".
Alternatively, it's when you do something to redeem yourself in the eyes of your parents when you had previously been in trouble for mischief. When the sentence is lifted, you have been "ungrounded".
Finally, it's what happened a few days after September 11 when the planes started flying again, as the FAA had stopped all flights while security measures were enhanced. The first plane to lift off that day became "ungrounded".
Now that the other reference is out, and presumably will not carry any of the baggage associated with the MSTR, obviously this will be the reference used and distributed to Samba developers. The most important message regarding all of this is that it appears that sworn notarized affidavits will now be required to work on Samba. That's just extra hassle, but it's best to do this as safely as possible to avoid the legal stranglehold.
That was you?!?! I remember that show, LMAO.
Well, this wireless stuff at the drafthouse is pretty nice. I haven't browsed all of the posts, so I don't know if this is the first post from the drafthouse, but w00t!
Hehe.
Obviously you've never been to the Alamo.
1. They won't show movies like Queen of the Damned.
2. They don't have THX sound.
Why go? Well, namely the beer and the cult movies. I'm sure that this will play highly in the geek world of Austin come Friday when they have an encore showing of Revolution OS.
Oh the joys of TiVo. Last year, I set mine up to record the super bowl and in a reverse twist of usual watching habits, I fast forwarded through the game and only watched the commercials. That required some weird reprogramming of my mind, since something just didn't feel right.
Guess I'll have to figure out when the game is so I can do the same this year. (Yes, I really don't know when the game is.)
Sorry, but you're wrong. The link is wrong too.
UTC is GMT with the following exception: leap seconds. Leap seconds are added to and subtracted from (when necessary) UTC. GMT does not reflect leap seconds, hence the term Mean in the title. UTC is calibrated for scientific purposes.
From their policy (aka Disclaimer)
Third Party Links are provided as a convenience to our users. KPMG does not control and is not responsible for any of these sites or their content. KPMG is obligated to protect its reputation and trademarks and KPMG reserves the right to request removal of any link to our website.
Explicit permission is required to use the KPMG logo. To request this written approval, contact the Webmaster or send an e-mail under "Contact Us."
The following web link activities are explicitly prohibited by KPMG and may present trademark and copyright infringement issues:
Links that involve unauthorized use of our logo
Framing, inline links or metatags
Hyperlinks or a form of link that disguises the URL and bypass the homepage
Of course, the Wired story had an editor that took the first few words from the sentence after my bold emphasis and attached it to the concept of linking. It's not quite as oppressive as first reported, but still pretty asinine.
Why did God design us with two feet (or why is it that we were naturally selected to only need two feet)?
If you read all of the Time article, you'll understand that it works on the same principle as walking (aka controlled-falling). The difference between the users of FRED and the users of GINGER is presumed mobility. Users of FRED are less likely to have the motor controls required to maintain balance, so the system does it for them. The concept with Ginger is that you provide the information and the mechanics interpret the intention.
Course, this has simply been a regurgitation of the article for those of you too lazy to actually read. Cool flash picture, huh?
Be is POSIX compliant, but it isn't unix. Where the hell did you come up with that idea?
And this is why art critics always complain about texture and brush lines and whatnot when they look at what should otherwise be considered a beautiful painting? That's bullshit, and you know it. The medium chosen for a particular piece is considered as important as the piece itself. Warhol would not be Warhol without silkscreening. Pollack (though I despise his work on my own objections) would not be considered the artist he was without the texture inherent in the bubbles of paint smattered across the canvas.
I doubt you've ever really looked beyond the forest when considering art and thus do not fully enjoy the beauty of the trees that is created by layers of oil that create more than the two-dimensional image your mind can barely wrap around.
The medium is to be used as the vehicle of your art, while not betraying its integrity. Admittedly, many digital images do fail this requirement, but then again, there are a lot of starving artists out there using traditional media as well. And that would suggest that they too must be doing something wrong.
The important piece to understand is that the IETF, which has been given to such tasks as making the Internet usable worldwide by various means of communications has done two good things this month.
I think that this stance is a very good stance for a Open Standards body. It should choose open solutions that don't require licensing. But of course, IETF fails in some regards by not actively enforcing the standards in all situations. That's merely an aside, though. I don't think the IETF should be tasked with usage, because that's the job of the Internet Police.
And as a personal aside to all comments regarding the U.S.-centric Internet and how it shouldn't be forced that way, I have one simple word: ARPANet. That's right, all of you non-U.S. whiners. We dominate the Internet, because from the beginning it has always been our bitch. Our standards body is being nice and giving you a chance to fully enjoy the playground we built. If anything, you should stop whining and bow down to the gods responsible for the Internet, your PC (invented in the U.S.), and the rest of the things that we did to create the Internet.
While SGC2C is slightly amusing in the offhanded way, it is important to remember that many people here and in the larger portion of the population seem to believe that Cartoon Planet (the show that featured SG, Zorak, and Brak exclusively) is in fact the same show, even though it is not. SGC2C is a "talk show", and while it has featured such characters as Brak, Tanzit and SG's grandfather (with the voice of Randy "Macho Man" Savage, OH YEAH!), the principles are SG, Zorak and Moltar. I have personally only seen 3 episodes with Brak in it, so I am uncertain as to why people confuse him as being a part of this show.
Of his small appearances on C2C, Brak has never sung one of his funny songs that have reached cult classic status. When you reminisce about getting high and watching SG, you are thinking about Cartoon Planet. When you start singing "Don't Touch Me" for no apparent reason in the middle of traffic, you are paying homage to the classic from Cartoon Planet.
AFAIK, C2C is still in production, considering that two weeks ago, the second episode (most are only 10-11 minutes long, while this past week had a full 22 minute episode that was truly bizarre with Conan O'Brien) had a guest appearance by Brak where someone told him he was on the wrong show, and he stated that "That show's not on anymore!" The attempt to recreate the magic of Cartoon Planet with Brak Presents the Brak Show starring Brak! failed because the irreverence just wasn't there. I think the pitch went something like "It's like you take Cartoon Planet and C2C and you throw it in a blender and the result is this." It was in fact just that, a giant mess that didn't work.
So, please for the love of god, look closely at the Musical Bar-B-Q CD and notice that these songs are indeed from the wonderfully erratic Cartoon Planet, the likes of which have never been recreated on either C2C or BPTBSSB.
Umm... Sun doesn't sell "personal computers". Read the bill before you bitch. Call your representative if you live in Texas.
Especially now that the national level is headed by a "Texas politician". I'm allowed to complain since I'm from Texas. Does anyone know which district Mr. Garcia represents? (No I haven't read the bill yet or read further here. But I do plan on making a couple of phone calls in a minute.)
This is also a very unusual piece of legislation given that both Compaq and Dell have their HQs here. Note that both of these two provide systems that are sold with non-Redmond based OSes, and it would probably be in their best interests to lobby against the passage for this bill (yes, even given the comfortable position each of these have with MS.) Being able to sell 50,000 units a month with only MS vs. 60,000 units a month equates to profits lost by the passage of this bill. With Texas being as business friendly as you can get under the current federal requirements (voluntary EPA cooperation, anyone?), it'd be a real shock to see anything short of a grassroots movement pass this thing. I haven't seen any in the works, so I guess we'll see.