I'd rather pay 199.00 bucks for something that works out
of the box and comes with lots of software then several hours downloading, burning iso's and then chasing down the latest versions of all apps waisting a whole entire weekend
or business days (thus costing more then the 199.00 XP package).
Slight offtopic, but wasting a weekend to install linux with the latest apps might cost a business more than that $199 to buy an XP license. But all that work to set up linux only needs to be done once, then you can replicate that work with minimal time per unit across 10 or 1000 or 10000 pc with no additional cost. This is not the case XP.
The main image on their page - topcenter.jpg - weighs in at a woppping 34k. I opened it in gimp indexed it to 16 colors, saved it as a png file (gimp doesn't do gif because of patent crap) and it was 9k.
That's a nearly 75% reduction in the filesize and download time of only one image on their page. It took me all of 30 seconds to do. They must hate 56k users too.
Goto segfault.org and be funny there!!! stop posting if you dont have anything serious to say!!!
Well said!
It doesn't help that moderators tend to mod up funny remarks to 4 or 5 and the majority of regular, useful comments are 2 or 3.
If I set up my filter to be 4 or higher, I'll get 9 comments, 7 of which are labeled as 'Funny'.
Because moderaters always mod up funny posts, the karma whores rush in on an active thread and post their most comical comments, and the cycle is repeated.
exactly which part of downloading mp3s without paying anyone a dime is "fair use"?
1: I buy a cd, make a tape recording of it, and give you the tape so you can listen to it. You don't pay me. No money exchanges hands. Next week I make another copy for another friend. That's fair use as defined by the courts. That's why VCR's and Cassette tapes are not contraband.
2: I by a cd, rip it to mp3, and send you the files so you can listen it. Next week I send copies of the same mp3's to another friends. No one ever pays me. No money every exchanges hands.
How is it fundamentally different? The quality of the copy is irrelevent. This is *NOT* fair use?
Using an application to distribute my copies to you more efficiently should have not affect on its legality. Napster, and P2P in general, only makes sharing copies -- a legally protected fair use -- easier and increases its volume.
That's what these current lawsuits are trying to do -- make efficient implementation of fair use practices illegal.
Why would anyone want to do with a 128k upload cap (assuming @Home cable modem service)?:)
1. So I can share an online photo gallery of my 1 year old daughter with friends and relatives who are spread far and wide. This site has maybe 25 people as a user base, with 1-5 user session a day. Fuck Geocities, et al. I've got a dedicated server with root access right here and more than enough bandwidth to server this, with no ads.
2. So I can test web applications I'm developing in my development environment and have two or three external users do some debugging before I deploy. Performance and speed are not critical. I've got root access and mysql and postgresql and apache w/ mod_perl mod_php. I don't want to have to pay for *two* rackspace servers -- one for production and one for development, when I've *got* a fucking development environment sitting next to my left foot, that I have complete control over. All I need is to have a few external users do some testing. I can load test from my internal network.
Response to this post: blah blah blah tough shit blah blah blah terms of service blah blah no sympathy blah blah blah deal with it blah blah blah
Re:G4 is by far the nicest consumer case I've ever
on
Case Tweaking
·
· Score: 0
I really wonder why none of the PC vendors I've seen use a similar swing-out case design.
Because they'll promptly get sued by Apple for violating some industrial design trademark or patent. Remember emachines trying to clone the iMac?
They'll make sure you are safe and the trains will run on time, so long as you have your identification papers ready and you are authorized to be in this vacinity.
Compression-Decompression?
on
HDTV Over IP
·
· Score: 0
I'm not familiar with the HDTV format, but story made no mention of compression-decompression. Is HDTV already compressed? Or did they use the full 20Mps to send an uncompressed video stream?
Which leads to the question: Was this a genuine (misguided) attempt to introduce legislation or a deliberate blatantly unconstitutional bill introduced by people
who wanted to be seen to be acting, without actually have to deal with the moral and legal grey areas?
Does it matter? The effect of this law would still be the same. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Why isn't there a.xxx tld so adult sites can label themselves and create a self-defining 'red-light district' on the net? That way, filters wouldn't have to block content, just domians.
So www.yahoo.xxx would have all the adult content, and the non-adult content would be unchanged.
People talk about the internet self-policing itself, and this would be a good way to do it. I've seen my share of pr0n, but even I get tired if pr0n sites showing up in every search.
When my daughter is old enough to search for "brittany spears" or whatever the fad artist of the day is at the time, I don't want her to see links to 'brittany spears nude'.
I also don't want to censor anyone.
Ideally, google would have and 'exclude adult content' option and the.xxx domain would be filtered out of the results.
pr0n needn't be banned or controlled, just clearly labeled. I would think most pr0n site would like to be clearly labeled as pr0n sites -- that's how they make their money.
The perverts could still get their fixes, religious nutcases wouldn't have to be exposed to it, and freedom of speech is unmolested.
There will still be some problems with renegade vendors, to be sure, but it's all voluntary and self-policing.
If.xxx domain are blocked from public libraries, we wouldn't have the huge uproar that going on now.
.xxx tld is not my idea, it's been floating around for a while. The question I have is: why hasn't it been done?
Option #1:
Eyeglasses in about an hour. $200. Little thing of glass and metal. Durable. Easy to maintain.
Option #2:
Headpiece, wires, thing clipped on the belt, remote computer, video camera, etc.. A lot more than $200. A lot more material. Not Durable. Who knows the maintenance problems.
-
I'm no technophobe, but not every problem needs to be solved by a Pentium III.
If the eyes work well enough to recieve light on the retina, then why not fix the eye with surgery, or just wear glasses?
If the eye is truly faulty, then I think I device like this that interfaces directly with the optic nerve, because glasses or eye surgery wouldn't work in that case solve that problem.
But _why_ would anyone, especially someone who has never heard of/., choose this contraption over a pair of glasses from Lencrafters?
The world is built for humans. Cars, buildings, everything. It's all designed to fit our bodies and to fit the way we do things.
By developing really smart robots that have the same shape and movement as us, we can then make all of our other machines cheap and stupid. We will then have one really smart and expensive robot that can independently operate any number of cheap, stupid machines.
An example is a house robot: One smart humanoid house robot could vacuum, dust, do the laundry, dishes, answer the door, etc... using the same tools that already exist today and are designed for our use. Robots are plug-n-play.
Also, psychologically, people can more easily anthropomorphize a humanoid robot and will be more easily accepted by society at large.
This is a copy of an email I just sent to Carl Corry, the reporter to wrote the Marketwatch article.
If others email him about Jabber, maybe it'll get some coverage.
--
Mr. Corry,
I read with interest your story on the latest developments in the instant messaging saga, titled "AOL reportedly uniting its IM services," located on the web at .
However, I wonder if you are aware of Jabber? Jabber is an open source, distributed, non-proprietary instant messaging standard that inter operates with MSN Messenger, Yahoo Messenger, AIM and ICQ. Both the server and client software is free, and there is no licensing required.
I think this software is, unfortunately, a hidden treasure of the Internet, that is being continually overlooked by the media -- especially since the two major IM competitors are owners/partners of two of the major television networks.
I don't work for any group associated with Jabber. The only thing I've done is sent e-mails to a developer requesting new features in the client software.
But I'm a big supporter of the idea because it once again puts control of communications back in the hands of users -- and makes counting how many millions of users are signed up to a particular service an irrelevant issue.
Thank you for your time. I hope you have some time to look into it. For more information, a good starting point is http://www.jabber.org/
Slashdot Mirror
of the box and comes with lots of software then several hours downloading, burning iso's and then chasing down the latest versions of all apps waisting a whole entire weekend
or business days (thus costing more then the 199.00 XP package).
Slight offtopic, but wasting a weekend to install linux with the latest apps might cost a business more than that $199 to buy an XP license. But all that work to set up linux only needs to be done once, then you can replicate that work with minimal time per unit across 10 or 1000 or 10000 pc with no additional cost. This is not the case XP.
But yes, it's a choice.
That's a nearly 75% reduction in the filesize and download time of only one image on their page. It took me all of 30 seconds to do. They must hate 56k users too.
Well said!
It doesn't help that moderators tend to mod up funny remarks to 4 or 5 and the majority of regular, useful comments are 2 or 3.
If I set up my filter to be 4 or higher, I'll get 9 comments, 7 of which are labeled as 'Funny'.
Because moderaters always mod up funny posts, the karma whores rush in on an active thread and post their most comical comments, and the cycle is repeated.
1: I buy a cd, make a tape recording of it, and give you the tape so you can listen to it. You don't pay me. No money exchanges hands. Next week I make another copy for another friend. That's fair use as defined by the courts. That's why VCR's and Cassette tapes are not contraband.
2: I by a cd, rip it to mp3, and send you the files so you can listen it. Next week I send copies of the same mp3's to another friends. No one ever pays me. No money every exchanges hands. How is it fundamentally different? The quality of the copy is irrelevent. This is *NOT* fair use?
Using an application to distribute my copies to you more efficiently should have not affect on its legality. Napster, and P2P in general, only makes sharing copies -- a legally protected fair use -- easier and increases its volume.
That's what these current lawsuits are trying to do -- make efficient implementation of fair use practices illegal.
1. So I can share an online photo gallery of my 1 year old daughter with friends and relatives who are spread far and wide. This site has maybe 25 people as a user base, with 1-5 user session a day. Fuck Geocities, et al. I've got a dedicated server with root access right here and more than enough bandwidth to server this, with no ads.
2. So I can test web applications I'm developing in my development environment and have two or three external users do some debugging before I deploy. Performance and speed are not critical. I've got root access and mysql and postgresql and apache w/ mod_perl mod_php. I don't want to have to pay for *two* rackspace servers -- one for production and one for development, when I've *got* a fucking development environment sitting next to my left foot, that I have complete control over. All I need is to have a few external users do some testing. I can load test from my internal network.
Response to this post: blah blah blah tough shit blah blah blah terms of service blah blah no sympathy blah blah blah deal with it blah blah blah
Because they'll promptly get sued by Apple for violating some industrial design trademark or patent. Remember emachines trying to clone the iMac?
They'll make sure you are safe and the trains will run on time, so long as you have your identification papers ready and you are authorized to be in this vacinity.
I'm not familiar with the HDTV format, but story made no mention of compression-decompression. Is HDTV already compressed? Or did they use the full 20Mps to send an uncompressed video stream?
Or, for goat.cx wary: cut and past:/ aug/multitasking/080701multitasking.html
http://www.npr.org/programs/morning/features/2001
Does it matter? The effect of this law would still be the same. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Steven
That's more than four hours a day! Take a cold shower.
Steven
So www.yahoo.xxx would have all the adult content, and the non-adult content would be unchanged.
People talk about the internet self-policing itself, and this would be a good way to do it. I've seen my share of pr0n, but even I get tired if pr0n sites showing up in every search.
When my daughter is old enough to search for "brittany spears" or whatever the fad artist of the day is at the time, I don't want her to see links to 'brittany spears nude'.
I also don't want to censor anyone.
Ideally, google would have and 'exclude adult content' option and the
pr0n needn't be banned or controlled, just clearly labeled. I would think most pr0n site would like to be clearly labeled as pr0n sites -- that's how they make their money.
The perverts could still get their fixes, religious nutcases wouldn't have to be exposed to it, and freedom of speech is unmolested.
There will still be some problems with renegade vendors, to be sure, but it's all voluntary and self-policing.
If
.xxx tld is not my idea, it's been floating around for a while. The question I have is: why hasn't it been done?
Steven
Steven
Photoshop => GIMP
Illustrator => ???
Steven
Steven
Eyeglasses in about an hour. $200. Little thing of glass and metal. Durable. Easy to maintain.
Option #2:
Headpiece, wires, thing clipped on the belt, remote computer, video camera, etc.. A lot more than $200. A lot more material. Not Durable. Who knows the maintenance problems.
-
I'm no technophobe, but not every problem needs to be solved by a Pentium III.
If the eyes work well enough to recieve light on the retina, then why not fix the eye with surgery, or just wear glasses?
If the eye is truly faulty, then I think I device like this that interfaces directly with the optic nerve, because glasses or eye surgery wouldn't work in that case solve that problem.
But _why_ would anyone, especially someone who has never heard of /., choose this contraption over a pair of glasses from Lencrafters?
Steven
The world is built for humans. Cars, buildings, everything. It's all designed to fit our bodies and to fit the way we do things.
By developing really smart robots that have the same shape and movement as us, we can then make all of our other machines cheap and stupid. We will then have one really smart and expensive robot that can independently operate any number of cheap, stupid machines. An example is a house robot: One smart humanoid house robot could vacuum, dust, do the laundry, dishes, answer the door, etc... using the same tools that already exist today and are designed for our use. Robots are plug-n-play. Also, psychologically, people can more easily anthropomorphize a humanoid robot and will be more easily accepted by society at large.
Steven
This is a copy of an email I just sent to Carl Corry, the reporter to wrote the Marketwatch article. If others email him about Jabber, maybe it'll get some coverage. -- Mr. Corry, I read with interest your story on the latest developments in the instant messaging saga, titled "AOL reportedly uniting its IM services," located on the web at . However, I wonder if you are aware of Jabber? Jabber is an open source, distributed, non-proprietary instant messaging standard that inter operates with MSN Messenger, Yahoo Messenger, AIM and ICQ. Both the server and client software is free, and there is no licensing required. I think this software is, unfortunately, a hidden treasure of the Internet, that is being continually overlooked by the media -- especially since the two major IM competitors are owners/partners of two of the major television networks. I don't work for any group associated with Jabber. The only thing I've done is sent e-mails to a developer requesting new features in the client software. But I'm a big supporter of the idea because it once again puts control of communications back in the hands of users -- and makes counting how many millions of users are signed up to a particular service an irrelevant issue. Thank you for your time. I hope you have some time to look into it. For more information, a good starting point is http://www.jabber.org/