I was more questioning his methods than saying 'right or wrong', although the 'nothing can create something more perfect/complex/etc.' stuff kindof irked me, because it can be taken way to out of context (it fits through thermodynamics, but people have trouble recognizing open systems).
Anything complimenting BSD on/. tends to get an initial troll mod I've found. It's amazing how much hate Linux users have for it.
My experience is quite different from the above AC (of course, both are anecdotal, take your grain of salt - and mine are with FreeBSD, not BSD in general). FreeBSD users tend to be pretty laid back, if it isn't working, they recognize it. They may not care, they don't need it, or they may be working on it.
Linux users tend to get up in arms if you don't treat FreeBSD like the second coming of satan for taking away a small amount of their user base and development power, when Linux is obviously the true and correct solution.
If you assume the base install is sufficient for most needs.
It's a little lacking in terms of office suits and web browsers.
Also, it contains compressed binaries (and other files?), which have to be decompressed at use, slowing down performance as well.
No, I don't think I can use that in my caclulations.
That being said, for basic use (web browsing, flash, office apps, etc.), I don't think 1-2GB is off the mark, so a system with 3GB of memory would be sufficient. 4GB of DDR2 (and not the cheapest available) cost me about $90 last week.
Ahh, but the person who made the comment didn't say Ubuntu, s/he said Puppy Linux.
Anyway, how much would it cost to build a system that could cache an entire Ubuntu install, with the mentioned features, to memory while still having memory to spare to run the programs?
In my experience (anecdotal, but so is yours), WDs have been the most reliable, with Maxtor being the least, non-scsi segment. For home computers, I've had a dozen WDs between myself and my family, most have lasted 3-4 years before being rendered useless due to being too small. One died young. I opened my sister's computer case to figure out what was wrong, and found several run-lines where soda had been spilled on the case and leaked inside, all passing over/onto the drive. I can't really blame WD for this one. The other death? I left a drive on the floor for over a year, unprotected, with cats. I hadn't gotten around to throwing it away, but it was in the too-small category. In resurrecting an old machine that couldn't handle large drives, I put it in, and was completely unshocked when it didn't survive the abuse it had been given.
Where I used to work (a support shop for a couple hundred users, using a variety of pre-built systems - Dell, Gateway, IBM, HP, etc.), I had to replace a couple WDs - both in the 3-5 year old range. About half our drives were WDs, no Seagates or IBMs (we had very few, if any), and a large number of maxtors (in the 1-5 year old range, just under half our drives).
Then again, this was old, because the remainder of the replacements were Quantum, which no longer exists.
Seagate has the best SCSI segment drives in my experience.
But, RMAing WDs has never been a huge problem - I've not had to, but a former coworker has done it a couple times. They even cross-ship, which is nice.
Yes, MS is a software company... and yet, they don't lock down any of the software options within their operating systems.
Yet, when you run their operating systems (including mobile variants of windows), in any form, MS does not prevent you from using a competitor's software within that OS. Apple, however does restrict you.
If Apple is a "hardware" company, then why do they restrict competing applications.
Because they are not a hardware company, they are either a package company - wanting to sell you on the whole deal, hardware and software, or they are a PR company, more concerned with convincing you to buy something, than with the actual nature product. It depends on your view of the company as to which category fits them best...
Yes, I would like to see developments for production sake, but so many production developments came from war/destruction spending.
For example, aren't the rockets that get us into space descended from the ICBM research?
Likewise, automobiles were designed to be productive, weren't they? But without them, we wouldn't have tanks.
It's a two way street. Given the flaw listed here, I can see improvements to GPS as one potential benefit coming out of this system. Maybe it could improve rocket systems as well, something that would help space travel...
Now drilling more oil may actually require they go for harder to get sources of oil - which will raise the cost, diminishing the profit margin further.
It's not as simple as more sales means more profit.
Nope. It has an attached keyboard, so it is different.
For a highly nearsighted individual, the attached keyboard reduces functionality, unless there is a swivel screen (like on most tablets - unfortunately, they are all tiny).
The mac laptop has an attached keyboard, something I don't care about (actually, like any laptop, I actually *do not* like this - I'm quite nearsighted)
Add to that: turn off the damn screech in walkie-talkie mode. Radios (walkie-talkies), or at least professional ones, only do that when they have low batteries.
It's just damn annoying, and it only serves the purpose to "brag" that you have a cell phone.
Sorry, almost all of the people who want a cell phone, have one. What next? bragging to nearby that you have air to breath, while they are breathing the same air?
I've never been in the card with her driving, and had her *not* answer the phone and talk for 5-10 minutes. She then claims to not talk on the phone while driving.
Slashdot Mirror
I was more questioning his methods than saying 'right or wrong', although the 'nothing can create something more perfect/complex/etc.' stuff kindof irked me, because it can be taken way to out of context (it fits through thermodynamics, but people have trouble recognizing open systems).
Actually, I believe in God, I just don't belive in using God as a rationalization for science, as Descartes did in every chapter after 1.
Anything complimenting BSD on /. tends to get an initial troll mod I've found. It's amazing how much hate Linux users have for it.
My experience is quite different from the above AC (of course, both are anecdotal, take your grain of salt - and mine are with FreeBSD, not BSD in general). FreeBSD users tend to be pretty laid back, if it isn't working, they recognize it. They may not care, they don't need it, or they may be working on it.
Linux users tend to get up in arms if you don't treat FreeBSD like the second coming of satan for taking away a small amount of their user base and development power, when Linux is obviously the true and correct solution.
Chapter 1 was great, and ended in the pinnacle of the work "I think therefore I am".
After that, he couldn't go any farther, so he decided that you couldn't trust the world without the presence of God. At which point, I lost interest.
Chapter 1: A+
Chapter >1: D
Not when being read from the ramdisk it isn't coming off of the CD. Seriously, try to keep up here.
If you assume the base install is sufficient for most needs.
It's a little lacking in terms of office suits and web browsers.
Also, it contains compressed binaries (and other files?), which have to be decompressed at use, slowing down performance as well.
No, I don't think I can use that in my caclulations.
That being said, for basic use (web browsing, flash, office apps, etc.), I don't think 1-2GB is off the mark, so a system with 3GB of memory would be sufficient. 4GB of DDR2 (and not the cheapest available) cost me about $90 last week.
So, I guess I was being a bit knee-jerk there.
Ahh, but the person who made the comment didn't say Ubuntu, s/he said Puppy Linux.
Anyway, how much would it cost to build a system that could cache an entire Ubuntu install, with the mentioned features, to memory while still having memory to spare to run the programs?
In my experience (anecdotal, but so is yours), WDs have been the most reliable, with Maxtor being the least, non-scsi segment. For home computers, I've had a dozen WDs between myself and my family, most have lasted 3-4 years before being rendered useless due to being too small. One died young. I opened my sister's computer case to figure out what was wrong, and found several run-lines where soda had been spilled on the case and leaked inside, all passing over/onto the drive. I can't really blame WD for this one. The other death? I left a drive on the floor for over a year, unprotected, with cats. I hadn't gotten around to throwing it away, but it was in the too-small category. In resurrecting an old machine that couldn't handle large drives, I put it in, and was completely unshocked when it didn't survive the abuse it had been given.
Where I used to work (a support shop for a couple hundred users, using a variety of pre-built systems - Dell, Gateway, IBM, HP, etc.), I had to replace a couple WDs - both in the 3-5 year old range. About half our drives were WDs, no Seagates or IBMs (we had very few, if any), and a large number of maxtors (in the 1-5 year old range, just under half our drives).
Then again, this was old, because the remainder of the replacements were Quantum, which no longer exists.
Seagate has the best SCSI segment drives in my experience.
But, RMAing WDs has never been a huge problem - I've not had to, but a former coworker has done it a couple times. They even cross-ship, which is nice.
If you RTFA you'd find the 2.5" drive is for the SSD, not the rotational drive.
The bracket mounts the SSD inside of it, and then passes failed requests to the HDD, which is external to the bracket.
Yes, MS is a software company... and yet, they don't lock down any of the software options within their operating systems.
Yet, when you run their operating systems (including mobile variants of windows), in any form, MS does not prevent you from using a competitor's software within that OS. Apple, however does restrict you.
If Apple is a "hardware" company, then why do they restrict competing applications.
Because they are not a hardware company, they are either a package company - wanting to sell you on the whole deal, hardware and software, or they are a PR company, more concerned with convincing you to buy something, than with the actual nature product. It depends on your view of the company as to which category fits them best...
And while Woz is known in computer geek circles, why should some random 9-to-5er paid-hourly desk jockey in a car company know who the hell he is?
Your post is truly ironic.
Yes, I would like to see developments for production sake, but so many production developments came from war/destruction spending.
For example, aren't the rockets that get us into space descended from the ICBM research?
Likewise, automobiles were designed to be productive, weren't they? But without them, we wouldn't have tanks.
It's a two way street. Given the flaw listed here, I can see improvements to GPS as one potential benefit coming out of this system. Maybe it could improve rocket systems as well, something that would help space travel...
up the production... not cost.
Actually, cost may not be lower - they tap the easier to access fields first - so it may actually be more expensive to up the cost.
It not nearly as simple as you make it out to be.
It's the profit margin * unit sales that's important.
Economics 110 - increased consumption does not necessarily mean increased profit.
Example:
Cost | SellPrice | Units@SalePrice | Profit
$1 | $5 | 1000 | $4000
$1 | $2.50 | 2000 | $3000
$1 | $4.00 | 1500 | $4500 (optimal)
$1 | $0.75 | 10000 | -$2500 (dumbass)
Now drilling more oil may actually require they go for harder to get sources of oil - which will raise the cost, diminishing the profit margin further.
It's not as simple as more sales means more profit.
Why would they want to make it cheaper.
It takes the same amount of money to pull it out of the ground, no matter how much they end up selling it for.
Or it's their stupidity.
The could do what's done here in the US: become corporate executives!
I hear Google plans to make something even smaller and more useful - a fully functional 1 dimensional computer! I think they plan to call it "gString"
So you agree with my hypothesis that she is actually a horse dressed as a human?
Did they forget about the late 80s and early 90s?
Nope. It has an attached keyboard, so it is different.
For a highly nearsighted individual, the attached keyboard reduces functionality, unless there is a swivel screen (like on most tablets - unfortunately, they are all tiny).
Nope.
The mac laptop has an attached keyboard, something I don't care about (actually, like any laptop, I actually *do not* like this - I'm quite nearsighted)
even with that, it's still got very limited disk space (why no rotational drive option?), and the limited iphone style OS (why not full mac OS).
I'd rather have something that can hold at least a 250GB hdd and full MacOS/Windows.
Actually, with those, and give it at least a 14" screen, and they would switch me away from Toshiba.
Add to that: turn off the damn screech in walkie-talkie mode. Radios (walkie-talkies), or at least professional ones, only do that when they have low batteries.
It's just damn annoying, and it only serves the purpose to "brag" that you have a cell phone.
Sorry, almost all of the people who want a cell phone, have one. What next? bragging to nearby that you have air to breath, while they are breathing the same air?
Sorry, no car analogies.
Hmmm... your solution has merit.
At least more than my sisters.
I've never been in the card with her driving, and had her *not* answer the phone and talk for 5-10 minutes. She then claims to not talk on the phone while driving.
So, her solution is to lie.