But they're no more cognizant of them as browsers than they are of IE as a browser. As someone mentioned on another thread, "They're just using the Internet."
But they're on mobile devices - Palms, cell phones, even DinkyWindows, or whatever they call it.
But the essence is still there - people want to "Use the Internet," in non-trivial numbers from something that is not a desktop running Windows and IE. Maybe they're still not cognizant of "web standards," but they will know if stuff works on their mobile system, so some sort of standards have become important.
Fortunately Microsoft does not (yet?) dominate the handheld space, so can't keep IE entrenched as mobile use grows.
So rather than a replay of the browser wars breaking Microsoft's stranglehold on the web, it may well be a disruptive influence - the rise of handhelds - that does it.
Isn't the real issue that a given code base became moribund - so full of cruft and workarounds that it just couldn't keep up? Look behind when IE overtook Netscape, and might that be part of what happened? Netscape was old, brittle code, and IE was new, with lots of room to evolve.
Now we appear to be at the next generation of the same effect. IE is no longer new, shiny, and evolvable, but Mozilla, Opera, Safari, et al are.
The interesting question is how fast a codebase becomes moribund. I can believe that closed-source schedule-driven corporate code, where aesthetics are secondary or tertiary (if even that) will become brittle faster. But will how resistant will Open Source code be to that effect? I still hear of periodic 'rewrite from scratch' happening on Open Source code, for the exact same reasons.
Perhaps I should, I will admit to some bits of close-mindedness.
But reading the article about her, and some of her own words, sounds awfully close to *hate speech*, and in my mind that mods her down a few from the get-go. I have only so much life-span, and I attempt to spend it wisely. Some I choose to waste, like Slashdot time. But I almost never to bother spending it on hatred.
You mistake me for someone who agrees with current foreign policy. Citizens of the USA are no more homogeneous than any other population. Saying we're all war-mongering empire-builders is just like saying all Muslims are terrorists.
Honestly, I don't know if it's sarcasm, cynicism, or trying to meet the current USA vs world situation with a little humor, because the alternative is to go nuts.
A recent Time magazine had an interview with a woman who is a right-wing commmentator/author. Some of the more notable statements in the article:
Liberals are anti-USA. The Democratic Party should just go away. "In that light, yes I am defending McCarthyism."
It must be *good* to be SO certain in your views that public dissent and debate are unnecessary and unwanted. Or is it? Personally, outside of a few carefully chosen beliefs, I *never* want to be that certain.
I went with the Scouts to spend an overnighter on the USS Massachussetts at Fall River, Ma. When the trip was over the thing that impressed me most was that the Battleship was one giant machine, and 2500 of it's moving parts had been men. (25 men to run each 5" 2-gun deck turret, 125 men to run each 16" 3-gun main turret.)
Ignoring world domination for the moment, it may also come in handy when nobody wants to let us use there territory as a staging point. Sail the staging point to where it's "needed."
As a kid I remember seeing a picture of one of these from back in the early days of rocketry. The rocket was shooting right up through the balloon, destroying it in the process.
Unless they do some sort of drop first, or an initially oblique launch, I don't see how the Israeli effort can help but do the same. If they drop first, then they have to launch at negative velocity, which negates part of the benefit. If they launch through the balloon with a manned vehicle, they have to make sure they can go cleanly through it without snarling something.
It'll be interesting. I like the idea of getting to 80,000ft without spending reaction mass.
Asimov did his PhD (Chemistry, he really was Dr. A.) work on solubility constants. He was getting bored out of his skull measuring how long it took various chemicals to dissolve in water, and in response made up a fake substance called 'theotimoline' that dissolved *before* being put into water. He then wrote a fake/humor research paper on theotimoline and sent it into a magazine for publication. (Later there was another story, "Theotimoline to the Stars" that made up some practical uses for the stuff.) He had second thoughts about having submitted the story when he realized that it might be in print prior to defending his dissertation, and some members of his review panel might take offense.
He knew he'd made it when, after the hard questions, one professor asked him a theotimoline-related question.
Then the other thing needed is a clear set of guidelines about getting ready to test the new kernel. The 2.4 kernel required a new modutils, and maybe a few other things. We need two things, which of course may already be done, but I haven't looked in the right place:
1: Additional requirements to run kernel 2.6 above and beyond what ships in current distributions, like modutils. 2: Gotchas that will show up using lilo/grub to switch between 2.4.x and 2.6.x, and how to work around them.
But as they've said, they've flushed about as many bugs out of 2.5.x as they can with the current pool. They need more people running the new kernel in order to find and fix more bugs, hence 2.6-pre
The real deal is that NEO Deflection and Colonization are not mutually exclusive, and actually help each other. Both call for advancements in launch capability and capacity, and increased orbital infrastructure. For that matter, since NEO Deflection is best done as far in advance as possible, one NEO system, with a little extra compute power, could give coverage to Earth, Moon, and Mars as well as followers of Gerard O'Neill.
IMHO because it takes *work* to open the source. One nice/bad point of closed-source Windows drivers is that it lets you skimp on documentation and ship just-working code.
"Nice" because every word of that documentation had to be typed and verified, and that calls for a paid employee. "Nice" because the code just has to "work", not be presentably clean.
"Bad" because it means that drivers are coded based on sketchy documentation, informal notes, hallway conversations, and developer memory. Losing a developer may mean having to rediscover proper programming technique for some key feature. "Bad" because "just working" code may not work for all cases, and may be difficult to fix and upgrade for the next chipset.
So in the long run, "Nice" may be cheaper than "Bad" or at the very least not much more expensive. But in the short run, "Nice" is always quite a bit more expensive. Few in the computing industry manage to have a long-range view.
As for the IP arguments, IMHO the only valid ones are contractual. Drivers can be disassembled, and I've been on both ends of silicon delayering and analysis. It's not like you're trying to rebuild a clean-room clone - there are targeted features you go after, not a schematic of the whole design or source of the whole driver.
Naaah, those cosmic rays don't kill you. They just give you the ability to stretch, or make you into a super-strong pile of orange bricks, or turn to flame and fly, or turn invisible and project a force field. (Or the Red Ghost and his baboons went through afterward, in a deliberately unshielded (rather than just inadequately shielded) spacecraft, and got even stronger capabilities.)
On a more serious note, they estimate that the radiation exposure of a Mars mission will be equivalent to a lifetime of smoking - in just a few years.
As for the Earth, part of it is the atmosphere, and part of it is the magnetosphere. If you live up North, (or South) and have ever looked at the clear night sky during a Solar event, you've seen an Aurora. The Earth's magnetic field bends the particles toward/around the poles, and they give up their energy against the upper atmosphere in a visually spectacular way.
But the other side of the story is the aluminum structure behind the leading edge. Any failure in the leading edge and there is NO second line of defense.
Now I understand that they can't make the whole thing out of titanium, but what about the structural member(s) right behind the leading edge? Even titanium couldn't have stood the heat forever, but they were only 15 minutes from landing. Perhaps a few more minutes would have gotten them to bailout, if not landing. (If they had any plans for bailout on approach, that is.)
My other pet thought about this area consists of some sort of passive airflow from a cooler area of the shuttle, perhaps inside the cargo bay. The original projections of a jet of high-temperature gas could have been cooled by mixing with a larger flow of cooler air. That may not have worked with a hole this big.
In this case, perhaps the *real* purpose of jargon is to meet sales quotas. Convince Joe Sixpack that he only has 200 Frammistatz, when software on the market new requires 600 Frammistatz.
My amber CRT and Hercules clone are still running quite happily on my home server, though the monitor is turned off, most of the time. That system's getting retired sometime in the next few months, so the display stuff will become available. Plus down in the basement I have the rest (most of, I'll need another 3.5" floppy.) of the old equipment you need, so I'll be happy to assemble it for you, and meet your $3000 price.
whether the figures being offered are reliable
on
Yet Another G5 Roundup
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
And of course they're being compared with P4 numbers that are now "mainstream." But when the P4 was first introduced, it was "peaky" and irregular, behaving much different from the well-understood PIII and K7 cores. AFAIK, aside from speed bumps, both internal and frontside, and cache size increases, it's still essentially the same "net-burst" core that received such mixed reviews on introduction. Oh, and quite a bit of compiler work, I'll guess, not to mention the new SysEnter stuff under Linux.
Intel got much-deserved heat on the P4 introduction, though that seems forgotten now. IMHO the early irregular performance seems to have been handled by tweaking compilers and ramping speed until the valleys are mountain glens. For that matter, Merced seems largely forgotten with McKinley and Madison. Adoption has simply happened over time, because it's Intel.
But there seems to be an air about that everyone else's (PPC970, K8) difficult launch is nearly fatal, and we should wait to adopt until these issues are ironed out. Of course many of them are volume-related and won't be fixed by anything but production and experience, same as P4 and I2.
We seem to be a bunch of monopoly-making sheep, more times than just this one.
Slashdot Mirror
But they're no more cognizant of them as browsers than they are of IE as a browser. As someone mentioned on another thread, "They're just using the Internet."
But they're on mobile devices - Palms, cell phones, even DinkyWindows, or whatever they call it.
But the essence is still there - people want to "Use the Internet," in non-trivial numbers from something that is not a desktop running Windows and IE. Maybe they're still not cognizant of "web standards," but they will know if stuff works on their mobile system, so some sort of standards have become important.
Fortunately Microsoft does not (yet?) dominate the handheld space, so can't keep IE entrenched as mobile use grows.
So rather than a replay of the browser wars breaking Microsoft's stranglehold on the web, it may well be a disruptive influence - the rise of handhelds - that does it.
Isn't the real issue that a given code base became moribund - so full of cruft and workarounds that it just couldn't keep up? Look behind when IE overtook Netscape, and might that be part of what happened? Netscape was old, brittle code, and IE was new, with lots of room to evolve.
Now we appear to be at the next generation of the same effect. IE is no longer new, shiny, and evolvable, but Mozilla, Opera, Safari, et al are.
The interesting question is how fast a codebase becomes moribund. I can believe that closed-source schedule-driven corporate code, where aesthetics are secondary or tertiary (if even that) will become brittle faster. But will how resistant will Open Source code be to that effect? I still hear of periodic 'rewrite from scratch' happening on Open Source code, for the exact same reasons.
Perhaps I should, I will admit to some bits of close-mindedness.
But reading the article about her, and some of her own words, sounds awfully close to *hate speech*, and in my mind that mods her down a few from the get-go. I have only so much life-span, and I attempt to spend it wisely. Some I choose to waste, like Slashdot time. But I almost never to bother spending it on hatred.
That's why I consider myself a hard-line moderate.
You mistake me for someone who agrees with current foreign policy. Citizens of the USA are no more homogeneous than any other population. Saying we're all war-mongering empire-builders is just like saying all Muslims are terrorists.
http://www.americanapologyshirt.com/
Honestly, I don't know if it's sarcasm, cynicism, or trying to meet the current USA vs world situation with a little humor, because the alternative is to go nuts.
http://www.americanapologyshirt.com/
Cryptonomicon here somehow, especially with Waterhouse in the old castle huff-duff station during WWII.
But I guess I've been married too long to figure it out. 22 years today.
Actually, my intent was that if nobody wants to let you base your planes on their territory, take a bit of territory with you to base your planes on.
Of course it does...
A recent Time magazine had an interview with a woman who is a right-wing commmentator/author. Some of the more notable statements in the article:
Liberals are anti-USA.
The Democratic Party should just go away.
"In that light, yes I am defending McCarthyism."
It must be *good* to be SO certain in your views that public dissent and debate are unnecessary and unwanted.
Or is it? Personally, outside of a few carefully chosen beliefs, I *never* want to be that certain.
Early thought was, "What if this thing is run by Windows? What will they use to tow it back to port, like the Yorktown?"
Shortly after that, "What if the *did* run this thing on Linux... Imagine a Beowulf cluster of USS Ronald Reagans!"
I went with the Scouts to spend an overnighter on the USS Massachussetts at Fall River, Ma. When the trip was over the thing that impressed me most was that the Battleship was one giant machine, and 2500 of it's moving parts had been men. (25 men to run each 5" 2-gun deck turret, 125 men to run each 16" 3-gun main turret.)
Ignoring world domination for the moment, it may also come in handy when nobody wants to let us use there territory as a staging point. Sail the staging point to where it's "needed."
As a kid I remember seeing a picture of one of these from back in the early days of rocketry. The rocket was shooting right up through the balloon, destroying it in the process.
Unless they do some sort of drop first, or an initially oblique launch, I don't see how the Israeli effort can help but do the same. If they drop first, then they have to launch at negative velocity, which negates part of the benefit. If they launch through the balloon with a manned vehicle, they have to make sure they can go cleanly through it without snarling something.
It'll be interesting. I like the idea of getting to 80,000ft without spending reaction mass.
Don't remember. I'll have to see if I still have the book.
Actually no, it refers to a different story.
Asimov did his PhD (Chemistry, he really was Dr. A.) work on solubility constants. He was getting bored out of his skull measuring how long it took various chemicals to dissolve in water, and in response made up a fake substance called 'theotimoline' that dissolved *before* being put into water. He then wrote a fake/humor research paper on theotimoline and sent it into a magazine for publication. (Later there was another story, "Theotimoline to the Stars" that made up some practical uses for the stuff.) He had second thoughts about having submitted the story when he realized that it might be in print prior to defending his dissertation, and some members of his review panel might take offense.
He knew he'd made it when, after the hard questions, one professor asked him a theotimoline-related question.
Then the other thing needed is a clear set of guidelines about getting ready to test the new kernel. The 2.4 kernel required a new modutils, and maybe a few other things. We need two things, which of course may already be done, but I haven't looked in the right place:
1: Additional requirements to run kernel 2.6 above and beyond what ships in current distributions, like modutils.
2: Gotchas that will show up using lilo/grub to switch between 2.4.x and 2.6.x, and how to work around them.
Stuff like this needs to be FAQ status.
The real question is how the heck did they take the essence of theotimoline and code it into software?
(Asimov reference)
But as they've said, they've flushed about as many bugs out of 2.5.x as they can with the current pool. They need more people running the new kernel in order to find and fix more bugs, hence 2.6-pre
The real deal is that NEO Deflection and Colonization are not mutually exclusive, and actually help each other. Both call for advancements in launch capability and capacity, and increased orbital infrastructure. For that matter, since NEO Deflection is best done as far in advance as possible, one NEO system, with a little extra compute power, could give coverage to Earth, Moon, and Mars as well as followers of Gerard O'Neill.
IMHO because it takes *work* to open the source. One nice/bad point of closed-source Windows drivers is that it lets you skimp on documentation and ship just-working code.
"Nice" because every word of that documentation had to be typed and verified, and that calls for a paid employee. "Nice" because the code just has to "work", not be presentably clean.
"Bad" because it means that drivers are coded based on sketchy documentation, informal notes, hallway conversations, and developer memory. Losing a developer may mean having to rediscover proper programming technique for some key feature. "Bad" because "just working" code may not work for all cases, and may be difficult to fix and upgrade for the next chipset.
So in the long run, "Nice" may be cheaper than "Bad" or at the very least not much more expensive. But in the short run, "Nice" is always quite a bit more expensive. Few in the computing industry manage to have a long-range view.
As for the IP arguments, IMHO the only valid ones are contractual. Drivers can be disassembled, and I've been on both ends of silicon delayering and analysis. It's not like you're trying to rebuild a clean-room clone - there are targeted features you go after, not a schematic of the whole design or source of the whole driver.
Naaah, those cosmic rays don't kill you. They just give you the ability to stretch, or make you into a super-strong pile of orange bricks, or turn to flame and fly, or turn invisible and project a force field. (Or the Red Ghost and his baboons went through afterward, in a deliberately unshielded (rather than just inadequately shielded) spacecraft, and got even stronger capabilities.)
On a more serious note, they estimate that the radiation exposure of a Mars mission will be equivalent to a lifetime of smoking - in just a few years.
As for the Earth, part of it is the atmosphere, and part of it is the magnetosphere. If you live up North, (or South) and have ever looked at the clear night sky during a Solar event, you've seen an Aurora. The Earth's magnetic field bends the particles toward/around the poles, and they give up their energy against the upper atmosphere in a visually spectacular way.
But the other side of the story is the aluminum structure behind the leading edge. Any failure in the leading edge and there is NO second line of defense.
Now I understand that they can't make the whole thing out of titanium, but what about the structural member(s) right behind the leading edge? Even titanium couldn't have stood the heat forever, but they were only 15 minutes from landing. Perhaps a few more minutes would have gotten them to bailout, if not landing. (If they had any plans for bailout on approach, that is.)
My other pet thought about this area consists of some sort of passive airflow from a cooler area of the shuttle, perhaps inside the cargo bay. The original projections of a jet of high-temperature gas could have been cooled by mixing with a larger flow of cooler air. That may not have worked with a hole this big.
In this case, perhaps the *real* purpose of jargon is to meet sales quotas. Convince Joe Sixpack that he only has 200 Frammistatz, when software on the market new requires 600 Frammistatz.
My amber CRT and Hercules clone are still running quite happily on my home server, though the monitor is turned off, most of the time. That system's getting retired sometime in the next few months, so the display stuff will become available. Plus down in the basement I have the rest (most of, I'll need another 3.5" floppy.) of the old equipment you need, so I'll be happy to assemble it for you, and meet your $3000 price.
And of course they're being compared with P4 numbers that are now "mainstream." But when the P4 was first introduced, it was "peaky" and irregular, behaving much different from the well-understood PIII and K7 cores. AFAIK, aside from speed bumps, both internal and frontside, and cache size increases, it's still essentially the same "net-burst" core that received such mixed reviews on introduction. Oh, and quite a bit of compiler work, I'll guess, not to mention the new SysEnter stuff under Linux.
Intel got much-deserved heat on the P4 introduction, though that seems forgotten now. IMHO the early irregular performance seems to have been handled by tweaking compilers and ramping speed until the valleys are mountain glens. For that matter, Merced seems largely forgotten with McKinley and Madison. Adoption has simply happened over time, because it's Intel.
But there seems to be an air about that everyone else's (PPC970, K8) difficult launch is nearly fatal, and we should wait to adopt until these issues are ironed out. Of course many of them are volume-related and won't be fixed by anything but production and experience, same as P4 and I2.
We seem to be a bunch of monopoly-making sheep, more times than just this one.