If you would acknowledge simple existing math proof that 4 harmonic Slashdots rotate simultaneously around squared equator and cubed Internet, proving 4 Days, Not HOSTS file! That exists only as anti-side. This page you see - cannot exist without its anti-side existence, as +0- moderation. Add +0- as One = nothing.
Spintronics...uses the natural spin of electrons within a magnetic field in combination with a read/write head to lay down and read back bits of data on semiconductor material.
I'm wondering if this will fail the same way HDDs do when the head falls? Whenever I see something about read/write heads, I get flashblacks to all the clicks-of-death I've heard over the years, and it always makes me wince a little.
I'll admit it, I don't entirely understand what they're talking about here, but it seems a little scant on details such as whether or not this uses readily available (cheap) materials or uses some rare elements that are possibly put to better use elsewhere. I'm sure many will disagree with me and point out cases where I'm wrong, but I'm personally not all that concerned about having more storage, I've got more than I know what to do with at the moment. What I would rather see is some technology that is more easily recyclable.
It would be hilarious to me, if it weren't already infuriating, that so many people decry how crappy Ubuntu is, and go on to complain about the user interace. If you're a hardcore user, it shouldn't matter what distribution you're running, you can change whatever you want about it, that's what's great about Linux. But some people need to show how big their Linux Organ is by dumping on a somewhat popular form of Linux. Don't like Unity? There are TONS of other DM out there, try one. If you still hate Xubuntu or Lubuntu, go with any other distro you want, but be aware that you're just choosing a different package manager (if even that). If you think that no distro has it right, then get going with Arch and spin your own web of desktop doom for others to rag on. Basically, what I'm trying to say is shit or get off the pot.
Nice job clipping that response to suit your needs. If you bothered to read the second paragraph:
This doesn't mean that remote rendering won't be possible with Wayland, it just means that you will have to put a remote rendering server on top of Wayland. One such server could be the X.org server, but other options include an RDP server, a VNC server or somebody could even invent their own new remote rendering model. Which is a feature when you think about it; layering X.org on top of Wayland has very little overhead, but the other types of remote rendering servers no longer requires X.org, and experimenting with new protocols is easier.
Now, call me crazy, but isn't a large part of Linux about the user being able to choose how their machine does the work that they ask it to do? It seems to me Wayland isn't trying to force anything on anyone, rather, just trying to open up more choices that would otherwise be limited.
You know, reading this gave me an idea./. should have something like this for every article (or at least articles such as this that require some explanation). they could make a competition out of it, and feature the winning comment in some way that makes it easy for us laymen to see when we choose to view the comments. Just a thought.
Nice explanation, btw. I never really understood what an electric field was before!
I'm gonna try to lay it out as simply as possible:
1. I want to choose where any panels/docks/whatevers go. That means I can put them on the top, bottom, left, right, middle, corners, anywhere I can think of to put it. All right, I admit, maybe the middle or corners are not such a great idea, but how else am I supposed to be hyperbolic in this case?
2. I want to be able to hide those panels/docks/whatevers whenever I deem them to be unnecessary. This means file menus can be integrated into them or not, a simple checkbox in appearance settings would probably do the trick for each of those.
3. I want to be able also to control where the file menus and title bars for my windows appear, for example, being able to put them on the left, right, or bottom if I wish, I'm sick of this title bar on top crap that persists into my (mostly) widescreen world. Vertical space is expensive, horizontal space is cheap!
4. I should be able to decide where the close/maximize/minimize buttons appear as well; if I choose to have my title bars on the left (for example) I should be able to put those buttons on the top or bottom of the bar. The middle of the bar would probably be silly, but I'll be damned if there aren't times I feel like being silly.
5. Effects like transparency should always be available. I want things to hide even when they're in plain sight.
6. I would like to see non-linear menus/panels/docks/whatevers (why are they always like a box? why not a circle, or a triangle or any of the other myriad shapes that can easily be produced with today's graphics cards?) because I am sick of looking at boxes all day. This would be especially awesome for corner panels/docks/whatevers, where menus and whatnot could sort of bubble out.
Is all of that really so much to ask? Are those things available already in some great DM that I haven't tried yet? I just want a desktop where I can control the things that I consider basic, and let's face it, nothing on my list is really all that complex (except maybe the last one?).
Uh, there are a few different power levels it can work at, so not everything would be drawing 100W just because it's plugged in through the USB3.0 PD. It starts at 10W and doubles(ish) up to 100W for each level.
...When you unplug the laptop, the laptop can signal the device to either stop pulling power, take less power, more if that is the intent, or somewhat counter-intuitively, pull power from the device it was just charging.
It's funny that they say that last one is counter-intuitive: USB battery pack anyone? Good for any device with USB3.0 PD, sounds like a winner to me.
What I wonder is whether or not those phones that conform to microUSB standard still ship with cables or not though? I'm not in Europe, so I don't know, but I have such a hard time imagining a package with just a phone and battery in it. Please tell me it's thus in the great lands of Europe
The point is that it would be nice if it worked as advertised, most people just expect it not to. It's USB after all.
But USB 3.0 far surpassses the promises of USB2.0, so as the standards progress, we really do get great performance out of it, but that kind of progress depends a lot on adoption, imo. If this starts getting adopted, then we can see that kind of performance they're talking about in the not-so-distant future, and probably better further down the line, hence the question at the end of the article, and one that I feel is really important for this type of standard. I would much rather see the new USB3.0 spec succeed and prosper than thunderbolt gaining more adoption.
Get the new Asus Transformer Nexus Optimus Prime! It doubles as both a laptop and a bicycle and when you're not doing those things you can fold it up to fit in your pocket and play mini-discs on it! Only $2,999.95*
*Taxes and other charges may apply. Asus cannot be held responsible for injuries incurred while using the bicycle function of you Transformer Nexus Optimus Prime.
A question remains: will companies like Apple, who have used proprietary chargers and connectors for years despite the prevalence of the USB standard, adopt the new cable?
I can't imagine they will, even with their recent EPEAT flip-flop. What I can't figure out is if they are just trying to keep their products distinct or they don't like it when someone else has a really good idea or what. They've already chosen Thunderbolt as their new adapter of choice, and while they'll never use that for the iFamily of products (since so many people won't/can't buy machines with that connectivity), I can't imagine they'll cave to the USB standard now. I do hope I'm wrong though.
On a side note, does anyone know how many thunderbolt devices are actually available for consumer purchase at this point? Are any of them reasonably priced?
That's a really poor analogy. VHS vs. Betamax required people to actually buy a device, and railroads had to spend a lot of money building something that works. The choice between facebook and Google has no real economic impact on the end user at all, so people can use both and gradually phase out whichever one they find more annoying to use or more boring or whatever metric a person chooses to determine what kind of social networking experience they want to have.
Slashdot Mirror
...King checkmates you!
If you would acknowledge simple existing math proof that 4 harmonic Slashdots rotate simultaneously around squared equator and cubed Internet, proving 4 Days, Not HOSTS file! That exists only as anti-side. This page you see - cannot exist without its anti-side existence, as +0- moderation. Add +0- as One = nothing.
You got that right. I think.
Spintronics...uses the natural spin of electrons within a magnetic field in combination with a read/write head to lay down and read back bits of data on semiconductor material.
I'm wondering if this will fail the same way HDDs do when the head falls? Whenever I see something about read/write heads, I get flashblacks to all the clicks-of-death I've heard over the years, and it always makes me wince a little.
I'll admit it, I don't entirely understand what they're talking about here, but it seems a little scant on details such as whether or not this uses readily available (cheap) materials or uses some rare elements that are possibly put to better use elsewhere. I'm sure many will disagree with me and point out cases where I'm wrong, but I'm personally not all that concerned about having more storage, I've got more than I know what to do with at the moment. What I would rather see is some technology that is more easily recyclable.
It would be hilarious to me, if it weren't already infuriating, that so many people decry how crappy Ubuntu is, and go on to complain about the user interace. If you're a hardcore user, it shouldn't matter what distribution you're running, you can change whatever you want about it, that's what's great about Linux. But some people need to show how big their Linux Organ is by dumping on a somewhat popular form of Linux. Don't like Unity? There are TONS of other DM out there, try one. If you still hate Xubuntu or Lubuntu, go with any other distro you want, but be aware that you're just choosing a different package manager (if even that). If you think that no distro has it right, then get going with Arch and spin your own web of desktop doom for others to rag on. Basically, what I'm trying to say is shit or get off the pot.
Please mod parent up
Nice job clipping that response to suit your needs. If you bothered to read the second paragraph:
This doesn't mean that remote rendering won't be possible with Wayland, it just means that you will have to put a remote rendering server on top of Wayland. One such server could be the X.org server, but other options include an RDP server, a VNC server or somebody could even invent their own new remote rendering model. Which is a feature when you think about it; layering X.org on top of Wayland has very little overhead, but the other types of remote rendering servers no longer requires X.org, and experimenting with new protocols is easier.
Now, call me crazy, but isn't a large part of Linux about the user being able to choose how their machine does the work that they ask it to do? It seems to me Wayland isn't trying to force anything on anyone, rather, just trying to open up more choices that would otherwise be limited.
You know, reading this gave me an idea. /. should have something like this for every article (or at least articles such as this that require some explanation). they could make a competition out of it, and feature the winning comment in some way that makes it easy for us laymen to see when we choose to view the comments. Just a thought.
Nice explanation, btw. I never really understood what an electric field was before!
To quote Bart Simpson: "I can't believe it! You actually found a practical use for geometry!"
I hope they get sued by ReDigi, because that would be hilarious.
I'd only want to see that if the rover was built by Hiroshi Ishiguro.
You've obviously never had a Martian Milkshake.
First rule in government spending: Why build one when you can have none for twice the price?
I really hope you're the head of somebody's QA department.
I'm gonna try to lay it out as simply as possible:
1. I want to choose where any panels/docks/whatevers go. That means I can put them on the top, bottom, left, right, middle, corners, anywhere I can think of to put it. All right, I admit, maybe the middle or corners are not such a great idea, but how else am I supposed to be hyperbolic in this case?
2. I want to be able to hide those panels/docks/whatevers whenever I deem them to be unnecessary. This means file menus can be integrated into them or not, a simple checkbox in appearance settings would probably do the trick for each of those.
3. I want to be able also to control where the file menus and title bars for my windows appear, for example, being able to put them on the left, right, or bottom if I wish, I'm sick of this title bar on top crap that persists into my (mostly) widescreen world. Vertical space is expensive, horizontal space is cheap!
4. I should be able to decide where the close/maximize/minimize buttons appear as well; if I choose to have my title bars on the left (for example) I should be able to put those buttons on the top or bottom of the bar. The middle of the bar would probably be silly, but I'll be damned if there aren't times I feel like being silly.
5. Effects like transparency should always be available. I want things to hide even when they're in plain sight.
6. I would like to see non-linear menus/panels/docks/whatevers (why are they always like a box? why not a circle, or a triangle or any of the other myriad shapes that can easily be produced with today's graphics cards?) because I am sick of looking at boxes all day. This would be especially awesome for corner panels/docks/whatevers, where menus and whatnot could sort of bubble out.
Is all of that really so much to ask? Are those things available already in some great DM that I haven't tried yet? I just want a desktop where I can control the things that I consider basic, and let's face it, nothing on my list is really all that complex (except maybe the last one?).
Step 1: Patent that idea
Step 2: Wait several years until someone uses the idea, then troll the patent
Step 3: Profit!
I know, I know, we're not supposed to reveal the second step. Get over it.
Uh, there are a few different power levels it can work at, so not everything would be drawing 100W just because it's plugged in through the USB3.0 PD. It starts at 10W and doubles(ish) up to 100W for each level.
...When you unplug the laptop, the laptop can signal the device to either stop pulling power, take less power, more if that is the intent, or somewhat counter-intuitively, pull power from the device it was just charging.
It's funny that they say that last one is counter-intuitive: USB battery pack anyone? Good for any device with USB3.0 PD, sounds like a winner to me.
What I wonder is whether or not those phones that conform to microUSB standard still ship with cables or not though? I'm not in Europe, so I don't know, but I have such a hard time imagining a package with just a phone and battery in it. Please tell me it's thus in the great lands of Europe
Don't forget plaid. I can't wait til we get USBs with plaid speeds!
The point is that it would be nice if it worked as advertised, most people just expect it not to. It's USB after all.
But USB 3.0 far surpassses the promises of USB2.0, so as the standards progress, we really do get great performance out of it, but that kind of progress depends a lot on adoption, imo. If this starts getting adopted, then we can see that kind of performance they're talking about in the not-so-distant future, and probably better further down the line, hence the question at the end of the article, and one that I feel is really important for this type of standard. I would much rather see the new USB3.0 spec succeed and prosper than thunderbolt gaining more adoption.
Get the new Asus Transformer Nexus Optimus Prime! It doubles as both a laptop and a bicycle and when you're not doing those things you can fold it up to fit in your pocket and play mini-discs on it! Only $2,999.95*
*Taxes and other charges may apply. Asus cannot be held responsible for injuries incurred while using the bicycle function of you Transformer Nexus Optimus Prime.
Jiggawhats?
A question remains: will companies like Apple, who have used proprietary chargers and connectors for years despite the prevalence of the USB standard, adopt the new cable?
I can't imagine they will, even with their recent EPEAT flip-flop. What I can't figure out is if they are just trying to keep their products distinct or they don't like it when someone else has a really good idea or what. They've already chosen Thunderbolt as their new adapter of choice, and while they'll never use that for the iFamily of products (since so many people won't/can't buy machines with that connectivity), I can't imagine they'll cave to the USB standard now. I do hope I'm wrong though.
On a side note, does anyone know how many thunderbolt devices are actually available for consumer purchase at this point? Are any of them reasonably priced?
That's a really poor analogy. VHS vs. Betamax required people to actually buy a device, and railroads had to spend a lot of money building something that works. The choice between facebook and Google has no real economic impact on the end user at all, so people can use both and gradually phase out whichever one they find more annoying to use or more boring or whatever metric a person chooses to determine what kind of social networking experience they want to have.
So this means the watched pot only boils if it's listening to some kickin' tunes? Sweet.