NO! This is *not* a patent "covering the Internet installation of any software or settings on new computers".
This is a patent covering backing up preferences on a remote server so that someone can safely upgrade their OS or move computers.
Agreed. Reading the patent, one sees that they describe a web-based process where one can access a web page, back up files comprising a user's environment, go to a new workstation, and restore said files.
First off, let me say I have no idea what Speak Freely is. My comments are solely in response to some of the reasons he gives for discontinuing the program.
Had his reasoning behind discontinuing the project rested solely on his lack of time and an aging code base, I don't think I'd have an issue. Instead, he goes on to blame the NAT protocol and boxes that implement it, like the very popular cable/DSL "routers," and many of his issues seem to either misunderstand them or deliberately misstate what they can do.
He makes comments like, "Since the user no longer has an externally visible Internet Protocol (IP) address (fixed or variable), there is no way (in the general case--there may be "workarounds" for specific NAT boxes, but they're basically exploiting bugs which will probably eventually be fixed) for sites to open connections or address packets to his machine." He continues to state, "experience has shown that a large number of installed NAT boxes either cannot map an externally accessible port to an internal IP address and port, or those who install the boxes do not provide their customers adequate information to permit them to do this."
First of all, I have yet to see a NAT device that cannot statically map ports to a machine inside the local area connection. If there is one, I'd love to know about it so I can tell anyone to avoid it. Some are more rudimentary than others - like one I know about that has no UI to distinguish TCP and UDP inbound ports - but they all offer some way of mapping inbound ports.
His argument that they don't provide sufficient documentation to allow end-users to do so, and this may be the case. But if one is to discontinue development of a program based on the fact that someone else is providing poor documentation, there wouldn't be any development going on - documentation for most hardware/software products in the last 3 years or more have been horrid in my experience.
His argument that the internet is moving towards a client-server model rather than a peer to peer model is undeniable. It's been moving that way since they allowed home computers on the internet, and shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. Still, this doesn't mean the "clients" can't continue to utilize products that utilize a peer to peer architecture. He dismisses peer to peer file sharing products while overlooking the fact that they're the most successful peer to peer architecture network to exist in the history of the internet, and disproves his argument that NAT spells the end of peer to peer.
In the end, it seems he just didn't want to continue developing his program - and instead of being honest, he thought he'd use this opportunity to climb on his soapbox and make some waves by blaming NAT for the ills of the internet and the death of his program.
The best way I can describe PTT when compared to a standard voice conversation is that PTT is almost like a voice SMS. It's useful for communicating short bursts of information quickly.
Advantages to PTT/"Direct Connect (TM)" is that as soon as you push the button, you're connected to the other party - you don't have to wait while the other end rings and for them to pick up. Also, communication using PTT is closer to a walkie talkie than a phone conversation.
Example:
Them: *chirp* (press the button and release it to page them, indicating you want to talk to them)
Me: "Go."
Them: "What's your 20?"
Me: "3rd and Maple."
Them: "Copy. Need assistance?"
Me: "Negative. Thanks."
As you can see, it can be a little quicker than a phone conversation. Additionally since the mike is only on while you have the button pressed, I typically am doing other things at the same time, like talking to others, without the other end hearing it.
The advantages are mostly visible when you have an entire department or company equipped with PTT phones. If you are the only one, then PTT is kind of silly, admittedly.
Remember to put the junk mail in front of the robot chute so that you get the babel fish, though.
The mail has to sit on the satchel in front of the robot chute, you have to cover up the drain, and you have to hang the dressing gown from the hook on the wall.
Similar experience from Ameritech.net dial-up service:
Me: I can't seem to get onto the internet; I haven't changed anything, but I keep getting disconnected as soon as I connect.
Them: Ok, lets try some things. Can you right click the My Computer icon?
Me: I don't have a My Computer icon. I'm on a Mac.
Them: You HAVE to have a My Computer icon.
Me: Macs don't have a My Computer icon.
Them: Ok. Huh. It has to.. anyway. Right-click on Network Neighborhood then.
Me: I don't have a Network Neighborhood icon. I told you, I'm on a Mac.
Them: I'm sorry, sir, these are what my two-week training course told me to do.
Me: I'll call back later.
And yes, she did admit to being trained to do tech support in a two-week training course. The actual conversation above was a bit longer, but that was the general gist of it.
Ok, my question is: why not use a standard software based encryption, like an automatic Triple DES, or better yet AES, that is based on a keyphrase that you enter every time you start up the computer?
Any time there's a hardware key floating about, that's just something that can be obtained to get access to the system.
That was last decade...this is today. Take another look. Multi-function is where it's at.
Multifunction might be good for some environments - but not all. If you're not planning to use it as a copier or fax machine, why pay more for those features, and why put those features out there to sit idle - or worse yet, be abused?
Additionally, more features add more complexity, and add more things that can break. If all I need is a printer, that's all I'm going to buy - I'm not going to buy an MFP where, say, the copier part can malfunction which might take out the whole device until it gets fixed.
Lastly, if all I want is a printer, I want something that does printing really well, rather than a MFP that does copying and faxing and printing all OK, but not spectacularly. It's the whole 'jack of all trades, master of none' thing.
Granted, if you were already planning on buying a copier, fax machine, and printer, sure, a multifunction saves you having to buy and deploy 3 different devices. For me, that's only a limited number of the printers I normally send out.
The quality on the older Tektronix printers is very good. I'd consider the printouts very similar to a glossy magazine page.
That said - the solid ink printing has some serious downsides. The pages can be scratched fairly easily, ruining the pages. Additionally, just like a crayon drawing (since essentially that's what the solid ink is - wax similar in formula to a crayon) if you expose the page to heat, it could melt the pages. (We found this one out the hard way when we made a photocopy of a page printed off one of these - the copier bed was hot, and the page melted to the glass.)
Truthfully, I don't know if I'd use it for printing photos myself. The pages just seem too fragile for my taste.
Networked inkjets, as late as a year ago, were fairly prevalent, with models available from just about all of the major vendors. I don't know what happened - whether it's a sign that color laser is entering the sub-$1000 marketspace or what - but when we looked for a networked color inkjet, HP was really the best option out there.
Epson seems to have dropped their mid-range workgroup inkjets. The only model they have networked out of the box is the C82, which is a rather low-end printer - nothing I'd consider a workgroup printer. Canon likewise has absolutely no networked inkjets at all.
Lexmark has a few networked inkjets, but what with the recent stuff with their using the DMCA to corner the inkjet cartridge market, and given we've used Lexmark printers and had mediocre quality out of them, I decided to pass. The only model they are still marketing/selling is the Lexmark Optra Color 45n, if you're interested.
HP has a couple of decent models - the 2280 and the 3000. We ended up going with the 2280 here, but both are very good models. The one caveat that I'd have to say - make sure you get the latest JetDirect EIO card. The older ones had a PITA for a web interface, while the new ones are a dream to work with (and support ZeroConf/Rendezvous!)
I can't feel too sorry for the FreeCraft people. Open source projects need to think of more creative and original names instead of just ripping off someone else's name and making a "clever" modification
Another project that frankly I'm surprised has made it this far is FreeVo - obviously a name in the same thought process as FreeCraft. I fully expected TiVo to crack down on them too.
I'm still unclear however. Was the main problem the name? It sounds like it, and if so, it was just a move to protect their trademark. If you don't defend your trademark (and those that may dilute your trademark) you lose it, so this Blizzard and their parent companies had to do this.
What isn't clear is why they didn't just change the name like Blizzard et al wanted and go on with life. Everyone is making it sound like Blizzard shut this project down, when it just looks like they wanted the name changed and the FreeCraft shut the project down all by themselves.
Bullshit. PDs spend more time in criminal court than their private counterparts and they have far more experience dealing with the motions and tactics of a criminal case.
Granted, individual PDs may suck, but you'll find a hell of lot more true believers in the PD's office than you will in private practice.
First: IANAL. Everything I learned about this I learned from television documentaries. (Hey, at least I didn't learn it from "The Practice.")
Upside to PDs: there's very frequently a need for them, so as I understand, sometimes they grab a private lawyer that happens to be in the building at the (wrong) time and name them as a public defender in your case. It's the legal system's version of a lottery.;)
Downside: PDs are very often overworked, and very commonly get handed the case moments before they're due in court to represent the defendant. A documentary I saw on the topic showed a PD getting a case, reviewing it for about 2 minutes, speaking with the defendant for about 5 minutes, then appearing in court as representation.
Additional downside: I'll grant your point, PDs do spend far more time in court than their private sector counterparts. However, in the same amount of time that a private sector lawyer would handle a single case, PDs will be juggling several (dozens?) of cases. The private sector lawyer will usually be able to do more of the research into the case and prior court cases than the PD will have the opportunity to.
If i'm reading this correctly IANAL but I think that you sign it, they show you the linux code, and then say end of show. IF you say ANYTHING you breach the contract. You can't even tell people that they didn't show you anything. This NDA is a smokescreen.
The NDA allows the recipient to release a public statement regarding the materials shown - so if they screw you, you can legally release a statement that says so. Any further restraints would be infringing free speech rights and likely would be stricken as constitutionally invalid.
Well this should be confirmed by someone with up-to-date news but in the late '90, microsoft bought 25% of the shares of apple. Dunno if they still have them but that could explain some of it.
Ok, this has to be THE worst interpretation of facts I have ever seen in my life. It is SO far from the truth it's not even funny.
August 6, 1997, Microsoft agreed to purchase $150 million in non-voting Apple preferred stock. This wasn't anywhere close to 25%. Note that it was NON-VOTING stock - so essentially it was just a goodwill investment in Apple. Microsoft was required to hold the stock for at least 3 years before selling. Another clause of this investment was that Microsoft was to continue to produce Macintosh products, including all new versions of the Microsoft Office product.
Microsoft has since sold all of this stock - at a nice profit, I might add. Additionally, the agreement that required Microsoft to continue to develop Macintosh products has since expired as well.
I could have just modded this down - but I thought that attempting to correct this ridiculous interpretation of events would be more beneficial.
Standalone: $13 monthly fee, or $249 product lifetime. DirecTiVo: $4.99 monthly fee, no product lifetime available.
If TiVo goes out of business, they have promised to release a "boatanchor" code to the public to allow TiVos to continue to function.
TiVo will not record the same episode of a show within a 28 day period, unless the user overrides this feature manually, or the episode guide information is missing/incorrect.
TiVo will delete episodes to free space for new recordings, unless marked "Save Until I Delete." If "SUID" is selected, that episode will not be deleted unless manually deleted by the user. Number of people using the TiVo is irrelevant - if one person deletes the episode without checking with the other, that's not TiVo's fault. And TiVo will delete shows not marked SUID regardless of if 0, 1, 2, or more people have watched the episode.
Correct - there are no "dual tuner" TiVo's compatible with cable or "over the air." You can, however, record one program while watching another pre-recorded show without a problem.
TiVo requires a phone line, or you can use an internal NIC for Series I units, or a USB NIC for Series II units. See the TiVo Community Forum for details.
It's only marginally harder to add space to a TiVo than it is to add space to a "roll your own" PVR. The only additional step required is to "bless" the drive, and you can purchase pre-blessed drives on the internet.
Re:I need just three things to replace my vcr
on
Rabid TiVo Fanaticism
·
· Score: 5, Informative
You can do #1 already. My TiVo has dual tuners so I can watch one channel and record another. If you don't have dual tuners, then you can record a channel and watch a pre-recorded show.
You missed that the poster said he has cable, specifically digital cable. The dual tuner PVR is manufactured by and for DirecTV with TiVo Technology - it doesn't work with cable. Neither TiVo nor ReplayTV make a cable-compatible PVR with dual tuners.
If you want to send mail to AOL you just need to use something different than DSL. No big deal. May I suggest AOL/Time Warner Road Runner Cable Modem Service?
No, all you need to do is use your ISP provided mail server, or use an alternative mail server not hosted on your DSL line.
After seeing the umpteenth email stroll into my mailbox that was either a spam or a virus, I applaud the move. Virtually every consumer DSL or cable provider have a "no server" clause in their ToS anyway, so this shouldn't be all that big of a deal. The original poster sounds like sour grapes because he can't use what he shouldn't be using to transmit mail anyway.
However, as the original post referenced in the submission noted, I too wonder how AOL determines which IP addresses are dynamically allocated, and which are statically allocated, because business class DSL and cable should be exempt from this policy - those lines usually allow servers.
the nearlynet that shirky disparages so loudly is what creates technological innovations and practical experience in building a network. We have very few technologies in any field that resist quick obsolescence. Until we do we shouldn't build a perma-anything. I think nanotechnology will allow us to engineer things that will still be useful hundreds of years from now.
I didn't get from the article that he disparages the nearlynet - in fact, he credits nearlynets for pushing permanets out. In his examples - iridium and airphones - he describes how the nearlynet - cell phones and wifi - has lower cost of entry and use, and as such, will tend to win over the more expensive permanets.
Permanets seem to have more innovative solutions, but the cost of building out these permanets means that the cost-benefit ratio rarely works out - people just don't need to be connected that badly.
My only question that just popped into my head: the Internet was built-out as an extension of a government program. If the Internet had been a private sector project, would it have been built? It seems to have all the earmarks of a permanet as described in the article... a fairly expensive and permanent build-out phase, and during the build-out phase, very little benefit to balance out the cost. It was only fairly heavy government subsidies that helped the Internet become a reality and make it affordable for anyone to get on.
It's an interesting thought. If the government building out the Internet helped make it affordable enough - would doing the same with, say, Iridium have helped? Could we have been carrying around sat phones at this point had it been a government project that was then opened up to the public? It kind of helps make the taxes that are going to, say, NASA, make sense - because perhaps, one of their projects might be the next Internet.
Next time you watch "The Body", pay attention to how he uses music in that episode to provoke viewer's emotion. I'll say that it's different than most.
Uhm. "The Body" was notable for not having an incidental soundtrack - I don't know if that's what you were referring to. This episode used the total lack of a music background to really drive home the feelings of isolation and loss. It's rather disturbing to see Buffy wander through the house in the best acting portrayals of clinical shock, all while all you can hear is the wind whistling in the background and the occasional windchime outside the house.
How are the episodes edited? Are they edited for content or just so FX can squeeze four episodes into a 24-hour period (which they were doing in 2002, I believe).
FX - as does most of the cable networks these days - edits the episodes to fit in an additional commercial break. They do this through a combination of edits throughout the episodes to create time for them to insert a break during the final act. Sometimes it's really noticable, sometimes less so. In all cases, it's frustrating and annoying, and makes me thankful for the recent TV-on-DVD trend (I already own seasons 1-3 of Buffy and season 1 of Angel).
Ok, is it just me or is buffy totally not a geek show. No geeks I know watch(ed) it, and I dont watch it. So what the hell is this doing on the geek site slashdot?
I consider myself a moderate geek, and I watch Buffy (and it's sibling show Angel). And you know what? As I write this, I can't for the life of me say exactly what hooked me and keeps me coming back for more.
Of course part of it is the fact that the show raised the "stunt" episode to a new art form. "Hush" used silence, rather than dialogue, to tell a story, and used that silence to set a singularly creepy feeling to the episode. "The Body" was one of the best portrayals of the human reaction to a sudden loss of someone close. "Once More With Feeling" told a story in the form of a musical, without being even remotely corny or over the top - the musical numbers just flowed into the dialogue naturally.
Another part of what attracted me to the show is what attracted many people here to Farscape - the writing. On the whole (excepting the odd clunker episodes that every series has) Buffy has some of the best writing on TV - enough to make you forget the patently - and by design - absurd concept for the show.
But in the end, Buffy is one of those shows that unless you watch, you just don't and won't get what the fascination is with the show.
Strangely enough, it seems to me that Buffy is just one of those shows that ratings just cannot begin to indicate how popular the show really is. Compared to shows on the larger networks, Buffy's ratings are not great (to put it mildly) - yet the announcement that it was coming to an end made headlines on virtually every major news source, and will be the cover story on next week's Entertainment Weekly. Obviously, it must be a big enough story and have enough people that care for it to get this much attention.
Ah, well... all good things must come to an end, I suppose. Hopefully we continue to get more stories and shows from the Buffyverse (while continuing to realize the mistake of Star Trek, that too much of a good thing can be a bad thing).
For what it's worth, they're called "cash machines" here in the colonies as well.
One "Wisconsin"-ism is to call ATM's "Tyme machines," mostly because the largest and most visible ATM network in the state was called "Tyme is Money" or just "Tyme" for short. EVERY machine you went to was a Tyme machine, so it just became common for everyone to call them that.
Two problems; going out of state, then asking locals "Where's the tyme machine" gets you _really_ strange looks, and now that Tyme was purchased by Pulse, there really aren't any Tyme machines anymore.
I'd like to echo this with my own experience. I work approximately 6 miles from home. This isn't a great distance - it's about as close as I could possibly come to work, really - but it's already out of the range of the segway.
In addition, the major road that I travel between home and work (I live on the same road that work is on, so it's a straight shot, so no, there really isn't another way I can travel) is a 2 lane road with no sidewalks, only a gravel shoulder on both sides with a drainage ditch next to that. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to ride a segway on conditions such as this.
Lastly, I live in Wisconsin, and previous to the recent blizzard that blanketed much of the northeastern US, we were known as the "frozen tundra" for a reason. We get snow during the winter, and usually a decent amount of it. Trying to navigate a Segway through snow on the road and hoping some other car doesn't slide over and nail you doesn't sound like my idea of a good time.
Those in larger cities like NY, LA etc, where you live and work in the same general metropolitan area and driving by car is impractical might find more advantage to a device such as the Segway - but then again, it is 80 lbs, making picking it up and stashing it in a cubicle or office difficult.
Most college campuses that I've seen are extremely bicycle friendly. The college I went to had bicycle racks - usually multiples of them - available at every building. Sometimes every entrance. The residence halls provided bike lockers as well, so you wouldn't have to store your bike out in the elements.
The two years I was in the res halls I didn't own a car at all. I either hitched a ride to and from campus, or took the shuttle bus that ran between the nearest large city and the college campus (approximately a 40-45 minute bus ride, no stops). Once on campus, my bike got me pretty much anywhere I needed to go - between class and the res halls, or to the food store, Wal-Mart, Staples, and such.
I can't see for most campuses any advantage to buying one of these, aside from paying an extra several thousand dollars for the self-propulsion that the Segway has.
All that said, if you dont like it the way it is, break out your EMacs, and Write something better, otherwise, quit bitching!
Not all Linux users are programmers. I'm a Linux user (occasionally) and while I have some programming experience from school, I wouldn't consider myself a programmer. I've never touched emacs to be perfectly honest.
There's a large number of Linux users - larger than you'd imagine, I'd guess - who use Linux because it's a powerful operating system, or because it's an alternative to Windows and/or Mac, or for whatever reason - not because they want to code all day to get a decent working OS.
The point of JWZ's rant was that video on Linux sucks. And from what he wrote, I'd tend to agree with him. Just because it can be fixed by a programmer doesn't mean everyone who uses it has to be a programmer. Sometimes, you want to be just a regular user and say "You know what? This bites! Someone needs to fix this!" That's what JWZ was doing.
Could he fix it? Oh, undoubtedly... he knows very well how... but I'm sure when he's trying to play a video he just downloaded, he doesn't want to bother with coding up a new GUI or fixing the current one - he wants to load up the video and play it.
It's the toaster metaphor - when you want toast, you put the bread in the toaster and press the lever down. Want it darker, you turn the dial. You wouldn't want at 6 a.m. to be told "Well... if you want it done a little darker, you'll have to rewire the toaster, and turn the voltage up to the heating coils, and..." A lot of developers are forgetting about this little metaphor - they spend time coding up this elaborate skinned interface, and forget that their app should, by default, be able to simply do the task it was designed to do. Skins are extra - if the user wants to screw with the interface they can, but give those who DON'T want to screw with the interface something that is as simple as the lever and dial on a toaster.
This is a problem with Linux as I see it. There's no standard way of doing things, so you have all these programmers coding up these apps that all operate differently, and in a lot of cases, badly, because the programmer had lack of clue, or he thought it was "cool," or he thought it was easy FOR HIM/HER to use, or whatever. There's no one tried-and-true toaster-lever-and-dial interface, such as Mac has (had?) and Windows has (to a degree). If someone who just wants to use Linux, in many cases he/she has to sit down and in a best case scenario learn each app's unique way of doing things, or in a worst case scenario re-code the app so that it works as it should.
Once you're done, sure, you'll know how to use it - but there's definitely a steep learning curve that you shouldn't have to deal with if you just to load up the computer and play a video.
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed. Reading the patent, one sees that they describe a web-based process where one can access a web page, back up files comprising a user's environment, go to a new workstation, and restore said files.
What they describe is essentially a web-based version of Microsoft's FAST (File And Settings Transfer) Wizard from Windows XP.
First off, let me say I have no idea what Speak Freely is. My comments are solely in response to some of the reasons he gives for discontinuing the program.
Had his reasoning behind discontinuing the project rested solely on his lack of time and an aging code base, I don't think I'd have an issue. Instead, he goes on to blame the NAT protocol and boxes that implement it, like the very popular cable/DSL "routers," and many of his issues seem to either misunderstand them or deliberately misstate what they can do.
He makes comments like, "Since the user no longer has an externally visible Internet Protocol (IP) address (fixed or variable), there is no way (in the general case--there may be "workarounds" for specific NAT boxes, but they're basically exploiting bugs which will probably eventually be fixed) for sites to open connections or address packets to his machine." He continues to state, "experience has shown that a large number of installed NAT boxes either cannot map an externally accessible port to an internal IP address and port, or those who install the boxes do not provide their customers adequate information to permit them to do this."
First of all, I have yet to see a NAT device that cannot statically map ports to a machine inside the local area connection. If there is one, I'd love to know about it so I can tell anyone to avoid it. Some are more rudimentary than others - like one I know about that has no UI to distinguish TCP and UDP inbound ports - but they all offer some way of mapping inbound ports.
His argument that they don't provide sufficient documentation to allow end-users to do so, and this may be the case. But if one is to discontinue development of a program based on the fact that someone else is providing poor documentation, there wouldn't be any development going on - documentation for most hardware/software products in the last 3 years or more have been horrid in my experience.
His argument that the internet is moving towards a client-server model rather than a peer to peer model is undeniable. It's been moving that way since they allowed home computers on the internet, and shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. Still, this doesn't mean the "clients" can't continue to utilize products that utilize a peer to peer architecture. He dismisses peer to peer file sharing products while overlooking the fact that they're the most successful peer to peer architecture network to exist in the history of the internet, and disproves his argument that NAT spells the end of peer to peer.
In the end, it seems he just didn't want to continue developing his program - and instead of being honest, he thought he'd use this opportunity to climb on his soapbox and make some waves by blaming NAT for the ills of the internet and the death of his program.
The best way I can describe PTT when compared to a standard voice conversation is that PTT is almost like a voice SMS. It's useful for communicating short bursts of information quickly.
Advantages to PTT/"Direct Connect (TM)" is that as soon as you push the button, you're connected to the other party - you don't have to wait while the other end rings and for them to pick up. Also, communication using PTT is closer to a walkie talkie than a phone conversation.
Example:
Them: *chirp* (press the button and release it to page them, indicating you want to talk to them)
Me: "Go."
Them: "What's your 20?"
Me: "3rd and Maple."
Them: "Copy. Need assistance?"
Me: "Negative. Thanks."
As you can see, it can be a little quicker than a phone conversation. Additionally since the mike is only on while you have the button pressed, I typically am doing other things at the same time, like talking to others, without the other end hearing it.
The advantages are mostly visible when you have an entire department or company equipped with PTT phones. If you are the only one, then PTT is kind of silly, admittedly.
The mail has to sit on the satchel in front of the robot chute, you have to cover up the drain, and you have to hang the dressing gown from the hook on the wall.
I am SUCH a geek that I remember that.
Similar experience from Ameritech.net dial-up service:
Me: I can't seem to get onto the internet; I haven't changed anything, but I keep getting disconnected as soon as I connect.
Them: Ok, lets try some things. Can you right click the My Computer icon?
Me: I don't have a My Computer icon. I'm on a Mac.
Them: You HAVE to have a My Computer icon.
Me: Macs don't have a My Computer icon.
Them: Ok. Huh. It has to.. anyway. Right-click on Network Neighborhood then.
Me: I don't have a Network Neighborhood icon. I told you, I'm on a Mac.
Them: I'm sorry, sir, these are what my two-week training course told me to do.
Me: I'll call back later.
And yes, she did admit to being trained to do tech support in a two-week training course. The actual conversation above was a bit longer, but that was the general gist of it.
Ok, my question is: why not use a standard software based encryption, like an automatic Triple DES, or better yet AES, that is based on a keyphrase that you enter every time you start up the computer?
Any time there's a hardware key floating about, that's just something that can be obtained to get access to the system.
Multifunction might be good for some environments - but not all. If you're not planning to use it as a copier or fax machine, why pay more for those features, and why put those features out there to sit idle - or worse yet, be abused?
Additionally, more features add more complexity, and add more things that can break. If all I need is a printer, that's all I'm going to buy - I'm not going to buy an MFP where, say, the copier part can malfunction which might take out the whole device until it gets fixed.
Lastly, if all I want is a printer, I want something that does printing really well, rather than a MFP that does copying and faxing and printing all OK, but not spectacularly. It's the whole 'jack of all trades, master of none' thing.
Granted, if you were already planning on buying a copier, fax machine, and printer, sure, a multifunction saves you having to buy and deploy 3 different devices. For me, that's only a limited number of the printers I normally send out.
The quality on the older Tektronix printers is very good. I'd consider the printouts very similar to a glossy magazine page.
That said - the solid ink printing has some serious downsides. The pages can be scratched fairly easily, ruining the pages. Additionally, just like a crayon drawing (since essentially that's what the solid ink is - wax similar in formula to a crayon) if you expose the page to heat, it could melt the pages. (We found this one out the hard way when we made a photocopy of a page printed off one of these - the copier bed was hot, and the page melted to the glass.)
Truthfully, I don't know if I'd use it for printing photos myself. The pages just seem too fragile for my taste.
Networked inkjets, as late as a year ago, were fairly prevalent, with models available from just about all of the major vendors. I don't know what happened - whether it's a sign that color laser is entering the sub-$1000 marketspace or what - but when we looked for a networked color inkjet, HP was really the best option out there.
Epson seems to have dropped their mid-range workgroup inkjets. The only model they have networked out of the box is the C82, which is a rather low-end printer - nothing I'd consider a workgroup printer. Canon likewise has absolutely no networked inkjets at all.
Lexmark has a few networked inkjets, but what with the recent stuff with their using the DMCA to corner the inkjet cartridge market, and given we've used Lexmark printers and had mediocre quality out of them, I decided to pass. The only model they are still marketing/selling is the Lexmark Optra Color 45n, if you're interested.
HP has a couple of decent models - the 2280 and the 3000. We ended up going with the 2280 here, but both are very good models. The one caveat that I'd have to say - make sure you get the latest JetDirect EIO card. The older ones had a PITA for a web interface, while the new ones are a dream to work with (and support ZeroConf/Rendezvous!)
Another project that frankly I'm surprised has made it this far is FreeVo - obviously a name in the same thought process as FreeCraft. I fully expected TiVo to crack down on them too.
I'm still unclear however. Was the main problem the name? It sounds like it, and if so, it was just a move to protect their trademark. If you don't defend your trademark (and those that may dilute your trademark) you lose it, so this Blizzard and their parent companies had to do this.
What isn't clear is why they didn't just change the name like Blizzard et al wanted and go on with life. Everyone is making it sound like Blizzard shut this project down, when it just looks like they wanted the name changed and the FreeCraft shut the project down all by themselves.
First: IANAL. Everything I learned about this I learned from television documentaries. (Hey, at least I didn't learn it from "The Practice.")
Upside to PDs: there's very frequently a need for them, so as I understand, sometimes they grab a private lawyer that happens to be in the building at the (wrong) time and name them as a public defender in your case. It's the legal system's version of a lottery. ;)
Downside: PDs are very often overworked, and very commonly get handed the case moments before they're due in court to represent the defendant. A documentary I saw on the topic showed a PD getting a case, reviewing it for about 2 minutes, speaking with the defendant for about 5 minutes, then appearing in court as representation.
Additional downside: I'll grant your point, PDs do spend far more time in court than their private sector counterparts. However, in the same amount of time that a private sector lawyer would handle a single case, PDs will be juggling several (dozens?) of cases. The private sector lawyer will usually be able to do more of the research into the case and prior court cases than the PD will have the opportunity to.
The NDA allows the recipient to release a public statement regarding the materials shown - so if they screw you, you can legally release a statement that says so. Any further restraints would be infringing free speech rights and likely would be stricken as constitutionally invalid.
Ok, this has to be THE worst interpretation of facts I have ever seen in my life. It is SO far from the truth it's not even funny.
August 6, 1997, Microsoft agreed to purchase $150 million in non-voting Apple preferred stock. This wasn't anywhere close to 25%. Note that it was NON-VOTING stock - so essentially it was just a goodwill investment in Apple. Microsoft was required to hold the stock for at least 3 years before selling. Another clause of this investment was that Microsoft was to continue to produce Macintosh products, including all new versions of the Microsoft Office product.
Microsoft has since sold all of this stock - at a nice profit, I might add. Additionally, the agreement that required Microsoft to continue to develop Macintosh products has since expired as well.
I could have just modded this down - but I thought that attempting to correct this ridiculous interpretation of events would be more beneficial.
Just to correct/clarify a few of your points...
You missed that the poster said he has cable, specifically digital cable. The dual tuner PVR is manufactured by and for DirecTV with TiVo Technology - it doesn't work with cable. Neither TiVo nor ReplayTV make a cable-compatible PVR with dual tuners.
No, all you need to do is use your ISP provided mail server, or use an alternative mail server not hosted on your DSL line.
After seeing the umpteenth email stroll into my mailbox that was either a spam or a virus, I applaud the move. Virtually every consumer DSL or cable provider have a "no server" clause in their ToS anyway, so this shouldn't be all that big of a deal. The original poster sounds like sour grapes because he can't use what he shouldn't be using to transmit mail anyway.
However, as the original post referenced in the submission noted, I too wonder how AOL determines which IP addresses are dynamically allocated, and which are statically allocated, because business class DSL and cable should be exempt from this policy - those lines usually allow servers.
I didn't get from the article that he disparages the nearlynet - in fact, he credits nearlynets for pushing permanets out. In his examples - iridium and airphones - he describes how the nearlynet - cell phones and wifi - has lower cost of entry and use, and as such, will tend to win over the more expensive permanets.
Permanets seem to have more innovative solutions, but the cost of building out these permanets means that the cost-benefit ratio rarely works out - people just don't need to be connected that badly.
My only question that just popped into my head: the Internet was built-out as an extension of a government program. If the Internet had been a private sector project, would it have been built? It seems to have all the earmarks of a permanet as described in the article... a fairly expensive and permanent build-out phase, and during the build-out phase, very little benefit to balance out the cost. It was only fairly heavy government subsidies that helped the Internet become a reality and make it affordable for anyone to get on.
It's an interesting thought. If the government building out the Internet helped make it affordable enough - would doing the same with, say, Iridium have helped? Could we have been carrying around sat phones at this point had it been a government project that was then opened up to the public? It kind of helps make the taxes that are going to, say, NASA, make sense - because perhaps, one of their projects might be the next Internet.
Uhm. "The Body" was notable for not having an incidental soundtrack - I don't know if that's what you were referring to. This episode used the total lack of a music background to really drive home the feelings of isolation and loss. It's rather disturbing to see Buffy wander through the house in the best acting portrayals of clinical shock, all while all you can hear is the wind whistling in the background and the occasional windchime outside the house.
FX - as does most of the cable networks these days - edits the episodes to fit in an additional commercial break. They do this through a combination of edits throughout the episodes to create time for them to insert a break during the final act. Sometimes it's really noticable, sometimes less so. In all cases, it's frustrating and annoying, and makes me thankful for the recent TV-on-DVD trend (I already own seasons 1-3 of Buffy and season 1 of Angel).
I consider myself a moderate geek, and I watch Buffy (and it's sibling show Angel). And you know what? As I write this, I can't for the life of me say exactly what hooked me and keeps me coming back for more.
Of course part of it is the fact that the show raised the "stunt" episode to a new art form. "Hush" used silence, rather than dialogue, to tell a story, and used that silence to set a singularly creepy feeling to the episode. "The Body" was one of the best portrayals of the human reaction to a sudden loss of someone close. "Once More With Feeling" told a story in the form of a musical, without being even remotely corny or over the top - the musical numbers just flowed into the dialogue naturally.
Another part of what attracted me to the show is what attracted many people here to Farscape - the writing. On the whole (excepting the odd clunker episodes that every series has) Buffy has some of the best writing on TV - enough to make you forget the patently - and by design - absurd concept for the show.
But in the end, Buffy is one of those shows that unless you watch, you just don't and won't get what the fascination is with the show.
Strangely enough, it seems to me that Buffy is just one of those shows that ratings just cannot begin to indicate how popular the show really is. Compared to shows on the larger networks, Buffy's ratings are not great (to put it mildly) - yet the announcement that it was coming to an end made headlines on virtually every major news source, and will be the cover story on next week's Entertainment Weekly. Obviously, it must be a big enough story and have enough people that care for it to get this much attention.
Ah, well... all good things must come to an end, I suppose. Hopefully we continue to get more stories and shows from the Buffyverse (while continuing to realize the mistake of Star Trek, that too much of a good thing can be a bad thing).
We apologise for the fault in the last post. Those responsible have been sacked.
One "Wisconsin"-ism is to call ATM's "Tyme machines," mostly because the largest and most visible ATM network in the state was called "Tyme is Money" or just "Tyme" for short. EVERY machine you went to was a Tyme machine, so it just became common for everyone to call them that.
Two problems; going out of state, then asking locals "Where's the tyme machine" gets you _really_ strange looks, and now that Tyme was purchased by Pulse, there really aren't any Tyme machines anymore.
I'd like to echo this with my own experience. I work approximately 6 miles from home. This isn't a great distance - it's about as close as I could possibly come to work, really - but it's already out of the range of the segway.
In addition, the major road that I travel between home and work (I live on the same road that work is on, so it's a straight shot, so no, there really isn't another way I can travel) is a 2 lane road with no sidewalks, only a gravel shoulder on both sides with a drainage ditch next to that. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to ride a segway on conditions such as this.
Lastly, I live in Wisconsin, and previous to the recent blizzard that blanketed much of the northeastern US, we were known as the "frozen tundra" for a reason. We get snow during the winter, and usually a decent amount of it. Trying to navigate a Segway through snow on the road and hoping some other car doesn't slide over and nail you doesn't sound like my idea of a good time.
Those in larger cities like NY, LA etc, where you live and work in the same general metropolitan area and driving by car is impractical might find more advantage to a device such as the Segway - but then again, it is 80 lbs, making picking it up and stashing it in a cubicle or office difficult.
Most college campuses that I've seen are extremely bicycle friendly. The college I went to had bicycle racks - usually multiples of them - available at every building. Sometimes every entrance. The residence halls provided bike lockers as well, so you wouldn't have to store your bike out in the elements.
The two years I was in the res halls I didn't own a car at all. I either hitched a ride to and from campus, or took the shuttle bus that ran between the nearest large city and the college campus (approximately a 40-45 minute bus ride, no stops). Once on campus, my bike got me pretty much anywhere I needed to go - between class and the res halls, or to the food store, Wal-Mart, Staples, and such.
I can't see for most campuses any advantage to buying one of these, aside from paying an extra several thousand dollars for the self-propulsion that the Segway has.
Not all Linux users are programmers. I'm a Linux user (occasionally) and while I have some programming experience from school, I wouldn't consider myself a programmer. I've never touched emacs to be perfectly honest.
There's a large number of Linux users - larger than you'd imagine, I'd guess - who use Linux because it's a powerful operating system, or because it's an alternative to Windows and/or Mac, or for whatever reason - not because they want to code all day to get a decent working OS.
The point of JWZ's rant was that video on Linux sucks. And from what he wrote, I'd tend to agree with him. Just because it can be fixed by a programmer doesn't mean everyone who uses it has to be a programmer. Sometimes, you want to be just a regular user and say "You know what? This bites! Someone needs to fix this!" That's what JWZ was doing.
Could he fix it? Oh, undoubtedly... he knows very well how... but I'm sure when he's trying to play a video he just downloaded, he doesn't want to bother with coding up a new GUI or fixing the current one - he wants to load up the video and play it.
It's the toaster metaphor - when you want toast, you put the bread in the toaster and press the lever down. Want it darker, you turn the dial. You wouldn't want at 6 a.m. to be told "Well... if you want it done a little darker, you'll have to rewire the toaster, and turn the voltage up to the heating coils, and..." A lot of developers are forgetting about this little metaphor - they spend time coding up this elaborate skinned interface, and forget that their app should, by default, be able to simply do the task it was designed to do. Skins are extra - if the user wants to screw with the interface they can, but give those who DON'T want to screw with the interface something that is as simple as the lever and dial on a toaster.
This is a problem with Linux as I see it. There's no standard way of doing things, so you have all these programmers coding up these apps that all operate differently, and in a lot of cases, badly, because the programmer had lack of clue, or he thought it was "cool," or he thought it was easy FOR HIM/HER to use, or whatever. There's no one tried-and-true toaster-lever-and-dial interface, such as Mac has (had?) and Windows has (to a degree). If someone who just wants to use Linux, in many cases he/she has to sit down and in a best case scenario learn each app's unique way of doing things, or in a worst case scenario re-code the app so that it works as it should.
Once you're done, sure, you'll know how to use it - but there's definitely a steep learning curve that you shouldn't have to deal with if you just to load up the computer and play a video.