I agree that Nemesis was a good movie. Heck, I'll even say it was a great movie. I enjoy it more than most the Star Trek movies. In some ways I actually thought it was better than (don't kill me!) Wrath of Khan.
However, I think Berman needs to understand that, by and large, fans think that the last few years of Star Trek have been pure, utter crap. Only the most rabid Trek fans have enjoyed anything from DS9 on. DS9 was a soap opera (much more so than the last two seasons of TNG; at least TNG had some compelling story lines) and Voyager and Enterprise just plain old sucked. This from a guy who can more or less recite lines while watching Wrath of Khan.
Berman, Braga, just think about this: I hear more sci-fi fans talk about Andromeda than Enterprise. In that case I think it's more due to the fact that Andromeda is in syndication and local channels use it to fill out their lineup, as well as Sci-Fi and WGN, among others, carrying it. I mean, c'mon, guys, you're being beaten out by something that carries Gene's name! I'd much rather watch one of the Stargate shows or the modern Battlestar Galactica than watch that dreck you call Enterprise. Why? Well, it may not be the best acting, but the shows are just better. And that's sad, because compared to old Trek, all of them suck.
No, Rick, it's not merely oversaturation; if oversaturation was the only key problem, sitcoms would have died out years ago. No, Rick, it's you and Paramont. Craptacular story lines, craptacular acting, and no offense to LeVar, but craptacular directing too. Add to that that the show is stuck on the least-popular network in the U.S., and it's not hard to figure out why Trek is dead.
A simple parsable file with dependencies, an install script/wizard included in the tarball, with standard filenames (e.g. PackageDependencies.txt and Install) are all that is needed. Leave resolving the dependencies and executing the installation script to those competent to do so, namely the various package management systems, be they Portage, apt-get, RPM package managers, or what have you.
Why limit the discussion to tar--about using CPIO or ar instead of tar?
I could see having to release a PDF under the GPL if I embed the fonts, but that's about the only way.
What are the legal implications of embedding commercial fonts in a document, anyway?
Something like a Scribus document, though, uh-uh, hell no. I'm looking at one of my Scribus documents right now (yes, real people actually use Scribus) and I find no fonts in there. I find references to fonts, but no fonts.
Here, here's a snippet from one of my documents. This is from a style:
I'll be damned if I'm releasing my document under Microsoft's Webfont EULA, by the way.
If I used GPLed fonts in this document, and the person on the other end had those fonts, then Scribus would use those fonts. If they didn't have those fonts, they'd be prompted to substitute the fonts. Sure, there'd be problems with text flow and what have you, but it's not as if the theoretical GPLed font is necessary.
Unless we're talking about embedding fonts, this is a bit like claiming that Wired content is GPLed because they talk about Linux on occasion. It's preposterous and anyone with more than a functioning brainstem should be able to figure this out without ever consulting a lawyer.
A few years ago I may have agreed with Ian, but now? I've got to wonder if the world would be better off with Debian devs heading over to the Ubuntu camp. Seriously, put Canonical in charge of the core, and let the slavering hordes continue to push the Universe packages out. I never thought that Debian would make for a decent desktop distribution until I used Ubuntu--and I had tried other desktop-oriented Debian-derived systems.
Ubuntu's trying to push the envelope, and changes things in doing so? FOR SHAME!
That's essentially the sort of system I'm using right now, though I took the route of using an older board and a cheap VIA C3 processor. It chugs along faithfully, though a bit slow when the numbers need to be crunched, but most of the time this Kubuntu-based system runs more than acceptably fast for my taste.
If you're not going to run OS X, it's a waste of money to buy a Mac, even if it's a cheap Mini. If you absolutely must have a Mini, go ahead and run OS X. All sorts of Free Software has native and native-ish ports; NeoOffice, AbiWord, and Gimp.app come to mind immediately. More software is being ported all the time as well. Given time and resources, RangerRick and Co. may manage to get a "native" KDE running. How cool is that?
So yeah, if you have to have OS X, get your Mac; otherwise, save your money and buy a lowend PC that'll be nearly as fast for less than half the cost.
I've always heard that Nautilus can do anything that k3b can, but I've never gotten it to do things like, say, burn an audio CD. Can you comment? I was under the impression that all one had to do was drop music files on a CD Creator "folder". Never gotten it to work, though. I suppose I could be doing something wrong, but if I am, isn't the point of automagic Nautilus burning that I don't have to think?
So can you tell me how a container format such as QuickTime is "crap"? And what format is "good"? Also, Real is a company, and Window Media...I'm not sure what the hell that is. I was under the impression that.wmv was another container format.
I hope you're not going to suggest that people use.avi, since it's (wait for it) a container format, and inferior to QuickTime at that. But that's the most common container format, and I think it also qualifies as "Window Media" since it's a Microsoft format and often used for "Window Media".
My apologies! I should RTFA first.;-) I see now that apparently their test images only managed 1% savings using bzip2. Oops! I guess they saved them correctly after all.:-}
If so, could someone check to see if those images were saved using Photoshop Elements? If so, the damn things have PREVIEW IMAGES embedded! NO WONDER! Look at the marvelous improvement here:
original: 26K 12 Jan 12:34 DSCN3974_TN.jpg bzip2 -9: 18K 12 Jan 12:34 DSCN3974_TN.jpg.bz2
According to bzip2, that's a 31.71% savings!
But what happens if I open that file in Photoshop and Save for Web using the JPEG HighO preset?
Original: 7K 12 Jan 12:39 DSCN3974_TN2.jpg bzip2 -9: 8K 12 Jan 12:39 DSCN3974_TN2.jpg.bz2
Larger (-5.12% "savings"), but I suspect that that's due to bzip2 not working well on small files. Let's try gzipping those files!
15K 12 Jan 12:34 DSCN3974_TN.jpg.gz 7K 12 Jan 12:39 DSCN3974_TN2.jpg.gz
That's 0% savings on the "web optimized" version.
Difference? No embedded previews for the "Web optimized" version.
Move along, nothing to see here. I'll be contacting the author of the original article shortly.
Keep in mind that it is the right thing according to you and you are one person. Comcast is not going to cater individually to your interests and they must believe that the gaming audience is larger or a more compelling demographic for advertisers than the old audience was. Can you argue otherwise?
It doesn't take a keen business sense to figure out that when someone's playing a game on their console game system, they're not watching TV.
Flamebait aside, especially since I'm (barely) under 30...
Leo was (and still is) a lot smarter and a lot better at answering questions that you seem to think. He also knew some of the history of the technology he was talking about and was often able to come up with solutions from outside of the normal Windows Pentium 4 PC or PowerPC Mac spheres.
Agreed. Kevin may be intelligent but he's more of the l33t-h4x0r-techie type, and comes across that way; he very rarely lost me but I could see how he could lose most people. I never got that feeling from Leo. Plus once in a while he'd bring in some really obscure, obsolete knowledge that nevertheless people like me could get a kick out of.
Obscure, obsolete information on G4TechTV? Unless it's about Pac-Man, Asteroids, Pong, Donkey Kong or the early days of Bungee Software, you won't see it on G4TechTV.
I agree, but for a different reason: why Linux? Why not some lighterweight OS than the Linux 2.4.x kernel?
Don't get me wrong; I like the oh-look-someone-ported-Linux-to-a-toaster-isnt-tha t-neat stories as much as the next Slashdotter. But I do have to scratch my head on this one.
OK, you got me there, but I think you're something like the 3rd person that actually attempted to use X11 on MacOS. There's a need, I'm sure, but what it has right now is usually good enough to get around the temporary "need". If you need something more than a temporary fix, you shouldn't be using a Mac. Or Windows, for that matter. Sorta like walking into a shoe store and complaining that you can't find suitable pants!
I use X11 all the time, and use Apple's wonky window manager. I like it! I can run those few apps I can't live without, and I don't have to use the equally wonky Aqua ports of X11 apps. And thanks to the Fink project, I can install something like Emacs for X11 and have it just work.
This begs the question... why do you want to use OOo on a Mac? It's fun to tinker around with, as a hobby, but I'd use MS Office for MacOS X. And if you're complaining about the cost, well really, you should have thought about the cost of ownership before you bought that Hummer, son. A Mac is a fancy piece of equipment, and it costs. The cost does not end at hardware alone, although you can sorta get by if you really need to. Sorta like only taking out your H2 on Sundays because you realized you couldn't pay for gas.
Heh. I work at a small newspaper. Explain that to my boss. Someone high up has everyone bamboozled that, hey, MacOS has great, uhm, everything for publishing. Yep, it does. The next time I see someone doing any real color calibration will be the first.;-D
Then again, today's U.S. Judicial branch throws precedent, law, and the U.S. Constitution out the window, so maybe I should just shut up and pledge my loyalty to Big Brother and atone for my double plus ungood badthink.
I know what you're trying to say here, but it reads as if you're trying to tell me that the Internet existed before the existence of advertising. I'll ignore that, really I will.
The real problem is that the money for those darn things has to come from somewhere. To compare a website to a newspaper: if you think that the little freebie papers that get thrown in peoples' driveways all over the U.S. could exist without advertising, you're wrong. There are expenses such as paying the production staff, production costs such as printing, and distribution. Further, if you think the newspaper that costs 50 cents in a paper box is produced for less than 50 cents, you're wrong again. The 50 cents is to cover the circulation side of things; typically, circulation departments (in theory, at least) pay for themselves through (mostly) subscription sales and (partly) rack sales; the newspaper is paid for by (guess what!) advertising. Advertising helps keep employees' wallets from being empty (in my case, just barely;-D), the computers running, the lights on, and (most importantly) the coffee pot running.
If you honestly think that the Internet as we know it will continue to run as-is purely out of the goodness of peoples' hearts, you're deluding yourself. There are miles upon miles of copper, fiber, etc., not to mention all the equipment and electricity necessary to make the Internet work, and some of that cost falls on companies like the one that runs Slashdot. Do you honestly think that Slashdot could go to some ISP and say, "Hey, guys, we need a place to run our high-profile website. Would you do it for us for free?"
Maybe it could happen at a really eccentric university, but someone's still paying for it. Just not directly.
Yes, but spot color doesn't use CMYK, and it's a simple matter of economics. Black + mixed green = setup and running of two presses. CMYK = setup and running of four presses. Setup and running costs money, pure and simple.
You might think that spot color is dead, but you'd be wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
Doctor, it hurts when I breathe...
apt-get install libapache-mod-gzip
which works beautifully on FreeBSD...
Yeah, no shit. It's not like D/BUS has ever been been mentioned on slashdot.
However, I think Berman needs to understand that, by and large, fans think that the last few years of Star Trek have been pure, utter crap. Only the most rabid Trek fans have enjoyed anything from DS9 on. DS9 was a soap opera (much more so than the last two seasons of TNG; at least TNG had some compelling story lines) and Voyager and Enterprise just plain old sucked. This from a guy who can more or less recite lines while watching Wrath of Khan.
Berman, Braga, just think about this: I hear more sci-fi fans talk about Andromeda than Enterprise. In that case I think it's more due to the fact that Andromeda is in syndication and local channels use it to fill out their lineup, as well as Sci-Fi and WGN, among others, carrying it. I mean, c'mon, guys, you're being beaten out by something that carries Gene's name! I'd much rather watch one of the Stargate shows or the modern Battlestar Galactica than watch that dreck you call Enterprise. Why? Well, it may not be the best acting, but the shows are just better. And that's sad, because compared to old Trek, all of them suck.
No, Rick, it's not merely oversaturation; if oversaturation was the only key problem, sitcoms would have died out years ago. No, Rick, it's you and Paramont. Craptacular story lines, craptacular acting, and no offense to LeVar, but craptacular directing too. Add to that that the show is stuck on the least-popular network in the U.S., and it's not hard to figure out why Trek is dead.
Why limit the discussion to tar--about using CPIO or ar instead of tar?
Oh, wait.
Nevermind.
What are the legal implications of embedding commercial fonts in a document, anyway?
Something like a Scribus document, though, uh-uh, hell no. I'm looking at one of my Scribus documents right now (yes, real people actually use Scribus) and I find no fonts in there. I find references to fonts, but no fonts.
Here, here's a snippet from one of my documents. This is from a style:I'll be damned if I'm releasing my document under Microsoft's Webfont EULA, by the way.
If I used GPLed fonts in this document, and the person on the other end had those fonts, then Scribus would use those fonts. If they didn't have those fonts, they'd be prompted to substitute the fonts. Sure, there'd be problems with text flow and what have you, but it's not as if the theoretical GPLed font is necessary.
Unless we're talking about embedding fonts, this is a bit like claiming that Wired content is GPLed because they talk about Linux on occasion. It's preposterous and anyone with more than a functioning brainstem should be able to figure this out without ever consulting a lawyer.
A few years ago I may have agreed with Ian, but now? I've got to wonder if the world would be better off with Debian devs heading over to the Ubuntu camp. Seriously, put Canonical in charge of the core, and let the slavering hordes continue to push the Universe packages out. I never thought that Debian would make for a decent desktop distribution until I used Ubuntu--and I had tried other desktop-oriented Debian-derived systems.
Ubuntu's trying to push the envelope, and changes things in doing so? FOR SHAME!
I'm glad someone pointed out this option.
That's essentially the sort of system I'm using right now, though I took the route of using an older board and a cheap VIA C3 processor. It chugs along faithfully, though a bit slow when the numbers need to be crunched, but most of the time this Kubuntu-based system runs more than acceptably fast for my taste.
If you're not going to run OS X, it's a waste of money to buy a Mac, even if it's a cheap Mini. If you absolutely must have a Mini, go ahead and run OS X. All sorts of Free Software has native and native-ish ports; NeoOffice, AbiWord, and Gimp.app come to mind immediately. More software is being ported all the time as well. Given time and resources, RangerRick and Co. may manage to get a "native" KDE running. How cool is that?
So yeah, if you have to have OS X, get your Mac; otherwise, save your money and buy a lowend PC that'll be nearly as fast for less than half the cost.
I've always heard that Nautilus can do anything that k3b can, but I've never gotten it to do things like, say, burn an audio CD. Can you comment? I was under the impression that all one had to do was drop music files on a CD Creator "folder". Never gotten it to work, though. I suppose I could be doing something wrong, but if I am, isn't the point of automagic Nautilus burning that I don't have to think?
So can you tell me how a container format such as QuickTime is "crap"? And what format is "good"? Also, Real is a company, and Window Media...I'm not sure what the hell that is. I was under the impression that .wmv was another container format.
.avi, since it's (wait for it) a container format, and inferior to QuickTime at that. But that's the most common container format, and I think it also qualifies as "Window Media" since it's a Microsoft format and often used for "Window Media".
I hope you're not going to suggest that people use
The funny thing about trolls is that they often make good points.
:-)
Hell, I've been told by a Ubuntu and GNOME developer that my opinion doesn't matter because I'm smart enough to operate an IRC client. Huh?
I'm rooting for Kubuntu, BTW.
Wow! You don't have time to read the article, but you have time to post a bitchy whiny comment.
Amazing!
My apologies! I should RTFA first. ;-) I see now that apparently their test images only managed 1% savings using bzip2. Oops! I guess they saved them correctly after all. :-}
But what happens if I open that file in Photoshop and Save for Web using the JPEG HighO preset?
Original: 7K 12 Jan 12:39 DSCN3974_TN2.jpg
bzip2 -9: 8K 12 Jan 12:39 DSCN3974_TN2.jpg.bz2
Larger (-5.12% "savings"), but I suspect that that's due to bzip2 not working well on small files. Let's try gzipping those files!That's 0% savings on the "web optimized" version.
Difference? No embedded previews for the "Web optimized" version.
Move along, nothing to see here. I'll be contacting the author of the original article shortly.
It doesn't take a keen business sense to figure out that when someone's playing a game on their console game system, they're not watching TV.
Leo was (and still is) a lot smarter and a lot better at answering questions that you seem to think. He also knew some of the history of the technology he was talking about and was often able to come up with solutions from outside of the normal Windows Pentium 4 PC or PowerPC Mac spheres.
Agreed. Kevin may be intelligent but he's more of the l33t-h4x0r-techie type, and comes across that way; he very rarely lost me but I could see how he could lose most people. I never got that feeling from Leo. Plus once in a while he'd bring in some really obscure, obsolete knowledge that nevertheless people like me could get a kick out of.
Obscure, obsolete information on G4TechTV? Unless it's about Pac-Man, Asteroids, Pong, Donkey Kong or the early days of Bungee Software, you won't see it on G4TechTV.
I agree, but for a different reason: why Linux? Why not some lighterweight OS than the Linux 2.4.x kernel?
a t-neat stories as much as the next Slashdotter. But I do have to scratch my head on this one.
Don't get me wrong; I like the oh-look-someone-ported-Linux-to-a-toaster-isnt-th
I use X11 all the time, and use Apple's wonky window manager. I like it! I can run those few apps I can't live without, and I don't have to use the equally wonky Aqua ports of X11 apps. And thanks to the Fink project, I can install something like Emacs for X11 and have it just work.
This begs the question... why do you want to use OOo on a Mac? It's fun to tinker around with, as a hobby, but I'd use MS Office for MacOS X. And if you're complaining about the cost, well really, you should have thought about the cost of ownership before you bought that Hummer, son. A Mac is a fancy piece of equipment, and it costs. The cost does not end at hardware alone, although you can sorta get by if you really need to. Sorta like only taking out your H2 on Sundays because you realized you couldn't pay for gas.
Heh. I work at a small newspaper. Explain that to my boss. Someone high up has everyone bamboozled that, hey, MacOS has great, uhm, everything for publishing. Yep, it does. The next time I see someone doing any real color calibration will be the first.
Seriously.
Then again, today's U.S. Judicial branch throws precedent, law, and the U.S. Constitution out the window, so maybe I should just shut up and pledge my loyalty to Big Brother and atone for my double plus ungood badthink.
Agreed, though I thought the best acting was by the chicken vindaloo and lager.
AFAIK (don't have either mplayer or xine installed on this box, sorry) it's title 38, chapter 1, at least according to my DVD player.
Linux and MacOS users should have no problem going down the quick and easy path with mplayer...
I know what you're trying to say here, but it reads as if you're trying to tell me that the Internet existed before the existence of advertising. I'll ignore that, really I will.
The real problem is that the money for those darn things has to come from somewhere. To compare a website to a newspaper: if you think that the little freebie papers that get thrown in peoples' driveways all over the U.S. could exist without advertising, you're wrong. There are expenses such as paying the production staff, production costs such as printing, and distribution. Further, if you think the newspaper that costs 50 cents in a paper box is produced for less than 50 cents, you're wrong again. The 50 cents is to cover the circulation side of things; typically, circulation departments (in theory, at least) pay for themselves through (mostly) subscription sales and (partly) rack sales; the newspaper is paid for by (guess what!) advertising. Advertising helps keep employees' wallets from being empty (in my case, just barely ;-D), the computers running, the lights on, and (most importantly) the coffee pot running.
If you honestly think that the Internet as we know it will continue to run as-is purely out of the goodness of peoples' hearts, you're deluding yourself. There are miles upon miles of copper, fiber, etc., not to mention all the equipment and electricity necessary to make the Internet work, and some of that cost falls on companies like the one that runs Slashdot. Do you honestly think that Slashdot could go to some ISP and say, "Hey, guys, we need a place to run our high-profile website. Would you do it for us for free?"
Maybe it could happen at a really eccentric university, but someone's still paying for it. Just not directly.
Only if you're wanting to use crazy exotic GCC compiler options to see an 0.25% increase* in execution speed on some apps...geez, get a grip.
*I made that up.
Yes, but spot color doesn't use CMYK, and it's a simple matter of economics. Black + mixed green = setup and running of two presses. CMYK = setup and running of four presses. Setup and running costs money, pure and simple.
You might think that spot color is dead, but you'd be wrong.