The source and it's metadata is plain old ASCII. No matter how this ends up, at the end of the day there still is a code tree anyone with most any reasonable machine can work with, improve on, etc...
Linus took advantage of a great tool and got some work done. Now that's over, so everyone moves on. Big deal. New tools will either be crafted, or will be made avaliable. In the end, nothing really changes.
Anyone thinking hard about where their data is stored and who they have to pay to access it should be looking at this for some much needed guidence, IMHO.
Good for OSS, good for Open Standards (which still get far too little attention.)
By the way, lots of big companies are starting to say "open" now and even use the buzzwords (xml, etc..), yet you still have to buy stuff to make actual use of your data for anything other than the most elementary viewing purposes.
WE NEED TO DO A LOT MORE WORK DETAILING EXACTLY WHAT OPEN MEANS.
Learn how to carry yourself. These are some of the things I do:
- learn the english language,
(You might think you know it, but the reality is you probably don't. Most of the computer people I meet have a poor command of both the written and spoken word. Work to improve that and you will come off better to your management. Take a writing class or two and make sure you can articulate your ideas in an organized way while being easy to read at the same time. Clearly there is an art to this, but the common elements can be learned by anyone. Every report, memo, presentation, etc... will benefit from this effort.)
- wear appropriate clothes,
(Nobody likes to do this, but if you are looking for a bit more respect than you are currently getting, a little spit 'n polish will go a long way. Being the techie admin type is a little tough in this regard. You don't want to dress up to management level, but don't want to dress down too low either. The upper middle is where you want to be. Just high enough that management will actually take you seriously, but not so high as to alienate your users and fellow techs.)
- work hard on your basic people skills,
(When you are working with other people, there are common elements that differentiate those that others respect and everybody else. Do some reading, attend a class or seminar aimed at management types and pay close attention to the people that get respect during meetings, etc... Listening, speaking clearly and at the right vocabulary level are two of the most important parts of this. Avoid slang terms and off color language when working with management types. In your techie office, do and say what you want, but always keep an eye toward making sure your communication is complete, accurate and not too verobse. Stay on topic, don't think outloud, and listen.
Everybody wants to get their job done. Be willing to consider those you are working for your customer. Treat them like a business venture. Investments in time and effort, placed well for best effect, will pay off in terms of respect, or at the very least, they will owe you enough to be on your side most of the time.
Try to distance yourself from the office politics. Down that path be dragons!)
- build basic competency.
(Be on time, spell things right, don't make bonehead errors, be able to answer the phones, etc... Work as hard as you can to make the easy stuff really easy and nail it every day. When errors are made on the hard stuff, their effect on you will then be diminished because you are otherwise a solid person.)
Where work is concerned:
- put out when it really matters,
(This ones a biggie. Most days it's the same old same old, but every once in a while something comes up that really matters to the management team. Do your level best to make it happen and let them know you are doing so. Pulling a weekend or all-nighter is a personal sacrifice that is often very appreciated, if it's not done with an attitude. They will owe for that, if you let them and a few strategic others know what's going on. These things done right, will cultivate loyalty and respect. Done poorly, with attitude, simply are a waste of your valuable time.)
- listen,
(I can't say this enough. Be sure to take notes always. You may think you remember everything, but you probably don't. This activity, by the way, also commands respect in and of itself because others will see you are serious.)
- underpromise and overdeliver,
(This one is about managing expectations. The first solution is not always the best one. Don't be afraid to ask questions or get clarification on subtle points. It is exactly these points that will differentiate your work from that of others. Oh, almost forgot an important one. Never get anything done in 5 minutes. Nevermind that it takes only a couple. This is a basic tool for learning how to underpromise and overdeliver. If it will actually take two minutes, tell them 2
-realistic definition of on-time (and use of a good roadmap presentation).
It doesn't hurt to underpromise and overdeliver either.
Failure to do these things, which means you had better know your vendor well either from experience or direct communication, will result in off schedule / below expectations delivery.
I don't like the idea of more flawed chips entering the market, but this story caused an interesting idea to pop into my head.
Lets say a CPU runs great, but fails on a coupla instructions. Why not just compile for it sans those instructions? For this to make any sense, there would have to be plenty of similarly flawed chips to work with though.
Finally a reason to say Kwisatch Haderach! This is a perfect description of Lessig. Come to think of it, we really don't have any other compact term that describes the rare combination of vision, talent and selflessness Lessig demonstrates. --At least none that I can think of anyway.
Wrote this to them a while back too. Know what? They seem to answer just about everything sent to them. I've mailed a few problems/requests in and they have either gotten them done (more than just me wanted those), have replied with some suggestions that might help, or are working on them. (Got mail on that too.)
Impressive.
Anyway, I like the invite system and here is why:
1. There is a nice chain of trust built in. Who wants to invite the spamming asshole?
2. Exchanging the invites, provided there are enough of them, is fun. I know 20 or so people now that I didn't before because of Gmail. That's kind of cool really.
3. It's an old-school Internet kind of thing. Those that are here have a reason to interact with those just getting started. Kind of the mentoring thing I experienced when using the Internet early on. Not quite the same, but --well I hope you get the idea. If not, skip this one.
4. Plenty of word of mouth for Google. It's a wonderful thing when users of your product do the selling. This is a lot less of a bother than Internet ads are. Can you imagine Gmail ads everywhere? Yuck! Good for Google.
It's funny, I have gotten more requests out of...
on
Gmail Goes Public
·
· Score: 1
the blue lately than ever before. Of course, Google has 50 or so at the ready for anyone with Gmail to use.
Microsoft is winning these datacenters one at a time.
Vendor = UGS in this case.
Top reason: Which Linux do we support?
Of course I tell them to just pick one and let their users sort it out. --No dice. They believe expectations are too hard to manage and what happens when their particular linux dies.
there are still some applications where raw CPU speed matters.
We have been at the thoughtput is good enough point for several years. In truth, this is old news really. I've got IRIX servers doing lots of things plenty fast, clipping along at a brisk 400Mhz. There is not much you can't do with that, particularly when running a nice NUMA box.
I assume the same holds true for SUN gear. (I think their NUMA performance is a bit lower than the SGI, but I also don't think it matters for a lot of enterprise stuff.)
One application I have running, NUMA style, is MCAD. It's cool in that I have one copy of the software serving about 25 users, running on a nice NUMA server that never breaks. Admin is almost zero, except for the little things that happen from time to time --mostly user related.
However, I'm going to have to migrate this to a win32 platform. (And yes, it's gonna suck.) Why? The peak CPU power available to me is not enough for very large datasets and I cannot easily make the data portable for roaming users. (If there were more MCAD on Linux, I could do this, alas...)
Love it or hate it, the hot running, inefficient Intel / AMD cpu delivers more peak compute than any high I/O UNIX platform does. And it's cheap.
Sun is stating the obvious with the whole I/O thing, IMHO. In doing so, they avoid a core problem; namely, peak compute is not an option under commercial UNIX that needs to be. (And where it is, there are no applications, or the cost is just too high...)
This is where Linux is really important. It runs on the fast CPU's, but also is plenty UNIXey to allow smart admins to capture the benefits multi-user computing can provide.
Linux rocks, so does Solaris, IRIX, etc... The difference is that I can get IRIX & solaris applications.
WISH THAT WOULD CHANGE FASTER THAN IT CURRENTLY IS.
And I just want to make a comment here. Your point is totally valid. win32 users are not likely to benefit from this tech much.
I just want to point out, once again, why win32 users tend to maximize things.
They do it because the win32 window manager sucks. Focus follows mouse and being able to enter data into a window without bringing it to the foreground really has a lot of advantages when working with multiple windows. --Sure the user needs to learn to make use of it, but don't they have to learn how to deal with crappy management too?
I'm not going to hash the ugly bits here in this thread again, but lets just say there is PLENTY OF SUPPORT for this view. Look around the net, it's not that hard to find.
Ok, so why are their products accepted as easy to use?
The crap is common knowledge. A significant percentage of the computer using population has just simply learned to deal making ease of use happen through sheer brute force. --That's not quality UI design, it's mass brainwashing one dollar at a time.
XP has a better UI than many other win32 varients do, but it has a lot of work left before it gets past the lousy mark.
Lets say there is a pot of funds to power the IEEE. This pot comes from any sane cost cutting measures the IEEE can take, such as cutting down the amount of paper sent, etc.. The remainder of the pot comes from the interested community. They can fund raise, donate, whatever to get the ball rolling.
The size of this pot is the annual operating costs, plus some reasonable buffer. Nothing is opened until the pot reaches this size.
During this process, IEEE lets people know what they are trying to do, provides rapid feedback, such as a simple dollar meter, and establishes a small community-wiki thing to collect ideas and discussion.
One problem is keeping active members paying. Part of that discussion needs to be about value adds for paying members with the idea being those that can pay should because the IEEE is a good thing to continue to have around and working out open access will bring new members.
Every time somebody accesses the content, that effect of that access is shown on the pot. It won't be much, but it will be something. Doing this keeps the content from actually being "free" in that there will be a guilt factor attached. Not enough of one to discourage anybody, but just enough of one to get people to really think about their ability to pay and actually doing so.
Once things are up and running, those that pay for memberships, get access to the content without much hassle and whatever value adds the community comes up with. Those riding free, get to see the size of the pot and what their access is costing. Donations are encouraged as are fund-raising efforts. Memberships could be an incentive to help people get involved with these.
Over time, the overall state of the pot is known to everyone. When it reaches critical points, access can be slowed (for non paying members), fund raising incentives can be increased, etc...
Properly done, I would think the value would be obvious to everyone involved. That's the key really. We need this organization right? If we need it and people are given plenty of options, it should work out ok.
Cell phones emit a pretty powerful signal. Speakers near the phone can be modulated on an incoming call. Nothing else I own does that. And this happens when the speakers are off. (And yes, the frequencies in use have a lot to do with that and that's my point!)
My second accidential observation is even more spooky. Back when I was short of cash, I fixed a microwave that was broken, but was afraid to use it without a way to be sure it was still safe. Someone got me one of those little microwave radiation detectors, sold at Radio Shack. It's a little handheld device with no batteries, just a flat antenna you point near the microwave.
Happened to be testing a friends new microwave because the cheap ones are pretty loose in front. (Don't put your face near the glass on one of the low end models, unless you don't enjoy the current state of your frontal lobes.) The cell phone was nearby and received a call. I could hear the *click* as the needle went off the high end of the scale. --That has made me think a little harder about this since it happened a few months back.
Of course, the windings in the meter could have been responding as the speakers did. Either way, that's enough RF saturation to be considered unsafe by Amateur radio standards.
I agree with the eariler poster that pointed out we used to wear radioactive watches and X-ray our feet. My gut says we are going to find something wrong with the phones in the future.
My symptoms, after longer cell use, are ringing in the ears. I don't use my cell as much as I used to and my right ear will, on occasion, just start ringing for no reason. That's the ear I most often choose when I am not thinking about things and just answer the phone.
Sure does to me. I'm running a dual 600Mhz machine right now. I happen to be using Linux, but win32 would work fine too. Makes a great desktop machine. Hell, I burn DVD media on this box all the time @ 4X. Plenty of speed for most anything but the latest games. Plays a mean Q3A though.
I 've got a faster box or two, but I like this one and see no reason to go tearing into my setup just for a little speed bump that won't really matter.
Does my machine do less than your Dell? I seriously doubt it, unless you are talking games.
Now I probably won't buy a mini pc because I don't need to. (I'm getting a Mini anyway.) However, lots of people, who really like win32 (poor bastards), will be interested in such a machine. Apple is showing good design trumps power for the dollar for an increasingly large segment of the computer buying public.
Funny, I get a lot of requests for that sound. They all say the same thing, "It sounds like a real phone!".
I had to go digging through thrifty stores to get a phone with a mechanical ringer. How are people, particularly younger people, continuing to so strongly associate that sound with a phone?
that's a technical issue. As you pointed out, there are solutions for X.
My primary point lies with multi-user computing and the choice it offers the users and administrators.
X is a multi-user GUI and the Apple and Microsoft GUI environments aren't.
Given the attitude at Microsoft, I can see why they did what they did, but Apple had basically a fresh crack at that issue and made a poor choice, IMHO.
And, for the record, I'm getting a Mac Mini here in a month or so. I like it, so my post is not an Apple bashing post. The GUI is good. It's just not multi-user and it should have been, given the UNIX OS it runs on.
Had a comment in my journal too about this being a mainframe throwback. Not everybody is going to want to run things that way. Local computing has a *lot* of advantages. However, denying the multi-user choice takes something important away from computing that should be there for those that want to take advantage.
Afterall, we built this nice network, why not make the ability to fully make use of it standard, in the box, stuff.
Apple would have done it very well compared to what we have today.
No kid of mine will ever wear a tracking tag at school.
If the school needs to solve accountability problems with electronic tags, then that school has problems that run a lot deeper than a few problem kids.
We have time honored methods of running schools that, when allowed to work properly, keep the schools running just fine with no technology necessary at all.
The problem we have today is threefold:
1. The lawyers have hampered the schools
2. Lots of parents either
- don't have time to give a fuck
- simply don't give a fuck
- are not aware they even have the option of giving a fuck.
3. Standardized tests and other high stakes "reform" programs inhibit the instructors ability to actually teach the kids something worth going to class for. (again, dead serious on this point.)
Fix those things and the need for these insulting tags will go away on it's own.
And I don't mean remote desktops. (VNC, RDP...) Don't get me wrong, those are nice and all, but nothing compared to remote display.
The X window system is the only *multiuser* GUI out there. The Mac is an interesting hybrid in that it features a nice multi-user kernel with a single user GUI bolted on. Being able to remote that would bring a lot of power to the already fine Apple experience.
Because Apple and Microsoft didn't create multi-user GUI environments, a very high percentage of the computer using population has exactly NO IDEA WHAT MULTI-USER COMPUTING REALLY IS ALL ABOUT.
That's too bad because they would benefit from it.
Honestly, the multi-user X window system and virtual desktops/workspaces/whatever, are the two features that keep me using Linux/UNIX in general. Once you understand what it means to send an application to a particular display, it's really limiting to not have the ability to do so.
The single-user GUI environments also sharply limit the types of group computing possible. Single user GUI systems are all client-server or web-services kinds of systems. This means the software must reside directly on the computer that serves the needs of the user currently using it.
For a single person using their computer, or maybe somebody running a portable one, this makes perfect sense and I'm not bashing it.
However, the potential benefits of workgroup computing are sharply limited by these single-user GUI environments. Just look at all the kludges, we have Novell ZenWorks, install scripts, and other junk all designed to move the increasingly complex software environment from one machine to another as users move.
It's all pretty stupid actually.
In an X window environment, the applications reside where ever they make the best sense and the users run them, where they live, and simply request the application display I/O come from the machine they are currently using.
This has a number of very significant advantages:
- Sharing powerful machines. Does every user have to have the super box? No. With the X window system, everyone who needs to run something on a powerful box can simply do so, from the machine they are running.
- Sharing expensive applications. Look at MCAD, or analysis, or simulation applications. These things are very expensive and are often complex to administer. Making a package like this available to a group of users is a lot harder than it needs to be, when you don't have the X window system working for you. The application needs to be loaded on each machine, then complex and error prone floating licensing schemes regulate the use of the software.
In an X window environment, any user that wants to run the application simply does so by running the one copy on the computer it is loaded on. When they get the data they need, they put it on the network where they have more local access to it and move on. This has licensing implications also. Many companies charge more for floating licenses because they know workgroups need that capability. The X window system mitigates this cost in almost every case.
- Data Management. In a client/server environment, a user must have a copy of the data on their machine in order to manupulate it. However an X window capable application can isolate the user from the data in powerful ways, mostly for free because of the way the UNIX and X window systems work together.
Imagine a data pool located on machine A, data manupulation application on machine B and user running on machine C.
When the user wants to do something with the data, in the data pool on machine A, they run the application on Machine B, remoting the display to their machine C, while the application then manupuates the data on Machine A.
In this case, the user has no direct access to the data in question. Possible actions and even copying of the data can be made as easy, structured, and or difficult as necessary to meet the design parameters. (Render
Slashdot Mirror
The source and it's metadata is plain old ASCII. No matter how this ends up, at the end of the day there still is a code tree anyone with most any reasonable machine can work with, improve on, etc...
Linus took advantage of a great tool and got some work done. Now that's over, so everyone moves on. Big deal. New tools will either be crafted, or will be made avaliable. In the end, nothing really changes.
Anyone thinking hard about where their data is stored and who they have to pay to access it should be looking at this for some much needed guidence, IMHO.
Good for OSS, good for Open Standards (which still get far too little attention.)
By the way, lots of big companies are starting to say "open" now and even use the buzzwords (xml, etc..), yet you still have to buy stuff to make actual use of your data for anything other than the most elementary viewing purposes.
WE NEED TO DO A LOT MORE WORK DETAILING EXACTLY WHAT OPEN MEANS.
Learn how to carry yourself. These are some of the things I do:
- learn the english language,
(You might think you know it, but the reality is you probably don't. Most of the computer people I meet have a poor command of both the written and spoken word. Work to improve that and you will come off better to your management. Take a writing class or two and make sure you can articulate your ideas in an organized way while being easy to read at the same time. Clearly there is an art to this, but the common elements can be learned by anyone. Every report, memo, presentation, etc... will benefit from this effort.)
- wear appropriate clothes,
(Nobody likes to do this, but if you are looking for a bit more respect than you are currently getting, a little spit 'n polish will go a long way. Being the techie admin type is a little tough in this regard. You don't want to dress up to management level, but don't want to dress down too low either. The upper middle is where you want to be. Just high enough that management will actually take you seriously, but not so high as to alienate your users and fellow techs.)
- work hard on your basic people skills,
(When you are working with other people, there are common elements that differentiate those that others respect and everybody else. Do some reading, attend a class or seminar aimed at management types and pay close attention to the people that get respect during meetings, etc... Listening, speaking clearly and at the right vocabulary level are two of the most important parts of this. Avoid slang terms and off color language when working with management types. In your techie office, do and say what you want, but always keep an eye toward making sure your communication is complete, accurate and not too verobse. Stay on topic, don't think outloud, and listen.
Everybody wants to get their job done. Be willing to consider those you are working for your customer. Treat them like a business venture. Investments in time and effort, placed well for best effect, will pay off in terms of respect, or at the very least, they will owe you enough to be on your side most of the time.
Try to distance yourself from the office politics. Down that path be dragons!)
- build basic competency.
(Be on time, spell things right, don't make bonehead errors, be able to answer the phones, etc... Work as hard as you can to make the easy stuff really easy and nail it every day. When errors are made on the hard stuff, their effect on you will then be diminished because you are otherwise a solid person.)
Where work is concerned:
- put out when it really matters,
(This ones a biggie. Most days it's the same old same old, but every once in a while something comes up that really matters to the management team. Do your level best to make it happen and let them know you are doing so. Pulling a weekend or all-nighter is a personal sacrifice that is often very appreciated, if it's not done with an attitude. They will owe for that, if you let them and a few strategic others know what's going on. These things done right, will cultivate loyalty and respect. Done poorly, with attitude, simply are a waste of your valuable time.)
- listen,
(I can't say this enough. Be sure to take notes always. You may think you remember everything, but you probably don't. This activity, by the way, also commands respect in and of itself because others will see you are serious.)
- underpromise and overdeliver,
(This one is about managing expectations. The first solution is not always the best one. Don't be afraid to ask questions or get clarification on subtle points. It is exactly these points that will differentiate your work from that of others. Oh, almost forgot an important one. Never get anything done in 5 minutes. Nevermind that it takes only a couple. This is a basic tool for learning how to underpromise and overdeliver. If it will actually take two minutes, tell them 2
It all comes down to a couple of things:
-managing expectations
-realistic definition of on-time (and use of a good roadmap presentation).
It doesn't hurt to underpromise and overdeliver either.
Failure to do these things, which means you had better know your vendor well either from experience or direct communication, will result in off schedule / below expectations delivery.
I don't like the idea of more flawed chips entering the market, but this story caused an interesting idea to pop into my head.
Lets say a CPU runs great, but fails on a coupla instructions. Why not just compile for it sans those instructions? For this to make any sense, there would have to be plenty of similarly flawed chips to work with though.
Finally a reason to say Kwisatch Haderach! This is a perfect description of Lessig. Come to think of it, we really don't have any other compact term that describes the rare combination of vision, talent and selflessness Lessig demonstrates. --At least none that I can think of anyway.
Good Call.
Why they don't see this is beyond me. All they need to do is spec what their config is and the rest can be handled by the users, VAR, whatever.
PTC does it, why can't the others?
Wrote this to them a while back too. Know what? They seem to answer just about everything sent to them. I've mailed a few problems/requests in and they have either gotten them done (more than just me wanted those), have replied with some suggestions that might help, or are working on them. (Got mail on that too.)
Impressive.
Anyway, I like the invite system and here is why:
1. There is a nice chain of trust built in. Who wants to invite the spamming asshole?
2. Exchanging the invites, provided there are enough of them, is fun. I know 20 or so people now that I didn't before because of Gmail. That's kind of cool really.
3. It's an old-school Internet kind of thing. Those that are here have a reason to interact with those just getting started. Kind of the mentoring thing I experienced when using the Internet early on. Not quite the same, but --well I hope you get the idea. If not, skip this one.
4. Plenty of word of mouth for Google. It's a wonderful thing when users of your product do the selling. This is a lot less of a bother than Internet ads are. Can you imagine Gmail ads everywhere? Yuck! Good for Google.
the blue lately than ever before. Of course, Google has 50 or so at the ready for anyone with Gmail to use.
Microsoft is winning these datacenters one at a time.
Vendor = UGS in this case.
Top reason: Which Linux do we support?
Of course I tell them to just pick one and let their users sort it out. --No dice. They believe expectations are too hard to manage and what happens when their particular linux dies.
Dorks.
It doesn't run MCAD. Currently X86/win32, Sparc, HP-UX (IBM & SGI Platforms on the decline)
You are right about the G-series chips otherwise.
there are still some applications where raw CPU speed matters.
We have been at the thoughtput is good enough point for several years. In truth, this is old news really. I've got IRIX servers doing lots of things plenty fast, clipping along at a brisk 400Mhz. There is not much you can't do with that, particularly when running a nice NUMA box.
I assume the same holds true for SUN gear. (I think their NUMA performance is a bit lower than the SGI, but I also don't think it matters for a lot of enterprise stuff.)
One application I have running, NUMA style, is MCAD. It's cool in that I have one copy of the software serving about 25 users, running on a nice NUMA server that never breaks. Admin is almost zero, except for the little things that happen from time to time --mostly user related.
However, I'm going to have to migrate this to a win32 platform. (And yes, it's gonna suck.) Why? The peak CPU power available to me is not enough for very large datasets and I cannot easily make the data portable for roaming users. (If there were more MCAD on Linux, I could do this, alas...)
Love it or hate it, the hot running, inefficient Intel / AMD cpu delivers more peak compute than any high I/O UNIX platform does. And it's cheap.
Sun is stating the obvious with the whole I/O thing, IMHO. In doing so, they avoid a core problem; namely, peak compute is not an option under commercial UNIX that needs to be. (And where it is, there are no applications, or the cost is just too high...)
This is where Linux is really important. It runs on the fast CPU's, but also is plenty UNIXey to allow smart admins to capture the benefits multi-user computing can provide.
Linux rocks, so does Solaris, IRIX, etc... The difference is that I can get IRIX & solaris applications.
WISH THAT WOULD CHANGE FASTER THAN IT CURRENTLY IS.
wanting to give this a try, but are a little short on time?
I've been wanting that feature for years!!!
(Loving OSS computing where interesting ideas get a chance beyond the focus group)
And I just want to make a comment here. Your point is totally valid. win32 users are not likely to benefit from this tech much.
I just want to point out, once again, why win32 users tend to maximize things.
They do it because the win32 window manager sucks. Focus follows mouse and being able to enter data into a window without bringing it to the foreground really has a lot of advantages when working with multiple windows. --Sure the user needs to learn to make use of it, but don't they have to learn how to deal with crappy management too?
That's all... back to the topic at hand.
Microsoft UI's are generally lousy.
I'm not going to hash the ugly bits here in this thread again, but lets just say there is PLENTY OF SUPPORT for this view. Look around the net, it's not that hard to find.
Ok, so why are their products accepted as easy to use?
The crap is common knowledge. A significant percentage of the computer using population has just simply learned to deal making ease of use happen through sheer brute force. --That's not quality UI design, it's mass brainwashing one dollar at a time.
XP has a better UI than many other win32 varients do, but it has a lot of work left before it gets past the lousy mark.
sort of model.
Lets say there is a pot of funds to power the IEEE. This pot comes from any sane cost cutting measures the IEEE can take, such as cutting down the amount of paper sent, etc.. The remainder of the pot comes from the interested community. They can fund raise, donate, whatever to get the ball rolling.
The size of this pot is the annual operating costs, plus some reasonable buffer. Nothing is opened until the pot reaches this size.
During this process, IEEE lets people know what they are trying to do, provides rapid feedback, such as a simple dollar meter, and establishes a small community-wiki thing to collect ideas and discussion.
One problem is keeping active members paying. Part of that discussion needs to be about value adds for paying members with the idea being those that can pay should because the IEEE is a good thing to continue to have around and working out open access will bring new members.
Every time somebody accesses the content, that effect of that access is shown on the pot. It won't be much, but it will be something. Doing this keeps the content from actually being "free" in that there will be a guilt factor attached. Not enough of one to discourage anybody, but just enough of one to get people to really think about their ability to pay and actually doing so.
Once things are up and running, those that pay for memberships, get access to the content without much hassle and whatever value adds the community comes up with. Those riding free, get to see the size of the pot and what their access is costing. Donations are encouraged as are fund-raising efforts. Memberships could be an incentive to help people get involved with these.
Over time, the overall state of the pot is known to everyone. When it reaches critical points, access can be slowed (for non paying members), fund raising incentives can be increased, etc...
Properly done, I would think the value would be obvious to everyone involved. That's the key really. We need this organization right? If we need it and people are given plenty of options, it should work out ok.
I just have to comment.
Two things:
Cell phones emit a pretty powerful signal. Speakers near the phone can be modulated on an incoming call. Nothing else I own does that. And this happens when the speakers are off. (And yes, the frequencies in use have a lot to do with that and that's my point!)
My second accidential observation is even more spooky. Back when I was short of cash, I fixed a microwave that was broken, but was afraid to use it without a way to be sure it was still safe. Someone got me one of those little microwave radiation detectors, sold at Radio Shack. It's a little handheld device with no batteries, just a flat antenna you point near the microwave.
Happened to be testing a friends new microwave because the cheap ones are pretty loose in front. (Don't put your face near the glass on one of the low end models, unless you don't enjoy the current state of your frontal lobes.) The cell phone was nearby and received a call. I could hear the *click* as the needle went off the high end of the scale. --That has made me think a little harder about this since it happened a few months back.
Of course, the windings in the meter could have been responding as the speakers did. Either way, that's enough RF saturation to be considered unsafe by Amateur radio standards.
I agree with the eariler poster that pointed out we used to wear radioactive watches and X-ray our feet. My gut says we are going to find something wrong with the phones in the future.
My symptoms, after longer cell use, are ringing in the ears. I don't use my cell as much as I used to and my right ear will, on occasion, just start ringing for no reason. That's the ear I most often choose when I am not thinking about things and just answer the phone.
Ok, so that's three things, whatever.
Sure does to me. I'm running a dual 600Mhz machine right now. I happen to be using Linux, but win32 would work fine too. Makes a great desktop machine. Hell, I burn DVD media on this box all the time @ 4X. Plenty of speed for most anything but the latest games. Plays a mean Q3A though.
I 've got a faster box or two, but I like this one and see no reason to go tearing into my setup just for a little speed bump that won't really matter.
Does my machine do less than your Dell? I seriously doubt it, unless you are talking games.
Now I probably won't buy a mini pc because I don't need to. (I'm getting a Mini anyway.) However, lots of people, who really like win32 (poor bastards), will be interested in such a machine. Apple is showing good design trumps power for the dollar for an increasingly large segment of the computer buying public.
Guess we will be associating the ringer with the phone for quite a while yet.
IMHO, that's a good thing.
Thanks for the insight.
Funny, I get a lot of requests for that sound. They all say the same thing, "It sounds like a real phone!".
I had to go digging through thrifty stores to get a phone with a mechanical ringer. How are people, particularly younger people, continuing to so strongly associate that sound with a phone?
Get an account and post here again, and I'll be happy to discuss my "worldview" with you.
that's a technical issue. As you pointed out, there are solutions for X.
My primary point lies with multi-user computing and the choice it offers the users and administrators.
X is a multi-user GUI and the Apple and Microsoft GUI environments aren't.
Given the attitude at Microsoft, I can see why they did what they did, but Apple had basically a fresh crack at that issue and made a poor choice, IMHO.
And, for the record, I'm getting a Mac Mini here in a month or so. I like it, so my post is not an Apple bashing post. The GUI is good. It's just not multi-user and it should have been, given the UNIX OS it runs on.
Had a comment in my journal too about this being a mainframe throwback. Not everybody is going to want to run things that way. Local computing has a *lot* of advantages. However, denying the multi-user choice takes something important away from computing that should be there for those that want to take advantage.
Afterall, we built this nice network, why not make the ability to fully make use of it standard, in the box, stuff.
Apple would have done it very well compared to what we have today.
Seriously, this use of technology offends me more than I have words for.
Sure, the language of my post was lowbrow, but my point is valid; namely,
this is a technology solution that addresses a symptom, not a cure.
All things considered, we don't need this kind of thing in our schools provided they are running correctly.
Say what you want, but the 3 issues detailed in my parent post have contributed to the growing need for these kinds of control.
I'm shocked honestly. It's my first flamebait since I registered here.
Who wants these tags on their kids and why?
No argument, I just want to know.
FUCK THAT. (I'm totally serious.)
No kid of mine will ever wear a tracking tag at school.
If the school needs to solve accountability problems with electronic tags, then that school has problems that run a lot deeper than a few problem kids.
We have time honored methods of running schools that, when allowed to work properly, keep the schools running just fine with no technology necessary at all.
The problem we have today is threefold:
1. The lawyers have hampered the schools
2. Lots of parents either
- don't have time to give a fuck
- simply don't give a fuck
- are not aware they even have the option of giving a fuck.
3. Standardized tests and other high stakes "reform" programs inhibit the instructors ability to actually teach the kids something worth going to class for. (again, dead serious on this point.)
Fix those things and the need for these insulting tags will go away on it's own.
And I don't mean remote desktops. (VNC, RDP...) Don't get me wrong, those are nice and all, but nothing compared to remote display.
The X window system is the only *multiuser* GUI out there. The Mac is an interesting hybrid in that it features a nice multi-user kernel with a single user GUI bolted on. Being able to remote that would bring a lot of power to the already fine Apple experience.
Because Apple and Microsoft didn't create multi-user GUI environments, a very high percentage of the computer using population has exactly NO IDEA WHAT MULTI-USER COMPUTING REALLY IS ALL ABOUT.
That's too bad because they would benefit from it.
Honestly, the multi-user X window system and virtual desktops/workspaces/whatever, are the two features that keep me using Linux/UNIX in general. Once you understand what it means to send an application to a particular display, it's really limiting to not have the ability to do so.
The single-user GUI environments also sharply limit the types of group computing possible. Single user GUI systems are all client-server or web-services kinds of systems. This means the software must reside directly on the computer that serves the needs of the user currently using it.
For a single person using their computer, or maybe somebody running a portable one, this makes perfect sense and I'm not bashing it.
However, the potential benefits of workgroup computing are sharply limited by these single-user GUI environments. Just look at all the kludges, we have Novell ZenWorks, install scripts, and other junk all designed to move the increasingly complex software environment from one machine to another as users move.
It's all pretty stupid actually.
In an X window environment, the applications reside where ever they make the best sense and the users run them, where they live, and simply request the application display I/O come from the machine they are currently using.
This has a number of very significant advantages:
- Sharing powerful machines. Does every user have to have the super box? No. With the X window system, everyone who needs to run something on a powerful box can simply do so, from the machine they are running.
- Sharing expensive applications. Look at MCAD, or analysis, or simulation applications. These things are very expensive and are often complex to administer. Making a package like this available to a group of users is a lot harder than it needs to be, when you don't have the X window system working for you. The application needs to be loaded on each machine, then complex and error prone floating licensing schemes regulate the use of the software.
In an X window environment, any user that wants to run the application simply does so by running the one copy on the computer it is loaded on. When they get the data they need, they put it on the network where they have more local access to it and move on. This has licensing implications also. Many companies charge more for floating licenses because they know workgroups need that capability. The X window system mitigates this cost in almost every case.
- Data Management. In a client/server environment, a user must have a copy of the data on their machine in order to manupulate it. However an X window capable application can isolate the user from the data in powerful ways, mostly for free because of the way the UNIX and X window systems work together.
Imagine a data pool located on machine A, data manupulation application on machine B and user running on machine C.
When the user wants to do something with the data, in the data pool on machine A, they run the application on Machine B, remoting the display to their machine C, while the application then manupuates the data on Machine A.
In this case, the user has no direct access to the data in question. Possible actions and even copying of the data can be made as easy, structured, and or difficult as necessary to meet the design parameters. (Render
Spot on. Too bad many folks don't see it that way.