I use Opera for some sites that make Firefox crawl after a while. It's alright, but I do like Firefox's UI better, even after customizing both.
The biggest thing is tab handling. I frequently open a bunch of tabs from an index/home page. Then CTRL-Tab to the first one. I have a mouse button mapped to CTRL-W. In Opera, if I CTRL-W, it will take me back to the home page that I opened it from (the last tab that was viewed). In Firefox, it will always switch to the next tab (moves to right), until the last tab (moves to left).
So I customized Opera's CTRL-W shortcut to "close tab, switch to next" or something similar. But if I skip some tabs and jump ahead, I'll reach the end and it wraps around to the first, before I'm done with that tab set. Then I have to switch through a bunch of tabs or just click the one I want again. And even with customization, nothing stops a javascript:close() from switching to the wrong tab.
In other cases, I'm just a little more used to the Firefox UI details, but I'm glad to see they took my suggestion (Opera blog comment) of including images in the Transfers window for 9.0. Now if they could just let me customize the rest to make it a slightly more stable, fast version of Firefox.
First off, you won't get DVD quality. If current iTMS downloads are any indication, you'll get a <1 Mbps mp4, that was probably transcoded from the MPEG-2 they put on the DVD.
Second, you can already get 2 movies a week for ~$10 per month from NetFlix. Those are DVD quality with less restrictive DRM. Because they are DVDs.
I love Gimp. Even animations are relatively easy with it.
One thing I'd like to do with it is similar to the way VirtualDub or AviSynth works: saving a script of all the actions I performed on an image/video, that I can then use on other images. You can save curves, but you can't save HSV adjustments that I can tell.
Excuse my ignorance, but why do enterprises seem to most frequently use RHEL, or something like this SuSE LE 10?
Most of my experience on the desktop is with Gentoo. I've been considering Ubuntu. For the web server I use Debian.
What I like the most about them is package management, and that the install allows a truly stripped down system, with only the packages I want. (less to go wrong, imo)
Is it just for the support that they use an "enterprise" linux, or are there other differences?
Even mp3 CDs through my once-top-of-the-line Alpine deck sound noticably worse than normal CDs, due to digital compression (same as iPod). Then you have to run it through FM, decreasing the frequency bandwidth and forcing an extra D/A/D conversion. So you pay a couple hundred dollars to get worse sound quality than CDs, mp3 CDs, tapes, and even potentially FM.
A 'database' is most saliently protected as a 'trade secret' or some such nonsense, but in the end I'm not sure it matters; as I said, does your game make less money if another game uses the same database describing New York?
Yes, it would be a much less novel game with less of a thrill of seeing NYC in its full 3-D glory, and would therefore make less money.
I would say that a database of rough approximations (a few meters' accuracy) that I collected for a large region is copyrightable. If you go to those same streets and make your own measurements, you can use them, but in aggregate, your data won't look like mine anyway. Are my inaccuracies creative? Is the aggregate sum of the data intellectual property? I'd say so.
I'd say that you can't represent a real object completely without it actually being that object. In other words, any representation of reality is an interpretation that required creativity. (OTOH, I don't know how that applies to freedb, where the information was owned by the record companies/artists in the first place, not a real object)
What commitment have you made to the original architects of the buildings that you've mapped out in NY? To the workers that built the streets? Are you paying them royalties or license fees? Do they 'own' their 'design'?
Mapping out real objects using field data should entail no obligation to the original architects or contruction workers. Unless maybe you stole the designer's blueprints and sketches and copied them, instead of the real buildings as they are constructed. Like copying the inaccuracies of the measurements of my field data, copying the blueprint's inaccuracies would also show that you erm, misappropriated intellectual property.
I said that I wasn't convinced [databases] should be considered intellectual property, a term used to describe artistic works and forms of expression.
So if I spent 3 billion dollars and mapped out every cubic meter of NYC in 3-D, to within a few meters accuracy, and used that in the next Grand Theft Auto game, you are saying you should be able to just copy that data wholesale and use it in Flight Simulator 2007?
What incentive do I have to gather that kind of data if I don't even own it? Shouldn't I just wait for someone else to do it so I can copy it? How do I get a return on that investment? What if I licensed the data from a contractor? Should you be able to ignore both his and my intellectual property rights, and pay us nothing for the work that we did surveying the entire city? How, then, would I pay the surveyors in the field? How does any company that works solely with data in the information age stay in business if they don't own their data?
Right. As someone was saying in the other article, they didn't test 800x600 (where you would have seen the difference) because most people who spend $500 on a CPU and $500 on a GPU wouldn't play at that resolution.
But my opinion is that if they're testing the CPU, they should test at 800x600, simply to factor the GPU out of the equation. If they're testing for a particular game that's one thing, but they're supposed to be testing the CPU. Even if they pulled the 800x600 out into a separate table for comparison of atypical scenarios, fine, but they should still show it.
If a new generation of GPUs suddenly comes out, you'll be happy you bought the more powerful CPU, regardless of current GPU limitations.
I think it just gave people an excuse to get on the internet and express something about themselves. They don't know about web design. Before myspace, they didn't want to know. Ever try teaching somebody who doesn't know anything about computers how to design websites? They may say they want to learn, but they don't. (speaking generally here)
So you get crappy myspace pages. But at least they felt comfortable with finally making a personal page, and maybe it even got some people into email or IM. It definitely got a lot of my non-techie friends to log on to a computer more often. If you asked them to design a whole blog or site just about themselves, they probably (1) wouldn't know how to do it, (2) wouldn't be comfortable with it's open-endedness, and (3) might feel like they were being narcissistic.
There are a lot of products and services that fill the same role: making something they could have done anyway acceptable to the masses. Take the iPod for example. There were Rios before that, but they were just techie gadgets that only slightly interested my friends when I showed it to them. If instead I showed them an iPod, they'd want one. The same thing would happen with a personal site. Before myspace, they'd think it was funny if you made a site about yourself. Now everybody does it.
It's a cool idea if it helps them put IM to good use in their organization. But personally, I wouldn't trust them not to read everthing I sent through their network.
Right now, I'm using it to read the commentary on a cricket match.
Whoa! Where do you get cricket commentary for Jabber? Are there feeds for other things?
If someone asks for my IM handle, I never volunteer one of my commercial names unless I really want to talk to them, and even then I make a point of telling them that I'm on jabber but going through a gateway to get to their commercial network.
If I tried to give any of my real life friends a screen name that wasn't on one of the major networks, they'd look at me like I was crazy, then proceed to laugh at me. I don't know how to overcome that. Even if I tell them about it, they still won't use it.
I gave out Jabber accounts on my server to a few online friends. I don't think any of them use it after giving it a trial run though. Nothing tangible to gain from it, I think.
It could mean that Gaim will have to redo portions of their code for those protocols. It could mean that the friends list would work differently somehow. I don't know, that's why I asked.
I don't have a bathtub in my kitchen. It would be very easy to hire a plumber to have one installed, but I won't. Why not? Because a bathtub does not belong in a kitchen.
It's more like carrying a toolbox in the trunk of your car. Many people would have no use for it. They'd just call for help. Others, who have some technical knowledge of the subject, might find it comes in handy.
(Still a bad analogy. Many more people design at least simple websites than even the number of people who can change their oil.)
Something similar could probably be put together fairly quickly using programs like Avidemux or VirtualDub for those who don't mind distributing the work of classifying and sharing the necessary edit-decision lists.
This is really simple to implement using AviSynth, if anyone wants to try it. Just install that, an MPEG-2 (DVD) codec, and AnyDVD or DVD43 to decrypt the DVD on-the-fly. Then create a text file called myscript.avs with this code:
# Combine all the VOBs. a=DirectShowSource("E:\VIDEO_TS\VTS_01_1.VO B") b=DirectShowSource("E:\VIDEO_TS\VTS_01_2.VOB" ) AlignedSplice(a,b)
# Cut out frames 1500-1550 and 3000-3023 Trim(0,1500) ++ Trim(1550,3000) ++ Trim(3023,0)
You can then open that in any DirectShow or VfW compatible player, such as WMP. Or distribute the *.avs files to others.
Slashdot Mirror
I use Opera for some sites that make Firefox crawl after a while. It's alright, but I do like Firefox's UI better, even after customizing both.
The biggest thing is tab handling. I frequently open a bunch of tabs from an index/home page. Then CTRL-Tab to the first one. I have a mouse button mapped to CTRL-W. In Opera, if I CTRL-W, it will take me back to the home page that I opened it from (the last tab that was viewed). In Firefox, it will always switch to the next tab (moves to right), until the last tab (moves to left).
So I customized Opera's CTRL-W shortcut to "close tab, switch to next" or something similar. But if I skip some tabs and jump ahead, I'll reach the end and it wraps around to the first, before I'm done with that tab set. Then I have to switch through a bunch of tabs or just click the one I want again. And even with customization, nothing stops a javascript:close() from switching to the wrong tab.
In other cases, I'm just a little more used to the Firefox UI details, but I'm glad to see they took my suggestion (Opera blog comment) of including images in the Transfers window for 9.0. Now if they could just let me customize the rest to make it a slightly more stable, fast version of Firefox.
You could do that, but it wouldn't be very cost effective.
750 GB HDD = $400
100 pack DVD-R x 2 = $50
It's $0.03 for a $0.99 song. Don't lie.
And the first $2 million of that goes to the label for recording, promotion, etc. before the artist sees anything.
Just go to their shows or send them money direct. Seriously.
I've been using NetFlix for about 6 months, and have only rented about 5 movies. For the money I've spent, I could have owned all of those movies.
I keep telling myself it's worth it because next month I'll just rent 10 ($1.50/each).
But as I type, I have 2 movies I've already watched that I've been meaning to drop in the mailbox since Friday.
First off, you won't get DVD quality. If current iTMS downloads are any indication, you'll get a <1 Mbps mp4, that was probably transcoded from the MPEG-2 they put on the DVD.
Second, you can already get 2 movies a week for ~$10 per month from NetFlix. Those are DVD quality with less restrictive DRM. Because they are DVDs.
I love Gimp. Even animations are relatively easy with it.
One thing I'd like to do with it is similar to the way VirtualDub or AviSynth works: saving a script of all the actions I performed on an image/video, that I can then use on other images. You can save curves, but you can't save HSV adjustments that I can tell.
Is there a way to do this with Gimp?
Excuse my ignorance, but why do enterprises seem to most frequently use RHEL, or something like this SuSE LE 10?
Most of my experience on the desktop is with Gentoo. I've been considering Ubuntu. For the web server I use Debian.
What I like the most about them is package management, and that the install allows a truly stripped down system, with only the packages I want. (less to go wrong, imo)
Is it just for the support that they use an "enterprise" linux, or are there other differences?
Even mp3 CDs through my once-top-of-the-line Alpine deck sound noticably worse than normal CDs, due to digital compression (same as iPod). Then you have to run it through FM, decreasing the frequency bandwidth and forcing an extra D/A/D conversion. So you pay a couple hundred dollars to get worse sound quality than CDs, mp3 CDs, tapes, and even potentially FM.
DHTML combines HTML, JS, DOM, and CSS.
XML is in many cases the best method of sending data to the AJAX script.
Both have been part of AJAX all along.
I have about 20x as much space filled by captured TV shows than movies.
That's still legal, right?
Only 40 twenty-four days of DVD-quality porn. Less space than a Nomad. Lame.
Yes, it would be a much less novel game with less of a thrill of seeing NYC in its full 3-D glory, and would therefore make less money.
I would say that a database of rough approximations (a few meters' accuracy) that I collected for a large region is copyrightable. If you go to those same streets and make your own measurements, you can use them, but in aggregate, your data won't look like mine anyway. Are my inaccuracies creative? Is the aggregate sum of the data intellectual property? I'd say so.
I'd say that you can't represent a real object completely without it actually being that object. In other words, any representation of reality is an interpretation that required creativity. (OTOH, I don't know how that applies to freedb, where the information was owned by the record companies/artists in the first place, not a real object)
Mapping out real objects using field data should entail no obligation to the original architects or contruction workers. Unless maybe you stole the designer's blueprints and sketches and copied them, instead of the real buildings as they are constructed. Like copying the inaccuracies of the measurements of my field data, copying the blueprint's inaccuracies would also show that you erm, misappropriated intellectual property.
I agree with you, although it doesn't seem very popular on /. For example:
1. How often do you need to replace a proprietary battery in a device that just charges in a docking station?
2. How often do you need to replace the standard batteries by pulling them out (one by one) and popping them into your charger (one by one)?
I get the feeling that you have to do 2 much, much, more frequently than 1. (a few orders of magnitude more often)
I'd rather pay for the convenience of never touching those damn batteries.
So if I spent 3 billion dollars and mapped out every cubic meter of NYC in 3-D, to within a few meters accuracy, and used that in the next Grand Theft Auto game, you are saying you should be able to just copy that data wholesale and use it in Flight Simulator 2007?
What incentive do I have to gather that kind of data if I don't even own it? Shouldn't I just wait for someone else to do it so I can copy it? How do I get a return on that investment? What if I licensed the data from a contractor? Should you be able to ignore both his and my intellectual property rights, and pay us nothing for the work that we did surveying the entire city? How, then, would I pay the surveyors in the field? How does any company that works solely with data in the information age stay in business if they don't own their data?
Right. As someone was saying in the other article, they didn't test 800x600 (where you would have seen the difference) because most people who spend $500 on a CPU and $500 on a GPU wouldn't play at that resolution.
But my opinion is that if they're testing the CPU, they should test at 800x600, simply to factor the GPU out of the equation. If they're testing for a particular game that's one thing, but they're supposed to be testing the CPU. Even if they pulled the 800x600 out into a separate table for comparison of atypical scenarios, fine, but they should still show it.
If a new generation of GPUs suddenly comes out, you'll be happy you bought the more powerful CPU, regardless of current GPU limitations.
Seriously, I could open up notepad right now and type up 25 names with no bios or links and call that an article too.
It would be easy. None of those bothersome <a href>'s to worry about getting in the way of my list.
I think it just gave people an excuse to get on the internet and express something about themselves. They don't know about web design. Before myspace, they didn't want to know. Ever try teaching somebody who doesn't know anything about computers how to design websites? They may say they want to learn, but they don't. (speaking generally here)
So you get crappy myspace pages. But at least they felt comfortable with finally making a personal page, and maybe it even got some people into email or IM. It definitely got a lot of my non-techie friends to log on to a computer more often. If you asked them to design a whole blog or site just about themselves, they probably (1) wouldn't know how to do it, (2) wouldn't be comfortable with it's open-endedness, and (3) might feel like they were being narcissistic.
There are a lot of products and services that fill the same role: making something they could have done anyway acceptable to the masses. Take the iPod for example. There were Rios before that, but they were just techie gadgets that only slightly interested my friends when I showed it to them. If instead I showed them an iPod, they'd want one. The same thing would happen with a personal site. Before myspace, they'd think it was funny if you made a site about yourself. Now everybody does it.
It's a cool idea if it helps them put IM to good use in their organization. But personally, I wouldn't trust them not to read everthing I sent through their network.
Whoa! Where do you get cricket commentary for Jabber? Are there feeds for other things?
If I tried to give any of my real life friends a screen name that wasn't on one of the major networks, they'd look at me like I was crazy, then proceed to laugh at me. I don't know how to overcome that. Even if I tell them about it, they still won't use it.
I gave out Jabber accounts on my server to a few online friends. I don't think any of them use it after giving it a trial run though. Nothing tangible to gain from it, I think.
It could mean that Gaim will have to redo portions of their code for those protocols. It could mean that the friends list would work differently somehow. I don't know, that's why I asked.
I'm guessing, but I think ADS could be used to store a thumbnail with a movie file, or a transcript, or other types of metadata.
Not that it ever has been used for anything significant like that.
They must be running in on VirtualPC.
I wonder what it means for Gaim and Trillian.
Or Google's Jabber client. I have a Jabber server, but I never use it. Does anyone use Jabber?
It's more like carrying a toolbox in the trunk of your car. Many people would have no use for it. They'd just call for help. Others, who have some technical knowledge of the subject, might find it comes in handy.
(Still a bad analogy. Many more people design at least simple websites than even the number of people who can change their oil.)
This is really simple to implement using AviSynth, if anyone wants to try it. Just install that, an MPEG-2 (DVD) codec, and AnyDVD or DVD43 to decrypt the DVD on-the-fly. Then create a text file called myscript.avs with this code:
You can then open that in any DirectShow or VfW compatible player, such as WMP. Or distribute the *.avs files to others.