The poster writes, "They recently cut a deal giving Comcast exclusive rights to do up their networking," when the article clearly states multiple times that Comcast isn't an issue. Comcast is merely a sponsor of the park. The ballpark manager is being too sensitive to the wording of the PTP's press release which could be read to suggest that PGE park management worked with the PTP to set up the wireless access when in fact it is being provided from a location across the street. The park manager is inventing some sort of conflict where none exists. Be sure to read the article before engaging in knee-jerk bashing of Comcast.
The only "interesting" thing about this post is its total incoherence.
Somehow you attempt to twist the presence of a potentially useful feature (though one that will undoubtably seldom used--how many parents enable parental controls on their TVs?) into an apparent dig at the Windows interface compared to the MacOS.
Microsoft doesn't force you control your kids' use of the computer, that is your own responsibility as a parent, and one which, from the sound of it, you have found a good solution to. What is insane is to say that the operating system your comptuer uses plays any part in that responsibility.
Re:What's so bad about maximized browser windows?
on
Hyatt Discusses Tabs
·
· Score: 1
One does this because at high resolutions (in my experience, beyond 800x600), the width of a maximized browser is simply too large to read comfortably. People are much more efficient readers if the lines they're reading are not so long.
Lindows "solves" the problem by simply having the user run as root all the time. I frankly can't see how Lindows is anything but the worst of both worlds.
Yep, this is my biggest gripe with the spin on copyright infringement of software (piracy for you media folks). Sure, piracy doesn't help the software creators any, but it absolutely does not equate to the theft of physical product.
The way they cook their numbers is by potential lost sales of the product; each person illegally copying a piece of software didn't buy it, so a sale is lost. This is only half as bad as the impact of the theft of a physical product. If you steal an apple from my fruit stand, not only do I not get to sell the apple to you, because you've stolen it (loss of one sale), but now I can't sell that apple to another person either (loss of another sale).
For the last year, I've been involved with a project to digitize and distribute a particualr television show. While not a capper myself (due to lack of appropriate hardware and access to source material), I help organize and manage the group effort. What makes our project different is that unlike the majority of these TV capping/sharing folks, we are not dealing with first-run shows here. Our object of interest is a program that ran for ten seasons during the 90s, which has a substantial following, but is for the most part completely unavailable.
22 out of a total of about 200 episodes are available comercially on DVD or VHS. Part of the final 3 seasons are currently in rotation, though is a very bizzare timeslot (early in the morning on saturday), and the first 7 seasons are currently not on the air, nor will they ever be due to legal issues surrounding the program. The costs to obtain the rights to syndicate the program are prohibative. These same legal issues make it extremely unlikely that the majority of episodes will ever be made available commercially. It simply doesn't make sense for anybody to try to sell them, because they will lose money.
The show, therefore, is pretty much completely lost to history. To its fans, it is arguably the best thing to ever be shown on television, an irreverent mocking of the very medium on which it presents itself. It is only preserved, however, due to the fans with enough forsight to tape the program throughout its history. Before we came along, there was an active VHS tape trading community built up around the show. The inevtiable problem with that is that VHS degrades over time and with successive copies. Not even the tape traders could effectively preserve the program, because eventually their copies would become unwatchable.
Our goal thus was to work with people with large tape collections to digitize their collections, and make them available via the normal online avenues, to fans who were not gifted with the forsight to record the program themselves, or were so unfortunate as to have not been fans of the program when it was on in the first place.
Our activities are clearly on poor legal footing, but is what we are doing wrong? Is it bad to make available the 70% of the program that is now essentially lost to fans or potential fans, and for which no entity has a commercial interest? I don't believe it is wrong. I don't believe that the creators of the program in question believe it is wrong either, so long as we don't proffit from the effort; one of the creators has indicated as much to us, in a discussion with him.
Unfortunately, under the current media regime, our current activity will not be legal until after the duration of our natural lifetimes, barring amazing achievements in medical scienece.
It's not that the teachers know too much, it's that those teaching for the most part are not very good teachers. It is not easy to teach, and indeed it is very difficult to teach well.
Teaching effectively means being not only very knowledgable in the subject being taught, but also being very aware of the student and his or her own level of knowledge and ability, and be able to be patient, willing to repeat, and friendly.
For most typically antisocial linux nerds, this can be a tall order;)
I'd really like to see an RTS that was programmable and customizable. You can build your own units out of generic parts and then program them to behave however you like. They could even communicate with each other in order to make them work together. The programed behavior would work together with a customizable UI so that a player could interact with the RTS in the same way that he or she does now, by simply telling the units where to go (a simple pathfinding behavior) or to attack, or if they preferred they could customize their units to run the battle entirely autonomously, with little or no human interaction. The replayability and variety of such a game would be great.
Re:Perhaps I'll actually be able to run it now
on
Nautilus 1.0.5 Release
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
This is because it's trying to use ESD (esound), which is not configured properly, yet is set to run in the Gnome Control Panel.
Either make esd work right or disable it and nautilus will become very responsive.
I'm tracking debian unstable and i've found it to be acceptibly fast for everyday use on my rather average machine (p3/450) and it has a whole bunch of neat features that I keep discovering:)
Just because CNNfn is falling into the trap of comparing apples to oranges doesn't mean that we should. AMD still has a significant price edge for the simple reason that an Athlon XP 1800 does not compare to a 1.8Ghz Pentium 4. The Athlon XP 1800 is significantly faster, and compares well to the 2Ghz P4, which is considerably more expensive. If you choose to look at performance, instead of arbitrariy and demonstratably meaningless model numbers, you will see that AMD does indeed retain a price edge.
WRT your final comment, I assume you mean Hammer when you say Thunderbird. That will indeed be interesting. The path to 64bits is a divergant one.
The reason that these widespread viruses aren't as destructive as one might imagine they could be is analogous to how viral outbreaks happen in nature, IMHO.
Most successfull viruses don't kill their hosts right away, or ever, as by doing so they destroy their own method of propogation. Even if they did no harm for some amount of time, you'd find that the number of vulnerable systems would be down very quickly once that timer hit on a large scale, whereas with non-destructive viruses, you're almost garunteed to have repeat outbreak becuase of lingering infections out there that never get cleaned up, or are left for long periods of time.
In general, the more destructive a virus is, the shorter it's overall lifespan, and the lesser the overall damage.
I've recently switched to Mozilla for all of my browsing since almost every news site I go to, with the exception of Slashdot and a few others, now persistantly pop up ad windows. IE wouldn't let me easily disable popups and leave other JavaScript running (and JavaScript is useful for some things).
Anyway, I believe that allowing the document to access properties of the document container is a mis-feature. Allowing a document to manipulate the host UI to open, close, resize, and otherwise manipulate windows breaks down the understood relationship between document and container/viewer, and should never have been implemented.
Now, with Mozilla, I can edit JavaScript's functionality to my heart's content, thus repairing the language's feature set to make it more sane. Yay!
If you bother to read Linus's message, you'll note that this will not eliminate messages scrolling by on bootup. This will simply eliminate the display of suplimentary information that isn't crucial to the booting process.
For instance, you will no longer see:
Random Device Driver: Initialized
Random Device Driver version 1.23 (c)1999 John Doe
You will simply see:
Random Device Driver: Initialized
The other stuff is available elsewhere, and just adds to the clutter. Simple == beautiful.
If you're going to quote the constitution, you might as well be complete about it. You quoted Article I, Section 8, Clause 8. The sentance fragment that is Clause 8 is part of a larger sentance that describes the powers of the US Congress. The sentance reads (eliminating the other, non-relevant Clauses):
The Congress shall have Power... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries
Don't confuse this with somthing in the Bill Of Rights. Copyright is not a natural or human right. We are used to it here in the USA, but it doesn't have to be this way.
It could be argued that if any such copyright laws that exist no longer "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts," they are unconstitutional.
The fact of the matter is that the advent of computers and the Internet make exercising your exclusive right either extremely difficult or downright impossible. The economic, or market value of content in such a situation approaches zero. The cultural value (a concept erroniously conflated with market value in the US) of those works can be arbitrarily high independantly of that. Fundamentally, content in an internet context is not a commodity: there can be no shortage of a particular item, it can only grow. Only by imposing artificial constraints on technology in the form of copying roadblocks can a shortage be created, thus injecting market value into each instance of that content. It's as simple as that.
Is that the study was conducted between 1996 and 1998 (IIRC - I saw discussion about this on the news today) and the average person in the study used their cell phone 2.5 hours per MONTH.
I'd say that more research needs to be done about this, as cell phones are much much more common today than they were even 2 years ago. Not only that, but it is not uncommon for some people to use cell phones over 2 hours every day.
When I was in grade school I had a vision degrading condition in my left eye, that was stopped with a surgical procedure. While that stabalized my vision in that eye, it stabalized it at 20/400, which means that I can see shapes and colors through a blur, making it only good for partial depth perception and left peripheral vision.
It would be great to be able to use a device such as this to get a more productive use out of that eye. I rely on my right eye almost entirely for everyday use, as the vision in that is fine, but suppose I could use a wearable with display to the other...
Are something that you can never get from Gnutella, because it doesn't use them. When you do a search on Gnutella, the results you get back have the IP addresses of computers with matching files so that you can download them. When searching, however, you are mostly anonymous because searches are forwarded through the network.
"If you had any interest in this patent, you should have piped up when it was in review. You can't complain now, you should have said something earlier."
"The notice was posted in a basement with no lights and no stairs, locked in a file cabinet in a disused lavitory behind a sign reading 'beware of the leapord!'"
Contrary to what many of you may think, banner ad revenue is generated by "impressions" which is how many times the ad is downloaded to the clients, and is not primarily based on "click throughs."
Analogizing banner ads to tv ads is inaccurate, because, while it takes very little time to ignore a banner ad and get to what you really want (aside from download time), you can't just skip a tv ad and get back to your show. Even if you don't pay any attention to it, you still have to wait.
Slashdot Mirror
The poster writes, "They recently cut a deal giving Comcast exclusive rights to do up their networking," when the article clearly states multiple times that Comcast isn't an issue. Comcast is merely a sponsor of the park. The ballpark manager is being too sensitive to the wording of the PTP's press release which could be read to suggest that PGE park management worked with the PTP to set up the wireless access when in fact it is being provided from a location across the street. The park manager is inventing some sort of conflict where none exists. Be sure to read the article before engaging in knee-jerk bashing of Comcast.
The only "interesting" thing about this post is its total incoherence.
Somehow you attempt to twist the presence of a potentially useful feature (though one that will undoubtably seldom used--how many parents enable parental controls on their TVs?) into an apparent dig at the Windows interface compared to the MacOS.
Microsoft doesn't force you control your kids' use of the computer, that is your own responsibility as a parent, and one which, from the sound of it, you have found a good solution to. What is insane is to say that the operating system your comptuer uses plays any part in that responsibility.
One does this because at high resolutions (in my experience, beyond 800x600), the width of a maximized browser is simply too large to read comfortably. People are much more efficient readers if the lines they're reading are not so long.
Lindows "solves" the problem by simply having the user run as root all the time. I frankly can't see how Lindows is anything but the worst of both worlds.
Yep, this is my biggest gripe with the spin on copyright infringement of software (piracy for you media folks). Sure, piracy doesn't help the software creators any, but it absolutely does not equate to the theft of physical product.
The way they cook their numbers is by potential lost sales of the product; each person illegally copying a piece of software didn't buy it, so a sale is lost. This is only half as bad as the impact of the theft of a physical product. If you steal an apple from my fruit stand, not only do I not get to sell the apple to you, because you've stolen it (loss of one sale), but now I can't sell that apple to another person either (loss of another sale).
Your impression that free is equivalent to no money required is almost rediculously narrow.
For the last year, I've been involved with a project to digitize and distribute a particualr television show. While not a capper myself (due to lack of appropriate hardware and access to source material), I help organize and manage the group effort. What makes our project different is that unlike the majority of these TV capping/sharing folks, we are not dealing with first-run shows here. Our object of interest is a program that ran for ten seasons during the 90s, which has a substantial following, but is for the most part completely unavailable.
22 out of a total of about 200 episodes are available comercially on DVD or VHS. Part of the final 3 seasons are currently in rotation, though is a very bizzare timeslot (early in the morning on saturday), and the first 7 seasons are currently not on the air, nor will they ever be due to legal issues surrounding the program. The costs to obtain the rights to syndicate the program are prohibative. These same legal issues make it extremely unlikely that the majority of episodes will ever be made available commercially. It simply doesn't make sense for anybody to try to sell them, because they will lose money.
The show, therefore, is pretty much completely lost to history. To its fans, it is arguably the best thing to ever be shown on television, an irreverent mocking of the very medium on which it presents itself. It is only preserved, however, due to the fans with enough forsight to tape the program throughout its history. Before we came along, there was an active VHS tape trading community built up around the show. The inevtiable problem with that is that VHS degrades over time and with successive copies. Not even the tape traders could effectively preserve the program, because eventually their copies would become unwatchable.
Our goal thus was to work with people with large tape collections to digitize their collections, and make them available via the normal online avenues, to fans who were not gifted with the forsight to record the program themselves, or were so unfortunate as to have not been fans of the program when it was on in the first place.
Our activities are clearly on poor legal footing, but is what we are doing wrong? Is it bad to make available the 70% of the program that is now essentially lost to fans or potential fans, and for which no entity has a commercial interest? I don't believe it is wrong. I don't believe that the creators of the program in question believe it is wrong either, so long as we don't proffit from the effort; one of the creators has indicated as much to us, in a discussion with him.
Unfortunately, under the current media regime, our current activity will not be legal until after the duration of our natural lifetimes, barring amazing achievements in medical scienece.
I call BS. The majority does not rule. In case you didn't notice, there has never been a vote about what "linux" should or will be.
If I want to take linux and make it into something that I want it to be, I can do that, even if most people think that I shouldn't.
This is NOT a democracy, the mob does NOT rule. The open source movement is about the freedom of the individual.
It's not that the teachers know too much, it's that those teaching for the most part are not very good teachers. It is not easy to teach, and indeed it is very difficult to teach well.
;)
Teaching effectively means being not only very knowledgable in the subject being taught, but also being very aware of the student and his or her own level of knowledge and ability, and be able to be patient, willing to repeat, and friendly.
For most typically antisocial linux nerds, this can be a tall order
Make it programable!
I'd really like to see an RTS that was programmable and customizable. You can build your own units out of generic parts and then program them to behave however you like. They could even communicate with each other in order to make them work together. The programed behavior would work together with a customizable UI so that a player could interact with the RTS in the same way that he or she does now, by simply telling the units where to go (a simple pathfinding behavior) or to attack, or if they preferred they could customize their units to run the battle entirely autonomously, with little or no human interaction. The replayability and variety of such a game would be great.
This is because it's trying to use ESD (esound), which is not configured properly, yet is set to run in the Gnome Control Panel.
:)
Either make esd work right or disable it and nautilus will become very responsive.
I'm tracking debian unstable and i've found it to be acceptibly fast for everyday use on my rather average machine (p3/450) and it has a whole bunch of neat features that I keep discovering
Who is modding this up as insightful?
Just because CNNfn is falling into the trap of comparing apples to oranges doesn't mean that we should. AMD still has a significant price edge for the simple reason that an Athlon XP 1800 does not compare to a 1.8Ghz Pentium 4. The Athlon XP 1800 is significantly faster, and compares well to the 2Ghz P4, which is considerably more expensive. If you choose to look at performance, instead of arbitrariy and demonstratably meaningless model numbers, you will see that AMD does indeed retain a price edge.
WRT your final comment, I assume you mean Hammer when you say Thunderbird. That will indeed be interesting. The path to 64bits is a divergant one.
The reason that these widespread viruses aren't as destructive as one might imagine they could be is analogous to how viral outbreaks happen in nature, IMHO.
Most successfull viruses don't kill their hosts right away, or ever, as by doing so they destroy their own method of propogation. Even if they did no harm for some amount of time, you'd find that the number of vulnerable systems would be down very quickly once that timer hit on a large scale, whereas with non-destructive viruses, you're almost garunteed to have repeat outbreak becuase of lingering infections out there that never get cleaned up, or are left for long periods of time.
In general, the more destructive a virus is, the shorter it's overall lifespan, and the lesser the overall damage.
I've recently switched to Mozilla for all of my browsing since almost every news site I go to, with the exception of Slashdot and a few others, now persistantly pop up ad windows. IE wouldn't let me easily disable popups and leave other JavaScript running (and JavaScript is useful for some things).
Anyway, I believe that allowing the document to access properties of the document container is a mis-feature. Allowing a document to manipulate the host UI to open, close, resize, and otherwise manipulate windows breaks down the understood relationship between document and container/viewer, and should never have been implemented.
Now, with Mozilla, I can edit JavaScript's functionality to my heart's content, thus repairing the language's feature set to make it more sane. Yay!
If you bother to read Linus's message, you'll note that this will not eliminate messages scrolling by on bootup. This will simply eliminate the display of suplimentary information that isn't crucial to the booting process.
For instance, you will no longer see:
Random Device Driver: Initialized
Random Device Driver version 1.23 (c)1999 John Doe
You will simply see:
Random Device Driver: Initialized
The other stuff is available elsewhere, and just adds to the clutter. Simple == beautiful.
Why not make interstatial advertising? Because people like me will stop going to websites that try to turn the internet into television.
If you're going to quote the constitution, you might as well be complete about it. You quoted Article I, Section 8, Clause 8. The sentance fragment that is Clause 8 is part of a larger sentance that describes the powers of the US Congress. The sentance reads (eliminating the other, non-relevant Clauses):
Don't confuse this with somthing in the Bill Of Rights. Copyright is not a natural or human right. We are used to it here in the USA, but it doesn't have to be this way.
It could be argued that if any such copyright laws that exist no longer "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts," they are unconstitutional.
The fact of the matter is that the advent of computers and the Internet make exercising your exclusive right either extremely difficult or downright impossible. The economic, or market value of content in such a situation approaches zero. The cultural value (a concept erroniously conflated with market value in the US) of those works can be arbitrarily high independantly of that. Fundamentally, content in an internet context is not a commodity: there can be no shortage of a particular item, it can only grow. Only by imposing artificial constraints on technology in the form of copying roadblocks can a shortage be created, thus injecting market value into each instance of that content. It's as simple as that.
Is that the study was conducted between 1996 and 1998 (IIRC - I saw discussion about this on the news today) and the average person in the study used their cell phone 2.5 hours per MONTH.
I'd say that more research needs to be done about this, as cell phones are much much more common today than they were even 2 years ago. Not only that, but it is not uncommon for some people to use cell phones over 2 hours every day.
When I was in grade school I had a vision degrading condition in my left eye, that was stopped with a surgical procedure. While that stabalized my vision in that eye, it stabalized it at 20/400, which means that I can see shapes and colors through a blur, making it only good for partial depth perception and left peripheral vision.
It would be great to be able to use a device such as this to get a more productive use out of that eye. I rely on my right eye almost entirely for everyday use, as the vision in that is fine, but suppose I could use a wearable with display to the other...
Sign me up!
If you're interested in watching the hearing, you can see it in full (almost 3 hours long) in realvideo format from C-Span.com. The url is http://video.c-span.o rg:8080/ramgen/ldrive/e071100_digital.rm.
Are something that you can never get from Gnutella, because it doesn't use them. When you do a search on Gnutella, the results you get back have the IP addresses of computers with matching files so that you can download them. When searching, however, you are mostly anonymous because searches are forwarded through the network.
Amazon.com, for their amazing One Click innovation!!
The beginning of the Hitchhiker's Guide.
"If you had any interest in this patent, you should have piped up when it was in review. You can't complain now, you should have said something earlier."
"The notice was posted in a basement with no lights and no stairs, locked in a file cabinet in a disused lavitory behind a sign reading 'beware of the leapord!'"
(not an attempt at an exact quote.)
He refers to the famous "Chewbacca Defense."
Contrary to what many of you may think, banner ad revenue is generated by "impressions" which is how many times the ad is downloaded to the clients, and is not primarily based on "click throughs."
Analogizing banner ads to tv ads is inaccurate, because, while it takes very little time to ignore a banner ad and get to what you really want (aside from download time), you can't just skip a tv ad and get back to your show. Even if you don't pay any attention to it, you still have to wait.
Let's stop comparing apples and oranges, people!