>Places like banks actually hope to lose your business if you don't have very much money, because you simply aren't worth the trouble to them.
You're quite right. When I was 14 I tried to cash my first paycheque at a Toronto Dominion bank in Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. They refused to cash it (is that legal?). I even had an account with them at that point.
Now I'm 23 and I'm with the Bank of Montreal (they switched over / new management / whatever) and never bothered to read past the title on their offer to stay with the TD bank.
Now, of course, I use their services, and give them much more money, much more often. Was it worth blowing me off for that cheque?
Probably not. And its something I plan to remember and tell others for the indefinite future.
>They also contain lead, which is banned from landfills
Not everywhere. I threw out some old TVs at the local landfill just a short while ago.
I guess the environmentalists gave up when a scientist explained to them how difficult it is for lead to leach out of glass...
If this were actually dangerous you'd see "Tell your kids: don't lick the TV screen" warnings near the tube of the monitor.
>CRT monitors no matter how small are still big, clunky, and waist energy.
Agreed.
> LCD and TFT monitors will take over the market simply because they are better for the sellers as for the buyers, Smaller size cheaper to store, cheaper to ship. IMHO this company has a few merits but is beating a dead horse.
You forget the merits of a CRT:
- Better saturation
- Closer colour tolerance
- Adjustable colour temperature
- Clearer picture
- Better resolution flexibility
- Better contrast
- Better brightness
- Faster response time
- Simple manufacturing
- Consistent quality - No "dead pixels"
- Very high refresh rates making them perfect for 3d shutter glasses
- Cheaper to fix
- No backlight to wear out (no, don't point out the irony)
- No ghosting
- Free antialiasing
All at a much, much lower price than LCDs.
I don't agree they are better for all buyers, just those forced to buy a 2' x 3' desk for their computer.;)
As far as better for the sellers, other than the weight difference, I don't see how. Normally customers want cheaper and better. Weight and size are often only a concern when the buyer has made a poor choice in purchasing a desk.
An unhackable system cannot be designed simply because (to be useful to us) at some point the system must be controlled by us.
If the hackers can't hack the equipment, they will simply socially engineer themselves into a position to use it.
The only unhackable system is one contained entirely in 10 ft. thick of diamond. But then, how could it be used?
There's the dilemma. As long as there's a human involved, you can't win. That human can be tricked, and then no matter how much security you have you are screwed.
For example, a OTP is crackable if you can convince one of two the parties that you are on their side.
"Network Interface Corporation" -- NIC for short (I guess it's a play on words...:)
A few of the internal hubs say "Network Innovations Corporation" and bear the same stylized "N" the others do.
I also remember getting a couple of Tandy 1000 arcnet cards. Don't recall who made them, unfortunately -- right now they're sitting in the local dump with another box of arcnet cards (yes, 200 cards _is_ way too much for one person -- especially when you can't even give them away [sniff]). I kept a box of 20 or so cards "just in case".:)
Just FYI, some cards are using an NCR IC, some are using one made by RP. But both use the same set of drivers.:)
It works great. You even get to choose how many terminators you want on the line. Supposedly they've bumped it to 144Mb/s (according to the linux kernel, anyways).
Good to 20,000 ft with enough repeaters. Very cool. Supports ring, bus, and star technology all at the same time!
(Yup, I'm using it right now. Anyone want a box of arcnet cards? They all use the same driver!)
>HTML is based on SGML, but also based on what, with hindsight, turned out to be a fatal flaw: it mixes structure mark-up with formatting mark-up. Note the presence of both and tags showing absolute formatting, and also and tags showing structured mark-up, for example. As a result, while HTML served its purpose admirably when it was first created, the whole foundation on which it rests is now very tired.
Ok, I see that point. But I would say that in most standard HTML the author is given the option to decide wether they want to use absolute or structured formatting.
Myself, when I write a "real" document (not slashdot posts!) I always go for the structured formatting. But then again, my first internet account involved surfing the web with lynx through a dial up shell account, so perhaps I'm just being a too "backwards compatible".
>So, in discussing whether or not to use open source software, including several business applications that routinely use binary formats, you think it's important to use nothing but plain or minimally decorated text? I think that's taking things a bit far.
Yes and no. When the format is human readable there's no chance to make it proprietary. The best example of this is HTML. Both netscape and microsoft have done their best to abuse HTML to the point where documents will only show up in one browser or the other. What's nice is that they can easily adapt to each others "improvements" because the format allows anyone to simply read what the new tags are and implement/ignore them.
Imagine if adobe decided to make a way to embed executable files (for example -- it could be anything) into PDF and didn't tell the people working on PDF clones how they did it. If they put enough effort into it, it could be a very long time before the free alternatives properly read newer PDFs ever again. And, knowing Adobe's background, it wouldn't surprise me if they decided to do something like this.
Just imagine how much quicker a word converter for unix would have been made if word files were plain text with human readable markup tags.
Ahh well, I'm getting a little offtopic here. Either way, Adobe is a proprietary software based company that (IMHO) has done some not-so-nice things in the recent past. Myself (and, I'm sure many other open source advocates) would prefer not to give them free advertising by using their format.
BTW: Not every PC magazine comes with Acrobat reader. In North America very few magazines come with CDs (or at least so I have witnessed), and, more importantly, the majority of PC magazines I'd buy would more likely come with the latest revision of XFree or PC Burnin software than Acrobat.
Or do you mean magazines about Windows specifically (the bulk of which, over here, are published by ZD), and not magazines about PCs in general? Either that or I see you're from the UK, where experience has told me you pay 4 times our price on magazines but you get a CD stuck to the front of every issue. Seems like an expensive way to get Acrobat, but each to their own, I suppose.
>Ambiguous statements. Fair use. UK law. You. Have. No. Case. So sue me.
Clear statement. American Site. American law. I have a damn good case, but have better things to do than sue you. Of course, if I did, you could just default, in which case you'd be barred from entering the USA. Not that I care, since I'm Canadian.
>You can use any other metric you like, but that doesn't change the fact that everyone I know, from my co-workers to my parents, can read an Acrobat file trivially. And that includes people running PCs, Macs and Linux.
It requires you to download (or, it seems in your case, buy magazines with) copies of their software. Widely accessible is the WWW, for example, since the world's most popular OS (Windows, unfortunately) comes with a web browser. Acrobat, however, is not. An acrobat viewer comes with absolutely no MS operating system -- not even windows XP!
Calling Acrobat easily accesible is like calling pkunzip for DOS easily accessible. Yup, for years you could get it very easily, but you were still screwed unless you remembered to bring it with you. Same with acrobat. You can certainly bring the document with you on a floppy, but unless you remember to tag along with a CD with a viewer on it, you might end up screwed.
>It is a bastardised mark-up language, based on ill-planned roots, that's grown beyond its usable potential.
Prove it. Do it. Show me the language they bastardized (ie: made worse). Common, I dare you. Improving upon something, however, doesn't count.
Unless you can do this, your baseless accusations carry no weight with me.
>XML is a vastly superior approach for genuine mark-up of structured data
Please stay on topic. We are discussing PDF vs. HTML here, not HTML vs. XML. I may or may not agree that XML is better than HTML but this has no grounds being discussed at the moment.
>HTML is stuck somewhere in the middle, carried along only by momentum, as it has been for several years now.
Momentum is good. Without momentum, your language will languish with the likes of PL/1, J++, and that wierd IBM markup language that was used on a few old encyclopedia CDROMS that no one can remember.
Sending an HTML document to someone guarantees that no matter what computer they have, they can read your message. Even if their computer is a C64, they can still poke about reading the source.
Just try reading the source to a PDF. Can't do it. You have to have the reader. Easily accessible, not exactly.
I'll leave the DMCA/Skylarov issue alone since the AC above has already done a much better job explaining it to you than I would have.
>As for the Killustrator fiasco, as far as I can see, Adobe were perfectly entitled to defend their use of the name Illustrator against a blatant rip-off. I didn't think the Killustrator people had a legal or moral leg to stand on then, and I don't now, either.
I don't think it was a blatant rip off, and I think they have a moral leg to stand on, even if it isn't legal.
Fortunately, you are free to differ with me. Except I don't have to put (TM) after anything I say. [Oh, BTW: You forgot one! Adobe technically has the right to take legal action now! Perhaps they'll just inform the justice department and say sorry a month later?]
>They provide a mechanism that aims to prevent people using their technology from being ripped off.
In my opinion they provide a mechanism that aims to rip off the users of their product. I liken the (pathetic) encryption attempts in PDF to those of the Cactus Data Shield, and accordingly, I find it disgusting and insulting that the technology was even invented.
Again, feel free to differ in your opinion. But before you do, here's something you should feel completely at home with:
This entire comment (c)2002 shepd. It may not be reproduced in whole or in part without express permission. This includes but is not limited to any and all excerpts which may or may not be used in replies. Any and all copies of this message not stored on slashdot.org must be destroyed within 1 hour of receiving them.
>Now look at the good points: Acrobat format is widely accessible, [snip] and get back to us when you've entered the new millenium.
Oh boy are you out of it. Lets see some counterpoints:
- Acrobat is not widely accessible. No open source viewer has (AFAIK) ever been released by Adobe.
- If you think PDF is the best way to distribute long technical documents, you obviously have never read a databook in PDF form without printing it out first. Oh, and no, I don't think HTML is perfect for it either, but it beats the pants off PDF.
- Why don't you go and learn about the usability impact of trying to squeeze 8.5:11 paper documents onto a 4:3 screen before you spout off about HTML limitations that don't exist? If the formatting is poor, fix your crappy browser or improve the standard. The W3C is open to intelligent suggestions.
In summary, it isn't my problem you choose to view the web with lynx. However, it is my problem when your innuendo suggests HTML is nothing more than a poor cousin to a man page.
I'm glad to see you've entered the millenium along with me. Now why don't you get some software made during it?
>The research paper has the logo of the company who did it (that looks like plain text at first view), and the consultation paper has those of UK Online and the Cabinet Office.
All of which should be generic images on the site already. They should be hard linked in the document, and voila! When you view the document on an internet connected machine, the images magically load.
Should you expect the client to not have an internet connection (a strange assumption since the client did download the document to start with) you could simply have directories with files as such:
If you find that difficult to do, you have no business being a webmaster for any government (including Sealand).
And, BTW, an archiving technique is not necessary to copy directories of files. People have been doing this for decades on varioues systems without needed the added "complication" you soon expound on.
>Which are not one file. This means added complication for a distribution format for this. What will it be, tar.gz, WIN.ZIP or sit.hqx?
Obviously if you were to choose a method which any computer could open, which would not require people to sign a license agreement, which would be open source, and one which almost all web browsers can automatically decompress, the answer is tar.gz.
Now, since we are talking absurdities here, PDF adds complication because PDF is not readable or writeable by even your above average human armed with a text editor. HTML, however, is writeable and readable by anyone with a text editor, on most any device with a keyboard and display.
>you are obviously not the right person to argue about this matter
I agree. We seem to be on totally different levels of understanding on the issues. You seem to think HTML is "optimized", whereas I know that "optimized" HTML is PHB speak for (insert browser name here) document. In other words, "optimized" HTML isn't.
>Almost anything that can't be done in plain text can also not been done in HTML.
Baloney. That's a completeload of bunk and now you can
see
it.
>HTML is simply not a substitute for most things PDF is used for - the rest can just as well be done in plain text.
First off, I just proved to you HTML is much more than plain text. Now with that being understood, what is your point?
Since it seems you have nothing to add, I'll add something -- PostScript can do everything people need from PDF. That and it is 100% supported by various open source utilities, availiable for more operating systems than I care to count (including Microsoft Windows and Unix), unlike the acrobat reader.
If they really _must_ include those graphics in the text (which seems like a waste) PostScript has been the choice for open source advocates ages longer than PDF.
>For a start, the current version is on the cover disk of almost every PC magazine I've ever bought.
Please mod the parent as Funny, it really deserves it! You accuse me of FUD and use a ZD net publication to support your accusation! The irony is delicious!:-D LOL, ROTFLMAO, et al.
>Bull. I have a current version of Acrobat on every machine I use at home and at work
Some of us don't pay $6.95 a month to stay up to date with Acrobat Reader by buying PC Magazine. Seems to be a very expensive way of staying up to date. Well, that and in Canada when American magazines come with CDs they usually end up costing $10 a month. I don't even pay $120 a year to Microsoft so why would I even consider paying it for a file viewer that often prevents me from saving and printing?
>and I don't think I've ever downloaded a 5MB install.
Yup, that's because it is actually larger. Go ahead and try downloading it yourself, FUDmeister.
>hat we can tell about this document is that if it contains graphics, it's more than one file
From what I saw, there's no graphics (just plain text).
>and those files will have to be kept together
Operating systems not related to CP/M offer subdirectories for this.:)
>or you can only view it on-line or it's some proprietary format
It isn't viewing online when you have to download the entire file first before you can view it. Word isn't online, and PDF barely manages to be online, but both are pathetic compared to HTML.
>Let's also assume they would not have used HTML coming out of FrontPage or even Word, nothing being "optimized" for one browser or the other.
Any "optimized" HTML becomes an IE document, Netscape document, whatever. It isn't proper HTML if it can't pass the W3C verifier (yep, slashdot doesn't use proper HTML either).
>We also know that it will look different on every browser there is......And printing the document is yet another problem
Yup, it would look different on each browser. What's the problem with that? It would also look different when it is printed in different countries! There's no way I could print the british document they way they want me to because in North America (my homeland) we don't use metric paper so I'd have to ruin their "looks the same no matter where you print it" idea anyways.
If you use a page size specific format like word and pdf, you can easily be screwed by page size (same with postscript). HTML formats quite nicely on paper, TYVM. If it doesn't, well, perhaps you aren't using a decent HTML engine? Just a thought...
>if it displays at all.
If it doesn't either your browser is broken or you aren't creating HTML.
With PDF you have to download a 5 MB viewer every year so you can "keep up" with every new version of PDF released. With plain text HTML I can still use mosaic to view files. Now that's backward compatibility that's hard to beat.
Does that explain why the formats aren't acceptable?
If not, lets put it clear, in terms that don't even require open source thinking: When you are presenting prettied up plain text (like those documents) then use a format desgined for the purpose -- HTML comes to mind. Distributing plain text in word and pdf shows you aren't "up" on even the slightest technical issues. It's simply the wrong tool for the job.
>Any video recording device is required by law to either be affected by the sync signal corruption or to detect it and intentionally degrade the recording quality. Unfortunately, Macrovision has all of the patents on this technique, which means that you must license it from them if you want to comply with the law.
The own the patent on Automatic Gain Control?
Nahhh. I find that difficult to believe.
Here's a link or two you'd be interested in. This isn't patented by Macrovision, and never can be. Oh, and the best part is it has uses other than for duplicating copy protected movies so it will (probably) never be illegal.
- Hunger strikes
- Smoking
- Not washing
- Using computers too much
- Watching TV too much
- Refusing to "talk over" a situation
- Hogging [insert anything here]
- Protesting
- Swearing
- Being nasty
- Being a jerk
- Practical jokes
- Farting without a license
Because all these things cause emotional pain and suffering to others -- most especially the children and spouses!
Price:
$55/month (8 GB capped -- $15/extra GB)
$45/month (3 GB capped -- no extra GB)
The card will run you at least $200 unless you get a deal on a used one (check ebay, or the nebulink Buy & Sell forum).
[Note: Prices may have changed -- I haven't checked my bill for a while]
>A dedicated (not unlimited) modem link will cost about $50 a month on top of the satellite costs.
I know, its a bit of a bummer.:-/
The benefit, however, is that getting a a big C & Ku-band combo dish will cost you nearly nothing -- people are throwing them away all the time now.
The only investment will be in the DVB card. Nebulink will authorize any card that can pick up their signal. I'd suggest you find a DVB card that can pick up both digital data and FTA MPEG2 (that way you can get free TV -- bonus!).
>You might want to look into the tsocks module for linux, it's good for when you want to socksify non-socks apps with just an LD_PRELOAD
Thanks! I will add that to the howto.
BTW: Nebulink also proxies mail, and seems to proxy NNTP (didn't work for me, though -- didn't bother me cuz SOCKS is fine for that).
I wrote a howto on it that goes into excruciating detail how to set their Telemann card up in Linux.
One nice thing that Nebulink offers that Starband (and any other two way satellite service) can't is reliability in bad weather. Disregarding any problems on their side, a 10 ft. BUD will get you good reception of their signal through just about any weather. Barring your phone lines going down, or your power going out, you can surf the web while it snows/rains/hails.:)
Nebulink actually once offered a non-proxy service. They set up a VPN through their satellite using IPSEC. It was compliant to the standard. Unfortunately, the freeswan author isn't interesting in adding in the less secure, way faster method of data transfer which is really necessary for IPSEC over satellite, and I'm not up to the task. I prefer their proxy service, anyhow.
>Well, as my warez kiddie neighbor's son found out last week, they are capping uploads to 10MB/day and downloads to 150MB/day. After that point, their filters drop about 25% of your packets and the connection is pretty much useless until midnight.
Read that newsgroup, or search on deja for "leaky bucket" on the various direcpc newsgroups and enjoy how absolutely pathetic that solution really is.
If my provider did that to me I'd drop them so fast I'd ask for the other half of the day back. That and I'd avoid buying anything their company touches, ever. For the rest of my life. Period.
If I get internet I expect it to be at least reliable to the point that the provider doesn't purposely cause my connection to fail. Yuck!
>I will be sticking with TW for the forseeable future because this is one company that has finally figured out how to provide excellent cable modem service.
If alt.satellite.direcpc has anything to say, you may as well stick with them. Once all their real users drop off (you know, the ones that reccomend the service to the light users so the internet company can make more money) the speed will be ultra snappy.
>Nonsense, and I clearly addressed this point in my post: if there were an unpoliced highway running from Mexico to the US, it would be shut down.
There are unpoliced highways between Canada and America. Which is what I was talking about. And, strangely enough, more of your mary jane comes from us rather than Mexico.
No, these highways have not been shut down. Well, maybe now after 9/11, but before, never been a problem.
>Take this out of the "Slashdot, info/music wants to be free" world and explain to me how this law is unjust.
Ok, lets also take KaZaa out of the IT world and put it IRL then.
KaZaa is a music sharing network that depends on its users to ensure they only distribute free music. KaZaa is no more at fault for your personal failure to use your own judgement than the city is at fault when people use city roads to traffic drugs.
Using a road to commit crimes is no harder (actually its easier -- notice how much easier it is to break the speed limits) than using KaZaa to break copyright. And, normally, the law punishes the guilty (copyright violators) and upholds the rights of the innocent (the people building the infrastructure who never broke the law doing it).
>If you made music, you'd want to get paid for your effort, too...
I agree. That's why we must go after the perpetrators (people using the KaZaa network illicitly) and not the builders.
There you go -- no slashdot mumbo jumbo. Just 100% clear laymans terms. You should be able to tell that to just about anyone on the street and they should understand.:)
>Setting up printers in Windows is as simple as it could get.
I dare you to get an Epson Stylus Colour (original) to print as well as it did in Win 3.1 working like that in XP. Oooops! No recent Epson drivers. You have to use the (ugly) built in windows XP drivers. Linux was far easier. Just get the GS code you want and recompile.
The windows solution: Throw away the perfectly good printer and buy another.
Back then that printer was $1/dpi. I wasn't going to throw that away (especially since it's output doesn't look any worse than your average $100 inkjet printer does now), so I installed linux.
If you define simple as crossing out the impossible and looking at what's left, then yeah, windows is a breeze.
That would be misrepresenting the product which is probably illegal.
The product is used, and has be "checked" for quality. It could be sold as refurbished, renewed, opened, tested, whatever, but unless it carries an "I'm USED!" style label the company is misprepresenting the product.
Notice that no matter how nicely returned your opened electronics to Best Buy, Future Shop and such are they always market it as open box, refurbished, repackaged, whatever.
Customers (normally) won't buy opened product without either a guarantee (which can't be offered in this case) or a discount.
They lose twice. They can either throw it out and lose big, or sell it as opened and lose a little twice.
I dunno, but my College uses MPE/iX on an HP minicomputer for payroll/accounting stuff. We deal with at least 200 or 300 companies, maybe more. Our payroll/accounting staff are (AFAIK) no more or less trained on using a computer than any "average" person from their field. We have (at least) a few hundred employees.
>To encode a 10Khz note (sine wave, which means like a smooth ocean wave) that moves from volume 0% to volume 100% immediatly, 16/44.1 can only describe the change in 2 discreet steps. Imagine a 2 step stair when what we want is a pond ripple.
Sorry to say this, but an audio DAC does not do this.
I was corrected on this point once myself, so I'll help you too.
When a high-frequency sound is to be played, harmonics above the sampling rate are discarded (all instruments have harmonics, unless you like listening to test tones). When a DAC sees a strong high-to-low swing it shapes it (jeez... can't remember the name now... Q filter? Delta filter?) into a sine wave. By adding these sine-wave shapes together you get an exact representation of the sound below the maximum sampling frequency.
Basically, a pure sine wave is dead easy for a DAC to represent (no harmonics), whereas a true square wave (infinite harmonics) is impossible for a DAC to perfectly represent.
Fortunately, most instruments aren't square waves, and even so, most square waves can be reasonably approximated.
Anyways, for a more thorough (and correct) analysis, talk to your local Telecomm engineer.:)
Slashdot Mirror
>Places like banks actually hope to lose your business if you don't have very much money, because you simply aren't worth the trouble to them.
You're quite right. When I was 14 I tried to cash my first paycheque at a Toronto Dominion bank in Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. They refused to cash it (is that legal?). I even had an account with them at that point.
Now I'm 23 and I'm with the Bank of Montreal (they switched over / new management / whatever) and never bothered to read past the title on their offer to stay with the TD bank.
Now, of course, I use their services, and give them much more money, much more often. Was it worth blowing me off for that cheque?
Probably not. And its something I plan to remember and tell others for the indefinite future.
>They also contain lead, which is banned from landfills
;)
Not everywhere. I threw out some old TVs at the local landfill just a short while ago.
I guess the environmentalists gave up when a scientist explained to them how difficult it is for lead to leach out of glass...
If this were actually dangerous you'd see "Tell your kids: don't lick the TV screen" warnings near the tube of the monitor.
>CRT monitors no matter how small are still big, clunky, and waist energy.
Agreed.
> LCD and TFT monitors will take over the market simply because they are better for the sellers as for the buyers, Smaller size cheaper to store, cheaper to ship. IMHO this company has a few merits but is beating a dead horse.
You forget the merits of a CRT:
- Better saturation
- Closer colour tolerance
- Adjustable colour temperature
- Clearer picture
- Better resolution flexibility
- Better contrast
- Better brightness
- Faster response time
- Simple manufacturing
- Consistent quality - No "dead pixels"
- Very high refresh rates making them perfect for 3d shutter glasses
- Cheaper to fix
- No backlight to wear out (no, don't point out the irony)
- No ghosting
- Free antialiasing
All at a much, much lower price than LCDs.
I don't agree they are better for all buyers, just those forced to buy a 2' x 3' desk for their computer.
As far as better for the sellers, other than the weight difference, I don't see how. Normally customers want cheaper and better. Weight and size are often only a concern when the buyer has made a poor choice in purchasing a desk.
An unhackable system cannot be designed simply because (to be useful to us) at some point the system must be controlled by us.
If the hackers can't hack the equipment, they will simply socially engineer themselves into a position to use it.
The only unhackable system is one contained entirely in 10 ft. thick of diamond. But then, how could it be used?
There's the dilemma. As long as there's a human involved, you can't win. That human can be tricked, and then no matter how much security you have you are screwed.
For example, a OTP is crackable if you can convince one of two the parties that you are on their side.
>There is no 'e' in metaphor.
:)
That must make it difficult to pronounce.
Em-Tee-A-for... hmmm...
Oh, I get it! An Empty Metaphor.
"Network Interface Corporation" -- NIC for short (I guess it's a play on words... :)
:)
:)
A few of the internal hubs say "Network Innovations Corporation" and bear the same stylized "N" the others do.
I also remember getting a couple of Tandy 1000 arcnet cards. Don't recall who made them, unfortunately -- right now they're sitting in the local dump with another box of arcnet cards (yes, 200 cards _is_ way too much for one person -- especially when you can't even give them away [sniff]). I kept a box of 20 or so cards "just in case".
Just FYI, some cards are using an NCR IC, some are using one made by RP. But both use the same set of drivers.
That's 3Mb/s! :)
It works great. You even get to choose how many terminators you want on the line. Supposedly they've bumped it to 144Mb/s (according to the linux kernel, anyways).
Good to 20,000 ft with enough repeaters. Very cool. Supports ring, bus, and star technology all at the same time!
(Yup, I'm using it right now. Anyone want a box of arcnet cards? They all use the same driver!)
>HTML is based on SGML, but also based on what, with hindsight, turned out to be a fatal flaw: it mixes structure mark-up with formatting mark-up. Note the presence of both and tags showing absolute formatting, and also and tags showing structured mark-up, for example. As a result, while HTML served its purpose admirably when it was first created, the whole foundation on which it rests is now very tired.
Ok, I see that point. But I would say that in most standard HTML the author is given the option to decide wether they want to use absolute or structured formatting.
Myself, when I write a "real" document (not slashdot posts!) I always go for the structured formatting. But then again, my first internet account involved surfing the web with lynx through a dial up shell account, so perhaps I'm just being a too "backwards compatible".
>So, in discussing whether or not to use open source software, including several business applications that routinely use binary formats, you think it's important to use nothing but plain or minimally decorated text? I think that's taking things a bit far.
Yes and no. When the format is human readable there's no chance to make it proprietary. The best example of this is HTML. Both netscape and microsoft have done their best to abuse HTML to the point where documents will only show up in one browser or the other. What's nice is that they can easily adapt to each others "improvements" because the format allows anyone to simply read what the new tags are and implement/ignore them.
Imagine if adobe decided to make a way to embed executable files (for example -- it could be anything) into PDF and didn't tell the people working on PDF clones how they did it. If they put enough effort into it, it could be a very long time before the free alternatives properly read newer PDFs ever again. And, knowing Adobe's background, it wouldn't surprise me if they decided to do something like this.
Just imagine how much quicker a word converter for unix would have been made if word files were plain text with human readable markup tags.
Ahh well, I'm getting a little offtopic here. Either way, Adobe is a proprietary software based company that (IMHO) has done some not-so-nice things in the recent past. Myself (and, I'm sure many other open source advocates) would prefer not to give them free advertising by using their format.
But, to each his own.
Accusing someone who took the time to read your reply of being unable to do so is more than a bit outlandish.
FYI: This is PC Magazine the publication.
BTW: Not every PC magazine comes with Acrobat reader. In North America very few magazines come with CDs (or at least so I have witnessed), and, more importantly, the majority of PC magazines I'd buy would more likely come with the latest revision of XFree or PC Burnin software than Acrobat.
Or do you mean magazines about Windows specifically (the bulk of which, over here, are published by ZD), and not magazines about PCs in general? Either that or I see you're from the UK, where experience has told me you pay 4 times our price on magazines but you get a CD stuck to the front of every issue. Seems like an expensive way to get Acrobat, but each to their own, I suppose.
>Ambiguous statements. Fair use. UK law. You. Have. No. Case. So sue me.
:)
Clear statement. American Site. American law. I have a damn good case, but have better things to do than sue you. Of course, if I did, you could just default, in which case you'd be barred from entering the USA. Not that I care, since I'm Canadian.
BTW: Read the bottom line on all the pages on slashdot. "Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2001 OSDN.". I was given the right to copyright my work and I opted to act upon it, TYVM.
>You can use any other metric you like, but that doesn't change the fact that everyone I know, from my co-workers to my parents, can read an Acrobat file trivially. And that includes people running PCs, Macs and Linux.
It requires you to download (or, it seems in your case, buy magazines with) copies of their software. Widely accessible is the WWW, for example, since the world's most popular OS (Windows, unfortunately) comes with a web browser. Acrobat, however, is not. An acrobat viewer comes with absolutely no MS operating system -- not even windows XP!
Calling Acrobat easily accesible is like calling pkunzip for DOS easily accessible. Yup, for years you could get it very easily, but you were still screwed unless you remembered to bring it with you. Same with acrobat. You can certainly bring the document with you on a floppy, but unless you remember to tag along with a CD with a viewer on it, you might end up screwed.
>It is a bastardised mark-up language, based on ill-planned roots, that's grown beyond its usable potential.
Prove it. Do it. Show me the language they bastardized (ie: made worse). Common, I dare you. Improving upon something, however, doesn't count.
Unless you can do this, your baseless accusations carry no weight with me.
>XML is a vastly superior approach for genuine mark-up of structured data
Please stay on topic. We are discussing PDF vs. HTML here, not HTML vs. XML. I may or may not agree that XML is better than HTML but this has no grounds being discussed at the moment.
>HTML is stuck somewhere in the middle, carried along only by momentum, as it has been for several years now.
Momentum is good. Without momentum, your language will languish with the likes of PL/1, J++, and that wierd IBM markup language that was used on a few old encyclopedia CDROMS that no one can remember.
Sending an HTML document to someone guarantees that no matter what computer they have, they can read your message. Even if their computer is a C64, they can still poke about reading the source.
Just try reading the source to a PDF. Can't do it. You have to have the reader. Easily accessible, not exactly.
I'll leave the DMCA/Skylarov issue alone since the AC above has already done a much better job explaining it to you than I would have.
>As for the Killustrator fiasco, as far as I can see, Adobe were perfectly entitled to defend their use of the name Illustrator against a blatant rip-off. I didn't think the Killustrator people had a legal or moral leg to stand on then, and I don't now, either.
I don't think it was a blatant rip off, and I think they have a moral leg to stand on, even if it isn't legal.
Fortunately, you are free to differ with me. Except I don't have to put (TM) after anything I say. [Oh, BTW: You forgot one! Adobe technically has the right to take legal action now! Perhaps they'll just inform the justice department and say sorry a month later?]
>They provide a mechanism that aims to prevent people using their technology from being ripped off.
In my opinion they provide a mechanism that aims to rip off the users of their product. I liken the (pathetic) encryption attempts in PDF to those of the Cactus Data Shield, and accordingly, I find it disgusting and insulting that the technology was even invented.
Again, feel free to differ in your opinion. But before you do, here's something you should feel completely at home with:
This entire comment (c)2002 shepd. It may not be reproduced in whole or in part without express permission. This includes but is not limited to any and all excerpts which may or may not be used in replies. Any and all copies of this message not stored on slashdot.org must be destroyed within 1 hour of receiving them.
>Now look at the good points: Acrobat format is widely accessible, [snip] and get back to us when you've entered the new millenium.
Oh boy are you out of it. Lets see some counterpoints:
- Acrobat is not widely accessible. No open source viewer has (AFAIK) ever been released by Adobe.
- If you think PDF is the best way to distribute long technical documents, you obviously have never read a databook in PDF form without printing it out first. Oh, and no, I don't think HTML is perfect for it either, but it beats the pants off PDF.
- Why don't you go and learn about the usability impact of trying to squeeze 8.5:11 paper documents onto a 4:3 screen before you spout off about HTML limitations that don't exist? If the formatting is poor, fix your crappy browser or improve the standard. The W3C is open to intelligent suggestions.
In summary, it isn't my problem you choose to view the web with lynx. However, it is my problem when your innuendo suggests HTML is nothing more than a poor cousin to a man page.
I'm glad to see you've entered the millenium along with me. Now why don't you get some software made during it?
All of which should be generic images on the site already. They should be hard linked in the document, and voila! When you view the document on an internet connected machine, the images magically load.
Should you expect the client to not have an internet connection (a strange assumption since the client did download the document to start with) you could simply have directories with files as such:
/document_name/index.html
/document_name/images/corporate_logo.png
/document_name/images/government_logo.png
If you find that difficult to do, you have no business being a webmaster for any government (including Sealand).
And, BTW, an archiving technique is not necessary to copy directories of files. People have been doing this for decades on varioues systems without needed the added "complication" you soon expound on.
>Which are not one file. This means added complication for a distribution format for this. What will it be, tar.gz, WIN.ZIP or sit.hqx?
Obviously if you were to choose a method which any computer could open, which would not require people to sign a license agreement, which would be open source, and one which almost all web browsers can automatically decompress, the answer is tar.gz.
Now, since we are talking absurdities here, PDF adds complication because PDF is not readable or writeable by even your above average human armed with a text editor. HTML, however, is writeable and readable by anyone with a text editor, on most any device with a keyboard and display.
>you are obviously not the right person to argue about this matter
I agree. We seem to be on totally different levels of understanding on the issues. You seem to think HTML is "optimized", whereas I know that "optimized" HTML is PHB speak for (insert browser name here) document. In other words, "optimized" HTML isn't.
>Almost anything that can't be done in plain text can also not been done in HTML.
Baloney. That's a complete load of bunk and now you can
>HTML is simply not a substitute for most things PDF is used for - the rest can just as well be done in plain text.
First off, I just proved to you HTML is much more than plain text. Now with that being understood, what is your point?
Since it seems you have nothing to add, I'll add something -- PostScript can do everything people need from PDF. That and it is 100% supported by various open source utilities, availiable for more operating systems than I care to count (including Microsoft Windows and Unix), unlike the acrobat reader.
If they really _must_ include those graphics in the text (which seems like a waste) PostScript has been the choice for open source advocates ages longer than PDF.
>For a start, the current version is on the cover disk of almost every PC magazine I've ever bought.
:-D LOL, ROTFLMAO, et al.
Please mod the parent as Funny, it really deserves it! You accuse me of FUD and use a ZD net publication to support your accusation! The irony is delicious!
>Bull. I have a current version of Acrobat on every machine I use at home and at work
Some of us don't pay $6.95 a month to stay up to date with Acrobat Reader by buying PC Magazine. Seems to be a very expensive way of staying up to date. Well, that and in Canada when American magazines come with CDs they usually end up costing $10 a month. I don't even pay $120 a year to Microsoft so why would I even consider paying it for a file viewer that often prevents me from saving and printing?
>and I don't think I've ever downloaded a 5MB install.
Yup, that's because it is actually larger. Go ahead and try downloading it yourself, FUDmeister.
>hat we can tell about this document is that if it contains graphics, it's more than one file
:)
...And printing the document is yet another problem
From what I saw, there's no graphics (just plain text).
>and those files will have to be kept together
Operating systems not related to CP/M offer subdirectories for this.
>or you can only view it on-line or it's some proprietary format
It isn't viewing online when you have to download the entire file first before you can view it. Word isn't online, and PDF barely manages to be online, but both are pathetic compared to HTML.
>Let's also assume they would not have used HTML coming out of FrontPage or even Word, nothing being "optimized" for one browser or the other.
Any "optimized" HTML becomes an IE document, Netscape document, whatever. It isn't proper HTML if it can't pass the W3C verifier (yep, slashdot doesn't use proper HTML either).
>We also know that it will look different on every browser there is...
Yup, it would look different on each browser. What's the problem with that? It would also look different when it is printed in different countries! There's no way I could print the british document they way they want me to because in North America (my homeland) we don't use metric paper so I'd have to ruin their "looks the same no matter where you print it" idea anyways.
If you use a page size specific format like word and pdf, you can easily be screwed by page size (same with postscript). HTML formats quite nicely on paper, TYVM. If it doesn't, well, perhaps you aren't using a decent HTML engine? Just a thought...
>if it displays at all.
If it doesn't either your browser is broken or you aren't creating HTML.
With PDF you have to download a 5 MB viewer every year so you can "keep up" with every new version of PDF released. With plain text HTML I can still use mosaic to view files. Now that's backward compatibility that's hard to beat.
I won't even bother explaining why word isn't open -- that should be obvious to anyone intelligent enough to create an account on slashdot.
So that leaves Adobe Acrobat. Let's revisit the big issues against the company first:
- Dimitry Skylarov
- Killustrator
Now lets remind ourselves of the biggest caveat they have against open source pdf compatible filters:
- PDF saving
Does that explain why the formats aren't acceptable?
If not, lets put it clear, in terms that don't even require open source thinking: When you are presenting prettied up plain text (like those documents) then use a format desgined for the purpose -- HTML comes to mind. Distributing plain text in word and pdf shows you aren't "up" on even the slightest technical issues. It's simply the wrong tool for the job.
>Any video recording device is required by law to either be affected by the sync signal corruption or to detect it and intentionally degrade the recording quality. Unfortunately, Macrovision has all of the patents on this technique, which means that you must license it from them if you want to comply with the law.
The own the patent on Automatic Gain Control?
Nahhh. I find that difficult to believe.
Here's a link or two you'd be interested in. This isn't patented by Macrovision, and never can be. Oh, and the best part is it has uses other than for duplicating copy protected movies so it will (probably) never be illegal.
In that case, we need laws against:
- Hunger strikes
- Smoking
- Not washing
- Using computers too much
- Watching TV too much
- Refusing to "talk over" a situation
- Hogging [insert anything here]
- Protesting
- Swearing
- Being nasty
- Being a jerk
- Practical jokes
- Farting without a license
Because all these things cause emotional pain and suffering to others -- most especially the children and spouses!
BRING ON THE LAWS!
Price:
:-/
:)
$55/month (8 GB capped -- $15/extra GB)
$45/month (3 GB capped -- no extra GB)
The card will run you at least $200 unless you get a deal on a used one (check ebay, or the nebulink Buy & Sell forum).
[Note: Prices may have changed -- I haven't checked my bill for a while]
>A dedicated (not unlimited) modem link will cost about $50 a month on top of the satellite costs.
I know, its a bit of a bummer.
The benefit, however, is that getting a a big C & Ku-band combo dish will cost you nearly nothing -- people are throwing them away all the time now.
The only investment will be in the DVB card. Nebulink will authorize any card that can pick up their signal. I'd suggest you find a DVB card that can pick up both digital data and FTA MPEG2 (that way you can get free TV -- bonus!).
>You might want to look into the tsocks module for linux, it's good for when you want to socksify non-socks apps with just an LD_PRELOAD
Thanks! I will add that to the howto.
BTW: Nebulink also proxies mail, and seems to proxy NNTP (didn't work for me, though -- didn't bother me cuz SOCKS is fine for that).
I wrote a howto on it that goes into excruciating detail how to set their Telemann card up in Linux.
One nice thing that Nebulink offers that Starband (and any other two way satellite service) can't is reliability in bad weather. Disregarding any problems on their side, a 10 ft. BUD will get you good reception of their signal through just about any weather. Barring your phone lines going down, or your power going out, you can surf the web while it snows/rains/hails.
Nebulink actually once offered a non-proxy service. They set up a VPN through their satellite using IPSEC. It was compliant to the standard. Unfortunately, the freeswan author isn't interesting in adding in the less secure, way faster method of data transfer which is really necessary for IPSEC over satellite, and I'm not up to the task. I prefer their proxy service, anyhow.
>Well, as my warez kiddie neighbor's son found out last week, they are capping uploads to 10MB/day and downloads to 150MB/day. After that point, their filters drop about 25% of your packets and the connection is pretty much useless until midnight.
Oh yeah, that strategy is a real winner.
Read that newsgroup, or search on deja for "leaky bucket" on the various direcpc newsgroups and enjoy how absolutely pathetic that solution really is.
If my provider did that to me I'd drop them so fast I'd ask for the other half of the day back. That and I'd avoid buying anything their company touches, ever. For the rest of my life. Period.
If I get internet I expect it to be at least reliable to the point that the provider doesn't purposely cause my connection to fail. Yuck!
>I will be sticking with TW for the forseeable future because this is one company that has finally figured out how to provide excellent cable modem service.
If alt.satellite.direcpc has anything to say, you may as well stick with them. Once all their real users drop off (you know, the ones that reccomend the service to the light users so the internet company can make more money) the speed will be ultra snappy.
>just like it is deliberate that you can only use Windows on the NAT firewall.
:)
Switch to a linux friendly satellite internet provider now! (Fast too! I'm downloading at 500 kbps right now.)
I've been using their service with Linux for the past few months with very pleasing results.
Starband is run by marketing, anyways. Enjoy this mish-mash of clips from their site:
"If you can see the southern sky, you can get StarBand"
"Is StarBand available outside of the continental U.S.?" [no]
I was wondering why everytime I tried to look south in Canada my eyes would glaze over. Now I "see" why.
No, I'm not an agent of the company, just a pleased consumer.
>Nonsense, and I clearly addressed this point in my post: if there were an unpoliced highway running from Mexico to the US, it would be shut down.
There are unpoliced highways between Canada and America. Which is what I was talking about. And, strangely enough, more of your mary jane comes from us rather than Mexico.
No, these highways have not been shut down. Well, maybe now after 9/11, but before, never been a problem.
>Take this out of the "Slashdot, info/music wants to be free" world and explain to me how this law is unjust.
:)
Ok, lets also take KaZaa out of the IT world and put it IRL then.
KaZaa is a music sharing network that depends on its users to ensure they only distribute free music. KaZaa is no more at fault for your personal failure to use your own judgement than the city is at fault when people use city roads to traffic drugs.
Using a road to commit crimes is no harder (actually its easier -- notice how much easier it is to break the speed limits) than using KaZaa to break copyright. And, normally, the law punishes the guilty (copyright violators) and upholds the rights of the innocent (the people building the infrastructure who never broke the law doing it).
>If you made music, you'd want to get paid for your effort, too...
I agree. That's why we must go after the perpetrators (people using the KaZaa network illicitly) and not the builders.
There you go -- no slashdot mumbo jumbo. Just 100% clear laymans terms. You should be able to tell that to just about anyone on the street and they should understand.
>Setting up printers in Windows is as simple as it could get.
I dare you to get an Epson Stylus Colour (original) to print as well as it did in Win 3.1 working like that in XP. Oooops! No recent Epson drivers. You have to use the (ugly) built in windows XP drivers. Linux was far easier. Just get the GS code you want and recompile.
The windows solution: Throw away the perfectly good printer and buy another.
Back then that printer was $1/dpi. I wasn't going to throw that away (especially since it's output doesn't look any worse than your average $100 inkjet printer does now), so I installed linux.
If you define simple as crossing out the impossible and looking at what's left, then yeah, windows is a breeze.
That would be misrepresenting the product which is probably illegal.
:)
The product is used, and has be "checked" for quality. It could be sold as refurbished, renewed, opened, tested, whatever, but unless it carries an "I'm USED!" style label the company is misprepresenting the product.
Notice that no matter how nicely returned your opened electronics to Best Buy, Future Shop and such are they always market it as open box, refurbished, repackaged, whatever.
Customers (normally) won't buy opened product without either a guarantee (which can't be offered in this case) or a discount.
They lose twice. They can either throw it out and lose big, or sell it as opened and lose a little twice.
Time for me to start buying music again!
I dunno, but my College uses MPE/iX on an HP minicomputer for payroll/accounting stuff. We deal with at least 200 or 300 companies, maybe more. Our payroll/accounting staff are (AFAIK) no more or less trained on using a computer than any "average" person from their field. We have (at least) a few hundred employees.
Unix would be easier, and Linux simpler still.
>To encode a 10Khz note (sine wave, which means like a smooth ocean wave) that moves from volume 0% to volume 100% immediatly, 16/44.1 can only describe the change in 2 discreet steps. Imagine a 2 step stair when what we want is a pond ripple.
:)
Sorry to say this, but an audio DAC does not do this.
I was corrected on this point once myself, so I'll help you too.
When a high-frequency sound is to be played, harmonics above the sampling rate are discarded (all instruments have harmonics, unless you like listening to test tones). When a DAC sees a strong high-to-low swing it shapes it (jeez... can't remember the name now... Q filter? Delta filter?) into a sine wave. By adding these sine-wave shapes together you get an exact representation of the sound below the maximum sampling frequency.
Basically, a pure sine wave is dead easy for a DAC to represent (no harmonics), whereas a true square wave (infinite harmonics) is impossible for a DAC to perfectly represent.
Fortunately, most instruments aren't square waves, and even so, most square waves can be reasonably approximated.
Anyways, for a more thorough (and correct) analysis, talk to your local Telecomm engineer.
Here's some info.
This is the best layman's explanation I've found.