And though he's doing a great job on the war, I must say this is exactly why I voted for Gore - and Gore won California, so I did all I could do there.
Your tax dollars at work. This is really appalling.
On one hand they want to propreitize protocols (Computers) and on the other they want to open them up (digital TV). Can Microsoft have it's cake
and eat it too?
Yes. Standard MS strategy: open up proiprietary protocols dominated by others, then extend them with MS proprietary stuff once they become standard.
My concern was mostly about the auto-upgrades that Microsoft et al. sometimes force in Media Player. I actually don't think that Apple will actually be stupid enough to reduce the functionality of existing iPods in the market, but they might have the ability to do so via the sync function.
advertises that it is "SDMI compliant" for "MP3 type players". I bought an iPod, but if they ever "up"grade it to "support" SDMI to the exclusion of normal MP3, I will smash it into tiny little pieces and send it back by U.S. Mail.
The court in this case is a California state court. You are thinking of the Ninth Circuit of the US Court of Appeals, which has handled the 2600 case, IIRC.
This will be laughed out of court so quickly it will make your head spin. Just because some self-serving company I never heard of proposed something doesn't give it a snowball's chance of becoming law.
I bought some of those stick-on glow-in-the-dark stars from the Discovery Channel store, and will attempt to wear a fairly accurate map of the night sky as of midnight tonight (incl. the blue moon). The only remaining task is to find lights to stand under from time to time, so it can continue to glow.
In another sad note, Computer Literacy, a well known geek bookstore has closed it's doors in San Jose
That sux man. I remember many a happy afternoon "working" while browsing there - learned quite a bit.
Fatbrain: this is a classic relic of the days when you couldn't get the "good dotcoms" anymore, but "building the brand" was still everything. So companies combined unrelated words: fatbrain, fogdog, doughnet, etc. Of course, since they're part of BN now they may not care, but I bet something as simple as "books.com" could be had cheap now.
From what I've read, you CAN transfer MP3s from one Mac to another, by transferring them by hand instead of doing the iTunes auto-sync. The NY Times article was just wrong, which won't be the first time for the fluff-a-minute "Circuits" section.
Cat got your tongue? (something important seems to be missing from your comment... like the body or the subject!) Cat got your tongue? (something important seems to be missing from your comment... like the body or the subject!)
Slashdot Mirror
his wrtigns will stnad the tset of tmei! No doubt about it.
As I recall I bought some American Airlines plane tickets on AOL in 1993 via a service they had called Easy Sabre.
But without the typos, it wouldn't be salshdto!
Your tax dollars at work. This is really appalling.
Probably it is no surprise that Dan Gillmor is trashing the settlement, but his column is pretty good today. Note also his comment on the DVD case.
Yes. Standard MS strategy: open up proiprietary protocols dominated by others, then extend them with MS proprietary stuff once they become standard.
California won't support the "settlement", at least not immediately. Makes me proud to live here, along with the DeCSS ruling yesterday.
You are such a tease.
My concern was mostly about the auto-upgrades that Microsoft et al. sometimes force in Media Player. I actually don't think that Apple will actually be stupid enough to reduce the functionality of existing iPods in the market, but they might have the ability to do so via the sync function.
It's a bit larger than a US nickel, smaller than a quarter - and worth about 82 cents.
advertises that it is "SDMI compliant" for "MP3 type players". I bought an iPod, but if they ever "up"grade it to "support" SDMI to the exclusion of normal MP3, I will smash it into tiny little pieces and send it back by U.S. Mail.
Man, what a crappy page. But it did render okay on my NS 4.76 (Win98).
The court in this case is a California state court. You are thinking of the Ninth Circuit of the US Court of Appeals, which has handled the 2600 case, IIRC.
Seriously!
This will be laughed out of court so quickly it will make your head spin. Just because some self-serving company I never heard of proposed something doesn't give it a snowball's chance of becoming law.
I bought some of those stick-on glow-in-the-dark stars from the Discovery Channel store, and will attempt to wear a fairly accurate map of the night sky as of midnight tonight (incl. the blue moon). The only remaining task is to find lights to stand under from time to time, so it can continue to glow.
books.com is already owned by BN. My bad.
That sux man. I remember many a happy afternoon "working" while browsing there - learned quite a bit.
Fatbrain: this is a classic relic of the days when you couldn't get the "good dotcoms" anymore, but "building the brand" was still everything. So companies combined unrelated words: fatbrain, fogdog, doughnet, etc. Of course, since they're part of BN now they may not care, but I bet something as simple as "books.com" could be had cheap now.
It's Windows 98. He mentioned it early in the article, when talking about processor requirements.
OSDN and closedSourceForge are the future!
Who cares?
Now mod me down for being a troll.
Is this it?
From what I've read, you CAN transfer MP3s from one Mac to another, by transferring them by hand instead of doing the iTunes auto-sync. The NY Times article was just wrong, which won't be the first time for the fluff-a-minute "Circuits" section.
Seriously, JetDirect lets you set up filters to limit printing to specific IPs/subnets. Which I did with mine.
Correct! If your router is 0wned by UUNet, then 0wned by a badguy, then UUNet 0wns the responsibility to fix it!
Cat got your tongue? (something important seems to be missing from your comment ... like the body or the subject!) Cat got your tongue? (something important seems to be missing from your comment ... like the body or the subject!)