I like Free, open source software -- and that's upper-case Free, as in the FSF/GNU/GPL, etc. I like it because it's accessable ("download newest version now, for free"), because I can pass it on to friends and family, because it's cheap (related to but distinct from whether it's easily accessable), because I *enjoy* a lot of it (some obvious ones -- TuxRacer, GIMP, Audacity, Inkscape, Mozilla/Firefox), because much Free/open source software comes out of adversity, and therefore does a better job than certain proprietary tools of opening / converting various file formats, and for other reasons that have all been laid out elsewhere by people who have described them better than I would.
However, my favorite, peevish reason for getting people to use FOSS is to point out that any time the money being spent on software comes from taxpayers, it can immediately and substantially benefit the commonwealth if it's used to support open source software. In a far more indirect way, of course, money spent on Microsoft software (and that of any closed-source software company) *can* benefit the commonwealth trickle-up style, as the employees of the company pay taxes, etc.
However, a) I'd like the government to be smaller and confine itself to fewer roles (Ah, to dream!), so I don't much buy the argument I've just reluctantly presented and b) software is a multiplier; if I can legitimately and freely give OpenOffice and XMMS ImageMagick and various other pieces of software to everyone in my family, suddenly all the formats those programs can manipulate are worth more to them. If the government of a particular state / county / court system / municipal government is going to drop X many dollars (again, TAX dollars, which theoretically do *not* belong to the government bodies, but rather to the citizens on whose behalf the money is being spent!) on, say, a a few hundred licenses for an office suite, I'd rather they do it in a way that maximizes the value to the people who are picking up the tab.
I like to talk about OpenOffice.org in this context, because a) it's multi-platform b) it comes from a respected, established company (Sun) and is no flash-in-the-pan and c) because it's at least in the same ballpark of usability as MS Office; it's not like asking people to "just shut up and learn TeX!" For several reasons (like out-of-box PDF creation, and my own skewed sense of aesthetics), I prefer OpenOffice; another good reason is that Microsoft doesn't make Office -- at any price -- for Linux, and why the heck should I jump through hoops to work around it, possibly voiding the license (not sure on that) to make it work on an unsupported platform? Like the Woody Allen joke, "... And such small portions!"
There's a lot of sour-grapes, cultivated-haughtiness reaction sometimes to the idea that (say) OpenOffice can replace Office, a lot of ueber-cynical scoffing. Sometimes it's well justified (or well enough), and sometimes it's of the Comic Shop Guy variety, cartoonish teenage-cool / movie action hero smugness (perhaps "Zapp Brannigan" is the ideal cartoon hero for this sort of dismissal). Among the complaints are that...
- "My VBA scripts run everything!" Fine. *If* you're a business. You can be hypnotized by Oliver Wendell Jones to stick cucumbers up your nose, too, if it's on your own dollar. More power to ya. But if you're spending tax-payer dollars on a product with only one supplier and a tendency toward lock-in, that sounds like poor stewardship unless there are extenuating circumstances. (Which there might sometimes be.)
- "People are used to Word / Excel / etc. It's very expensive to train users! By using MS software [or Oracle, or WordPerfect, or PhotoShop], we avoid expensive retraining costs." In a word, bluster. Some businesses do train their employees -- that is, they hire consultants to teach classes, or pay for employees to attend training sessions on the new software, etc. However, the typical case (this isn't a deep survey, of course, and it's all based on what
Setting: At the moment, I'm at my place in Texas, running Fedora Core 3; I have KDE on this machine but have been mostly groovy with Gnome, as the Good Lords at Red Hat intended:) I don't have a printer handy, so I don't know how easy or reliable Gnome's printer setup tools are. However...
With KDE, which I've used on various systems running Knoppix and Mepis, I agree with you, and found one thing especially nice: if there are several machines on a network, and I set up printing by attaching my USB laser printer to one of them and running the KDE printer-setup program, the other machines then see it automatically, no work necessary on my side. Since I would probably have gone crazy if I had been *trying* to get this to work, it's a cool bonus.
DR. FRANKENSTEIN stands over the lifeless form of THE MONSTER. THE MONSTER is strapped to a gurney, with electrical apparatus attached to various points on his body.
[Lightning Crashes]
Medium shot: DR. FRANKENSTEIN looks skyward, raises hands, imploring.
DR. FRANKENSTEIN: "Give... my creature... *biological activity!*"
"I only wish Apple's worked with the non-Photo version of the iPod."
I bought an iPod last month (the last American without one, I think) with the hope, but not the certainty, that Apple's would work with it, but knowing that if it didn't I could buy the Belkin one instead. It's bigger, more expensive and apparently more power hungry, but for an upcoming trip I need more storage than I can afford in tiny, losable xD cards.
Turns out that Apple made their reader iPod Photo only; disappointing, but oh, well. (Which is why I ordered the Belkin one instead.)
Awesome -- I'd always set up keyword searches "the hard way" (not so hard, really -- I would just always have to google to remind myself of quite how to do this). You've just probably saved me a bunch of time in the future -- thanks.
Also, since I had google searches set up from the URL bar, I was annoyed by but learning to ignore the search bar (along with a lot of other people, Yes, I find it a pain in the eye) -- so you killed that one, too.
This is true: two years ago I was watching "The Office" at a co-worker's house (I'd never watched a whole episode before), and realized that Martin Freeman struck me -- out of the blue -- as exactly the way I would have expected a real-life Arthur Dent to look, gesture and sound, right down to the mooning for dawn, and the look of frustrated annoyance that he occasionally beams at (or rather just past) Gareth.
At the time (having no head for celebrity news), I didn't realize he'd been cast already as Arthur, and figured some other, well-meaning but inferior actor had been cast in that role. "It's too bad that they're already shooting 'Hitchhikers,'" I said, "because that guy *is* Arthur! Anyone else will pale in comparison to the flesh-and-blood Arthur who is playing Tim in this bizarre English-type sit-com!" My better-informed co-worker let me in on the good news, and my casting prowess was confirmed (to me, anyhow).
However, I'm curious how he came to the attention of the film's makers -- or was it vice versa? Was it because of his role in The Office, or was it his idea, or what? Was he already an Adams fan, or was this just happenstance?
"Hiding the mouse pointer completely is usually a pretty stupid idea. It's quicker for the user to move the pointer out of the way than it is to find a hidden pointer when they need to use the mouse again..."
I agree with you on that; when I read his list, this was one of the several that I disagreed with.
HOWEVER, imagine this: a mouse pointer that both *grows* (bear with me for a second) and fades to transparent, but acts (very slightly) as a lens, like a drop of water or a magnifying glass. That way you could a) keep track of where it was b) see through it, clearly enough to read / modify text. Move the mouse, it shrinks and darkens again to "normal use" mode.
Maybe this is silly, but I'd certainly like to try out a pointer that acts like that:)
"Could these moves signal the beginning of a period of rapid improvement in Free drivers for video cards?"
Boy, I hope so! Most Linux distros nowadays are really nice out of the box, graphically -- for 2D. Since I am close to a non-gamer (weaknesses include frozen bubble, kbounce, and similar addicitive brain-rotters), this isn't much of a problem for me.
(And Yes -- you can disagree with me happily, but my main issue, as a distro-fickle klutz and permanent newbie, is how it behaves out of the box. If I have to download, compile, install, change settings, perform voodoo, my incentive must be that much greater.)
Some cards obviously work better than others, but in the machine I'm working on right now, I happen to *have* built-in "S3 Unichrome" graphics, and it would sure be nice if I could finally play TuxRacer smoothly:) (I saw it played *very* smoothly even 4 or 5 years ago on Dell laptops with built-in 3D acceleration, but I always buy low on the computer food chain. Which means I can't really complain, per se, but I can still hope.)
I'm fickle about which distro I use, but at the moment, and for the past month and a half, I've been using on this machine Fedora Core 3, which came as the cover disk for an English Linux magazine. (Why don't more American magazines come with monthly distros?) It's not perfect, but it's certainly "viable," in my case...
I don't know whether Coursey supplied the headline (maybe some editor above him did), but it's one of the more Onionesque headlines one could see on a computer-centric Website.
"Midsize Businesses Have No Use for Linux"
Now say that again with a straight face, and wonder. This is stretch past even the stretches contained in the article that follows.
Now, surely there are many businesses (for various reasons, of varying degrees of rationality), aren't currently using Linux. (Or Mac OS X, or any version of Windows past 98, etc.) However, even the very few data points I know of (check out NewsForge, any big IT publication, Dr. Dobbs, etc. for more and better) are more than enough to make clear that Coursey's article is the usual Coursey -- provocative if you're a pal, flamebait if you're offended, laughable if you think that he's sincere, trolling if you think Coursey knows he's egregiously distorting the truth. I go with that last one, but Hey, maybe he's just a big prankster.
If NASA needs private sponsorships and advertising to get along, why not let true private enterprise (instead of quasi-private) take over the aspects of spaceflight which it's not prepared to support? I'd much rather see Pizza Hut paying -- voluntarily, and with clearcut goals of their own! -- for spaceflight than me, my landlord, and my neighbors, who are not given any specific choice about it.
(Please don't tell me that "we as a society decided to give money to NASA to do it" unless you believe that every government decision represents societal concensus. Consider this: if U.S. tax return forms had a checkbox for NASA, reading something like "Yes, I'd like to direct a dollar of this tax money or contribute an additional [dollar amount, please fill in] ______, enclosed, to NASA," then *that* would be voluntary -- and a good idea, to boot, sez me. It would sure knock down the whole argument I made in the first graf here;))
Militarily, there's reason for NASA: among other things, they help launch satellites. Defense is a natural imperative, so I'll assert, not just concede, that part. To a lesser extent, though I think it's mostly a budget- and political carrot rather than near-term reality (Hey, what happened to the Bush plan to put folks again on the moon?), NASA research on practical matters of human life in space is somewhat justifiable.
What about abstract knowledge part of NASA? While I realize this makes me an anti-science troglodyte who hates any advance in human knowledge, I don't think that tax dollars should be paying for edge-of-galaxy explorer probes, or satellite telescopes looking outward at the various nebulae -- fascinating and good as those things are! (Golf carts on Mars is easier to swallow, wrt the Life in Space loophole, and so are satellite views of Earth, which show, among other things, how humans affect the planet.)
Note: I'm not saying no one should be interested in or study abstract, non-practical, just-for-insatiable-curiosity things about space -- far from it. I'm only raising the issue of how they're paid for and justified. The government doesn't spend our money very well, and frequently act with it in ways that decrease the national well-being; my biggest gripe about the way NASA money is spent is that it amounts to a tax subsidy, year after year, for a handful of entrenched companies that are technically private but mostly exist because of their (to mix a metaphor) pole position at the public teat.
If Dan Rutter were vastly, independently wealthy, he might also have the "he buys on open market policy," and that might be a good thing.
However, I have two problems with C.S. reviews:
1) (Not their fault, just reality), they can't review everything. Sites like Dan's data (a personal favorite, though there are obviously jillions of home-brewed hardware review and gadgetry sites) *also* can't review everything, but they tell me about fringy products, unusual products, things which aren't even on the general market in the U.S. (but might be accessable through eBay, etc.).
Consumer Reports, perfectly fine for that they are and do, concentrates on "normal" products; in a few fields they really do seem to test as much of the range as I'm familiar with (I don't know if they review outrageous things, like high-end, low-production sports cars, but I assume not, based on their buying policy), but computer hardware *of interest to me* is often outside the mainstream interest. I could be wrong, but (like expensive sports cars) I doubt that they've reviewed Kinesis ergonomic keyboards, for instance. Maybe that example's wrong in particular, but a google search on "ergonomic input devices" will find a lot of things that C.S. for entirely practical reasons has not reviewed.
2) C.R. reports vary greatly in quality (this does not make them better than typical computer hardware review sites -- those *also* vary greatly in quality). I like their comparison charts for, say, looking at a matrix of digital cameras in order to say "So, which of these has high enough (for me) resolution, large enough (for me) zoom, and takes AA batteries?" But the actual ratings, as others have pointed out, sometimes don't seem to match either their own findings, or to line up with widespread and contrary opinions. (Easy example there is audio equipment, where they rate products based on extremely superficial specs; I've got a tin ear, so I'm the wrong person with whom to argue about all the specifics, but this is one case where I think the anti-Bose snobbery of certain audiophiles is entirely justified.*)
So, C.R. has it's place, and fine -- I just don't think their fabled "objectivity" means their reviews are unimpeachable. Morally, perhaps, just not in accuracy / conclusion.
timothy
* Well... at least partially. Not that there's anything wrong with enjoying Bose speakers' sound. My tin ear lets me do just that! But compared to high-end (not necessarily all that expensive) speakers, I know the Bose generally sound far less realistic. They're still cool tech, and I like my Bose-alike Cambridge Soundworks / Kloss Model 88 radio which is similar in operation.
I have a no longer new, but not the oldest, model from VIA. It's an EPIA M9000, if I remember right, but it's not nearby for me to check. Though it's slow, that has been one of my most reliable computers;I bought it something like 3.5 years ago now, and it's not balked at any of the Linux distros I put onto it; no chipset issues except sound that didn't cooperate sometimes. With Mepis (and recent Knoppix versions) it's been great.
However, as another poster mentioned, if you're looking for a small system, the cost of building a complete EPIA system makes a Mac mini looks like a very good deal (which I think it is anyhow); the mini is also much smaller than any mini-ITX system.
(If you want to run other than an OS from Microsoft of Apple, there are versions of Linux and BSD for x86 and PPC chips, of course, but that's where the VIA does have one advantage -- there are many more OS options for X86 chips.)
My relatively happy VIA experience doesn't mean much, but it's a data point at least.
I have the same basic question (Say, do any of these not suck?!), but I've found a few of interest to me by sampling from the many programs listed at ipodder.org.
The vast majority, as you have found... follow Sturgeon's Law. However, if you don't run into any you like of the home-grown, awkward-talkin' variety, there are a lot of radio shows that are using the same system, which turns your portable player (with some large limitations, don't get me wrong) into a pretty flexible delayed-access radio:)
Now, since you can only get *new* shows while you're tethered, it lacks some of the portability / immediacy of actual broadcasts; them's the breaks.
Forgive me if you like toy robots:) That's between you, your therapist, and your AIBO.
I'd like voice recognition in my computer (which, Yes, is next to my bed, and my bed is where I'm typing from at the moment) to do things like...
- Set an alarm clock ("Alarm Clock, wakeup call seven thirty.")
- Listen to audio programs without turning on the monitor (when you want to sleep, and can't, I don't like turning on my monitor again just long enough to pick a new program to lull me to sleep; would be better to say "Audio player, MP3, ocean sounds.")
- connect to VoIP services ("Vonage Call Claire.")
So I'm glad to see it in robots, if that's what gets people interested enough to make progress -- it's like a casino; those shrimp are my bonus because of what other people like to do:)
The only modern Airstreams I've been inside, though, have been very nice -- and also very out of my price range. I paid in the mid-single-digit thousands for my fair-condiion (being nice) '66; before I even bought it, though, I window shopped other RVs, including some then-current-issue Airstreams, of the 30-40 foot length. (This was late 90s, so not that long ago. Sorry so vague, it's been a while for my non-photographic memory.)
The Airstream interiors I saw were uniformly nice, everything seemed solid, comfortable, and Yes, "yachty." By comparison, the interiors of most of the RVs and travel trailers I looked at were cheap and chintzy -- the workmanship and materials seemed mediocre, and that's to my interested but completely unpracticed eye. Airstream's ergonomics, general fit-and-feel were far in front, considering my very small sampling; none of the others was quite as expensive as the Airstreams I was aboard, but they came close enough that the difference was downright shameful. (From magazines, I know that there *are* quite luxurious travel trailers, but I've only been on a few that fall in that category, and they all cost more than the Airstreams I looked at... )
If I was in the market for one now (I'm not!), I'd probably go for a mid-sized pickup hauling a small Airstream; the big models are really cool to visit, but I wouldn't want to have to park one, or control it in a cross-wind on a mountain road, etc.
One thing that's improved since the '60s: the beds:) I say that having only sampled the new ones, but slept in my trailer's for quite a few months.
"Fortunately, he's one of those computer geniuses. [hotel links]I'm sure he'll be able to think of something[/hotel links]."
You're right that he can find a hotel (though they're scarce in some parts; I'm pretty inured to sleeping in my car when necessary, annoying as it can sometimes be -- however, I don't have an RV for which to find safe haven), but that additional cost adds up quickly, especially if the repairs are like those experienced by Phillip Greenspun. (The link was handy; this story had made me find it to post in an earlier comment, too;)) As I warned in that earlier comment, be careful lest you are sucked into the world of interesting things Greenspun has written, which are addictive and time-sucking.
"Ah. but can you not also build bridges out of stone?"
You're right, in one way, but I suspect the submitter chose "mobile home" (and I agree, and agreed) meaning "home that is mobile" -- something which most "mobile homes" are not. (Yes, they can be hauled into place, but not with much grace, and between resting places, they're not much in the way of homes, since they generally are furnished with full-size / "normal" furnishings, and the possessions inside are moved separately, if the owners are merely relocating rather than moving house in the conventional sense.)
(Bad joke: Did you know there's a city in Alabama in which every single person lives in a Mobile home?)
Airstream has made some self-contained units ("Land Yachts" -- example: http://www.racer-net.com/rairs002.htm), though I'm not sure if they are currently producing any.
And while I agree with you on "pressboard and vinyl" when it comes to most RVs, Airstreams are generally quite nicely constructed; I lived for a time* in a 1966 22' model, and despite being older than I am, the construction held up well. (Some of the internal systems, not so much, but as I as parked rather than traveling, with facilities avaiable, that was OK.) Many RVs are in the cheap-n-chintzy category, too, though -- they may be a home on wheels, but in many cases, that home is the same pressboard and vinyl you rightly decry... just stuck on a truck body. Sometimes not well stuck on, too:)
(See Phillip Greenspun's account of buying, driving, repairing and selling a Winnebago -- but be warned: it's very easy to get sucked into his site, as I just did. He's a great writer, in addition to all the other bazillion things he does.
timothy
* In Austin's coolest trailer park, Pecan Grove -- long may it wave;)
a) The good thing about the linked list is that it gives a step-by-step for those not much familiar with Windows (like me), but sometimes asked to help with someone else's crippled machine.
b) Not everyone's ready to give up Windows; the grandmother whose machine I (very slightly) helped clean up this winter likes Windows well enough, when it's working, and she brings home work from the office to do on it. Her husband's machine, though, I just replaced with one running Knoppix. Progress, progress. They both like the card games that come with a typical Linux install (and there are more than come with Windows).
I like the GIMP. I use it for cropping, touching up, and compressing-for-email photos, and for general doodling, and while (several) years ago I used to use Photoshop for some low-grade graphic design work, I'm now much more used to the GIMP; that Photoshop is both expensive and unavailable (barring workarounds like Codeweavers' Wine) unavailable on my platform of choice probably has a lot to do with this. Playing with the GIMP is more fun than most of the built-in timewasters that Linux distros have so cruelly includeed (even kbounce).
Further, I like the GIMP's interface, at least in general. I like using the right button to reach nearly any option quickly, and being able to do that from anywhere. I don't know about the Windows version of Photoshop, or any recent Mac ones, but the last version I used with OS X sill had all menu items only at the top, which (to my GIMP-adjusted self) suddenly seems archaic and inefficient.
I do have some complaints about the GIMP's interface, too -- there are lots of tasks that I don't know how to do with it, and I'm not a serious enough user to chase them down too hard; if I needed to do them badly enough, I guess I would:)
Bearing all of the above in mind, I really like this project -- answers lots of objectors' main objection (though no good deed goes unpunished).
However, what I'd like to see more than this fully reworked version of the GIMP is for the GIMP itself to be able to accept "personalities" (themes / styles / whatever you want to call them), so that people could say "This set of keybindings and menu orders works well for me / my style of working / my company's workflow [etc]" -- and then let people download and try them out.
A sane set of default settings (and Yes, I think the current defaults are fine and sane; YMMV) is important, but beyond that, it would be nice to be able to quickly try out other set-ups as easily as it is to switch themes in a window manager.
I wrote the comment you're complaining about, and here's a small (one-shot) response.
When I worked at my University's student paper, we would get letters from due-diligence lawyers pointing out that Kleenex is a trademark -- not sure if we had actually mis-used it; I think those letters come every year. I'm not surprised by the C&D letter, and agree with you that Hasbro is within their rights and obligations to say "cut it out" to Jared.
I don't think that the law always sticks it to the little guy (that happens, and so does the opposite. Certain aspects -- like the money it takes to sustain any legal fight past 1 day in small-claims court -- may not favor the little guy, but especially in tort cases, greed and envy often put the big guy at a different sort of disadvantage... ), and I agree with you that trademark law in particular is not there only or merely to benefit corporations. It is sometimes used in ways I think are abusive, but no one's arguing that.
I also agree with you that trademarks are valuable tools for customers, and if you hadn't I might have raised the same example (the iPod). I'm not whining to get rid of trademarks, or copyrights, or patents. All three are broken in different ways, maybe, but I think they're all worth salvaging. (My sink is dripping IRL, and needs fixing soon, but I won't be taking it out with a sledgehammer!)
This is a hard point -- I can't prove it, and it's unfalsifiable (too many variables for us to do anything but disagree), but I don't think that e-Scrabble cuts down on sales of the board game. (It might in some cases, and it might increase sales in others; I respectfully doubt that it was "designed to cut into the sales of their board sets," and will until I see some reason to think otherwise. It seems to me that Jared liked the game and wanted to make an easy way for people to play it from a distance.) At the age of the game, I suspect that most Scrabble sales are either plain replacements for old ones (missing tiles are a pain, and the boards rip after enough abuse), or upgrades to the Deluxe swiveling model, or Travel or (mega?)Scrabble -- the one with more tiles and a larger board. The online version seems useful (IMO) only when people *can't* play face-to-face. I've played more (physical) scrabble since being reminded of it by e-scrabble, and in-person is a different experience. I wouldn't play scrabble with friends by sitting around a table with open laptops:) That is, I *might* do that, but I'd sure rather go out (if I didn't have one already!) and buy the game, which is $10-12 the last time I purchased one.
(For the same reason, I doubt that the version of Solitaire pre-loaded on Windows, or all the other card games people can play on their computers, cut measurably into the sale of decks of cards. Card sales might be down in general, but I doubt simply because there are electronic versions.)
When I say Hasbro should pay him, I don't mean they're obligated to. I mean that he's created a brilliantly easy way to play scrabble with distant people, something which Hasbro (to my knowledge) has not. There's a huge online interest in Scrabble (whaddya know?), with word-freaks and more casual players like me trying to increase our scores, and Jared's version would be a perfect addition to the official site. I can't make Hasbro's decisions, and maybe I'm completely wrong. Maybe people would stop buying boards and make their weekly games over coffee distributed-solo events rather than in-person social gatherings in great enough numbers to actually affect their sales. I believe the opposite is true, though. Jared's version of Scrabble, with built-in chat, ability to "eavesdrop" on others' ongoing games, and extremely non-intrusive Web design, I think could be a great hook for current non-players. It's not as if Scrabble is an up-and-comer! I think of it nowadays (mostly) as a game for old people, even though I'm only half-old, and many of the people I've played are younger. It has a timeles
I had the same thoughts about an iPod (overpriced, unnecessary), but was recently swayed by a good price on a 20GB iPod and an annoying plastic clamshell that was part of the deal, full of nifty accessories (battery pack, protective carrying pouch, etc), and also by the announcement of the Apple photo-reading accessory, so it becomes a photobank for a digital camera. So... now I have an iPod. Can't say it gets daily use yet (only a few weeks old, and I got it mostly for the hard drive functions... maybe I'll eventually become addicted to it as a music player, too), but it's a cool device, and now has my list of addresses, some music, some old radio shows, etc. all on it. (The text-storage function is a smart feature -- thanks, Apple engineers!)
For the record: with just a very little bit of tweaking, I got it working nicely with Fedora Core 3, using the application gtkpod. And what I did barely qualifies as tweaking -- just shuffling around a place where the documentation doesn't address the way Fedora names devices. The hard work was all done by the gtkpod and Fedora developers.
So now, if I plug my iPod into a USB slot on the computer, it's automatically mounted, and shows up on the desktop, and is usable as an ordinary external drive. If I start gtkpod, I can add / subtract songs to its playlist. Theoretically, I could add "playlists" to it, too, but I'm behind on the portable music thing, and not really sure yet quite how those work. (So sue me. I'd rather pick my music by the song than have a pre-arranged set list, but Hey. That's a rant in itself.)
I've seen the iTunes software that comes with the iPod running only for a few minutes, so I can't compare it deeply to gtkpod, except that gtkpod is not about connected to the iTunes Music Store, only for dealing with / putting onto the iPod music that you already have in MP3 or other iPod-friendly formats. But I've never used the iTunes store, so I'll just sit here and be blissfully ignorant.
Setting up this machine the way I want it was not bad; it took a few days of getting used to certain Red Hat things; can't say I'm an expert in the way of Fedora yet, but I found some nice tutorials that let me set up (among other things) MP3 playback, which I need if I'm going to listen to Nero Wolfe mysteries at night:) Overall, little tweaking is needed to make it a perfectly nice, usable desktop, though. (IMO, YMMV.)
Well, that's sorta what I was getting at:) Picnic shows time and interest in those around you rather than paying for a "dining experience." I've had some dining experiences well worth the money, others that were flagrant rip-offs. (Peter Luger's steakhouse, I'm lookin' at YOU!)
OTOH, even (*even*) McDonalds in the parking lot isn't the worst thing in the world. Ask anyone in countries where survival is a daily question! My main praise for McDonalds is that I like Egg McMuffins, despite all the bad-for-me things in them. When I'm lucky enough to spend a day in the snow, I like having starch, protein and fat duking it out in my digestive system to supply me with life force:)
And there's an interesting middle ground, which is that there is a lot of inexpensive, definitely low-brow cheap eating that's not so common as to get the contempt that we Americans (that is, pluralizing myself, since I have no idea where you are... maybe I'm SuperSizing myself!) like to heap on the ubiquitous chains. For instance, today I got a burger from a place called "Happy Burger" (of which I think this is the sole location) -- hand-sized, grilled, served on a biggish bun, a container of oh-wow-that's-good salsa on the side. Wouldn't want to subsist entirely on their menu of burgers and burritos, but am rather happy with it as an occasional lunch. A giant pretzel from a street vendor is tasty, filling, and not so bad on calories. (The salt actually *kills* the calories. Little-known fact.) Most American cities have at least a few Vietnamese places, and the one's I've been in mostly sell lethally large, delicious doses of Pho for hamburger-type prices. The world of cheap food is interesting for its history / cultural ties, sometimes. Other times, it's just... cheap:)
This all raises the tangent that I'd like to see a good vegetarian fast-food place; Subway's the closest I can think of. Clearly (from above), I am not a vegetarian, but I'd be happy to see a place that had an all-veggie kitchen, say specializing in wraps, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
I like Free, open source software -- and that's upper-case Free, as in the FSF/GNU/GPL, etc. I like it because it's accessable ("download newest version now, for free"), because I can pass it on to friends and family, because it's cheap (related to but distinct from whether it's easily accessable), because I *enjoy* a lot of it (some obvious ones -- TuxRacer, GIMP, Audacity, Inkscape, Mozilla/Firefox), because much Free/open source software comes out of adversity, and therefore does a better job than certain proprietary tools of opening / converting various file formats, and for other reasons that have all been laid out elsewhere by people who have described them better than I would.
...
However, my favorite, peevish reason for getting people to use FOSS is to point out that any time the money being spent on software comes from taxpayers, it can immediately and substantially benefit the commonwealth if it's used to support open source software. In a far more indirect way, of course, money spent on Microsoft software (and that of any closed-source software company) *can* benefit the commonwealth trickle-up style, as the employees of the company pay taxes, etc.
However, a) I'd like the government to be smaller and confine itself to fewer roles (Ah, to dream!), so I don't much buy the argument I've just reluctantly presented and b) software is a multiplier; if I can legitimately and freely give OpenOffice and XMMS ImageMagick and various other pieces of software to everyone in my family, suddenly all the formats those programs can manipulate are worth more to them. If the government of a particular state / county / court system / municipal government is going to drop X many dollars (again, TAX dollars, which theoretically do *not* belong to the government bodies, but rather to the citizens on whose behalf the money is being spent!) on, say, a a few hundred licenses for an office suite, I'd rather they do it in a way that maximizes the value to the people who are picking up the tab.
I like to talk about OpenOffice.org in this context, because a) it's multi-platform b) it comes from a respected, established company (Sun) and is no flash-in-the-pan and c) because it's at least in the same ballpark of usability as MS Office; it's not like asking people to "just shut up and learn TeX!" For several reasons (like out-of-box PDF creation, and my own skewed sense of aesthetics), I prefer OpenOffice; another good reason is that Microsoft doesn't make Office -- at any price -- for Linux, and why the heck should I jump through hoops to work around it, possibly voiding the license (not sure on that) to make it work on an unsupported platform? Like the Woody Allen joke, "... And such small portions!"
There's a lot of sour-grapes, cultivated-haughtiness reaction sometimes to the idea that (say) OpenOffice can replace Office, a lot of ueber-cynical scoffing. Sometimes it's well justified (or well enough), and sometimes it's of the Comic Shop Guy variety, cartoonish teenage-cool / movie action hero smugness (perhaps "Zapp Brannigan" is the ideal cartoon hero for this sort of dismissal). Among the complaints are that
- "My VBA scripts run everything!" Fine. *If* you're a business. You can be hypnotized by Oliver Wendell Jones to stick cucumbers up your nose, too, if it's on your own dollar. More power to ya. But if you're spending tax-payer dollars on a product with only one supplier and a tendency toward lock-in, that sounds like poor stewardship unless there are extenuating circumstances. (Which there might sometimes be.)
- "People are used to Word / Excel / etc. It's very expensive to train users! By using MS software [or Oracle, or WordPerfect, or PhotoShop], we avoid expensive retraining costs." In a word, bluster. Some businesses do train their employees -- that is, they hire consultants to teach classes, or pay for employees to attend training sessions on the new software, etc. However, the typical case (this isn't a deep survey, of course, and it's all based on what
Setting: At the moment, I'm at my place in Texas, running Fedora Core 3; I have KDE on this machine but have been mostly groovy with Gnome, as the Good Lords at Red Hat intended :) I don't have a printer handy, so I don't know how easy or reliable Gnome's printer setup tools are. However ...
With KDE, which I've used on various systems running Knoppix and Mepis, I agree with you, and found one thing especially nice: if there are several machines on a network, and I set up printing by attaching my USB laser printer to one of them and running the KDE printer-setup program, the other machines then see it automatically, no work necessary on my side. Since I would probably have gone crazy if I had been *trying* to get this to work, it's a cool bonus.
timothy
SCENE: Rooftop. Lightning flashes occasionally. Thunder rumbles.
... my creature ... *biological activity!*"
DR. FRANKENSTEIN stands over the lifeless form of THE MONSTER. THE MONSTER is strapped to a gurney, with electrical apparatus attached to various points on his body.
[Lightning Crashes]
Medium shot: DR. FRANKENSTEIN looks skyward, raises hands, imploring.
DR. FRANKENSTEIN: "Give
timothy
Err, No. Thanks for the vitriol, though.
I wrote:
"I only wish Apple's worked with the non-Photo version of the iPod."
I bought an iPod last month (the last American without one, I think) with the hope, but not the certainty, that Apple's would work with it, but knowing that if it didn't I could buy the Belkin one instead. It's bigger, more expensive and apparently more power hungry, but for an upcoming trip I need more storage than I can afford in tiny, losable xD cards.
Turns out that Apple made their reader iPod Photo only; disappointing, but oh, well. (Which is why I ordered the Belkin one instead.)
Sorry.
timothy
Awesome -- I'd always set up keyword searches "the hard way" (not so hard, really -- I would just always have to google to remind myself of quite how to do this). You've just probably saved me a bunch of time in the future -- thanks.
Also, since I had google searches set up from the URL bar, I was annoyed by but learning to ignore the search bar (along with a lot of other people, Yes, I find it a pain in the eye) -- so you killed that one, too.
timothy
This is true: two years ago I was watching "The Office" at a co-worker's house (I'd never watched a whole episode before), and realized that Martin Freeman struck me -- out of the blue -- as exactly the way I would have expected a real-life Arthur Dent to look, gesture and sound, right down to the mooning for dawn, and the look of frustrated annoyance that he occasionally beams at (or rather just past) Gareth.
At the time (having no head for celebrity news), I didn't realize he'd been cast already as Arthur, and figured some other, well-meaning but inferior actor had been cast in that role. "It's too bad that they're already shooting 'Hitchhikers,'" I said, "because that guy *is* Arthur! Anyone else will pale in comparison to the flesh-and-blood Arthur who is playing Tim in this bizarre English-type sit-com!" My better-informed co-worker let me in on the good news, and my casting prowess was confirmed (to me, anyhow).
However, I'm curious how he came to the attention of the film's makers -- or was it vice versa? Was it because of his role in The Office, or was it his idea, or what? Was he already an Adams fan, or was this just happenstance?
timothy
"Hiding the mouse pointer completely is usually a pretty stupid idea. It's quicker for the user to move the pointer out of the way than it is to find a hidden pointer when they need to use the mouse again..."
I agree with you on that; when I read his list, this was one of the several that I disagreed with.
HOWEVER, imagine this: a mouse pointer that both *grows* (bear with me for a second) and fades to transparent, but acts (very slightly) as a lens, like a drop of water or a magnifying glass. That way you could a) keep track of where it was b) see through it, clearly enough to read / modify text. Move the mouse, it shrinks and darkens again to "normal use" mode.
Maybe this is silly, but I'd certainly like to try out a pointer that acts like that
timothy
"Could these moves signal the beginning of a period of rapid improvement in Free drivers for video cards?"
:) (I saw it played *very* smoothly even 4 or 5 years ago on Dell laptops with built-in 3D acceleration, but I always buy low on the computer food chain. Which means I can't really complain, per se, but I can still hope.)
Boy, I hope so! Most Linux distros nowadays are really nice out of the box, graphically -- for 2D. Since I am close to a non-gamer (weaknesses include frozen bubble, kbounce, and similar addicitive brain-rotters), this isn't much of a problem for me.
(And Yes -- you can disagree with me happily, but my main issue, as a distro-fickle klutz and permanent newbie, is how it behaves out of the box. If I have to download, compile, install, change settings, perform voodoo, my incentive must be that much greater.)
Some cards obviously work better than others, but in the machine I'm working on right now, I happen to *have* built-in "S3 Unichrome" graphics, and it would sure be nice if I could finally play TuxRacer smoothly
timothy
I'm fickle about which distro I use, but at the moment, and for the past month and a half, I've been using on this machine Fedora Core 3, which came as the cover disk for an English Linux magazine. (Why don't more American magazines come with monthly distros?) It's not perfect, but it's certainly "viable," in my case ...
timothy
I don't know whether Coursey supplied the headline (maybe some editor above him did), but it's one of the more Onionesque headlines one could see on a computer-centric Website.
"Midsize Businesses Have No Use for Linux"
Now say that again with a straight face, and wonder. This is stretch past even the stretches contained in the article that follows.
Now, surely there are many businesses (for various reasons, of varying degrees of rationality), aren't currently using Linux. (Or Mac OS X, or any version of Windows past 98, etc.) However, even the very few data points I know of (check out NewsForge, any big IT publication, Dr. Dobbs, etc. for more and better) are more than enough to make clear that Coursey's article is the usual Coursey -- provocative if you're a pal, flamebait if you're offended, laughable if you think that he's sincere, trolling if you think Coursey knows he's egregiously distorting the truth. I go with that last one, but Hey, maybe he's just a big prankster.
timothy
If NASA needs private sponsorships and advertising to get along, why not let true private enterprise (instead of quasi-private) take over the aspects of spaceflight which it's not prepared to support? I'd much rather see Pizza Hut paying -- voluntarily, and with clearcut goals of their own! -- for spaceflight than me, my landlord, and my neighbors, who are not given any specific choice about it.
;))
(Please don't tell me that "we as a society decided to give money to NASA to do it" unless you believe that every government decision represents societal concensus. Consider this: if U.S. tax return forms had a checkbox for NASA, reading something like "Yes, I'd like to direct a dollar of this tax money or contribute an additional [dollar amount, please fill in] ______, enclosed, to NASA," then *that* would be voluntary -- and a good idea, to boot, sez me. It would sure knock down the whole argument I made in the first graf here
Militarily, there's reason for NASA: among other things, they help launch satellites. Defense is a natural imperative, so I'll assert, not just concede, that part. To a lesser extent, though I think it's mostly a budget- and political carrot rather than near-term reality (Hey, what happened to the Bush plan to put folks again on the moon?), NASA research on practical matters of human life in space is somewhat justifiable.
What about abstract knowledge part of NASA? While I realize this makes me an anti-science troglodyte who hates any advance in human knowledge, I don't think that tax dollars should be paying for edge-of-galaxy explorer probes, or satellite telescopes looking outward at the various nebulae -- fascinating and good as those things are! (Golf carts on Mars is easier to swallow, wrt the Life in Space loophole, and so are satellite views of Earth, which show, among other things, how humans affect the planet.)
Note: I'm not saying no one should be interested in or study abstract, non-practical, just-for-insatiable-curiosity things about space -- far from it. I'm only raising the issue of how they're paid for and justified. The government doesn't spend our money very well, and frequently act with it in ways that decrease the national well-being; my biggest gripe about the way NASA money is spent is that it amounts to a tax subsidy, year after year, for a handful of entrenched companies that are technically private but mostly exist because of their (to mix a metaphor) pole position at the public teat.
Ahem.
timothy
If Dan Rutter were vastly, independently wealthy, he might also have the "he buys on open market policy," and that might be a good thing.
... at least partially. Not that there's anything wrong with enjoying Bose speakers' sound. My tin ear lets me do just that! But compared to high-end (not necessarily all that expensive) speakers, I know the Bose generally sound far less realistic. They're still cool tech, and I like my Bose-alike Cambridge Soundworks / Kloss Model 88 radio which is similar in operation.
However, I have two problems with C.S. reviews:
1) (Not their fault, just reality), they can't review everything. Sites like Dan's data (a personal favorite, though there are obviously jillions of home-brewed hardware review and gadgetry sites) *also* can't review everything, but they tell me about fringy products, unusual products, things which aren't even on the general market in the U.S. (but might be accessable through eBay, etc.).
Consumer Reports, perfectly fine for that they are and do, concentrates on "normal" products; in a few fields they really do seem to test as much of the range as I'm familiar with (I don't know if they review outrageous things, like high-end, low-production sports cars, but I assume not, based on their buying policy), but computer hardware *of interest to me* is often outside the mainstream interest. I could be wrong, but (like expensive sports cars) I doubt that they've reviewed Kinesis ergonomic keyboards, for instance. Maybe that example's wrong in particular, but a google search on "ergonomic input devices" will find a lot of things that C.S. for entirely practical reasons has not reviewed.
2) C.R. reports vary greatly in quality (this does not make them better than typical computer hardware review sites -- those *also* vary greatly in quality). I like their comparison charts for, say, looking at a matrix of digital cameras in order to say "So, which of these has high enough (for me) resolution, large enough (for me) zoom, and takes AA batteries?" But the actual ratings, as others have pointed out, sometimes don't seem to match either their own findings, or to line up with widespread and contrary opinions. (Easy example there is audio equipment, where they rate products based on extremely superficial specs; I've got a tin ear, so I'm the wrong person with whom to argue about all the specifics, but this is one case where I think the anti-Bose snobbery of certain audiophiles is entirely justified.*)
So, C.R. has it's place, and fine -- I just don't think their fabled "objectivity" means their reviews are unimpeachable. Morally, perhaps, just not in accuracy / conclusion.
timothy
* Well
It would be cool if you put as much effort into a *real* display next year :)
;))
(And I'll need proof, and maybe a live hostage, before running it on Slashdot again
timothy
I have a no longer new, but not the oldest, model from VIA. It's an EPIA M9000, if I remember right, but it's not nearby for me to check. Though it's slow, that has been one of my most reliable computers;I bought it something like 3.5 years ago now, and it's not balked at any of the Linux distros I put onto it; no chipset issues except sound that didn't cooperate sometimes. With Mepis (and recent Knoppix versions) it's been great.
However, as another poster mentioned, if you're looking for a small system, the cost of building a complete EPIA system makes a Mac mini looks like a very good deal (which I think it is anyhow); the mini is also much smaller than any mini-ITX system.
(If you want to run other than an OS from Microsoft of Apple, there are versions of Linux and BSD for x86 and PPC chips, of course, but that's where the VIA does have one advantage -- there are many more OS options for X86 chips.)
My relatively happy VIA experience doesn't mean much, but it's a data point at least.
timothy
I have the same basic question (Say, do any of these not suck?!), but I've found a few of interest to me by sampling from the many programs listed at ipodder.org.
... follow Sturgeon's Law. However, if you don't run into any you like of the home-grown, awkward-talkin' variety, there are a lot of radio shows that are using the same system, which turns your portable player (with some large limitations, don't get me wrong) into a pretty flexible delayed-access radio :)
The vast majority, as you have found
Now, since you can only get *new* shows while you're tethered, it lacks some of the portability / immediacy of actual broadcasts; them's the breaks.
timothy
Forgive me if you like toy robots :) That's between you, your therapist, and your AIBO.
...
:)
I'd like voice recognition in my computer (which, Yes, is next to my bed, and my bed is where I'm typing from at the moment) to do things like
- Set an alarm clock ("Alarm Clock, wakeup call seven thirty.")
- Listen to audio programs without turning on the monitor (when you want to sleep, and can't, I don't like turning on my monitor again just long enough to pick a new program to lull me to sleep; would be better to say "Audio player, MP3, ocean sounds.")
- connect to VoIP services ("Vonage Call Claire.")
So I'm glad to see it in robots, if that's what gets people interested enough to make progress -- it's like a casino; those shrimp are my bonus because of what other people like to do
timothy
You may be right, in general.
... )
:) I say that having only sampled the new ones, but slept in my trailer's for quite a few months.
The only modern Airstreams I've been inside, though, have been very nice -- and also very out of my price range. I paid in the mid-single-digit thousands for my fair-condiion (being nice) '66; before I even bought it, though, I window shopped other RVs, including some then-current-issue Airstreams, of the 30-40 foot length. (This was late 90s, so not that long ago. Sorry so vague, it's been a while for my non-photographic memory.)
The Airstream interiors I saw were uniformly nice, everything seemed solid, comfortable, and Yes, "yachty." By comparison, the interiors of most of the RVs and travel trailers I looked at were cheap and chintzy -- the workmanship and materials seemed mediocre, and that's to my interested but completely unpracticed eye. Airstream's ergonomics, general fit-and-feel were far in front, considering my very small sampling; none of the others was quite as expensive as the Airstreams I was aboard, but they came close enough that the difference was downright shameful. (From magazines, I know that there *are* quite luxurious travel trailers, but I've only been on a few that fall in that category, and they all cost more than the Airstreams I looked at
If I was in the market for one now (I'm not!), I'd probably go for a mid-sized pickup hauling a small Airstream; the big models are really cool to visit, but I wouldn't want to have to park one, or control it in a cross-wind on a mountain road, etc.
One thing that's improved since the '60s: the beds
timothy
"Fortunately, he's one of those computer geniuses. [hotel links]I'm sure he'll be able to think of something[/hotel links]."
;)) As I warned in that earlier comment, be careful lest you are sucked into the world of interesting things Greenspun has written, which are addictive and time-sucking.
You're right that he can find a hotel (though they're scarce in some parts; I'm pretty inured to sleeping in my car when necessary, annoying as it can sometimes be -- however, I don't have an RV for which to find safe haven), but that additional cost adds up quickly, especially if the repairs are like those experienced by Phillip Greenspun. (The link was handy; this story had made me find it to post in an earlier comment, too
timothy
"Ah. but can you not also build bridges out of stone?"
You're right, in one way, but I suspect the submitter chose "mobile home" (and I agree, and agreed) meaning "home that is mobile" -- something which most "mobile homes" are not. (Yes, they can be hauled into place, but not with much grace, and between resting places, they're not much in the way of homes, since they generally are furnished with full-size / "normal" furnishings, and the possessions inside are moved separately, if the owners are merely relocating rather than moving house in the conventional sense.)
(Bad joke: Did you know there's a city in Alabama in which every single person lives in a Mobile home?)
timothy
Airstream has made some self-contained units ("Land Yachts" -- example: http://www.racer-net.com/rairs002.htm), though I'm not sure if they are currently producing any.
... just stuck on a truck body. Sometimes not well stuck on, too :)
;)
And while I agree with you on "pressboard and vinyl" when it comes to most RVs, Airstreams are generally quite nicely constructed; I lived for a time* in a 1966 22' model, and despite being older than I am, the construction held up well. (Some of the internal systems, not so much, but as I as parked rather than traveling, with facilities avaiable, that was OK.) Many RVs are in the cheap-n-chintzy category, too, though -- they may be a home on wheels, but in many cases, that home is the same pressboard and vinyl you rightly decry
(See Phillip Greenspun's account of buying, driving, repairing and selling a Winnebago -- but be warned: it's very easy to get sucked into his site, as I just did. He's a great writer, in addition to all the other bazillion things he does.
timothy
* In Austin's coolest trailer park, Pecan Grove -- long may it wave
a) The good thing about the linked list is that it gives a step-by-step for those not much familiar with Windows (like me), but sometimes asked to help with someone else's crippled machine.
... what's the problem? :)
b) Not everyone's ready to give up Windows; the grandmother whose machine I (very slightly) helped clean up this winter likes Windows well enough, when it's working, and she brings home work from the office to do on it. Her husband's machine, though, I just replaced with one running Knoppix. Progress, progress. They both like the card games that come with a typical Linux install (and there are more than come with Windows).
c) This *is* educating users.
So
timothy
I like the GIMP. I use it for cropping, touching up, and compressing-for-email photos, and for general doodling, and while (several) years ago I used to use Photoshop for some low-grade graphic design work, I'm now much more used to the GIMP; that Photoshop is both expensive and unavailable (barring workarounds like Codeweavers' Wine) unavailable on my platform of choice probably has a lot to do with this. Playing with the GIMP is more fun than most of the built-in timewasters that Linux distros have so cruelly includeed (even kbounce).
:)
Further, I like the GIMP's interface, at least in general. I like using the right button to reach nearly any option quickly, and being able to do that from anywhere. I don't know about the Windows version of Photoshop, or any recent Mac ones, but the last version I used with OS X sill had all menu items only at the top, which (to my GIMP-adjusted self) suddenly seems archaic and inefficient.
I do have some complaints about the GIMP's interface, too -- there are lots of tasks that I don't know how to do with it, and I'm not a serious enough user to chase them down too hard; if I needed to do them badly enough, I guess I would
Bearing all of the above in mind, I really like this project -- answers lots of objectors' main objection (though no good deed goes unpunished).
However, what I'd like to see more than this fully reworked version of the GIMP is for the GIMP itself to be able to accept "personalities" (themes / styles / whatever you want to call them), so that people could say "This set of keybindings and menu orders works well for me / my style of working / my company's workflow [etc]" -- and then let people download and try them out.
A sane set of default settings (and Yes, I think the current defaults are fine and sane; YMMV) is important, but beyond that, it would be nice to be able to quickly try out other set-ups as easily as it is to switch themes in a window manager.
Just an idea --
timothy
I wrote the comment you're complaining about, and here's a small (one-shot) response.
... ), and I agree with you that trademark law in particular is not there only or merely to benefit corporations. It is sometimes used in ways I think are abusive, but no one's arguing that.
:) That is, I *might* do that, but I'd sure rather go out (if I didn't have one already!) and buy the game, which is $10-12 the last time I purchased one.
When I worked at my University's student paper, we would get letters from due-diligence lawyers pointing out that Kleenex is a trademark -- not sure if we had actually mis-used it; I think those letters come every year. I'm not surprised by the C&D letter, and agree with you that Hasbro is within their rights and obligations to say "cut it out" to Jared.
I don't think that the law always sticks it to the little guy (that happens, and so does the opposite. Certain aspects -- like the money it takes to sustain any legal fight past 1 day in small-claims court -- may not favor the little guy, but especially in tort cases, greed and envy often put the big guy at a different sort of disadvantage
I also agree with you that trademarks are valuable tools for customers, and if you hadn't I might have raised the same example (the iPod). I'm not whining to get rid of trademarks, or copyrights, or patents. All three are broken in different ways, maybe, but I think they're all worth salvaging. (My sink is dripping IRL, and needs fixing soon, but I won't be taking it out with a sledgehammer!)
This is a hard point -- I can't prove it, and it's unfalsifiable (too many variables for us to do anything but disagree), but I don't think that e-Scrabble cuts down on sales of the board game. (It might in some cases, and it might increase sales in others; I respectfully doubt that it was "designed to cut into the sales of their board sets," and will until I see some reason to think otherwise. It seems to me that Jared liked the game and wanted to make an easy way for people to play it from a distance.) At the age of the game, I suspect that most Scrabble sales are either plain replacements for old ones (missing tiles are a pain, and the boards rip after enough abuse), or upgrades to the Deluxe swiveling model, or Travel or (mega?)Scrabble -- the one with more tiles and a larger board. The online version seems useful (IMO) only when people *can't* play face-to-face. I've played more (physical) scrabble since being reminded of it by e-scrabble, and in-person is a different experience. I wouldn't play scrabble with friends by sitting around a table with open laptops
(For the same reason, I doubt that the version of Solitaire pre-loaded on Windows, or all the other card games people can play on their computers, cut measurably into the sale of decks of cards. Card sales might be down in general, but I doubt simply because there are electronic versions.)
When I say Hasbro should pay him, I don't mean they're obligated to. I mean that he's created a brilliantly easy way to play scrabble with distant people, something which Hasbro (to my knowledge) has not. There's a huge online interest in Scrabble (whaddya know?), with word-freaks and more casual players like me trying to increase our scores, and Jared's version would be a perfect addition to the official site. I can't make Hasbro's decisions, and maybe I'm completely wrong. Maybe people would stop buying boards and make their weekly games over coffee distributed-solo events rather than in-person social gatherings in great enough numbers to actually affect their sales. I believe the opposite is true, though. Jared's version of Scrabble, with built-in chat, ability to "eavesdrop" on others' ongoing games, and extremely non-intrusive Web design, I think could be a great hook for current non-players. It's not as if Scrabble is an up-and-comer! I think of it nowadays (mostly) as a game for old people, even though I'm only half-old, and many of the people I've played are younger. It has a timeles
Re: iPoddery / tweaking ...
... now I have an iPod. Can't say it gets daily use yet (only a few weeks old, and I got it mostly for the hard drive functions ... maybe I'll eventually become addicted to it as a music player, too), but it's a cool device, and now has my list of addresses, some music, some old radio shows, etc. all on it. (The text-storage function is a smart feature -- thanks, Apple engineers!)
:) Overall, little tweaking is needed to make it a perfectly nice, usable desktop, though. (IMO, YMMV.)
I had the same thoughts about an iPod (overpriced, unnecessary), but was recently swayed by a good price on a 20GB iPod and an annoying plastic clamshell that was part of the deal, full of nifty accessories (battery pack, protective carrying pouch, etc), and also by the announcement of the Apple photo-reading accessory, so it becomes a photobank for a digital camera. So
For the record: with just a very little bit of tweaking, I got it working nicely with Fedora Core 3, using the application gtkpod. And what I did barely qualifies as tweaking -- just shuffling around a place where the documentation doesn't address the way Fedora names devices. The hard work was all done by the gtkpod and Fedora developers.
So now, if I plug my iPod into a USB slot on the computer, it's automatically mounted, and shows up on the desktop, and is usable as an ordinary external drive. If I start gtkpod, I can add / subtract songs to its playlist. Theoretically, I could add "playlists" to it, too, but I'm behind on the portable music thing, and not really sure yet quite how those work. (So sue me. I'd rather pick my music by the song than have a pre-arranged set list, but Hey. That's a rant in itself.)
I've seen the iTunes software that comes with the iPod running only for a few minutes, so I can't compare it deeply to gtkpod, except that gtkpod is not about connected to the iTunes Music Store, only for dealing with / putting onto the iPod music that you already have in MP3 or other iPod-friendly formats. But I've never used the iTunes store, so I'll just sit here and be blissfully ignorant.
Setting up this machine the way I want it was not bad; it took a few days of getting used to certain Red Hat things; can't say I'm an expert in the way of Fedora yet, but I found some nice tutorials that let me set up (among other things) MP3 playback, which I need if I'm going to listen to Nero Wolfe mysteries at night
timothy
Well, that's sorta what I was getting at :) Picnic shows time and interest in those around you rather than paying for a "dining experience." I've had some dining experiences well worth the money, others that were flagrant rip-offs. (Peter Luger's steakhouse, I'm lookin' at YOU!)
:)
... maybe I'm SuperSizing myself!) like to heap on the ubiquitous chains. For instance, today I got a burger from a place called "Happy Burger" (of which I think this is the sole location) -- hand-sized, grilled, served on a biggish bun, a container of oh-wow-that's-good salsa on the side. Wouldn't want to subsist entirely on their menu of burgers and burritos, but am rather happy with it as an occasional lunch. A giant pretzel from a street vendor is tasty, filling, and not so bad on calories. (The salt actually *kills* the calories. Little-known fact.) Most American cities have at least a few Vietnamese places, and the one's I've been in mostly sell lethally large, delicious doses of Pho for hamburger-type prices. The world of cheap food is interesting for its history / cultural ties, sometimes. Other times, it's just ... cheap :)
OTOH, even (*even*) McDonalds in the parking lot isn't the worst thing in the world. Ask anyone in countries where survival is a daily question! My main praise for McDonalds is that I like Egg McMuffins, despite all the bad-for-me things in them. When I'm lucky enough to spend a day in the snow, I like having starch, protein and fat duking it out in my digestive system to supply me with life force
And there's an interesting middle ground, which is that there is a lot of inexpensive, definitely low-brow cheap eating that's not so common as to get the contempt that we Americans (that is, pluralizing myself, since I have no idea where you are
This all raises the tangent that I'd like to see a good vegetarian fast-food place; Subway's the closest I can think of. Clearly (from above), I am not a vegetarian, but I'd be happy to see a place that had an all-veggie kitchen, say specializing in wraps, etc.
timothy