One feller's views on the state of everyday computer science & its application (and now, OTHER STUFF) who isn't rich enough to shell out for www.myfreakinfirst-andlast-name.com
Using 89% of the same design the blog had in 2001.
FOR ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES ONLY!!!
Back-up your data and, when you bike,
always wear white.
I'm afraid I'm a bit busy to expand on this even in the typical, sorry fashion I do here on mfn, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say books.google.com is evil. Why? Because they've made the same deal with the devil/Mouse everyone else has. How? By providing absolute tons of pages from books that are out *today*. I'm endlessly impressed with how much of the books' previews I can tease out of the system.
Yet it's just enough that I want the books. I want to hold them, flip through them, possess them, if only temporarily.
That, of course, is exactly what the site's supposed to do... from Google's point of view and, more importantly, from the publishers' point of view. Sure, there are books that I got enough for free, defeating the purpose of previews/demos, there are many more were the advertisement worked.
Why is that evil? How is that evil? Because Google has lessened the practical impetus to let older books (but newer than those printed in 1923) into the public domain.
That's all I gots times for now, I'm afeared.
posted by ruffin
at 11/28/2006 09:58:00 PM
Netbeans.org tells us Java's move to open sourcedness has started:
The initial pieces of Sun's Java Development Kit (JDK) have been open-sourced and are now available for you to download, browse, and build from java.net.
Once it's "done-as-in-done," I wonder if any alternative form of Java will cause versioning headaches (I doubt it in the short run, certainly, but there could be a Camino:Mozilla::[New JDK]:Sun's JDK, etc).
Most importantly, though, I believe this pretty much secures Java's future even if Sun, for some reason, gives up or goes under. You should feel much safer about investments in Java code or learning Java programming skills with this announcement now that its life isn't bound directly to a commercial corporation. Java can go places it couldn't before.
This idea, reported by macrumors.com to have been reported by CNet, is long overdue:
A CNet blog claims that Apple is working with labels to provide more incentive for customers to purchase full albums -- or at least not penalize them for buying singles ahead of time.
One thing I've learned over my many long years (ha) is that no matter how unique a thing I think I've done, other people are doing it. I assume my album buying habits are no different. Usually I buy a single or two off of iTunes from a potentially interesting album to try it out. If I like it, and it's not new, I grab a used CD off of Amazon. Obviously, crediting those singles doubles the record company's pleasure in this case... not only do they have a more competitive alternative to my buying a CD from Amazon by essentially giving me a buck or two off, they might stand to make some dough. They're getting zippo from my used purchase.
I wonder how many people are double buying now to get albums off of iTunes?
posted by ruffin
at 11/13/2006 08:52:00 AM
chmod a 'johndoe allow read,write' /path/to/folder chmod a 'johndoe deny delete' /path/to/folder
The effect of these two commands will be to allow user johndoe to add files and remove files from /path/to/folder, but he will not be able to delete /path/to/folder.
Macworld reports that based on their benchmarks, Apple's Rosetta PowerPC emulation technology for Intel Macs has seen up to 30% improvements in the latest version of Mac OS X (10.4.8).
I'm not sure I understand putting that much personpower into a dead end. Apple seems pretty good about severing ties with what they've already decided to kill, from ADB ports to Java on Classic. Why not Rosetta? Who is using PowerPC software on an Intel Mac who needs the extra speed?
I guess I've not been keeping a close enough watch on Photoshop, etc, but thought those guys would still be trotting out the G5s.
posted by ruffin
at 11/10/2006 03:51:00 PM
I was reading this article over on Macrumors.com, and it got me wondering about moving Disney's "in the vault" plan to the iTunes Movie/usic Store:
Apple has been expected to add other studios to the iTunes store since its launch. There had been rumors, however, of hold ups due to concerns from retail shops about the impact on DVD sales. Earlier reports expect that studios may be waiting until the end of the 4th quarter to avoid impacting holiday DVD sales.
I wonder if the studios won't figure out how to market each popular medium more intellegently in parallel than they do now with them apart. For a few months, perhaps you can only get it on DVD, then (with a few small, exclusive features) on iTMS, then back in the vault it goes... until Amazon's Special Edition pries it back out.
posted by ruffin
at 11/09/2006 06:41:00 PM
This feature requires a more recent version of Microsoft Internet Explorer or Mozilla Firefox. To download the latest version of Microsoft Internet Explorer, visit the Internet Explorer Web site.
Thanks. I like the Firefox nod, so that you partially quiet the geek quotient, but for J. Q. Apple User of The One Button Mice, well, too bad.
Curiously, the same error message pops up when you use Explorer 5.2.3 for the Mac, the last version before MS dropped support. I'm not sure I'm going to find much of an answer at the IE Web site. I'm going to call that link with the implicit promise of fixing the posting problem a bit underhanded. As if msnbc hasn't heard of Safari.
posted by ruffin
at 11/07/2006 06:06:00 PM
The postings on this site are [usually] my own and do not necessarily reflect the views of any employer, past or present, or other entity. About Our Author
