For example, there was a copy of the GPL in the box with the last projector I bought (a Panasonic PT-AE200E). One of the features of this projector is projecting digital photos straight off an SD card, and it appears that the slideshow software used was released under the GPL. I wonder how long it will be before we see copies of the GPL arriving with new microwave ovens?
RTFA. It basically tells you to look through the bottle to read the inside of the cap. Purchase is still necessary.
Ok, I didn't read the article because it is slashdotted, but I did look at this photo of the bottle cap seen through the bottle. That's a losing bottle, but 'AGAIN' is clearly visible (I'm presuming you'd be able to see an upside-down 'PLAY' if you turned it over) - so would a winning code not also be visible, and transcribable, without purchase?
The Wall Street Journal (right arm & shirt off back required) reported last month that Apple were planning to pay off the rest of their debt when it was due on Feb 16. So I'd be surprised if it wasn't true. MacMinute have a summary.
There's an interesting article on ZDNet from November that takes as its angle that Yahoo deliberately set out to emulate Google's interface. The thing is, a lot of Google's design innovations (differentiating of text ads into coloured boxes, etc.) have now become web standards, and it pays (for users) that these are consistent across the web. Thanks to Google's innovation, I can recognise a coloured box as an ad, whether it's on Google or Yahoo. I just hope that they have sense, unlike Amazon, to not go around sueing everyone who does something similar.
The thing is, the phone number cannot be sold alone.
Quote from the article: "nothing prevents a customer from transferring a number to someone else." - seems pretty clear cut to me. The partnership splitting is only given as an example.
Anyway, this has nothing to do with phone number portability, which is the ability to move providers and keep the same number. Granted, the case may be that Bell South "owns" the number and might not let you transfer it to a third party, but they obviously don't mind you selling to one if that third party stays with Bell South.
The point is, it seems the policy varies depending on who is providing your phone service, and this TN guy had a right to sell the number, while the NY guy didn't, but Ebay pulled both auctions without discrimination.
Verizon said its customers don't own their phone numbers, so the right to 212-867-5309 cannot be sold. But in Nashville, a spokeswoman for BellSouth said nothing prevents a customer from transferring a number to someone else.
This is sometimes done for business partners who split up and the other person takes the number, Sybil McLain said. "What two parties do between themselves is between them," she said. "We provide phone service."
So while the original New York seller of the 212 code version might not be able to transfer it, this article is primarily about a Murfreesboro, TN car dealer, who it appears could.
...and he completely took the attitude that it was my problem, that I should be paying for the measures to avoid spam. I had called him on his mobile phone, and asked him if he sent me that email. Yes, he said, are you interested in the product? I explained that it was spam, and his response was 'so what, why don't you install a filter'.
Well, the main health insurance company here has a helpful service that will send a text message to your mobile phone to remind you to take your contraceptive pill. My only regret was that 6am was the earliest time you could select for that reminder...
Incidentally, have you heard about the discovery of the largest living creature on Earth? Would you believe it's two or three miles across, and probably several thousand years old, and still growing? It's this fungus that's eating Oregon. It's a single creature. I'm not quite sure how that's determined.
I note that even the Overture ads are in exactly the same format as Google's AdWords. Interestingly, however, the last two Sunday evenings, Google.ie has been experimenting with a new design in which various elements are changed. The tabs are gone, replace with simple links, and the directory tab is removed, to be replaced with a link to more services. There are many more differences; the main search is now called 'Google Web' and dictionary words are indicated by the explicit word [definition] rather than just being a link. Everything is less blocky, and the ads are no longer in their own boxes but rather are in a long list to the right of the screen.
...hidden as they were among the enormous amount of other crap, it was difficult to tell which were the real results. As it was, I found Yahoo search to be so bad as to dilute Google's reputation if anything.
This new search so far seems better than the previous Yahoo search if anything, as they are putting the 'web' results up front, reasonably uncluttered, with everything else as seperate tabs. They could have done this with the Google ones before, but I presume they wanted to promote their own content.
They are doing this for the publicity value, and because - in fairness - the Benelux countries are a relatively small market, they haven't yet been forced to change the name in larger markets, and they intend to fight to keep the Lindows name to the end, even if it bankrupts the company. (And they would point out that they are appealing in the Netherlands, so this may be a temporary measure.)
Michael Robertson is as much interested in the fight with MS as the future of his company, which he is using as a vehicle. I don't necessarily think this is a bad thing - Lindows is privately held, after all, so he can do what he likes, and I respect his convictions. What Robertson really would like to see, I think even *more* than the success of Lindows, would be for a US court to strip Windows of trademark protection.
And support PC manufacturers that do not bundle MS Windows by default ( Shuttle comes to mind here, but there are many others).
Seriously though, the problem is not the bundling of Windows - most non-geek people actually want it bundled for convenience. Rather, it is the clause in Microsoft's OEM agreements that says "if you want to ship any PCs with Windows at all,
you must include an OS with *all* of your PCs".
That's why Dell are shipping their new 'OS free' nSeries with FreeDOS included in the box (but not installed) - it's a clever sidestepping of their contract with MS. Of course MS should never be allowed put this sort of clause into an OEM contract in the first place.
Shuttle can do what they do only because they don't sell PCs with Windows at all.
Dlugar said: "Of course, what they might be doing (although I haven't been able to find any reputable sources for this) is disallowing OEMs to pre-install, say, Quicktime and Realplayer on the systems they sell."
That is one of the arguments of Real's ongoing suit against Microsoft (they sued 18 Dec 2003): "Other charges allege that Microsoft used contractual restrictions and financial incentives to "force PC makers to accept Windows PC operating systems with the bundled Windows Media Player and to restrict the ability of PC makers to preinstall or promote competing digital media players." - CNet News
... to control the future media distribution standard, and impose a 'Microsoft tax' similar to that they have on PCs today. Its importance to them cannot be overestimated, and they will fight tooth and nail to maintain its position. Robert X Cringely has a very interesting article on Microsoft's media strategy in his ongoing coverage of Burst.com's patent-infingement suit against MS/WMA.
"Google's collection of 6 billion items comprises 4.28 billion web pages, 880 million images, 845 million Usenet messages, and a growing collection of book-related information pages."
I was interested that they mentioned Google Print, which is Google's answer to Amazon's Search Inside feature, but hasn't got much press, and is pretty well hidden in Google itself.
You can check it out by limiting results to site print.google.com, e.g. searchterm site:print.google.com. (Not quite at Amazon-type numbers yet.)
...have multiple monitors, myself included (e.g. the built-in LCD + an external monitor). I've had a laptop plus a second monitor for years now, and couldn't imagine working without them - I really miss the second monitor when away from my work/home workstation. Although admittedly this is not to play games, it is used in a similar way to that suggested in the article, with secondary applications like Winamp, terminal services into another computer, documentation, etc. on the second monitor. It's also great to be able to code on the main monitor and see the results on the second one.
My second monitor at home is a 17" LCD and was pretty cheap. Indeed, two smaller monitors will give you more screen real-estate than a single large one, for a much lower price.
If you do go down the multi-monitor route in Windows, I'd highly recommend Ultramon which adds invaluable features missing in the OS (taskbar on second monitor, maximize to dual-screen, button to flip window from one monitor to another, turn on/off second monitor, multiple profiles, etc.)
It just occurs to me that a lot of 32-bit Operating Systems won't like a file with a size of greater than 2Gb [...] Is the film shipped as 3 video files which play consecutively? I would love the irony if the only mainstream machine that can play these Windows Media files was a Mac G5
As a point of reality, NTFS on Win2k/XP (32-bit OSes) has a maximum file size of just under 16terabytes on volumes of just under 256 terabytes (and even these are implementation limits, rather than theoretical maximums.) I deal with single-file backups, ISO images, and databases of well over 2gb with no problems whatsoever on NTFS.
Second, there is in any case no reason why the bitstream could not be split up into multiple files - DVDs do this, splitting the bitstream into VOB files of max. 1gb each.
There are two seperate issues here, artifacts and resolution.
MPEG-2 is a lossy codec also, and I can't see any artifacts (e.g. blockiness, etc. - as opposed to limited resolution) with a well-mastered, high bitrate DVD (and that's on a 150" projected screen). It's only on the badly mastered/low bitrate DVDs that artifacts become apparent. I can generally see more in the way of artifacts in most 35mm films (poor Nth generation copies, burn-outs, scratches, etc.)
The resolution (and maximum bitrate) of DVD is pre-defined (and I was taking his reference to DiVX to mean 'at normal resolutions'). In cinema-type systems they are talking about a higher resolution picture: although Raincast don't give out resolution details, here's an example of a 3840x2480 system described as superior to 35mm.
Raincast's system appears to be high-resolution MPEG-4/WMA running at slightly higher than normal DVD (MPEG-2) bitrates (but with a more efficient codec). While it may not be good 35mm quality, it is likely more than usable, especially for hard to reach locales that otherwise might not have a cinema at all.
Slashdot Mirror
Paul Allen's band, Grown Men, have a website with mp3 (interestingly, not WMA) samples and lyrics, from their debut CD.
"In his spare time, billionaire Microsoft Corp. (MSFT) co-founder Paul G. Allen plays the guitar in a rock band called Grown Men." - BusinessWeek
For example, there was a copy of the GPL in the box with the last projector I bought (a Panasonic PT-AE200E). One of the features of this projector is projecting digital photos straight off an SD card, and it appears that the slideshow software used was released under the GPL. I wonder how long it will be before we see copies of the GPL arriving with new microwave ovens?
4. PROFIT!
Ok, I didn't read the article because it is slashdotted, but I did look at this photo of the bottle cap seen through the bottle. That's a losing bottle, but 'AGAIN' is clearly visible (I'm presuming you'd be able to see an upside-down 'PLAY' if you turned it over) - so would a winning code not also be visible, and transcribable, without purchase?
The Wall Street Journal (right arm & shirt off back required) reported last month that Apple were planning to pay off the rest of their debt when it was due on Feb 16. So I'd be surprised if it wasn't true. MacMinute have a summary.
There's an interesting article on ZDNet from November that takes as its angle that Yahoo deliberately set out to emulate Google's interface. The thing is, a lot of Google's design innovations (differentiating of text ads into coloured boxes, etc.) have now become web standards, and it pays (for users) that these are consistent across the web. Thanks to Google's innovation, I can recognise a coloured box as an ad, whether it's on Google or Yahoo. I just hope that they have sense, unlike Amazon, to not go around sueing everyone who does something similar.
Quote from the article: "nothing prevents a customer from transferring a number to someone else." - seems pretty clear cut to me. The partnership splitting is only given as an example.
Anyway, this has nothing to do with phone number portability, which is the ability to move providers and keep the same number. Granted, the case may be that Bell South "owns" the number and might not let you transfer it to a third party, but they obviously don't mind you selling to one if that third party stays with Bell South.
The point is, it seems the policy varies depending on who is providing your phone service, and this TN guy had a right to sell the number, while the NY guy didn't, but Ebay pulled both auctions without discrimination.
This is sometimes done for business partners who split up and the other person takes the number, Sybil McLain said. "What two parties do between themselves is between them," she said. "We provide phone service."
So while the original New York seller of the 212 code version might not be able to transfer it, this article is primarily about a Murfreesboro, TN car dealer, who it appears could.
Just look here (warning: explicit pictures).
Well, the main health insurance company here has a helpful service that will send a text message to your mobile phone to remind you to take your contraceptive pill. My only regret was that 6am was the earliest time you could select for that reminder...
I did a double take on this one too, but he seems to have his facts straight.
Black magic? Its behaviour is certainly often incomprehensible.
I note that even the Overture ads are in exactly the same format as Google's AdWords. Interestingly, however, the last two Sunday evenings, Google.ie has been experimenting with a new design in which various elements are changed. The tabs are gone, replace with simple links, and the directory tab is removed, to be replaced with a link to more services. There are many more differences; the main search is now called 'Google Web' and dictionary words are indicated by the explicit word [definition] rather than just being a link. Everything is less blocky, and the ads are no longer in their own boxes but rather are in a long list to the right of the screen.
This new search so far seems better than the previous Yahoo search if anything, as they are putting the 'web' results up front, reasonably uncluttered, with everything else as seperate tabs. They could have done this with the Google ones before, but I presume they wanted to promote their own content.
Michael Robertson is as much interested in the fight with MS as the future of his company, which he is using as a vehicle. I don't necessarily think this is a bad thing - Lindows is privately held, after all, so he can do what he likes, and I respect his convictions. What Robertson really would like to see, I think even *more* than the success of Lindows, would be for a US court to strip Windows of trademark protection.
Seriously though, the problem is not the bundling of Windows - most non-geek people actually want it bundled for convenience. Rather, it is the clause in Microsoft's OEM agreements that says "if you want to ship any PCs with Windows at all, you must include an OS with *all* of your PCs".
That's why Dell are shipping their new 'OS free' nSeries with FreeDOS included in the box (but not installed) - it's a clever sidestepping of their contract with MS. Of course MS should never be allowed put this sort of clause into an OEM contract in the first place.
Shuttle can do what they do only because they don't sell PCs with Windows at all.
Heh. Shuttle don't even bundle a CPU, RAM, or hard drive! (Note: I'm not complaining.)
That is one of the arguments of Real's ongoing suit against Microsoft (they sued 18 Dec 2003): "Other charges allege that Microsoft used contractual restrictions and financial incentives to "force PC makers to accept Windows PC operating systems with the bundled Windows Media Player and to restrict the ability of PC makers to preinstall or promote competing digital media players." - CNet News
Buy the computer, and then return it, because you don't agree with the EULA (that you couldn't even read).
... to control the future media distribution standard, and impose a 'Microsoft tax' similar to that they have on PCs today. Its importance to them cannot be overestimated, and they will fight tooth and nail to maintain its position. Robert X Cringely has a very interesting article on Microsoft's media strategy in his ongoing coverage of Burst.com's patent-infingement suit against MS/WMA.
I was interested that they mentioned Google Print, which is Google's answer to Amazon's Search Inside feature, but hasn't got much press, and is pretty well hidden in Google itself.
You can check it out by limiting results to site print.google.com, e.g. searchterm site:print.google.com. (Not quite at Amazon-type numbers yet.)
My second monitor at home is a 17" LCD and was pretty cheap. Indeed, two smaller monitors will give you more screen real-estate than a single large one, for a much lower price.
If you do go down the multi-monitor route in Windows, I'd highly recommend Ultramon which adds invaluable features missing in the OS (taskbar on second monitor, maximize to dual-screen, button to flip window from one monitor to another, turn on/off second monitor, multiple profiles, etc.)
As a point of reality, NTFS on Win2k/XP (32-bit OSes) has a maximum file size of just under 16terabytes on volumes of just under 256 terabytes (and even these are implementation limits, rather than theoretical maximums.) I deal with single-file backups, ISO images, and databases of well over 2gb with no problems whatsoever on NTFS.
Second, there is in any case no reason why the bitstream could not be split up into multiple files - DVDs do this, splitting the bitstream into VOB files of max. 1gb each.
MPEG-2 is a lossy codec also, and I can't see any artifacts (e.g. blockiness, etc. - as opposed to limited resolution) with a well-mastered, high bitrate DVD (and that's on a 150" projected screen). It's only on the badly mastered/low bitrate DVDs that artifacts become apparent. I can generally see more in the way of artifacts in most 35mm films (poor Nth generation copies, burn-outs, scratches, etc.)
The resolution (and maximum bitrate) of DVD is pre-defined (and I was taking his reference to DiVX to mean 'at normal resolutions'). In cinema-type systems they are talking about a higher resolution picture: although Raincast don't give out resolution details, here's an example of a 3840x2480 system described as superior to 35mm.
Raincast's system appears to be high-resolution MPEG-4/WMA running at slightly higher than normal DVD (MPEG-2) bitrates (but with a more efficient codec). While it may not be good 35mm quality, it is likely more than usable, especially for hard to reach locales that otherwise might not have a cinema at all.