Here's a useful tool for embedding the maps you create with Google My Maps:
http://www.dr2ooo.com/tools/maps/
Here's an example:
http://sustainableadventure.blogspot.com/2007/04/eagle-creek-paddle.html
The embedded map actually uses the dr2000 web site so I'm not sure about the long term stability. Presumably it's not too hard to do this yourself, but I haven't figured that out yet.
Monday, April 30, 2007
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Custom Google Maps
Google Maps recently added the ability to put points and routes onto Google Maps and save the results. It's really easy to use. You can even attach photos or videos. (Note: you'll need a Google account, if you use Gmail you already have one, if not, it's free and easy to register.)
For example, here's one of my regular running routes:
Saskatoon Running Route
Of course, it can be used for a lot of other things - check out some of their featured maps.
For example, here's one of my regular running routes:
Saskatoon Running Route
Of course, it can be used for a lot of other things - check out some of their featured maps.
Friday, April 20, 2007
Mac + printers
Ever since I got my Mac Mini I've been struggling with the printer issue. I have an Epson 2200 hooked up to a Windows machine. It took a fair bit of research to figure out how to connect to it from OS X, but I finally managed it. It is supposed to be easy, but it looks like a lot of people have problems. But I could only use the Gutenprint (formerly Gimp-Print) drivers which don't support all the features of the printer.
I downloaded the latest Mac OS X drivers from Epson, but I couldn't see how to use them. Finally I found out that you can't use USB drivers on a networked printer. This seems like a strange distinction - on Windows I can use the same drivers whether the printer is connected directly or networked. Maybe it works if the printer is shared from another Mac - I don't have two Mac's to try it.
I thought a network print server might do the trick but from what I could find out, I'd still have problems. It looks like Apple's new Extreme Air Port might handle it a bit better, but it still wouldn't let you run the Epson utilities (ink level, cleaning, etc.). And although they claim it's Windows compatible I wouldn't be surprised if there were issues.
In the end I physically moved the printer and connected it directly to the Mac. Rather than fight with sharing it from the Mac and somehow connecting from Windows I just went out and bought a new printer for the Windows machine. (I wanted the large format 2200 on the Mac since that's where I plan to print photo enlargements from.) I bought an Epson R260. (Epson's may or may not be the best, but I'm familiar with them.) It amazes me that a printer that has a resolution of several thousand dpi and produces 1.5 picoliter droplets costs only $120! I realize they make their money on the ink, but it's still amazing price/performance relative to a few years ago. Of course, I'd like the newer Epson R2400 to replace the 2200 but that'll have to wait.
It seems strange that Parallels and VMware can virtualize an entire computer, but for some reason OS X printer drivers are tied to hardware. I'm sure there are "good technical reasons" for this, but it seems pretty crappy to me. The Mac seems to lose to Windows on this front.
I downloaded the latest Mac OS X drivers from Epson, but I couldn't see how to use them. Finally I found out that you can't use USB drivers on a networked printer. This seems like a strange distinction - on Windows I can use the same drivers whether the printer is connected directly or networked. Maybe it works if the printer is shared from another Mac - I don't have two Mac's to try it.
I thought a network print server might do the trick but from what I could find out, I'd still have problems. It looks like Apple's new Extreme Air Port might handle it a bit better, but it still wouldn't let you run the Epson utilities (ink level, cleaning, etc.). And although they claim it's Windows compatible I wouldn't be surprised if there were issues.
In the end I physically moved the printer and connected it directly to the Mac. Rather than fight with sharing it from the Mac and somehow connecting from Windows I just went out and bought a new printer for the Windows machine. (I wanted the large format 2200 on the Mac since that's where I plan to print photo enlargements from.) I bought an Epson R260. (Epson's may or may not be the best, but I'm familiar with them.) It amazes me that a printer that has a resolution of several thousand dpi and produces 1.5 picoliter droplets costs only $120! I realize they make their money on the ink, but it's still amazing price/performance relative to a few years ago. Of course, I'd like the newer Epson R2400 to replace the 2200 but that'll have to wait.
It seems strange that Parallels and VMware can virtualize an entire computer, but for some reason OS X printer drivers are tied to hardware. I'm sure there are "good technical reasons" for this, but it seems pretty crappy to me. The Mac seems to lose to Windows on this front.
Friday, April 13, 2007
Three Stages of Design
I was listening to a podcast about software design and they were quoting Steve Jobs. So this is third or fourth hand and probably garbled from the original.
Stage One is where you are new to a domain and it seems simple and you design a simple solution. But the simplicity is really a lack of understanding so your design, while simple, is not very good.
Stage Two is where you see the complexity of a domain and you end up with a complex design. It might handle lots of things but the complexity makes it hard to learn and use.
Stage Three is where you figure out how to make a simple design that still addresses the complexity of the domain. This is the elegant solution. It doesn't have every conceivable feature, but it handles the important stuff for a majority of users. For example, the iPod. Lots of other music players have more features, but the iPod hits that sweet spot balancing simplicity and features. (100 million buyers testify to that)
Back when my company was doing custom software development for a wide variety of domains, a lot of our products were Stage One. A few progressed to Stage Two. Even now that we're focused on one domain, our product is still definitely Stage Two. Suneido, our development tool has some Stage Three aspects but doesn't really qualify overall.
Stage Three is hard. And there doesn't seem to be any formula for achieving it.
Stage One is where you are new to a domain and it seems simple and you design a simple solution. But the simplicity is really a lack of understanding so your design, while simple, is not very good.
Stage Two is where you see the complexity of a domain and you end up with a complex design. It might handle lots of things but the complexity makes it hard to learn and use.
Stage Three is where you figure out how to make a simple design that still addresses the complexity of the domain. This is the elegant solution. It doesn't have every conceivable feature, but it handles the important stuff for a majority of users. For example, the iPod. Lots of other music players have more features, but the iPod hits that sweet spot balancing simplicity and features. (100 million buyers testify to that)
Back when my company was doing custom software development for a wide variety of domains, a lot of our products were Stage One. A few progressed to Stage Two. Even now that we're focused on one domain, our product is still definitely Stage Two. Suneido, our development tool has some Stage Three aspects but doesn't really qualify overall.
Stage Three is hard. And there doesn't seem to be any formula for achieving it.
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)