I live in west Knoxville, less than about five miles from Farragut. Farragut is a self-incorporated upscale community with no geographical separation from Knoxville. The Knoxville metro area has about 250,000 people, so it's not like we're talking about a ghost town or anything.
I'm glad somebody brought this up, so thanks for that.
300 DPI for raster images isn't an arbitrary number at all, like some other parent post mentioned. It's the standard target resolution for raster images being reproduced with standard AM screening at 150 lines per inch (LPI). We deal with it all the time in commercial printing.
In the early days of desktop publishing, some really smart guys figured out a simple formula for calculating proper resolution of scanned images for commercial reproduction with enough pixel density to hide stair stepping on AM screens: 2x the line frequency. 150 LPI was a very common standard for color lithography, so "scan your images at 300DPI/100%" became very common advice from prepress pros to page builders. My guess is that 300DPI turned into the magic number then. In reality, raster resolution should scale up or down with line frequency.
It could also be that 300DPI became an accepted norm because the original LaserWriter was a 300DPI device, and early desktop publishers thought that matching the output resolution of the LaserWriter was how to maximize quality. In reality, that device only produced about 51 LPI at 300DPI, so the quality return diminished above 100DPI for scanned images.
Based on my experience, 2x the AM line frequency actually cheats to the quality side a little. At 150 LPI, 225DPI images start to show pixelization a little, but over that makes you pretty safe.
For 1-bit images, matching the output device dot for dot will yield the highest quality. Commercial lithographic platesetters generally have an output resolution of 2400DPI to 3600DPI.
I've really struggled with that one. The form factor makes up a lot of the difference with a paper product. But I'm having trouble thinking of a real product application that would apply to the average joe (or me -- same thing?).
For instance, let's say this thing is called the Dell Sheet. Would I, my wife and each of my kids have their own Sheet? Would we sync our Sheets at regular intervals to fill it with offline content? Would my kids spread out their Sheet on the text to read some text in class? Is the Sheet so inexpensive that I have a couple of spares or is disposable?
I guess maybe yes is the answer to all those, but the idea doesn't resonate to me as the kind of thing that would take over the world. Perhaps it is.
When I sit down on the plane, I really don't care to review an entire library of anything, and I'm probably not searching for anything in particular, or annotating or anything else. I just want to hold some glossy paper in front of my face to pass the time. Believe me, I understand the value of all those features. But it's the utility of a few sheets of paper that I turn to all the time.
So, I'm a long time prepress guy converted into a web designer and ultimately an online application developer. I make my living at a printing company that makes money putting ink on paper, and am always caught up in discussions and planning sessions where we prognosticate about what new electronic development is going to put a dent in the magazine business.
Lots -- and I mean lots -- of industry experts have been predicting that the Apple tablet would be the beginning of the end of print. Of course, this has been predicted many times before: CD-ROMs were going to do it, then the web, then web-based digital editions, and now the iPad. But this time, the talk was at a fever pitch. Bosacks alerts were coming out months before the mainstream media picked up on the initial iPad hype. Lots of people thought this would be the one.
And, it's not really, is it? And I didn't really think it would be either. When I try to imagine the electronic invention that replaces the utility of ink on paper (especially for magazines or other non-time-sensitive publishing), I can't really come up with an idea of what that might be. The online digital editions and iPad apps are cute -- even cool -- but they wouldn't stop me from throwing 128 pages of bound paper into a briefcase on a travel day. Besides, portable electronics are expensive and precarious. They need cases and screen protectors. They don't roll up. They aren't disposable if you spill your coffee on them.
So, what's it going to be? What will the technology look like that actually makes publishers stop printing on paper altogether? I really don't know.
Re:What I Do -- It's a little involved, but it wor
on
Good Email For Kids?
·
· Score: 1
Safari has parental controls turned on, too. Only white-listed URLs are visible. I'm banning iChat completely today, but I'll probably turn it on for the oldest pretty soon -- still with parental controls, and probably local LAN-only to start.
Re:What I Do -- It's a little involved, but it wor
on
Good Email For Kids?
·
· Score: 1
What I Do -- It's a little involved, but it works
on
Good Email For Kids?
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
I have 3 kids under 8. When they are old enough to read (or starting to), I give them an email account to practice reading and writing.
My solution requires:
My own domain
A host that offers Postini filtering
Mail.app on Mac OS X (other clients will probably work. This is what I use)
First, I setup a mail account for each kid. I'll use family.com as the example. The account for each kid is their first and middle names (jilljane@family.com). Then I setup a mailing list at jill@family.com, and deliver that mail to her account and to my wife and I. Nazi style.
Next, I setup the mailing list names with a postini mailbox. I was running without this for a while, but one of my kids leaked their address to an email marketing firm and the spam started pouring in.
Next, I setup Mail.app. I turn on parental controls, and have all inbound messages request permission from me to land in the kid's mailbox. This way nobody gets in unless I explicitly say it's OK. I setup her client account to return jill@family.com as the identity email address, so replies to any message she sends automatically copy me. No one even knows the jilljane@family.com address exists (except me).
The last step probably won't work for older kids, but I have Mail.app default jill@family.com as a BCC address for any message she sends. This gets me and mom copied on her outbound mail. If she ever figures it out, she could delete that from the BCC field, but so far so good. It also means that I have to manage my own mailbox a little bit. I setup a couple of rules that look for jill@family.com and route that into it's own IMAP folder, just for tidiness.
If you are interested in finding a reasonable host for your own domain with IMAP and Postini support, I strongly recommend BlueHost. Just finished switching over to them, and they have been great.
It's also interesting that the reliability numbers for Apple laptops doesn't seem to measure up to their desktops. They appear to have the biggest reliability gap between desktops and laptops. (11% vs 16-17%)
I think most of this disparity is related to the unusally high failure rate of the white iBook G3 product. In my experience, Apple laptops have been equally as dependable as their desktop products with the exception of that product. I have returned 3 of those iBooks for logic board replacements through work, and had one of my own replaced twice. They even had a special extended warranty program for replacing those failed logic boards. I suspect there was a pretty significant design flaw in the logic board design itself.
It is indeed an Active Directory domain controller. This is a feature of Panther Server, actually. Panther Server can act as a Primary Domain Controller for AD, or an AD member server. It cannot act as a secondary replication partner.
Apple Computer Doesn't Care...
on
Beatles Bite Apple
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
A few notes:
I'm sure everyone at Apple remembers clearly how much money they lost in previous Beatles' law suits
Moving into the music business was certainly not a bad business decision by Apple management
I'll bet that somewhere in the business plan for ITMS, there is a proforma with a line item for "Paying off ensuing Beatles' law suit... $many Millions"
The offense is trademark offense is clear cut, and Apple Computer will lose or settle
Life will go on, Apple Computer will stay in the music business, and will continue to make money
Outlook:mac does a lot, but definitely not everything. Right now, it is impossible to use a custom form attached to a public folder in Outlook:mac. That functionality is Windows-only.
I wish it weren't, because I have some enterprise systems that depend on them.
Every single piece of hardware inside every product Apple makes is off-the-shelf, standard PC hardware, except the memory controller and the processor.
At some point in my life as a network administrator, I had to realize that questions from my users were not going to get any smarter. Joe Six Pack is never going to learn how to fix and compile his own software. Never. He will only be able to a) use it or b) complain about it when it doesn't work.
My heart really goes out to the AbiWord team, and I find myself wondering about a bigger question. Can Open Source software really become mainstream (as in Microsoft/Apple-style mainstream) without help from a for-profit organization to support it? There are tons of new BSD (Mac OS X) users signing up everyday, but it is because Apple is selling it, not because it's great and Free.
I am not flaming here. I know, however, that as more people download and use AbiWord (or any other OSS), these problems with too-high-expectations are going to get worse, not better. With or without an open letter.
Slashdot Mirror
I live in west Knoxville, less than about five miles from Farragut. Farragut is a self-incorporated upscale community with no geographical separation from Knoxville. The Knoxville metro area has about 250,000 people, so it's not like we're talking about a ghost town or anything.
I'm glad somebody brought this up, so thanks for that.
300 DPI for raster images isn't an arbitrary number at all, like some other parent post mentioned. It's the standard target resolution for raster images being reproduced with standard AM screening at 150 lines per inch (LPI). We deal with it all the time in commercial printing.
In the early days of desktop publishing, some really smart guys figured out a simple formula for calculating proper resolution of scanned images for commercial reproduction with enough pixel density to hide stair stepping on AM screens: 2x the line frequency. 150 LPI was a very common standard for color lithography, so "scan your images at 300DPI/100%" became very common advice from prepress pros to page builders. My guess is that 300DPI turned into the magic number then. In reality, raster resolution should scale up or down with line frequency.
It could also be that 300DPI became an accepted norm because the original LaserWriter was a 300DPI device, and early desktop publishers thought that matching the output resolution of the LaserWriter was how to maximize quality. In reality, that device only produced about 51 LPI at 300DPI, so the quality return diminished above 100DPI for scanned images.
Based on my experience, 2x the AM line frequency actually cheats to the quality side a little. At 150 LPI, 225DPI images start to show pixelization a little, but over that makes you pretty safe.
For 1-bit images, matching the output device dot for dot will yield the highest quality. Commercial lithographic platesetters generally have an output resolution of 2400DPI to 3600DPI.
I've really struggled with that one. The form factor makes up a lot of the difference with a paper product. But I'm having trouble thinking of a real product application that would apply to the average joe (or me -- same thing?).
For instance, let's say this thing is called the Dell Sheet. Would I, my wife and each of my kids have their own Sheet? Would we sync our Sheets at regular intervals to fill it with offline content? Would my kids spread out their Sheet on the text to read some text in class? Is the Sheet so inexpensive that I have a couple of spares or is disposable?
I guess maybe yes is the answer to all those, but the idea doesn't resonate to me as the kind of thing that would take over the world. Perhaps it is.
Right on. I get that. That's sort of my point.
When I sit down on the plane, I really don't care to review an entire library of anything, and I'm probably not searching for anything in particular, or annotating or anything else. I just want to hold some glossy paper in front of my face to pass the time. Believe me, I understand the value of all those features. But it's the utility of a few sheets of paper that I turn to all the time.
So, I'm a long time prepress guy converted into a web designer and ultimately an online application developer. I make my living at a printing company that makes money putting ink on paper, and am always caught up in discussions and planning sessions where we prognosticate about what new electronic development is going to put a dent in the magazine business.
Lots -- and I mean lots -- of industry experts have been predicting that the Apple tablet would be the beginning of the end of print. Of course, this has been predicted many times before: CD-ROMs were going to do it, then the web, then web-based digital editions, and now the iPad. But this time, the talk was at a fever pitch. Bosacks alerts were coming out months before the mainstream media picked up on the initial iPad hype. Lots of people thought this would be the one.
And, it's not really, is it? And I didn't really think it would be either. When I try to imagine the electronic invention that replaces the utility of ink on paper (especially for magazines or other non-time-sensitive publishing), I can't really come up with an idea of what that might be. The online digital editions and iPad apps are cute -- even cool -- but they wouldn't stop me from throwing 128 pages of bound paper into a briefcase on a travel day. Besides, portable electronics are expensive and precarious. They need cases and screen protectors. They don't roll up. They aren't disposable if you spill your coffee on them.
So, what's it going to be? What will the technology look like that actually makes publishers stop printing on paper altogether? I really don't know.
Safari has parental controls turned on, too. Only white-listed URLs are visible. I'm banning iChat completely today, but I'll probably turn it on for the oldest pretty soon -- still with parental controls, and probably local LAN-only to start.
Got the link wrong.
I have 3 kids under 8. When they are old enough to read (or starting to), I give them an email account to practice reading and writing.
My solution requires:
First, I setup a mail account for each kid. I'll use family.com as the example. The account for each kid is their first and middle names (jilljane@family.com). Then I setup a mailing list at jill@family.com, and deliver that mail to her account and to my wife and I. Nazi style.
Next, I setup the mailing list names with a postini mailbox. I was running without this for a while, but one of my kids leaked their address to an email marketing firm and the spam started pouring in.
Next, I setup Mail.app. I turn on parental controls, and have all inbound messages request permission from me to land in the kid's mailbox. This way nobody gets in unless I explicitly say it's OK. I setup her client account to return jill@family.com as the identity email address, so replies to any message she sends automatically copy me. No one even knows the jilljane@family.com address exists (except me).
The last step probably won't work for older kids, but I have Mail.app default jill@family.com as a BCC address for any message she sends. This gets me and mom copied on her outbound mail. If she ever figures it out, she could delete that from the BCC field, but so far so good. It also means that I have to manage my own mailbox a little bit. I setup a couple of rules that look for jill@family.com and route that into it's own IMAP folder, just for tidiness.
If you are interested in finding a reasonable host for your own domain with IMAP and Postini support, I strongly recommend BlueHost. Just finished switching over to them, and they have been great.
'target for new attacks' must be the opposite of 'beleaguered'. According to the press, Apple is either one or the other.
It is indeed an Active Directory domain controller. This is a feature of Panther Server, actually. Panther Server can act as a Primary Domain Controller for AD, or an AD member server. It cannot act as a secondary replication partner.
Outlook:mac does a lot, but definitely not everything. Right now, it is impossible to use a custom form attached to a public folder in Outlook:mac. That functionality is Windows-only. I wish it weren't, because I have some enterprise systems that depend on them.
Every single piece of hardware inside every product Apple makes is off-the-shelf, standard PC hardware, except the memory controller and the processor.
At some point in my life as a network administrator, I had to realize that questions from my users were not going to get any smarter. Joe Six Pack is never going to learn how to fix and compile his own software. Never. He will only be able to a) use it or b) complain about it when it doesn't work.
My heart really goes out to the AbiWord team, and I find myself wondering about a bigger question. Can Open Source software really become mainstream (as in Microsoft/Apple-style mainstream) without help from a for-profit organization to support it? There are tons of new BSD (Mac OS X) users signing up everyday, but it is because Apple is selling it, not because it's great and Free.
I am not flaming here. I know, however, that as more people download and use AbiWord (or any other OSS), these problems with too-high-expectations are going to get worse, not better. With or without an open letter.