Just keep track of the amount of data that is advertising and SPAM, and be sure to factor that out of the data that you meter from my use. Better yet, just block everything that I don't want coming through. ktnxbye
Lockheed picking this up will help develop the technology more quickly, something that I'm all for. If they can find a way to use this technology usefully and practically (which I think they can), it will change the way that we use electricity on all sorts of levels.
If we do have to start paying on a per bandwidth basis, I forsee developing a program to keep track of all advertisements, SPAM, and other unwanted bandwidth. Just send the bill to the ISP and claim "I was being charged for unsolicited traffic". It works both ways.
You can't charge someone for something that they have no control over. Nowadays, you have pop up ads that may or may not contain sounds or even video. While "unlimited" bandwidth may make this a non-issue, if you are being charged for that traffic when it was not requested, there is no way that will hold up in court.
You can't charge someone for getting credit card offers in their P.O. Box, just like you can't charge people for having ads dropped on their doorstep or their windshield wipers.
If this does come to pass and someone does take this issue to court, it will be troublesome for the ISP to prove it was solicited content. The excuse of "I didn't want that, I just wanted the news article text." or "I was just checking my email to see if my grandma wrote me when I got an email about a child in Rowanda that wanted my money".
It would cost more to keep track of that than it would be worth, they should just start being honest about how much bandwidth they are selling you, and they should start upgrading their poorly aging infrastructure.
*On a technical level I understand that your machine does request packets to be delivered, but the user does not technically approve that request. For example, if the page you are loading is on a different server from the server containing the ads, you technically never approved that the ads on the other server be loaded, you merely requested information from the original site.
You had it partially right, 100Mb = 12.5MB, or thereabouts. However, 100MB (Megabytes) != 1GB (Gigabyte), even 1000MB != 1GB.
MB is Megabytes and Mb is Megabits. You may be thinking of 1000Mb (Megabits) = 1Gb (Gigabit) which is true in most networking settings.
*Typically storage size is measured in 2^n increments, meaning that it is a factor of 1024 for storage.
*Measuring in bits instead of bytes is typically done when measuring transfers, where the base ten system is used. Hence the 1000 factor instead of the 1024 factor.
The same is true for 100 GB != 1 TB
Stick around it will happen.... although, it will more likely be Debian that picks up a GPLv3 kernel and RH and friends that stick with the v2 Linux kernel.
Linux can't really be made GPLv3 because of the number of contributors that didn't include the "or later", although I suppose they might make an exception if Linus demanded it be moved to version 3, but he won't. On the other hand, Solaris will be moved to GPLv3, and some GNU and FSF fans will pick it up and run with it.
This really isn't a problem because this just diversifies the open source salad bar of choice. BSD is great for proprietary developers that want to use OSS as a basis for their program. Linux is great for OSS that will be used in business settings (think Tivo), and Solaris will become the new pet of the FSF.
All of the open source communities (yes, there are several different groups of ideology) will be served by this move, and it will be great for OSS in the long run. Short-term it will hinder the popularity of current Linux distros, but should help the open-source community grow as a whole over the long-term.
Linux is designed for Linux users , it does what Linux users want . If it doesn't, Linux developers write software that will make it do what Linux users want.
The goal of Linux is not to "lure the masses away from evil M$". The goal of Linux is to make quality software that does its job, and sure it will gain users because it is quality software.
Ask Dell, eventually it is good enough that it becomes the best option, but designing an OS to work for "Windoze n00bs" just to gain more users is not the goal of Linux. It always has been and always will be developed to be practical and useful to Linux users first, not Windows users.
Easy to use: yes. Quality: you bet. For the masses: one user at a time.
If I were a decent university, this trend would scare the crap out of me. What will likely occur is that most of the students in the more expensive fields will resort to going to second-tier schools that are much cheaper.
The cost of education is already climbing much too fast, but throw in added fees for having a higher paying field, and you're likely to see some engineering and business departments at community colleges will beef up their programs.
That's not to say that they will be able to compete with top notch schools in those fields, but they will hire a mediocre staff and fill the classrooms to the brim. The end result of this will be a large group of graduates with second rate education, because getting the real stuff costs too much.
I attend a private university that most would consider second-tier, and some of the students already scare me. I am in disbelief of how little it takes to get a degree in comparison to actually knowing your stuff, but I know that this is the case in many different schools.
For the sake of America's future, we need to raise the funding for higher education facilities. I am a conservative that attends a private university, so I generally am against raising taxes and I wouldn't benefit from more government aid in the public schools, but I definitely see the need.
America needs a higher quality of education for a more competitive price, it's the only way that we will keep from losing ground as a nation.
That was my bad, I didn't account for a time zone change, but you could easily do the same in reverse order.
Several reasons you wouldn't want to just power everything up to the grid now for trains:
1) Storing energy on a vehicle is much safer than having power lines run the length of the track. You have people, animals, the elements, lots of factors go into running power lines everywhere there is track.
2) Upgrading the infrastructure would be much easier and less costly if you did it a station at a time as well.
3) The solution I'm proposing would be much more robust, all power problems would be contained locally instead of having a large section of the country with no power, you might have a single station go down instead.
Obviously every bit of this is theoretical, there is no way the US will have either capacitors or trains as a popular solution anywhere in the immediate future. I just thought I would throw out something different, I'm tired of hearing about Li-ion batteries and Ethanol, just as I'm tired of hearing about the holy grail of all electric cars. They are the next practical step in an economy that is constantly evolving, but there really are a lot of flaws with the current system.
Cars are dangerous, inefficient, expensive, and they are a poor use of space. Look at how much wasted space there are in many cities that have parking ramps. The only reason that automobiles are popular is that they are convenient, and appear really efficient on the small scale in the immediate time frame.
This is another step in the right direction, but I can see two possible great long-term solutions:
1) The jump to electric power is a must, it's cleaner, easier to transport over long distances, and it can be produced many different ways. What we don't have yet, is a great way to store electricity in medium-sized quantities efficiently. Batteries just simply won't take us there, chemical storage is not the best solution. While Fuel cells may provide some relief, I'm not sure they will be optimal long-term.
Electric power is best stored as electric power, and that means that we need to continue to develop ultra-capacitors. While the density is not yet on par with the other two technologies, there is a lot of promising research being done to increase the density. In time it will become competitive with battery densities, but there are much greater advantages to using caps over batteries:
*Caps can be charged very quickly, and as the technology matures, we're becoming more efficient at discharging caps at variable rates while retaining high efficiency.
*Caps can be charged and discharged millions of times with little to no performance loss.
*Caps are very safe for the environment, and also safe to put on board a vehicle and hand-held electronics. No hazardous waste, no explosions, and most likely no chemical leaks, etc....
2) The gap from cars and planes needs to be made back to trains. Japan and Europe have a huge advantage over the US, and we need to invest some money in making smarter decisions. The bullet trains in Japan get groups of people from one place to another at very impressive rates, almost rivaling airfare speeds. When you think about the time it takes to go through security, board a plane, load it with cargo, take-off, get up to cruising speed, land, get off the plane, go through security and get back on the road, there is a lot of overhead.
Bullet trains can offer speeds up to 200 mph, and typically have much faster boarding and unloading times. A trip from San Antonio to Dallas could take an hour and a half, but Google maps tells me that it takes over 4 and a half hours via automobile. I think it would be tough to beat an hour and a half total time from the time you stepped foot in the airport in SA until the time you left DFW. Similarly, you could easily make it from Boston to DC in under 3 hours.
While I understand that planes can make these times currently, they do it on fossil fuels, and they are not efficient. Trains can use a lot less power to move people a lot more efficiently, and they can do it on electric power. Trains with caps on board could pick up charge at various stations, while the passengers load and unload, and then travel on cap power to the next station. Wind and solar power could be set up at these various stations to keep a steady supply of power waiting for the next train to arrive.
Trains also offer safety over both cars and planes. There are much fewer accidents, as there are fewer drivers and more passengers. This is also an advantage in places like Europe where passengers can make their long trips while sleeping in a cabin at night. Imagine boarding a train in Denver at 10 PM and waking up the next morning in New York City with enough time to make an 8 AM meeting. Imagine paying prices similarly to taking a bus to get there.
I know that was a long comment, but I really think this could be promising if the government would tax gasoline more and start funding the construction of a better train transportation system. It would have to start out small, Boston to New York, DC to Philadelphia, Dallas to San Antonio, Atlanta to Miami, Chicago to Detroit. Eventually it could expand. For inner city travel we could use subway systems and buses.
Trains are affordable, efficient, clean, fast, safe, and versatile.
A) Nvidia, with the lead, but still no completely open drivers?
B) Intel, with completely open drivers, but nowhere close to the lead or high end graphics cards?
C) ATI, with moderately capable hardware and struggling drivers? If they open their drivers up completely and Dell turns to them for their supply of graphics cards, could we see a surge in popularity amongst Linux users?
Long-term, either Intel will catch up on the hardware side, or Nvidia and ATI will have to open up their drivers. The first of the latter two to open up their drivers completely will probably get the edge they need in the POSIX user crowd.
I guess we can always hope that AMD wises up and makes this a 3 horse race!
The problem with Linux is new users. Yes, you heard me right. As new users come in, they want Linux to completely change the way it works. Everything suddenly needs to be redesigned to be like what they are used to (usually Windows). It's great to bring fresh ideas to the table, but countless people have said the following things about Linux:
1)Linux needs a pretty GUI, nobody wants to use a command line
2)There are too many choices / distros / package managers / window managers, there needs to be one popular one.
3)Linux needs better hardware support and more software support, nobody wants to use an OS that doesn't support my XYZ hardware or run my XYZ program.
While these all may seem like valid reasons to critize Linux, you are wrong. Linux has been a very practical, stable, robust, useful tool before you became a user, and it has been designed to be exactly the way that it is.
Linux is essentially capitalism at its finest, the best solution for the most users will succeed. If users have different opinions, there will be different options. Linux will continue to survive, just as it has. You get one vote in the open source community, vote by contributing to or using whatever software you feel is moving in the right direction, but don't complain because it's not like what you're used to. Use it, or don't.
The comments above make me sad. Is it really to the point that people convince themselves that the world would've been better off with Saddam in power? I understand that there has been a lot of death, and things haven't played out well. I would definitely say that the situation isn't ideal, but who are we kidding?
At the heart of the matter, Saddam broke terms with the UN, and the provisions in the resolutions required an UN co-ordinated effort to remove Saddam from power. The rest of the UN fell flat on their face, and didn't follow through with the resolution that they signed. Sure it makes the countries involved look really stupid, and sure I don't condone the killing of innocent citizens, but surely people haven't fooled themselves into thinking that Saddam was in the right and Bush was in the wrong!
I'm just wondering that if / when there is a split, which branch will take most of the developers and which branch will become more popular. There are several kernels out there:
1) Linux
2) Solaris
3) Hurd
then there are several tool sets as well, GNU, the BSD tool set, and others.
I am very interested to see if there will be a fork in the road as the GNU/Linux crowd faces this license transition period. Short term, I think it would be detrimental to the open-source community. Long term, I think it would provide an even more diverse set of options for users.
The million dollar question is: Would the developer pool be spread too thin (and who fares better, GNU without Linux or Linux without GNU)?
Once something is GPL2, it stays GPL2. You can not take it back, even if you own the copyright.
That is actually a proper statement because 'something' is that software, more properly, that specific released version of that software. So it is a true statement, once that version is releasesd under the GPL, that version stays under the GPL.
PCLinuxOS is a pretty face, they definitely have some talented artists, but I don't know what's up with your monitor issue on Ubuntu. I assure you that it is not "very buggy", although it does have a few problems here and there. Your comment about fiddling with the command line and "su" makes me wonder how much you really know about Linux. It sounds like you're afraid to use the OS... you may want to check out OSX, they'll take care of all the details for you. Personally, if I'm going to run something on my computer I want to know more about it than "stay away from the 'su' stuff".
Linux is different in the fact that it wants users to be knowledgeable, Microsoft and Apple don't care if you'd rather just blindly click the "Next" button. You should check out Fedora, Debian, Slackware and the like. Once you learn, you'll never want to go back. You might just be able to get that wireless card working too!
Slashdot Mirror
Just keep track of the amount of data that is advertising and SPAM, and be sure to factor that out of the data that you meter from my use. Better yet, just block everything that I don't want coming through. ktnxbye
Lockheed picking this up will help develop the technology more quickly, something that I'm all for. If they can find a way to use this technology usefully and practically (which I think they can), it will change the way that we use electricity on all sorts of levels.
You can't charge someone for something that they have no control over. Nowadays, you have pop up ads that may or may not contain sounds or even video. While "unlimited" bandwidth may make this a non-issue, if you are being charged for that traffic when it was not requested, there is no way that will hold up in court.
You can't charge someone for getting credit card offers in their P.O. Box, just like you can't charge people for having ads dropped on their doorstep or their windshield wipers.
If this does come to pass and someone does take this issue to court, it will be troublesome for the ISP to prove it was solicited content. The excuse of "I didn't want that, I just wanted the news article text." or "I was just checking my email to see if my grandma wrote me when I got an email about a child in Rowanda that wanted my money".
It would cost more to keep track of that than it would be worth, they should just start being honest about how much bandwidth they are selling you, and they should start upgrading their poorly aging infrastructure.
*On a technical level I understand that your machine does request packets to be delivered, but the user does not technically approve that request. For example, if the page you are loading is on a different server from the server containing the ads, you technically never approved that the ads on the other server be loaded, you merely requested information from the original site.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=1+GB+in+MB&bt nG=Search
You had it partially right, 100Mb = 12.5MB, or thereabouts. However, 100MB (Megabytes) != 1GB (Gigabyte), even 1000MB != 1GB.
MB is Megabytes and Mb is Megabits. You may be thinking of 1000Mb (Megabits) = 1Gb (Gigabit) which is true in most networking settings.
*Typically storage size is measured in 2^n increments, meaning that it is a factor of 1024 for storage.
*Measuring in bits instead of bytes is typically done when measuring transfers, where the base ten system is used. Hence the 1000 factor instead of the 1024 factor. The same is true for 100 GB != 1 TB
Linux can't really be made GPLv3 because of the number of contributors that didn't include the "or later", although I suppose they might make an exception if Linus demanded it be moved to version 3, but he won't. On the other hand, Solaris will be moved to GPLv3, and some GNU and FSF fans will pick it up and run with it.
This really isn't a problem because this just diversifies the open source salad bar of choice. BSD is great for proprietary developers that want to use OSS as a basis for their program. Linux is great for OSS that will be used in business settings (think Tivo), and Solaris will become the new pet of the FSF.
All of the open source communities (yes, there are several different groups of ideology) will be served by this move, and it will be great for OSS in the long run. Short-term it will hinder the popularity of current Linux distros, but should help the open-source community grow as a whole over the long-term.
The goal of Linux is not to "lure the masses away from evil M$". The goal of Linux is to make quality software that does its job, and sure it will gain users because it is quality software.
Ask Dell, eventually it is good enough that it becomes the best option, but designing an OS to work for "Windoze n00bs" just to gain more users is not the goal of Linux. It always has been and always will be developed to be practical and useful to Linux users first, not Windows users.
Easy to use: yes. Quality: you bet. For the masses: one user at a time.
The cost of education is already climbing much too fast, but throw in added fees for having a higher paying field, and you're likely to see some engineering and business departments at community colleges will beef up their programs.
That's not to say that they will be able to compete with top notch schools in those fields, but they will hire a mediocre staff and fill the classrooms to the brim. The end result of this will be a large group of graduates with second rate education, because getting the real stuff costs too much.
I attend a private university that most would consider second-tier, and some of the students already scare me. I am in disbelief of how little it takes to get a degree in comparison to actually knowing your stuff, but I know that this is the case in many different schools.
For the sake of America's future, we need to raise the funding for higher education facilities. I am a conservative that attends a private university, so I generally am against raising taxes and I wouldn't benefit from more government aid in the public schools, but I definitely see the need.
America needs a higher quality of education for a more competitive price, it's the only way that we will keep from losing ground as a nation.
Nice troll, but Linux works just fine for me. Maybe Linux isn't the problem, maybe it's a user problem. :)
Several reasons you wouldn't want to just power everything up to the grid now for trains:
1) Storing energy on a vehicle is much safer than having power lines run the length of the track. You have people, animals, the elements, lots of factors go into running power lines everywhere there is track.
2) Upgrading the infrastructure would be much easier and less costly if you did it a station at a time as well.
3) The solution I'm proposing would be much more robust, all power problems would be contained locally instead of having a large section of the country with no power, you might have a single station go down instead.
Obviously every bit of this is theoretical, there is no way the US will have either capacitors or trains as a popular solution anywhere in the immediate future. I just thought I would throw out something different, I'm tired of hearing about Li-ion batteries and Ethanol, just as I'm tired of hearing about the holy grail of all electric cars. They are the next practical step in an economy that is constantly evolving, but there really are a lot of flaws with the current system.
Cars are dangerous, inefficient, expensive, and they are a poor use of space. Look at how much wasted space there are in many cities that have parking ramps. The only reason that automobiles are popular is that they are convenient, and appear really efficient on the small scale in the immediate time frame.
1) The jump to electric power is a must, it's cleaner, easier to transport over long distances, and it can be produced many different ways. What we don't have yet, is a great way to store electricity in medium-sized quantities efficiently. Batteries just simply won't take us there, chemical storage is not the best solution. While Fuel cells may provide some relief, I'm not sure they will be optimal long-term.
Electric power is best stored as electric power, and that means that we need to continue to develop ultra-capacitors. While the density is not yet on par with the other two technologies, there is a lot of promising research being done to increase the density. In time it will become competitive with battery densities, but there are much greater advantages to using caps over batteries:
*Caps can be charged very quickly, and as the technology matures, we're becoming more efficient at discharging caps at variable rates while retaining high efficiency.
*Caps can be charged and discharged millions of times with little to no performance loss.
*Caps are very safe for the environment, and also safe to put on board a vehicle and hand-held electronics. No hazardous waste, no explosions, and most likely no chemical leaks, etc....
2) The gap from cars and planes needs to be made back to trains. Japan and Europe have a huge advantage over the US, and we need to invest some money in making smarter decisions. The bullet trains in Japan get groups of people from one place to another at very impressive rates, almost rivaling airfare speeds. When you think about the time it takes to go through security, board a plane, load it with cargo, take-off, get up to cruising speed, land, get off the plane, go through security and get back on the road, there is a lot of overhead.
Bullet trains can offer speeds up to 200 mph, and typically have much faster boarding and unloading times. A trip from San Antonio to Dallas could take an hour and a half, but Google maps tells me that it takes over 4 and a half hours via automobile. I think it would be tough to beat an hour and a half total time from the time you stepped foot in the airport in SA until the time you left DFW. Similarly, you could easily make it from Boston to DC in under 3 hours.
While I understand that planes can make these times currently, they do it on fossil fuels, and they are not efficient. Trains can use a lot less power to move people a lot more efficiently, and they can do it on electric power. Trains with caps on board could pick up charge at various stations, while the passengers load and unload, and then travel on cap power to the next station. Wind and solar power could be set up at these various stations to keep a steady supply of power waiting for the next train to arrive.
Trains also offer safety over both cars and planes. There are much fewer accidents, as there are fewer drivers and more passengers. This is also an advantage in places like Europe where passengers can make their long trips while sleeping in a cabin at night. Imagine boarding a train in Denver at 10 PM and waking up the next morning in New York City with enough time to make an 8 AM meeting. Imagine paying prices similarly to taking a bus to get there.
I know that was a long comment, but I really think this could be promising if the government would tax gasoline more and start funding the construction of a better train transportation system. It would have to start out small, Boston to New York, DC to Philadelphia, Dallas to San Antonio, Atlanta to Miami, Chicago to Detroit. Eventually it could expand. For inner city travel we could use subway systems and buses.
Trains are affordable, efficient, clean, fast, safe, and versatile.
Did you just use iPhone and affordable in the same paragraph?
A) Nvidia, with the lead, but still no completely open drivers?
B) Intel, with completely open drivers, but nowhere close to the lead or high end graphics cards?
C) ATI, with moderately capable hardware and struggling drivers? If they open their drivers up completely and Dell turns to them for their supply of graphics cards, could we see a surge in popularity amongst Linux users?
Long-term, either Intel will catch up on the hardware side, or Nvidia and ATI will have to open up their drivers. The first of the latter two to open up their drivers completely will probably get the edge they need in the POSIX user crowd.
I guess we can always hope that AMD wises up and makes this a 3 horse race!
O RLY?
Forget them, the new way to communicate is IRC baby....
1)Linux needs a pretty GUI, nobody wants to use a command line
2)There are too many choices / distros / package managers / window managers, there needs to be one popular one.
3)Linux needs better hardware support and more software support, nobody wants to use an OS that doesn't support my XYZ hardware or run my XYZ program.
While these all may seem like valid reasons to critize Linux, you are wrong. Linux has been a very practical, stable, robust, useful tool before you became a user, and it has been designed to be exactly the way that it is.
Linux is essentially capitalism at its finest, the best solution for the most users will succeed. If users have different opinions, there will be different options. Linux will continue to survive, just as it has. You get one vote in the open source community, vote by contributing to or using whatever software you feel is moving in the right direction, but don't complain because it's not like what you're used to. Use it, or don't.
The comments above make me sad. Is it really to the point that people convince themselves that the world would've been better off with Saddam in power? I understand that there has been a lot of death, and things haven't played out well. I would definitely say that the situation isn't ideal, but who are we kidding? At the heart of the matter, Saddam broke terms with the UN, and the provisions in the resolutions required an UN co-ordinated effort to remove Saddam from power. The rest of the UN fell flat on their face, and didn't follow through with the resolution that they signed. Sure it makes the countries involved look really stupid, and sure I don't condone the killing of innocent citizens, but surely people haven't fooled themselves into thinking that Saddam was in the right and Bush was in the wrong!
I'm just wondering that if / when there is a split, which branch will take most of the developers and which branch will become more popular. There are several kernels out there:
1) Linux
2) Solaris
3) Hurd
then there are several tool sets as well, GNU, the BSD tool set, and others. I am very interested to see if there will be a fork in the road as the GNU/Linux crowd faces this license transition period. Short term, I think it would be detrimental to the open-source community. Long term, I think it would provide an even more diverse set of options for users. The million dollar question is: Would the developer pool be spread too thin (and who fares better, GNU without Linux or Linux without GNU)?
PCLinuxOS is a pretty face, they definitely have some talented artists, but I don't know what's up with your monitor issue on Ubuntu. I assure you that it is not "very buggy", although it does have a few problems here and there. Your comment about fiddling with the command line and "su" makes me wonder how much you really know about Linux. It sounds like you're afraid to use the OS... you may want to check out OSX, they'll take care of all the details for you. Personally, if I'm going to run something on my computer I want to know more about it than "stay away from the 'su' stuff". Linux is different in the fact that it wants users to be knowledgeable, Microsoft and Apple don't care if you'd rather just blindly click the "Next" button. You should check out Fedora, Debian, Slackware and the like. Once you learn, you'll never want to go back. You might just be able to get that wireless card working too!