My Epson Stylus Color 600 is supported very well by Ghostscript. The major annoyance, much like not being able to change bitdepth on X on the fly, is not being able to change the resolution of the printer on the fly (or maybe I just don't know how to do this). Sometimes I want something printed nicely, sometimes draft, and I don't feel like having 2 printer devices to do this. Will CUPS allow this?
So many people jump to the conclusion that because the Dvorak tests were biased, that means that Dvorak is no better than QWERTY. This is a very invalid argument. Just think about it: How many words can you make with the letters on the home row of QWERTY (asdfghjkl;)? Not very many. How many can you make with the home row of Dvorak (aoeuidhtns)? A whole lot more. My friend here says it's about 100 vs. 3000. Now, unless you assume that finger movement is "free", there's going to be SOME speed advantage there, not to mention being easier on your wrists.
Whatever the motivations, the dvorak layout has the look of having been "planned", and the QWERTY layout has the look of either having been slapped together randomly or antagonistically.
I have never met someone who properly started using dvorak (that is, cold turkey) who ever regretted it. Certainly testimonial evidence is not as good as scientifically rigorous testing (it could all be psychosematic), but it IS something. So we have
1. A biased scientific test 2. Hypothetical anagram test 3. Testimonial
Each alone would be severly suspect, but together they give a pretty clear picture that Dvorak has some advantages.
Remember: this article does not say Dvorak is no better than QWERTY.
You don't. You leave the keyboard as it is and remap it using the OS. In Windows, change the language of your keyboard to US Dvorak. In Unix, use xmodmap (sorry, don't have the file on me).
I just downloaded this one a few hours ago after I got a notice that my old version had expired. My main complaint with this version is the CPU usage. 95%?! And that's only because more important things are taking up the other 5%. I don't remember the previous alpha being this slow. The audio quality seems about the same, it works with esddsp (I don't think it did before), and it hasn't crashed on me since I've gotten it (used it for a grand total of 15 minutes, though). But the CPU usage gets to me. I don't think the Windows version uses 95% of my 300mhz processor. Then again, maybe it does and I just didn't notice it before. But the sound gets choppy if I try to multitask while it's playing, which I haven't noticed before.
Over the summer I installed Win98 on a clean hard drive 3 times in one day. Once I got a crash in "kernel.dll" as it was finishing the install. Once I got a blue screen of death. That should not happen in the install. And the hardware, AFAIK, is fine.
What makes you think Redhat doesn't develop Redhat?! Besides, it's not like they don't also give it away.
Microsoft's pricing scheme is a wonder of the modern world. The average price of a computer has basically halved in the past two years. Computers are a "complimentary good" to Windows. Also consider that the marginal cost of one more CD of Windows 98 is basically $0.50. Normally when a complimentary good goes down in price and you have the price of the original good go up. But in this case it means that people are acting cheaper. Their price elasticity with respect to computers (at least for the market as a whole), has gone down. This means MS should lower the price of Windows. But it's been at the same price or higher since Win95 came out way back when. It is official policy for things to be this way, but no one seems to know why. Perhaps they'd like to push the more expensive computers on people since they don't notice the price of Windowns then anyway.
python.org Go to "documentation" and choose "Tutorial". That and the library reference (both free) will get you pretty far, though I must say that ORA's "Learning Python" is an amazingly well-done book that covers more than the python tutorial.
Go to freeedgar.com. It has all the SEC filings (which, as a company filing to go public, they have to have). Then search for ANDOVER NET. It has their S1, which is the form you have to file with the SEC stating your intent to go public.
It's a subtle way of saying that Americans like to drive a lot, which compared to Europeans, we do. I don't think many people would disagree with that.
Close, but that is actually still illegal. Just because you own a licensce to a set of information does not mean you can take a copy of the same information from someone else. I'll admit it's very weird, but that's how it is.
I'm sorry, your car example is completely off the mark. There is no legitimate purpose for linking to those mp3s; if there were, I could see the argument. It is nothing like a bibliographical reference. It would be like inserting the entirety of the text in the bibliography (ok, that's also a bad example; they're all bad examples). Please give one legitimate purpose for those mp3s that couldn't be satisfied with linking to, say, the CDnow page for those songs, and I will agree that there is some truth to your argument.
What are you talking about there are no laws saying that you can't provide bibliographic links to information? There are sometimes. For instance, you cannot go up to a 12-year-old and say "Hey, here's how you get porn". That would count as corrupting a minor. So maybe you think we already live in a police state because we can't tell 12-year-olds how to get porn.
Please don't bite my head off, but I don't see what's wrong here. Someone created a webpage with a link to files that are illegal to distribute. There really is no legitimate reason to do this, and he obviously went to some effort to help people find these files. This is blanantly aiding someone else in committing a crime and is quite different from a search engine randomly linking to an illegal file because the program said to do so. Since when do we (we being any society) protect people who purposefully commit crimes? If I made 5000 "archival backups" of Windows NT and put them in a big open crate in a busy intersection and then ran away, only to find all of them had dissappeared, that doesn't mean I haven't done anything wrong.
What makes you say it wasn't designed as a beginners language? IIRC, Guido was involved in developing ABC, a programming language specifically designed at beginners. The problem was they tried to get C people to like it too and they didn't buy it. Another problem was trying to make it a little to theoretical (good for teaching). As a result, no one really used it for "real work". Guido took all he learned from this when making Python. It was not designed as a "beginners language", but it was designed by someone who knew what should be in a beginners language and how they could fail. He made a beginners language that was useful. Personally, my first experience with programming was Apple BASIC and Logo:) Talk about useless!
But Python is used in the real world and is recommended and used by experts and beginners alike. Just like people may be turned off from Pascal because it's rarely used outside of teaching (there are exceptions, of course), people might be against ML for the same reason. Few people take their first computer science class hoping to learn computer science--they want to learn how to program. And while the best goal is arguably to teach them how to learn any programming language, your retention rate and interest level are bound to be higher with something like Python.
Please correct me if ML is used more than I think it is, or if I got the history of Python wrong.
Well, you are right to an extent, but that is greatly simplifying the problem. I could just as easily say.
The jails are full because people are bad parents
The jails are full because we don't kill enough people.
The jails are full because baby formula does not contain DHA.
The laws which benefit people are largely the same as the ones which protect people's rights. Prosecution of victimless crimes (I, however, don't think there is such a thing; or at least it is extremely rare) do not "benefit" anyone, do they? Are you making two different thoughts? I just don't understand the connection between laws which benefit people and victimless crimes.
You've got to stop thinking of law in terms of how it benefits people.
Perhaps you should start thinking of laws in those terms. That is why we have laws. Almost every social philosopher since the 18th century has said the exact same thing--we have laws to make society a worthwhile deal. If they were not for that purpose, people would not choose to live in society (the social contract). If you do not like the laws of your country, move to Antarctica or somewhere where there are no laws.
Punishment can serve as a corrective or deterrant. You seem to be proposing using it as a deterrant. This is fine. However, you must remember that courts and jails are overflowing as it is. Any equally effective solution which does not involve judicial authorities (this includes fines) is preferable to one that does. Are you so sure that your solution would work that it is worth that imbalance?
So, basically, you're admitting that the parents' lack of caring is the root problem. (If I am incorrect in this conclusion, flame me via email.)
I'm sorry if you've gotten the impression that I've been flaming you. I hardly think that's true. In fact, I do agree with you. A lack of caring is the root of the problem. However, your proposed solution is not a very good one, I think.
Politicians should instead attack the root of the problem: make parents legally directly responsible for the vast majority of their childrens' actions.
This is generally the case already (many exceptions, though). The problem is not the children's actions, but what they're seeing. The government proposals are mostly to prevent 6-year-olds from seeing porn, not from keeping 13-year-olds from getting bomb plans (though that is probably a concern also).
My point is simply this: you cannot make a person a good parent, you can only make it easier. Your proposal (which does not solve the real problem) just makes it more unpleasant to be a bad parent, which while it might be effective at solving some things, would not be the most efficient way of doing things (resulting in more jail time).
The solution proposed (universal regulation) is too broad
But that's not the proposed solution. The proposed solution is universal classification, not regualtion. This gives parents more information than they otherwise might have. You think this is wrong for some reason?
You must also remember that even the most diligent parent cannot stop everything. There is some point where you have to trust a child on its own--constant shadowing is a bad form of parenting. Human beings are complicated and cannot be programmed like a computer (I get the feeling you don't have kids either). If a family adopts an abused child and that child grows up to be a bully, is it the adoptive parents' fault? If a child has ADD and gets too rambunctious, is it the parents' fault?
Your proposal is far more draconian than the proposed "solution". Again, I must say: I think that the world would be much better off if every parent did a perfect job, but that's impossible--being a parent and making a living is too hard--and even if that did happen, it wouldn't solve everything. The only good way to make parenting better is to make parenting easier, and that's what this proposal is talking about. Making bad parenting harder is not the way to go--negative reinforcement never is.
I don't have kids, and I agree with most of what you are saying, but the point is that not every parent is going to watch everything their kids do. Not everyone who is a parent is cut out to be a parent. I agree that the best possible solution is prescreening by parents, but I doubt you're suggesting that's actually going to happen, and there's no way to force people to do that. And I don't think that it's right for society to forsake the children of parents who don't care. Now, I understand that this is a point that people might have a reasonable disagreement with, but many government and cultural policies follow it. No single answer (except the parent thing, which will never happen) is perfect--that's the problem. You just have to figure out which one is least bad.
1. Community regulation - in this case, a group of people would create their own rating system for information. This is arguably the best solution, unless it conglomerates into one big community, in which case you have the same population that elected the government reviewing things, only they're not bound by the Constitution (tyranny of the majority). But this would presumably not happen.
2. Independent entity regulation - these are the services that filter content for a fee. It makes sense, except that they are more susceptible to outside monetary influence than other solutions (for instance, I could imagine if things were done like this with the MPAA, the studio that put out American Pie might have offered bribes to whoever makes the decisions). This is not to say that there isn't bribary in government (ha!) but at least that's quite clearly illegal and more heavily investigated.
3. Self-regulation - AOL (just when I was starting to like them) and some others recently proposed a self-regulation system of the Internet. But one has only to look at the current set of voluntary TV ratings to see that this is a really lame solution.
None of these solutions is perfect. Arguably the best solution is the first, but then why hasn't it happened on a large scale yet? There is certainly a positive side of having a ratings system; the only concern is that it is not abused. Considering that the population at large has not adequately taken this issue up on their own and considering that I most definitely do not want for-profits deciding the ratings, that leaves the government. It certainly has its own problems (or more importantly potential problems), but at least there's the Constitution to slow them down.
But that doesn't decrypt the data on the disc, which means you can't reencode it as say a lower-quality CDR image. This is what they don't want broken and what they would be liable $1M for if they were negligent with, not the region coding.
That's probably unlikely. The company would get in monetary trouble if the decryption was reverse-engineered from their software. This is one of the reasons no one wants to port their software players to Linux--they're afraid that it will be that much easier to figure them out. And after someone RE'd part of a Windows player (for the purpose of getting it working in Linux), they got even more scared. So the people who make the Hollywood+ card are, I believe, implementing decryption in hardware so they can release software drivers that don't contain the taboo information.
Look before you flame. All his posts (like mine) start out at 2, because we've been moderated up a lot in the past. You start at 0 if you get moderated down a lot. That's just how it is. You can tell because there's no adjective next to his score.
Slashdot Mirror
My Epson Stylus Color 600 is supported very well by Ghostscript. The major annoyance, much like not being able to change bitdepth on X on the fly, is not being able to change the resolution of the printer on the fly (or maybe I just don't know how to do this). Sometimes I want something printed nicely, sometimes draft, and I don't feel like having 2 printer devices to do this. Will CUPS allow this?
So many people jump to the conclusion that because the Dvorak tests were biased, that means that Dvorak is no better than QWERTY. This is a very invalid argument. Just think about it: How many words can you make with the letters on the home row of QWERTY (asdfghjkl;)? Not very many. How many can you make with the home row of Dvorak (aoeuidhtns)? A whole lot more. My friend here says it's about 100 vs. 3000. Now, unless you assume that finger movement is "free", there's going to be SOME speed advantage there, not to mention being easier on your wrists.
Whatever the motivations, the dvorak layout has the look of having been "planned", and the QWERTY layout has the look of either having been slapped together randomly or antagonistically.
I have never met someone who properly started using dvorak (that is, cold turkey) who ever regretted it. Certainly testimonial evidence is not as good as scientifically rigorous testing (it could all be psychosematic), but it IS something. So we have
1. A biased scientific test
2. Hypothetical anagram test
3. Testimonial
Each alone would be severly suspect, but together they give a pretty clear picture that Dvorak has some advantages.
Remember: this article does not say Dvorak is no better than QWERTY.
You don't. You leave the keyboard as it is and remap it using the OS. In Windows, change the language of your keyboard to US Dvorak. In Unix, use xmodmap (sorry, don't have the file on me).
Mine is
esddsp realplay %s
yours might be
realplay %s
I just downloaded this one a few hours ago after I got a notice that my old version had expired. My main complaint with this version is the CPU usage. 95%?! And that's only because more important things are taking up the other 5%. I don't remember the previous alpha being this slow. The audio quality seems about the same, it works with esddsp (I don't think it did before), and it hasn't crashed on me since I've gotten it (used it for a grand total of 15 minutes, though). But the CPU usage gets to me. I don't think the Windows version uses 95% of my 300mhz processor. Then again, maybe it does and I just didn't notice it before. But the sound gets choppy if I try to multitask while it's playing, which I haven't noticed before.
I have a feeling CmdrTaco would go for it too . . . (Ref: Hamster Havoc)
Over the summer I installed Win98 on a clean hard drive 3 times in one day. Once I got a crash in "kernel.dll" as it was finishing the install. Once I got a blue screen of death. That should not happen in the install. And the hardware, AFAIK, is fine.
What makes you think Redhat doesn't develop Redhat?! Besides, it's not like they don't also give it away.
Microsoft's pricing scheme is a wonder of the modern world. The average price of a computer has basically halved in the past two years. Computers are a "complimentary good" to Windows. Also consider that the marginal cost of one more CD of Windows 98 is basically $0.50. Normally when a complimentary good goes down in price and you have the price of the original good go up. But in this case it means that people are acting cheaper. Their price elasticity with respect to computers (at least for the market as a whole), has gone down. This means MS should lower the price of Windows. But it's been at the same price or higher since Win95 came out way back when. It is official policy for things to be this way, but no one seems to know why. Perhaps they'd like to push the more expensive computers on people since they don't notice the price of Windowns then anyway.
python.org Go to "documentation" and choose "Tutorial". That and the library reference (both free) will get you pretty far, though I must say that ORA's "Learning Python" is an amazingly well-done book that covers more than the python tutorial.
Go to freeedgar.com. It has all the SEC filings (which, as a company filing to go public, they have to have). Then search for ANDOVER NET. It has their S1, which is the form you have to file with the SEC stating your intent to go public.
Ha! You'll be getting much more than that eventually!
Read here for good news and here for bad news (well, at least for you).
It's a subtle way of saying that Americans like to drive a lot, which compared to Europeans, we do. I don't think many people would disagree with that.
Close, but that is actually still illegal. Just because you own a licensce to a set of information does not mean you can take a copy of the same information from someone else. I'll admit it's very weird, but that's how it is.
I'm sorry, your car example is completely off the mark. There is no legitimate purpose for linking to those mp3s; if there were, I could see the argument. It is nothing like a bibliographical reference. It would be like inserting the entirety of the text in the bibliography (ok, that's also a bad example; they're all bad examples). Please give one legitimate purpose for those mp3s that couldn't be satisfied with linking to, say, the CDnow page for those songs, and I will agree that there is some truth to your argument.
What are you talking about there are no laws saying that you can't provide bibliographic links to information? There are sometimes. For instance, you cannot go up to a 12-year-old and say "Hey, here's how you get porn". That would count as corrupting a minor. So maybe you think we already live in a police state because we can't tell 12-year-olds how to get porn.
Please don't bite my head off, but I don't see what's wrong here. Someone created a webpage with a link to files that are illegal to distribute. There really is no legitimate reason to do this, and he obviously went to some effort to help people find these files. This is blanantly aiding someone else in committing a crime and is quite different from a search engine randomly linking to an illegal file because the program said to do so. Since when do we (we being any society) protect people who purposefully commit crimes? If I made 5000 "archival backups" of Windows NT and put them in a big open crate in a busy intersection and then ran away, only to find all of them had dissappeared, that doesn't mean I haven't done anything wrong.
That's because I wasn't responding to you
What makes you say it wasn't designed as a beginners language? IIRC, Guido was involved in developing ABC, a programming language specifically designed at beginners. The problem was they tried to get C people to like it too and they didn't buy it. Another problem was trying to make it a little to theoretical (good for teaching). As a result, no one really used it for "real work". Guido took all he learned from this when making Python. It was not designed as a "beginners language", but it was designed by someone who knew what should be in a beginners language and how they could fail. He made a beginners language that was useful. Personally, my first experience with programming was Apple BASIC and Logo :) Talk about useless!
But Python is used in the real world and is recommended and used by experts and beginners alike. Just like people may be turned off from Pascal because it's rarely used outside of teaching (there are exceptions, of course), people might be against ML for the same reason. Few people take their first computer science class hoping to learn computer science--they want to learn how to program. And while the best goal is arguably to teach them how to learn any programming language, your retention rate and interest level are bound to be higher with something like Python.
Please correct me if ML is used more than I think it is, or if I got the history of Python wrong.
The jails are full because people are bad parents
The jails are full because we don't kill enough people.
The jails are full because baby formula does not contain DHA.
The laws which benefit people are largely the same as the ones which protect people's rights. Prosecution of victimless crimes (I, however, don't think there is such a thing; or at least it is extremely rare) do not "benefit" anyone, do they? Are you making two different thoughts? I just don't understand the connection between laws which benefit people and victimless crimes.
You've got to stop thinking of law in terms of how it benefits people.
Perhaps you should start thinking of laws in those terms. That is why we have laws. Almost every social philosopher since the 18th century has said the exact same thing--we have laws to make society a worthwhile deal. If they were not for that purpose, people would not choose to live in society (the social contract). If you do not like the laws of your country, move to Antarctica or somewhere where there are no laws.
Punishment can serve as a corrective or deterrant. You seem to be proposing using it as a deterrant. This is fine. However, you must remember that courts and jails are overflowing as it is. Any equally effective solution which does not involve judicial authorities (this includes fines) is preferable to one that does. Are you so sure that your solution would work that it is worth that imbalance?
So, basically, you're admitting that the parents' lack of caring is the root problem. (If I am incorrect in this conclusion, flame me via email.)
I'm sorry if you've gotten the impression that I've been flaming you. I hardly think that's true. In fact, I do agree with you. A lack of caring is the root of the problem. However, your proposed solution is not a very good one, I think.
Politicians should instead attack the root of the problem: make parents legally directly responsible for the vast majority of their childrens' actions.
This is generally the case already (many exceptions, though). The problem is not the children's actions, but what they're seeing. The government proposals are mostly to prevent 6-year-olds from seeing porn, not from keeping 13-year-olds from getting bomb plans (though that is probably a concern also).
My point is simply this: you cannot make a person a good parent, you can only make it easier. Your proposal (which does not solve the real problem) just makes it more unpleasant to be a bad parent, which while it might be effective at solving some things, would not be the most efficient way of doing things (resulting in more jail time).
The solution proposed (universal regulation) is too broad
But that's not the proposed solution. The proposed solution is universal classification, not regualtion. This gives parents more information than they otherwise might have. You think this is wrong for some reason?
You must also remember that even the most diligent parent cannot stop everything. There is some point where you have to trust a child on its own--constant shadowing is a bad form of parenting. Human beings are complicated and cannot be programmed like a computer (I get the feeling you don't have kids either). If a family adopts an abused child and that child grows up to be a bully, is it the adoptive parents' fault? If a child has ADD and gets too rambunctious, is it the parents' fault?
Your proposal is far more draconian than the proposed "solution". Again, I must say: I think that the world would be much better off if every parent did a perfect job, but that's impossible--being a parent and making a living is too hard--and even if that did happen, it wouldn't solve everything. The only good way to make parenting better is to make parenting easier, and that's what this proposal is talking about. Making bad parenting harder is not the way to go--negative reinforcement never is.
I don't have kids, and I agree with most of what you are saying, but the point is that not every parent is going to watch everything their kids do. Not everyone who is a parent is cut out to be a parent. I agree that the best possible solution is prescreening by parents, but I doubt you're suggesting that's actually going to happen, and there's no way to force people to do that. And I don't think that it's right for society to forsake the children of parents who don't care. Now, I understand that this is a point that people might have a reasonable disagreement with, but many government and cultural policies follow it. No single answer (except the parent thing, which will never happen) is perfect--that's the problem. You just have to figure out which one is least bad.
Because that leaves three other possibilities:
1. Community regulation - in this case, a group of people would create their own rating system for information. This is arguably the best solution, unless it conglomerates into one big community, in which case you have the same population that elected the government reviewing things, only they're not bound by the Constitution (tyranny of the majority). But this would presumably not happen.
2. Independent entity regulation - these are the services that filter content for a fee. It makes sense, except that they are more susceptible to outside monetary influence than other solutions (for instance, I could imagine if things were done like this with the MPAA, the studio that put out American Pie might have offered bribes to whoever makes the decisions). This is not to say that there isn't bribary in government (ha!) but at least that's quite clearly illegal and more heavily investigated.
3. Self-regulation - AOL (just when I was starting to like them) and some others recently proposed a self-regulation system of the Internet. But one has only to look at the current set of voluntary TV ratings to see that this is a really lame solution.
None of these solutions is perfect. Arguably the best solution is the first, but then why hasn't it happened on a large scale yet? There is certainly a positive side of having a ratings system; the only concern is that it is not abused. Considering that the population at large has not adequately taken this issue up on their own and considering that I most definitely do not want for-profits deciding the ratings, that leaves the government. It certainly has its own problems (or more importantly potential problems), but at least there's the Constitution to slow them down.
But that doesn't decrypt the data on the disc, which means you can't reencode it as say a lower-quality CDR image. This is what they don't want broken and what they would be liable $1M for if they were negligent with, not the region coding.
That's probably unlikely. The company would get in monetary trouble if the decryption was reverse-engineered from their software. This is one of the reasons no one wants to port their software players to Linux--they're afraid that it will be that much easier to figure them out. And after someone RE'd part of a Windows player (for the purpose of getting it working in Linux), they got even more scared. So the people who make the Hollywood+ card are, I believe, implementing decryption in hardware so they can release software drivers that don't contain the taboo information.
Look before you flame. All his posts (like mine) start out at 2, because we've been moderated up a lot in the past. You start at 0 if you get moderated down a lot. That's just how it is. You can tell because there's no adjective next to his score.