Lunar Eclipse

Hey, if you're on the east coast, check out the Lunar Eclipse that's going on right now. It's pretty cool, I don't think I've ever seen a lunar eclipse before.

Permalink | 5 Comments | Tags: Science | id 4366

19:24 (utc-5)

 

Daily Python URL available as RSS feed

Hey, the Daily Python URL now has an RSS feed. Finally. Unfortunately, they didn't bother putting descriptions in the feed.

Permalink | 3 Comments | id 4365

13:43 (utc-5)

 

Slavery

Josh Claybourn (and the Bible) on slavery.

Permalink | Comments? | Tags: Religion | id 4364

02:02 (utc-5)

 

Afghanistan Airport

I just saw in a ticker on Fox News that Afghanistan's airport has reopened, after being closed for 20 years, for traffic between Kabul and (I think) Kandahar. Progress!

Permalink | 2 Comments | Tags: Opinions/Politics | id 4363

00:12 (utc-5)

 

Don't buy UMAX

Update on my scanner situation: I found some software sitting on UMAX's FTP site (which was slow) that let XP be able to use the scanner. But it still scanned garbage (black screens, snow, etc.). Since the software was supposedly the correct version of "VistaScan" (version 3.55)^[1] and didn't work, I wasn't going to pay 15 bucks to potentially get the same software that didn't work, and then have to buy a new scanner.

So, we went out and bought a Canon LiDE 30 for 80 bucks, which we've been satisfied with (It's tiiiny... cool). In fact, first thing I did when I was looking at getting the Canon was go to the site and see whether they had drivers available for download from their site. Turns out they had their manual in PDF form and all the drivers you need.

Anyway, the point is that I'll never buy a UMAX product again if I can help it, and I'd recommend you don't either.

Footnotes:
[1]: Note that they even had newer versions, such as 3.75, available from their FTP server. But, even though the software's newer, it doesn't support my scanner, though 3.75 supports a whole boatload of their other scanners. I'm not sure why they'd deliberately stop supporting some of their -- not so old, mind you -- scanners in newer versions of their software, but whatever reason they have (lazyness, broken architecture that they don't want to support in their slightly older scanners anymore) is unacceptible.

Permalink | 1 Comment | id 4362

00:02 (utc-5)
edited: 00:08 (utc-5)