Elsewhere on this thread, someone posted the relative question from the Perl6 FAQ. Basically, Perl 6 creates a virtual bytecode engine, and the front end interpreter includes one that converts Perl6 to this engine, and another that convert Perl5 to this engine. From a programming POV, the distinction between a Perl6 and Perl5 program will be the inclusion at the first line of code of a keyword in Perl6 that's not in Perl5; if the interpreter sees that keyword first, it will treat the source as Perl6, otherwise Perl5.
Since most existing CPAN modules lack this keyword they will all run with the Perl5 interpreter. There may be some oddities with modules that use native code or other odd features, so obviously there will be a testing phase.
Additionally, at least for OOP-type modules, everything you can do with objects in Perl5 can be done to objects in Perl6 (albeit with minor differences in the syntax), so and Perl5 module should work cleanly in a Perl6 codeblock. Obviously, since Perl6 objects have a bit more power, you can't necessarily take those back to Perl5.
Of course, there will probably be some mechanism to update CPAN modules from Perl5 to Perl6, leaving the Perl5 version in place, but exactly how this is do be done, it's way too early to tell.
Thanks to the one-up-manship that the software industry has been doing since the days of Netscape/IE betas, proper version numbering has gone down the tubes. My understanding was that for version "x.y.z", x was a major version, y minor, and z 'patchlevel'. Changes in z usually implied bugfixes and security fixes. Changes in y usually meant small additional features, but no major changes in terms of formats, operation, or the like. Changes in x were big; those were ones where backwards-compatibility was not guarenteed, nor the ability to run on the same hardward requirements as previous versions, and so forth. I'd expect that when 'x' changed on a piece of commercial software, I'd be required to pay a good chunk of change for the update (ie full price minus a rebate for being an owner of a previous version). I'd never expect a charge to get to 'z'. Changes in 'y', on the other hand, are iffy. I'd certain not expect to pay close to full price nor always expect that offered for free.
However, this all went to heck as Netscape and IE battled, along with MS's change from this numbering scheme to 95, 98, etc. Apple, notably, still tried to stick with it, but that was during the clone years, and I remember that there were significant differences in System 7.6.1 and 7.6.3 and other weird stuff like that. Then when Adobe, Macromedia, and others started to push version numbers up quickly, usually going from x.0 to x.5, then to (x+1).0, they also started attaching large price tags to the minor version updates. Are these version systems consistent with the original methods? Maybe, in some cases, but version numbers are a big market ploy; version (x+1).0 of a product is automatically better than x.0, by most customers impressions, and those impressions lead to larger sales for version updates.
So is Apple really right in calling this 10.2, and then charging a lot for it? I'd argue that Apple should have called the 10.1 update (which basically made 10.0 usable) 10.0.1, and then Jag would be 10.1, at which point an upgrade cost would not be as unreasonable if they truly followed version numbers. Since Jag adds new features, but does not create incompatibilities with older systems, it's not a major release, and thus is simply minor.
While I can't argue with the concept of more work to get to given tabbed page from outside the application, the use of tabs currently solves a problem that until recently most GUI elements has with task switching, in that every instance of a SDI (single document interface) application would be listed in the task bar-like area. Thus, if you had multiple browser windows open, your task bar would be swamped with each window's title, and given all the other likely stuff you'd be running it would be difficult to determine the distinction of the different windows without some other mechanism or checking each one separately. Even without the task bar, using some application switcher may generate an overly long list, which could be hard to navigate or slower to use than normal tab switching. Newer GUIs (including XP and KDE2/3) are more intelligent now and will group multiple instances of the same application into the same task 'button', providing a popup menu to select the specific instance of that application. But when Opera and Mozilla were being developed into their current reincarnations, this wasn't a feature, and given that most developers or users will have several browser windows open at a time, compared to any other SDI-type application besides editors, it's not a suprise this feature was added. (And even in the case of editors, I noticed that a lot of the windows shareware and commercial packages have had the options of tabs to switch between open files, showing the same problem as multiple browser windows.)
Now, I dont' have Moz handy currently, but I do know that Opera allows you to place the tabs at the bottom of the page; I want to say Moz does too. Thus, in your case, you could jump to the Opera app from the bottom task bar, then use bottom tabs to find the right tab; mouse movement is limited, and locating the right page should be faster. Tab location (above, below, off) has almost always been an option in any program that I've seen them used effectively.
The other consideration is that maybe, there needs to be a way for apps to communicate to the task-bar/applications list as to describe all the current instances that are open. Thus, regardless if the program is tabbed or not, clicking on the task bar button for that program would should all instances of it, and selecting the appropriate instance would either go to that window, or bring the right tab forward. This, of course, is not trivial to work back into most GUI frameworks currently.
But, most important, tabs should be optional: some people love multiple windows, some don't. Appropriately written, the additional feature of tabs should be very light weight and ignorable when not used.
Books like this one, the Perl & XML, and other "compact" books certainly can be argued as repetition of the perldocs, but there is room for such books under ORA's wing. First off, it gives someone with a hankering to author a computer handbook the opportunity to do so: based on a search at Amazon, this is Seth Burke's first book, and so a quality job, even as something short as the LWP module with already extensive documentation, will help him get good inroads into writing other books and other possibilities (No, I don't know Seth personally, just using him as an example author). The second advantage is that most perldocs are written from an efficient manner: tell the developer exactly what they need to know when they need to know it. While there are examples, they are usually not fleshed out very well. A good book that covers the modules inside and out, with a philosophy of use, concrete examples, and useful reference material can be very helpful in understand the module further and using it more efficiently, and for the programmer unexperienced in the modules, it provides a solid background for them to get started quickly.
Books like these, that focus very narrowly but try to cover the topic well, is what ORA is well known for and why they are still the major distributor of books related to OSS development and usage. Other large publishers would seem to balk at these types of books and instead opt for the 1000+ pg books that try to cover everything, typically failing to cover topics adequetely or making mistakes, since the size of a book can be an influencing factor to some book purchasers. In fact, one could argue that a lot of what ORA offers is simply rehashs of free documentation, but if that were the case, I'd have expected to see ORA out of business years ago. Therefor, there is a demand for ORA's quality retakes of the manpages and free documentation, and books like these continue to extend their catalog in good ways.
With Mission Hill, the 19 episodes were already in the can before it was cancelled off UPN and before CN got it. Same with Baby Blues (recently pushed off ASwim, but all 13 eps shown a few times each before).
In addition, the use of Home Movies on ASwim got the show revived, and new eps are showing now; these aren't as cheap as ATHF, Sealab, or the others, but not overly expensive either (as I understand it, they're using Flash as their animation medium, thus cutting out a lot of tweening work. However, I've not been able to confirm this).
Mind you, if the team has sufficiently dispersed by then, it may be hard to put it back together (see how Ren and Stimpy died after John K. was ousted). But, I'd rather see CN do a much better job of handling reruns than FOX seems to be doing right now. (Hint: you'll be missing much of Futurama until Feb if you live on the East Coast).
Even more so, there was an article in Wired recently (can't find it) that stated that Congress has planned a budget intake of $18-$19 billion from the sales of the analog spectrum for the budget in the 2005-2007ish range; there would be a significant hole in the budget if the analog spectrum is not freed by that time. The article stated that legislation may have had to come into play if the FCC decision this week did not clear the analog spectrum out in a reasonable timeframe.
I would argue that the researcher that undertook this work was not trying to depreciate the value of the art at all by doing this analysis: he was simply interested in seeing if he could 'finish' the work by using elliptical curves and image manipulation.
First, I do think that Escher left that space blank intentionally partially to help the eye follow the 'progression' of the illusion, but also, it would be impossible to draw out the center with 'dull' tools like pencils and pens. On this latter point, the researcher's site points out that the image would be infinitely recursive into the center; to draw it out completely would be neigh impossible. Escher probably realized this when drawing it (and without knowing exactly what elliptical curves were), and concidering the overall positive effect of the white space, left that area blank when he couldn't effectively draw any finer detail than his usual style.
So what is of interest of this research is more of what we can do with image manipulation and mathematics to 'extrapolate' art, rather than to say that Escher was lazy and could have finished that work. There was an article almost a year ago here on a program that 'analyzed' the style of one image and applied that to a second image, one example being of Monet's dot style applied to photos and other classic artwork. This falls in the same line; the group had to extrapolate a few parts of the picture that fell outside Escher's original, then used complex math to rebuild it in a number of ways. The results are certainly not 'new' artwork in anyway, but they do show what we can do in "Computational Art".
(Hmm, I wonder, before it was/.ed, did they try to take this procedure in reverse; that is, take a photo that has sufficiently similar properties like the print itself, after it was deconvoluted into the simple image, and reapply the elliptical curve as to generate the same optical illusion as the original had?)
And besides, will anyone really stand for this? The idea of recordable media -- vcrs, in particular -- is very deeply ingrained, and most people probably consider it their "right" to record their television. And rightly so!
If you read through the articles carefully, no one, not MPAA/show producers nor Tech appear to be arguing against the one-time recording (time-shifting) of digital TV programming; it's the question of whether you can save that content to removable media, watch it on another TV in your house, send it to yourself at a remote location (even if authenicated/secured), or to share it on the Internet with a single friend/family member. Some of these seem like obvious fair use, some don't, and where the line has to be drawn is what is the major contention; MPAA appears to want the push the line to limiting recordings to a single, non-retainable format, possibly viewable only once, while other groups are arguing for less restrictive measures but still limiting full-fledged wide scale distribution as today's P2P networks allow.
During the formation of the 13 original states, many statehood claims laid out their potental boundaries from coast-to-coast (despite not having been charted. ) Conneticut claimed the land west of Penn. bounded by the same latitudes the state was on (41 to 42deg 2') This was called their Western Reserve. Shortly after this, of course, these claims were given up in lieu of western expansion and federal pressure (late 1700s). More info at an encyclopedia of Cleveland history. Thus, "Western Reserve" is all one phase, and can't be split up.
While there's been a recent glut of something Tycoon, there's a few titles that stand out partically because they are just simply better written, and also allow you to build something fun. Roller Coaster Tycoon has been on the best seller list since it's release ~3 years ago, with a recent "Gold Ticket" version that includes the 2 expansion sets; RCT allows you to make roller coasters bounded only by the limits of your imagination, and other aspects of a theme park. Others have taken upon them to recreate famous theme parks around the world or specific rides. Others are playing around with the save game format, writing trainers and one impressive project to 3d-ify the game. RCT 2 is scheduled for release later this fall with even more features.
Then there's Sid Meyer's SimGolf. You can build a (non-mini) golf course, and watch the Sims play on it, but you can also play the course with your in-game avatar golf-pro. Others can save their courses and there's a big course repository including real world courses at the official site, much less other non-official ones. The golf game is not like links, but it can be somewhat challenging and makes this an interesting mix of sim and sport.
Of course, prior to SimGolf there was the Sims. Build a family and a home, and then play with them. While currently you can't easily transfer families to other people, the online version due out soon is expected to be a huge seller, allowing people to pit their constructed families against others.
Another example, outside of PC gaming, is the PS2 game Frequency. It's similar in nature to DDR, save that you only use the shoulder or right pad buttons to hit notes as they pass, but one of the features is a remix mode, where you can take any of the ingame tech/industrial/electronica songs and play around with their arrangements to some extent. Once you've created a new remix, you can save it, and by swapping cards, allow another player to attempt your new track. The same can be said for many of the eXtreme sports games (THPS3, etc) that allow you to create a skate-type park that you can save and let others play on.
I think my point was that, at least until recently, the goal of most WYSIWYG editors is to make it easy to layout pages first, with the standards compliance much lower down on the list of priorities. Many of them still rely on and default to techniques that are frowned upon (but not necessarily non-standard) by HTML purists, including nested tables, absolute sizing, font specification by pt or px, and similar techniques that lead to pixel-perfect design; this is typically bad since it automatically assumes that your audience has their browser at a certain size and resolution. Sure, they do allow you to tweak the code to be more "pure" in the raw HTML, but by default they operate in pixel-perfect mode.
So until another round of updates and standards have been processed by all parties in the web cycle, by far, the best editor is still Notepad/vi/EMACS/any other non-WYSIWYG editor, since you have absolute control on the output.
Don't rely on WYSIWYG editors to give you the compliance or the 'purity' that HTML offers.
They've covered 3 of 4 (or 4 of 5) participants in web standards: the browser makers, the web designers, the end users, and possibly the web standards setters. However, they're missing the biggest reason why a chunk of web pages are incompatiable: poor web page authoring programs.
Even if you ignore Frontpage's effects, a lot of the more recent authoring programs don't put out the cleanest code. Not necessarily as bad as tag soup of the past, but still putting out code that works with no problem in IE, but not good in Netscape/etc. And unfortunately, if you consider the cycle of web advancements, they are typically late to the game (that is, they won't add support for a standard until a browser with majority support includes it). So we're only now seeing these WYSIWYG editors including support for XHTML and CSS level 2 stylesheets, despite all the major browsers supporting these (to a good extent).
Of course, there are some that say "the best HTML editor is Notepad" (or vi, or EMACS, or...), and those are the people that I expect to have no problem with any browser on their sites. Unfortunately, that group is the minority, the majority seem to want to ignore HTML and just get it right in the WYSIWYG. And right now, that approach can easily lead you to the IE-only site.
Anyone else get a CGI short at showing?
on
Review: Men In Black II
·
· Score: 3, Informative
I thought it was odd that when I saw it, there was a brief (10 minute) CGI animated short from ImageWorks called "The Chub-Chubs" (I think, the name didn't stick), that basically just had a bunch of sci-fi refs in it... did anyone else get this? It wasn't bad (not of the Pixar quality in both animation and writing), but it was pretty decent. I found it odd that it wasn't mentioned in any ads that I saw, nor any reviews of MIB2 that I saw as well. (Compared to the Dexter's Lab short in front of PPG, which I did know about...)
It's interesting to note that Warner Bros. has confirmed they are making a large (more than 6) number of shorts destined for leadins to big screen movies using the standard Looney Toons characters (eg Bugs, Daffy, etc). Along with Pixar's bits and this ImageWorks thing, there appears to be trend towards this in the movie industry. Of course, there's tons more ads and movie previews of late (for PPG today, for example, I had at least 15 min of both), so this might not last long if it takes away too many screenings from theaters.
"Sid"?? I'm pretty sure (and now positive after an IMDB check) that it's "Zed".
However, I will agree that the movie wasn't like the first, and for some reason, most of the CGI SFX seems poorly meshed with the rest of the visuals (for example, the two-headed alien). And TLJones didn't have the same deadpan that his character really needed (compared with the first). I will say, however, that getting Patrick Warburton (star of "The Tick") to play Agent T was a good choice and provided some good opening laughs.
I've gotten both the Verisign and the DRA letter, and after reading both in light of the Veresign suit, the DRA letter is VERY clear that submitting the form back to them will switch your registry to them; this is printed on the front of the letter in the same type as the rest of the page. In the Verisign case, the transfer statement was printed on the back of the letter in fine print (with no indication there was something on the back). While somewhat tacky, I don't think DRA is in the wrong here, compared to Verisign.
The idea behind spam, whether USENET, email, snail mail, or whatnot, is that you only need to get a small fraction, less than 1%, to respond in order to turn a profit. Of course, from a cost-prohibative accounting, USENET is the cheapest (you effectively only send the message out once over your bandwidth, compared with once per spam target with email), but also probably has the lowest number of readers.
When I read the NYTimes articles, I get the feeling that it's not that the studios want to block the sending of the recorded programs, but to make sure that the digitial content is strongly encrypted as possible to even require a hidden unique device ID as part of the key for decoding. Thus, while you could send the encrypted programs left and right, the receivers couldn't do anything with the data. This is a much more technologically feasible way to doing things, and would take the question out of how to avoid problems of blocking older computer hardware. However, as the article does point out, this would mean that if/when DVD-R are used as a recording medium for digital TVs, current DVD models won't be able to play them due to strong encryption.
Laird Breyer, for his project, Markovian Page Ranking Distributions: Some Theory and Simulations. This project examined various properties of the Markovian process behind Google's PageRank algorithm, and suggested some modifications to take into account the "age" of each link to reduce Pagerank's tendency to bias against newly-created pages.
This may help to defeat the current practice of overloading the PageRank results of a given key word as to point to a given page by having people link to that page with a link containing that keyword, aka "Googlebombing". I do think that the winner is a very interesting and useful project, this latter one will probably be implemented ASAP.
I recently had "built" my own system (I had previously done card swaps, HD installs, etc, but where the mobo was already in place). Unfortunately, I believe, I started this with a 1.2gHz tbird. Not a bad chip, but this was a chip line that ran hot and right before the introduction of the next line that ran much cooler. With everything in place I had no problem getting a system going -- but I was alarmed by rather high chip temperature, at least as I percieved it: during warm days in late spring, CPU temps in 50-55 deg C with load (with a modern gfx cpu also running at load), approx 22 deg C above the southbridge temp. sensor. I *knew* that this chip could go to 95 deg C before the die was damaged, but this also carried the cavaet that the CPU temp probe may be as much as 30 deg C too low due to placement. I realize that when I read others' reports of the same chip (and mobo combo as well) that my temps are certainly within ballpark if not lower, but I was still concerned particularly with warmer weather still on it's way.
So over the next 2 weeks I spent a good amount of cash in getting additional cooling equipment: additional rear case fans, a slot fan, etc. I was able to shave a few degrees off the max temp under the warmest days. Of course, these weren't installed at one shot, and each time I changed the internal configuration, I worried that something might fail.
But finally I got it to the point of being a good little box, and hasn't had a problem since. However, I am still worried on it's temperature situation and monitor it often enough to make sure nothing weird is going on.
But after that experience with newer CPUs, I'd much rather avoid all the hassle of building the system from scratch, and next time I'm looking, purchase a system that has been prebuilt to handle the cooling effectively and such that I don't have to worry about that at all. Obviously, the above boxes wouldn't be for gamers, but as the reviewer indicates, would work well for a linux install as well as average-joe users if they wanted to install WinXP/2K on it. I'd consider getting one of these particularly since I would not expect custom shops to be able to beat that price easily without cutting more corners.
Except that v 1.3 and beyond will have PunkBuster software in place. Basically, if a server admin wants to minimize the cheaters on their system, they can force this on their server; all connecting clients will have to have this enabled to play on the server. The software scans key dll and other files in the RCTW folders and other factors to try to determine if any modification has been made to those files, and if so, the client is flagged as a cheater, and typically kicked from the server.
Last time I checked, about 50% of the 1.3 servers in GSArcade claimed to have PB on and running. And the other thing that I've noticed from playing it is the first 2 or so minutes of playing are typically a bit choppy due to the security tests, so it's not very intrusive.
After the Battle Creek incident with ORBZ, the maintain changed the way it worked; instead of being pro-active on checking for open relays, he now has a 'honeypot' like system where a unique email address that isn't directly visible on the site but still may be harvested by a spam bot. Any server that sends email to that address is automatically added to The List. Mail server admins that believe that they should not be on this list can argue their case to remove their server.
I applaud your landlords and/or apartment co-op. This is very forward thinking in terms of future investiment. Even if a developer cannot necessarily afford to get a T1 into a complex, the next best thing they can do is to make sure every unit is wired from the start with 2 phone and a DSL-like line, and cable into every room, and have all those lines meet at a common structure, which then goes off to ILECs, network providers, and cable providers. If, at some point, the community decides to spring for T1 as a shared cost among all, it's simply a matter of getting the T1 into place; all other connectivity is completed ahead of time. It's much easier than to retrofit every unit to get the additional lines in place as well as to deal with individual phone boxes on each separate building as most places have now.
(Nitpick) You probably meant "VeriSign" and not "Verizon", the former is the one sending out the questionable "Renewal Notification" letters.
Last I checked, Verizon wasn't even in the DNS business...
Slashdot Mirror
</joke type="acronym">
Since most existing CPAN modules lack this keyword they will all run with the Perl5 interpreter. There may be some oddities with modules that use native code or other odd features, so obviously there will be a testing phase.
Additionally, at least for OOP-type modules, everything you can do with objects in Perl5 can be done to objects in Perl6 (albeit with minor differences in the syntax), so and Perl5 module should work cleanly in a Perl6 codeblock. Obviously, since Perl6 objects have a bit more power, you can't necessarily take those back to Perl5.
Of course, there will probably be some mechanism to update CPAN modules from Perl5 to Perl6, leaving the Perl5 version in place, but exactly how this is do be done, it's way too early to tell.
Thanks to the one-up-manship that the software industry has been doing since the days of Netscape/IE betas, proper version numbering has gone down the tubes. My understanding was that for version "x.y.z", x was a major version, y minor, and z 'patchlevel'. Changes in z usually implied bugfixes and security fixes. Changes in y usually meant small additional features, but no major changes in terms of formats, operation, or the like. Changes in x were big; those were ones where backwards-compatibility was not guarenteed, nor the ability to run on the same hardward requirements as previous versions, and so forth. I'd expect that when 'x' changed on a piece of commercial software, I'd be required to pay a good chunk of change for the update (ie full price minus a rebate for being an owner of a previous version). I'd never expect a charge to get to 'z'. Changes in 'y', on the other hand, are iffy. I'd certain not expect to pay close to full price nor always expect that offered for free.
However, this all went to heck as Netscape and IE battled, along with MS's change from this numbering scheme to 95, 98, etc. Apple, notably, still tried to stick with it, but that was during the clone years, and I remember that there were significant differences in System 7.6.1 and 7.6.3 and other weird stuff like that. Then when Adobe, Macromedia, and others started to push version numbers up quickly, usually going from x.0 to x.5, then to (x+1).0, they also started attaching large price tags to the minor version updates. Are these version systems consistent with the original methods? Maybe, in some cases, but version numbers are a big market ploy; version (x+1).0 of a product is automatically better than x.0, by most customers impressions, and those impressions lead to larger sales for version updates.
So is Apple really right in calling this 10.2, and then charging a lot for it? I'd argue that Apple should have called the 10.1 update (which basically made 10.0 usable) 10.0.1, and then Jag would be 10.1, at which point an upgrade cost would not be as unreasonable if they truly followed version numbers. Since Jag adds new features, but does not create incompatibilities with older systems, it's not a major release, and thus is simply minor.
Now, I dont' have Moz handy currently, but I do know that Opera allows you to place the tabs at the bottom of the page; I want to say Moz does too. Thus, in your case, you could jump to the Opera app from the bottom task bar, then use bottom tabs to find the right tab; mouse movement is limited, and locating the right page should be faster. Tab location (above, below, off) has almost always been an option in any program that I've seen them used effectively.
The other consideration is that maybe, there needs to be a way for apps to communicate to the task-bar/applications list as to describe all the current instances that are open. Thus, regardless if the program is tabbed or not, clicking on the task bar button for that program would should all instances of it, and selecting the appropriate instance would either go to that window, or bring the right tab forward. This, of course, is not trivial to work back into most GUI frameworks currently.
But, most important, tabs should be optional: some people love multiple windows, some don't. Appropriately written, the additional feature of tabs should be very light weight and ignorable when not used.
Books like these, that focus very narrowly but try to cover the topic well, is what ORA is well known for and why they are still the major distributor of books related to OSS development and usage. Other large publishers would seem to balk at these types of books and instead opt for the 1000+ pg books that try to cover everything, typically failing to cover topics adequetely or making mistakes, since the size of a book can be an influencing factor to some book purchasers. In fact, one could argue that a lot of what ORA offers is simply rehashs of free documentation, but if that were the case, I'd have expected to see ORA out of business years ago. Therefor, there is a demand for ORA's quality retakes of the manpages and free documentation, and books like these continue to extend their catalog in good ways.
In addition, the use of Home Movies on ASwim got the show revived, and new eps are showing now; these aren't as cheap as ATHF, Sealab, or the others, but not overly expensive either (as I understand it, they're using Flash as their animation medium, thus cutting out a lot of tweening work. However, I've not been able to confirm this).
Mind you, if the team has sufficiently dispersed by then, it may be hard to put it back together (see how Ren and Stimpy died after John K. was ousted). But, I'd rather see CN do a much better job of handling reruns than FOX seems to be doing right now. (Hint: you'll be missing much of Futurama until Feb if you live on the East Coast).
First, I do think that Escher left that space blank intentionally partially to help the eye follow the 'progression' of the illusion, but also, it would be impossible to draw out the center with 'dull' tools like pencils and pens. On this latter point, the researcher's site points out that the image would be infinitely recursive into the center; to draw it out completely would be neigh impossible. Escher probably realized this when drawing it (and without knowing exactly what elliptical curves were), and concidering the overall positive effect of the white space, left that area blank when he couldn't effectively draw any finer detail than his usual style.
So what is of interest of this research is more of what we can do with image manipulation and mathematics to 'extrapolate' art, rather than to say that Escher was lazy and could have finished that work. There was an article almost a year ago here on a program that 'analyzed' the style of one image and applied that to a second image, one example being of Monet's dot style applied to photos and other classic artwork. This falls in the same line; the group had to extrapolate a few parts of the picture that fell outside Escher's original, then used complex math to rebuild it in a number of ways. The results are certainly not 'new' artwork in anyway, but they do show what we can do in "Computational Art".
(Hmm, I wonder, before it was /.ed, did they try to take this procedure in reverse; that is, take a photo that has sufficiently similar properties like the print itself, after it was deconvoluted into the simple image, and reapply the elliptical curve as to generate the same optical illusion as the original had?)
If you read through the articles carefully, no one, not MPAA/show producers nor Tech appear to be arguing against the one-time recording (time-shifting) of digital TV programming; it's the question of whether you can save that content to removable media, watch it on another TV in your house, send it to yourself at a remote location (even if authenicated/secured), or to share it on the Internet with a single friend/family member. Some of these seem like obvious fair use, some don't, and where the line has to be drawn is what is the major contention; MPAA appears to want the push the line to limiting recordings to a single, non-retainable format, possibly viewable only once, while other groups are arguing for less restrictive measures but still limiting full-fledged wide scale distribution as today's P2P networks allow.
During the formation of the 13 original states, many statehood claims laid out their potental boundaries from coast-to-coast (despite not having been charted. ) Conneticut claimed the land west of Penn. bounded by the same latitudes the state was on (41 to 42deg 2') This was called their Western Reserve. Shortly after this, of course, these claims were given up in lieu of western expansion and federal pressure (late 1700s). More info at an encyclopedia of Cleveland history. Thus, "Western Reserve" is all one phase, and can't be split up.
Then there's Sid Meyer's SimGolf. You can build a (non-mini) golf course, and watch the Sims play on it, but you can also play the course with your in-game avatar golf-pro. Others can save their courses and there's a big course repository including real world courses at the official site, much less other non-official ones. The golf game is not like links, but it can be somewhat challenging and makes this an interesting mix of sim and sport.
Of course, prior to SimGolf there was the Sims. Build a family and a home, and then play with them. While currently you can't easily transfer families to other people, the online version due out soon is expected to be a huge seller, allowing people to pit their constructed families against others.
Another example, outside of PC gaming, is the PS2 game Frequency. It's similar in nature to DDR, save that you only use the shoulder or right pad buttons to hit notes as they pass, but one of the features is a remix mode, where you can take any of the ingame tech/industrial/electronica songs and play around with their arrangements to some extent. Once you've created a new remix, you can save it, and by swapping cards, allow another player to attempt your new track. The same can be said for many of the eXtreme sports games (THPS3, etc) that allow you to create a skate-type park that you can save and let others play on.
So until another round of updates and standards have been processed by all parties in the web cycle, by far, the best editor is still Notepad/vi/EMACS/any other non-WYSIWYG editor, since you have absolute control on the output. Don't rely on WYSIWYG editors to give you the compliance or the 'purity' that HTML offers.
Even if you ignore Frontpage's effects, a lot of the more recent authoring programs don't put out the cleanest code. Not necessarily as bad as tag soup of the past, but still putting out code that works with no problem in IE, but not good in Netscape/etc. And unfortunately, if you consider the cycle of web advancements, they are typically late to the game (that is, they won't add support for a standard until a browser with majority support includes it). So we're only now seeing these WYSIWYG editors including support for XHTML and CSS level 2 stylesheets, despite all the major browsers supporting these (to a good extent).
Of course, there are some that say "the best HTML editor is Notepad" (or vi, or EMACS, or...), and those are the people that I expect to have no problem with any browser on their sites. Unfortunately, that group is the minority, the majority seem to want to ignore HTML and just get it right in the WYSIWYG. And right now, that approach can easily lead you to the IE-only site.
It's interesting to note that Warner Bros. has confirmed they are making a large (more than 6) number of shorts destined for leadins to big screen movies using the standard Looney Toons characters (eg Bugs, Daffy, etc). Along with Pixar's bits and this ImageWorks thing, there appears to be trend towards this in the movie industry. Of course, there's tons more ads and movie previews of late (for PPG today, for example, I had at least 15 min of both), so this might not last long if it takes away too many screenings from theaters.
"Sid"?? I'm pretty sure (and now positive after an IMDB check) that it's "Zed".
However, I will agree that the movie wasn't like the first, and for some reason, most of the CGI SFX seems poorly meshed with the rest of the visuals (for example, the two-headed alien). And TLJones didn't have the same deadpan that his character really needed (compared with the first). I will say, however, that getting Patrick Warburton (star of "The Tick") to play Agent T was a good choice and provided some good opening laughs.
I've gotten both the Verisign and the DRA letter, and after reading both in light of the Veresign suit, the DRA letter is VERY clear that submitting the form back to them will switch your registry to them; this is printed on the front of the letter in the same type as the rest of the page. In the Verisign case, the transfer statement was printed on the back of the letter in fine print (with no indication there was something on the back). While somewhat tacky, I don't think DRA is in the wrong here, compared to Verisign.
When I read the NYTimes articles, I get the feeling that it's not that the studios want to block the sending of the recorded programs, but to make sure that the digitial content is strongly encrypted as possible to even require a hidden unique device ID as part of the key for decoding. Thus, while you could send the encrypted programs left and right, the receivers couldn't do anything with the data. This is a much more technologically feasible way to doing things, and would take the question out of how to avoid problems of blocking older computer hardware. However, as the article does point out, this would mean that if/when DVD-R are used as a recording medium for digital TVs, current DVD models won't be able to play them due to strong encryption.
This may help to defeat the current practice of overloading the PageRank results of a given key word as to point to a given page by having people link to that page with a link containing that keyword, aka "Googlebombing". I do think that the winner is a very interesting and useful project, this latter one will probably be implemented ASAP.
I'm sure the point system will go over quite well in dot.com land *cough*flooz*cough*...
So over the next 2 weeks I spent a good amount of cash in getting additional cooling equipment: additional rear case fans, a slot fan, etc. I was able to shave a few degrees off the max temp under the warmest days. Of course, these weren't installed at one shot, and each time I changed the internal configuration, I worried that something might fail.
But finally I got it to the point of being a good little box, and hasn't had a problem since. However, I am still worried on it's temperature situation and monitor it often enough to make sure nothing weird is going on.
But after that experience with newer CPUs, I'd much rather avoid all the hassle of building the system from scratch, and next time I'm looking, purchase a system that has been prebuilt to handle the cooling effectively and such that I don't have to worry about that at all. Obviously, the above boxes wouldn't be for gamers, but as the reviewer indicates, would work well for a linux install as well as average-joe users if they wanted to install WinXP/2K on it. I'd consider getting one of these particularly since I would not expect custom shops to be able to beat that price easily without cutting more corners.
Last time I checked, about 50% of the 1.3 servers in GSArcade claimed to have PB on and running. And the other thing that I've noticed from playing it is the first 2 or so minutes of playing are typically a bit choppy due to the security tests, so it's not very intrusive.
After the Battle Creek incident with ORBZ, the maintain changed the way it worked; instead of being pro-active on checking for open relays, he now has a 'honeypot' like system where a unique email address that isn't directly visible on the site but still may be harvested by a spam bot. Any server that sends email to that address is automatically added to The List. Mail server admins that believe that they should not be on this list can argue their case to remove their server.