I love my ReplayTV. There are two priority levels: Non-guaranteed and Guaranteed. If you guarantee a recording, it will reserve hard drive space for the show and it will record it. It won't let you set two guaranteed shows for the same timeslot. The only time you run into problems is when the network shifts the schedule slightly so that two shows overlap when they normally wouldn't.
As to finding new shows, you can do a search fairly easily, and you can browse the guide. It's trivial to tell it to record something, and also trivial to change the settings on something already scheduled.
What Replay lacks is a to-do list. So if you have a bunch of non-guaranteed things (like my wife's "Shakespeare" theme or my "Stargate" theme), it will pick the one to record using a fairly cryptic algorithm (which one starts first; which one is on a lower channel; which theme was create first).
The PVR connection is the idea of the poster, not the article. The person who submitted the story thought that one good application of this device is as a display slave for a home-brew PVR on your PC in another room. I've been following the ReplayTV discussion at another site, and people are excited about using these as remote display tools for both their PCs and their their PVRs.
The posting is misleading. The item comes with an ethernet port, but support for 802.11b will require an additional piece of hardware. I'm not clear from the information available if it will just use a PCMCIA slot or something else.
My impression is that there is no 12am showing; hence the poster could show up at that time and the building would be closed. Otherwise they should, indeed, let him in.
In looking at the selection of benchmarks, it seems like they're all based on scientific numeric problems. In other words, they're all very floating-point intensive. I'll admit that I didn't read it all that carefully, but it looked a bit like reporting SPECfp numbers without looking at SPECint.
Also, the benchmarks used are probably much more loop-oriented than much of the real-world code, but that's typical of benchmarks.
What I would find interesting would be to compile glibc, apache, and something like perl or mysql with both sets of compilers and see what difference you can get with some web server benchmarks. Or compile X and some game and see how the frame rate compares between the two compilers. Or compile X and Mozilla, and find some really complicated pages to see what gets rendered the fastest (possibly using some trick to get it to cycle between several such pages 1000 times).
So AOL actually sends spam? I know that a lot of spammers have used AOL as an ISP, thanks to the free disposable accounts, but simply running a sloppy ISP isn't the same as sending the spam. (They should block outgoing SMTP that doesn't go to their own servers if they haven't already, and their servers should throttle down users who send lots of mail, at least users using free accounts.)
So what exactly is the current status of AOL as a spam-friendly ISP now?
When someone declares bankruptcy, you can still seize their assets. Individual assets valued under something like $1000 are exempt. Things like automobiles and houses, along with cash and investments are likely to be liquidated to cover the payment. So they're in good shape to get the spammer's house and life savings, provided that they haven't spent all their savings and equity on legal bills.
(I'm expecting a lot of Catholic church buildings around Boston will be sold soon; likely to the Vatican with a lease-back contract, but providing plenty of cash for settlements. Just my guess.)
Binary-only modules must be updated by the vendor when the kernel interface changes.
If we must have binary-only modules, I like how Cisco did it for their VPN software: you compile a small wrapper function with a provided library file to generate the module. That way you can generate one specific to your kernel version.
You obviously didn't follow the idea. It's like.kids.us. Instead of registering a second level domain, you register a third level domain. So you might have something like www.travelocity.travel.us. In essence, you could think of "travel.us" as a top level domain, even though technically it's not.
That's how.com should have worked..gov,.mil, and.edu should have been moved under.us a long time ago.
Influenza is a virus. Antibiotics only work against bacteria. Of course, many people with viral infections go to their doctors, and the doctors want to make the patients happy, so the perscribe antibiotics. Sometimes this makes sense, as a viral infection may weaken the immune system to allow a secondary bacterial infection. (I got pneumonia after a nasty flu.)
The server-to-server communication is not in plaintext if you use PGP or GPG. Of course, the headers are, so an observer can see who you're talking to, just not what they're saying.
What would be really cool would be if a source distribution like Gentoo would support this in addition to gcc. Perhaps they could set it up to first try building with the Intel compiler, and if any errors show up, then try with gcc. It would certainly be interesting to see how well such a system would run.
If anyone actually gave a shit we wouldn't have the Republican Nation.
If you're referring to the Republican party, then I think you're a bit off base. I'm strongly under the impression that both major parties are equally bad when it comes to issues like copyright. If the EFF were a political action committee, they would have difficulty finding any candidatees to support.
The problem is that candidates are not catering to individual rights because there is no lobbying effort to back them, the are no campaign donations keyed to them, and there is no perceived voter demographic that will vote primarily on them.
Those are based on a list of standard ad sizes I found somewhere, and I'm adding to it based on the blank spaces I run across. The great thing about this is that if I happen to find a page that uses that size of image for something that isn't blocked, I still see it just like normal, but if it is blocked (by my auto-proxy script) and substituted by a 1x1 transparent gif, that's all the space the ad takes up.
Now all I need to do is replace my 1x1 transparent gif with a 0x0 gif or jpeg. Is such an image allowed by the specs?
Even better, you can override the height and width elements so that the ads really go away completely.
What I'm trying to figure out is a way to have my stylesheet recognize any image of a given standard banner size (I can do that), and then tell the browser to use the actual size of the image instead of whatever the HTML has encoded for it. Then when my ad blocker substitutes a 1x1 transparent gif, I won't even see a big block of space. I'm new to style sheets (as of reading your post and Googling the web a bit); can I do this?
I disagree. If you're using a browser with a proxy, you're going through two separate layers of code that are designed to process HTTP requests. Now perhaps in a perfect world based on the Unix philosophy of combining small tools, the browser would actually be several separate applications glued together: HTML renderer, Cookie manager, URL fetcher, etc.
But I don't want to have two separate HTTP layers. I've used Junkbuster, and it's slow, and results in different behaviours (particularly in cases of servers not responding).
We already have a URL-fetching layer in the browser. Let's extend it to have plugins that let you control what it does. You can already do this with automatic proxy configuration to decide where (if at all) to fetch a given URL based on a JavaScript function. The only thing you can do with a real proxy that isn't yet available through a plugin is modification of retreived content. You can block the ads, but you can't eliminate the HTML that chews up a big block of space for the ad.
Mozilla does support regexp-based filtering through Automatic Proxy Configuration. See http://www.schooner.com/~loverso/no-ads/ for information on how to do this. (It's not what the feature was designed for, but it works perfectly.)
It turns out that you can filter out anything you want, much like using a Junkbuster proxy, only without using a proxy. Most modern browsers have a feature called "Automatic Proxy Configuration." What this is is a user-provided JavaScript function that parses each URL before it is fetched to determine what proxy to use. You can then use a default of going direct to the real server, but use an alternate proxy for anything that looks like an ad or other unwanted content.
I use this with both IE and Mozilla. I have Mozilla ask before accepting cookies, so I've added a bunch of usage tracking sites to my proxy script.
You can find a sample of how to do this at a friend's site: no-ads
There are a number of remotes out there with a six-pin connector that allows you to reprogram them from a computer. This connector is typically accessible from the battery compartment. While most universal remotes have codes for hundreds of devices, with the JP1 connector, you can add new devices that didn't exist when the remote was built. You can also do things that the remote doesn't normally allow (like assigning macros to non-macro buttons). You finally have full control of your remote--you can program every button to do exactly what you want it to do. And you can back it up to a file on your computer.
An infinite number of stars does not mean that the sky is entirely full of stars. For example, if the number of stars is countably infinite, but space is not, then despite the infinite amount of light produced, we would expect the night sky to be dark.
Dual monitors may be less expensive, but at work I have a 24" 16:10 ratio monitor. It's so wide that it feels like having two monitors, only there's no seam between them.
It would seem logical for some other distribution to host this effort. While on the surface, this would appear to be a competitor, projects like this attract the hackers who will fix and enhance system utilities, resulting in better software for everyone; something clearly benefiting the mainstream distributions. The community good will alone should be worth the cost.
Slashdot Mirror
I love my ReplayTV. There are two priority levels: Non-guaranteed and Guaranteed. If you guarantee a recording, it will reserve hard drive space for the show and it will record it. It won't let you set two guaranteed shows for the same timeslot. The only time you run into problems is when the network shifts the schedule slightly so that two shows overlap when they normally wouldn't.
As to finding new shows, you can do a search fairly easily, and you can browse the guide. It's trivial to tell it to record something, and also trivial to change the settings on something already scheduled.
What Replay lacks is a to-do list. So if you have a bunch of non-guaranteed things (like my wife's "Shakespeare" theme or my "Stargate" theme), it will pick the one to record using a fairly cryptic algorithm (which one starts first; which one is on a lower channel; which theme was create first).
The PVR connection is the idea of the poster, not the article. The person who submitted the story thought that one good application of this device is as a display slave for a home-brew PVR on your PC in another room. I've been following the ReplayTV discussion at another site, and people are excited about using these as remote display tools for both their PCs and their their PVRs.
The posting is misleading. The item comes with an ethernet port, but support for 802.11b will require an additional piece of hardware. I'm not clear from the information available if it will just use a PCMCIA slot or something else.
My impression is that there is no 12am showing; hence the poster could show up at that time and the building would be closed. Otherwise they should, indeed, let him in.
In looking at the selection of benchmarks, it seems like they're all based on scientific numeric problems. In other words, they're all very floating-point intensive. I'll admit that I didn't read it all that carefully, but it looked a bit like reporting SPECfp numbers without looking at SPECint.
Also, the benchmarks used are probably much more loop-oriented than much of the real-world code, but that's typical of benchmarks.
What I would find interesting would be to compile glibc, apache, and something like perl or mysql with both sets of compilers and see what difference you can get with some web server benchmarks. Or compile X and some game and see how the frame rate compares between the two compilers. Or compile X and Mozilla, and find some really complicated pages to see what gets rendered the fastest (possibly using some trick to get it to cycle between several such pages 1000 times).
So AOL actually sends spam? I know that a lot of spammers have used AOL as an ISP, thanks to the free disposable accounts, but simply running a sloppy ISP isn't the same as sending the spam. (They should block outgoing SMTP that doesn't go to their own servers if they haven't already, and their servers should throttle down users who send lots of mail, at least users using free accounts.)
So what exactly is the current status of AOL as a spam-friendly ISP now?
When someone declares bankruptcy, you can still seize their assets. Individual assets valued under something like $1000 are exempt. Things like automobiles and houses, along with cash and investments are likely to be liquidated to cover the payment. So they're in good shape to get the spammer's house and life savings, provided that they haven't spent all their savings and equity on legal bills.
(I'm expecting a lot of Catholic church buildings around Boston will be sold soon; likely to the Vatican with a lease-back contract, but providing plenty of cash for settlements. Just my guess.)
You left off one major con:
Binary-only modules must be updated by the vendor when the kernel interface changes.
If we must have binary-only modules, I like how Cisco did it for their VPN software: you compile a small wrapper function with a provided library file to generate the module. That way you can generate one specific to your kernel version.
You obviously didn't follow the idea. It's like .kids.us. Instead of registering a second level domain, you register a third level domain. So you might have something like www.travelocity.travel.us. In essence, you could think of "travel.us" as a top level domain, even though technically it's not.
.com should have worked. .gov, .mil, and .edu should have been moved under .us a long time ago.
That's how
Influenza is a virus. Antibiotics only work against bacteria. Of course, many people with viral infections go to their doctors, and the doctors want to make the patients happy, so the perscribe antibiotics. Sometimes this makes sense, as a viral infection may weaken the immune system to allow a secondary bacterial infection. (I got pneumonia after a nasty flu.)
Actually, $112.00CND is $71.7810US. Still significant.
The server-to-server communication is not in plaintext if you use PGP or GPG. Of course, the headers are, so an observer can see who you're talking to, just not what they're saying.
What would be really cool would be if a source distribution like Gentoo would support this in addition to gcc. Perhaps they could set it up to first try building with the Intel compiler, and if any errors show up, then try with gcc. It would certainly be interesting to see how well such a system would run.
If you're referring to the Republican party, then I think you're a bit off base. I'm strongly under the impression that both major parties are equally bad when it comes to issues like copyright. If the EFF were a political action committee, they would have difficulty finding any candidatees to support. The problem is that candidates are not catering to individual rights because there is no lobbying effort to back them, the are no campaign donations keyed to them, and there is no perceived voter demographic that will vote primarily on them.
I figured it out. My ~/.mozilla/default/*/chrome/userContent.css file not includes:
w idth="234"], *[height="60px"][width="234px"],[ width="120"], *[height="600px"][width="120px"],] [width="160"], *[height="600px"][width="160px"],] [width="240"], *[height="120px"][width="240px"],] [width="180"], *[height="150px"][width="180px"],] [width="250"], *[height="300px"][width="250px"],] [width="280"], *[height="336px"][width="280px"],] [width="240"], *[height="400px"][width="240px"],] [width="250"], *[height="250px"][width="250px"],[ width="728"], *[height="90px"][width="728px"],[ width="336"]
*[height="60"][width="468"], *[height="60px"][width="468px"],
*[height="60"][
*[height="600"]
*[height="600"
*[height="120"
*[height="150"
*[height="300"
*[height="336"
*[height="400"
*[height="250"
*[height="90"]
*[height="280"]
{ width: auto !important; height: auto !important; }
Those are based on a list of standard ad sizes I found somewhere, and I'm adding to it based on the blank spaces I run across. The great thing about this is that if I happen to find a page that uses that size of image for something that isn't blocked, I still see it just like normal, but if it is blocked (by my auto-proxy script) and substituted by a 1x1 transparent gif, that's all the space the ad takes up.
Now all I need to do is replace my 1x1 transparent gif with a 0x0 gif or jpeg. Is such an image allowed by the specs?
Even better, you can override the height and width elements so that the ads really go away completely.
What I'm trying to figure out is a way to have my stylesheet recognize any image of a given standard banner size (I can do that), and then tell the browser to use the actual size of the image instead of whatever the HTML has encoded for it. Then when my ad blocker substitutes a 1x1 transparent gif, I won't even see a big block of space. I'm new to style sheets (as of reading your post and Googling the web a bit); can I do this?
This is also close the a background plot in Ringworld, only there the radiation was caused by a chain reaction of super novas in the galactic core.
I disagree. If you're using a browser with a proxy, you're going through two separate layers of code that are designed to process HTTP requests. Now perhaps in a perfect world based on the Unix philosophy of combining small tools, the browser would actually be several separate applications glued together: HTML renderer, Cookie manager, URL fetcher, etc.
But I don't want to have two separate HTTP layers. I've used Junkbuster, and it's slow, and results in different behaviours (particularly in cases of servers not responding).
We already have a URL-fetching layer in the browser. Let's extend it to have plugins that let you control what it does. You can already do this with automatic proxy configuration to decide where (if at all) to fetch a given URL based on a JavaScript function. The only thing you can do with a real proxy that isn't yet available through a plugin is modification of retreived content. You can block the ads, but you can't eliminate the HTML that chews up a big block of space for the ad.
Mozilla does support regexp-based filtering through Automatic Proxy Configuration. See http://www.schooner.com/~loverso/no-ads/ for information on how to do this. (It's not what the feature was designed for, but it works perfectly.)
I use this with both IE and Mozilla. I have Mozilla ask before accepting cookies, so I've added a bunch of usage tracking sites to my proxy script.
You can find a sample of how to do this at a friend's site: no-ads
http://www.hifi-remote.com/jp1/
There are a number of remotes out there with a six-pin connector that allows you to reprogram them from a computer. This connector is typically accessible from the battery compartment. While most universal remotes have codes for hundreds of devices, with the JP1 connector, you can add new devices that didn't exist when the remote was built. You can also do things that the remote doesn't normally allow (like assigning macros to non-macro buttons). You finally have full control of your remote--you can program every button to do exactly what you want it to do. And you can back it up to a file on your computer.
An infinite number of stars does not mean that the sky is entirely full of stars. For example, if the number of stars is countably infinite, but space is not, then despite the infinite amount of light produced, we would expect the night sky to be dark.
Dual monitors may be less expensive, but at work I have a 24" 16:10 ratio monitor. It's so wide that it feels like having two monitors, only there's no seam between them.
It would seem logical for some other distribution to host this effort. While on the surface, this would appear to be a competitor, projects like this attract the hackers who will fix and enhance system utilities, resulting in better software for everyone; something clearly benefiting the mainstream distributions. The community good will alone should be worth the cost.
So only give it to people known to have the disease it fights.