Put the knife down and take a green herb, dude. (c) Ruffin Bailey 2001-2021

I enjoyed thinking through Should we fight for Ogg Vorbis?, a contribution to the Linux Journal by Glyn Moody back in 2007. The most problematic statement in the piece, I think, is this one.

So my doubts about this campaign have nothing to do with any weaknesses in Ogg. It's just that I wonder whether this is really something the free software world should be expending much energy on when there are other more pressing problems. Whereas DRM and software patents, for example, are manifestly and unequivocally bad for free software (and indeed for everyone), that doesn't seem to be true for the MP3 format.

Is there a reason to have an open and free format when patent holders don't seem to care much about the folks who are making free software and aren't paying royalties/license fees? Rather, aren't there more pressing places where license holders are worried about enforcing patents where someone could be turning their OSS coding resources?

I'm not sure how to feel about this one. I know that I'm getting to the point that I prefer PDF over any other file format for printed works. I'm so freakin' tired of dealing with the way doc, docx, rtf, etc keep fookin' slightly whenever I open them in the wrong application. I used to make do with Microsoft Word, 1998 and 2000, and as long as those apps kept working I figured I'd make do. They don't work so well any more. Now that Word 2100 or whatever it's at now can save in pdf, I'd rather just see pdf files. It's harder for me to edit a pdf than even a wacky docx at times, but there are a wealth of fairly reasonably priced apps that'll allow one to mess with pdfs. At worst, I just print them out and scrawl.

Perhaps ODF is the best alternative, but PDF is the practically open format that seems to be doing best, and I don't even have to Google LAME to display it on most OSes.

Does this disinclination to support ODF more directly comprise my politics? Yes, I believe it does. We need a standard that will display well outside of its contemporary platform, and display that way for the foreseeable future and beyond. That seems to be pdf to me (and yes, I realize pdf can sometimes be no more descriptive than avi; you really don't know what's in the wrapper. Again, egg + face).

Still, is there "practically free" that should be good enough? I'm not sure. I don't like the mp3 reasoning any more than I did for gifs years earlier or pdfs, even after they've been declared an open standard (thanks wikipedia) in 2008. OOXML is open too, you know. Yet there's a certainly practicality to using these formats not designed to be open to humans and machines at the same time.

I hate bluffing. Is GNU/hurd ready yet?

Labels: control, copyright, DRM, ethics, F/free, licensing, pseudo-academic, Word

<html>
<head>
<title>Simple Ajax Example</title>
<script language="Javascript">
function xmlhttpPost(strURL) {
var xmlHttpReq = false;
var self = this;
// Mozilla/Safari
if (window.XMLHttpRequest) {
self.xmlHttpReq = new XMLHttpRequest();
}
// IE
else if (window.ActiveXObject) {
self.xmlHttpReq = new ActiveXObject("Microsoft.XMLHTTP");
}
self.xmlHttpReq.open('POST', strURL, true);
self.xmlHttpReq.setRequestHeader('Content-Type',
'application/x-www-form-urlencoded');
self.xmlHttpReq.onreadystatechange = function() {
if (self.xmlHttpReq.readyState == 4) {
updatepage(self.xmlHttpReq.responseText);
}
}
self.xmlHttpReq.send(getquerystring());
}

function getquerystring() {
var form = document.forms['f1'];
var word = form.word.value;
qstr = 'w=' + escape(word); // NOTE: no '?' before querystring
return qstr;
}

function updatepage(str){
document.getElementById("result").innerHTML = str;
}
</script>
</head>
<body>
<form name="f1">
word: <input name="word" value="willBeInPOST" type="text"><br>
url: <input name="url" value="ajaxCatch.php?foo=bar" type="text"><br>


<input value="Go" type="button"
onclick="xmlhttpPost(document.forms[0].elements['url'].value)"></p>
<div id="result"></div>
</form>
</body>
</html>

<html>
<head>
<title>Simple Ajax Example</title>
</head>
<body>
Test<br>
<?php
foreach ($_GET as $key => $value) {
$querystring .= $key."=".$value;
}
echo $querystring . "<br>";
foreach ($_POST as $key => $value) {
$strPost .= $key."=".$value;
}
echo $strPost . "<br>";
?>
</body>
</html>

Look, long story short: I have newer Macs, wanted a Bluetooth mouse, and bought a Magic Mouse. I also still have a Mac Mini G4 with 10.4 and zero intentions of upgrading the old brick to 10.5. I tried the Magic Mouse with the G4 immediately after taking the Magic Mouse out of the plastic box and guess what? Not only does Apple's Magic Mouse work out of the box with 10.4, 10.4 recognizes right and left clicks. Not bad, huh?

Longer story: I've coveted the Microsoft Bluetooth Mouse 5000 for a long time. I found myself in the Office Depot this morning looking to buy a $15 Logitech USB mouse for my Toughbook and, in typical consumerist fashion, figured, "Why not throw that $15 at the Bluetooth model and use the old USB with your Toughbook?" This is the sort of thinking that gets you to buy a quad core iMac when you go in for a new Mini.

Still, I'll tell you why you don't throw in the $15 towards the Microsoft 5000. The 500 is still $50. For $20 more, I could grab a Magic Mouse and finally stop driving myself crazy grabbing scrollbars when I'm coding with my $20 Microsoft Blue USB special. I'd nearly talked myself into getting a new MacBook in large part for the multitouch trackpad, as having 360 degrees o' scroll would be wonderful. I was in the Best Buy just last week trying out the new MacBook. The touchpad really is wonderful.

So off to the Apple store to try the Magic Mouse out (and grab a Mini DisplayPort to VGA adapter -- why I've left my old CRT monitor sitting in the corner for so long instead of running two monitors on my new Mini I have no idea). Scrolling with the Magic Mouse works great. There's not a goofy double-finger requirement to start scrolling, and it feels pretty natural. It's as if the entire mouse is a scroll wheel, finally delivering on the promise of the old Mighty Mouse with trackball. The mouse also has a good, solid feel to it.

I'm not sold on the swipe function yet, where two fingers allows you to move forward and back in your browser's history. The swipe in Safari is almost useful, I suppose. Swiping does a little less in iPhoto, and allows you to move between albums. In iPhoto, though, the albums are so close to one another, there's really no reason not to click on the next one normally, sans swipe. And if you have to swipe two or more albums over, well, there no time saved and the mouse is worthless. The two-finger swipe up on a mouse really isn't a particularly easy thing to do. When swiping, the mouse tends to move in ways your entire MacBook would not, and it's difficult to swipe anywhere other than the exact middle of the mouse. Swiping will, in other words, take some getting used to, which means I won't unless swiping starts doing something more useful.

Still, with Bluetooth and infinite-direction scroll combined the hope of a little more down the line (can I swipe into Expose with the next Magic Mouse update? Now we'd be getting somewhere), I splurged.

And so far, the best surprise is exactly what I wrote first: The Magic Mouse works with 10.4 out of the fancy smancy packaging, and it has right and left clicks by default. (Note: I think it's obvious that the Magic Mouse doesn't scroll on 10.4. It's more of a ~~Magic~~ Mouse there.) That's a really nice bonus for our G4 Mini, which only has two USB ports.

Labels: apple, mouse

title: Put the knife down and take a green herb, dude.	descrip: 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. As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases. Affiliate links in green.
x MarkUpDown is the best Markdown editor for professionals on Windows 10. It includes two-pane live preview, in-app uploads to imgur for image hosting, and MultiMarkdown table support. Features you won't find anywhere else include... MarkUpDown Multiline Table & Bootstrap Grid support. Beautiful Easy Actions that keep the Markdown flowing. HTML paste to paste HTML source into your documents. You've wasted more than $15 of your time looking for a great Markdown editor. Stop looking. MarkUpDown is the app you're looking for. Learn more or head over to the 'Store now!

Sunday, November 29, 2009
Magic Mouse works in Vista -- scrolling too When I first tried Apple's Magic Mouse in Vista, I only got right and left clicks, and had to hold it slightly skewed to get it to move the mouse accurately. Now, not only does it work in 10.4 (minus scrolling), it works in Vista with scrolling, horizontal and vertical, no problems. Nice little upgrade. I'm assuming the most recent Apple auto-update added that little holiday gift there. Neat mouse. Labels: apple, mouse, vista posted by ruffin at 11/29/2009 09:57:00 PM

Thursday, November 26, 2009
FLAC to iTunes Happy Format Thank heavens. A FLAC converter for OS X that doesn't leave you hunting around for libs, and even produces several lossless output formats, including Apple's own. Found via How to Convert FLAC to Apple Lossless (MP4) on Mac OS X � Psychohistory: FLAC is a lossless audio codec that is very popular on Linux and on Windows. However, it’s virtually non-existant on the Mac, which is a problem if you have a library of music that you have encoded in FLAC and you want to upload to your iTunes library. There are various command-line solutions out there on Windows, but very few available for Mac OS X. XLD is the answer. Yes, this is essentially a follow-up on the Phish download from before. This XLD app is so much more reponsitive [sic] than the MacFLAC of yore. Labels: problem solved posted by ruffin at 11/26/2009 09:44:00 PM

Phish & Exile on Main Street melophobe (whatever that is) has links to a download of Phish's recent cover of Exile on Main Street by the Stones and a link to eTree's torrent of the entire Halloween show. Taper Info and Setlist: Phish Empire Polo Club Indio, California 10/31/2009 I'm guessing it's not FLAC for the Exile-only link they provide; it's only 189 megs. The whole show torrent clocks in at 1.27 gigs and is FLAC 16. I really can't stress enough how much I enjoy bands that'll put their stuff up for free (Crowes, Allman Brothers, Phish, Grateful Dead, Los Lobos, etc) and appreciate those that put up some bandwidth to host/torrent them. I really need to get back on Furthurnet, even if the community's died a bit, and resurrect the old Crowes SHNs I've got laying around. posted by ruffin at 11/26/2009 08:04:00 PM

Sunday, November 22, 2009
Is there such thing as "practically free" software formats? I enjoyed thinking through Should we fight for Ogg Vorbis?, a contribution to the Linux Journal by Glyn Moody back in 2007. The most problematic statement in the piece, I think, is this one. So my doubts about this campaign have nothing to do with any weaknesses in Ogg. It's just that I wonder whether this is really something the free software world should be expending much energy on when there are other more pressing problems. Whereas DRM and software patents, for example, are manifestly and unequivocally bad for free software (and indeed for everyone), that doesn't seem to be true for the MP3 format. Is there a reason to have an open and free format when patent holders don't seem to care much about the folks who are making free software and aren't paying royalties/license fees? Rather, aren't there more pressing places where license holders are worried about enforcing patents where someone could be turning their OSS coding resources? I'm not sure how to feel about this one. I know that I'm getting to the point that I prefer PDF over any other file format for printed works. I'm so freakin' tired of dealing with the way doc, docx, rtf, etc keep fookin' slightly whenever I open them in the wrong application. I used to make do with Microsoft Word, 1998 and 2000, and as long as those apps kept working I figured I'd make do. They don't work so well any more. Now that Word 2100 or whatever it's at now can save in pdf, I'd rather just see pdf files. It's harder for me to edit a pdf than even a wacky docx at times, but there are a wealth of fairly reasonably priced apps that'll allow one to mess with pdfs. At worst, I just print them out and scrawl. Perhaps ODF is the best alternative, but PDF is the practically open format that seems to be doing best, and I don't even have to Google LAME to display it on most OSes. Does this disinclination to support ODF more directly comprise my politics? Yes, I believe it does. We need a standard that will display well outside of its contemporary platform, and display that way for the foreseeable future and beyond. That seems to be pdf to me (and yes, I realize pdf can sometimes be no more descriptive than avi; you really don't know what's in the wrapper. Again, egg + face). Still, is there "practically free" that should be good enough? I'm not sure. I don't like the mp3 reasoning any more than I did for gifs years earlier or pdfs, even after they've been declared an open standard (thanks wikipedia) in 2008. OOXML is open too, you know. Yet there's a certainly practicality to using these formats not designed to be open to humans and machines at the same time. I hate bluffing. Is GNU/hurd ready yet? Labels: control, copyright, DRM, ethics, F/free, licensing, pseudo-academic, Word posted by ruffin at 11/22/2009 01:00:00 PM

Sunday, November 15, 2009
Tracfone SMSing http://abwaters.com/2007/03/04/tracfone-and-sms-email-gateway/ Well done. Labels: noteToSelf posted by ruffin at 11/15/2009 10:57:00 PM

Saturday, November 14, 2009
Simple Ajax Example Finally dug up an easy enough AJAX sample, and thought I'd share my slight variation on theme. If you put these two files into a dir on a webserver, you can play around a bit with the URL you're calling (URL isn't really a URL and must be relative -- calling off-site URLs seems to cause some security issue where you keep getting nothing back) and what you expect to find in the querystring and post vars. Once you've got this running, you're pretty much raring to go with AJAX. Many examples have more error checking, which would likely be useful, but this is working so I'm going with it for now. ajax.php <html> <head> <title>Simple Ajax Example</title> <script language="Javascript"> function xmlhttpPost(strURL) { var xmlHttpReq = false; var self = this; // Mozilla/Safari if (window.XMLHttpRequest) { self.xmlHttpReq = new XMLHttpRequest(); } // IE else if (window.ActiveXObject) { self.xmlHttpReq = new ActiveXObject("Microsoft.XMLHTTP"); } self.xmlHttpReq.open('POST', strURL, true); self.xmlHttpReq.setRequestHeader('Content-Type', 'application/x-www-form-urlencoded'); self.xmlHttpReq.onreadystatechange = function() { if (self.xmlHttpReq.readyState == 4) { updatepage(self.xmlHttpReq.responseText); } } self.xmlHttpReq.send(getquerystring()); } function getquerystring() { var form = document.forms['f1']; var word = form.word.value; qstr = 'w=' + escape(word); // NOTE: no '?' before querystring return qstr; } function updatepage(str){ document.getElementById("result").innerHTML = str; } </script> </head> <body> <form name="f1"> word: <input name="word" value="willBeInPOST" type="text"><br> url: <input name="url" value="ajaxCatch.php?foo=bar" type="text"><br> <!-- input value="Go" type="button" onclick='JavaScript:xmlhttpPost("/cgi-bin/simple-ajax-example.cgi")'></p --> <input value="Go" type="button" onclick="xmlhttpPost(document.forms[0].elements['url'].value)"></p> <div id="result"></div> </form> </body> </html> ajaxCatch.php <html> <head> <title>Simple Ajax Example</title> </head> <body> Test<br> <?php foreach ($_GET as $key => $value) { $querystring .= $key."=".$value; } echo $querystring . "<br>"; foreach ($_POST as $key => $value) { $strPost .= $key."=".$value; } echo $strPost . "<br>"; ?> </body> </html> Labels: code, html, php, problem solved posted by ruffin at 11/14/2009 10:51:00 PM

Thursday, November 12, 2009
Yes, Virginia, the Magic Mouse does work with 10.4 Look, long story short: I have newer Macs, wanted a Bluetooth mouse, and bought a Magic Mouse. I also still have a Mac Mini G4 with 10.4 and zero intentions of upgrading the old brick to 10.5. I tried the Magic Mouse with the G4 immediately after taking the Magic Mouse out of the plastic box and guess what? Not only does Apple's Magic Mouse work out of the box with 10.4, 10.4 recognizes right and left clicks. Not bad, huh? Longer story: I've coveted the Microsoft Bluetooth Mouse 5000 for a long time. I found myself in the Office Depot this morning looking to buy a $15 Logitech USB mouse for my Toughbook and, in typical consumerist fashion, figured, "Why not throw that $15 at the Bluetooth model and use the old USB with your Toughbook?" This is the sort of thinking that gets you to buy a quad core iMac when you go in for a new Mini. Still, I'll tell you why you don't throw in the $15 towards the Microsoft 5000. The 500 is still $50. For $20 more, I could grab a Magic Mouse and finally stop driving myself crazy grabbing scrollbars when I'm coding with my $20 Microsoft Blue USB special. I'd nearly talked myself into getting a new MacBook in large part for the multitouch trackpad, as having 360 degrees o' scroll would be wonderful. I was in the Best Buy just last week trying out the new MacBook. The touchpad really is wonderful. So off to the Apple store to try the Magic Mouse out (and grab a Mini DisplayPort to VGA adapter -- why I've left my old CRT monitor sitting in the corner for so long instead of running two monitors on my new Mini I have no idea). Scrolling with the Magic Mouse works great. There's not a goofy double-finger requirement to start scrolling, and it feels pretty natural. It's as if the entire mouse is a scroll wheel, finally delivering on the promise of the old Mighty Mouse with trackball. The mouse also has a good, solid feel to it. I'm not sold on the swipe function yet, where two fingers allows you to move forward and back in your browser's history. The swipe in Safari is almost useful, I suppose. Swiping does a little less in iPhoto, and allows you to move between albums. In iPhoto, though, the albums are so close to one another, there's really no reason not to click on the next one normally, sans swipe. And if you have to swipe two or more albums over, well, there no time saved and the mouse is worthless. The two-finger swipe up on a mouse really isn't a particularly easy thing to do. When swiping, the mouse tends to move in ways your entire MacBook would not, and it's difficult to swipe anywhere other than the exact middle of the mouse. Swiping will, in other words, take some getting used to, which means I won't unless swiping starts doing something more useful. Still, with Bluetooth and infinite-direction scroll combined the hope of a little more down the line (can I swipe into Expose with the next Magic Mouse update? Now we'd be getting somewhere), I splurged. And so far, the best surprise is exactly what I wrote first: The Magic Mouse works with 10.4 out of the fancy smancy packaging, and it has right and left clicks by default. (Note: I think it's obvious that the Magic Mouse doesn't scroll on 10.4. It's more of a ~~Magic~~ Mouse there.) That's a really nice bonus for our G4 Mini, which only has two USB ports. Labels: apple, mouse posted by ruffin at 11/12/2009 11:53:00 AM

Wednesday, November 11, 2009
A decent 7 pt programming font Envy Code A � DamienG: Originally titled simply Envy this font was born out of dislike for on-screen small serifs and disappointment with many alternative programming fonts. It's not exactly what I'm looking for, and the bold is tough to read (a given for a 7 point font, I think), but this is the smallest usable font I've stumbled across. Seriously, can't someone turn the old Novaterm 64 80 col font into a bitmap?! Labels: problem solved posted by ruffin at 11/11/2009 10:29:00 AM

Wednesday, November 04, 2009
iPhone vs. Google Voice I Quit The iPhone: Apple and AT&T are now blocking the iPhone version of the Google Voice app. Why? Because they absolutely don’t want people doing exactly what I’m doing – moving their phone number to Google and using the carrier as a dumb pipe. The dumb pipe phrase is well said. Seriously, though, why didn't AT&T (well, SBC and friends) get waaaaay out in front of this and innovate a little with phone numbers while they were still a serious player in the home, before cell phones were quite as ubiquitous as they are now? Why wasn't there a smart phone from AT&T the same time there was an iMac? What was their R&D division doing with their time? Heads on pikes, Mr. Tony. Heads on pikes. posted by ruffin at 11/04/2009 08:30:00 PM

<< Older \| Newer >>