I have a stack of PC Magazines back for ages at the top of my closet. On one of them, there is a caricature of Bill Gates as an octopus, fighting off attacks from fighter jets (the lead of which was Netscape) because Microsoft had the audacity to ship Internet Explorer as the default browser in their operating system. Let me repeat that: The fact that an operating system used it's influence to set the DEFAULT WEB BROWSER was front page news. And people were upset.
And now....Microsoft has the stones to involuntarily change the operating system (and the license agreement) that it's users run on. What is the response? Sure there's outrage, but what are the real consequences to Microsoft? Maybe a class-action lawsuit at best for a few people? An apology for 'not being clear enough' about the upgrade process?
If you really want to be serious about how much control people have over your systems, you need to be a little bit more vocal, and a little bit more upset than this. The fact that the 'Internet Outrage' only caused the ad agency to double-down should probably clue you in to the level of action you really need to take here.
If you're not willing to defend against a company that is literally threatening your job security (I have clients with Windows 10 PCs), what threat are you to a fast food chain?
Weight, as well as testing the fueling system. This is a complete wet rehearsal, the bird just never leaves the ground. It may be possible for the launch hold downs to maintain the S1 safely with an empty upper, but if you see any of the testing at mcgreggor they have to simulate weight on the rocket to perform test fires.
The after-burning is expected. The same thing happens on a pad safe during an abort. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... This is the aborted launch from SES-9, and you can clearly see that there are flames under the rocket post-abort, but this same rocket launched 4 days later (had to make a new launch window) without issue.
Can you name ten things on your present vehicle that make no design sense whatsoever? I'd imagine you can without breaking a sweat, and on something that was designed by human hands. Now take a biological organism, something that thru a process of winner-take-all competition somehow managed to develop into a dominant form: would that form be perfect? Would every piece of the puzzle fit perfectly together in an ordered tapestry? Does the operating system you are currently running still have vestiges of long-unused or obsolete code that do things they were never intended to do but not fatally destroy the final work?
Natural selection does not require perfection. It doesn't even require mediocrity. It only requires that there be something lower on the ladder than you are. But as long as we're asking, what happened to my awesome prehensile tail?
I was going to make a snazzy comment on how TPM was toyed with re: OSX and it doesn't seem to be making any trouble....then compare safedisc and securom and how it was so easy to modify executables to bypass the security....or how much more controlled-hardware environments like playstations and xboxes were no trouble at all to break....
Then I remembered someone claims the end of piracy every year and I should go back to my coffee.
I think the reason you haven't seen touch catch on before now is because of how horrendous it is. Tactile feedback isn't just a side effect of current interface methods, it's an important aspect to input. Even ignoring problems with touch that may be solved as the technology matures (dirt/grease, unintentional gestures, dirtying up a display that doubles as the input device, losing finger position), touch simply doesn't feel like interaction.
As far as actual devices go, having sold both touch and classical variants on appliances, I can say that the more often someone uses a touch interface, the less inclined they are to continue using it. When someone's favorite model transitions to a 'touch' type interface, they can't return it for what they had been using fast enough. It's the hot new thing that nobody likes to use, but everyone thinks is real pretty.
Even Star Trek, the hands-down Sci-Fi 'King of Touch' acknowledged the technology's limitations. To quote Tom Paris: "I am tired of tapping panels. For once, I want controls that let me actually feel the ship I'm piloting."
I cut my teeth on programming microcontrollers and embedded devices, and high level languages are a chore for me...having to program for some api/interface/whatever and barely seeing what goes on at the hardware level is strange and confusing for me. That being said, isn't the very reason I'm not fond of high level languages something that would make it an easy transition to multicore development? Are the techniques not an extension of what a programmer already knows and does versus something completely new?
Also, it would seem from a low level standpoint that working with long instruction paths on a superscalar architecture would have been an excellent stepstone for multicore development...am I wrong in seeing some parallels (no pun intended) here?
I currently own a Samsung SPH-i330 PDA phone. It's a wonderfull toy, I can browse online at ISDN speeds and actually accomplish something, and has applications for virtually anything I can concievably want to do. It is also four years old, and I can't replace it. Why?
Because noone is building top-end products anymore. Every new PDA phone out there drops critical things, most specifically, analog roaming.
I'll be willing to shell out a cold $1000 for the phone that I want, but noone will make or carry it. I want EVERYTHING, and I'm willing to pay for it. I don't care if the phone is a bit larger, or clunky, so long as I can do what I want with it.
At least I can buy a laptop with what I want in it now.
Sprint has had seventeen Sirius music channels broadcasting to vision-capable phones for months now. So where's the post about Sprint's already-here music?
I've personally worked in a research capacity for a company on different methods of counterfeit prevention. As this took approximately two weeks, the investigation was quite thorough. In short, RFID is a technology suited more to tracking (think FedEx) than counterfeit prevention...they are NOT difficult to fake, and essentially provide no more protection than a barcode. In addition, they have the added negative that anyone with a reader doesn't need to physically SEE or TOUCH the product to learn the code they need to embed in their RFID fake.
RFID doesn't stop fakes, it allows you to be tracked without your knowledge. I wonder if that's the point?
I work at RadioShack, and almost every cell-phone we carry has PDA-like functionality. There is little room for 3rd party apps, but every one contains a calendar, address book, memo pad, and the ability to recieve or send email. Unless you're an active hotsyncer, why bother?
Also, do Palm-based cell-phones or PDAphones count in these numbers?
The reason the market for things like zonealarm exist is because the operating system was faulty in the first place. A firewall should NOT need to be an extra application, it should have been part of the system when it was first concieved. It took me 15 minutes to setup a gateway using iptables that was smart enough to recognize the few services that should potentially be coming from the internet, and which services stay within the local network. Would it be that hard to have coded most windows services to ignore requests outside of the local subnet by default?
Internet explorer added functionality. It is not the purpose of an operating system to interpret and display ***ML. A firewall removes functionality. By improperly designing the windows system, they created a niche market, which other companies have exploited, just driving the cost of owning a windows pc up that much higher.
In my day, when we wanted mobile computing power, we had to do it with a 6 Mhz Z80. I mean really, you DONT need a desktop computer for waypoint flying.
CPU Usage for UAV XP Embedded - 35% Waypoint system - 1% Flight Control System - 2% (It's written in C# with.net framework) Seti@home client - 62%
I just got into hot water with my boss over upgrading several workstations to firefox. I believe his exact words were 'They've already put out a lot of patches, there can't be any serious problems left!'. What a bail-out!
You have to consider the source of the music, though. The problem is, a lot of that 70s music was mixed by a person listening through a high-quality TUBE amplifier. Ergo, the only way to reproduce what he was listening to is to mimic the tubes.
In general, tubes give a warmer sound, so a piece of music tailored to tubes would sound flat on a digital amplifier. The amp is producing sound exactly as it's recorded.
Today, though, everything is recorded, mixed, and distributed digitally on solid state gear. The mics plug straight into a DSP, and recording monitors have digital inputs. If you want to hear what the mixer intended you to hear, the only way to go is with a modern transistor based solid-state amplifier.
I told myself about 5 minutes in, if applied so much as a 5-year-old's grasp of science to this movie, I'd be getting dragged away by security for creating a disturbance. Stop a self-sustaining fusion reaction by dumping it in a river indeed.
Slashdot Mirror
Did they make another BSD fork or are they switching to an x86-based architecture?
I have a stack of PC Magazines back for ages at the top of my closet. On one of them, there is a caricature of Bill Gates as an octopus, fighting off attacks from fighter jets (the lead of which was Netscape) because Microsoft had the audacity to ship Internet Explorer as the default browser in their operating system. Let me repeat that: The fact that an operating system used it's influence to set the DEFAULT WEB BROWSER was front page news. And people were upset.
And now....Microsoft has the stones to involuntarily change the operating system (and the license agreement) that it's users run on. What is the response? Sure there's outrage, but what are the real consequences to Microsoft? Maybe a class-action lawsuit at best for a few people? An apology for 'not being clear enough' about the upgrade process?
If you really want to be serious about how much control people have over your systems, you need to be a little bit more vocal, and a little bit more upset than this. The fact that the 'Internet Outrage' only caused the ad agency to double-down should probably clue you in to the level of action you really need to take here.
If you're not willing to defend against a company that is literally threatening your job security (I have clients with Windows 10 PCs), what threat are you to a fast food chain?
Weight, as well as testing the fueling system. This is a complete wet rehearsal, the bird just never leaves the ground. It may be possible for the launch hold downs to maintain the S1 safely with an empty upper, but if you see any of the testing at mcgreggor they have to simulate weight on the rocket to perform test fires.
The after-burning is expected. The same thing happens on a pad safe during an abort. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... This is the aborted launch from SES-9, and you can clearly see that there are flames under the rocket post-abort, but this same rocket launched 4 days later (had to make a new launch window) without issue.
I don't suppose you have a link to a play-by-play of the original/altered mission path?
Looks a lot like what I had to go through to save my Jool mission. Congrats guys.
7, 8
Can you name ten things on your present vehicle that make no design sense whatsoever? I'd imagine you can without breaking a sweat, and on something that was designed by human hands. Now take a biological organism, something that thru a process of winner-take-all competition somehow managed to develop into a dominant form: would that form be perfect? Would every piece of the puzzle fit perfectly together in an ordered tapestry? Does the operating system you are currently running still have vestiges of long-unused or obsolete code that do things they were never intended to do but not fatally destroy the final work?
Natural selection does not require perfection. It doesn't even require mediocrity. It only requires that there be something lower on the ladder than you are. But as long as we're asking, what happened to my awesome prehensile tail?
That's when one person decrypts the executable and distributes it in an unencrypted/undrm'ed form
Nothing new here.
I was going to make a snazzy comment on how TPM was toyed with re: OSX and it doesn't seem to be making any trouble....then compare safedisc and securom and how it was so easy to modify executables to bypass the security....or how much more controlled-hardware environments like playstations and xboxes were no trouble at all to break....
Then I remembered someone claims the end of piracy every year and I should go back to my coffee.
I think the reason you haven't seen touch catch on before now is because of how horrendous it is. Tactile feedback isn't just a side effect of current interface methods, it's an important aspect to input. Even ignoring problems with touch that may be solved as the technology matures (dirt/grease, unintentional gestures, dirtying up a display that doubles as the input device, losing finger position), touch simply doesn't feel like interaction.
As far as actual devices go, having sold both touch and classical variants on appliances, I can say that the more often someone uses a touch interface, the less inclined they are to continue using it. When someone's favorite model transitions to a 'touch' type interface, they can't return it for what they had been using fast enough. It's the hot new thing that nobody likes to use, but everyone thinks is real pretty.
Even Star Trek, the hands-down Sci-Fi 'King of Touch' acknowledged the technology's limitations. To quote Tom Paris: "I am tired of tapping panels. For once, I want controls that let me actually feel the ship I'm piloting."
I cut my teeth on programming microcontrollers and embedded devices, and high level languages are a chore for me...having to program for some api/interface/whatever and barely seeing what goes on at the hardware level is strange and confusing for me. That being said, isn't the very reason I'm not fond of high level languages something that would make it an easy transition to multicore development? Are the techniques not an extension of what a programmer already knows and does versus something completely new?
Also, it would seem from a low level standpoint that working with long instruction paths on a superscalar architecture would have been an excellent stepstone for multicore development...am I wrong in seeing some parallels (no pun intended) here?
I currently own a Samsung SPH-i330 PDA phone. It's a wonderfull toy, I can browse online at ISDN speeds and actually accomplish something, and has applications for virtually anything I can concievably want to do. It is also four years old, and I can't replace it. Why?
Because noone is building top-end products anymore. Every new PDA phone out there drops critical things, most specifically, analog roaming.
I'll be willing to shell out a cold $1000 for the phone that I want, but noone will make or carry it. I want EVERYTHING, and I'm willing to pay for it. I don't care if the phone is a bit larger, or clunky, so long as I can do what I want with it.
At least I can buy a laptop with what I want in it now.
(The above might be over your head. Disregard)
Sprint has had seventeen Sirius music channels broadcasting to vision-capable phones for months now. So where's the post about Sprint's already-here music?
Guess it got lost behind ROKR posts.
I've personally worked in a research capacity for a company on different methods of counterfeit prevention. As this took approximately two weeks, the investigation was quite thorough. In short, RFID is a technology suited more to tracking (think FedEx) than counterfeit prevention...they are NOT difficult to fake, and essentially provide no more protection than a barcode. In addition, they have the added negative that anyone with a reader doesn't need to physically SEE or TOUCH the product to learn the code they need to embed in their RFID fake.
RFID doesn't stop fakes, it allows you to be tracked without your knowledge. I wonder if that's the point?
I work at RadioShack, and almost every cell-phone we carry has PDA-like functionality. There is little room for 3rd party apps, but every one contains a calendar, address book, memo pad, and the ability to recieve or send email. Unless you're an active hotsyncer, why bother?
Also, do Palm-based cell-phones or PDAphones count in these numbers?
The reason the market for things like zonealarm exist is because the operating system was faulty in the first place. A firewall should NOT need to be an extra application, it should have been part of the system when it was first concieved. It took me 15 minutes to setup a gateway using iptables that was smart enough to recognize the few services that should potentially be coming from the internet, and which services stay within the local network. Would it be that hard to have coded most windows services to ignore requests outside of the local subnet by default?
Internet explorer added functionality. It is not the purpose of an operating system to interpret and display ***ML. A firewall removes functionality. By improperly designing the windows system, they created a niche market, which other companies have exploited, just driving the cost of owning a windows pc up that much higher.
FOUR megs of RAM?!?! LUNACY! What were you doing, modeling the atmosphere?
In my day, when we wanted mobile computing power, we had to do it with a 6 Mhz Z80. I mean really, you DONT need a desktop computer for waypoint flying.
.net framework)
CPU Usage for UAV
XP Embedded - 35%
Waypoint system - 1%
Flight Control System - 2% (It's written in C# with
Seti@home client - 62%
I think they call this 'market economics'. There is a demand for something, and companies must compete with pricing for sales of their product.
Nifty when it actually works, huh?
And for the people too lazy to cut and paste:
Motherboard Compatibility
Memory Timings
Don't flame me.
As usual, THG comes with a bit more practical angle:
b oard/20040602/i ndex.html
o ard/20040119/i ndex.html
Which DIMMS actually work with which motherboards:
http://www.tomshardware.com/mother
Also, effects of memory timing on performance:
http://www.tomshardware.com/motherb
I just got into hot water with my boss over upgrading several workstations to firefox. I believe his exact words were 'They've already put out a lot of patches, there can't be any serious problems left!'. What a bail-out!
Oh, and that last poll? -20%
You have to consider the source of the music, though. The problem is, a lot of that 70s music was mixed by a person listening through a high-quality TUBE amplifier. Ergo, the only way to reproduce what he was listening to is to mimic the tubes.
In general, tubes give a warmer sound, so a piece of music tailored to tubes would sound flat on a digital amplifier. The amp is producing sound exactly as it's recorded.
Today, though, everything is recorded, mixed, and distributed digitally on solid state gear. The mics plug straight into a DSP, and recording monitors have digital inputs. If you want to hear what the mixer intended you to hear, the only way to go is with a modern transistor based solid-state amplifier.
I told myself about 5 minutes in, if applied so much as a 5-year-old's grasp of science to this movie, I'd be getting dragged away by security for creating a disturbance. Stop a self-sustaining fusion reaction by dumping it in a river indeed.