Not quite the same, but if you take certain HP scanners, set them to SCSI channel 0, then hold the scan button when turning them on, they play "Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring"
Reading the article, I got the impression that they weren't trying to exactly reproduce an entire pipe organ, but to provide an interim solution until the original organ can be repaired or replaced.
I would expect that the range of voices and tonal quality (not to mention cost) of the Epiphany far exceeds what can be achieved with even the best MIDI keyboards or even simulated pipe organs such as these.
Nonetheless, you must have admiration for the engineers who developed this organ. It's truly a marvelous feat of engineering.
Not to be confused with the marvelous (?) feet of engineers.
My earlier comments may have been overgeneralizing; my point was to illustrate that the end user is not the only customer, and is not the only one that Google has to answer to.
"Guess which group Google considers its customers?"
It's not webmasters. It's not end-users. It's advertisers.
Advertisers are the only ones that Google has to answer to. If they do something that makes their advertisers go away, you can bet that they will quickly reverse that decision. And, the only thing that will make advertisers go away is whatever makes end-users go away.
You see, for Google (of for any other media outlet, for that matter) the advertiser is the customer, and the end-user or reader is the product. The content is the means of delivering the product to the customer.
What defines "customer?" Someone who gives you money in exchange for goods and services.
Google does have customers other than advertisers: select webmasters who purchase Google's services for their own Intra-/Internet presences. Even here, the customer is not the end-user, but is the webmaster himself. In this case, Google's best interest is to return searches the webmaster considers favorable (which, ultimately, are those pages the webmaster thinks the end-user should see).
So, you see, Google's interests are where the money is. And the money is in advertising and select webmasters. Perhaps in Google's Internet search, they favor companies who have purchased their services. Perhaps they demote companies who have refused to, but that's only speculation on my part.
"...what if every one in 100 times, UPS thinks I might like a corporate logo bumper sticker instead of my book, they throw my book into the eternal void..."
Ahem. One in every 100 times, UPS thinks you might like to buy their insurance instead of your book, and throws your book under the truck.
Most personal computers are shipped with Windows preinstalled, powered off and unplugged. This makes Windows the most secure operating system in its default configuration.
Typically, Linux is installed with the system plugged in and powered up, making it inherently more insecure than Windows in its default configuration.
As I'm sure you've all figured out by now, anybody can read the "blacked out" portions simply by using the text select tool, and copy-pasting it into some other editor.
How else is Sun going to resuscitate its market share? If all sorts of pretty flashing lights don't help, then they're doomed.
Sun's just using Microsoft tactics: use our stuff or else.
Now, where's the Justice Department? They should be going after Sun for abuse of monopoly powers; it far outshines any other thermonuclear energy provider that Earth uses.
I had an "unpublished" landline phone number, and chose a third-party carrier for my long distance service. AT&T called me every week as long as I had that phone line, trying to sell me long distance service, no matter that every time I called, I said "no" and told them to never call again.
It seems that AT&T thinks that if you don't want to do business with them, then they automatically deserve to be on your whitelist.
Voice spam is just as bad as email spam. Even worse, since you can't deal with it on YOUR time.
1. It is their computer. 2. It is their network. 3. It is their monitor, it is their hard drive. 4. They paid for it, they can do what they want with it. 5. You are their whor^H^H^H^Hemployee. 6. They paid for you, they can do what they want with you.
Simply put, your rights as an employee are subservient to their rights as an employer in terms of the information you access in their emplyoy. Yes; you have rights over theirs when it comes to discrimination issues (age, gender, race, creed) but, in terms of information, censorship is entirely their right.
7. You have the right to leave at any time without notice and without fear of reprisal.
I see the case as being dropped, because there is no indication of actual damages. It's my understanding that usually you have to suffer damages in order to have a case.
It's possible to argue a case to prevent damages from happening (think: restraining order), but there must be a reasonable understanding of risk, which is not present with wireless devices.
I!=L&&/.!=L I am not a lawyer and neither is Slashdot
A copyright is designed to protect the expression of an idea, not the idea itself. Likewise, a patent is designed to protect the implementation of an idea, not the idea itself. Ideas and thoughts are meant to be free; there should be no rights of exclusivity on human thought.
It is worthwhile to allow exlusivity on expression and implementation; this encourages development of better ways of saying things and better ways of doing things. To allow exlusivity on ideas themselves inhibits that.
People seem to forget this, and sue someone for reimplementing an old idea, or rewriting and old thought. So you get some idiot going to court because some other knucklehead "stole" his idea, even though it was implemented differently and completely independently.
Yes, one should be able to patent a particular design of a device that turns piss into beer. At the same time, he should not be able to patent the act of turning of piss into beer.
However, this all becomes blurred when you consider a process or an algorithm; is it a form of expressing an idea ("I just wrote some code that turns piss into beer!"), a form of implementing the idea ("Let's do this to turn piss into beer!"), or is it the idea itself ("Let's turn piss into beer!")? If copyright only is filed, then only the content of the code or the draftsman's plan is protected. If a patent is filed, then the means by which the end is reached is protected, but the end itself is not. The idea process should not, under any circumstances, be protected. If the end product is tangible (beer, or the format of an airline ticket), yes, that should be patentable. If the end product is an idea (a value, or the data contained in an airline ticket), that should not be patentable.
If there's a domain controller, the workstation will set its time by that, using NetBIOS calls (net time \\server/set/yes). Otherwise, it will seek out an NTP server.
I was wrong about the "phone home every day." It actually only does it once a week.
Slashdot Mirror
Especially when "ground zero" was 70-some stories in the air.
Ever heard of "significant figures?" There's only one in 600. That means the measurement is really 600 +-50ft.
1 PSI ~= 27.6799048 inches of water ~= 6.8947573 kPa
80 inches of water ~= 3 PSI ~= 20 kPa
"I just knew SCO was going to sue God sooner or later..."
Only about the best SCO comment I've seen in a while
Not quite the same, but if you take certain HP scanners, set them to SCSI channel 0, then hold the scan button when turning them on, they play "Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring"
Reading the article, I got the impression that they weren't trying to exactly reproduce an entire pipe organ, but to provide an interim solution until the original organ can be repaired or replaced.
I would expect that the range of voices and tonal quality (not to mention cost) of the Epiphany far exceeds what can be achieved with even the best MIDI keyboards or even simulated pipe organs such as these.
Nonetheless, you must have admiration for the engineers who developed this organ. It's truly a marvelous feat of engineering.
Not to be confused with the marvelous (?) feet of engineers.
Upon reading the link re: cat toys, I'm left wondering: if the beam is invisible, how does the cat see it?
I still use Google.
My earlier comments may have been overgeneralizing; my point was to illustrate that the end user is not the only customer, and is not the only one that Google has to answer to.
Nothing like a good ol' flamewar.
"Guess which group Google considers its customers?"
It's not webmasters. It's not end-users. It's advertisers.
Advertisers are the only ones that Google has to answer to. If they do something that makes their advertisers go away, you can bet that they will quickly reverse that decision. And, the only thing that will make advertisers go away is whatever makes end-users go away.
You see, for Google (of for any other media outlet, for that matter) the advertiser is the customer, and the end-user or reader is the product. The content is the means of delivering the product to the customer.
What defines "customer?" Someone who gives you money in exchange for goods and services.
Google does have customers other than advertisers: select webmasters who purchase Google's services for their own Intra-/Internet presences. Even here, the customer is not the end-user, but is the webmaster himself. In this case, Google's best interest is to return searches the webmaster considers favorable (which, ultimately, are those pages the webmaster thinks the end-user should see).
So, you see, Google's interests are where the money is. And the money is in advertising and select webmasters. Perhaps in Google's Internet search, they favor companies who have purchased their services. Perhaps they demote companies who have refused to, but that's only speculation on my part.
Well I've got anti-anti-anti-spam software. I know all about you. You can't hide from me.
"...what if every one in 100 times, UPS thinks I might like a corporate logo bumper sticker instead of my book, they throw my book into the eternal void..."
Ahem. One in every 100 times, UPS thinks you might like to buy their insurance instead of your book, and throws your book under the truck.
Most personal computers are shipped with Windows preinstalled, powered off and unplugged. This makes Windows the most secure operating system in its default configuration.
Typically, Linux is installed with the system plugged in and powered up, making it inherently more insecure than Windows in its default configuration.
Billboards don't jump out in the road in front of your car.
As I'm sure you've all figured out by now, anybody can read the "blacked out" portions simply by using the text select tool, and copy-pasting it into some other editor.
"Sun delivers yet another shot at Earth"
How else is Sun going to resuscitate its market share? If all sorts of pretty flashing lights don't help, then they're doomed.
Sun's just using Microsoft tactics: use our stuff or else.
Now, where's the Justice Department? They should be going after Sun for abuse of monopoly powers; it far outshines any other thermonuclear energy provider that Earth uses.
I had an "unpublished" landline phone number, and chose a third-party carrier for my long distance service. AT&T called me every week as long as I had that phone line, trying to sell me long distance service, no matter that every time I called, I said "no" and told them to never call again.
It seems that AT&T thinks that if you don't want to do business with them, then they automatically deserve to be on your whitelist.
Voice spam is just as bad as email spam. Even worse, since you can't deal with it on YOUR time.
This has nothing to do with silicone artwork.
This is a simple issue of Corporate Rights.
1. It is their computer.
2. It is their network.
3. It is their monitor, it is their hard drive.
4. They paid for it, they can do what they want with it.
5. You are their whor^H^H^H^Hemployee.
6. They paid for you, they can do what they want with you.
Simply put, your rights as an employee are subservient to their rights as an employer in terms of the information you access in their emplyoy. Yes; you have rights over theirs when it comes to discrimination issues (age, gender, race, creed) but, in terms of information, censorship is entirely their right.
7. You have the right to leave at any time without notice and without fear of reprisal.
I see the case as being dropped, because there is no indication of actual damages. It's my understanding that usually you have to suffer damages in order to have a case.
It's possible to argue a case to prevent damages from happening (think: restraining order), but there must be a reasonable understanding of risk, which is not present with wireless devices.
I!=L&&/.!=L
I am not a lawyer and neither is Slashdot
How are you going to compile a Linux kernel without GCC? And how are you going to compile GCC without a Linux kernel?
Hmmm... the phrase "orbital insertion" would be more appropriate if the craft was approaching Uranus.
A copyright is designed to protect the expression of an idea, not the idea itself. Likewise, a patent is designed to protect the implementation of an idea, not the idea itself. Ideas and thoughts are meant to be free; there should be no rights of exclusivity on human thought.
It is worthwhile to allow exlusivity on expression and implementation; this encourages development of better ways of saying things and better ways of doing things. To allow exlusivity on ideas themselves inhibits that.
People seem to forget this, and sue someone for reimplementing an old idea, or rewriting and old thought. So you get some idiot going to court because some other knucklehead "stole" his idea, even though it was implemented differently and completely independently.
Yes, one should be able to patent a particular design of a device that turns piss into beer. At the same time, he should not be able to patent the act of turning of piss into beer.
However, this all becomes blurred when you consider a process or an algorithm; is it a form of expressing an idea ("I just wrote some code that turns piss into beer!"), a form of implementing the idea ("Let's do this to turn piss into beer!"), or is it the idea itself ("Let's turn piss into beer!")? If copyright only is filed, then only the content of the code or the draftsman's plan is protected. If a patent is filed, then the means by which the end is reached is protected, but the end itself is not. The idea process should not, under any circumstances, be protected. If the end product is tangible (beer, or the format of an airline ticket), yes, that should be patentable. If the end product is an idea (a value, or the data contained in an airline ticket), that should not be patentable.
I'm sure that SCO would like to enforce copyright on this little plot:
1. Sue the pants of off $COMPANY
2. ???
3. Profit!
I think he's looking for something automatic on the sender end. A pre-paid cell phone isn't going to help much.
No article on webcams would be complete without mentioning the coffeecam, arguably the world's first webcam.
It came online in November 1993 (the camera was actually put in service late 1991) but sadly, monitored its last pot of coffee on 22 Aug 2001.
R.I.P., Number One.
If there's a domain controller, the workstation will set its time by that, using NetBIOS calls (net time \\server /set /yes). Otherwise, it will seek out an NTP server.
I was wrong about the "phone home every day." It actually only does it once a week.