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.
Islands are priced at US$1,675 for 65,536 square meters (about 16 acres). Monthly land fees for maintenance are US$295.
We offer a discount to verified real world educators and academic institutions (e.g., universities/schools) or 501(c)3 non-profit organizations that will be using the regions to support their organization's official work. For these organizations, small islands are priced at US$980 for 65,536 square meters (about 16 acres), and monthly land fees for maintenance are US$150.
Um, wow. Over 1.5g's for the land, and nearly a legit rent payment each month to have your own outpost in SecondLife. Insane. That's serious, old school cash.
posted by ruffin
at 4/19/2007 11:27:00 PM
This quote from the GNU/Hurd description page caught me wondering if there isn't a serious paradox afoot.
Although it is possible to bootstrap the GNU/Hurd system from the sources by cross-compiling and installing the system software and the basic applications, this is a difficult process. It is not recommended that you do this. Instead, you should get a binary distribution of the GNU/Hurd, which comes with all the GNU software precompiled and an installation routine which is easy to use.
Wait, Hurd, the only 100% completely GNU-friendly OS out there is telling you that Hurd's open source is, practically speaking, worthless?
I was pretty hard on Microsoft for doing the same thing, which compels me to be relatively tough again. If the build process is so convoluted as to be impractical, all Hurd has done is substituted a closed society of cyborgs for a dance on the legal intellectual property circuit.
Perhaps we could argue that Microsoft made their "open standard" confusingly intricate intentionally, or at least that they weren't in a position where the .doc format had to be so complicated. Hurd, on the other hand, is an in-progress hack by a bunch of part-timers. Perhaps we should argue that Microsoft is making a profit and is traditionally more interested in closely their intellectual property than opening it for reuse in ways Hurd would never dream.
Still, if GNU wants to show the value of open source and Freedom Software, they need to do a better job ensuring that their mascot, of sorts, is more accessible. If you ask me, with Hurd, the printer's still jammed and nobody can do a thing about it from where they're sitting. Instead of drafting GPL 3 or taking pot shots at Linux's file maintenance system, perhaps GNU should pour that time into making a clean, accessible Hurd.
We’re sorry, but your Gmail account is currently experiencing errors. You won’t be able to log in while these errors last, but don’t worry, your account data and messages are safe. Our engineers are working to resolve this issue.
Please try logging in to your account again in a few minutes.
How many rules of good business communication does this error message break?
I'm also always im/de/pressed with how often companies with as much cash as, say, Google, can't manage to have redundant backups solid enough to provide a seamless experience for their users. I could understand, as an example, their sending me to a box that has my account's state as of 10 minutes ago that might not receive new mail but lets me access the old while they fix the issue as an acceptable alternative. That's not too much to ask from Google.
As awesome as Gmail's mail handler is, we're nowhere close to nine nines.
posted by ruffin
at 4/16/2007 03:14:00 PM
In another example of "obvious brilliance" (here meaning a move that's both obvious and brilliant b/c nobody else has done it), Apple and EMI have decided to go the blank tape tax route and simply tax un-DRM'd music to make up for the piracy.
From MacRumors.com: - EMI's Music will be sold without Digital Rights Manangement restrictions through iTunes - These new songs will be higher quality (256kbps) and sell for $1.29/song individually - DRM-Restricted songs at the lower quality settings (128kbps) will still be sold for $.99
Brilliant. For most schmoes, the move from 128 to 256 kbps means bupkiss practically, but the increased sound quality looks like a pretty major score, and will make audiophiles (aka, the ePress) very happy.
This perception of a benefit is what you trade for instituting the piracy tax. Apparently the barrier to entry from DRM to piracy is worth less than 30 cents on the dollar [1], b/c that's what these folk are charging once the protection's been removed. If you can't stop 'em, join 'em, at least by charging them more to do what they're already doing. Capitalize on the would-be recreational pirates. Guinesses all around.
[1] Okay, this is possibly inaccurate, as 30 cents might simply be the price that [Apple & EMI believe] the market will allow now. Still, you don't make such a move unless you feel that it will be, on some term (short, medium, long, etc) profitable. I'm not sure how it could be a loss leader, especially with albums' prices staying constant even when ordered in the new format; this move away from DRM isn't costing them much and is giving the possiblility for an interesting experiment. It will be intriguing to see how the songs are watermarked, however, and if the format will enable [law] suits against those too naive to know how to remove the marks.
posted by ruffin
at 4/03/2007 03:55:00 PM
The Vista is a pretty cool wagon, man. How you could do this to Olds, poor dead nameplate that it is? Sure, there are more attractive models of the Vista Cruiser than the 1965 they've got posted there, but picking on the '65 is just another way the Fool is doing the wagon wrong.
But even on the '65, lookit them cool windows up on the top. Sweet. To think I let a '67 Vista Cruiser get past me on eBay a year or more ago. I still lament that day, though others who share my bank account don't.
In other random, useless news, I just got a flyer showing me Dell's got a nice range of AMD laptops with two big pluses over their similarly spec'd line of Intels -- the price (AMDs about $100 less) and the integrated video solution. I understand the Intel Duo is apparently much faster than the current AMDs, but I've found that there's really only one hardware item that makes a hill of beans for what I do, including programming, which is the video card when gaming. Past a certain point, the processor doesn't matter. Heck, I can still get by on an old Libretto Pentium 90 MHz or so for VB 6 in a pinch (though I wouldn't even try to run Eclipse there).
Cheap, Intel-powered Dell laptops use the Intel 950 integrated video solution, which from all reports is horrible, and the AMDs use ATi's Xpress 1150. I can and have reported the Xpress' predecessor is a pretty good solution if you have to go integrated. I've yet to add a dedicated video card for gaming to my tower that uses Xpress 200 integrated video (apparently a pretty similar setup), and I've had it for nearly two years.
It's going to be hard to convince myself to spend another $400 for a Macbook over these AMD Dells when the Macbooks also use that Intel 950 integrated crud. We all know I likely will once the time's right, but man, a good $600 laptop (and an excellent, dual core AMD at $800) is tempting.
posted by ruffin
at 4/01/2007 10:16:00 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
