I do have to agree there. I don't see anything wrong in particular when it comes to limiting volume to non-dangerously high levels, especially as this will benefit everyone. If you're stupid enough to ruin your hearing in the US, well, tough luck. In the EU with mostly easily available, cheap healthcare, this will get incredibly expensive for the general populace as incident numbers start soaring. I don't see why you should cry "nanny state" here; they're not outlawing listening to loud music, they're just imposing limits on output power of MP3 players.
That said, I think the problem is the craptastic headphones that come with all players. They have to be cheap, so their frequency response will be absolutely horrible. In order to hear anything at all, you have to crank them up immensely, which is not the best thing to do in regards to your hearing. Decent phones, however, don't need to be loud, as they're clear even without being driven at extreme volume.
Credit where credit is due: Peter Molyneux has made some nice games, but that's not his greatest achievement. Molyneux has been, and still is, one of the few game developers who doesn't see himself as too good for answering press inquiries and doing dozens of interviews. I've seen some TV programmes about games and the gaming industry and in every single one of them, Molyneux gave an interview. He might talk overhyped trash from time to time (i.e. almost always), but at least he talks. If Molyneux wouldn't constantly talk about his games to anyone who's brave enough to ask, he'd long be forgotten.
I used to type on a Cherry Evolution Stream, which is quite similar to the Logitech UltraX. Now, I own several clicky keyboards including a Model M. While the UltraX has its merits, the Model M is far superior in terms of about everything. Pantograph-style laptop keys just don't cut it when it comes to real tactile feedback. As far as typing speeds go: It's nice to know your theoretical maximum, but I usually don't type faster than 60-70 wpm (although I can do about 100) simply because of my need to think before I type. If your typing speed is on a level where continuous typing is not a concern of typing, but of thinking speed, you might as well go for the nicest keyboard you can find.
The G80-3000 with click surely is a nice keyboard, but it doesn't even come close to the Model M. The Model M is a humungous piece of hardware, the lighter models weighing about 1.6 kg, with the heavier ones of them even above 2 kg. The G80-3000, on the other hand, weighs just a mere 0.96 kg. The Model M is rigid. It might be a bit creaky, but it doesn't warp like the G80-3000. The only screws to be found in the G80-3000 are two tiny screws holding the keyboard controller PCB in place, everything else is just held together by plastic clips. The key feel is still quite nice, but not as defined as the Model M's. In fact, it's another type of clicky sensation, more subdued than buckling springs or even old Alps switches. It's considerably quieter as well, making it more suitable for work environments. Plus, it's quite inexpensive for a mechanical keyboard, so I'd consider buying one for a start.
I've got both a Unicomp keyboard and a Cherry keyboard with blue MX switches, and I prefer the Unicomp with buckling springs. The blue Cherry MX are great, their availability is better and the keyboards employing them are generally much cheaper if you don't happen to live in the US (postage to old Europe for Unicomp's keyboards is about $50, so that's a considerable factor, whereas Cherry's G80-3000 can be had for as low as EUR 45), but I still prefer buckling springs. The blue MX's required force is much lower, the click is mushed and they have this very irritating "sticky" effect when released slowly. Still, they feel about a thousand times better than rubber dome keyboards.
No, they don't. Model Ms use dye sublimation printing, which is not as durable as two-shot injection molding, but much cheaper. But you'd still need to go a very long way to actually remove the lettering, so I suppose it's okay.
Games can be used to convey messages, just like books. If you take a random shooter, chances are you'll get at least an attempt at a story which acts as a reason for your gaming (the half-life series being a very good example of this). However, there is not much ideology in these games and you won't be forced to play them if you so desire or parts of the storyline do offend you.
It's different with school books or games being played at school--these should be as neutral as possible and not carry any sublimal messages. If I want science, I get a science book from a well-established science publisher, not "ballistic physics of various projectiles, proudly brought to you by the U.S. Army," even if it might be free and not contain exaggerated propaganda.
Learning about the military is okay with me, but I'd find using their material related to non-military subjects in public education highly disturbing, because it's not their business.
Yes means No and No means Yes. Format computer now, Yes/No?
Actually, except if you'd actually like to format the computer, either choice is correct.
Proof:
Let's just look at the specific definitions of Yes and No. We'll assume "Yes" being a positive response, i.e. formatting the computer and "No" being a negative response, i.e. not formatting the computer.
First definition: Yes means No; in this we redefine Yes to being a negative response: Yes:= No. (1)
Second definition: No means Yes; in this we define No to being the Yes we already defined in (1): No:= Yes:= No => No = No (2)
Therefore with our initial definition defining "Yes" as the positive response and "No" as the negative response, "Yes = No" (1) and "No = No) (2), we can clearly conclude our assumption being either choosing "Yes" or "No" is a negative response is correct. q.e.d.
Uranium will last for several hundred years, even more if you reprocess it. Thorium can also be used as a nuclear fuel, but requires different reactor designs. It's more abundant than uranium, so it should last quite a while.
Actually, quite some uses have been found for nuclear fuel by-products.
No one says spent nuclear fuel is clean, but its very low quantity helps to reduce problems. Depending on reactor design, nuclear waste can be reduced to comparatively low amounts with long-lived isotopes, thus reducing the danger when being exposed to such materials.
There have been some advanced designs for breeder reactors, but cost and diminishing interest in nuclear power generation has so far prohibited their widespread use.
Nuclear waste is not automatically a green-glowing, instantly death-bringing mass of incredibly toxic material. It can often be reprocessed (recycled, if you will) and contained in long-lived storage spaces without any danger to the public.
I'm not saying nuclear waste is inherently harmless, but please do note that other forms of electricity generation produce a severely more direct and short- to mid-term impact on the environment: Mining coal destroys whole ecosystems, sinking oil tankers lead to severe problems (and are much more common than nuclear accidents!) and even enviromnentalists' beloved photo-voltaic energy requires manufacture of silicon wafers, which needs large amounts of toxic chemicals and does produce waste. Nuclear waste, by and large, just sits there giving off more or less heat and radiation, but usually is contained where no living organism can enter effortlessly.
It's a meme, but it's not true. It works out just fine as long as the "misspelled" words bear some vague resemblance to the original words, but the hypothesis of being able to read words as long as their first and last character stays in place can easily be disproven by sorting every other letter alphabetically:
Accdinorg to racceehrsh at Cabdgimre ueiinrstvy it denos't maettr waht oderr the leertts in a word are, the olny iemnoprtt thing is taht the first and last leertts are at the rghit pacle.
The rest can be a taotl mess and you can sillt raed it whiotut a pbelorm. This is baceuse we do not raed eervy leettr by it self but the word as a whloe.
Words like "university," though still having their first and last characters, are no longer understandably by just sorting their characters alphabetically. The longer the word, the more prone to alphabetical sorting of characters it becomes, while short words can still be understood quite well.
Bavaria's minister-president Edmund Stoiber is quite well known for his often outrageously unintentionally funny speeches. And because the Transrapid maglev will be built in Bavaria, he also had his say.
It happened quite some time ago, but nonetheless led to quite some laughter in Germany. It's rather confusing, even in German. A recording can be seen here. For everyone not speaking German, here is a fairly rough translation (but watching the video helps. One just cannot capture this utter confusion by means of text):
If you're going from the main station in 10 Minutes without having to ckeck in at the airport, then you're basically starting your flight from the airport... from the main station in Munic. 10 minutes, just look at the big airports. If you look at in Heathrow in London or elsewhere, Charles de Gaulle in France or in, erm, in Rome and look at the distances, if you look at Frankfurt, you'll find that you'll easily spend 10 minutes just to find your gate in Frankfurt. If you're starting from the air-, err, main station; you're boarding the main station, you get to the airport, the airport Franz Josef Strauß in 10 minutes with the Transrapid, then in principle you're starting [your flight] here at Munich main station. Of course, this means that the main station is getting nearer to Bavaria, to the Bavarian towns, because naturally many lines from Bavaria merge at the main station.
I still don't get it. When you have virtual desktops, the whole desktop is an MDI. If you have virtual desktops, yes. Windows doesn't, so there's the problem. Even if you introduced the concept of virtual desktops to windows, people would still prefer MDI, because it's just more suitable for Windows.
Windows has one big problem preventing succesful use of SDI applications: Desktop clutter. Close to every new application downloads stuff to the desktop. Even Firefox downloads stuff to the desktop in its default configuration (at least when I last checked it did), so the Windows desktop becomes immensely cluttered with icons of all sorts. Operating a SDI application that way is horribly unnerving, as the whole screen is literally cluttered with stuff--be it application windows or desktop icons.
This is why Windows does have MDI applications. They provide a plain background without additional clutter, they operate as one application, they can be minimized with one click and they don't clutter the task bar.
I actually prefer MDI applications to virtual desktops when it comes to solely place one application on a seperate desktop, because I can have as many or as few as I like in no time whatsoever. When using Linux, most window managers involve changing preferences to add or remove a virtual desktop.
You have the 800 window problem if you're using another type of MDI anyway, it's just that they're contained in another window. Same problem, pushed down a level. It really depends on the platform's workflow. MDI vs. SDI is not the only problem, but would help a lot to make GIMP more usable on Windows. The problem you're describing is fairly old and solutions to it can be seen in quite a number of interface designs: How can you cope with lots of seperate windows? Docking is one solution, providing floating toolbars in a MDI environment is another one. Tabs are great solutions if not all information needs to be on the screen all the time. Permanently fixing toolbars to sides of the screen is another viable methodto reduce clutter.
When looking at Photoshop on Windows, you can see MDI, docking and tabs where they are appropriate. Many toolbars can be docked to sides of the window, close to every toolbar has tabs for advanced preferences or additional options. This makes Photoshop's interface astonishingly uncluttered while still providing every important option.
Fixed toolbars (think of Fireworks) also have their advantages, because they reduce clutter even more, but also take away screen real estate because they can't be moved around.
GIMP's main problem is not the feature set, but the way it works. It just does not feel native to the system. Whilst OSS aficionados might cringe at this thought, I prefer taking useless or confusing features away if it improves the look and feel of an application. If taking them away is not an option, at least disable them by standard and hide the option to enable them in a large preferences dialogue.
An example: Windows' menus aren't dockable/undockable, GIMP's are. For Windows users, this is a totally perplexing feature because it introduces even more screen/menu clutter and removes the menu from its original position, making it a toolbar. No Windows user would think of this behaviour, not even remotely. So instead of confusing users, just disable this "feature" on Windows.
And the latest version of the Gimp lets you dock any window that you want, so you can tab between commonly used tools. I find it quite flexible. This doesn't reduce screen clutter, but it's a good start.
The only problem I really see is that there aren't typically shortcuts for everything, so there are extra clicks if you want to see the main toolbox, for example. Keyboard shortcuts are a major thing to do. Just use shortcuts for almost everything and look at the competition. The main competition is Photoshop/Photoshop Elements, so try to use the same shortcuts or at least avoid putting destructive actions on commonly used PS shortcuts when planning new keyboard shortcuts.
If a program wants to appeal to "the masses," it has to offer decent Windows support unless it's some obscure networking/analysis tool intended for the geek masses (they'll happily read the manpages and use the command line or really bad interfaces, as long as it gets the Job done well and is fast). Decent Windows support doesn't mean coding like "If Windows were better and adhered to the 'Linux UI standards,' this wouldn't be such a pain to use," but to look at the Windows Interface Guidelines and code accordingly. Windows works with one desktop, that's what MDI applications are for. Other Window managers have multiple desktops and don't need MDI, but Windows does, so if your application can profit from having multiple desktops with a dedicated desktop just for the program, don't try to stick to using SDI on a platform without multiple desktops where SDI is very, very uncommon, but try using MDI instead. MDI works well enough for Windows users, so just use it if there are loads of toolbars and floating windows.
(Speaking for Windows here--I don't know how it acts on OS X) Gimpshop doesn't copy Photoshop's UI, but simply adds a large grey Window behind GIMPs toolbars. While Linux doesn't, Windows knows the concept of MDI applications. When having lots of toolbars, MDI applications (like Photoshop) are so much better than SDI applications like GIMP, because they don't clog up the taskbar and fill as much or as little of the screen as you desire. Gimpshop still clogs up the taskbar, doesn't remove the menus from the toolbars and basically just provides a grey background to work on. It just doesn't feel right. GTK makes everything worse, as it's painfully slow and doesn't look nor act native.
Just copying the UI of Photoshop would be a large improvement, because Photoshop just works and feels at least partially native to the system. Windows sees right-clicking as a means for supplemental actions, not for basic ones like GIMP offers via its large right-click menu.
GIMP might be nice for Linux users, but on Windows it just feels really bad. I doubt everyone uses Photoshop because it supports CMYK, 16-Bits of color per channel and special layer effects. There are plenty of users who deem this as important, but there are many others who don't, so the main difference is in the UI. The Photoshop UI might not be intuitive, but it gets the Job done and feels native to Windows. GIMP also gets the Job done and features a totally unintuitive UI as well, but doesn't act like a Windows program. Just copying Photoshop should be quite a good start. In fact, copying Photoshop is great and they should even copy the exact Key combinations for ease of use.
Booting another OS for internet purposes proves to be trivially easy these days, even without access to the BIOS--virtual machines are fast enough to support linux for browsing. If microsoft.com is not blocked, downloading Virtual PC and setting it up to run damn small linux or any other live cd is no problem at all.
The only way to prevent surfing to unwanted sites is dedicated hardware for whitelisting with an integrated modem to prevent simply disconnecting it from the network. But this is stupid, as it totally destroys internet experience. I'd do this for a public information terminal in a company, but not for a computer at home used by a teen.
Monitoring is a way I wouldn't want to go, as it invades privacy and can also be circumvented. I'd rather set up a VPN to a friend's house than have my internet activities monitored, not because I'd do anything forbidden, but just because I *do* value my privacy.
If you don't need HDVT capabilities, you might want to try the dreambox series by dream multimedia (http://www.dream-multimedia-tv.de/index_eng.php).
They run Linux and the top-of-the-line model even features interchangeable receivers in case you'll ever need to switch from cable to sat or vice versa.
The box is not quite cheap, but it's a nice thing to have if you don't want to set up a PC for this stuff--it just does what it's supposed to do.
The only problem I've been having is the menu structure, which is--as most of the time with utterly complex gadgetry--way too crowded to be even somewhat intuitive. Luckily, there's a web interface, allowing you to configure and organize movies from your PC.
I really wonder how these images you can see in the tube are created. I could imagine it's a kind of fog where the image is projected by the help of lasers or other strong light sources. I don't think this technique is very helpful because it requires really bulky "Displays", returning a relatively small picture. If this does ever want to become generally accepted, the viewing appliances have to shrink and return bigger pictures, perhaps by sacrificing quality over price and bigger pictures.
Is this a webpage actually? Is it just me or can't you interact with what is supposed to be a flash navigation? Actually, I think these blade racers would be great fun if it were possible to race against someone else and there were not only fully closed tubes but also things like halb-open tubes, curcscrews etc. where you can kick your opponent off the track;)
But well, this would either 1) make this toy really expensive or 2) require a really complex remote control and steering system, which would lead to 1)
But the remote control would neet a pretty wide emission angle for the light and would have to be really powerful to cope with "long" distances and these really fast travelling... "toys" A kind of RF remote control would certainly be more suitable for applications like this:)
I really wonder why the blade racers are called a high-velocity infrared racing system...
Even if they could be steered by infrared remote controls this would be utterly senseless since they'd loose contact to the remote control when doing some loops etc.
-huha
Slashdot Mirror
I don't give a heck about what you're advertising for, nor what style, images, words, whatever you use. I don't want to see your crap.
... says someone whose signature contains an ad for his website.
I do have to agree there. I don't see anything wrong in particular when it comes to limiting volume to non-dangerously high levels, especially as this will benefit everyone. If you're stupid enough to ruin your hearing in the US, well, tough luck. In the EU with mostly easily available, cheap healthcare, this will get incredibly expensive for the general populace as incident numbers start soaring. I don't see why you should cry "nanny state" here; they're not outlawing listening to loud music, they're just imposing limits on output power of MP3 players.
That said, I think the problem is the craptastic headphones that come with all players. They have to be cheap, so their frequency response will be absolutely horrible. In order to hear anything at all, you have to crank them up immensely, which is not the best thing to do in regards to your hearing. Decent phones, however, don't need to be loud, as they're clear even without being driven at extreme volume.
Credit where credit is due: Peter Molyneux has made some nice games, but that's not his greatest achievement. Molyneux has been, and still is, one of the few game developers who doesn't see himself as too good for answering press inquiries and doing dozens of interviews. I've seen some TV programmes about games and the gaming industry and in every single one of them, Molyneux gave an interview. He might talk overhyped trash from time to time (i.e. almost always), but at least he talks. If Molyneux wouldn't constantly talk about his games to anyone who's brave enough to ask, he'd long be forgotten.
I used to type on a Cherry Evolution Stream, which is quite similar to the Logitech UltraX. Now, I own several clicky keyboards including a Model M. While the UltraX has its merits, the Model M is far superior in terms of about everything. Pantograph-style laptop keys just don't cut it when it comes to real tactile feedback. As far as typing speeds go: It's nice to know your theoretical maximum, but I usually don't type faster than 60-70 wpm (although I can do about 100) simply because of my need to think before I type. If your typing speed is on a level where continuous typing is not a concern of typing, but of thinking speed, you might as well go for the nicest keyboard you can find.
The G80-3000 with click surely is a nice keyboard, but it doesn't even come close to the Model M. The Model M is a humungous piece of hardware, the lighter models weighing about 1.6 kg, with the heavier ones of them even above 2 kg. The G80-3000, on the other hand, weighs just a mere 0.96 kg. The Model M is rigid. It might be a bit creaky, but it doesn't warp like the G80-3000. The only screws to be found in the G80-3000 are two tiny screws holding the keyboard controller PCB in place, everything else is just held together by plastic clips. The key feel is still quite nice, but not as defined as the Model M's. In fact, it's another type of clicky sensation, more subdued than buckling springs or even old Alps switches. It's considerably quieter as well, making it more suitable for work environments. Plus, it's quite inexpensive for a mechanical keyboard, so I'd consider buying one for a start.
I've got both a Unicomp keyboard and a Cherry keyboard with blue MX switches, and I prefer the Unicomp with buckling springs. The blue Cherry MX are great, their availability is better and the keyboards employing them are generally much cheaper if you don't happen to live in the US (postage to old Europe for Unicomp's keyboards is about $50, so that's a considerable factor, whereas Cherry's G80-3000 can be had for as low as EUR 45), but I still prefer buckling springs. The blue MX's required force is much lower, the click is mushed and they have this very irritating "sticky" effect when released slowly. Still, they feel about a thousand times better than rubber dome keyboards.
No, they don't. Model Ms use dye sublimation printing, which is not as durable as two-shot injection molding, but much cheaper. But you'd still need to go a very long way to actually remove the lettering, so I suppose it's okay.
Games can be used to convey messages, just like books. If you take a random shooter, chances are you'll get at least an attempt at a story which acts as a reason for your gaming (the half-life series being a very good example of this). However, there is not much ideology in these games and you won't be forced to play them if you so desire or parts of the storyline do offend you.
It's different with school books or games being played at school--these should be as neutral as possible and not carry any sublimal messages. If I want science, I get a science book from a well-established science publisher, not "ballistic physics of various projectiles, proudly brought to you by the U.S. Army," even if it might be free and not contain exaggerated propaganda.
Learning about the military is okay with me, but I'd find using their material related to non-military subjects in public education highly disturbing, because it's not their business.
welcome our new rootkit overlords!
Actually, except if you'd actually like to format the computer, either choice is correct.
Proof:
Let's just look at the specific definitions of Yes and No. We'll assume "Yes" being a positive response, i.e. formatting the computer and "No" being a negative response, i.e. not formatting the computer.
First definition: Yes means No; in this we redefine Yes to being a negative response: Yes := No. (1) := Yes := No => No = No (2)
Second definition: No means Yes; in this we define No to being the Yes we already defined in (1): No
Therefore with our initial definition defining "Yes" as the positive response and "No" as the negative response, "Yes = No" (1) and "No = No) (2), we can clearly conclude our assumption being either choosing "Yes" or "No" is a negative response is correct.
q.e.d.
Uranium will last for several hundred years, even more if you reprocess it. Thorium can also be used as a nuclear fuel, but requires different reactor designs. It's more abundant than uranium, so it should last quite a while.
Actually, quite some uses have been found for nuclear fuel by-products.
No one says spent nuclear fuel is clean, but its very low quantity helps to reduce problems. Depending on reactor design, nuclear waste can be reduced to comparatively low amounts with long-lived isotopes, thus reducing the danger when being exposed to such materials.
There have been some advanced designs for breeder reactors, but cost and diminishing interest in nuclear power generation has so far prohibited their widespread use.
Nuclear waste is not automatically a green-glowing, instantly death-bringing mass of incredibly toxic material. It can often be reprocessed (recycled, if you will) and contained in long-lived storage spaces without any danger to the public.
I'm not saying nuclear waste is inherently harmless, but please do note that other forms of electricity generation produce a severely more direct and short- to mid-term impact on the environment: Mining coal destroys whole ecosystems, sinking oil tankers lead to severe problems (and are much more common than nuclear accidents!) and even enviromnentalists' beloved photo-voltaic energy requires manufacture of silicon wafers, which needs large amounts of toxic chemicals and does produce waste. Nuclear waste, by and large, just sits there giving off more or less heat and radiation, but usually is contained where no living organism can enter effortlessly.
It's a meme, but it's not true. It works out just fine as long as the "misspelled" words bear some vague resemblance to the original words, but the hypothesis of being able to read words as long as their first and last character stays in place can easily be disproven by sorting every other letter alphabetically:
Accdinorg to racceehrsh at Cabdgimre ueiinrstvy it denos't maettr waht oderr the leertts in a word are, the olny iemnoprtt thing is taht the first and last leertts are at the rghit pacle. The rest can be a taotl mess and you can sillt raed it whiotut a pbelorm. This is baceuse we do not raed eervy leettr by it self but the word as a whloe.
Words like "university," though still having their first and last characters, are no longer understandably by just sorting their characters alphabetically. The longer the word, the more prone to alphabetical sorting of characters it becomes, while short words can still be understood quite well.
The magnetic fields on board the Transrapid seem to be negligible, if you're trusting the manufacturer
Bavaria's minister-president Edmund Stoiber is quite well known for his often outrageously unintentionally funny speeches. And because the Transrapid maglev will be built in Bavaria, he also had his say.
If you're going from the main station in 10 Minutes without having to ckeck in at the airport, then you're basically starting your flight from the airportIt happened quite some time ago, but nonetheless led to quite some laughter in Germany. It's rather confusing, even in German. A recording can be seen here. For everyone not speaking German, here is a fairly rough translation (but watching the video helps. One just cannot capture this utter confusion by means of text):
If a program wants to appeal to "the masses," it has to offer decent Windows support unless it's some obscure networking/analysis tool intended for the geek masses (they'll happily read the manpages and use the command line or really bad interfaces, as long as it gets the Job done well and is fast). Decent Windows support doesn't mean coding like "If Windows were better and adhered to the 'Linux UI standards,' this wouldn't be such a pain to use," but to look at the Windows Interface Guidelines and code accordingly.
Windows works with one desktop, that's what MDI applications are for. Other Window managers have multiple desktops and don't need MDI, but Windows does, so if your application can profit from having multiple desktops with a dedicated desktop just for the program, don't try to stick to using SDI on a platform without multiple desktops where SDI is very, very uncommon, but try using MDI instead.
MDI works well enough for Windows users, so just use it if there are loads of toolbars and floating windows.
(Speaking for Windows here--I don't know how it acts on OS X) Gimpshop doesn't copy Photoshop's UI, but simply adds a large grey Window behind GIMPs toolbars.
While Linux doesn't, Windows knows the concept of MDI applications. When having lots of toolbars, MDI applications (like Photoshop) are so much better than SDI applications like GIMP, because they don't clog up the taskbar and fill as much or as little of the screen as you desire.
Gimpshop still clogs up the taskbar, doesn't remove the menus from the toolbars and basically just provides a grey background to work on. It just doesn't feel right. GTK makes everything worse, as it's painfully slow and doesn't look nor act native.
Just copying the UI of Photoshop would be a large improvement, because Photoshop just works and feels at least partially native to the system. Windows sees right-clicking as a means for supplemental actions, not for basic ones like GIMP offers via its large right-click menu.
GIMP might be nice for Linux users, but on Windows it just feels really bad. I doubt everyone uses Photoshop because it supports CMYK, 16-Bits of color per channel and special layer effects. There are plenty of users who deem this as important, but there are many others who don't, so the main difference is in the UI. The Photoshop UI might not be intuitive, but it gets the Job done and feels native to Windows. GIMP also gets the Job done and features a totally unintuitive UI as well, but doesn't act like a Windows program.
Just copying Photoshop should be quite a good start. In fact, copying Photoshop is great and they should even copy the exact Key combinations for ease of use.
Booting another OS for internet purposes proves to be trivially easy these days, even without access to the BIOS--virtual machines are fast enough to support linux for browsing. If microsoft.com is not blocked, downloading Virtual PC and setting it up to run damn small linux or any other live cd is no problem at all.
The only way to prevent surfing to unwanted sites is dedicated hardware for whitelisting with an integrated modem to prevent simply disconnecting it from the network. But this is stupid, as it totally destroys internet experience. I'd do this for a public information terminal in a company, but not for a computer at home used by a teen.
Monitoring is a way I wouldn't want to go, as it invades privacy and can also be circumvented. I'd rather set up a VPN to a friend's house than have my internet activities monitored, not because I'd do anything forbidden, but just because I *do* value my privacy.
If you don't need HDVT capabilities, you might want to try the dreambox series by dream multimedia (http://www.dream-multimedia-tv.de/index_eng.php).
They run Linux and the top-of-the-line model even features interchangeable receivers in case you'll ever need to switch from cable to sat or vice versa.
The box is not quite cheap, but it's a nice thing to have if you don't want to set up a PC for this stuff--it just does what it's supposed to do.
The only problem I've been having is the menu structure, which is--as most of the time with utterly complex gadgetry--way too crowded to be even somewhat intuitive. Luckily, there's a web interface, allowing you to configure and organize movies from your PC.
Those of you who don't want to search for the document, this is the direct URL:
1 =P TO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/srchnu m.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1='20030189597'.PGNR.&OS=DN/2 0030189597&RS=DN/20030189597
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect
It took ages to find it... *sigh*
-huha
I really wonder how these images you can see in the tube are created.
I could imagine it's a kind of fog where the image is projected by the help of lasers or other strong light sources.
I don't think this technique is very helpful because it requires really bulky "Displays", returning a relatively small picture.
If this does ever want to become generally accepted, the viewing appliances have to shrink and return bigger pictures, perhaps by sacrificing quality over price and bigger pictures.
-huha
Is this a webpage actually? Is it just me or can't you interact with what is supposed to be a flash navigation? ;)
Actually, I think these blade racers would be great fun if it were possible to race against someone else and there were not only fully closed tubes but also things like halb-open tubes, curcscrews etc. where you can kick your opponent off the track
But well, this would either
1) make this toy really expensive
or
2) require a really complex remote control and steering system, which would lead to 1)
*sigh*
-huha
But the remote control would neet a pretty wide emission angle for the light and would have to be really powerful to cope with "long" distances and these really fast travelling... "toys" :)
A kind of RF remote control would certainly be more suitable for applications like this
-huha
I really wonder why the blade racers are called a high-velocity infrared racing system...
Even if they could be steered by infrared remote controls this would be utterly senseless since they'd loose contact to the remote control when doing some loops etc. -huha