Having RTFA (I know, how embarrassing!)... my first thought was... when their data failed to come in, why the hell didn't they *contact* NASA and ASK what happened to it??
I swear, that's a quintessential geek failing -- expecting everyone else to be the one who calls YOU when something doesn't happen on schedule, even if it's YOUR baby. WTF would be wrong with making your own damned inquiries in a timely manner, instead of waiting until it's too late and then being upset about it?
(Excuse the rant, but I've seen this sort of thing over and over, in geeks and kids. Draw your own conclusions.)
Ah, yes. I vaguely recall that XP can do that too, but haven't looked into it at all. Probably should, tho, since I never seem to have enough desktop. A 40 foot monitor would be about right.:)
I am SO sorry I already used up all my mod points... that's the damnedest image:D
More seriously, is it possible to split up a single desktop onto multiple monitors?? I mean so you could have ridiculously high effective resolution, if not as extreme as that Texas-sized monitor:)
Somewhere upstream, I did a comparison of current colour laser vs colour inkjet cost. Over the span of 50,000 pages, the price diff gets into the $10k range.
BTW, an average consumer-grade B/W laser gets around 5000 pages per toner cart (inkjets got around 500 pages per cart, last I checked, tho I think that's gone down).
And I'm already somewhere in excess of 5000 pages on the original cart in my 10 year old Epson laser -- and it's still got over half the cart to go.
Never thought of using real photo paper with a laser printer, but hey, why not? Can't be too different from printing on glossy cardstock.
I'm really amazed that some people think inkjet print quality is better (I'll put my 300dpi laser against any 1200dpi inkjet!!) Try photocopying or scanning the output, and which *really* has better definition soon becomes evident.
If I ever need to buy a colour printer**, I'll be looking at something like a Xerox Phaser, not an inkjet. (** I've got several colour inkjets sitting here that I haven't been motivated to fix and use, so I don't expect this to happen any time soon:)
Yes, I caught your point; I was just making it more obvious for the local contingent who don't think beyond "wow, $29 printer!"
And you're absolutely right -- such shortsighted economics are leading to a market dominated by Cheap Crud of every sort. It's increasingly difficult to find quality merchandise anywhere, at any price -- Cheap Crud has run it out of the market, yet by the time you pay a dozen times to serially replace that Cheap Crud, you could have enjoyed one GOOD item for all those years, at a fraction of the net cost.
My original inkjet was of the $285 variety and took $20 carts. (Which I bought a few of new, but mostly refilled around 40 times before the printer gave up the ghost for good.) As inkjets go it was durable and well-mannered. A friend got a $600 Epson around that same time, and got 8 or 9 years use out of it, in a hostile environment, before it finally got weird (it still works, if you don't mind printing only in brown).
Now... I look at these $29 Lexmarks and wonder if the plastic in 'em is even worth 29 *cents*... and whether they'll outlast their third refill.
"Everything is smaller, more expensive, and not as good as it used to be." -- Andy Rooney
When someone asks me which inkjet to buy, my current response is "none of them".:(
I get Xerox's promo lit for the Phaser colour lasers -- I noticed one was now street-priced at around $800. I'd have to check the consumables street pricing for it, tho I vaguely recall it's around $120, so I'll use that for the following example (recalling that laser toner goes about 10x further than ink); note that the cost of the printer is INCLUDED in the totals:
$50 cheap colour inkjet
$60 average for new cart = 500 pages = $650 x 10 carts to do 5000 pages = $1250 x 20 carts to do 10,000 pages =$12050 x 100 carts to do 50,000 pages
$800 cheap colour laser
$120 guessing at cost of full cart = 5000 pages = $920 to do 5000 pages = $1040 to do 10,000 pages = $2000 to do 50,000 pages
So if you print 50,000 pages, a cheap colour laser saves you around $10,000 over the cost of using an inkjet (cheap or otherwise).
What's the duty cycle on inkjets anyway? I'd guess under 10,000. (I completely wore out my Canon TWICE -- once under warranty, once after being fixed -- having run perhaps 10,000 pages through it. And this was an old BJ200 workhorse, $285 new, not a cheap newbie.) I know the duty cycle on even bottom end lasers is about 50,000, and for midrange lasers is around 500,000.
Refills will shave a lot off the cost of both ink and toner... but very few people actually do refills either way, so I'll leave that as an exercise for some other cheapskate.:)
When I had a Canon inkjet where the printhead was part of the ink cart, I hit on the trick of swishing the print head in denatured alcohol whenever it misbehaved, and occasionally running a little denatured alcohol through the print cart before refilling it. This kept it cleaned out well enough that the ONLY reason I ever had to replace a cart was if I accidentlly bumped the printhead and damaged it. I'd usually get 8 or so refills from a given cart before it met with misadventure.
Also, I used Fillmore brand refill ink, which was *less* likely to clog than original Canon ink.
The old way: $300 printer and $20 carts.... 10 carts later, you've spent a total of $500. 100 carts later, you've spent a total of $2300. And chances are the printer is still going strong.
The new way: $100 printer and $60 carts.... 10 carts later, you've spent a total of $700. 100 carts later, you've spent a total of $6100. Well, assuming the printer made it past the first 10 carts in the first place.
Back when I had an inkjet, I used Fillmore ink with great success. It was actually *better* ink than the original -- printed crisper (and a truer black, too), dried faster, was much more smudge-resistant, and the printhead didn't clog so often.
Nowadays.... I don't think I'd buy an inkjet at all.
Also, what about how if an ISP filters content, that makes them responsible for what content DOES get through? Wouldn't any attempt to filter content on a P2P network fall under the same regulations?
Funny thing, they do it to each other too. Frex, Microsoft stops supporting old versions of Windows, then businesses scream about forced upgrades and being compelled to buy new hardware to support the latest Windows.
It's really the same thing in a different venue.
Consumers would scream a lot louder if it affected an investment of more than a few bucks per item. What if every few years, mandated changes in fuel type and availability forced you to "upgrade" your car??
Exactly. What people tend to forget is that owning a COPYright doesn't mean "I am the only one with the right to COPY it". It means "I am the only one with the right to DISTRIBUTE it." Really, it should be renamed "Distribution Right".
IOW, as the concept was intended, personal copying (that is, copying without redistributing, as may be needed for one's own private use) should be permitted as a normal and legal act. Meaning if I want to convert my CDs to MP3 for my own use, I should have every right to do so, so long as I don't then scatter them to the four winds.
But as "digital copyright" is being interpreted and enforced (legally and technically) today, it's the equivalent of saying, "Congratulations for buying our book. Your rights and limitations are as follows: You may only read this book under the lamp for which it was purchased. Reading this book under any other lamp is a violation of copyright. Also, if the lamp's bulb burns out, you must buy a new copy of the book, because you only purchased the right to read it under the original lamp equipped with its original bulb."
From TFA: "Some U2 songs are in the same cluster as Beethoven"
I've been saying for years that punk and new wave are structurally more akin to classical than they are to other forms of pop and rock music; hence they are also more *durable*.
Yuck. My first thought was, "Good gods, the layout is built like Windows Media Player."
I get the feeling that whoever designed this new look never does anything more complex with a browser than merely following links from one page to the next. Or at least believes that users never do anything so gauche.
[puts on professional dog breeder hat, now in its 35th year]
What you say was true in the Olden Days -- there was no practical way to enforce a nonbreeding contract, other than if you caught someone in the act and hauled them into court.
However, most registries now offer "nonbreeding" or "limited" registration, and the breeder can opt to apply that to any puppy they sell. You can still lie to the breeder about your intent and breed the dog anyway, but you cannot register any of its offspring. This reduces their salable value to essentially zilch, and they will have no influence on the breed's overall gene pool.
Side note: some breeders use "nonbreeding" registration to control what is done with any puppy they sell, regardless of its quality (this is ultimately destructive, especially in rare breeds, since the genes of many *good* specimens are thereby lost forever). Others (like myself) use it as it was intended -- solely to remove *substandard* specimens from the gene pool.
BTW I've now had eleven generations of my own bloodline:)
Yes, BUT... the **AA cartel doesn't WANT independent artists to HAVE the ability to distribute their own work independently -- because then the **AA cartel doesn't get their cut of the profits.
Dry up the alternative distribution methods (IOW, scare off all the filesharers) and the artists will have no choice but to sign with an **AA member.
You do not own 'Britney Spears - Toxic.mp3', and you do not have a right to give it to other people. If you wanted to have that right, make your own music, distribute that,
THAT is precisely what all this is about -- preventing artists from independently distributing their own work. Kill the means of independent distribution (or make it too scary for the end users/consumers) and you've locked the artist into the **AA distribution system, for lack of any alternatives.
Dasani is a Coca Cola brand? That's really funny... I looked at its ingredient list, and the added minerals are designed to make your mouth feel dry. (This is also why it tastes faintly similar to Epsom Salts.) So you drink the water, feel momentarily refreshed, then shortly you feel thirsty again....
In SoCal, the "every home will have a water vending machine" is already old hat. Sparklets (which in fact is just filtered L.A. city tap water) and.. um, I can't think of the name of the other one (which claims to be mountain spring water) already do a roaring business in home delivery of bottled drinking water, complete with dispenser. -- L.A. city water is actually very good; what's nasty are some of the pipes from the mains to houses, and I think also some of the mains themselves (chlorine plus PVC == corpselike taste and smell). I've noticed that in some areas, if you let the water run long enough to clear out the pipe, the water eventually goes from "eugh!" to perfectly good.
I'm on a well myself, and our water is hard as bricks, but tastes fine, quite refreshing in fact.
I'm a boney type too, and as bad as "The Princess and the Pea" -- regular mattress makes me sleep poorly and wake up sore all over, and I can feel every little lump in the bed. There is NO commercial mattress, even with a "pillow top" that I find comfortable enough.
Solution -- a foam mattress, or if you can't find that, a 4" thick foam pad (regular foam, not closed-cell foam), on top of the regular mattress. (And in cold weather, add a nice thick piece of fake sheepskin, so you don't spend all your body heat heating up the mattress.) Turn the foam regularly (over, end to end, and side to side) to let it "recover" from being compressed by your body weight, and it will last many years -- mine was purchased in 1977!!
Some lumpy or boney people like waterbeds, but they give me a backache.
Also, I find I'm most comfortable with a big thick down-filled pillow, tho it's increasingly hard to find a good soft one. (Most are now poor quality and get lumpy or "stiff" real fast.)
I've also noticed that being thirsty is often mistaken for being hungry. Also, "tasting your own teeth" tends to make you feel like you need to eat something. Solution: drink a couple glasses of water (if you then *feel* thirsty, you probably also need salt -- take a pinch of salt or dry gatorade mix), then brush your teeth. Usually this will kill a spurious urge to eat.
Side note: I am not obese, but my stomach is pretty well trained to STFU if the *rest* of the body isn't *actually* hungry. I've found that if you don't gratify the stomach's every whim, it eventually ceases to whine and bitch every time it's momentarily empty (just because it's empty doesn't mean you NEED to eat!) Also, the stomach can usually be bribed into shutting up for a few hours with just a couple dry soda crackers.
Again, this is easier to accomplish if you don't already feel munchy from lack of sleep.
I've noticed that when I get enough sleep, I wake up with the sun and feel ready to go, but so long as I go forth and DO something, I also don't have much appetite until noon or later (and the later in the day I have that first meal, the less I tend to eat for the whole day).
When I don't get enough sleep, I'm more likely to be hungry when I do get up.
It does seem reasonable that biochemical stress from insufficient sleep (that is, insufficiently recharged biological systems) causes "short term starvation behaviour", ie. "the munchies", as the body's attempt to make up for the lack of "recharging".
Slashdot Mirror
Having RTFA (I know, how embarrassing!) ... my first thought was... when their data failed to come in, why the hell didn't they *contact* NASA and ASK what happened to it??
I swear, that's a quintessential geek failing -- expecting everyone else to be the one who calls YOU when something doesn't happen on schedule, even if it's YOUR baby. WTF would be wrong with making your own damned inquiries in a timely manner, instead of waiting until it's too late and then being upset about it?
(Excuse the rant, but I've seen this sort of thing over and over, in geeks and kids. Draw your own conclusions.)
Not really. As I understand it, the French in Quebec is more "pure", that is, more *historically correct*, than the French now spoken in France.
Ah, yes. I vaguely recall that XP can do that too, but haven't looked into it at all. Probably should, tho, since I never seem to have enough desktop. A 40 foot monitor would be about right. :)
Got more info on that? (Yes I'm lazy but sounds like you've already been researching it :)
I love my 19" CRT.... I've not loved any LCD I've looked at yet.
I am SO sorry I already used up all my mod points... that's the damnedest image :D
:)
More seriously, is it possible to split up a single desktop onto multiple monitors?? I mean so you could have ridiculously high effective resolution, if not as extreme as that Texas-sized monitor
Maybe he WANTS to be proven wrong, so that LCDs will finally improve to the point that he can ditch that CRT!!
Somewhere upstream, I did a comparison of current colour laser vs colour inkjet cost. Over the span of 50,000 pages, the price diff gets into the $10k range.
:)
BTW, an average consumer-grade B/W laser gets around 5000 pages per toner cart (inkjets got around 500 pages per cart, last I checked, tho I think that's gone down).
And I'm already somewhere in excess of 5000 pages on the original cart in my 10 year old Epson laser -- and it's still got over half the cart to go.
Never thought of using real photo paper with a laser printer, but hey, why not? Can't be too different from printing on glossy cardstock.
I'm really amazed that some people think inkjet print quality is better (I'll put my 300dpi laser against any 1200dpi inkjet!!) Try photocopying or scanning the output, and which *really* has better definition soon becomes evident.
If I ever need to buy a colour printer**, I'll be looking at something like a Xerox Phaser, not an inkjet. (** I've got several colour inkjets sitting here that I haven't been motivated to fix and use, so I don't expect this to happen any time soon
Yes, I caught your point; I was just making it more obvious for the local contingent who don't think beyond "wow, $29 printer!"
And you're absolutely right -- such shortsighted economics are leading to a market dominated by Cheap Crud of every sort. It's increasingly difficult to find quality merchandise anywhere, at any price -- Cheap Crud has run it out of the market, yet by the time you pay a dozen times to serially replace that Cheap Crud, you could have enjoyed one GOOD item for all those years, at a fraction of the net cost.
My original inkjet was of the $285 variety and took $20 carts. (Which I bought a few of new, but mostly refilled around 40 times before the printer gave up the ghost for good.) As inkjets go it was durable and well-mannered. A friend got a $600 Epson around that same time, and got 8 or 9 years use out of it, in a hostile environment, before it finally got weird (it still works, if you don't mind printing only in brown).
Now... I look at these $29 Lexmarks and wonder if the plastic in 'em is even worth 29 *cents*... and whether they'll outlast their third refill.
"Everything is smaller, more expensive, and not as good as it used to be." -- Andy Rooney
When someone asks me which inkjet to buy, my current response is "none of them". :(
:)
I get Xerox's promo lit for the Phaser colour lasers -- I noticed one was now street-priced at around $800. I'd have to check the consumables street pricing for it, tho I vaguely recall it's around $120, so I'll use that for the following example (recalling that laser toner goes about 10x further than ink); note that the cost of the printer is INCLUDED in the totals:
$50 cheap colour inkjet
$60 average for new cart = 500 pages
= $650 x 10 carts to do 5000 pages
= $1250 x 20 carts to do 10,000 pages
=$12050 x 100 carts to do 50,000 pages
$800 cheap colour laser
$120 guessing at cost of full cart = 5000 pages
= $920 to do 5000 pages
= $1040 to do 10,000 pages
= $2000 to do 50,000 pages
So if you print 50,000 pages, a cheap colour laser saves you around $10,000 over the cost of using an inkjet (cheap or otherwise).
What's the duty cycle on inkjets anyway? I'd guess under 10,000. (I completely wore out my Canon TWICE -- once under warranty, once after being fixed -- having run perhaps 10,000 pages through it. And this was an old BJ200 workhorse, $285 new, not a cheap newbie.) I know the duty cycle on even bottom end lasers is about 50,000, and for midrange lasers is around 500,000.
Refills will shave a lot off the cost of both ink and toner... but very few people actually do refills either way, so I'll leave that as an exercise for some other cheapskate.
When I had a Canon inkjet where the printhead was part of the ink cart, I hit on the trick of swishing the print head in denatured alcohol whenever it misbehaved, and occasionally running a little denatured alcohol through the print cart before refilling it. This kept it cleaned out well enough that the ONLY reason I ever had to replace a cart was if I accidentlly bumped the printhead and damaged it. I'd usually get 8 or so refills from a given cart before it met with misadventure.
Also, I used Fillmore brand refill ink, which was *less* likely to clog than original Canon ink.
The old way: $300 printer and $20 carts.... 10 carts later, you've spent a total of $500. 100 carts later, you've spent a total of $2300. And chances are the printer is still going strong.
The new way: $100 printer and $60 carts.... 10 carts later, you've spent a total of $700. 100 carts later, you've spent a total of $6100. Well, assuming the printer made it past the first 10 carts in the first place.
Back when I had an inkjet, I used Fillmore ink with great success. It was actually *better* ink than the original -- printed crisper (and a truer black, too), dried faster, was much more smudge-resistant, and the printhead didn't clog so often.
Nowadays.... I don't think I'd buy an inkjet at all.
Also, what about how if an ISP filters content, that makes them responsible for what content DOES get through? Wouldn't any attempt to filter content on a P2P network fall under the same regulations?
Funny thing, they do it to each other too. Frex, Microsoft stops supporting old versions of Windows, then businesses scream about forced upgrades and being compelled to buy new hardware to support the latest Windows.
It's really the same thing in a different venue.
Consumers would scream a lot louder if it affected an investment of more than a few bucks per item. What if every few years, mandated changes in fuel type and availability forced you to "upgrade" your car??
Exactly. What people tend to forget is that owning a COPYright doesn't mean "I am the only one with the right to COPY it". It means "I am the only one with the right to DISTRIBUTE it." Really, it should be renamed "Distribution Right".
IOW, as the concept was intended, personal copying (that is, copying without redistributing, as may be needed for one's own private use) should be permitted as a normal and legal act. Meaning if I want to convert my CDs to MP3 for my own use, I should have every right to do so, so long as I don't then scatter them to the four winds.
But as "digital copyright" is being interpreted and enforced (legally and technically) today, it's the equivalent of saying, "Congratulations for buying our book. Your rights and limitations are as follows: You may only read this book under the lamp for which it was purchased. Reading this book under any other lamp is a violation of copyright. Also, if the lamp's bulb burns out, you must buy a new copy of the book, because you only purchased the right to read it under the original lamp equipped with its original bulb."
From TFA: "Some U2 songs are in the same cluster as Beethoven"
I've been saying for years that punk and new wave are structurally more akin to classical than they are to other forms of pop and rock music; hence they are also more *durable*.
[looks at screenie]
Yuck. My first thought was, "Good gods, the layout is built like Windows Media Player."
I get the feeling that whoever designed this new look never does anything more complex with a browser than merely following links from one page to the next. Or at least believes that users never do anything so gauche.
[puts on professional dog breeder hat, now in its 35th year]
:)
What you say was true in the Olden Days -- there was no practical way to enforce a nonbreeding contract, other than if you caught someone in the act and hauled them into court.
However, most registries now offer "nonbreeding" or "limited" registration, and the breeder can opt to apply that to any puppy they sell. You can still lie to the breeder about your intent and breed the dog anyway, but you cannot register any of its offspring. This reduces their salable value to essentially zilch, and they will have no influence on the breed's overall gene pool.
Side note: some breeders use "nonbreeding" registration to control what is done with any puppy they sell, regardless of its quality (this is ultimately destructive, especially in rare breeds, since the genes of many *good* specimens are thereby lost forever). Others (like myself) use it as it was intended -- solely to remove *substandard* specimens from the gene pool.
BTW I've now had eleven generations of my own bloodline
Yes, BUT ... the **AA cartel doesn't WANT independent artists to HAVE the ability to distribute their own work independently -- because then the **AA cartel doesn't get their cut of the profits.
Dry up the alternative distribution methods (IOW, scare off all the filesharers) and the artists will have no choice but to sign with an **AA member.
THAT is precisely what all this is about -- preventing artists from independently distributing their own work. Kill the means of independent distribution (or make it too scary for the end users/consumers) and you've locked the artist into the **AA distribution system, for lack of any alternatives.
Dasani is a Coca Cola brand? That's really funny... I looked at its ingredient list, and the added minerals are designed to make your mouth feel dry. (This is also why it tastes faintly similar to Epsom Salts.) So you drink the water, feel momentarily refreshed, then shortly you feel thirsty again....
.. um, I can't think of the name of the other one (which claims to be mountain spring water) already do a roaring business in home delivery of bottled drinking water, complete with dispenser. -- L.A. city water is actually very good; what's nasty are some of the pipes from the mains to houses, and I think also some of the mains themselves (chlorine plus PVC == corpselike taste and smell). I've noticed that in some areas, if you let the water run long enough to clear out the pipe, the water eventually goes from "eugh!" to perfectly good.
In SoCal, the "every home will have a water vending machine" is already old hat. Sparklets (which in fact is just filtered L.A. city tap water) and
I'm on a well myself, and our water is hard as bricks, but tastes fine, quite refreshing in fact.
I'm a boney type too, and as bad as "The Princess and the Pea" -- regular mattress makes me sleep poorly and wake up sore all over, and I can feel every little lump in the bed. There is NO commercial mattress, even with a "pillow top" that I find comfortable enough.
Solution -- a foam mattress, or if you can't find that, a 4" thick foam pad (regular foam, not closed-cell foam), on top of the regular mattress. (And in cold weather, add a nice thick piece of fake sheepskin, so you don't spend all your body heat heating up the mattress.) Turn the foam regularly (over, end to end, and side to side) to let it "recover" from being compressed by your body weight, and it will last many years -- mine was purchased in 1977!!
Some lumpy or boney people like waterbeds, but they give me a backache.
Also, I find I'm most comfortable with a big thick down-filled pillow, tho it's increasingly hard to find a good soft one. (Most are now poor quality and get lumpy or "stiff" real fast.)
I've also noticed that being thirsty is often mistaken for being hungry. Also, "tasting your own teeth" tends to make you feel like you need to eat something. Solution: drink a couple glasses of water (if you then *feel* thirsty, you probably also need salt -- take a pinch of salt or dry gatorade mix), then brush your teeth. Usually this will kill a spurious urge to eat.
Side note: I am not obese, but my stomach is pretty well trained to STFU if the *rest* of the body isn't *actually* hungry. I've found that if you don't gratify the stomach's every whim, it eventually ceases to whine and bitch every time it's momentarily empty (just because it's empty doesn't mean you NEED to eat!) Also, the stomach can usually be bribed into shutting up for a few hours with just a couple dry soda crackers.
Again, this is easier to accomplish if you don't already feel munchy from lack of sleep.
I forget which brands they own, but IIRC Coca-Cola is already a major vendor of bottled water.
I've noticed that when I get enough sleep, I wake up with the sun and feel ready to go, but so long as I go forth and DO something, I also don't have much appetite until noon or later (and the later in the day I have that first meal, the less I tend to eat for the whole day).
When I don't get enough sleep, I'm more likely to be hungry when I do get up.
It does seem reasonable that biochemical stress from insufficient sleep (that is, insufficiently recharged biological systems) causes "short term starvation behaviour", ie. "the munchies", as the body's attempt to make up for the lack of "recharging".