Umm... kind of. If you actually look at the page, it looks like he is up to selling them, though reluctantly and at a very high cost. He isn't expecting to sell a bunch of these. I could shit in a box and put it up on ebay, but it doesn't make me some professional operation.
Exactly what popped into my mind at first as well. I figured it was a PSX emulator that worked from a CD rip. After all, there are PSX emulators available for the generally more powerful PocketPC and Linux PDAs. It's only a matter of time (or is it?) until someone gets around the limitations of the PalmOS and ports one.:P
...and thanks to you! I've never heard of AutoHotKey, but it looks very nice. At work, we use Macro Express, which is nice in some areas but extremely limited. AHK is OSS and probably more expandable. I've had to write external scripts/programs a fair amount to get around its limitations.:)
OK, I gotta ask: were you making fun of your post's parent, really thinking that he believed that FDISK was a windows accelerator? Or, was it just a lame attempt to further the joke?
Some people think I'm a weirdo, but at LAN parties, I still like to play Q2. It's the lowest common denominator. But at the same time, when you crank up the res and play it on a fast video card, it looks nice, as nice as Quake 3. Now, maybe people snigger at that, but I Q3 and UT are about the best my old PC or iBook will play.:P
Ugh. I thought I was the only one. I just bought the original Shenmue for my DC (bought it for emulation) and the voice acting in this came... atrotious.
I didn't say it was unreasonable, still not something I see any desire for. Making a new playlist is easy, whether or not it's scratch- and deleting a playlist you don't want anymore is as easy as hitting the Del button.
But I never use playlists. One reason I abhorred older version of *amp. I listen to albums. And I want my music player to manage my collection along those lines. Newer WinAmp has a library, though it's still not as good as iTunes. To each his own.
Again, not on the machines I'm using. Full-window-contents resizing is about the same- no problems on small windows, but on big (1152x800 or so) web browser windows it gets a little skippy- on OS X, 2k and XP. Again, on the 500 MHz G3 ibook it isn't this good, but on the Dual G4/500 I've never had any problems.
I've no clue why or how you'd have a playlist that empties itself automatically, but for the other two:
- It never seemed to hard for me to drag the music to the playlist. When you drag from your Library to any playlist it appends it to the playlist. I can't imagine it getting much easier.
- To clear a play list, Ctrl/Cmd-A and then Delete works quickly and easily.
Instead of LiteStep, I reccomend SharpE. I've used it a bit on Win2k and liked it quite a bit. Some workplace issues made me go back to the regular config, but it's worth checking out. I liked it a lot more than LiteStep, although I've not used LiteStep since around 98-99.
not sure what's going on, but Win2k beats any Linux "desktop" I've tried on my older PC. It's a K6-2/380 MHz, 512 MB RAM. I tried running GNOME 2 and then KDE 3 on it at first, having not run a recent GNOME or KDE release in a while, something I wanted to try. That sucked beyond all belief. So I went back to my beloved ion, trying out pwm and wmaker (ex-beloveds) some too. By abandoning anything resembling a "desktop," I gained speed. A lot of it. But it still isn't any faster than Windows 2000 on that machine. Which is sad- when I first got that machine, I was running RH 5.2 99% of the time and Windows 98 on the side some.
There wasn't a blackbox, fluxbox, pwm or ion back the, but there was Window Maker. And wmaker was a lot faster than Win98 on that machine. KDE was about the same speed as 98. I'm almost embarassed to see Linux performing like that on that machine. I don't doubt I could probably do a lot of configuration to extract another 10% performance out of it in Linux, but... meh. I just deal.
Between all the information searchable in seconds on Google or usernet via Google Groups, how often does it happen on PCs anyway? Sure, if you're using an old ISA 10 mbit ethernet card you might run into a funkiness with the jumpers being configured wrong. But on PCs and parts made within the 5 or 6 years it's all PnP. Not even "plug and pray," but something resembling real PnP. Not as good as it is on a Mac, no, but good enough.
Or am I just not using shitty enough hardware on the PCs I've owned at home and maintained at work?
I think you may have Jaguar and Panther reversed. Jaguar is 10.2 and Panther is 10.3.
I wonder what some people must be doing that their OS X boxes are slow to them. I've a dual G4/500 at work and I've never thought it to be slow, though we've only run 10.2 and 10.3 on it. I think it has 320 MB of RAM- not a huge amount, but you can't skimp on RAM for OS X. Yes, our iBook at home is slow, even with 768 MB of RAM, though it only has a 500 MHz G3.
And for me, it almost always feels faster than the 1.7 GHz P4 running XP and very often faster than the 2.4 GHz P4 running 2k.
And no, I'm not some goony OS X fan boy or general anti-Windows type. I'll be the first to say that WinCE 4.2 on a 400 MHz XScale is as fast as the XP and 2k boxes for most of the tasks that matter. Raw math, rendering or similar CPU-intensive tasks are slower, of course, but it isn't an issue often.
Then again, Win2k and XP are fast on those 1-3 GHz CPUs as long as you don't use the install... But when you start installing stuff, it starts to slow down like Mac OS 9 did when you added extensions...:P
As everyone else pointed out, asstard is old. I've been using that shit since I was dancing in the womb- my mom didn't like my calling the doc that, though.
Do other databases systems give some other options as far as the language you can use in a Stored Procedure (SP)? For instance, perl, python, java? Most of the database programming I've done is for one object database or another (GemStone/S, Magma, MinneStore), and while there is no special distinction for a SP as such, I've created similar structures to obtain the same benefits as are described here.
But then again, in these OODBMSes you don't query with SQL or anything like it- you just query in the language you're coding in, which ends up to be completely seamless and very slick. Well, it can be a pain in the ass in less flexible languages like Java, but in Smalltalk or Common Lisp it's a dream, I like it a lot more than SQL.
So, do any DBs allow you to write your SPs in a something other than PLSQL or T-SQL or some other SQL-based thing? It'd be slick if you were coding your brand-new web-app in Perl 6 to just write your SPs in Perl 6 too, perhaps with inline SQL statements. And you could still call it from any other langauge presumably, just like a regular SQL SP.
Embedded fonts? What are you smoking? The proper way to do it is to just have graphics! That is, if it's a scanned-in document, no OCR, or have the authoring tool render into the big, fat-ass PDF-TIFFs. High color and really high DPI too- that's important in this hi-tek age, eh! Nothing better than a 10 MB PDF for one page of black and white text!
Pfft. Every platform listed is supported by Squeak Smalltalk, with the exception of the JVM itself, though it makes up for it by supporting many other platforms, including Psion/EPOC32.
Sorry, not really relevant, but I hate it when developers make claims that aren't true.:P
Since IronPython targets the CLR you do not need to write your Python specific bindings for GTK, gnome-libs, etc. anymore. Instead, any Mono language can use the Mono targeting GTK#, gconf#, atk# and so on.
You know, it's about bleeding time some else figured this out. Since.NET and Mono were announced, I've been talking about how great this is for the community. Most of this time, people here would just go on about how.NET sux0rs because MS is going to spy on what you do in the bathroom because of Passport. Or, about how C# sucks and Java r00lz.
But for me,.NET is way cool because of what you described so well. Perhaps I've been doing a poor job at saying why.NET is cool, or maybe it just takes a long time for any real information to get through the skulls of people here.:P
And embrace and extend? Not much of an issue. It doesn't matter to me if all of a sudden MS completely rewrites.NET, C#, whatever- we still have Mono. And even if it wasn't binary and API (e.g. WinForms) compatible with MS's.NET, we still have something really cool that is incredibly useful.
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds like a lot of work. Why not just run a PocketPC PSX emulator at that point?
Umm... kind of. If you actually look at the page, it looks like he is up to selling them, though reluctantly and at a very high cost. He isn't expecting to sell a bunch of these. I could shit in a box and put it up on ebay, but it doesn't make me some professional operation.
Exactly what popped into my mind at first as well. I figured it was a PSX emulator that worked from a CD rip. After all, there are PSX emulators available for the generally more powerful PocketPC and Linux PDAs. It's only a matter of time (or is it?) until someone gets around the limitations of the PalmOS and ports one. :P
D'oh! I forgot- also call or email the bloodthirsty lawyer behind this, Parry Aftab. Please be polite though- being a spazz only hurts the cause.
Parry Aftab, Esq.
IMPS
1 Bridge Street, Irvington-on-Hudson, NY 10533
Tel: +1-201-463-8663 (US cell)
FAX: +1-201-670-7002 (US fax)
Parry's e-mail is parry@aftab.com.
Also, post a negative review at Amazon.com.
...and thanks to you! I've never heard of AutoHotKey, but it looks very nice. At work, we use Macro Express, which is nice in some areas but extremely limited. AHK is OSS and probably more expandable. I've had to write external scripts/programs a fair amount to get around its limitations. :)
OK, I gotta ask: were you making fun of your post's parent, really thinking that he believed that FDISK was a windows accelerator? Or, was it just a lame attempt to further the joke?
Thanks!
You could use a macro package, like Macro Express.
Some people think I'm a weirdo, but at LAN parties, I still like to play Q2. It's the lowest common denominator. But at the same time, when you crank up the res and play it on a fast video card, it looks nice, as nice as Quake 3. Now, maybe people snigger at that, but I Q3 and UT are about the best my old PC or iBook will play. :P
Ugh. I thought I was the only one. I just bought the original Shenmue for my DC (bought it for emulation) and the voice acting in this came... atrotious.
I didn't say it was unreasonable, still not something I see any desire for. Making a new playlist is easy, whether or not it's scratch- and deleting a playlist you don't want anymore is as easy as hitting the Del button.
But I never use playlists. One reason I abhorred older version of *amp. I listen to albums. And I want my music player to manage my collection along those lines. Newer WinAmp has a library, though it's still not as good as iTunes. To each his own.
Again, not on the machines I'm using. Full-window-contents resizing is about the same- no problems on small windows, but on big (1152x800 or so) web browser windows it gets a little skippy- on OS X, 2k and XP. Again, on the 500 MHz G3 ibook it isn't this good, but on the Dual G4/500 I've never had any problems.
I've no clue why or how you'd have a playlist that empties itself automatically, but for the other two:
- It never seemed to hard for me to drag the music to the playlist. When you drag from your Library to any playlist it appends it to the playlist. I can't imagine it getting much easier.
- To clear a play list, Ctrl/Cmd-A and then Delete works quickly and easily.
Instead of LiteStep, I reccomend SharpE. I've used it a bit on Win2k and liked it quite a bit. Some workplace issues made me go back to the regular config, but it's worth checking out. I liked it a lot more than LiteStep, although I've not used LiteStep since around 98-99.
not sure what's going on, but Win2k beats any Linux "desktop" I've tried on my older PC. It's a K6-2/380 MHz, 512 MB RAM. I tried running GNOME 2 and then KDE 3 on it at first, having not run a recent GNOME or KDE release in a while, something I wanted to try. That sucked beyond all belief. So I went back to my beloved ion, trying out pwm and wmaker (ex-beloveds) some too. By abandoning anything resembling a "desktop," I gained speed. A lot of it. But it still isn't any faster than Windows 2000 on that machine. Which is sad- when I first got that machine, I was running RH 5.2 99% of the time and Windows 98 on the side some.
... meh. I just deal.
There wasn't a blackbox, fluxbox, pwm or ion back the, but there was Window Maker. And wmaker was a lot faster than Win98 on that machine. KDE was about the same speed as 98. I'm almost embarassed to see Linux performing like that on that machine. I don't doubt I could probably do a lot of configuration to extract another 10% performance out of it in Linux, but
Between all the information searchable in seconds on Google or usernet via Google Groups, how often does it happen on PCs anyway? Sure, if you're using an old ISA 10 mbit ethernet card you might run into a funkiness with the jumpers being configured wrong. But on PCs and parts made within the 5 or 6 years it's all PnP. Not even "plug and pray," but something resembling real PnP. Not as good as it is on a Mac, no, but good enough.
Or am I just not using shitty enough hardware on the PCs I've owned at home and maintained at work?
I think you may have Jaguar and Panther reversed. Jaguar is 10.2 and Panther is 10.3.
:P
I wonder what some people must be doing that their OS X boxes are slow to them. I've a dual G4/500 at work and I've never thought it to be slow, though we've only run 10.2 and 10.3 on it. I think it has 320 MB of RAM- not a huge amount, but you can't skimp on RAM for OS X. Yes, our iBook at home is slow, even with 768 MB of RAM, though it only has a 500 MHz G3.
And for me, it almost always feels faster than the 1.7 GHz P4 running XP and very often faster than the 2.4 GHz P4 running 2k.
And no, I'm not some goony OS X fan boy or general anti-Windows type. I'll be the first to say that WinCE 4.2 on a 400 MHz XScale is as fast as the XP and 2k boxes for most of the tasks that matter. Raw math, rendering or similar CPU-intensive tasks are slower, of course, but it isn't an issue often.
Then again, Win2k and XP are fast on those 1-3 GHz CPUs as long as you don't use the install... But when you start installing stuff, it starts to slow down like Mac OS 9 did when you added extensions...
Ah.. Slick! Those PostgreSQL folks know what's up. I would hope and presume so, but any language can call those stored procs right?
.... BUT REALLY BIG! :)
It's like having a dedicated RPC, XML-RPC or SOAP server
hrmm... i give that shit a 5-slap salute.
(hint: it has something to do with "retards")
it my rating system. feel free to use it now that you've been given the 5-tardslap salute.
As everyone else pointed out, asstard is old. I've been using that shit since I was dancing in the womb- my mom didn't like my calling the doc that, though.
rehole.
Do other databases systems give some other options as far as the language you can use in a Stored Procedure (SP)? For instance, perl, python, java? Most of the database programming I've done is for one object database or another (GemStone/S, Magma, MinneStore), and while there is no special distinction for a SP as such, I've created similar structures to obtain the same benefits as are described here.
But then again, in these OODBMSes you don't query with SQL or anything like it- you just query in the language you're coding in, which ends up to be completely seamless and very slick. Well, it can be a pain in the ass in less flexible languages like Java, but in Smalltalk or Common Lisp it's a dream, I like it a lot more than SQL.
So, do any DBs allow you to write your SPs in a something other than PLSQL or T-SQL or some other SQL-based thing? It'd be slick if you were coding your brand-new web-app in Perl 6 to just write your SPs in Perl 6 too, perhaps with inline SQL statements. And you could still call it from any other langauge presumably, just like a regular SQL SP.
Just me wondering...
That doesn't make it illegal. Rather it is specifically allowed by law.
(Yes that even means the DMCA, for interoperability purposes.)
So, is DeCSS perfectly legal because people need it/want it for interoperability?
Embedded fonts? What are you smoking? The proper way to do it is to just have graphics! That is, if it's a scanned-in document, no OCR, or have the authoring tool render into the big, fat-ass PDF-TIFFs. High color and really high DPI too- that's important in this hi-tek age, eh! Nothing better than a 10 MB PDF for one page of black and white text!
Pfft. What liars! On their site they say:
:P
"The Most Portable VM Available"
Pfft. Every platform listed is supported by Squeak Smalltalk, with the exception of the JVM itself, though it makes up for it by supporting many other platforms, including Psion/EPOC32.
Sorry, not really relevant, but I hate it when developers make claims that aren't true.
Since IronPython targets the CLR you do not need to write your Python specific bindings for GTK, gnome-libs, etc. anymore. Instead, any Mono language can use the Mono targeting GTK#, gconf#, atk# and so on.
.NET and Mono were announced, I've been talking about how great this is for the community. Most of this time, people here would just go on about how .NET sux0rs because MS is going to spy on what you do in the bathroom because of Passport. Or, about how C# sucks and Java r00lz.
.NET is way cool because of what you described so well. Perhaps I've been doing a poor job at saying why .NET is cool, or maybe it just takes a long time for any real information to get through the skulls of people here. :P
.NET, C#, whatever- we still have Mono. And even if it wasn't binary and API (e.g. WinForms) compatible with MS's .NET, we still have something really cool that is incredibly useful.
You know, it's about bleeding time some else figured this out. Since
But for me,
And embrace and extend? Not much of an issue. It doesn't matter to me if all of a sudden MS completely rewrites