is a good pair of Open Ear headphones. Sennheiser makes some very good ones. (IMHO The Best)
I've got an older pair of their higher-end open 'phones, and I can carry on a conversation while music is playing, as long as it isn't too loud. Sound quality is incredible, too. $120 and worth every penny.
One thing to be careful of, though: Open phones are more prone to leakage the other way too. Turn it up too loud, and you might as well be running desktop speakers.
For those with never enough time to be as nitpicky as they'd like:
Nlite is a wizard which will prep custom XP or 2003 install discs for you. It will slipstream service packs and hotfixes in, add drivers (including storage or net drivers for the initial installer), remove drivers and services, allows you to setup unattended install, plus has tons of other tweaks and adjustments. You can then install directly from the modified install folder, or have Nlite prep an ISO and burn a bootable CD.
I recently used it to strip XP down to run in under 64MB RAM on an older laptop. Runs like a charm, and needed no updates when installed.
Also perfect for preparing an initial install image for use with RIS and sysprep.
Of course, you still have to find and download the hotfixes, but I think some of the other posts in this discussion have pretty well covered that part.
IIRC, it was in Wired, circa about 1999 or 2000. The article covered research in South America (banned in the US), on a patient who had lost his vision, but whose optic nerve was intact. They interfaced directly into the nerve, stimulating it manually at first (This is when the seizure occurred).
The project was apparently quite successful, as the patient was able to move about the facility, pick up a phone from a desk, and even drive a car around the parking lot. Fairly low-res input, but enough to see shapes and movement.
Don't know what's happened with the project since, nor can I find the original article right at the moment, but it definately sounded promising.
If my email inbox is forwarded to my phone via SMS, does that mean I can sue for normal spam?
On the other hand, I've seen arguments here that this is because SMS is a paid service (e.g. a quantifiable cost, unlike email). But what if I only get my email through my cell phone?
Cingular charges by the k for data use, so suddenly there's a quantifiable cost for my email. Does this mean that the door will open here for normal spam?
Though frankly, I won't really be happy until Congress rewrites drug laws into spam laws. Possesion with intent to distribute (SPAM) gets you 10-20 sort of a thing.
On my desktop machine (AthlonXP2000+,GF4Ti), the original Homeworld simply refuses to run properly under WinXP, or even 98. It'll start up, get to the main menu, and just freeze up.
Switch to linux, start it up in winex, voila! Runs like a dream, cranks all the way out to 1600x1200x32, and even gets along nicely with the Dual-head setup.
YMMV
Re:With that last question I ask another
on
Upcoming Cyberwars
·
· Score: 1
Did you ever see two brothers fighting, and try to break it up? What happens? They turn on you!
When America (read: The Religious Right^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H US Gov't.) sticks its nose into confilcts we have no business in, the inevitable result is, at the least, indignation at having someone else tell you what to do.
Somewhere along the way, the Powers That Be here in the states, along with the controlling majority (read: the richest 1%), decided that what is good for America is good for everybody.
None of them seem to realize that they don't even know what is good for the U.S., nor do they consider what we'd think about it if say, China tried to tell us how to run our country.
That said, the real majority of the people in the US think much like those outside do: The U.S. has no business and no right trying to be Big Brother. We've got enough damn problems of our own.
Simply breaking MS up will do none of us much good. The resulting "Baby Bills" will still carry over much of their current behavior, and be inclined to share information just as before. Outside companies would continue to suffer from an MS unwilling to share their work with others.
We should take a look at what our real problems with MS are, so we can focus on useful solutions.
1. Closed, guarded systems. MS has always been tight-lipped about their software. No one can fault them for wanting to protect their work. (Open-Source advocates, please bear with me.) However, they simply go too far. Many portions of the Win32 API, and that of other products, are simply not disclosed. MS internal developers use this proprietary information for an unfair advantage in the market. They integrate their applications using resources that other developers are never even told about, much less given access to. This is one of the traits that make MS a monopoly.
2. Predatory Business Practices I have to give MS's marketing department credit. They manage to slaughter the competition, steal technology, leverage monopolistic resources on a truly grand scale, and somehow put a nice face on all of it. To the less informed, MS could even seem like the victim, thanks to marketing's clever talent with words. The truth of the matter is that MS has been working to build this monopoly for years. Whenever a new technology appears that may have great potential for future systems, MS is quick to snap it up. Whether by acquisition, "parterships", IP lawsuits, or just plain theft, they work hard to get their hands on whatever may make them more money and strengthen their hold on the computing public.
3. Strongarming vendors MS also now has a penchant for strongarming OEM vendors. Dell, Compaq, HP, you name it, have all felt the pressure from up on high to conform to the Windows view. Attempts to offer alternatives have been met with threats of price increases, catering to competition, and denied sales. 1n 1997, the company who built the PC's for my office informed me of some recent changes in MS's OEM agreements that he had to sign. It seems that even this very small company was forbidden to remove references to MS network, the "Online Services" folder, or Internet Explorer, among other things, without express written demand from the customer. This kind of bullying can only be bad news.
4. Irreverence / Immunity Anybody but me notice how stupid the MS lawyers have seemed to be for this entire trial? How Bill was so evasive and problematic during his deposition? Surely He can afford better legal council than this?? Another point often missed of late, is that MS has been steadily building an overseas presence. I'm no authority, but last I heard, a significant portion of one noteworthy billionaire's assets are no longer within US borders. Does Bill really think he will win the case the way it has been going, or perhaps is he just getting prepared for the worst. You decide.
I think that covers the problems.. But we all know these. Solutions would be nice.
1. Closed systems Perhaps a precedent needs to be set. Force MS to disclose full API information. If it is used anywhere in their products, they must release information on how to access and use it. And their OSs, Win9x at least, should be forced to have open code, perhaps even an open license. This eliminates their largest advantage, but still leaves them with rights to their applications. Keep Office, but open up the integration API & file formats. Open up windows so anyone can see the full API and make improvements.
2. Predatory business practices This is a more difficult issue to deal with. We can't just arbitrarily decide that MS is not allowed to aquire businesses and technology anymore. Though assuming we've already done the first solution, this becomes easier. MS no longer can keep its systems so proprietary, so we're not losing as much. (the Sun/MS Java/J++ bit would be much harder to pull off) And with Windows' code opened up, and required to stay so, would pre-empt them from throwing gobs of aquired tech their favorite direction.
3. Strongarming vendors. Software is a product. Once a car leaves the factory, is it up to the manufacturer what goodies and extras ultimately come with it? No. The vendor decides what to sell, how to sell it, and what to include with the purchase. So should it be in the software world. Perhaps a regulation could be made that Software purchased can have no legal requirement to have extraneous, unneccessary components (read: no marketing) included with the installation or distribution of said product, etc.
4. If Bill wants to move to china, I suppose there is not much we can do to stop him. But we can All laugh as he goes out the door, dragging his incompetent legal team with him.
Breaking MS up would change nothing. In days of yore, it made sense to break up another great monopoly, AT&T, only because of geographic diversity. AT&T controlled the phones and had offices and switches from one coast to the other. By breaking them up, we got better service, more reasonable fees, and better technology out of the competition. Breaking apart MS would not change the market, only give Bill & Co. a slight setback and a new orginizational challenge. We don't want that.
I, for one, enjoyed this and have enjoyed most of Katz's work, unlike many it seems. These two should both be complimented, not just for writing well, or choosing good topics. It's because they provide something that many of us just-do-it hackers often miss: Perspective.
Many of us in general spend the majority of our time working on the technical side of anything we're involved in, worried about how this works, or if that has a bug. It's easy to get bogged down in the details.
But how many take the time to stop and look around at what's been accomplished, or where we're going? How often do you stop to get some perspective, whether about the world in general, where the net is going, what we'll be doing in the next year, or even where we've been?
Beyond that, even, Katz and co. provide a fresh perspective. A look through other eyes than our own. It is through these kinds of views that we can see the larger picture, and know our own place within it, rather than be caught in the dreary, crabby details.
IMO, It is a _lack_ of perspective, in general, that creates many of the disgruntled or just plain angry anti-author postings. People are caught unable to see past their own nose, and their ignorance and intolerance shows through. Complaining about what Rob posts on his own site is worse than the KDE/Gnome flame wars. At least there, there is (was?) a legal issue.
But of course, the old rule still applies, even to this posting.. If you don't want to see it, don't look!
Slashdot Mirror
0) Insurance
...including this one...
Then decide which is more important to you...
To management, it's usually "cheap"
is a good pair of Open Ear headphones. Sennheiser makes some very good ones. (IMHO The Best)
I've got an older pair of their higher-end open 'phones, and I can carry on a conversation while music is playing, as long as it isn't too loud. Sound quality is incredible, too. $120 and worth every penny.
One thing to be careful of, though: Open phones are more prone to leakage the other way too. Turn it up too loud, and you might as well be running desktop speakers.
For those with never enough time to be as nitpicky as they'd like:
Nlite is a wizard which will prep custom XP or 2003 install discs for you. It will slipstream service packs and hotfixes in, add drivers (including storage or net drivers for the initial installer), remove drivers and services, allows you to setup unattended install, plus has tons of other tweaks and adjustments. You can then install directly from the modified install folder, or have Nlite prep an ISO and burn a bootable CD.
I recently used it to strip XP down to run in under 64MB RAM on an older laptop. Runs like a charm, and needed no updates when installed.
Also perfect for preparing an initial install image for use with RIS and sysprep.
Of course, you still have to find and download the hotfixes, but I think some of the other posts in this discussion have pretty well covered that part.
IIRC, it was in Wired, circa about 1999 or 2000. The article covered research in South America (banned in the US), on a patient who had lost his vision, but whose optic nerve was intact. They interfaced directly into the nerve, stimulating it manually at first (This is when the seizure occurred).
The project was apparently quite successful, as the patient was able to move about the facility, pick up a phone from a desk, and even drive a car around the parking lot. Fairly low-res input, but enough to see shapes and movement.
Don't know what's happened with the project since, nor can I find the original article right at the moment, but it definately sounded promising.
You mean they aren't? Hummers are wonderful for finding all the best shortcuts... What else can you drive *through* the buildings?
If my email inbox is forwarded to my phone via SMS, does that mean I can sue for normal spam?
On the other hand, I've seen arguments here that this is because SMS is a paid service (e.g. a quantifiable cost, unlike email). But what if I only get my email through my cell phone?
Cingular charges by the k for data use, so suddenly there's a quantifiable cost for my email. Does this mean that the door will open here for normal spam?
Though frankly, I won't really be happy until Congress rewrites drug laws into spam laws. Possesion with intent to distribute (SPAM) gets you 10-20 sort of a thing.
Actually, I've had an even better experience.
On my desktop machine (AthlonXP2000+,GF4Ti), the original Homeworld simply refuses to run properly under WinXP, or even 98. It'll start up, get to the main menu, and just freeze up.
Switch to linux, start it up in winex, voila! Runs like a dream, cranks all the way out to 1600x1200x32, and even gets along nicely with the Dual-head setup.
YMMV
Did you ever see two brothers fighting, and try to break it up? What happens? They turn on you!
When America (read: The Religious Right^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H US Gov't.) sticks its nose into confilcts we have no business in, the inevitable result is, at the least, indignation at having someone else tell you what to do.
Somewhere along the way, the Powers That Be here in the states, along with the controlling majority (read: the richest 1%), decided that what is good for America is good for everybody.
None of them seem to realize that they don't even know what is good for the U.S., nor do they consider what we'd think about it if say, China tried to tell us how to run our country.
That said, the real majority of the people in the US think much like those outside do: The U.S. has no business and no right trying to be Big Brother. We've got enough damn problems of our own.
Simply breaking MS up will do none of us much good. The resulting "Baby Bills" will still carry over much of their current behavior, and be inclined to share information just as before. Outside companies would continue to suffer from an MS unwilling to share their work with others.
We should take a look at what our real problems with MS are, so we can focus on useful solutions.
1. Closed, guarded systems.
MS has always been tight-lipped about their software. No one can fault them for wanting to protect their work. (Open-Source advocates, please bear with me.) However, they simply go too far. Many portions of the Win32 API, and that of other products, are simply not disclosed. MS internal developers use this proprietary information for an unfair advantage in the market. They integrate their applications using resources that other developers are never even told about, much less given access to. This is one of the traits that make MS a monopoly.
2. Predatory Business Practices
I have to give MS's marketing department credit. They manage to slaughter the competition, steal technology, leverage monopolistic resources on a truly grand scale, and somehow put a nice face on all of it. To the less informed, MS could even seem like the victim, thanks to marketing's clever talent with words. The truth of the matter is that MS has been working to build this monopoly for years. Whenever a new technology appears that may have great potential for future systems, MS is quick to snap it up. Whether by acquisition, "parterships", IP lawsuits, or just plain theft, they work hard to get their hands on whatever may make them more money and strengthen their hold on the computing public.
3. Strongarming vendors
MS also now has a penchant for strongarming OEM vendors. Dell, Compaq, HP, you name it, have all felt the pressure from up on high to conform to the Windows view. Attempts to offer alternatives have been met with threats of price increases, catering to competition, and denied sales. 1n 1997, the company who built the PC's for my office informed me of some recent changes in MS's OEM agreements that he had to sign. It seems that even this very small company was forbidden to remove references to MS network, the "Online Services" folder, or Internet Explorer, among other things, without express written demand from the customer. This kind of bullying can only be bad news.
4. Irreverence / Immunity
Anybody but me notice how stupid the MS lawyers have seemed to be for this entire trial? How Bill was so evasive and problematic during his deposition? Surely He can afford better legal council than this?? Another point often missed of late, is that MS has been steadily building an overseas presence. I'm no authority, but last I heard, a significant portion of one noteworthy billionaire's assets are no longer within US borders. Does Bill really think he will win the case the way it has been going, or perhaps is he just getting prepared for the worst. You decide.
I think that covers the problems.. But we all know these. Solutions would be nice.
1. Closed systems
Perhaps a precedent needs to be set. Force MS to disclose full API information. If it is used anywhere in their products, they must release information on how to access and use it. And their OSs, Win9x at least, should be forced to have open code, perhaps even an open license. This eliminates their largest advantage, but still leaves them with rights to their applications. Keep Office, but open up the integration API & file formats. Open up windows so anyone can see the full API and make improvements.
2. Predatory business practices
This is a more difficult issue to deal with. We can't just arbitrarily decide that MS is not allowed to aquire businesses and technology anymore. Though assuming we've already done the first solution, this becomes easier. MS no longer can keep its systems so proprietary, so we're not losing as much. (the Sun/MS Java/J++ bit would be much harder to pull off) And with Windows' code opened up, and required to stay so, would pre-empt them from throwing gobs of aquired tech their favorite direction.
3. Strongarming vendors.
Software is a product. Once a car leaves the factory, is it up to the manufacturer what goodies and extras ultimately come with it? No. The vendor decides what to sell, how to sell it, and what to include with the purchase. So should it be in the software world. Perhaps a regulation could be made that Software purchased can have no legal requirement to have extraneous, unneccessary components (read: no marketing) included with the installation or distribution of said product, etc.
4. If Bill wants to move to china, I suppose there is not much we can do to stop him. But we can All laugh as he goes out the door, dragging his incompetent legal team with him.
Breaking MS up would change nothing. In days of yore, it made sense to break up another great monopoly, AT&T, only because of geographic diversity. AT&T controlled the phones and had offices and switches from one coast to the other. By breaking them up, we got better service, more reasonable fees, and better technology out of the competition. Breaking apart MS would not change the market, only give Bill & Co. a slight setback and a new orginizational challenge. We don't want that.
I, for one, enjoyed this and have enjoyed most of Katz's work, unlike many it seems. These two should both be complimented, not just for writing well, or choosing good topics. It's because they provide something that many of us just-do-it hackers often miss: Perspective.
Many of us in general spend the majority of our time working on the technical side of anything we're involved in, worried about how this works, or if that has a bug. It's easy to get bogged down in the details.
But how many take the time to stop and look around at what's been accomplished, or where we're going? How often do you stop to get some perspective, whether about the world in general, where the net is going, what we'll be doing in the next year, or even where we've been?
Beyond that, even, Katz and co. provide a fresh perspective. A look through other eyes than our own. It is through these kinds of views that we can see the larger picture, and know our own place within it, rather than be caught in the dreary, crabby details.
IMO, It is a _lack_ of perspective, in general, that creates many of the disgruntled or just plain angry anti-author postings. People are caught unable to see past their own nose, and their ignorance and intolerance shows through. Complaining about what Rob posts on his own site is worse than the KDE/Gnome flame wars. At least there, there is (was?) a legal issue.
But of course, the old rule still applies, even to this posting.. If you don't want to see it, don't look!