tewha.net

An interesting resource that I had forgotten existed is the Palm OS Development Wiki. If you do Palm Development and have not taken a look at it, you should. Unfortunately, it uses TWiki and CamelCase, which is the reason I had such a bad first imrpession of wikis. Still, have a look around… the content is good even if the environment is kind of lame.

Recent events have convinced me that support has to be useless.

Let’s start with the AIM Terms of Service (TOS). It contains this perfectly clear segment.

Content You Post
You may only post Content that you created or which the owner of the Content has given you. You may not post or distribute Content that is illegal or that violates these Terms of Service. By posting or submitting Content on any AIM Product, you represent and warrant that (i) you own all the rights to this Content or are authorized to use and distribute this Content on the AIM Product and (ii) this Content does not and will not infringe any copyright or any other third-party right nor violate any applicable law or regulation.

Although you or the owner of the Content retain ownership of all right, title and interest in Content that you post to any AIM Product, AOL owns all right, title and interest in any compilation, collective work or other derivative work created by AOL using or incorporating this Content. In addition, by posting Content on an AIM Product, you grant AOL, its parent, affiliates, subsidiaries, assigns, agents and licensees the irrevocable, perpetual, worldwide right to reproduce, display, perform, distribute, adapt and promote this Content in any medium. You waive any right to privacy. You waive any right to inspect or approve uses of the Content or to be compensated for any such uses.

I draw your attention to the word “posting” and remind you that AOL has many, many forums. Clearly, posting is not the same as instant messaging. Heck, instant messages don’t even necessarily go through AOL’s servers. It is not technically possible for them to be logged, because AIM’s servers never see them!

But, somehow, this became an issue due to the black hat blogger who runs Macslash reporting it aggressively. And hey, it appeared on the web, so it must be true, right?

In response, an AOL spokesman issued this statement (in part):

The related section of the Terms of Service is called “Content You Post” and, as such, logically and legally it relates only to content a user posts in a public area of the service. If a user posts content in a public area of the service, like a chat room, message board, or other public forum, that information may be used by AOL for other purposes.

There! Now not only do we have common sense on our side, we’ve confirmed it! Should be good enough, right?

The response, from the black hat that started this mess, is as follows:

Logically and legally we disagree here. In fact, I’d go so far as to say that Mr. Weinstein is lying.

Yes, you read that right. AOL is now being accused of lying for clarifying an already clear statement by a blogger who can not set aside a conspiracy theory. Further, other sources are also carrying the statement and calling it a lie, such as the ever inconsistent slashdot.

Now, it seems likely that the blogger will get his way and the Terms of Service will be amended to make this perfectly clear. He will then cry victory. But all this really proves is one thing, which I will call the OAR First Law of Public Statements:

No matter how idiot-proof you make a public statement, eventually an idiot big enough to misinterpret it will find it. And not only that, but he’ll probably be highly paranoid, delusional and aggressive about his misinterpretation.

I note that MacWorld never threw a punch in this mess. It seems the New York Times (I think it was?) was right to be critical of bloggers.

Update: The two sentence version of this reply was posted to slashdot. One funny reply:

I wouldn’t call a blogger a black hat.

Though they are both malicious by nature, the blogger requires a lot less knowledge to inflict harm upon it’s target.

In the end, I just went to a local computer shop with a decent warranty and picked up a card. It worked.

Then I got home and read this response by Bob M. to my Usenet query, which I’m now passing on for the sake of completeness:

DVI (and similar digital interfaces, or even analog types, for that matter) really doesn't have a "max. resolution" (pixel format) per se. The limiting factor is pretty much always the pixel rate, and as long as you can put together a valid timing for a given format which does not exceed the rate limit of the interface in question, the interface will be happen. For instance, a format of, say, 200 pixels horizontally by 10,000 vertically at 60 Hz refresh may be a silly thing to do, but since the pixel rate would probably come in well under 150 MHz it wouldn't pose much of a problem for most interfaces.

With respect to DVI specifically, the maximum pixel rate permissible (in the single- pixel- per- clock mode) is 165 MHz; this is sufficient to cover the VESA standard timing for 1600 x 1200 at 60 Hz (162.000 MHz pixel clock), even at CRT-like blanking times. Reducing the blanking will increase the active pixel count supportable quite a bit higher, of course. However, whether or not a given implementation can actually support the specified max. rate is not guaranteed; cable and connector quality issues may limit the max. rate that can be reliably used to something less than the spec. maximum.

Thanks, Bob! This makes sense to me at last!

I just got eVGA’s reply. It includes a disclaimer/threat not to pass on the email, which would usually make me certain to pass it on. Pardon me, gentlemen, but you do not have a NDA with my signature on it! And you didn’t actually give me any iunformation! But I want to keep this short so I can pass on a related story.

First, the stupid email:

Unfortunately we have not specifically tested our products with the Apple Cinema brand of monitors. As for the max resolution when making DVI connections, 1600x1200 is the conservative number for the advertised max resolution. However like every computer hardware device, the optimal performance will depend on the compatible of each computer devices working together as a whole.

Which brings us to the unrelated story. A few months ago, a coworker asked me about an old IM program that would work on Mac OS 8.5. I suggested looking for an old AIM or Yahoo. When he asked about MSN, I said it was probably worth a look. He found a download for 9.1 or Mac OS X on Microsoft’s page. But there was a big help button on the page, which he clicked.

The reply came back: They linked him to the download page he’d already been on.

Both of these stories remind me of two things:

1. Red Dwarf. Hey, what doesn’t relate to Red Dwarf in some way? Specifically, Rimmer’s line from Balance of Power:

In answering the question, “What does the red spectrum tell us about quasars?” — write bigger — there are various words that need to be defined. What is a spectrum, what is a red one, why is it red, and why is it so frequently linked with quasars? (Puzzled)What the hell is a quasar? Just put a neat cross through it and we’ll do the next one, OK?

2. The classic “You’re in a helicopter!” joke.

All in all, this leads me to my real point:

It’s better not to give an answer at all than to give one that insults your users.

I was going to update my bloig more regularly, but I ran into a problem.

The other day, the cooling fan on my GeForce Ti4400 (video card) lost a blade. I’m not sure if it is edge driven or just off balance, but it doesn’t turn without a flick start now. The fan is will integrated, so I don’t think I’ll be able to replace it. Time to go looking for new cards. (I could probably run the computer anyway without wrecking the main board, but I don’t really want molten video card dripping on the motherboard.)

It took me several hours to find a performance chart showing the Ti4400’s performance against other video chipsets. Although the Ti4400 is no longer high-end (or even made), my first planned chipset was actually slower. Kind of odd, considering how long ago I bought this card. Since this is a Micro ATX case with a modest (300W) power supply, plan B is the Geforce 5700 chipset. All cards based on it seem to support a maximum digital resolution of 1600×1200. This is a problem for people like me who use widescreen panels — 1680×1050.

It will probably work, right? But it doesn’t hurt to ask. So I send off an email to MSI, who made the last card. A few hours later, I realize MSI’s card broke because of a $2 piece I can’t fix, so I send off an email to eVGA, too.

Neither has replied yet.

I sincerely hope I never work for a company so large that we ignore sales enquiries.