My first ever inkjet printer (HP Deskjet 500) also lasted forever. In fact, I eventually donated it and it still worked - never had an issue with that printer!
I'm lucky enough to live close to the ocean, so I surf on my lunch when the weather is nice out. Otherwise, I'll take a 2.5 mile walk or bike during my lunch. I need to get off my ass after sitting in front of the computer all morning, and have just made it a part of my daily routine. I have three kids, and don't want to take time away from them (nor pay for a gym membership), so I find that this works best for me.
Yup - I also remember implementing a version of UUCP e-mail on my home grown Apple//e BBS software that could connect with other BBSs (specifically, a ProLine BBS a friend ran) to deliver e-mail to/from other systems. Good times... good times!
Wow, kind of a reminder of how much they've changed. These days it's, "You need an Apple technician to replace the battery / hard drive / casing / logo..."
That is why I haven't owned an Apple Computer since my old and faithful Apple ][e. I used that computer from around 6th grade until I was in my first year of graduate school, when I finally bought a 386DX PC. Crazy, I know.
And finally, a story where my user name makes sense...
Of course, one you *stop* subscribing to Pyramid magazine, then your access to that content goes *poof!* as well. If you can't download it in a nice format, then the online model loses a lot of appeal to me.
I believe that before numbers were in common use, it is thought that the concept of one/singular (e.g. me) and many (e.g. you all) was used. It was quite a leap to go to specific numbers, and a further leap to finally get the idea of zero/none. There was an interesting show on the Discovery|History channel about this a while back, I think.
Intersting point... Now, to abstract it a little further, what about a generic 'user' and a modified GPL net service?
e.g. What if a company modifies a GPL'ed web server and makes that server available to all of us on the net. If one of us asks for the source code, do we legally have a right to it? I wouldn't think so, but I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on tv.
I read the article earlier today, and I think that the author doesn't understand the GPL. Either that, or I don't understand the GPL.
The author states that no company would want to modify GPL'ed code because the GPL requires them to provide the source to the public. However, isn't this the case only if the software is distributed? e.g. If a company wants to modify the linux kernel for internal use only, and does not try and sell it or make it available for public use, then they wouldn't have to release the modified source, correct?
Someone please whack me back into line if I'm way out of it...
What is wrong is them thinking they have a right to have the "obvious" web site for their product. Theo got there first, and theos.com has become a part of his online identity. Theos Software can sit and spin.
Exactly! When my company went looking for a domain name, we found that the 'obvious' one had already been taken by a family. Being the reasonable folk that we are, we registered an alternate name and have been happy ever since. The actions of this company are quite reminicent of children pouting in the sandbox when they don't get their way.
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed. The HP LJ 3 series was a workhorse.
My first ever inkjet printer (HP Deskjet 500) also lasted forever. In fact, I eventually donated it and it still worked - never had an issue with that printer!
I'm lucky enough to live close to the ocean, so I surf on my lunch when the weather is nice out. Otherwise, I'll take a 2.5 mile walk or bike during my lunch. I need to get off my ass after sitting in front of the computer all morning, and have just made it a part of my daily routine. I have three kids, and don't want to take time away from them (nor pay for a gym membership), so I find that this works best for me.
Yup - I also remember implementing a version of UUCP e-mail on my home grown Apple //e BBS software that could connect with other BBSs (specifically, a ProLine BBS a friend ran) to deliver e-mail to/from other systems. Good times... good times!
Wow, kind of a reminder of how much they've changed. These days it's, "You need an Apple technician to replace the battery / hard drive / casing / logo..."
That is why I haven't owned an Apple Computer since my old and faithful Apple ][e. I used that computer from around 6th grade until I was in my first year of graduate school, when I finally bought a 386DX PC. Crazy, I know.
And finally, a story where my user name makes sense...
Of course, one you *stop* subscribing to Pyramid magazine, then your access to that content goes *poof!* as well. If you can't download it in a nice format, then the online model loses a lot of appeal to me.
I believe that before numbers were in common use, it is thought that the concept of one/singular (e.g. me) and many (e.g. you all) was used. It was quite a leap to go to specific numbers, and a further leap to finally get the idea of zero/none. There was an interesting show on the Discovery|History channel about this a while back, I think.
In fact, I've been reading it as free time allows for the last week or so. It's quite good, and exactly what I thought when I read this story.
Well, I just put together a single celeron 300a
system (OEM) using the Abit ZM-6 m/b, and it
seems to run quite well so far o/c'ed to 450.
We're getting ready to set up some linux servers
here at work, and I'm drooling over the idea of
a dual Celeron 466 system o/c'ed to 525 Mhz.
Yowza.
Intersting point... Now, to abstract it a little further, what about a generic 'user' and a modified GPL net service?
e.g. What if a company modifies a GPL'ed web server and makes that server available to all of us on the net. If one of us asks for the source code, do we legally have a right to it? I wouldn't think so, but I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on tv.
I read the article earlier today, and I think that the author doesn't understand the GPL. Either that, or I don't understand the GPL.
The author states that no company would want to modify GPL'ed code because the GPL requires them to provide the source to the public. However, isn't this the case only if the software is distributed? e.g. If a company wants to modify the linux kernel for internal use only, and does not try and sell it or make it available for public use, then they wouldn't have to release the modified source, correct?
Someone please whack me back into line if I'm way out of it...
What is wrong is them thinking they have a right to have the "obvious" web site for their product.
Theo got there first, and theos.com has become a part of his online identity. Theos Software can sit and spin.
Exactly! When my company went looking for a domain name, we found that the 'obvious' one had already been taken by a family. Being the reasonable folk that we are, we registered an alternate name and have been happy ever since. The actions of this company are quite reminicent of children pouting in the sandbox when they don't get their way.