I initially wrote the letter in AbiWord but since made changes with vim after dropping it onto my server; that must have been one of the words I freehanded off the top of my head.
I run AMD64 Debian sid, and I consider it a boon to my web browsing experience that I no longer have to deal with Flash. I've even gone to the point where I wrote a generic letter which I've sent to a few sites where the requirement for Flash has impeded my progress. I have yet to receive anything but a generic 'thank you for your input' response, but I still consider the letter to properly address the real issue at hand - Flash's pervasiveness as a replacement, rather than augmentation, of a reliable text-based browsing experience.
As has been said a few times during this mission, checking the underside of the shuttle during flight has never been done before, let alone going EVA to fix problems. For all we know, filler extruding from between the tiles could be a very common occurance, and it has always just fixed itself during reentry. I'd say that staged is a bit too harsh of an accusation, but accusing the media (and possibly NASA itself) of oversensationalizing is definently in order.
I had the same thought as the grandparent and didn't even notice it until I read your comment. I usually ignore commas when reading anything online since they are so often misused and haphazardly utilized.
Even after making the 400-page-duplex assumption, I still managed to forget when figuring those prices. Those prices should be cut in half - $25 to do, charge $35 to $50.
I work at a printing company. My work involves printing about 40,000 pages of paper a week. I'm lucky that I can print, copy, and bind anything that looks ITish and make it look like work related. I have spiral-bound copies of a boatload of XServe reference pdfs just because I got annoyed at looking at the pdf on the screen, even though I've only used them the day they were printed and they've been tucked away in a drawer since.
Now, for something useful to answer the question at hand: Find a local, small printing company. They're all over, you just have to look. Call up and ask to speak to their IT dept. I've done small printjobs like manuals, they're insanely easy and fast to do, and a single copy of a 800 page manual (assuming that means 800 planes, 400 double-sided pieces of paper), 3 hole punched in a binder, would cost us roughly $50 to do. This is not a price quote, just an FYI. Reasonably we'd probably ask about $70 to $100, cheaper if it's for an existing/prospective client or a personal favor.
If you need lots (hundred or more) of copies, you can go really cheap with the "tissue paper" that prints off of a web press and get them for as little as $5 a copy, depending on how you bind them. Unfortunately, we don't do that where I work but we subcontract work that we get that does need it.
You've provided a very interesting and informative interpretation of the DMCA. It's always nice to see someone who does homework and cites sources.
What I do find interesting is your assertion to a right to use their equipment to do something they did not intend. Judging based on this limitation, you have a right to choose not to use their product; granted, it was an undocumented limitation and many people were likely stuck with a very expensive camera that they didn't realize would produce crippled images. But now that it's known, if one were to go out to buy a camera, would the logical action be:
(a) Purchase a camera with a known limitation and then gripe about the limitation
(b) Purchase any number of other cameras that produces very good images that Photoshop, Gimp, and any other decent photo editor can import directly.
I think the choice is clear. I see no reasonable expectation of any company to let you do what you want with a given product, so the only way you can really express your disapproval is with your money. Low sales will send a clear signal -- they've certainly received enough attention from the/. community to potentially damage them.
I would liken it more to the chemical processes used to develop the film.
Take for example the simpler black and white processing method, since I have enough experience with it to speak about it knowledgably. D76 is a well-documented (but not obvious) recipe of chemicals, but Kodak also sells it. What Nikon is doing would be analogous to Kodak saying you must use only Kodak's branded D76 with your Kodak film taken in your Kodak camera, and protecting the recipe for the D76 with some sort of crazy law (not a patent) that makes it illegal to try to reproduce that very simple chemical recipe to develop the used roll of film into useful negatives.
Computer-related laws rarely make any sense when applied to anything else.
I thought it more closely resembled the Flurry screensaver (as seen on various platforms, by default on OS X), with the exception that Flurry doesn't oscillate with music. Perhaps a combination of Geiss and Flurry.
You don't need to, but many still do. Usuaully because some product or another is no longer supported that is needed for their software to function, and they don't care to invest the time and money into porting and updating the software for use on a better platform with better tools.
I don't get it. This is all just sensationalism to me. If you play with 302 redirects, something bad might happen, but there's no way to predict it (as per the article, it's an arbitrary choice based on pagerank and other internal mechanisms). To me this is just a Google equivalent of terror alert orange.
people use google as a sort of bookmarks page(with keywords they remember)
Keyword-driven bookmark system? Sounds like a patent you'd read about in a/. article being used as a bully tactic against high-volume barely-applicable products.
As I replied to someone else in the thread I've created, programming is much like cooking - you can memorize recipes, or you can learn the chemical and physical interaction of the ingredients. Learning the interaction means you can apply your knowledge to future situations (i.e., VB.NET). Memorizing recipes means you can reproduce a bundt cake (i.e., VB6) again and again and again. The bundt cake might taste really good, but after a while you're probably going to need to make something else to keep people coming back (i.e., keep your job).
Old hardware running old OSes can still run old software. It's just not supported by the manufacturer any more. There are thousands of companies still using old-as-dirt servers to maintain their COBOL database applications and FORTRAN processes that are too time-consuming to modify to run on a newer system.
The problem with applications created in VB6 is that they will not compile using the VB.NET compiler.
There are lots of other projects in other languages that aren't forward-compatible to.NET also. The termination of support was bound to happen sooner or later. Apparently Microsoft wants it sooner so they can get their grubby hands on more consulting, education, and support fees. To be honest, I think dropping VB6 is a blessing, because that tells me that in future OS versions they are trying to weed out old code. I do feel sorry for all the time and money invested into VB6 projects, but VC++ 6 is the same age and, despite its widespread use, I don't see anyone crying about the prospective loss of MFC or GDI.
It was an analogy to programming courses and instructional material that teach people "to get A, click there and then type X". Much like any given recipe, it doesn't teach you "why" but rather just "how", and without any prior/alternate knowledge is not applicable to any other situation you'd find yourself in. Cooking is a hobby of mine, and because of my programming background I find myself drawn toward immersing myself in the "why" materials instead of just memorizing recipes. I find a similarity in the overall paradigm of skills in programming and cookery, especially in regards to the people who memorize versus those who learn.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks for the heads-up. I've gone and fixed it.
I initially wrote the letter in AbiWord but since made changes with vim after dropping it onto my server; that must have been one of the words I freehanded off the top of my head.
Here is a link to the generic letter
I run AMD64 Debian sid, and I consider it a boon to my web browsing experience that I no longer have to deal with Flash. I've even gone to the point where I wrote a generic letter which I've sent to a few sites where the requirement for Flash has impeded my progress. I have yet to receive anything but a generic 'thank you for your input' response, but I still consider the letter to properly address the real issue at hand - Flash's pervasiveness as a replacement, rather than augmentation, of a reliable text-based browsing experience.
Only after synergistically synchronizing with the global buzzword infrastructure.
Quite clearly, the computer failed to prevent the user from being an idiot.
As has been said a few times during this mission, checking the underside of the shuttle during flight has never been done before, let alone going EVA to fix problems. For all we know, filler extruding from between the tiles could be a very common occurance, and it has always just fixed itself during reentry. I'd say that staged is a bit too harsh of an accusation, but accusing the media (and possibly NASA itself) of oversensationalizing is definently in order.
P.S. My biggest dream has always been to run telnetd on my cell phone...
A real geek would be running sshd
Jerk
I had the same thought as the grandparent and didn't even notice it until I read your comment. I usually ignore commas when reading anything online since they are so often misused and haphazardly utilized.
I replied immediately to my post with that correction.
Even after making the 400-page-duplex assumption, I still managed to forget when figuring those prices. Those prices should be cut in half - $25 to do, charge $35 to $50.
I work at a printing company. My work involves printing about 40,000 pages of paper a week. I'm lucky that I can print, copy, and bind anything that looks ITish and make it look like work related. I have spiral-bound copies of a boatload of XServe reference pdfs just because I got annoyed at looking at the pdf on the screen, even though I've only used them the day they were printed and they've been tucked away in a drawer since.
Now, for something useful to answer the question at hand: Find a local, small printing company. They're all over, you just have to look. Call up and ask to speak to their IT dept. I've done small printjobs like manuals, they're insanely easy and fast to do, and a single copy of a 800 page manual (assuming that means 800 planes, 400 double-sided pieces of paper), 3 hole punched in a binder, would cost us roughly $50 to do. This is not a price quote, just an FYI. Reasonably we'd probably ask about $70 to $100, cheaper if it's for an existing/prospective client or a personal favor.
If you need lots (hundred or more) of copies, you can go really cheap with the "tissue paper" that prints off of a web press and get them for as little as $5 a copy, depending on how you bind them. Unfortunately, we don't do that where I work but we subcontract work that we get that does need it.
See subject
You've provided a very interesting and informative interpretation of the DMCA. It's always nice to see someone who does homework and cites sources.
/. community to potentially damage them.
What I do find interesting is your assertion to a right to use their equipment to do something they did not intend. Judging based on this limitation, you have a right to choose not to use their product; granted, it was an undocumented limitation and many people were likely stuck with a very expensive camera that they didn't realize would produce crippled images. But now that it's known, if one were to go out to buy a camera, would the logical action be:
(a) Purchase a camera with a known limitation and then gripe about the limitation
(b) Purchase any number of other cameras that produces very good images that Photoshop, Gimp, and any other decent photo editor can import directly.
I think the choice is clear. I see no reasonable expectation of any company to let you do what you want with a given product, so the only way you can really express your disapproval is with your money. Low sales will send a clear signal -- they've certainly received enough attention from the
I would liken it more to the chemical processes used to develop the film.
Take for example the simpler black and white processing method, since I have enough experience with it to speak about it knowledgably. D76 is a well-documented (but not obvious) recipe of chemicals, but Kodak also sells it. What Nikon is doing would be analogous to Kodak saying you must use only Kodak's branded D76 with your Kodak film taken in your Kodak camera, and protecting the recipe for the D76 with some sort of crazy law (not a patent) that makes it illegal to try to reproduce that very simple chemical recipe to develop the used roll of film into useful negatives.
Computer-related laws rarely make any sense when applied to anything else.
I thought it more closely resembled the Flurry screensaver (as seen on various platforms, by default on OS X), with the exception that Flurry doesn't oscillate with music. Perhaps a combination of Geiss and Flurry.
You don't need to, but many still do. Usuaully because some product or another is no longer supported that is needed for their software to function, and they don't care to invest the time and money into porting and updating the software for use on a better platform with better tools.
Where are my lawyers?
I don't get it. This is all just sensationalism to me. If you play with 302 redirects, something bad might happen, but there's no way to predict it (as per the article, it's an arbitrary choice based on pagerank and other internal mechanisms). To me this is just a Google equivalent of terror alert orange.
people use google as a sort of bookmarks page(with keywords they remember)
/. article being used as a bully tactic against high-volume barely-applicable products.
Keyword-driven bookmark system? Sounds like a patent you'd read about in a
You just sent a shiver down my spine.
As I replied to someone else in the thread I've created, programming is much like cooking - you can memorize recipes, or you can learn the chemical and physical interaction of the ingredients. Learning the interaction means you can apply your knowledge to future situations (i.e., VB.NET). Memorizing recipes means you can reproduce a bundt cake (i.e., VB6) again and again and again. The bundt cake might taste really good, but after a while you're probably going to need to make something else to keep people coming back (i.e., keep your job).
Old hardware running old OSes can still run old software. It's just not supported by the manufacturer any more. There are thousands of companies still using old-as-dirt servers to maintain their COBOL database applications and FORTRAN processes that are too time-consuming to modify to run on a newer system.
The problem with applications created in VB6 is that they will not compile using the VB.NET compiler.
.NET also. The termination of support was bound to happen sooner or later. Apparently Microsoft wants it sooner so they can get their grubby hands on more consulting, education, and support fees. To be honest, I think dropping VB6 is a blessing, because that tells me that in future OS versions they are trying to weed out old code. I do feel sorry for all the time and money invested into VB6 projects, but VC++ 6 is the same age and, despite its widespread use, I don't see anyone crying about the prospective loss of MFC or GDI.
There are lots of other projects in other languages that aren't forward-compatible to
It was an analogy to programming courses and instructional material that teach people "to get A, click there and then type X". Much like any given recipe, it doesn't teach you "why" but rather just "how", and without any prior/alternate knowledge is not applicable to any other situation you'd find yourself in. Cooking is a hobby of mine, and because of my programming background I find myself drawn toward immersing myself in the "why" materials instead of just memorizing recipes. I find a similarity in the overall paradigm of skills in programming and cookery, especially in regards to the people who memorize versus those who learn.