Most of the time spent booting up I would guess is not spent initializing memory (which would only be slightly faster given non-volitile ram), but is spent on probing hardware and making sure nothing has changed since the last shutdown. It's also much easier for programmers to just initialize structures in nice for loops rather than swap the whole thing on and off of disk. The easy way of course is to just start over and reinitialize everything, most kernel programmers don't get much lower level than that (most of this is regular old C code). Personally I'd rather have programmers concentrate on making it so I never _need_ to reboot. Bottom line is how long does it really take to load 128 megs from disk to ram? I bet that's a very small % of your boot procedure.
We are currently expiriencing a distributed denial of service attack. Please authenticate yourself as a human by clicking on not this link, or this link either, but this link, and not this one.
I used to have an HP keyboard with an internet, mail, lock key, etc. The mail key even had a light that lit up when you had mail, but I never figured out how to program that to work with my mail program. Other than that light they were completely mappable to any program file, as well as a few built in commands (lock screen, etc). By default they went to sign up forms for HP branded internet services, etc, but I remapped the internet key to bring up netscape, and used the lock key quite frequently (much easier to push a button rather than ctrl-alt-delete click on lock). I guess the only problem was after I installed linux on the computer I found myself hitting the internet key to try to bring up netscape only to realize oops I can't do that. I don't see the big deal.
I much prefer FreeBSDs text file configuration to that on linux, but it would be nice to have a generator program, which would go through *all* the possible choices, and create an initial KERNEL file for you to edit.
The article states that Craig McCaw backed out of buying Iridium due to the satilites not being able to support broadband internet traffic. It seems to me that data is data is data, and it would trivial to send any type of traffic over this connection. Besides, I'd rather see low bandwidth (let the entire world share it), *free* internet traffic.
Of course, both this and the OPT-OUT cookie provide DoubleClick with even more valuable information. Those who OPT-OUT can be targetted with privacy related ads, etc. Those who actively disrupt can be targetted with various "ads for nerds, stuff that matters".
Most cells probably can't support that number of simultaneous connections. I've been to tech conferences before, where the cells got jammed just because there were so many people on their cell phones, all in one location. Not to mention that one cell phone gives you enough cancer, what's going to happen when you're sitting in an auditorium with 500. Nah, if you're gonna allow net access, do it in a computer lab, or better yet, just make it a take home exam.
I hope it is set up well for those who want to continue their education without necessarily seeking a degree. It seems to me that that's the best part of this. I'd have a lot of trouble budgeting the time and money for a traditional education, not to mention that I simply don't live (and work) in an area where the top professors are. Some employers will probably even give their employees time during their day to take advantage of this. Those with plans for continuing education will be saving money on tuitions and productivity in eliminating workers commute time to the local college. If this works even close to as well as it could, it is money well spent and will pay back to the community (the entire global community) over and over again.
On another note (as I think about what the entire global community encompasses), this makes it even more important that we have good, unrestricted net access in our local libraries and other public places. We don't want this online university to be a priviledge only for those who can afford computers and internet connections. That will only widen the gaps in our society, something which the founder is apparently attempting to lessen (by making the university free).
Open groups need to start getting patents on every possible thing they can, to avoid this. Just think, if an open group had patented wildcard A records, and given an unlimited license for use as long as you don't create a derivative patent, this could have been stopped.
Well, I don't know how well this correlates, and I have no way to prove it, but I used to have a redirection script which did a search on Yahoo, using keyword.searchyahoo.mydomain, and another one which did a yahoo stock lookup using TICKER.quote.mydomain. I guess that's not session info, but I haven't seen the actual patent filing so maybe they tried to go overbroad. I guess the biggest problem is I have absolutely no way to prove it as I only used it myself and then took it down.
Yes, Intel gets to deduct the cost on its taxes, but the employees have to add the market value of the computer to its salary, unless it uses the computer only for business purposes (otherwise they can find out the percentage of the use of the computer for business purposes and can deduct that, but that's usually too much of a PITA).
"The base product and service offering will be provided to employees at no charge, but is not tax protected." You still have to pay the government for the computer, as it is considered part of your salary.
Ford should have patented the "process" of giving away computer to employees, to protect their intellectual investment. Then they could license the process to companies like Intel who want to increase their productivity too.
I agree with your point completely. I'm not against unlimited TLDs (although at that point you might as well just go ahead and allow spaces and strange characters and call them keywords). But my argument is not that we should have *more* TLDs, it's that we should have *unlimited* TLDs, and that end-users should be able to obtain them. It may be a subtle distinction, but it's a very important one IMHO. 100 TLDs would be rediculous, especially because of the precedent that.com has set. (Is amazon amazon.com, or amazon.store?) Besides the fact that a hierarchical database (DNS) needs significant aliasing in order to make sense, and the fee structure of DNS does not support that.
This is just another argument *against* the introduction of more top level domains. 3 major TLDs is already too many so you don't know where a site really is unless you do a search, or try all three. And any serious site winds up buying all three anyway. Just more $$$ into the hands of network solutions (and hopefully one of their competitors). And quite possibly more $$$ into the hands of lawyers and domain squatters.
Slashdot Mirror
it'll always be possible to record. if nothing else, write a video driver which saves to mpeg instead of outputting to a monitor.
-1, redundant, see post #2
Ah the world wide web, where bad publicity actually *isn't* good for a company (until they employ Web QOS).
Most of the time spent booting up I would guess is not spent initializing memory (which would only be slightly faster given non-volitile ram), but is spent on probing hardware and making sure nothing has changed since the last shutdown. It's also much easier for programmers to just initialize structures in nice for loops rather than swap the whole thing on and off of disk. The easy way of course is to just start over and reinitialize everything, most kernel programmers don't get much lower level than that (most of this is regular old C code). Personally I'd rather have programmers concentrate on making it so I never _need_ to reboot. Bottom line is how long does it really take to load 128 megs from disk to ram? I bet that's a very small % of your boot procedure.
High bandwidth, high latency: I take my 40 gig hard drive on my 10 minute drive home from work.
In order to even further enhance the speed, Lucent engineers worked day and night on a new process to make 8 times 1 equal to 10...
"The experimental GigaChannel Ethernet multiplexer combines up to eight independent gigabit Ethernet signals into a single 10 Gb/s signal stream."
We are currently expiriencing a distributed denial of service attack. Please authenticate yourself as a human by clicking on not this link, or this link either, but this link, and not this one.
now if only cookie.ticketmaster.com wasn't patented, ticketmaster could use that to check that the user had already logged on :)
then you are not simply hyperlinking, you are COPYING copyrighted data
I used to have an HP keyboard with an internet, mail, lock key, etc. The mail key even had a light that lit up when you had mail, but I never figured out how to program that to work with my mail program. Other than that light they were completely mappable to any program file, as well as a few built in commands (lock screen, etc). By default they went to sign up forms for HP branded internet services, etc, but I remapped the internet key to bring up netscape, and used the lock key quite frequently (much easier to push a button rather than ctrl-alt-delete click on lock). I guess the only problem was after I installed linux on the computer I found myself hitting the internet key to try to bring up netscape only to realize oops I can't do that. I don't see the big deal.
I much prefer FreeBSDs text file configuration to that on linux, but it would be nice to have a generator program, which would go through *all* the possible choices, and create an initial KERNEL file for you to edit.
The article states that Craig McCaw backed out of buying Iridium due to the satilites not being able to support broadband internet traffic. It seems to me that data is data is data, and it would trivial to send any type of traffic over this connection. Besides, I'd rather see low bandwidth (let the entire world share it), *free* internet traffic.
Of course, both this and the OPT-OUT cookie provide DoubleClick with even more valuable information. Those who OPT-OUT can be targetted with privacy related ads, etc. Those who actively disrupt can be targetted with various "ads for nerds, stuff that matters".
Most cells probably can't support that number of simultaneous connections. I've been to tech conferences before, where the cells got jammed just because there were so many people on their cell phones, all in one location. Not to mention that one cell phone gives you enough cancer, what's going to happen when you're sitting in an auditorium with 500. Nah, if you're gonna allow net access, do it in a computer lab, or better yet, just make it a take home exam.
do the backup over the network, or use a mobile rack and take the whole drive somewhere else.
I hope it is set up well for those who want to continue their education without necessarily seeking a degree. It seems to me that that's the best part of this. I'd have a lot of trouble budgeting the time and money for a traditional education, not to mention that I simply don't live (and work) in an area where the top professors are. Some employers will probably even give their employees time during their day to take advantage of this. Those with plans for continuing education will be saving money on tuitions and productivity in eliminating workers commute time to the local college. If this works even close to as well as it could, it is money well spent and will pay back to the community (the entire global community) over and over again.
On another note (as I think about what the entire global community encompasses), this makes it even more important that we have good, unrestricted net access in our local libraries and other public places. We don't want this online university to be a priviledge only for those who can afford computers and internet connections. That will only widen the gaps in our society, something which the founder is apparently attempting to lessen (by making the university free).
Celera Genomics fell 133/8 to 97 on the NYSE. http://dailynews. yahoo.com/h/ap/20000314/bs/wall_street_2117.html
Open groups need to start getting patents on every possible thing they can, to avoid this. Just think, if an open group had patented wildcard A records, and given an unlimited license for use as long as you don't create a derivative patent, this could have been stopped.
Well, I don't know how well this correlates, and I have no way to prove it, but I used to have a redirection script which did a search on Yahoo, using keyword.searchyahoo.mydomain, and another one which did a yahoo stock lookup using TICKER.quote.mydomain. I guess that's not session info, but I haven't seen the actual patent filing so maybe they tried to go overbroad. I guess the biggest problem is I have absolutely no way to prove it as I only used it myself and then took it down.
Yes, Intel gets to deduct the cost on its taxes, but the employees have to add the market value of the computer to its salary, unless it uses the computer only for business purposes (otherwise they can find out the percentage of the use of the computer for business purposes and can deduct that, but that's usually too much of a PITA).
"The base product and service offering will be provided to employees at no charge, but is not tax protected."
You still have to pay the government for the computer, as it is considered part of your salary.
Ford should have patented the "process" of giving away computer to employees, to protect their intellectual investment. Then they could license the process to companies like Intel who want to increase their productivity too.
I agree with your point completely. I'm not against unlimited TLDs (although at that point you might as well just go ahead and allow spaces and strange characters and call them keywords). But my argument is not that we should have *more* TLDs, it's that we should have *unlimited* TLDs, and that end-users should be able to obtain them. It may be a subtle distinction, but it's a very important one IMHO. 100 TLDs would be rediculous, especially because of the precedent that .com has set. (Is amazon amazon.com, or amazon.store?) Besides the fact that a hierarchical database (DNS) needs significant aliasing in order to make sense, and the fee structure of DNS does not support that.
This is just another argument *against* the introduction of more top level domains. 3 major TLDs is already too many so you don't know where a site really is unless you do a search, or try all three. And any serious site winds up buying all three anyway. Just more $$$ into the hands of network solutions (and hopefully one of their competitors). And quite possibly more $$$ into the hands of lawyers and domain squatters.