you would thing that with the technology of Glasses with scratch resistant coatings they would add that to this CD/DVD type
Not that the scratch resistant coating on my glasses help that much... most minor scratches on media doesnt affect it's readability (unless it is on the top/label surface). Major scratches on the bottom that affect media readability wont be prevented with the anti-scratch technology used on glasses.
The better idea would be a better coating on the label side, or like on some old CDs, a second layer over the media substrate layer. I still have some old CDs that had a second plastic layer - thus embedding the actual media layer between two plastic layers and protecting the media from the types of scratches that are the primary cause of data loss. You cant seem to buy disks like that anymore... oh well...
Sadly, this is all old technology... like so much others... that sit in the recesses of IBM Labs. They announced this almost a decade ago. But, like so many of their great discoveries and inventions it sits buried away someplace in the back of IBM Research Labs.
Reading the IBM Research site can be quite amusing. They come up with and even do proof of concept models of so many wonderful things that only see the light of day to their own staff... like the city-wide wireless networks and palm-top computers they used on those networks back in the 80's - or the 2.4GHz wireless PC and laptop cards they released shortly after that (but seem to have forgotten to tell the public about - though you can still find one on eBay every now and then).
They keep inventing the wheel, move on to play with their newest toy (discarding their old one), and then someone else in the world, usually years later, comes up with a brilliant (but already done by IBM) idea.
IBM has always reminded me of Raiders of the Lost Ark... you know, that building in the end with tons of really cool stuff, all boxed away collecting dust? I truly believe one corner of IBM Research/Labs complex is like that - a place where all their "old" toys (inventions) get boxed and put away as soon as their scientists come up with a new toy that makes them forget the older ones.
I'm still waiting on (the years and years old) their Roentgen based LCDs... computers are definitly powerful enough... they even had models with full casing and all - and supposedly offered them for sale with (at the time) systems using multiple video cards to drive the insanely high resolution. 40,000 pixels per square inch...
That one was announced well over 10 years ago, and demo'd 8 years ago. It exists... you could actually buy it for a time... if you happened to have noticed the Press Release when it came out and knew who to talk to at IBM to buy one.
So anyway, holographic storage (on levels surpassing this "new" development) is old news... worthless old news (because IBM does nothing with all their great inventions - at least not externally). Guess it's a good thing someone else decided to try what IBM already did. Or perhaps, like most of the technology in computers (ethernet, many patents on the optical drives currently used, cpu manufacture tech and so much more), perhaps IBM is content just reaping the royalties while someone else announces and delivers the product that "they" envisioned.
Fortunately, other than paying IBM royalties on the patents, this small company will have smooth sailing... IBM seems to care very little what happens as long as they get their check. You never see them running around yelling "we invented the technology that allows that!" or even require any such notice on all the hardware that is built today. This is a small company, that in that respect, probably has a great chance... if this is based off IBM's patents and designs, then especially so - as IBM will ensure they dont get bothered. That seems to be something else they are good at - and often have invested a bunch of money to ensure that the company developing off of IBM's tech has a chance to succeed. We'll see... maybe they invented their wheel totally independent and still dont realize IBM already has patents and press releases in that area - and working models.
Yeah, IBM was great with their docs... even today, many of their Intel based servers have full pinouts and voltages in their Service Manuals... kinda makes sense when some of the machines cost small fortunes... the Netfinity 7000 M10 I bought (on eBay, really cheap) was originally around $15K... you can sure as hell bet if something went wrong (and I had purchased it new) I'd be checking every damn thing in there referenced before I laid out another $15K... fortunately, I started working on PCs before their components were "disposable" or "pull out and replace with a new one"... and even more fortunately, since I buy the few year old models on eBay, parts are very cheap... and even better, the machines are so redundant I have time to buy a replacement part for almost anything in the machine, and leave it running with the failing part till the replacement comes in. No more BIOS source, but they do list the BIOS commands supported which is nice.
[OT] And the Netfinity and it's replacement line are really sweet and very tolerant anyway... I (half asleep at the time) populated mine's memory board with 16 modules (need pairs of 4 - or so the Service Manual and User Guide claim). One was half seated (one end not even in)... instead of the customary "BEEEEEEP", or blank screen, or smoke/sizzle/pop/etc I would have expected, the machine booted to it's BIOS screen, started it's ridiculously intensive startup diags, and reported "Memory module in Bank 3, Slot 1 failed diagnostics. Disabling slot." and booted right up - with one of 4 modules in a slot deactivated. No harm done, and the machine really didnt care - other than to log the event and warn me before boot. Well built (heck, the thing supposedly can handle a 20KV ESD!!! Not that I am about to test that - regardless of what the Service Manual says), and well documented, right down to every pin-out for the busses, ports, memory assemblies, fans, power supplies, controllers and cards that come with it. Of course, the manual is gi-normous... but it's worth it when there's a problem...
[Back on Topic]
I suspect the IBM Monochrome Display Adapter card was designed to conform to that standard.
I suspect the same as well... though just not sure how factors like price and readily available tech (from earlier models) dictated the choice (over say, compatibility with an existing "standard") - or perhaps a bit of both? Though I'd lean more towards the conformance side as you seem to be.
Almost exactly... the particular laws that govern the areas the RIAA/MPAA operate in are a lot more murky and difficult for judges to understand or interpret (technology and all). Some states are moving towards having divisions of their judicial system where there are judges with technological training - as well as legal training specific to technology - just to alleviate those issue.
Regardless, laws change, OR pressure is put on related parts of the industry (DVD player makers, mp3 player makers, etc) to make such things impossible - often brought about by these cartels... and while what you say below is legal - every single one of them are things that the **AA and other bodies are trying to make illegal (through law) AND/OR impossible (through "deals" with the related hardware manufacturers).
If I watch a TV show live, It's okay. (Even if I don't watch the commercials.)
Watching live would be ok, but proposals have been put forth to make skipping the commercials impossible or difficult - ridiculous, huh? This would be implemented in a couple possible ways, from synchronized commercials, to the inability to change the channel during one. No, this isnt a joke. I think this one failed, but it has been talked about on some major financial mags.
If I record a TV show with a VCR and watch it later, It's okay.
Skipping the commercials may become illegal - or impossible due to potential laws or standards that the industry are pushing (2 phase attack - either make skipping them illegal (pretty much dropped) or make the creation of DVRs that allow skipping commercials illegal - or push vendors to make them regardless of whether a law exists (still being pushed). If they succeed in the 2nd one, then it will be a DMCA violation to circumvent the copy protection on that digital recording or stream to bypass the commercials... neat huh? They are boxing that one in nicely.
If I record a TV show on a DVR and watch it later, It's okay.
Yep, it is... though a big push has been put on making such recordings time-sensitive, so they expire after sitting there for x number of days... we'll also see where that one (quietly) goes...
If I have a friend record a TV show (VCR or DVR) and give me the recording so I can watch it later, It's okay.
Another one that the industry has tried to change by setting precedents (and failing) and rewriting the laws.
But back to the main point. These are civil suits - not criminal ones. And in this society (right or wrong), anyone can sue anyone else for anything (that's a civil violation) whether it happened or not. After that, even if "in the right" you still better have a good lawyer, AND hope you have a judge that understands tech law and technology at a suitable level.
In the past, the **AA have not had to follow the law, because the judges didnt understand those laws or the technology relevant to determining if laws were even being broken. That seems to be changing... and I think this latest scenario is just an example of the **AA trying out a different "business model" - and so far failing with no repercussions.
BUT...
If my 'friend' is an unknown person sharing a bit torrent, it's NOT okay?
Yeah, that isn't ok. Maybe it seems like it should be. Under certain circumstances, based off the law that governs taping things on TV, loaning out a DVD to a friend, etc it would seem legal (those certain circumstances being letting your friend download/view it from your personal torrent - those circumstances would NOT be seeding a torrent so everyone and their dead grandmothers could do the same - that falls under the distribution category - which would be illegal in any of your scenarios).
Additionally, the many of the laws that govern sound recordings
And under NT/XP/2K/Warp/eComStation, by making it a REXX script, I can make it something the command line CALLS when opening, also changing colors, directories, etc as needed (or as referenced by what folder I was in when I opened the command line). And I have to type nothing. I can have any number of different command line icons opening at any number of different resolutions, locations, other programs spawned, etc, all by calling the same script - which will determine by location of the click/call what settings to use.
Actually, 80 columns (by 25 rows on the PC) was due to memory addressing, which is why other modes (80x50, 132x, etc) came later with more powerful video cards. 4 kibibytes of memory on a video card could only do so much. So, while the "standard" was picked to be the same as on other types of equipment (mainframes, mini-computers), the limitation was also a requirement of the amount of memory and how the IBM MDA card used it. Now whether the hardware limited the resolution, or the resolution chosen was what decided the hardware design, I dont know... but that information can be found in this manual - if you can find it: "IBM Personal Computer Hardware Library: Technical Reference" - I used to have access to a copy... but that was decades ago.
Actually, the question I was referring to was this part:
Given that modern graphical displays (and all popular editors) are capable of far more, is it time we came up with a new standard-sized terminal?
We dont need a standard sized terminal - in almost any environment. We just need to determine that "standard" for ourselves.
You are correct though that limiting one's code to 80 columns is ludicrous nowadays - though I have seen very few instances of that - and personally never subscribed to that "convention" - especially since I like tabbing my loops, subroutines, branches and anything else that makes sense so it is visually formatted properly - which would reduce my 80 columns to a lot less.
So, I wholeheartedly agree with your point - though you missed what part of the post I was commenting on; which was the section I quoted (and probably should have in my original post - my apologies).
Doesnt virtually every OS and their command line interfaces allow that number to be changed?
In OS/2 or eComStation, I simply have all command lines call a simple REXX script that changes them to 150,50 (cols,rows) or some other variant depending on the particular machine's maximum native resolution (and LCD size). This same script would work under XP and most previous versions of NT (with some limitations on the various cols,rows permitted). This works just as well at full screen command line as it does in VIO command line sessions.
The *nix setups should allow a similar task, just as easily scriptable.
So, what is the point here? Make it the default in your environment/build/whatever - and done deal!
And if you dont think it is, check out my MySpace page.... but what about dominant males and their male partners? I wonder if anyone has measured that? Is it something to do with the way the pheremones act only on a female partner? Any partner (male or female), or any person who has had sufficient exposure?
People seem to think that no longer buying RIAA member products will solve these issues, but...
Not buying their product(s) just gives them more fuel to feed the fire they started. They keep using declining record sales (that they claim is due to piracy) to justify these suits, and even worse, to justify lobbying Congress to change laws to allow them even more power and do things (investigative and otherwise) that currently are illegal - including the right to install SpyWare on people's machines to track and ensure they are only playing licensed music (which since they dont follow us to the stores, is not possible - it only allows them the ability to spy on the public and amass a lot of private information). It's called the CanSpy Act, and is one of numerous efforts underway all under the guise of stopping the (in their mind) major cause of their declining CD sales (which they claim - and maybe even believe - is music piracy).
No, No, No... You DO have a good idea... hope the tone of my post didnt make you think I thought otherwise... but why dont you add to that idea a slight variant on it? Why cant people just log into their computers and do the same? Maybe even select what times they will be listening to the station, and have the station's computer "raffle off" that time slot depending on how many people requested songs to fill it?
What would be cool (though not for DJ's) would be to combine the "music playing robot" with some AI. Set up a phone bank (obviously hooked up to a computer). Link it to your music catalog. Let people call in and "request" a song. Once a song gets x amount of votes, play it in the next rotation.
This would not necessarily work because too many stations use a play for pay model. The label doesnt pay, it's a lot less likely your music will get played. Even with the new laws that are supposed to guarantee x number of hours for Indy labels and such, that still accounts for very little play time not corporately endorsed.
Of course, for the Sheeple who only listen to the (one hit wonder, here today, gone tomorrow) music they are told to ("Crap 40"), I guess it may work very well...
Never mind, good idea after all... I keep forgetting the Sheeple outnumber us...;-)
I too agree about T-Mo... I've had numerous problems with my phones (not with T-Mo's service), and they have always been very helpful and resolved them.
"Lost" my phone once on a construction site (dropped it while on a ladder, climbed in the house and came down and the neighbor already stole it)... called T-Mobile, they deactivated the account instantly and were ready to set me up with a replacement. The neighbor returned the phone he "found" the next morning (after trying to make a bunch of calls, and I am guessing failing). T-Mo reactivated the account shortly after I called them to let them know. Before I realized it was stolen, they (offered to and then) stayed on the phone with me while I searched the yard and street and kept ringing the phone to try to help me find it. I was using someone else's phone, had already tried that - but didnt realize the phone was already taken by the neighbor, and didnt want to wait the couple days for a replacement... so I tried again with their help while they stayed on the phone.
Switched from the standard, generic free phone of the time to a Treo600 unlocked (and "unsupported" by T-Mo at that time)... couldnt get Internet working and didnt know how to set up the rest of the features. Called them, and received by far, the best support ever from a phone company - on a phone they don't officially support!
Same deal with issues with my Treo 650 when I called them (an unlocked Cingular version)
Again same deal with any billing issue - which was twice when payments went lost (yes, they were sent). Unlike AT&T, they didnt hold the account hostage while things were resolved... they let everything proceed as normal while they investigated it. The payments were eventually found, processed and fees reversed... all the while my phone service kept working.
They've politely, intelligently and competently stayed on the phone with me for various issues; called back numerous times while I was working with them to get my Internet working on the Treo 600 and Treo 650 (required changing certain settings, and resetting the phone), and then ensured all was well afterwards - all for phones that at the time they didnt officially support.
They may not (yet) have the fastest Internet (but it is cheap), but I like the (customer) service so well, that I am sticking with them for a while yet.
Unfortunately, for many people, (the expenses of raising kids), food, clothing and a place to live (and a mode of transport to take them to the job that pays for those) are "shit (they) dont have the cash for"... but must have to live in this society... which builds their debt.
No easy answer for a system that is obviously broken when the very essentials to survive in this society are beyond the income of most people.
Also, it would mean that instead of taking banknotes to a bank and exchanging them for gold or silver, people would be able to take just about anything that burns to the Sociedade Municipal de Iluminaçao e Traçao and exchange it for electricity meter tokens!
--
Every time you talk to your neighbours over the fence, you're depriving your phone company of revenue.
Hmmm... like AOL CDs... except then everyone in the country would be instant millionaires...
No, I considered that (even if it wasnt MS, who from working with them in the past, I know not to trust) I would use my own backup scheme (NAS, USB, SCSI array)...
However, by posting or otherwise providing your submission, you are granting to the public free permission to:
* use, copy, distribute, display, publish and modify your submission, each in connection with the service;
* publish your name in connection with your submission; and
* grant these permissions to other persons.
So they can sell or re-distribute your work, and give others permission to do the same...
And then there is this section...
9. Privacy.
We consider your use of the service to be private. However, we may access or disclose information about you, your account and/or the content of your communications, in order to: (1) comply with the law or legal process served on us; (2) enforce and investigate potential violations of this contract; including use of this service to participate in, or facilitate, activities that violate the law; or (3) protect the rights, property, or safety of Microsoft, its employees, its customers or the public. You consent to the access and disclosures outlined in this section.
We may use technology or other means to protect the service, protect our customers, or stop you from breaching this contract. These means may include, for example, filtering to stop spam or increase security. These means may hinder or break your use of the service.
In order to provide you the service, we may collect certain information about service performance, your machine and your service use. We may automatically upload this information from your machine. This data will not personally identify you. You may read about this information collection in more detail in the privacy policy at http://privacy.microsoft.com./
Which we have learned from previous cases (in court) and previous anti-trust actions, truly means that MS WILL collect personally identifiable information, under the clause of better serving you/better maintaining their service (which is vaguely covered in the related link they provided - and stretched in reality/practice to include such actions).
And then this section:
19. Assignment.
We may assign this contract, in whole or in part, at any time with or without notice to you. You may not assign this contract, or any part of it, to any other person. Any attempt by you to do so is void. You may not transfer to anyone else, either temporarily or permanently, any rights to use the service or any part of the service.
Which allows them the rights to permanently or temporarily re-assign their rights to others - which translates into "we can give anyone whatever we want that you upload, and the rights to see all the data we collect on you - as defined in the parts of the agreement where you gave us those rights - but you cannot do the same."
Just some of the relevant ones I gleaned...
Ah well... it's to be expected... and a far cry from Google's attitude of keeping your private data private. Though they (MS) have re-worded the "We can give away or sell or re-license your content" section to be more ambiguous, it is still there... along with the "we'll gather whatever information we want on the basis of improving the service" section.
The most relevant information to this whole thing (to me) is the EULA MS is foisting on people. Some of their previous EULAs for their online properties have included giving them the right to sell, market and/or redistribute any content you create and upload to those online properties. That, and other privacy issues (using the information to profile you in some manner and then sell ads to you via their LiveSearch stuff for instance - as referenced in a previous post regarding their work on obtaining as much private, identifying data on people as possible) are things I'd like to see clearly addressed and spelled out in their EULA.
I am also interested in how this all fits in with their current DRM schemes and related practices. Will they DRM any music I upload? Report me to the RIAA? Assume the program archives I upload are pirated and sue me?
All in all, I see this service as one for only the brain dead - based off MS's previous track record for trustability. (Yeah, it's probably not a real word, get over it).
Non RIAA music is subject to the same royalties via Internet Radio. There is the problem. Your choice (when it comes to Internet Radio) is thus, listen to nothing, since the RIAA/SoundXchange collects the money (that the artists may - or may not see) - all while killing off any Internet Radio station without the money to pay these exhorbitant fees - leaving who? RIAA's affiliates/members? That's my guess.
Then how about I quote Wikipedia where it states that more (and more) dictionaries and reference books are considering it an accepted form?
Appearance in reference books
One way to follow the progress of and sentiments toward irregardless is by studying how it is described in references throughout the twentieth century. Webster's New International Dictionary (2nd. Ed. Unabridged) described the word as an erroneous or humorous form of regardless, and attributing it to the United States. Although irregardless was beginning to make its way into the American lexicon, it still was not universally recognized and was missing completely from Fowler's Modern English Usage,[3] published in 1965, nor is irregardless mentioned under the entry for regardless therein. In the last twenty-five years, irregardless has become a common entry in dictionaries and usage reference books. It appears in a wide range of dictionaries including: Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English Language Unabridged (1961, repr. 2002),[4] The Barnhart Dictionary of Etymology (1988), The American Heritage Dictionary (Second College Edition, 1991),[5] Microsoft Encarta College Dictionary (2001), and Webster's New World College Dictionary (Fourth Edition, 2004).[6]This word was first seen in print in the Gordon family anthology.
Or the summary...
Summary
Irregardless seems to be moving slowly in the direction of standardization.[citation needed] It has gone from nonexistence in the 1910 publication of Etymological Dictionary of the English Language,[7] to being a normality in modern dictionary publications, and it frequently occurs in edited professional prose. The fact that its listing as a "humorous usage" has practically disappeared today supplies further evidence in favor of acceptance. However, strong resistance to this word still remains. Australian linguist Pam Peters (The Cambridge Guide to English Usage, 2004) suggests that irregardless has become fetishized, since natural examples of this word in corpora of written and spoken English are greatly outnumbered by examples where it is in fact only cited as an incorrect term.
All of which indicate that it is becoming (if not already) (a) widely accepted (variant of the word regardless) - all irregardless of your wishes on the matter.
And more importantly, this whole thread section is quite off-topic. The original post (which wasnt by me) was quite comprehensible (ir)regardless of the poster's word selection.
Enjoy your +3 Informative/Interesting for being wrong - while it lasts...;-) I'm sure I'll earn another -1 OffTopic to make up for it!:-)
irregardless - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ir-i-gahrd-lis] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
-adverb Nonstandard.
regardless.
[Origin: 1910-15; ir-2 (prob. after irrespective) + regardless]
--Usage note Irregardless is considered nonstandard because of the two negative elements ir- and -less. It was probably formed on the analogy of such words as irrespective, irrelevant, and irreparable. Those who use it, including on occasion educated speakers, may do so from a desire to add emphasis. Irregardless first appeared in the early 20th century and was perhaps popularized by its use in a comic radio program of the 1930s.
Non-standard but accepted as a word for quite some time due to almost a century of usage.
In response to claims that Vista's "Instant Search" slows competing products, Microsoft agreed to give competitors technical information to help optimize performance.
Microsoft said it expects these changes to be available with its first service pack for Vista, putting to rest speculation among Microsoft watchers that the company would do away with its practice of catchall software upgrades. The software maker plans to release an early version of Service Pack 1 by the end of the year.
A rather vague statement that doesnt specify exactly what changes they are going to make to allow competing products to work - in a Service Pack that will come out ?when?... I'd prefer seeing details explaining what it will take for end-users and OEMs to select what search tool they wish to use/incorporate. And then the next factor - at what cost to the OEMs? None? Increased licensing fee for each OEM copy (kinda like the added Windows tax they used to charge to OEMs who released/sold non-Windows machines)?
I also would have preferred seeing a link to (or quote from) the actual MS statement - not a paraphrase by a journalist who may or may not have interpreted the statement correctly or fully.
And what does
Microsoft agreed to give competitors technical information to help optimize performance.
mean? Access to APIs? A method of disabling the conflicting Vista Instant Search components? A method that requires competitors to write to the APIs/subsystem that Instant Search uses (as opposed to plugging in their own search code)?
Yeah, I read the article... I just dont know exactly what it is saying as it is very vague on actual details that are relevant to the end-results Google and a bunch of end-users are looking for.
To me, that means I have yet to see a clear-cut promise of much of anything useful from Microsoft in this area.
Slashdot Mirror
Not that the scratch resistant coating on my glasses help that much... most minor scratches on media doesnt affect it's readability (unless it is on the top/label surface). Major scratches on the bottom that affect media readability wont be prevented with the anti-scratch technology used on glasses.
The better idea would be a better coating on the label side, or like on some old CDs, a second layer over the media substrate layer. I still have some old CDs that had a second plastic layer - thus embedding the actual media layer between two plastic layers and protecting the media from the types of scratches that are the primary cause of data loss. You cant seem to buy disks like that anymore... oh well...
Sadly, this is all old technology... like so much others... that sit in the recesses of IBM Labs. They announced this almost a decade ago. But, like so many of their great discoveries and inventions it sits buried away someplace in the back of IBM Research Labs.
http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/rd/443/ashle y.html
Reading the IBM Research site can be quite amusing. They come up with and even do proof of concept models of so many wonderful things that only see the light of day to their own staff... like the city-wide wireless networks and palm-top computers they used on those networks back in the 80's - or the 2.4GHz wireless PC and laptop cards they released shortly after that (but seem to have forgotten to tell the public about - though you can still find one on eBay every now and then).
They keep inventing the wheel, move on to play with their newest toy (discarding their old one), and then someone else in the world, usually years later, comes up with a brilliant (but already done by IBM) idea.
IBM has always reminded me of Raiders of the Lost Ark... you know, that building in the end with tons of really cool stuff, all boxed away collecting dust? I truly believe one corner of IBM Research/Labs complex is like that - a place where all their "old" toys (inventions) get boxed and put away as soon as their scientists come up with a new toy that makes them forget the older ones.
I'm still waiting on (the years and years old) their Roentgen based LCDs... computers are definitly powerful enough... they even had models with full casing and all - and supposedly offered them for sale with (at the time) systems using multiple video cards to drive the insanely high resolution. 40,000 pixels per square inch...
http://domino.watson.ibm.com/comm/wwwr_thinkrese arch.nsf/pages/fine498.html
That one was announced well over 10 years ago, and demo'd 8 years ago. It exists... you could actually buy it for a time... if you happened to have noticed the Press Release when it came out and knew who to talk to at IBM to buy one.
So anyway, holographic storage (on levels surpassing this "new" development) is old news... worthless old news (because IBM does nothing with all their great inventions - at least not externally). Guess it's a good thing someone else decided to try what IBM already did. Or perhaps, like most of the technology in computers (ethernet, many patents on the optical drives currently used, cpu manufacture tech and so much more), perhaps IBM is content just reaping the royalties while someone else announces and delivers the product that "they" envisioned.
Fortunately, other than paying IBM royalties on the patents, this small company will have smooth sailing... IBM seems to care very little what happens as long as they get their check. You never see them running around yelling "we invented the technology that allows that!" or even require any such notice on all the hardware that is built today. This is a small company, that in that respect, probably has a great chance... if this is based off IBM's patents and designs, then especially so - as IBM will ensure they dont get bothered. That seems to be something else they are good at - and often have invested a bunch of money to ensure that the company developing off of IBM's tech has a chance to succeed. We'll see... maybe they invented their wheel totally independent and still dont realize IBM already has patents and press releases in that area - and working models.
Yeah, IBM was great with their docs... even today, many of their Intel based servers have full pinouts and voltages in their Service Manuals... kinda makes sense when some of the machines cost small fortunes... the Netfinity 7000 M10 I bought (on eBay, really cheap) was originally around $15K... you can sure as hell bet if something went wrong (and I had purchased it new) I'd be checking every damn thing in there referenced before I laid out another $15K... fortunately, I started working on PCs before their components were "disposable" or "pull out and replace with a new one"... and even more fortunately, since I buy the few year old models on eBay, parts are very cheap... and even better, the machines are so redundant I have time to buy a replacement part for almost anything in the machine, and leave it running with the failing part till the replacement comes in. No more BIOS source, but they do list the BIOS commands supported which is nice.
[OT] And the Netfinity and it's replacement line are really sweet and very tolerant anyway... I (half asleep at the time) populated mine's memory board with 16 modules (need pairs of 4 - or so the Service Manual and User Guide claim). One was half seated (one end not even in)... instead of the customary "BEEEEEEP", or blank screen, or smoke/sizzle/pop/etc I would have expected, the machine booted to it's BIOS screen, started it's ridiculously intensive startup diags, and reported "Memory module in Bank 3, Slot 1 failed diagnostics. Disabling slot." and booted right up - with one of 4 modules in a slot deactivated. No harm done, and the machine really didnt care - other than to log the event and warn me before boot. Well built (heck, the thing supposedly can handle a 20KV ESD!!! Not that I am about to test that - regardless of what the Service Manual says), and well documented, right down to every pin-out for the busses, ports, memory assemblies, fans, power supplies, controllers and cards that come with it. Of course, the manual is gi-normous... but it's worth it when there's a problem...
[Back on Topic]
I suspect the IBM Monochrome Display Adapter card was designed to conform to that standard.I suspect the same as well... though just not sure how factors like price and readily available tech (from earlier models) dictated the choice (over say, compatibility with an existing "standard") - or perhaps a bit of both? Though I'd lean more towards the conformance side as you seem to be.
-Rob
IANAL...
Exactly.
Almost exactly... the particular laws that govern the areas the RIAA/MPAA operate in are a lot more murky and difficult for judges to understand or interpret (technology and all). Some states are moving towards having divisions of their judicial system where there are judges with technological training - as well as legal training specific to technology - just to alleviate those issue.
Regardless, laws change, OR pressure is put on related parts of the industry (DVD player makers, mp3 player makers, etc) to make such things impossible - often brought about by these cartels... and while what you say below is legal - every single one of them are things that the **AA and other bodies are trying to make illegal (through law) AND/OR impossible (through "deals" with the related hardware manufacturers).
If I watch a TV show live, It's okay. (Even if I don't watch the commercials.)
Watching live would be ok, but proposals have been put forth to make skipping the commercials impossible or difficult - ridiculous, huh? This would be implemented in a couple possible ways, from synchronized commercials, to the inability to change the channel during one. No, this isnt a joke. I think this one failed, but it has been talked about on some major financial mags.
If I record a TV show with a VCR and watch it later, It's okay.
Skipping the commercials may become illegal - or impossible due to potential laws or standards that the industry are pushing (2 phase attack - either make skipping them illegal (pretty much dropped) or make the creation of DVRs that allow skipping commercials illegal - or push vendors to make them regardless of whether a law exists (still being pushed). If they succeed in the 2nd one, then it will be a DMCA violation to circumvent the copy protection on that digital recording or stream to bypass the commercials... neat huh? They are boxing that one in nicely.
If I record a TV show on a DVR and watch it later, It's okay.
Yep, it is... though a big push has been put on making such recordings time-sensitive, so they expire after sitting there for x number of days... we'll also see where that one (quietly) goes...
If I have a friend record a TV show (VCR or DVR) and give me the recording so I can watch it later, It's okay.
Another one that the industry has tried to change by setting precedents (and failing) and rewriting the laws.
But back to the main point. These are civil suits - not criminal ones. And in this society (right or wrong), anyone can sue anyone else for anything (that's a civil violation) whether it happened or not. After that, even if "in the right" you still better have a good lawyer, AND hope you have a judge that understands tech law and technology at a suitable level.
In the past, the **AA have not had to follow the law, because the judges didnt understand those laws or the technology relevant to determining if laws were even being broken. That seems to be changing... and I think this latest scenario is just an example of the **AA trying out a different "business model" - and so far failing with no repercussions.
BUT...
If my 'friend' is an unknown person sharing a bit torrent, it's NOT okay?
Yeah, that isn't ok. Maybe it seems like it should be. Under certain circumstances, based off the law that governs taping things on TV, loaning out a DVD to a friend, etc it would seem legal (those certain circumstances being letting your friend download/view it from your personal torrent - those circumstances would NOT be seeding a torrent so everyone and their dead grandmothers could do the same - that falls under the distribution category - which would be illegal in any of your scenarios).
Additionally, the many of the laws that govern sound recordings
Yes... but I prefer
Step 1: Open Command Prompt
Done.
And under NT/XP/2K/Warp/eComStation, by making it a REXX script, I can make it something the command line CALLS when opening, also changing colors, directories, etc as needed (or as referenced by what folder I was in when I opened the command line). And I have to type nothing. I can have any number of different command line icons opening at any number of different resolutions, locations, other programs spawned, etc, all by calling the same script - which will determine by location of the click/call what settings to use.
Or you can use your two step method...
I like mine better... but that's just me. :-)
Actually, 80 columns (by 25 rows on the PC) was due to memory addressing, which is why other modes (80x50, 132x, etc) came later with more powerful video cards. 4 kibibytes of memory on a video card could only do so much. So, while the "standard" was picked to be the same as on other types of equipment (mainframes, mini-computers), the limitation was also a requirement of the amount of memory and how the IBM MDA card used it. Now whether the hardware limited the resolution, or the resolution chosen was what decided the hardware design, I dont know... but that information can be found in this manual - if you can find it: "IBM Personal Computer Hardware Library: Technical Reference" - I used to have access to a copy... but that was decades ago.
Actually, the question I was referring to was this part:
Given that modern graphical displays (and all popular editors) are capable of far more, is it time we came up with a new standard-sized terminal?We dont need a standard sized terminal - in almost any environment. We just need to determine that "standard" for ourselves.
You are correct though that limiting one's code to 80 columns is ludicrous nowadays - though I have seen very few instances of that - and personally never subscribed to that "convention" - especially since I like tabbing my loops, subroutines, branches and anything else that makes sense so it is visually formatted properly - which would reduce my 80 columns to a lot less.
So, I wholeheartedly agree with your point - though you missed what part of the post I was commenting on; which was the section I quoted (and probably should have in my original post - my apologies).
-Robert
Doesnt virtually every OS and their command line interfaces allow that number to be changed?
In OS/2 or eComStation, I simply have all command lines call a simple REXX script that changes them to 150,50 (cols,rows) or some other variant depending on the particular machine's maximum native resolution (and LCD size). This same script would work under XP and most previous versions of NT (with some limitations on the various cols,rows permitted). This works just as well at full screen command line as it does in VIO command line sessions.
The *nix setups should allow a similar task, just as easily scriptable.
So, what is the point here? Make it the default in your environment/build/whatever - and done deal!
thanks
Will you come over and help me? Thanks.
Sorry, no, I am single. No girlfriend, no boyfriend... not even a pet.
Maybe I waste too much time on /.?
:-)
And if you dont think it is, check out my MySpace page.... but what about dominant males and their male partners? I wonder if anyone has measured that? Is it something to do with the way the pheremones act only on a female partner? Any partner (male or female), or any person who has had sufficient exposure?
People seem to think that no longer buying RIAA member products will solve these issues, but...
Not buying their product(s) just gives them more fuel to feed the fire they started. They keep using declining record sales (that they claim is due to piracy) to justify these suits, and even worse, to justify lobbying Congress to change laws to allow them even more power and do things (investigative and otherwise) that currently are illegal - including the right to install SpyWare on people's machines to track and ensure they are only playing licensed music (which since they dont follow us to the stores, is not possible - it only allows them the ability to spy on the public and amass a lot of private information). It's called the CanSpy Act, and is one of numerous efforts underway all under the guise of stopping the (in their mind) major cause of their declining CD sales (which they claim - and maybe even believe - is music piracy).
Rob
No, No, No... You DO have a good idea... hope the tone of my post didnt make you think I thought otherwise... but why dont you add to that idea a slight variant on it? Why cant people just log into their computers and do the same? Maybe even select what times they will be listening to the station, and have the station's computer "raffle off" that time slot depending on how many people requested songs to fill it?
-Rob
This would not necessarily work because too many stations use a play for pay model. The label doesnt pay, it's a lot less likely your music will get played. Even with the new laws that are supposed to guarantee x number of hours for Indy labels and such, that still accounts for very little play time not corporately endorsed.
Of course, for the Sheeple who only listen to the (one hit wonder, here today, gone tomorrow) music they are told to ("Crap 40"), I guess it may work very well...
Never mind, good idea after all... I keep forgetting the Sheeple outnumber us... ;-)
I too agree about T-Mo... I've had numerous problems with my phones (not with T-Mo's service), and they have always been very helpful and resolved them.
They may not (yet) have the fastest Internet (but it is cheap), but I like the (customer) service so well, that I am sticking with them for a while yet.
-R
Unfortunately, for many people, (the expenses of raising kids), food, clothing and a place to live (and a mode of transport to take them to the job that pays for those) are "shit (they) dont have the cash for"... but must have to live in this society... which builds their debt.
No easy answer for a system that is obviously broken when the very essentials to survive in this society are beyond the income of most people.
Every time you talk to your neighbours over the fence, you're depriving your phone company of revenue.
Hmmm... like AOL CDs... except then everyone in the country would be instant millionaires...
No, I considered that (even if it wasnt MS, who from working with them in the past, I know not to trust) I would use my own backup scheme (NAS, USB, SCSI array)...
Ah... this would be the part then:
However, by posting or otherwise providing your submission, you are granting to the public free permission to:* use, copy, distribute, display, publish and modify your submission, each in connection with the service;
* publish your name in connection with your submission; and
* grant these permissions to other persons.
So they can sell or re-distribute your work, and give others permission to do the same...
And then there is this section...
9. Privacy. We consider your use of the service to be private. However, we may access or disclose information about you, your account and/or the content of your communications, in order to: (1) comply with the law or legal process served on us; (2) enforce and investigate potential violations of this contract; including use of this service to participate in, or facilitate, activities that violate the law; or (3) protect the rights, property, or safety of Microsoft, its employees, its customers or the public. You consent to the access and disclosures outlined in this section.We may use technology or other means to protect the service, protect our customers, or stop you from breaching this contract. These means may include, for example, filtering to stop spam or increase security. These means may hinder or break your use of the service.
In order to provide you the service, we may collect certain information about service performance, your machine and your service use. We may automatically upload this information from your machine. This data will not personally identify you. You may read about this information collection in more detail in the privacy policy at http://privacy.microsoft.com./
Which we have learned from previous cases (in court) and previous anti-trust actions, truly means that MS WILL collect personally identifiable information, under the clause of better serving you/better maintaining their service (which is vaguely covered in the related link they provided - and stretched in reality/practice to include such actions).
And then this section:
19. Assignment. We may assign this contract, in whole or in part, at any time with or without notice to you. You may not assign this contract, or any part of it, to any other person. Any attempt by you to do so is void. You may not transfer to anyone else, either temporarily or permanently, any rights to use the service or any part of the service.Which allows them the rights to permanently or temporarily re-assign their rights to others - which translates into "we can give anyone whatever we want that you upload, and the rights to see all the data we collect on you - as defined in the parts of the agreement where you gave us those rights - but you cannot do the same."
Just some of the relevant ones I gleaned...
Ah well... it's to be expected... and a far cry from Google's attitude of keeping your private data private. Though they (MS) have re-worded the "We can give away or sell or re-license your content" section to be more ambiguous, it is still there... along with the "we'll gather whatever information we want on the basis of improving the service" section.
The most relevant information to this whole thing (to me) is the EULA MS is foisting on people. Some of their previous EULAs for their online properties have included giving them the right to sell, market and/or redistribute any content you create and upload to those online properties. That, and other privacy issues (using the information to profile you in some manner and then sell ads to you via their LiveSearch stuff for instance - as referenced in a previous post regarding their work on obtaining as much private, identifying data on people as possible) are things I'd like to see clearly addressed and spelled out in their EULA.
I am also interested in how this all fits in with their current DRM schemes and related practices. Will they DRM any music I upload? Report me to the RIAA? Assume the program archives I upload are pirated and sue me?
All in all, I see this service as one for only the brain dead - based off MS's previous track record for trustability. (Yeah, it's probably not a real word, get over it).
Non RIAA music is subject to the same royalties via Internet Radio. There is the problem. Your choice (when it comes to Internet Radio) is thus, listen to nothing, since the RIAA/SoundXchange collects the money (that the artists may - or may not see) - all while killing off any Internet Radio station without the money to pay these exhorbitant fees - leaving who? RIAA's affiliates/members? That's my guess.
I stand corrected - and you are indeed correct. Not enough coffee and I didnt think through the comparisons to the two cleary enough. Thanks :-)
Yeah, but isnt this sadly what GeoCities (was) and others have been getting away with doing for years?
Then how about I quote Wikipedia where it states that more (and more) dictionaries and reference books are considering it an accepted form?
Appearance in reference booksOne way to follow the progress of and sentiments toward irregardless is by studying how it is described in references throughout the twentieth century. Webster's New International Dictionary (2nd. Ed. Unabridged) described the word as an erroneous or humorous form of regardless, and attributing it to the United States. Although irregardless was beginning to make its way into the American lexicon, it still was not universally recognized and was missing completely from Fowler's Modern English Usage,[3] published in 1965, nor is irregardless mentioned under the entry for regardless therein. In the last twenty-five years, irregardless has become a common entry in dictionaries and usage reference books. It appears in a wide range of dictionaries including: Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English Language Unabridged (1961, repr. 2002),[4] The Barnhart Dictionary of Etymology (1988), The American Heritage Dictionary (Second College Edition, 1991),[5] Microsoft Encarta College Dictionary (2001), and Webster's New World College Dictionary (Fourth Edition, 2004).[6]This word was first seen in print in the Gordon family anthology.
Or the summary...
SummaryIrregardless seems to be moving slowly in the direction of standardization.[citation needed] It has gone from nonexistence in the 1910 publication of Etymological Dictionary of the English Language,[7] to being a normality in modern dictionary publications, and it frequently occurs in edited professional prose. The fact that its listing as a "humorous usage" has practically disappeared today supplies further evidence in favor of acceptance. However, strong resistance to this word still remains. Australian linguist Pam Peters (The Cambridge Guide to English Usage, 2004) suggests that irregardless has become fetishized, since natural examples of this word in corpora of written and spoken English are greatly outnumbered by examples where it is in fact only cited as an incorrect term.
All of which indicate that it is becoming (if not already) (a) widely accepted (variant of the word regardless) - all irregardless of your wishes on the matter.
And more importantly, this whole thread section is quite off-topic. The original post (which wasnt by me) was quite comprehensible (ir)regardless of the poster's word selection.
Enjoy your +3 Informative/Interesting for being wrong - while it lasts... ;-) I'm sure I'll earn another -1 OffTopic to make up for it! :-)
irregardless - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ir-i-gahrd-lis] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
-adverb Nonstandard.
regardless.
[Origin: 1910-15; ir-2 (prob. after irrespective) + regardless]
--Usage note Irregardless is considered nonstandard because of the two negative elements ir- and -less. It was probably formed on the analogy of such words as irrespective, irrelevant, and irreparable. Those who use it, including on occasion educated speakers, may do so from a desire to add emphasis. Irregardless first appeared in the early 20th century and was perhaps popularized by its use in a comic radio program of the 1930s.
Non-standard but accepted as a word for quite some time due to almost a century of usage.
Microsoft said it expects these changes to be available with its first service pack for Vista, putting to rest speculation among Microsoft watchers that the company would do away with its practice of catchall software upgrades. The software maker plans to release an early version of Service Pack 1 by the end of the year.
A rather vague statement that doesnt specify exactly what changes they are going to make to allow competing products to work - in a Service Pack that will come out ?when?... I'd prefer seeing details explaining what it will take for end-users and OEMs to select what search tool they wish to use/incorporate. And then the next factor - at what cost to the OEMs? None? Increased licensing fee for each OEM copy (kinda like the added Windows tax they used to charge to OEMs who released/sold non-Windows machines)?
I also would have preferred seeing a link to (or quote from) the actual MS statement - not a paraphrase by a journalist who may or may not have interpreted the statement correctly or fully.
And what does
Microsoft agreed to give competitors technical information to help optimize performance.mean? Access to APIs? A method of disabling the conflicting Vista Instant Search components? A method that requires competitors to write to the APIs/subsystem that Instant Search uses (as opposed to plugging in their own search code)?
Yeah, I read the article... I just dont know exactly what it is saying as it is very vague on actual details that are relevant to the end-results Google and a bunch of end-users are looking for.
To me, that means I have yet to see a clear-cut promise of much of anything useful from Microsoft in this area.