The site was important. It worked really well. I'm glad I was there to witness it. It's less frequent these days, but I always come back. The first one is always the most special.
Another vote for this approach - I've recently acquired one of Bob Anderson's books, and have found it to be a great help. I've been struggling with a lot of keyboarding based pain for the last couple of years, and the exercises presented in this book have really helped me eliminate a lot of pain and discomfort. The stretching program in that volume is presented to be easily performed by deskbound users within an office.
I suspect it might be more useful against general posture or ergonomic RSI, which I think is at the root of a lot of my problems. I think this is a somewhat different class of injury than wrist and forearm issues which may be more directly related to typing mechanics. I'm not really troubled in those areas, even though I'm an emacs user. I think I'm lucky enought to have reasonable typing skills in terms of wrist posture and alternation.
I recommend the book to anyone concerned about keyboard operator's health. It's cheaper than a decent new keyboard, and perhaps has a less steep learning curve than a new keyboard layout.
They also use smaller bitmaps for "hints" in the Finder at 64x64 32x32 and 16x16.
Presumably they had their reasons for not using scalable vectors, possibly performance - although the term "hint" suggests that its a rendering bias for clarity.
Excellent, thanks. Looks like its quite high off the ground, might explain why I never noticed that before. I expect I'll be over there again at Christmas time, I'll keep my eyes peeled. That sign does look totally home-grown! Thanks for taking the trouble.
Don't suppose you have the photo online anywhere? I visit Valetta a lot, and I have to say I've never noticed it, annoyingly enough. Or if no digital photo, do you know the street name ?
Well, I have no appreciable grounding in image processing, but I am a programmer who knows how to bowl a cricket delivery, and I agree with you about the complications entirely. What is more it isn't just the commentators who mistrust it, I've watched it give entirely insane results on TV coverage before. There is an appreciable delay with the system though, before they are able to call it up and play it, so presumably it is crunching a lot of numbers.
It does seem to concentrate more on the vertical axis than any other movement however, and of course, despite all of the aforementioned chaotic potential, a skilled bowler quite often will be attempting to repeat sequential deliveries around similar line and length, often varying between a palette with three or four very similar balls. So maybe it builds up the model over time? There's usually plenty of balls between LBW decisions.
I do find it odd that there isn't any web presence about how it works, and I've never seen the TV or cricket magazines feature a "how it works" any deeper that "it uses six cameras and some magic computers". I had wondered if this was because of some trade secret type approach. You can't yet patent software in the EU (yet)of course, although I'd think that the Hawkeye system in its entirety would be patentable.
The machine does make for great TV though, arguing the reality of an LBW decision with your mates is one of life's great pleasusres, and having a computer back someones side up, leads to lots of useful argument fuel;-) Its also a helpful visual aid to the casual viewer who might well fit into the "WTF is an LBW?" category.
I like the system with all of its flaws, it has brought a lot to the game, even if its all smoke and mirrors.
No, your link is to the third umpire, which actually is another umpire, who has access to a video replay.
Their input on a decision is only allowed when called for by the match umpire, and only for a limited set of conditions.
The article you link is commenting on an occasion when an experimental wider set of decisions were allowed for referral.
As far as I know ( I'm a cricket follower, but not a fanatic ), the referrable decisions are still limited to run outs, , stumpings , boundary decisions and close catches
Furthermore, they are only allowed to review the video replay a limited number of times.
What you may be thinking of instead, is the extremely cool hawkeye system which is used by the channel4 TV station , who show the bulk of the UK cricket coverage, to predict the flight a ball subjected to an LBW decision would have taken. Its a brilliant TV aid, and extremely sophisticated technology, but its only used by commentators, and has nothing to do with the umpires. I doubt it would ever find its way into cricket in any official capacity
Cricket is a way cool game, and extremely nerdy. You have to admire any sport where a satisfying match can go on for a week and then end in a draw.
Well actually I use it in OS X all the time. You need to toy with the levels enough to get it just right, but its actually somewhat useful to cascade a couple of windows, one with a man page or a browser showing help text behind a shell that you are trying out the command in. Not essential, by any means, but useful enough to miss when you can't do it.
Your point is correct. I was really just pointing out a simple linear relationship between quartz top level windows and memory consumption that might explain the "more windows use more RAM" observation, made higher up the thread. Certainly a window consumes more of your free memory than just that occupied by an initialised instance of NSWindow.
My solution is too cram as much RAM into OS X machines as they can take:-)
No, it has nice pretty icons and lots of scalable effects, but the icons are just scaleable pixmaps.
However the entire quartz graphics subsystem supports all sorts of vector based operations and translations. Its a lot of fun to play with. Look at all of the shrunken window effects.
Thanks for the link. In that paper they are talking about a titianium alloy disk, which I appreciate as being "hard". Where did the mylar disk mentioned in the slashdot story and the linked article enter the picture, I wonder ? Thats the bit I was quibbling. The white paper is pretty informative though.
He meant this lovely act of parliament, and subsequent government attempts to amend it. The register is a UK based tech news site ( and a particularly clueless and crappy one at the best of times). But you knew all that already , didn't you ?
Interestingly enough while we are talking about UK specifics, I do think this sort of "geek groupthink" the article complains about is becoming more detectable, and one of the symptoms of it I have run into locally a couple of times are UK "geeks" who spout off about the DMCA and illegality of decss and other US specific tech legalities, seemingly ignorant of the fact that they don't actually apply to their own national jurisdiction. Generally they then move on to tell me that OpenBSD is more secure by design, RMS is a lunatic , emacs/vi/KDE/GNOME sucks , X11 is bloated, windows crashes a lot , all the other 2nd hand opinions you see on sites like this every day, blah blah. I have a name for these people, and it isn't "geeks". But I'm not sure that its anything sinister. You could probably chalk it up to the fact that the sort of people who use their computers a lot are nowadays exposed to a wider pool of consensus due to the increasing penetration of the internet. This always happens as something moves from the fringes,to a trend and then into the mainstream.
Lets face it, in 2002 there isn't anything terribly "geek"-ish, or whatever you want to call it, about having linux on a home( or even work ) computer, using the web,and being aware of DRM issues ( at least napster and DVD region coding ) and buying T-shirts online that reference these things. In fact there hasn't been for a good few years now. Sturgeons Law, people. As always, look to the fringes for the voices of dissent, of course those fringes are always being redefined. Thats how social evolution works, I've always thought. Celebrate diversity for sure, but don't forget elitism sucks.
Not "might have been", rather "was". I understand the point you are making, but the hostile language and use of the word "fact" along with an assertion that blatantly was not one, did your argument no favour. Indeed it irritated me enough to write a response, and presumaby enough moderators agreed with for it to float up to the top and gain your attention.
In the case of OS X the FreeBSD component is used precisely because the license terms allow for a company to take this code and do what they like with it.
Now if you strip away Quartz and the OpenStep runtime you are left with an OS called "Darwin". This OS is freely redistributable and source available , under an OSI approved "open source" licence. I expect the FSF don't like this license much, but then they are not exactly mad keen on the FreeBSD license in the first place, so the point is moot. Now, to me that adds up to a rather generous form of "appropriaton", especially when you consider that Apple are under no obligation to do this at all. Indeed they could well have chosen to close off the low level OS components and hide away the FreeBSD heritage. Instead they use that fact visibly within the marketing campaign for the OS X product.
All of this I consider, makes OS X and its relationship to FreeBSD a terrible example of the case you are trying to argue. When you dress up a central point of some contention in strident language and elaborate it with falsehoods you communicate a certain attitude to a reader like myself. There is a large, and largely well written review, of what sounds like it could be an interesting publication, certainly interesting to a great section of this websites readers. By inserting a snide and untrue assertion at the foot of the opening postulates, you poison the tone of the whole piece. A seed of doubt is sown , and to the reader it is apparent that the author has an agenda alongside the evaluation of the quality of the book on review, not only an agenda but look out! Their words cannot be trusted.
On the whole I think one needs to be careful about allowing self opinion to leak into review cases. If you feel a relevant opinion needs to be presented in order to provide useful context for the reader, then you are correct that often a good idea is to provide example matter to back up your assertion. The examples need to be relevant to the case in question however !
"Repeatedly, individuals and corporations appropriate something free and open and use it to form the basis of some prortietry profit-making system! " you say (and I paraphrase) "Really ?", says the reader , " I wouldn't put it past those swine, I bet they do., Tell me more."
"Yes!", you continue, "just look at Apple Computer - they are one of the worst for it. " The reader frowns. "Apple ? The company that gave away full circuit schematics with their gadgets and PCs ? The company that gives away the source code to their commercial grade UNIX system for free ? That doesn't make much sense. You must be one of these slashdot Apple bashers. I thought this was a book review.", he says , and moves quickly on to another article.
Slashdot Mirror
What's so special about a 5-digit slashdot id?
The site was important. It worked really well. I'm glad I was there to witness it. It's less frequent these days, but I always come back. The first one is always the most special.
http://home.howstuffworks.com/question446.htm
There is no postgresql release 7.5. The last 7.x release was 7.4 , the current stable is 8.0 with 8.1 in beta.
I suspect it might be more useful against general posture or ergonomic RSI, which I think is at the root of a lot of my problems. I think this is a somewhat different class of injury than wrist and forearm issues which may be more directly related to typing mechanics. I'm not really troubled in those areas, even though I'm an emacs user. I think I'm lucky enought to have reasonable typing skills in terms of wrist posture and alternation.
I recommend the book to anyone concerned about keyboard operator's health. It's cheaper than a decent new keyboard, and perhaps has a less steep learning curve than a new keyboard layout.
Um, you don't need a license for a dog. Haven't done for years. All you need to be legal is for it to wear a collar and tag. ;-)
How do you run OmniWeb on a Zaurus?
Presumably they had their reasons for not using scalable vectors, possibly performance - although the term "hint" suggests that its a rendering bias for clarity.
Here is an overview document
Excellent, thanks. Looks like its quite high off the ground, might explain why I never noticed that before. I expect I'll be over there again at Christmas time, I'll keep my eyes peeled. That sign does look totally home-grown! Thanks for taking the trouble.
I think I can picture the street you mean - downhill from Hastings Gardens? It'd be cool to see your picture though, thanks for responding.
Don't suppose you have the photo online anywhere? I visit Valetta a lot, and I have to say I've never noticed it, annoyingly enough. Or if no digital photo, do you know the street name ?
It does seem to concentrate more on the vertical axis than any other movement however, and of course, despite all of the aforementioned chaotic potential, a skilled bowler quite often will be attempting to repeat sequential deliveries around similar line and length, often varying between a palette with three or four very similar balls. So maybe it builds up the model over time? There's usually plenty of balls between LBW decisions.
I do find it odd that there isn't any web presence about how it works, and I've never seen the TV or cricket magazines feature a "how it works" any deeper that "it uses six cameras and some magic computers". I had wondered if this was because of some trade secret type approach. You can't yet patent software in the EU (yet)of course, although I'd think that the Hawkeye system in its entirety would be patentable.
The machine does make for great TV though, arguing the reality of an LBW decision with your mates is one of life's great pleasusres, and having a computer back someones side up, leads to lots of useful argument fuel ;-) Its also a helpful visual aid to the casual viewer who might well fit into the "WTF is an LBW?" category.
I like the system with all of its flaws, it has brought a lot to the game, even if its all smoke and mirrors.
The article you link is commenting on an occasion when an experimental wider set of decisions were allowed for referral. As far as I know ( I'm a cricket follower, but not a fanatic ), the referrable decisions are still limited to run outs, , stumpings , boundary decisions and close catches Furthermore, they are only allowed to review the video replay a limited number of times.
What you may be thinking of instead, is the extremely cool hawkeye system which is used by the channel4 TV station , who show the bulk of the UK cricket coverage, to predict the flight a ball subjected to an LBW decision would have taken. Its a brilliant TV aid, and extremely sophisticated technology, but its only used by commentators, and has nothing to do with the umpires. I doubt it would ever find its way into cricket in any official capacity
Cricket is a way cool game, and extremely nerdy. You have to admire any sport where a satisfying match can go on for a week and then end in a draw.
Well actually I use it in OS X all the time. You need to toy with the levels enough to get it just right, but its actually somewhat useful to cascade a couple of windows, one with a man page or a browser showing help text behind a shell that you are trying out the command in. Not essential, by any means, but useful enough to miss when you can't do it.
My solution is too cram as much RAM into OS X machines as they can take :-)
Windows cause quartz to maintain a buffer proportional to their display area for drawing into. Views do not.
However the entire quartz graphics subsystem supports all sorts of vector based operations and translations. Its a lot of fun to play with. Look at all of the shrunken window effects.
Thanks for the link. In that paper they are talking about a titianium alloy disk, which I appreciate as being "hard". Where did the mylar disk mentioned in the slashdot story and the linked article enter the picture, I wonder ? Thats the bit I was quibbling. The white paper is pretty informative though.
Mylar suggests a floppy, rather than hard disk to me. 3.5" floppies are still floppies even though they are encased in a shell
Looked to me like the latest update on the noamazon.com site that you link to was Valentine's Day, 2001. Hardly the most active looking protest.
The IMDb clearly states on that page that the title is "In production" and that the present data is speculative.
On a 666 its just the L3 cache that gets disabled. I think this is documented somewhere on the Apple tech site.
Interestingly enough while we are talking about UK specifics, I do think this sort of "geek groupthink" the article complains about is becoming more detectable, and one of the symptoms of it I have run into locally a couple of times are UK "geeks" who spout off about the DMCA and illegality of decss and other US specific tech legalities, seemingly ignorant of the fact that they don't actually apply to their own national jurisdiction. Generally they then move on to tell me that OpenBSD is more secure by design, RMS is a lunatic , emacs/vi/KDE/GNOME sucks , X11 is bloated, windows crashes a lot , all the other 2nd hand opinions you see on sites like this every day, blah blah. I have a name for these people, and it isn't "geeks". But I'm not sure that its anything sinister. You could probably chalk it up to the fact that the sort of people who use their computers a lot are nowadays exposed to a wider pool of consensus due to the increasing penetration of the internet. This always happens as something moves from the fringes,to a trend and then into the mainstream.
Lets face it, in 2002 there isn't anything terribly "geek"-ish, or whatever you want to call it, about having linux on a home( or even work ) computer, using the web,and being aware of DRM issues ( at least napster and DVD region coding ) and buying T-shirts online that reference these things. In fact there hasn't been for a good few years now. Sturgeons Law, people. As always, look to the fringes for the voices of dissent, of course those fringes are always being redefined. Thats how social evolution works, I've always thought. Celebrate diversity for sure, but don't forget elitism sucks.
In the case of OS X the FreeBSD component is used precisely because the license terms allow for a company to take this code and do what they like with it.
Now if you strip away Quartz and the OpenStep runtime you are left with an OS called "Darwin". This OS is freely redistributable and source available , under an OSI approved "open source" licence. I expect the FSF don't like this license much, but then they are not exactly mad keen on the FreeBSD license in the first place, so the point is moot. Now, to me that adds up to a rather generous form of "appropriaton", especially when you consider that Apple are under no obligation to do this at all. Indeed they could well have chosen to close off the low level OS components and hide away the FreeBSD heritage. Instead they use that fact visibly within the marketing campaign for the OS X product.
All of this I consider, makes OS X and its relationship to FreeBSD a terrible example of the case you are trying to argue. When you dress up a central point of some contention in strident language and elaborate it with falsehoods you communicate a certain attitude to a reader like myself. There is a large, and largely well written review, of what sounds like it could be an interesting publication, certainly interesting to a great section of this websites readers. By inserting a snide and untrue assertion at the foot of the opening postulates, you poison the tone of the whole piece. A seed of doubt is sown , and to the reader it is apparent that the author has an agenda alongside the evaluation of the quality of the book on review, not only an agenda but look out! Their words cannot be trusted.
On the whole I think one needs to be careful about allowing self opinion to leak into review cases. If you feel a relevant opinion needs to be presented in order to provide useful context for the reader, then you are correct that often a good idea is to provide example matter to back up your assertion. The examples need to be relevant to the case in question however !
"Repeatedly, individuals and corporations appropriate something free and open and use it to form the basis of some prortietry profit-making system! " you say (and I paraphrase)
"Really ?", says the reader , " I wouldn't put it past those swine, I bet they do., Tell me more."
"Yes!", you continue, "just look at Apple Computer - they are one of the worst for it. "
The reader frowns. "Apple ? The company that gave away full circuit schematics with their gadgets and PCs ? The company that gives away the source code to their commercial grade UNIX system for free ? That doesn't make much sense. You must be one of these slashdot Apple bashers. I thought this was a book review.", he says , and moves quickly on to another article.