Back in the late 90's I was working for a company that made graphic file import and export filters. If you used any graphics app in the '90s and perhaps even some of the current versions and have ever brought in a file from some other app, then I probably worked on that code.
Well I was once assigned to write an export filter for DWF. This was a light-weight 2D format made by some company that AutoDesk acquired. To the best of my knowledge there were only two apps that used this format, the plug-in for AutoCAD to create the files from an AutoCAD drawing, and the browser plug-in to display them. Visio wanted this format supported because they believed themselves to be a competitor to AutoDesk (I know, it sounds fucked up to me too).
Fortunately the full spec for version 1.0 of the file format was freely available, which should have made this thing a piece of cake, right? But no, the viewer only supports up to version 0.2, which I couldn't find. The best I could determine was that 0.2 only supported polylines, no curves, no text, no closed objects, no fills of any kind.
This wasn't a horrible problem because we had a complete emulation library that could run out everything to simple lines, except for the fills of course, and text. So I had to make the text support. Most font engines that I've seen use closed shapes made of beziers, this wouldn't work for me, I need simple single line stuff. So I had to construct it myself. I could use AutoCAD to export a DWF file that had simple vector letters, think old arcade style text, then I converted that to CGM, brought it into CorelDraw, modified the shapes with some of the tools, exported it out to through a special CGM filter (I was in charge of the CGM filter and knew how to use it to my advantage) and then dumped it to a clear text file to give me a set of points that would draw decent looking characters and could scale decently.
But it gets worse. Since the spec for 1.0 was available management decided we should support it also. The only way we could test it was to run it against our import filter, not much of a test, is it? But the bad thing is if you had an unsupported element in a file and tried to get AutoDesk's browser plug-in to open the file, the damn thing crashed. Any attempt to make a 1.0 file crashed the only other viewer available, and my bosses saw nothing wrong with this! I was livid. I told my boss, the QA manager, and anybody that would listen that if we sent out this filter with profiles for both 0.2 (the working version) and 1.0, we would get bug reports back. But they ignored me. And pretty soon I got a bug report from Visio that said "Files generated with the 1.0 profile crash the web viewer"! No fucking shit. Actually I replied in the bug report, which supposedly would be sent to our clients, "Well duh!". I got lectured by management on that but I didn't care.
I'll try to describe it if I can, but you're wrong about the center of balance. The batteries make the bottom end much heavier.
I hold the remote with my index finger extended underneath to where the tip is just shy of the front indention. The other three fingers come up on the side, with the middle finger to the left of the center of the back button, and the other two fingers further back near the number pad. Then I just curl my thumb a bit and I can easily reach all the buttons on the keypad. It's not a natural position, but with a little practice you get the hang of it. It's also quite easy for me to slide the remote a bit in my hand and reach all the buttons.
I would like to find a remote that can do both a dish receiver and the Tivo, as I have two hooked up, one for HD and one for standard running through the tivo. I use a universal for all my other components, but it's based on the pronto which means it only has a few hard buttons and the rest are on the touchscreen. It pretty much sucks for casual TV watching.
I love the Tivo interface overall, but I think you pointed out the only shortcoming I can find in it. I also wish that if I change the channel in the middle of a recording, that it would offer a third option to cancel recording and delete, very rarely do I change the channel and save that portion that was recorded.
But overall I love the remote. I can change the channels with one hand by using my thumb. However I could see that based on the size of your hand it could be tricky for some to accomplish.
Actually what I was mainly getting at was the submitters post jumped topics constantly. IMHO there was no logical flow from one to the other. Hubble and the ISS are two completely different things, and yet both the submitter and the article seem to imply a link that I don't think exists.
I guess the point is that if Hubble is to dangerous to send the shuttle to even though it has a real scientific purpose, then there's no point in spending all the money on the shuttle just to go to the ISS because it doesn't provide much science. However there is one thing the article mentions that puts a flaw in this rather shaky logic, missions to the ISS are safer because the shuttle can be checked for problems and worked on there, unlike at Hubble.
This makes me wonder, couldn't a telescope such as Hubble, or even Hubble itself, be put in an orbit that is close enough to the ISS that a mission could visit both? Or am I missing something fundamental about the physics of orbits?
OK, I see where the size and weight can be advantageous. I didn't know it used a smaller harddrive also. I guess it just depends on your needs. The Archos was better in every respect than my old Nomad, especially in size and battery life. So to me it's great.
Plus I only use it in the car. So having thousands of songs at 256kbps in MP3 is just fine for me.
I have to say that I really prefer seeing it as a harddrive rather than using proprietary software. I can take it to work or someone else's house and transfer songs or anything else. I know with some of the other portable music players this isn't always an option.
Flexibility and cost far outweigh the size issue for me. I just get tired of people acting like iPod is the only player in the market. Lots of players existed well before Apple got in the game. The only good thing I can really see that they did was to use a smaller, albeit costlier, harddrive.
USB 2.0 is not slow. It took me less than an hour to load mine up with ~17GB of MP3s. Maybe it's not as fast as firewire, but it's definitely a lot better than my old Creative Labs Nomad, now there was a piece of shit.
I've got an Archos Jukebox Recorder. It has a 20GB harddrive, digital output, can record, has replacable software so you can use open-source stuff on it, mounts as a USB harddrive using USB 2.0, and is powered by 4 AA NiMH batteries which give it lots of playing time.
So what does the iPod do that makes it worth more and require a more expensive battery? Is it just the firewire? Is it better at playing MP3s? Seriously, I'd like to know. I've never used an iPod, never even seen one up close, but the Archos does a hell of a job and I don't understand why people are willing to spend so much more on an iPod.
Or so I've heard from a couple of sources and it's listed on IMDB. So it looks like there will be more. Personnally I can't wait, I really enjoyed the show and would like to know what happened.
Lot's of people are saying this, but I have no doubt this will be one of the biggest selling releases on DVD. Lucas is going to make millions off of this again, and probably a second time when he releases the super special edition of all six in one box. I doubt he's going to notice the few people who refuse to buy any version where Han doesn't shoot first. As much as I'd like to see that, I'm perfectly willing to accept whatever Lucas wants to sell.
Hence it being on the page titled "Rumor Mill". Still I've read this site since 1998 and Bill Hunt's sources have proven to be pretty reliable. Probably the reason the source is anonymous is due to non-disclosure issues.
I saw it Monday night, and I feel it was similar to Reloaded. Not quite the same as far as fight scenes go. But then again it was pretty clear that a simple fight was not going to settle things between Neo and Agent Smith. I was surprised about Trinity though.
Still, both were a let down from the Matrix. To much mysticism type stuff, where his powers extended beyond the matrix. Matrix stuff crossing over into the real world just didn't make a lot of sense.
I believe their claim comes down to this: IBM licensed UNIX to make AIX, SCO says that while making AIX, they allowed code to be copied into Linux, thus invalidating their UNIX license, so SCO has rescinded the license for UNIX, which means IBM can't sell AIX.
Was it necessary to put her name on your website? How can you justify that? If its not what's in the public record, why did you have to add that? While your site may be intended to serve the greater good, adding her name and thus eliminating steps she's taken to protect her privacy is just plain wrong.
And just because you disagree with her politics doesn't justify it. In fact that quote you made regarding how she should have left the country just shows that you don't like her and thus brings your integrity into question. I can't help but wonder if you did this just hoping to upset her into instigating legal action to gain publicity for your project.
That's a very good point. Seeing as how the freedom of the press was meant to guarantee that newspapers could criticize the government without fear, and yet it has been stretched to the point of allowing tabloids to invade every aspect of a celebrities life, it only seems fair that they should also stretch other amendments of the Bill of Rights to protect themselves.
It may not be in the Constitution, but it should be. People on/. are always complaining about privacy, whether it be spyware tracking your movements, or Tivo watching your viewing habits. But celebrities have some real concerns, such as this (IMDB) actress would have if she wasn't dead now. Thanks to availability of public records, a psycho tracked her down and shot her. Now laws have been enacted, many inspired by this case, so that celebrities can protect their privacy.
I'm not saying the guy shouldn't take the pictures. But he didn't need to use her name. That information wasn't available from public records, and it certainly isn't significant with regards to his work. Unless he's concerned her voice will lead to erosion of the cliff.
I don't like the woman at all, as I'm sure most/. readers don't, but that doesn't matter. She does have a right to privacy. There was no reason for her name to be mentioned on that website. One point in the lawsuit specifically states that the house is not listed in public records under her name. Like most of her property its registered under a corporate identity that can't be easily connected to her to protect her privacy. I can't help but wonder what would have happened if he hadn't disclosed the name of the owner, which is not required for the purposes of his site.
If they use this information wisely, we all win. Admittedly that's a big if, but if the data is such that they can determine geek viewing habits, we can have more quality geek TV.
Is it the musician that wants this done, or his lawyer? I highly suspect Bill Wyman doesn't realize that this is going on. His lawyer probably pursues all sorts of things for him, and bills him for everything he sends out. The real criminal in this is the lawyer for not even thinking about what he was doing other than how many hours he can now bill his client for. Bill Wyman the writer should countersue so that its brought to Bill Wyman the musician's attention, just sending proof to this lawyer won't ever tell Bill Wyman anything. If the writer countersues, then the musician gets involved, one would the he's going to be pretty pissed at his lawyer for costing him those legal fees.
- Reporters Without Borders sent out a questionnaire based on the main criteria for such freedom and asking for details of directs attacks on journalists (such as murders, imprisonment, physical assaults and threats) and on the media (censorship, confiscation, searches and pressure). It also asked about the degree of impunity enjoyed by those responsible for such violations.
- The questionnaire recorded the legal environment for the media (such as punishment for press offences, a state monopoly in some areas and the existence of a regulatory body) and the behaviour of the state towards the public media and the foreign press. It also noted the main threats to the free flow of information on the Internet.
So it looks like the only thing they don't like about the US is that the reporters are required to obey the same laws as the citizens also.
If I'm not mistaken, in the steam car episode (season 2 or 3 I think) they specifically stated the steam engines had been planted in the junkyard at the beginning of the show. Also, each time they did rockets they also mentioned that the rockets had been planted beforehand, as that was pretty obvious. In addition to that there're the FAQs and behind the scenes stuff as mentioned by others here.
What do you call people from the UK? United Kingdomites? No, you call them British, Welsh, English, Scottish, or whatever. Its more or less the same. Most people throughout the world refer to US citizens as Americans, and Canadian citizens as Canadians.
Furthermore, America is not a continent. There are two continents, North America and South America. Going by your definition everybody from either continent should be referred to as American. If you're going to go around correcting people on their usage of the term American, you should put a little effort in it and try and be fair to all the other "American" countries.
Slashdot Mirror
Back in the late 90's I was working for a company that made graphic file import and export filters. If you used any graphics app in the '90s and perhaps even some of the current versions and have ever brought in a file from some other app, then I probably worked on that code.
Well I was once assigned to write an export filter for DWF. This was a light-weight 2D format made by some company that AutoDesk acquired. To the best of my knowledge there were only two apps that used this format, the plug-in for AutoCAD to create the files from an AutoCAD drawing, and the browser plug-in to display them. Visio wanted this format supported because they believed themselves to be a competitor to AutoDesk (I know, it sounds fucked up to me too).
Fortunately the full spec for version 1.0 of the file format was freely available, which should have made this thing a piece of cake, right? But no, the viewer only supports up to version 0.2, which I couldn't find. The best I could determine was that 0.2 only supported polylines, no curves, no text, no closed objects, no fills of any kind.
This wasn't a horrible problem because we had a complete emulation library that could run out everything to simple lines, except for the fills of course, and text. So I had to make the text support. Most font engines that I've seen use closed shapes made of beziers, this wouldn't work for me, I need simple single line stuff. So I had to construct it myself. I could use AutoCAD to export a DWF file that had simple vector letters, think old arcade style text, then I converted that to CGM, brought it into CorelDraw, modified the shapes with some of the tools, exported it out to through a special CGM filter (I was in charge of the CGM filter and knew how to use it to my advantage) and then dumped it to a clear text file to give me a set of points that would draw decent looking characters and could scale decently.
But it gets worse. Since the spec for 1.0 was available management decided we should support it also. The only way we could test it was to run it against our import filter, not much of a test, is it? But the bad thing is if you had an unsupported element in a file and tried to get AutoDesk's browser plug-in to open the file, the damn thing crashed. Any attempt to make a 1.0 file crashed the only other viewer available, and my bosses saw nothing wrong with this! I was livid. I told my boss, the QA manager, and anybody that would listen that if we sent out this filter with profiles for both 0.2 (the working version) and 1.0, we would get bug reports back. But they ignored me. And pretty soon I got a bug report from Visio that said "Files generated with the 1.0 profile crash the web viewer"! No fucking shit. Actually I replied in the bug report, which supposedly would be sent to our clients, "Well duh!". I got lectured by management on that but I didn't care.
I'll try to describe it if I can, but you're wrong about the center of balance. The batteries make the bottom end much heavier.
I hold the remote with my index finger extended underneath to where the tip is just shy of the front indention. The other three fingers come up on the side, with the middle finger to the left of the center of the back button, and the other two fingers further back near the number pad. Then I just curl my thumb a bit and I can easily reach all the buttons on the keypad. It's not a natural position, but with a little practice you get the hang of it. It's also quite easy for me to slide the remote a bit in my hand and reach all the buttons.
I would like to find a remote that can do both a dish receiver and the Tivo, as I have two hooked up, one for HD and one for standard running through the tivo. I use a universal for all my other components, but it's based on the pronto which means it only has a few hard buttons and the rest are on the touchscreen. It pretty much sucks for casual TV watching.
I love the Tivo interface overall, but I think you pointed out the only shortcoming I can find in it. I also wish that if I change the channel in the middle of a recording, that it would offer a third option to cancel recording and delete, very rarely do I change the channel and save that portion that was recorded.
But overall I love the remote. I can change the channels with one hand by using my thumb. However I could see that based on the size of your hand it could be tricky for some to accomplish.
Actually what I was mainly getting at was the submitters post jumped topics constantly. IMHO there was no logical flow from one to the other. Hubble and the ISS are two completely different things, and yet both the submitter and the article seem to imply a link that I don't think exists.
I guess the point is that if Hubble is to dangerous to send the shuttle to even though it has a real scientific purpose, then there's no point in spending all the money on the shuttle just to go to the ISS because it doesn't provide much science. However there is one thing the article mentions that puts a flaw in this rather shaky logic, missions to the ISS are safer because the shuttle can be checked for problems and worked on there, unlike at Hubble.
This makes me wonder, couldn't a telescope such as Hubble, or even Hubble itself, be put in an orbit that is close enough to the ISS that a mission could visit both? Or am I missing something fundamental about the physics of orbits?
Does the hubble really count as a space station? Or is the author implying that if the Hubble is dangerous, so is the ISS? Just what is the problem.
Oh yeah, I second the "no more NYT" opinion.
OK, I see where the size and weight can be advantageous. I didn't know it used a smaller harddrive also. I guess it just depends on your needs. The Archos was better in every respect than my old Nomad, especially in size and battery life. So to me it's great.
Plus I only use it in the car. So having thousands of songs at 256kbps in MP3 is just fine for me.
I have to say that I really prefer seeing it as a harddrive rather than using proprietary software. I can take it to work or someone else's house and transfer songs or anything else. I know with some of the other portable music players this isn't always an option.
Flexibility and cost far outweigh the size issue for me. I just get tired of people acting like iPod is the only player in the market. Lots of players existed well before Apple got in the game. The only good thing I can really see that they did was to use a smaller, albeit costlier, harddrive.
USB 2.0 is not slow. It took me less than an hour to load mine up with ~17GB of MP3s. Maybe it's not as fast as firewire, but it's definitely a lot better than my old Creative Labs Nomad, now there was a piece of shit.
I've got an Archos Jukebox Recorder. It has a 20GB harddrive, digital output, can record, has replacable software so you can use open-source stuff on it, mounts as a USB harddrive using USB 2.0, and is powered by 4 AA NiMH batteries which give it lots of playing time.
So what does the iPod do that makes it worth more and require a more expensive battery? Is it just the firewire? Is it better at playing MP3s? Seriously, I'd like to know. I've never used an iPod, never even seen one up close, but the Archos does a hell of a job and I don't understand why people are willing to spend so much more on an iPod.
My Archos has everything an iPod has, costs a lot less, and runs off 4 AA NiMHs.
Or so I've heard from a couple of sources and it's listed on IMDB. So it looks like there will be more. Personnally I can't wait, I really enjoyed the show and would like to know what happened.
Lot's of people are saying this, but I have no doubt this will be one of the biggest selling releases on DVD. Lucas is going to make millions off of this again, and probably a second time when he releases the super special edition of all six in one box. I doubt he's going to notice the few people who refuse to buy any version where Han doesn't shoot first. As much as I'd like to see that, I'm perfectly willing to accept whatever Lucas wants to sell.
Hence it being on the page titled "Rumor Mill". Still I've read this site since 1998 and Bill Hunt's sources have proven to be pretty reliable. Probably the reason the source is anonymous is due to non-disclosure issues.
I saw it Monday night, and I feel it was similar to Reloaded. Not quite the same as far as fight scenes go. But then again it was pretty clear that a simple fight was not going to settle things between Neo and Agent Smith. I was surprised about Trinity though.
Still, both were a let down from the Matrix. To much mysticism type stuff, where his powers extended beyond the matrix. Matrix stuff crossing over into the real world just didn't make a lot of sense.
I believe their claim comes down to this: IBM licensed UNIX to make AIX, SCO says that while making AIX, they allowed code to be copied into Linux, thus invalidating their UNIX license, so SCO has rescinded the license for UNIX, which means IBM can't sell AIX.
Was it necessary to put her name on your website? How can you justify that? If its not what's in the public record, why did you have to add that? While your site may be intended to serve the greater good, adding her name and thus eliminating steps she's taken to protect her privacy is just plain wrong.
And just because you disagree with her politics doesn't justify it. In fact that quote you made regarding how she should have left the country just shows that you don't like her and thus brings your integrity into question. I can't help but wonder if you did this just hoping to upset her into instigating legal action to gain publicity for your project.
Well obviously in this case we're talking about applications of the First and Fourth Amendments. How is that not clear?
That's a very good point. Seeing as how the freedom of the press was meant to guarantee that newspapers could criticize the government without fear, and yet it has been stretched to the point of allowing tabloids to invade every aspect of a celebrities life, it only seems fair that they should also stretch other amendments of the Bill of Rights to protect themselves.
It may not be in the Constitution, but it should be. People on /. are always complaining about privacy, whether it be spyware tracking your movements, or Tivo watching your viewing habits. But celebrities have some real concerns, such as this (IMDB) actress would have if she wasn't dead now. Thanks to availability of public records, a psycho tracked her down and shot her. Now laws have been enacted, many inspired by this case, so that celebrities can protect their privacy.
I'm not saying the guy shouldn't take the pictures. But he didn't need to use her name. That information wasn't available from public records, and it certainly isn't significant with regards to his work. Unless he's concerned her voice will lead to erosion of the cliff.
I don't like the woman at all, as I'm sure most /. readers don't, but that doesn't matter. She does have a right to privacy. There was no reason for her name to be mentioned on that website. One point in the lawsuit specifically states that the house is not listed in public records under her name. Like most of her property its registered under a corporate identity that can't be easily connected to her to protect her privacy. I can't help but wonder what would have happened if he hadn't disclosed the name of the owner, which is not required for the purposes of his site.
If they use this information wisely, we all win. Admittedly that's a big if, but if the data is such that they can determine geek viewing habits, we can have more quality geek TV.
That should read "one would think he's going...".
Is it the musician that wants this done, or his lawyer? I highly suspect Bill Wyman doesn't realize that this is going on. His lawyer probably pursues all sorts of things for him, and bills him for everything he sends out. The real criminal in this is the lawyer for not even thinking about what he was doing other than how many hours he can now bill his client for. Bill Wyman the writer should countersue so that its brought to Bill Wyman the musician's attention, just sending proof to this lawyer won't ever tell Bill Wyman anything. If the writer countersues, then the musician gets involved, one would the he's going to be pretty pissed at his lawyer for costing him those legal fees.
If I'm not mistaken, in the steam car episode (season 2 or 3 I think) they specifically stated the steam engines had been planted in the junkyard at the beginning of the show. Also, each time they did rockets they also mentioned that the rockets had been planted beforehand, as that was pretty obvious. In addition to that there're the FAQs and behind the scenes stuff as mentioned by others here.
What do you call people from the UK? United Kingdomites? No, you call them British, Welsh, English, Scottish, or whatever. Its more or less the same. Most people throughout the world refer to US citizens as Americans, and Canadian citizens as Canadians.
Furthermore, America is not a continent. There are two continents, North America and South America. Going by your definition everybody from either continent should be referred to as American. If you're going to go around correcting people on their usage of the term American, you should put a little effort in it and try and be fair to all the other "American" countries.