No they did not. They dreamed it as a responce to Java. As a result it suffers from the main java failing just reversed in an IntelCentric fashion. Java was, is and will remain suboptimal on any Intel system because it is internally and by design big-endian. As a result nearly every operation and nearly every passing of data to an OS call will incur a penalty for endianness conversion. Basically Sun has introduced an advantage for its hardware into the language from day one and has no intention of making it go.
Similarly C# is internally by design little endian. It is intel centric and if ported to any non-intel platform it will always carry a performance penalty. Microsoft is well aware that its OSes are not the most favoured option (not to say that besides Xbox2 they are inexistent) on big endian platforms. So it did the same thing Sun did - provided itself with an advantage for the platforms which their OS runs on. Actually it is considerably more pronounced then in Java (MSFT did not even bother to hide its intention).
To summarize - Miguel may be right for Intel (time will tell). On non-intel C# is dead. Stillborn to be most exact.
The toothpick is gone on the USB drive edition. Dunno about the tweezers.
Re:Prior Art: I know, RTFA (Impracticality?)
on
Pop Up Ads in Space
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
mirror constellation will either need some very large mirrors
Which in turn will generate a considerable amount of thrust so it will not stay in one place.
Classic solar sail.
In btw, this is feasible as a side effect for a solar sail ship. You make your sail advertise pepsi and get some dosh towards launch costs. Considering that solar sails are more then 17 years away (life of the patent) I do not see anything to worry about.
But are there any valid reasons why I shouldn't be allowed to run a spambot?
Why not. But you should be made responsible for all done with it. That includes, but is not limited to selling controlled substances, assisting the sale and smuggling of controlled substances across country borders, selling counterfeit/pirated software, financial and mail fraud.
So if you have deliberately decided that it is OK for you to run a SPAM bot, you should also agree to be held responsible for what it is used for.
I said transition path, not immediate allocation and I meant transition path, not immediate allocation.
In 1995 GSM frequencies were used for military, public safety, etc in half opf the world, including many European countries. Their radio authorities helped broker a deal and move off military somewhere else. Example - the entire ex-Warsaw pakt which used 900 for military.
The FCC did not and it never ever made an effort. Also, some of the countries you are pointing at do not have their own Radio allocation schemes. They simply copy the american one and they have agreements to do so. So it is again the FCC.
I would like to actually see where the F*** do you put the SIM into it. Considering its size and features in the spec the question is quite valid.
I read the the press release when it came out and after that I did not see it any phone shop. So I suspected that it remained as a prototype (or an exercise in technology). Thanks for correcting me.
Bwahahahaha.... Beacon on one frequency (possibly one band) and data channels on another. So your phone RACH-ed on 1900 and got told to use 850 in the immediate assignment. So if you are with a single band phone you just got stuffed...
This happens in EU as well (though not so often). Basically you must have a phone that covers all local bands for it to work reliably. If it is a single band you may get stuffed because your operator have got a licence mainly in one band and has minimal capacity in the other which they use only to push consumers into the "band proper".
Place the blame on the correct group.
You mean the FCC, right? After all it could have thought of a transition path that will move US to use the same frequencies as the rest of the world, but did not. I would not be amused if there was some Qualcom money behind this as well.
you a GSM phone that falls back to TDMA - Such thing does not exist as a commercial product AFAIK. It may exist somewhere in the lab or in small series, but I have yet to see one.
However, all their phones are backwards compatible with GSM - It is more complex than that. They are dual or tri band phones. 1-2 bands are GSM and they can roam onto GSM networks if there is no 3G available. More importantly 3G and GSM have been designed to coexist and have working handover and interworking which is not the case for GSM and any of the american homebrew systems. In btw - I would not call 3G and GSM compatible. There is a defined mapping and interworking defintition for most features. It looks compatible from a luser point of view. Internally - hmm... do not think so... Still end result is that you can easily build a hybrid phone which is not the case for GSM+{whatever US homebrew we are talking about}
WTF/RTFA: all phones listed in the article are bog standard GMS phones which use bog standard GSM SIMs. Actually AFAIK there is only one phone - Siemens Xelibri (which is a prototype, not a manufactured model) which has the SIM built in.
IPSEC is actually implemented as per spec. Some of the reactions to IKE information messages are a bit strange. Unerlying IP and routing protocols are what sucks. And from there on it was all apeshit anyway you look at it (note I said - early contivity). Frankly it sucked so bad that I did not bother to test it ever since.
You are missing one:
http://www.daihatsu.com/motorshow/tokyo03/ufe2/ind ex.html
It is also possibly the best one as far as specas are concerned. Reasonably good looking as well.
Valid question. Though I think that it would be kitted the way current Rover MG series are kitted out. No spare tyre. Just a "quick fix" glue inflator. If your tire can be fixed using the quick fix - you are OK. If not - you are calling recovery vehicle. It is the same with the Audi A2, new Daihatsus, any car with an LPG conversion, so on so forth. They either have a small high pressure space saver tyre which can be used only on the rear wheels or you throw it out and carry a quick-fix inflator.
Actually it does not. There is an understeer. And due to the bloody automatic gearbox you cannot downshift while taking a corner so dunno about an SUV, but I had a smart go off the road trying to follow me. In btw - I drive a Sirion SL which according to car marketeers is supposed to be a "pensioners transport".
Ahem, looks like something in between the old Daewoo Tico and the current one with 2 doors instead of 4. It would not make eyes turn in an average EU supermarket car park.
Actually, compared to recent arrivals in the city buzzer category like Daihatsu Cuore/Charade MK2, Citroen C2 and Fiat Panda MK2 it looks outdated by about 5 years.
Smart fuel economy is understandable once you remember that they insist on using that really cretinous automatic gearbox they use. If it was manual it would have been 70-80.
So they have implemented a body scanning system...
Current Volvo seating has weight and body distribution detectors. It uses them to recognise who is driving and adjusts seats accordingly. So in fact if they have a readout from the car they know how much the woman weights (as well as where the weight is).
So I would like to see a woman who both never opens the hood and likes to report her weight to the mechanics at the local garage. Can I just hear that again please?
That is besides the fact that Volvo is nowdays part of the Ford empire. Anyone who drives with the aircon off can easily testify that you can distinguish any 7+ year old car with Ford heritage or Ford input (Ford, Peugout, etc). The characteristic smell of burned oil from "specially designed" cylinder heads cannot be mistaken for anything else. Frankly, it is the second last car I would like to have the bonnet welded. And a car I will never buy.
I am sure it will not. FreeSWAN is the most horrible IPSEC stack to be ever written. It is worse then the early Nortel Contivity stack which takes a considerable effort to achieve.
It was never integrated properly into the networking stack. It never kept up with any of the advanced routing features. It screwed up the interface reporting in a manner which made any dynamic routing daemon go mad. On top of all it does not work on 90% of the more complex interopreability scenarios. The only thing it was useable for was primitive VPN RAS.
There is a reason why 2.6 uses a port of KAME IPSEC stack and tools. It is the fact that it is designed correctly, integrated correctly into the Linux kernel and is vastly superior on technical grounds.
In btw, I am speaking this as someone who have been through the pains of dealing with it every month for the last 3 years. In every single case it ended up with the diagnosis: "Not up to the task use FreeBSD instead".
It is possibly the only part where Linux is still vastly inferior to BSD and will remain so until 2.6 and its tools will be widely deployed.
Just shorten the story to, Verisign/ICANN being sued for standard business practices...
By a bunch of direct marketeers. I would like someone to draw some blood from the V/I, but I am not very sure that the I would like any of the "platifs" to win anything. Besides a gratuitous mentioning of their lattitude, longitude and altitude in a submarine of course.
That is not the interesting part. RTFA. The interesting part is that the case foundation is based on the fact that Xing had a valid shrinkwrap contract which was violated. It is the usual claim to apply US laws to the rest of the world and the world shall comply. In fact, such shrinkwraps at the time were not valid in the country where it was reverse engineered - Norway (and possibly Germany). So the entire case is fundamentaly flawed in first place, but proving that it is flawed will mean an american judge admitting that US cannot be the world policemen, judge prosecutor, jury and legislative body at the same time.
Anybody here ever try to enforce a patent in Japan
No. But I have helped prepare the paperwork for a successful patent filing in Japan. The difference between the US and Japan is that you cannot patent bollocks. In this particular case 8 patents for the US ended up being 4 patents in EU and only 1 in Japan.
First: their patent office has not yet degenerated into an approval stamp machine so the patents have to have merit.
Second: they charge an arm and a leg for a patent filing so even large corporations avoid defencive patenting and stuff that has no commercial value is not patented at all.
I usually get flamed by the idealists which still believe in the "small inventor", but I will say it again. This is the way a patent system is supposed to work. A patent is a government guarantee to the inventor that he/she will be capable to exploit the commercial merits of his/her invention. Note the words commercial. So with all due respect I do not see any merits in trying to patent an invention of no commercial merit.
The side effect of this is that the US method of IPR development is reversed. For Japan you first find financial backers for the idea and then patent it.
Slashdot Mirror
No they did not. They dreamed it as a responce to Java. As a result it suffers from the main java failing just reversed in an IntelCentric fashion. Java was, is and will remain suboptimal on any Intel system because it is internally and by design big-endian. As a result nearly every operation and nearly every passing of data to an OS call will incur a penalty for endianness conversion. Basically Sun has introduced an advantage for its hardware into the language from day one and has no intention of making it go.
Similarly C# is internally by design little endian. It is intel centric and if ported to any non-intel platform it will always carry a performance penalty. Microsoft is well aware that its OSes are not the most favoured option (not to say that besides Xbox2 they are inexistent) on big endian platforms. So it did the same thing Sun did - provided itself with an advantage for the platforms which their OS runs on. Actually it is considerably more pronounced then in Java (MSFT did not even bother to hide its intention).
To summarize - Miguel may be right for Intel (time will tell). On non-intel C# is dead. Stillborn to be most exact.
The toothpick is gone on the USB drive edition. Dunno about the tweezers.
Which in turn will generate a considerable amount of thrust so it will not stay in one place.
Classic solar sail.
In btw, this is feasible as a side effect for a solar sail ship. You make your sail advertise pepsi and get some dosh towards launch costs. Considering that solar sails are more then 17 years away (life of the patent) I do not see anything to worry about.
Why not. But you should be made responsible for all done with it. That includes, but is not limited to selling controlled substances, assisting the sale and smuggling of controlled substances across country borders, selling counterfeit/pirated software, financial and mail fraud.
So if you have deliberately decided that it is OK for you to run a SPAM bot, you should also agree to be held responsible for what it is used for.
Err... Can you read.
I said transition path, not immediate allocation and I meant transition path, not immediate allocation.
In 1995 GSM frequencies were used for military, public safety, etc in half opf the world, including many European countries. Their radio authorities helped broker a deal and move off military somewhere else. Example - the entire ex-Warsaw pakt which used 900 for military.
The FCC did not and it never ever made an effort. Also, some of the countries you are pointing at do not have their own Radio allocation schemes. They simply copy the american one and they have agreements to do so. So it is again the FCC.
Anyway, get a clue. You need some
OK, thanks for the correction.
I would like to actually see where the F*** do you put the SIM into it. Considering its size and features in the spec the question is quite valid.
I read the the press release when it came out and after that I did not see it any phone shop. So I suspected that it remained as a prototype (or an exercise in technology). Thanks for correcting me.
Bwahahahaha.... Beacon on one frequency (possibly one band) and data channels on another. So your phone RACH-ed on 1900 and got told to use 850 in the immediate assignment. So if you are with a single band phone you just got stuffed...
This happens in EU as well (though not so often). Basically you must have a phone that covers all local bands for it to work reliably. If it is a single band you may get stuffed because your operator have got a licence mainly in one band and has minimal capacity in the other which they use only to push consumers into the "band proper".
Place the blame on the correct group. You mean the FCC, right? After all it could have thought of a transition path that will move US to use the same frequencies as the rest of the world, but did not. I would not be amused if there was some Qualcom money behind this as well.
you a GSM phone that falls back to TDMA - Such thing does not exist as a commercial product AFAIK. It may exist somewhere in the lab or in small series, but I have yet to see one.
However, all their phones are backwards compatible with GSM - It is more complex than that. They are dual or tri band phones. 1-2 bands are GSM and they can roam onto GSM networks if there is no 3G available. More importantly 3G and GSM have been designed to coexist and have working handover and interworking which is not the case for GSM and any of the american homebrew systems. In btw - I would not call 3G and GSM compatible. There is a defined mapping and interworking defintition for most features. It looks compatible from a luser point of view. Internally - hmm... do not think so... Still end result is that you can easily build a hybrid phone which is not the case for GSM+{whatever US homebrew we are talking about}
WTF/RTFA: all phones listed in the article are bog standard GMS phones which use bog standard GSM SIMs. Actually AFAIK there is only one phone - Siemens Xelibri (which is a prototype, not a manufactured model) which has the SIM built in.
IPSEC is actually implemented as per spec. Some of the reactions to IKE information messages are a bit strange. Unerlying IP and routing protocols are what sucks. And from there on it was all apeshit anyway you look at it (note I said - early contivity). Frankly it sucked so bad that I did not bother to test it ever since.
You are missing one: http://www.daihatsu.com/motorshow/tokyo03/ufe2/ind ex.html
It is also possibly the best one as far as specas are concerned. Reasonably good looking as well.
Valid question. Though I think that it would be kitted the way current Rover MG series are kitted out. No spare tyre. Just a "quick fix" glue inflator. If your tire can be fixed using the quick fix - you are OK. If not - you are calling recovery vehicle. It is the same with the Audi A2, new Daihatsus, any car with an LPG conversion, so on so forth. They either have a small high pressure space saver tyre which can be used only on the rear wheels or you throw it out and carry a quick-fix inflator.
Actually it does not. There is an understeer. And due to the bloody automatic gearbox you cannot downshift while taking a corner so dunno about an SUV, but I had a smart go off the road trying to follow me. In btw - I drive a Sirion SL which according to car marketeers is supposed to be a "pensioners transport".
Ahem, looks like something in between the old Daewoo Tico and the current one with 2 doors instead of 4. It would not make eyes turn in an average EU supermarket car park.
Actually, compared to recent arrivals in the city buzzer category like Daihatsu Cuore/Charade MK2, Citroen C2 and Fiat Panda MK2 it looks outdated by about 5 years.
Smart fuel economy is understandable once you remember that they insist on using that really cretinous automatic gearbox they use. If it was manual it would have been 70-80.
Current Volvo seating has weight and body distribution detectors. It uses them to recognise who is driving and adjusts seats accordingly. So in fact if they have a readout from the car they know how much the woman weights (as well as where the weight is).
So I would like to see a woman who both never opens the hood and likes to report her weight to the mechanics at the local garage. Can I just hear that again please?
That is besides the fact that Volvo is nowdays part of the Ford empire. Anyone who drives with the aircon off can easily testify that you can distinguish any 7+ year old car with Ford heritage or Ford input (Ford, Peugout, etc). The characteristic smell of burned oil from "specially designed" cylinder heads cannot be mistaken for anything else. Frankly, it is the second last car I would like to have the bonnet welded. And a car I will never buy.
Or be sued by SCO?
After all the McBride thing said that this is what contracts are for.
It was never integrated properly into the networking stack. It never kept up with any of the advanced routing features. It screwed up the interface reporting in a manner which made any dynamic routing daemon go mad. On top of all it does not work on 90% of the more complex interopreability scenarios. The only thing it was useable for was primitive VPN RAS.
There is a reason why 2.6 uses a port of KAME IPSEC stack and tools. It is the fact that it is designed correctly, integrated correctly into the Linux kernel and is vastly superior on technical grounds.
In btw, I am speaking this as someone who have been through the pains of dealing with it every month for the last 3 years. In every single case it ended up with the diagnosis: "Not up to the task use FreeBSD instead".
It is possibly the only part where Linux is still vastly inferior to BSD and will remain so until 2.6 and its tools will be widely deployed.
You become subject to a contractual agreement. C'est la vie.
NO we do not. Tried this with the OFT they told me that SCO is free to do whatever they want in the UK. Love to live in the 51st state ya know.
No it does not.
Their customers - it is contract law
Other people - it is general antitrust, slander and copyright law.
That is the distinction and there is nothing funny in it.
By a bunch of direct marketeers. I would like someone to draw some blood from the V/I, but I am not very sure that the I would like any of the "platifs" to win anything. Besides a gratuitous mentioning of their lattitude, longitude and altitude in a submarine of course.
That is not the interesting part. RTFA. The interesting part is that the case foundation is based on the fact that Xing had a valid shrinkwrap contract which was violated. It is the usual claim to apply US laws to the rest of the world and the world shall comply. In fact, such shrinkwraps at the time were not valid in the country where it was reverse engineered - Norway (and possibly Germany). So the entire case is fundamentaly flawed in first place, but proving that it is flawed will mean an american judge admitting that US cannot be the world policemen, judge prosecutor, jury and legislative body at the same time.
No. But I have helped prepare the paperwork for a successful patent filing in Japan. The difference between the US and Japan is that you cannot patent bollocks. In this particular case 8 patents for the US ended up being 4 patents in EU and only 1 in Japan.
First: their patent office has not yet degenerated into an approval stamp machine so the patents have to have merit.
Second: they charge an arm and a leg for a patent filing so even large corporations avoid defencive patenting and stuff that has no commercial value is not patented at all.
I usually get flamed by the idealists which still believe in the "small inventor", but I will say it again. This is the way a patent system is supposed to work. A patent is a government guarantee to the inventor that he/she will be capable to exploit the commercial merits of his/her invention. Note the words commercial. So with all due respect I do not see any merits in trying to patent an invention of no commercial merit.
The side effect of this is that the US method of IPR development is reversed. For Japan you first find financial backers for the idea and then patent it.