If I have a computer that's "good enough", why will I buy a "better" one?
And if there's no market for "better" computers, how will the next improvement be funded?
Can the manufacturers continue to come up with new "things to do on a computer" that I just gotta have? Photo editing. Ooohh...pretty. Got that. Video Editing. Pretty painful. That's the "new thing" that's getting popular. Look how hard it gets being pushed as consumer computing power approaches render-farm capacities. "Dont'cha just gotta edit those family vacation videos?".
The "next big thing" can't be something way off on the horizon. It has to be an app you can run on your machine now, but it's really painful--so you can get frustrated and go out and buy a better machine. "Gee, honey--the AI sounds stoned all the time. Can't we get a better box for him to live in?"
There is choice. You choose what you do. If enough people say "no", the answer is "no".
There is a price for your choice, however. Your freedom was paid for with the blood of those who went before you. The bank account was very, very full many years ago.
For a long time, little investment has been made into that account.
Will you obey an unjust law? Or will you break the law, go to jail, then pursue your case through the appeals system?
And when that does not work, will you become a political prisoner?
You have a choice.
Will you coast along as our freedoms are eroded? You can probably get away with it--just be satisfied with a little less, and keep your eyes on the shiny objects profferred to you.
After all, you probably have a pretty good life. Why rock the boat.
Tell yourself you don't have a choice. Then you don't have to deal with the fact that you did choose.
There's no shame in choosing the security and convenience of a pretty good life rather than choosing to buy freedom for your children. Those same children have to eat today, and, perhaps they won't if you're in jail.
It is, however, cowardice, to deny that you made a choice.
Your ignorance is something that I can steal from you, which you can never get back.
Choose--freedom or security--you can't have both. But, have some self respect about it. Think. Choose. Don't coast.
It is the nature of power to concentrate itself. I'm not speaking about any "evil, corrupt conspiracy"; just the nature of power. Make no mistake about it, speech and the right to be heard is POWER. That's why it's protected by the FIRST amendment to the US Constitution.
The problem with "everybody is a journalist" is that the power of speech becomes distributed among the masses. This is not a stable (as in equilibruim) situation. It will not persist. It cannot persist.
I like the idea of a "frontier", where everybody pretty much does whatever they want and leaves each other alone. If ever there was an ideal "place" for such a frontier to exist, the internet is it. It's potentially infinite in size. Participation is piecewise voluntary--if you don't like what's going on, you can simply take what you want and leave the rest. Heck, there's software that will ignore it for you. Most people can live with that.
Citizens, it ain't gonna happen. Some, however, have a need to control everything they're aware of. Not many, actually, and even fewer that can do it effectively. But enough so that when that sort of person notices something--even something that has nothing to do with them--they feel a need to control it. Why does Pat Robertson want to control the behaviour of two gay lovers in their own house? Because as surely as those lovers say they were made to be gay, Pat was made with a desire to control. It's his nature. Once such people become aware of the internet as a place, those people have a need to control it. And some of them have the talent necessary to accomplish the task. The "tragic flaw" of the Libertarian ideal is that it doesn't want to control anything (Shut up, I said "ideal").
As long as we persist in the delusion that the internet will remain an unregulated frontier, we are lost.
Rules and laws will regulate the internet.
We do not get to choose whether the regulations are applied. We do, however, get to choose what those regulations will be.
A successful effort at preserving freedom will not be based an anarchistic ideal.
Successfully preserving freedom depends on the creation of regulations that specifically reserve rights to the people.
Do this exercise: Choose a state of in which power is distributed. Choose another in which power is concentrated. Examine the initial ideals of those states. Now investigate the political structure of those states. You'll find that societies whose legal and political structure are consistent with their original ideals were engineered with the more skull-sweat than a chemical plant or successful operating system.
Starry-eyed dreamers saying "why can't we all just get along" will NOT achieve their goals. Political and legal engineers will. We need to get the engineers working for us. Can you name the profession these "engineers" pursue?
Re:What about...
on
Robocoaster
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
It'll generate plenty of G-forces. Just not in the same direction for very long.
These robots are freaking strong. Their acceleration is *amazing*. And their strength. In underbody respot, they carry huge weld guns that are nothing more than hundreds of pounds of copper with tens of thousands of amps of current going through them. Sometimes the weld transformer (up to another quarter-ton) is attached to the rotating base (hip-mount).
These robots move across the car stopping and starting 5 to 20 times within 1mm of the set position. Cycle time from car to car (you must include getting the car out, next car in, positioning, clamping up, welding, unclamping, lifting, and ready to get the next car in) is under 60s. Actual robot time is more like 10-20s.
PLENTY of acceleration.
And if you program the interference zones wrong, they'll pick up the whole car and the thousand pound "pallet" (sled) that carries it.
No Farkin' way I'd get on the same side of a light screen as one of these unless *I* was holding the deadman switch. Oops, sorry "enabling pendant". It's not PC to say "dead" about a machine that could gut you like a trout and not even slow down.
Whether or not you can remember what the ad was about is not a good test for whether it worked.
Advertising is designed to affect your behaviour. The advertiser could give a rat's ass about your conscious memory. Actually, they'd prefer you not remember why you made a particular decision down the road.
Let's say I'm selling a commodity product in retail stores. My product is out there, and I know when you go the store you're going to see it. I don't want you to think "Choosy Mothers Choose Jif" when you go to the store. I don't want your wife to tell you to get "Jif" when she sends you there.
What I want is for her to tell you "We're out of peanut butter". Then when you get to the store, I want you to perceive "Jif" as the best brand. You don't know why and you don't care. You just buy that one and feel good that you've gotten the best product for your lovely wife and kids.
What I want to do as an advertiser is to creat emotional "keys" between my product and good feelings. I don't want to present cognitive arguments; those take way too much work for you (my customer) to deal with.
And people really do not operate that way on a daily basis. Think of the thousands of decisions you make each day. Do you really analyze every one of then in a conscious cognitive manner? If you examine a decision you made an hour ago, you could "justify" (come up with a rational explanation after the fact of why you did what you did). But that's not how you made that decision.
As an advertiser, I'd much prefer you--a person who believes he makes informed, intelligent, deliberate decisions for himself--to have an emotional association between my product and something good. And have no conscious awareness of how that association got there.
Then when your wife asks you why you bought "Jif", you'll say "Because I love you". (If you're smart, that is;).
And thus progogateth the meme.
But if you get something really good, you're likely not going to get it cheap.
Of course there are exceptions. The "hole in the wall" restaraunt serving food that's orders of magnitude better than the "fancy" joing up the street.
JVC VCRs used to be like that. High end JVCs were made of METAL. They were HEAVY. Mine (about 5 years old) has lasted through years of abuse--many tapes, and a lot of FF / RW during play. My RCA TV is over 10 years old, and has not degraded in the least.
Sure, I paid more for those at first, but in the long run, I saved money/time/hassle.
James Dyson's vacuum cleaner (geez, I was hoping it would be Freeman Dyson, but oh, well) is just a cyclone separator (AKA baghouse, sock-knocker, dust collector...). They're pretty common in industry.
This device sounds like it grinds solids as well separating them from the air stream.
How does regulation in this direction affect the wireless solution to the "last mile" problem?
This is close to my heart because I'm a contract engineer and my wife and I live in an RV full time. Like many people, we often can't find cable (Internet or TV) access where we live.
Given wireless service that is widely available, highly desired, and subject to regulated availability (i.e. DirecTV)--isn't it reasonable to expect a serious effort to gain unauthorized access to that service?
Is it not unreasonable to expect that such efforts will produce some not insignificant success?
And if that is a reasonable premise, doesn't it follow that *any* large-scale wireless coverage will be insecure?
With a high speed copper connection, somebody has to at least run a physical wire to each NIC. Not so with 802.11b.
Will regulators feel they need to curtail the growth of 802.11b itself? How can they do this? It's not the security that's even the issue here. Security can always be broken. Once 802.11b is widespread, large-scale anonymous access is inevitable.
Limiting service providers to a few "trusted" organizations will not solve the problem. DirecTV (again) only has 1 provider, and breaking its security is a hobby for thousands of people.
Will regulators feel a need to kill 802.11b and like technologies altogether?
Will we see the same "death penalty for parking violations" response to wireless hacking that we've seen for cable modem uncapping?
Points to anybody who recognizes where I stole "death penalty..." quote from.
Our way of life--self-centered consumption with no thought for the implications thereof--is not sustainable. That is to say, our current lifestyle fails the test of self-consistency.
This lifestyle will end. It will end in either an uncontrolled catastrophic manner, or in a quiet disciplined manner. But it will end.
Clearly you are already aware of this. You state that the lifetime costs of "just about everything" are prohibitive. In this statement, I agree with you.
Therefore, prohibition of "nearly everything" is merely an acknowledgement of facts of which we are already aware. Those things whose lifetime costs are price-prohibitive would appropriately be prohibited. Immediate cash price will simply reflect true cost.
"If we dig precious things from the land, we will invite disaster. Near the Day of Purification, there will be cobwebs spun back and forth it the sky. A container of ashes might one day be thrown from the sky, which could burn the land and boil the oceans."
Translation of the Hopi Prophecies sung in the film "Koyaanisqatsi".
ATI is investigating the possibility of supporting TV Out under Linux for products which include this feature. The GATOS Projectmentions limited use of this feature in some of their configurations. Linux ATI TV Out Support Programis a work in progress by Lennart Poetteringto control the TV Out feature of certain ATI graphics products under Linux. It has currently been tested on Rage Mobility P/M devices only, but should also work for RADEON and RAGE 128 according to the author.
It's a simple rule, but it'll save you a lot of heartache.
Simple answer is, if somebody asks you to do them a favor, and you choose to do it, expect NOTHING in return. Not gratitude, not recognition, not a job, not money.
If those things turn up, great! And there's something to be said for good will. But if you don't get those things, you gave because you chose to. Maybe to remember that you're a generous person? Whatever your reasons are, they're your reasons.
Corollary to this is if you're not prepared to give something in this manner (an unemployed person plying their trade for free sounds like an extemely "generous" act), then DON'T.
You have a right to be compensated for your work. If this is something these people want, then, dammit, they must be willing to compensate you for it.
Don't think you're "burning bridges" by asking for compensation. If you're dealing with the sort of people that expect you to work for free, you're not going to impress them by doing that. They will see you as their patsy (to use a nicer term).
"Oooh I just want them to LIKE me." Does not garner respect.
All Nerds think about...
on
Science Askew
·
· Score: 4, Funny
From "Revenge of the Nerds II"
Girl: Are all Nerds as good as you? Nerd: Yes! Girl: Wow! Why is that? Nerd: Because all jocks think about is sports. All Nerds think about is sex.
Opt in.
I think it's a great idea:
It's not like there's a severely limited number of TLDs that can be created.
So, if the censors of the world want to restrict freedom, then give them a "playpen" in which they can do it.
You want to start a colony with religiously restrictive laws? Fine. Go to the new world and knock yourself out. Just leave the rest of us alone.
Unfortunately, the goal of censors is not usually limited to "like minded people". If it were, they would not need censorship in the first place. The real goal is to "Save people from themselves whether they like it or not."
So, this is a pacifier. If it shuts up internet censors, great. It's not going to be effective at keeping anyone from seeing what they *want* to see. But it *could* be effective at preventing people from seeing what they *don't* want to see.
Dude--drop the "sensitive guy of the '90's" cr@p. Do you think that if you keep shoveling it out long enough, it's gonna get you laid?
"Help! Help! I'm being repressed!"
Hmmm...Once I tried to read a multisession CD from an older CD driver in my computer. Only saw the TOC from the first session. The burner (newer) saw the current TOC.
So, would I be able to see the proper TOC on my old drive?
Can anybody suggest a CD that has this multiple TOC "copy protection".
As I have not bought any CDs in years, my collection does not have this problem.
I'm sitting here in a room with about twenty (fifty if you count the ones in the cabinet) "PLCs" (actually, they're the grandchildren of the original "PLC"). This is at the company that invented the PLC; I'm testing the new stuff.
At any rate, I think it'd be pretty cool if it was one of our products being used.
Which PLCs were used?
I've had good success with epson printers in linux.
I had an epson stylus photo 1200 (6 color), which I gave to my sister, a photographer. Currently, my wife and I have a 980 (4-color).
With CUPS and gimp-print, my printing looks beautiful. There is a utility (epsutil?) that I use to get ink levels, reset the printer, etc.
I NEVER use epson inks or paper. There are plenty of aftermarket solutions for paper. For ink, I use a continuous flow system and bulk inks from
MIS Supply
It's never clogged or dripped, and when I screwed it up by causing a siphon, MIS sent me a new cf cartridge and a set of regular cartridges to use in the meantime.
Slashdot Mirror
If I have a computer that's "good enough", why will I buy a "better" one? And if there's no market for "better" computers, how will the next improvement be funded? Can the manufacturers continue to come up with new "things to do on a computer" that I just gotta have? Photo editing. Ooohh...pretty. Got that. Video Editing. Pretty painful. That's the "new thing" that's getting popular. Look how hard it gets being pushed as consumer computing power approaches render-farm capacities. "Dont'cha just gotta edit those family vacation videos?". The "next big thing" can't be something way off on the horizon. It has to be an app you can run on your machine now, but it's really painful--so you can get frustrated and go out and buy a better machine. "Gee, honey--the AI sounds stoned all the time. Can't we get a better box for him to live in?"
There is choice. You choose what you do. If enough people say "no", the answer is "no". There is a price for your choice, however. Your freedom was paid for with the blood of those who went before you. The bank account was very, very full many years ago. For a long time, little investment has been made into that account. Will you obey an unjust law? Or will you break the law, go to jail, then pursue your case through the appeals system? And when that does not work, will you become a political prisoner? You have a choice. Will you coast along as our freedoms are eroded? You can probably get away with it--just be satisfied with a little less, and keep your eyes on the shiny objects profferred to you. After all, you probably have a pretty good life. Why rock the boat. Tell yourself you don't have a choice. Then you don't have to deal with the fact that you did choose. There's no shame in choosing the security and convenience of a pretty good life rather than choosing to buy freedom for your children. Those same children have to eat today, and, perhaps they won't if you're in jail. It is, however, cowardice, to deny that you made a choice. Your ignorance is something that I can steal from you, which you can never get back. Choose--freedom or security--you can't have both. But, have some self respect about it. Think. Choose. Don't coast.
When it gets bad enough for enough people, civil disobedience is the answer.
The state, however is not stupid. The state knows how to boil a frog.
Linux
"Everybody gets to be a journalist."
It is the nature of power to concentrate itself. I'm not speaking about any "evil, corrupt conspiracy"; just the nature of power. Make no mistake about it, speech and the right to be heard is POWER. That's why it's protected by the FIRST amendment to the US Constitution.
The problem with "everybody is a journalist" is that the power of speech becomes distributed among the masses. This is not a stable (as in equilibruim) situation. It will not persist. It cannot persist.
I like the idea of a "frontier", where everybody pretty much does whatever they want and leaves each other alone. If ever there was an ideal "place" for such a frontier to exist, the internet is it. It's potentially infinite in size. Participation is piecewise voluntary--if you don't like what's going on, you can simply take what you want and leave the rest. Heck, there's software that will ignore it for you. Most people can live with that.
Citizens, it ain't gonna happen. Some, however, have a need to control everything they're aware of. Not many, actually, and even fewer that can do it effectively. But enough so that when that sort of person notices something--even something that has nothing to do with them--they feel a need to control it. Why does Pat Robertson want to control the behaviour of two gay lovers in their own house? Because as surely as those lovers say they were made to be gay, Pat was made with a desire to control. It's his nature. Once such people become aware of the internet as a place, those people have a need to control it. And some of them have the talent necessary to accomplish the task. The "tragic flaw" of the Libertarian ideal is that it doesn't want to control anything (Shut up, I said "ideal").
As long as we persist in the delusion that the internet will remain an unregulated frontier, we are lost.
Rules and laws will regulate the internet.
We do not get to choose whether the regulations are applied. We do, however, get to choose what those regulations will be.
A successful effort at preserving freedom will not be based an anarchistic ideal.
Successfully preserving freedom depends on the creation of regulations that specifically reserve rights to the people.
Do this exercise: Choose a state of in which power is distributed. Choose another in which power is concentrated. Examine the initial ideals of those states. Now investigate the political structure of those states. You'll find that societies whose legal and political structure are consistent with their original ideals were engineered with the more skull-sweat than a chemical plant or successful operating system.
Starry-eyed dreamers saying "why can't we all just get along" will NOT achieve their goals. Political and legal engineers will. We need to get the engineers working for us. Can you name the profession these "engineers" pursue?
It'll generate plenty of G-forces. Just not in the same direction for very long. These robots are freaking strong. Their acceleration is *amazing*. And their strength. In underbody respot, they carry huge weld guns that are nothing more than hundreds of pounds of copper with tens of thousands of amps of current going through them. Sometimes the weld transformer (up to another quarter-ton) is attached to the rotating base (hip-mount). These robots move across the car stopping and starting 5 to 20 times within 1mm of the set position. Cycle time from car to car (you must include getting the car out, next car in, positioning, clamping up, welding, unclamping, lifting, and ready to get the next car in) is under 60s. Actual robot time is more like 10-20s. PLENTY of acceleration. And if you program the interference zones wrong, they'll pick up the whole car and the thousand pound "pallet" (sled) that carries it. No Farkin' way I'd get on the same side of a light screen as one of these unless *I* was holding the deadman switch. Oops, sorry "enabling pendant". It's not PC to say "dead" about a machine that could gut you like a trout and not even slow down.
Whether or not you can remember what the ad was about is not a good test for whether it worked. Advertising is designed to affect your behaviour. The advertiser could give a rat's ass about your conscious memory. Actually, they'd prefer you not remember why you made a particular decision down the road. Let's say I'm selling a commodity product in retail stores. My product is out there, and I know when you go the store you're going to see it. I don't want you to think "Choosy Mothers Choose Jif" when you go to the store. I don't want your wife to tell you to get "Jif" when she sends you there. What I want is for her to tell you "We're out of peanut butter". Then when you get to the store, I want you to perceive "Jif" as the best brand. You don't know why and you don't care. You just buy that one and feel good that you've gotten the best product for your lovely wife and kids. What I want to do as an advertiser is to creat emotional "keys" between my product and good feelings. I don't want to present cognitive arguments; those take way too much work for you (my customer) to deal with. And people really do not operate that way on a daily basis. Think of the thousands of decisions you make each day. Do you really analyze every one of then in a conscious cognitive manner? If you examine a decision you made an hour ago, you could "justify" (come up with a rational explanation after the fact of why you did what you did). But that's not how you made that decision. As an advertiser, I'd much prefer you--a person who believes he makes informed, intelligent, deliberate decisions for himself--to have an emotional association between my product and something good. And have no conscious awareness of how that association got there. Then when your wife asks you why you bought "Jif", you'll say "Because I love you". (If you're smart, that is ;).
And thus progogateth the meme.
That is to say that in general,
You can pay lots of money and still get crud.
But if you get something really good, you're likely not going to get it cheap.
Of course there are exceptions. The "hole in the wall" restaraunt serving food that's orders of magnitude better than the "fancy" joing up the street.
JVC VCRs used to be like that. High end JVCs were made of METAL. They were HEAVY. Mine (about 5 years old) has lasted through years of abuse--many tapes, and a lot of FF / RW during play. My RCA TV is over 10 years old, and has not degraded in the least.
Sure, I paid more for those at first, but in the long run, I saved money/time/hassle.
No, it's different.
James Dyson's vacuum cleaner (geez, I was hoping it would be Freeman Dyson, but oh, well) is just a cyclone separator (AKA baghouse, sock-knocker, dust collector...). They're pretty common in industry.
This device sounds like it grinds solids as well separating them from the air stream.
How does regulation in this direction affect the wireless solution to the "last mile" problem?
This is close to my heart because I'm a contract engineer and my wife and I live in an RV full time. Like many people, we often can't find cable (Internet or TV) access where we live.
Given wireless service that is widely available, highly desired, and subject to regulated availability (i.e. DirecTV)--isn't it reasonable to expect a serious effort to gain unauthorized access to that service?
Is it not unreasonable to expect that such efforts will produce some not insignificant success?
And if that is a reasonable premise, doesn't it follow that *any* large-scale wireless coverage will be insecure?
With a high speed copper connection, somebody has to at least run a physical wire to each NIC. Not so with 802.11b.
Will regulators feel they need to curtail the growth of 802.11b itself? How can they do this? It's not the security that's even the issue here. Security can always be broken. Once 802.11b is widespread, large-scale anonymous access is inevitable.
Limiting service providers to a few "trusted" organizations will not solve the problem. DirecTV (again) only has 1 provider, and breaking its security is a hobby for thousands of people.
Will regulators feel a need to kill 802.11b and like technologies altogether?
Will we see the same "death penalty for parking violations" response to wireless hacking that we've seen for cable modem uncapping?
Points to anybody who recognizes where I stole "death penalty..." quote from.
There are bacteria in deep-sea hydrothermal vents at the mid-ocean ridge.
These bacteria operate on a wholly different metabolic process from the bacteria we see at the surface.
How different are they? Must the share a common origin with you and me?
Could they have evolved around these vents?
Does their evolving around these vents preclude other organisms having evolved at the surface?
Our way of life--self-centered consumption with no thought for the implications thereof--is not sustainable. That is to say, our current lifestyle fails the test of self-consistency.
This lifestyle will end. It will end in either an uncontrolled catastrophic manner, or in a quiet disciplined manner. But it will end.
Clearly you are already aware of this. You state that the lifetime costs of "just about everything" are prohibitive. In this statement, I agree with you.
Therefore, prohibition of "nearly everything" is merely an acknowledgement of facts of which we are already aware. Those things whose lifetime costs are price-prohibitive would appropriately be prohibited. Immediate cash price will simply reflect true cost.
"If we dig precious things from the land, we will invite disaster.
Near the Day of Purification, there will be cobwebs spun back and forth it the sky.
A container of ashes might one day be thrown from the sky, which could burn the land and boil the oceans."
Translation of the Hopi Prophecies sung in the film "Koyaanisqatsi".
Your Honor, the riot was incited by a comment on slashdot.
This chick is surely as stoned as a rock garden.
Lotsa OTC drugs can make you stoned, including benadryl.
Now, 'bout the eyes...Umm... yeah. I don't think benadryl will put those skinned tomatoes in your eye sockets!
ATI is investigating the possibility of supporting TV Out under Linux for products which include this feature.
The GATOS Projectmentions limited use of this feature in some of their configurations.
Linux ATI TV Out Support Programis a work in progress by Lennart Poetteringto control the TV Out feature of certain ATI graphics products under Linux. It has currently been tested on Rage Mobility P/M devices only, but should also work for RADEON and RAGE 128 according to the author.
D'oh! Replying to my own post--forgot something: If you're asking /. to validate your decision, then you already know the answer!
It's a simple rule, but it'll save you a lot of heartache. Simple answer is, if somebody asks you to do them a favor, and you choose to do it, expect NOTHING in return. Not gratitude, not recognition, not a job, not money. If those things turn up, great! And there's something to be said for good will. But if you don't get those things, you gave because you chose to. Maybe to remember that you're a generous person? Whatever your reasons are, they're your reasons. Corollary to this is if you're not prepared to give something in this manner (an unemployed person plying their trade for free sounds like an extemely "generous" act), then DON'T. You have a right to be compensated for your work. If this is something these people want, then, dammit, they must be willing to compensate you for it. Don't think you're "burning bridges" by asking for compensation. If you're dealing with the sort of people that expect you to work for free, you're not going to impress them by doing that. They will see you as their patsy (to use a nicer term). "Oooh I just want them to LIKE me." Does not garner respect.
From "Revenge of the Nerds II"
Girl: Are all Nerds as good as you?
Nerd: Yes!
Girl: Wow! Why is that?
Nerd: Because all jocks think about is sports. All Nerds think about is sex.
From experience, this is true.
Opt in. I think it's a great idea: It's not like there's a severely limited number of TLDs that can be created. So, if the censors of the world want to restrict freedom, then give them a "playpen" in which they can do it. You want to start a colony with religiously restrictive laws? Fine. Go to the new world and knock yourself out. Just leave the rest of us alone. Unfortunately, the goal of censors is not usually limited to "like minded people". If it were, they would not need censorship in the first place. The real goal is to "Save people from themselves whether they like it or not." So, this is a pacifier. If it shuts up internet censors, great. It's not going to be effective at keeping anyone from seeing what they *want* to see. But it *could* be effective at preventing people from seeing what they *don't* want to see.
Dude--drop the "sensitive guy of the '90's" cr@p. Do you think that if you keep shoveling it out long enough, it's gonna get you laid? "Help! Help! I'm being repressed!"
deadbeef?
Are you, perchance, a PLC5 programmer?
Hmmm...Once I tried to read a multisession CD from an older CD driver in my computer. Only saw the TOC from the first session. The burner (newer) saw the current TOC. So, would I be able to see the proper TOC on my old drive? Can anybody suggest a CD that has this multiple TOC "copy protection". As I have not bought any CDs in years, my collection does not have this problem.
I'm sitting here in a room with about twenty (fifty if you count the ones in the cabinet) "PLCs" (actually, they're the grandchildren of the original "PLC"). This is at the company that invented the PLC; I'm testing the new stuff. At any rate, I think it'd be pretty cool if it was one of our products being used. Which PLCs were used?
Thus showing to a demonstratably ignorant person that you are a "hacker" and have just "hacked the president".
Yeah, that'll help you.
I've had good success with epson printers in linux. I had an epson stylus photo 1200 (6 color), which I gave to my sister, a photographer. Currently, my wife and I have a 980 (4-color). With CUPS and gimp-print, my printing looks beautiful. There is a utility (epsutil?) that I use to get ink levels, reset the printer, etc. I NEVER use epson inks or paper. There are plenty of aftermarket solutions for paper. For ink, I use a continuous flow system and bulk inks from MIS Supply It's never clogged or dripped, and when I screwed it up by causing a siphon, MIS sent me a new cf cartridge and a set of regular cartridges to use in the meantime.