Do this. You this can almost always find deals on the crap loss-leader printers from Lexmark and HP, the two worst offenders.
So buy the printer than Best Buy or some other store has a $20 off coupon. The manufacturers reimburse the stores for that.
Then rip the guts out of the old one and send one key chip or something to the company with a letter saying that as long as printers are cheaper than ink, you'll buy your refills this way, and btw, thanks for the extra $20 off...
That printer will cost them a lot of money and they'll know they'll never get ink sales from you, nor have the old printer passed to someone who might buy ink.
Hurt them in the wallet, it's the only thing the shitheads in charge understand.
I have been meaning to write scripts to rename and organize them. My MP3 renamer has saved a ton of time...
And unique indentifiers would help if I rename them at some point, like "Bird 07" to "Robin 03". Sometimes they've already made it up onto my website by then and it's a pain unless I simply wipe the directory on the site and re-upload everything. I've been getting rid of the number but regretting it. Maybe I can embed a unique identifier into the jpeg description or something, so the names are neat and tidy.
Do you use mogrify to generate your thumbnails? It's what I've been playing with.
I was thinking about the symlinks, it'd be a nice way to have them organized... All the pictures of a person in their own directory, and also in all other applicable directories. I originally thought of this with MP3s, because no two people can agree about categories (rock, ska, country, etc).. Put them all into a big directory (of band names) and use symlinks to put them in categories so everyone can be happy.
If the G2 produced better pictures the day I got it than film ever had, it's largely because I've never owned a film camera that didn't suck.:)
That's not enough though. If the judge doesn't fine the company as much (proportionally) as they were looking to cost their victim, they essentially get off without punishment.
imho if a company hits a person with legal bills in what is seen to be a frivilous lawsuit, the company should have a similar percentage of its earnings taken away, with no limit on the dollar value.
Anything less and we let companies get away without any punishment despite heinous crimes.
Supposedly some company was told recently, and I think it was Sony, that you can't use this trademarked requried string protection.
The theory is that trademarks aren't descriptive or functional. You can't trademark "camera", or "press play". If you make your trademark either descriptive (let people use it for the generic class of product like kleenex or escalator) you will lose it, if you make it functional, you lose it as well.
Doing anything that requires use of your trademark makes it functional, so requiring it in the boot code of a CD or ROM means you'll lose it as a trademark.
So the company was told by the judge how the same would come out... "If you continue to push this, you'll succeed in making your trademark a functional part of the spec. And _Sony_ and _Playstation_ won't be trademarks anymore. You choose."
And supposedly companies now rely on trade secrets they can sue over having released, or cryptography, because of this trial and the fairly obvious outcome, if you think about it.
You should take the laptop. If we want to see old ways of life continue we need to make them relevant in our new lives. Laptops aren't going to go away, or cell-phones, or PDAs. If we don't integrate them into our nature experience it's the nature experience that'll go away.
Reading a book, on a laptop, under a tree, is as much better than reading it, on a laptop, on a couch, as it would be for a paper book. If the paper book is worth the trip to the part, so is the e-book. And if you get tired of reading, you can play GTA3 on the laptop. Try doing that on the paper book! You just get inkstains everywhere.
Re:why would i buy?
on
Cross-Site-TRACE
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Because part of being a useful member of society is taking responsibility. If you wish to see the series continue, take responsibility for a part of that and help finance it.
It's not a theft issue or anything, the author isn't harmed by you reading it. You have no obligation to pay, otherwise it wouldn't have been a gift, it'd have been a guilt-trip. But stand up and be counted. If you like something, make sure it keeps happening.
Support the author. If you don't want the book (and someone who doesn't re-read them probably wouldn't) then just send what you think is a fair price (a buck or two probably is more profit than he'd see from an actual sale) through paypal. Then pass the e-book on to someone else who might like it.
Personally, I wouldn't buy the book (in paper form anyways). Paper is becoming more and more obsolete. I read on the computer with preference to paper. When I re-read 1984 I did it on the computer, when I read the last honor-harrington novels, I read them on the computer instead of from the hard-copy book I had. I like having Baen books on CD though, and if the price of that is to buy a little obsolete paper every now and then, so be it.
Because if you pass already polarized light through a polarizing filter at 45 degrees you'll get some through, only right-angle filters will block it all. The light that makes it through a polarizing filter is all polarized, so you've essentially shifted the polarization by 45 degrees.
The next filter is 45 degrees from the last, and the same process occurs.
I don't know how much light gets through a polarizing filter at 45 degrees to incoming polarized light, but I'd guess 50%, as 45 is halfway between 0 degrees (100% transmission) and 90 degrees (0% transmission). (* Except for real-world losses in any actual filter.) Does anyone know the correct answer, and/or if the drop-off is sinusoidal, or linear?
Yep, wraps back to _0000.jpg which is a little annoying, they make semi-pro and pro cameras, you'd think they'd ditch the _ and use another digit. Oh well, only comes up once a year or so. I put all my pics in directories name "YYYY-MM-DD - Description" so it's not as inconvenient.
As for quantity, we went on our honeymoon and a few trips in that time, so it's probably a bit higher than normal.
It only counts for a hundred or so pictures by now, but for doing inventory on our books we just stood back and photographed the shelves. Then we view the pictures in gqview and type the names into a spreadsheet. Things you'd never be able to do with film. Like taking a picture of your motherboard so that you can easily read the markings on it while seated comfortably.
And yeah, learning with the camera was *easy*. I'd never used anything but a fixed-focus P&S before, I didn't know F-Stops from shutter speeds. Playing with macros shots of a ruler demonstrated depth of field quite handily, and yes, when I screwed up a shot it helped to have the exif data, on the camera, or months later in the picture, so I knew why. Now I'm always in the manual modes, except when I hand the camera to a friend to take a quick picture.
I'd certainly never go back. I've given away my film camera and extra film. I was producing better shots with the G2 the day I got it, than I'd ever seen from a non-pro before. It's amazing how much detail it can capture.
You can't let people make stupid demands and get away with it. Now it's not a problem, nobody cares about linking to AmEx. But how about when news sites do it, and then it's standard for businesses to choose who to allow to link to them, with legal means rather than technological...
You see, if everyone "respects" the demands of the Don't Link crowd, it'll go really badly for the one person who has a need to link to them. The company will say "This is our perfectly reasonable policy. See, everyone else felt it was worth obeying," and they'd demonstrated community morals/standards, which many conduct cases rest on.
So people need to point these out and mock them. Only by doing that do we establish a firm precedent (not legally, but culturally) that these sort of rules aren't going to fly.
As for your example, you fall pray to the false dichotomy falacy. You assume there's only two ways of dealing with too many visitors, and that all "slashdotting" happens from slashdot, or even other websites. Consider if there's a huge story on CNN about robot-wars and your page is high on the list from a google search for "robot war mindstorm". You'll get slashdotted, but unintentionally.
You can either take your content offline now to avoid this ever happing, as was your second option, or...
The other options. Not put pictures on the front page, ask people to view only what they need. Use a bandwidth throttling script, or detect a slashdotting and temporarily remove images or replace them with low-bandwidth ones.
These are all fairly standard options and can be implemented even by non-programmers if you use a decent webserver. If you don't... well, don't cry to us if you run lousy software and it lacks features.
The good thing is that all of my solutions will work, all the time. Not just if everyone sees, agrees with, and follows your linking policy.
Pretentious. You just said that the quality is irrelevant in your art, only the uniqueness matters. Nobody wants your art because it's art and perhaps pleasing to the eyes, they want it because few other people have it and they can claim it's special. Isn't that depressing?
And then you have to essentially lie (making up stupid shit) about MS Paint being somewhat relevant to the discussion. If you can take a photo with a 35mm film and digital camera, print both to 11x17, and not tell the difference, except in digital's favour, why would anyone stick with film?
The answer is that nobody except artists is sticking with film, and everyone knows it's not a rational decision, it's all about image before results.
Why keep it alive? It's of lower quality and much more of a hassle. Even if you've got old lenses and such, they're likely of lower quality than what you can get today for a fraction of the price.
In a few short years only "artistes" will still use film, and only for pretension.
$1000 is only 2000 pictures, or 60 rolls of film. Not that much for someone who uses the camera a bit. But film shooters (except pros) will never do that.
Since getting my Canon G2 camera seven months ago I've taken 11,500 pictures. Not all are "art" or anything, but it's 11,490 pictures more than I would have taken, if every one had a cost attached.
$1000 is a lot now, but if you get the digital camera you'll never look back, and you'll soon have more than $1000 worth of cool photos.
btw, current 4 and 5mp "pro-sumer" cameras all but beat 35mm film. You don't need the SLR models unless you've got a lot of existing lenses, or are going pro.
Logging doesn't need to be expensive. Buy some IBM 75GXP drives, they're really cheap on EBay now and though they often lose data a quick low-level format fixes them up again (for another week).
After all, you can't be blamed if the hardware fails..:)
In fact, you probably don't need many drives, expect a nice older 75gxp to self-wipe before it gets full.
First, if nobody cared about race, the neo-nazis would stand out like a sore thumb. With all the the racial policies, some "good", that we have today it's hard to notice subtely exploitive ones. If nobody noticed race except the racists, there'd be a public outcry against any race-based policies, ensuring we caught the bad ones.
And then, "proud of their heritage"... What's that supposed to mean? The color of your skin is something to be proud of? It sounds suspiciously like the basis of a discriminatory policy. Should I be proud of my blue eyes?
I'd prefer that nobody treated skin color as anything more different than hair color, people recognize it, dress to suit it, and change it, but you never hear of someone not getting a job because of an old-boys network that refuses to hire brown-haired people.
I don't support black scholarships either. Sure, as a class, they're poorer, but on an individual basis, any given poor person in the slums needs as much help as anyone else. If you want to help blacks out of the lower classes, help everyone in the lower classes better themselves and their position.
If RMS and the US Supreme Court disagree with what makes a derivative work, it doesn't overturn the GPL, it just means that the GPL is irrelevant for that specific case.
The GPL is an offer, from the author of the program to anyone, for you to go beyond the rights copyright normally allows. If you don't accept the GPL you're limited to the normal rights of creating a work based on another.
The GPL says essentially, "You're reading this because copyright law won't let you use or distribute this program in a certain way, if you're willing to comply with a few restrictions, we'll let you use it in a limited way. No need to notify us if you comply."
All arguments that the GPL isn't a valid contract are not only likely wrong, but are completely missing the point. Even if you prove that the GPL is somehow invalid it just means that you can't legally agree to it and thus can't accept it's offer, you're right back where you were before reading it.
The difference is succeeding, getting a C, or whatever, in a tenth the time it takes other people.
Who cares about striving for false goals, such as wasting time to get a different letter on a report card, when they could do the minimum to graduate and spend the rest of their time at things that interest them?
Oh grow up. If people are so fragile that they can't handle seeing a website from someone holding a differing opinion they shouldn't be let out of the hospital.
And you discuss phychology as if the field has any intellectual honesty. How can you claim that for a field where the "respected" scholars claim alliegance to Freud or Jung. It's unscientific nonscense.
Incorrect. The correct handling of pixel-specific fonts is to either fire the web-dev or not go to the page because the company is full of asshats.
If you wish everything to be pixel-perfect, lay it out in Pagemaker and screen-shot the screen. If you want things to be viewable by people using html-based web browsers, quit dictating how every little thing looks.
Or do you really think you know better than the end user, which font size works best for them?
There shouldn't be a way for people like you to specify these things, it simply lets you stick your nose where it doesn't belong. You've clearly missed the concept of platform and viewer independent pages.
Oh yes! Send Adam Sandler. And once he's radioed back enough proof to convince his fans, leave him there. His desicated corpse will serve as proof to future generations.
Or are you saying that if you saw me juggle seven balls, and I was willing to stop and show you the process of one through six, explaining how the pattern changed and how to add a ball, and let you take photographs that showed seven balls in the air, that you still wouldn't believe I could do it until you saw a second person doing it?
That's nuts. If the evidence is valid, accept it. If it's not, don't accept it, regardless of how many people use it.
Slashdot Mirror
Do this. You this can almost always find deals on the crap loss-leader printers from Lexmark and HP, the two worst offenders.
So buy the printer than Best Buy or some other store has a $20 off coupon. The manufacturers reimburse the stores for that.
Then rip the guts out of the old one and send one key chip or something to the company with a letter saying that as long as printers are cheaper than ink, you'll buy your refills this way, and btw, thanks for the extra $20 off...
That printer will cost them a lot of money and they'll know they'll never get ink sales from you, nor have the old printer passed to someone who might buy ink.
Hurt them in the wallet, it's the only thing the shitheads in charge understand.
I have been meaning to write scripts to rename and organize them. My MP3 renamer has saved a ton of time...
:)
And unique indentifiers would help if I rename them at some point, like "Bird 07" to "Robin 03". Sometimes they've already made it up onto my website by then and it's a pain unless I simply wipe the directory on the site and re-upload everything. I've been getting rid of the number but regretting it. Maybe I can embed a unique identifier into the jpeg description or something, so the names are neat and tidy.
Do you use mogrify to generate your thumbnails? It's what I've been playing with.
I was thinking about the symlinks, it'd be a nice way to have them organized... All the pictures of a person in their own directory, and also in all other applicable directories. I originally thought of this with MP3s, because no two people can agree about categories (rock, ska, country, etc).. Put them all into a big directory (of band names) and use symlinks to put them in categories so everyone can be happy.
If the G2 produced better pictures the day I got it than film ever had, it's largely because I've never owned a film camera that didn't suck.
You can't copyright the most obvious implementation or statement. If that code is requried to run a lexmark printer, it's not copyrightable.
Smack the bitches up.
That's not enough though. If the judge doesn't fine the company as much (proportionally) as they were looking to cost their victim, they essentially get off without punishment.
imho if a company hits a person with legal bills in what is seen to be a frivilous lawsuit, the company should have a similar percentage of its earnings taken away, with no limit on the dollar value.
Anything less and we let companies get away without any punishment despite heinous crimes.
Supposedly some company was told recently, and I think it was Sony, that you can't use this trademarked requried string protection.
The theory is that trademarks aren't descriptive or functional. You can't trademark "camera", or "press play". If you make your trademark either descriptive (let people use it for the generic class of product like kleenex or escalator) you will lose it, if you make it functional, you lose it as well.
Doing anything that requires use of your trademark makes it functional, so requiring it in the boot code of a CD or ROM means you'll lose it as a trademark.
So the company was told by the judge how the same would come out... "If you continue to push this, you'll succeed in making your trademark a functional part of the spec. And _Sony_ and _Playstation_ won't be trademarks anymore. You choose."
And supposedly companies now rely on trade secrets they can sue over having released, or cryptography, because of this trial and the fairly obvious outcome, if you think about it.
You should take the laptop. If we want to see old ways of life continue we need to make them relevant in our new lives. Laptops aren't going to go away, or cell-phones, or PDAs. If we don't integrate them into our nature experience it's the nature experience that'll go away.
Reading a book, on a laptop, under a tree, is as much better than reading it, on a laptop, on a couch, as it would be for a paper book. If the paper book is worth the trip to the part, so is the e-book. And if you get tired of reading, you can play GTA3 on the laptop. Try doing that on the paper book! You just get inkstains everywhere.
Because part of being a useful member of society is taking responsibility. If you wish to see the series continue, take responsibility for a part of that and help finance it.
It's not a theft issue or anything, the author isn't harmed by you reading it. You have no obligation to pay, otherwise it wouldn't have been a gift, it'd have been a guilt-trip. But stand up and be counted. If you like something, make sure it keeps happening.
Support the author. If you don't want the book (and someone who doesn't re-read them probably wouldn't) then just send what you think is a fair price (a buck or two probably is more profit than he'd see from an actual sale) through paypal. Then pass the e-book on to someone else who might like it.
Personally, I wouldn't buy the book (in paper form anyways). Paper is becoming more and more obsolete. I read on the computer with preference to paper. When I re-read 1984 I did it on the computer, when I read the last honor-harrington novels, I read them on the computer instead of from the hard-copy book I had. I like having Baen books on CD though, and if the price of that is to buy a little obsolete paper every now and then, so be it.
Because if you pass already polarized light through a polarizing filter at 45 degrees you'll get some through, only right-angle filters will block it all. The light that makes it through a polarizing filter is all polarized, so you've essentially shifted the polarization by 45 degrees.
The next filter is 45 degrees from the last, and the same process occurs.
I don't know how much light gets through a polarizing filter at 45 degrees to incoming polarized light, but I'd guess 50%, as 45 is halfway between 0 degrees (100% transmission) and 90 degrees (0% transmission). (* Except for real-world losses in any actual filter.) Does anyone know the correct answer, and/or if the drop-off is sinusoidal, or linear?
Yep, wraps back to _0000.jpg which is a little annoying, they make semi-pro and pro cameras, you'd think they'd ditch the _ and use another digit. Oh well, only comes up once a year or so. I put all my pics in directories name "YYYY-MM-DD - Description" so it's not as inconvenient.
As for quantity, we went on our honeymoon and a few trips in that time, so it's probably a bit higher than normal.
It only counts for a hundred or so pictures by now, but for doing inventory on our books we just stood back and photographed the shelves. Then we view the pictures in gqview and type the names into a spreadsheet. Things you'd never be able to do with film. Like taking a picture of your motherboard so that you can easily read the markings on it while seated comfortably.
And yeah, learning with the camera was *easy*. I'd never used anything but a fixed-focus P&S before, I didn't know F-Stops from shutter speeds. Playing with macros shots of a ruler demonstrated depth of field quite handily, and yes, when I screwed up a shot it helped to have the exif data, on the camera, or months later in the picture, so I knew why. Now I'm always in the manual modes, except when I hand the camera to a friend to take a quick picture.
I'd certainly never go back. I've given away my film camera and extra film. I was producing better shots with the G2 the day I got it, than I'd ever seen from a non-pro before. It's amazing how much detail it can capture.
You can't let people make stupid demands and get away with it. Now it's not a problem, nobody cares about linking to AmEx. But how about when news sites do it, and then it's standard for businesses to choose who to allow to link to them, with legal means rather than technological...
You see, if everyone "respects" the demands of the Don't Link crowd, it'll go really badly for the one person who has a need to link to them. The company will say "This is our perfectly reasonable policy. See, everyone else felt it was worth obeying," and they'd demonstrated community morals/standards, which many conduct cases rest on.
So people need to point these out and mock them. Only by doing that do we establish a firm precedent (not legally, but culturally) that these sort of rules aren't going to fly.
As for your example, you fall pray to the false dichotomy falacy. You assume there's only two ways of dealing with too many visitors, and that all "slashdotting" happens from slashdot, or even other websites. Consider if there's a huge story on CNN about robot-wars and your page is high on the list from a google search for "robot war mindstorm". You'll get slashdotted, but unintentionally.
You can either take your content offline now to avoid this ever happing, as was your second option, or...
The other options. Not put pictures on the front page, ask people to view only what they need. Use a bandwidth throttling script, or detect a slashdotting and temporarily remove images or replace them with low-bandwidth ones.
These are all fairly standard options and can be implemented even by non-programmers if you use a decent webserver. If you don't... well, don't cry to us if you run lousy software and it lacks features.
The good thing is that all of my solutions will work, all the time. Not just if everyone sees, agrees with, and follows your linking policy.
Pretentious. You just said that the quality is irrelevant in your art, only the uniqueness matters. Nobody wants your art because it's art and perhaps pleasing to the eyes, they want it because few other people have it and they can claim it's special. Isn't that depressing?
And then you have to essentially lie (making up stupid shit) about MS Paint being somewhat relevant to the discussion. If you can take a photo with a 35mm film and digital camera, print both to 11x17, and not tell the difference, except in digital's favour, why would anyone stick with film?
The answer is that nobody except artists is sticking with film, and everyone knows it's not a rational decision, it's all about image before results.
Why keep it alive? It's of lower quality and much more of a hassle. Even if you've got old lenses and such, they're likely of lower quality than what you can get today for a fraction of the price.
In a few short years only "artistes" will still use film, and only for pretension.
$1000 is only 2000 pictures, or 60 rolls of film. Not that much for someone who uses the camera a bit. But film shooters (except pros) will never do that.
Since getting my Canon G2 camera seven months ago I've taken 11,500 pictures. Not all are "art" or anything, but it's 11,490 pictures more than I would have taken, if every one had a cost attached.
$1000 is a lot now, but if you get the digital camera you'll never look back, and you'll soon have more than $1000 worth of cool photos.
btw, current 4 and 5mp "pro-sumer" cameras all but beat 35mm film. You don't need the SLR models unless you've got a lot of existing lenses, or are going pro.
I wonder if Slashdot posting this counts as a link to links to forbidden sites... That's probably supposed to be illegal too.
Logging doesn't need to be expensive. Buy some IBM 75GXP drives, they're really cheap on EBay now and though they often lose data a quick low-level format fixes them up again (for another week).
:)
After all, you can't be blamed if the hardware fails..
In fact, you probably don't need many drives, expect a nice older 75gxp to self-wipe before it gets full.
First, if nobody cared about race, the neo-nazis would stand out like a sore thumb. With all the the racial policies, some "good", that we have today it's hard to notice subtely exploitive ones. If nobody noticed race except the racists, there'd be a public outcry against any race-based policies, ensuring we caught the bad ones.
And then, "proud of their heritage"... What's that supposed to mean? The color of your skin is something to be proud of? It sounds suspiciously like the basis of a discriminatory policy. Should I be proud of my blue eyes?
I'd prefer that nobody treated skin color as anything more different than hair color, people recognize it, dress to suit it, and change it, but you never hear of someone not getting a job because of an old-boys network that refuses to hire brown-haired people.
I don't support black scholarships either. Sure, as a class, they're poorer, but on an individual basis, any given poor person in the slums needs as much help as anyone else. If you want to help blacks out of the lower classes, help everyone in the lower classes better themselves and their position.
Some phrases "translate" badly. The spare underwear doesn't help the assumptions about a fag packet...
If RMS and the US Supreme Court disagree with what makes a derivative work, it doesn't overturn the GPL, it just means that the GPL is irrelevant for that specific case.
The GPL is an offer, from the author of the program to anyone, for you to go beyond the rights copyright normally allows. If you don't accept the GPL you're limited to the normal rights of creating a work based on another.
The GPL says essentially, "You're reading this because copyright law won't let you use or distribute this program in a certain way, if you're willing to comply with a few restrictions, we'll let you use it in a limited way. No need to notify us if you comply."
All arguments that the GPL isn't a valid contract are not only likely wrong, but are completely missing the point. Even if you prove that the GPL is somehow invalid it just means that you can't legally agree to it and thus can't accept it's offer, you're right back where you were before reading it.
I'm sure every war has a few sickos who do stuff like that, but I hadn't heard it was common practice.
Got a link to some evidence?
Quite right. There are worse games now, as in pathetic, not evil, but the first one deserves recognition for starting a trend.
At least pr0n games these days are high-res enough that they have a single redeeming feature.
The difference is succeeding, getting a C, or whatever, in a tenth the time it takes other people.
Who cares about striving for false goals, such as wasting time to get a different letter on a report card, when they could do the minimum to graduate and spend the rest of their time at things that interest them?
Oh grow up. If people are so fragile that they can't handle seeing a website from someone holding a differing opinion they shouldn't be let out of the hospital.
And you discuss phychology as if the field has any intellectual honesty. How can you claim that for a field where the "respected" scholars claim alliegance to Freud or Jung. It's unscientific nonscense.
Incorrect. The correct handling of pixel-specific fonts is to either fire the web-dev or not go to the page because the company is full of asshats.
If you wish everything to be pixel-perfect, lay it out in Pagemaker and screen-shot the screen. If you want things to be viewable by people using html-based web browsers, quit dictating how every little thing looks.
Or do you really think you know better than the end user, which font size works best for them?
There shouldn't be a way for people like you to specify these things, it simply lets you stick your nose where it doesn't belong. You've clearly missed the concept of platform and viewer independent pages.
Oh yes! Send Adam Sandler. And once he's radioed back enough proof to convince his fans, leave him there. His desicated corpse will serve as proof to future generations.
> Thats not good enough
Why not? It answers all your complaints?
Or are you saying that if you saw me juggle seven balls, and I was willing to stop and show you the process of one through six, explaining how the pattern changed and how to add a ball, and let you take photographs that showed seven balls in the air, that you still wouldn't believe I could do it until you saw a second person doing it?
That's nuts. If the evidence is valid, accept it. If it's not, don't accept it, regardless of how many people use it.
Don't you understand how silly you're being?