but in pc laptops there's so much more _choice_, if you want a luggable desktop then you can buy that. if you just want a small lappy you can get that. if you want something in the middle you can get that too. you want a 64bit desktop laptop? hell, you can have that too today.
Ok, you're right, Apple doesn't sell a 64-bit laptop (yet).
I agree that this is a rather clumsy attempt, but it's better than nothing (and there are so few attempts that most teenagers have to get a boring beige Winbox). Among the features that I noticed are better integration with a phone/mp3 player, a decent attempt at style, a wall-mounted LCD to take care of lack of desk space, a desktop environment that sounds nice from the description.
I would think a 64-bit, 1.6 GHz, 17-inch iMac with an iPod and an iSight camera (can you say "videophone"?) would be better than nothing, and would appeal to "teanagers" more than this reworked laptop. It says "wallmount" on the website, but the picture didn't show any cables. With the bluetooth keyboard/mouse and the airport card, the only wire that needs to go into the iMac is the power cord (no power brick, either). I'd imagine mounting this 2-inch-thick computer on the wall wouldn't be too hard.
From the website, the "phone" integration is a sort of hotsync cradle for a rebadged cellphone, nothing more. An mp3 player with 512MB of memory? Hmm. I'm sure the first thing the "kids" would ask is whether it'll work with iTunes.
I believe that mplayer has a compatible Sorenson 3 codec decoder (no encoder). Alas, latest (Apple) audio codecs are not decodable by anything but the binary codecs:(
So, you are correct, sir... at least partially.
Perhaps you could watch the trailers and make up your own dialog?
Perhaps M$ will be getting fatter and ricer at slower rate. Even if Linux (or any other alternative) doesn't reduce market share, it could still take a bite out of profits if M$ had to "compete". The fact that a large company is using Linux as a bargaining chip still means that it's a threat to M$'s bottom line.
Mod me as a troll, but it seems to me that this should be listed under Politics rather than Science. The fact that most of the comments are about Bush vs. Kerry *Politics*, rather than anything about science.
That sounds like the kind of speech recognition one would want for a command/control interface to a computer (or a "smart home"). AFAIK, the Via Voice stuff is targeted at dictation, which is more difficult. Either way, if this becomes GPL-compatible, it opens the doors to hacking and improvement!
I disagree. It's also a lie if you knowingly tell what you don't know to be the truth.
I consider a non-truth to be anything that wasn't true. If I make up and answer ("... the [true] answer to that question is X"), but don't know it to be true, I am issuing a known non-truth. If I say that "I believe that the answer is X", but don't really believe it, then that, too, is a known non-truth and is therefore a lie. If I say "the answer to the question may be X", and X is within the perceived realm of possibility, then I am not telling a non-truth. (and I should become a politician or lawyer)
Falsehoods of omission are not outright lies, but are still deceiving.
It's easy to apply 20-20 hind-sight to all this. The UN issues a "search warrant" after Iraq's invasion into Kuwait was repelled, Iraq only selectively honors the search warrant, and the UN does what?
Meanwhile, the US experiences its biggest domestic attack from a foreign organization, and decides to knock on Iraq's door itself (being a bit touchy now), but Iraq refuses.
Iraq was a real threat not because they actually had the capability, but because we *didn't* know for sure. The stakes were huge, and I'm sure the fact that Iraq still refused to negotiate after the US massed troops at its border didn't make the decision-making process any easier.
If Saddam really believed that we would invade, do you think he would have made the decisions he did?
I guess the best thing to do is to put Saddam back into power, leave Iraq immediately, and say "we're sorry."
It's only a *lie* if the person knowingly told a non-truth. It's what we normally call a mistake. In this case, the "mistake" occurred through multiple layers of the intelligence apparatus, which really should be the focus of concern. This is the same intelligence community that failed to see the fall of the Soviet empire coming, and the same intelligence community that issues these multi-hued terrorist threat alerts.
I didn't want to use the "M" word in my post (bad karma around here), but I'm curious as to what the stats are like, and exactly how does one go about counting "servers". Do you count physical machines, or server applications, or (as someone suggested) in revenue $$? Does M$ have 75% of the "server market", or is it more like 55%?
Does an Exchange server compete with sendmail/IMAP/POP3? How many "servers" are there out in the ether, anyway?
I'm talking economic, in which capitalism says that everyone is better off when you try to make the most money, and the market dictats price and what not.
In free-market capitalism, the "price" for services or goods is determined by the mutual aggreement of both buyer and seller. If the two don't (or can't) agree, the goods or services aren't exchanged. The "market" doesn't *dictate* anything -- it ultimately boils down to just the individuals directly involved. The premise that (free-market) captialism is about maximizing profit is simply propaganda. I am free (as a seller) to offer my product/service for a fixed price based on my costs and expectations, regardless of how much a particular buyer is willing to offer.
With Pure Capitalism, you would charge whatever gets you the largest profit for your hard work
I beg to differ. With pure capitalism you would own the products of your labor and be free distribute it to others for what ever form of currency you wish (in the GPL case, it's the products of the next guy's labor, but could easily be some other form of barter under a different license). Some people think of the GPL-flavor of OSS as more a part of a Gift Economy, but I see it as an exchange of current goods (your contribution to the code) in exchange for the promise of future goods (derivative works) from others. Essentially you are "investing" your captial in the hopes that others will make improvements and return them to you (and everyone else, in this case).
Communism (in the Karl Marx sense) sees the products of your labor as owned by everyone outright, so you have no inherent "rights" to anything you produce above and beyond what everyone else has.
And then what should he do with the existing iMac,,throw it away? He still should put Linux on it (YDL or some other distro). The point was made in an earlier post that running Linux on PPC hardware gives the user a consistent operating/user environment across platform architectures. While one could install Fink, there are still differences in the development environment that delays porting from a regular GNU/Linux environment to the BSD/OSX environment. YDL essentially is Fedora Core (1?) on PPC, so going back and forth from an Intel-based machine is relatively painless.
I don't think that they actually included that patch to the -mm patch set (that was what the actual debate was really about, as I recall)
greg k-h: "Hm, seems kernel.org dropped my big patch,..."
His point was that devfs was unmaintained and buggy. (I don't know about the validity of his claims, though -- he also said that it was unused) He then uses the "new development model" as a further justification, which I'm not sure is a valid justification, either.
I think, without reading (for $$) the details on lwn.net, the point was that Linus was feeling productive working with Andrew Morton (who will become the 2.6 tree maintainer once they split to a 2.7 tree). Once there are sufficient changes between the released 2.6 and the patched 2.6.x-mm, Linus will move on to 2.7. There apparently will be some new features introduced directly into 2.6, but nothing really big.
It seems to me that everyone is assuming that there will never be a 2.7 tree. From the article, the simply quote Jonathan Corbet as saying that "2.7 will only be created when it becomes clear that there are sufficient patches which are truly disruptive enough to require it. When 2.7 *is* created, it could be highly experimental, and may turn out to be a throwaway tree."
They are just concentrating on the stable branch for now, and collecting a patch set (Andrew Morton's -mm patch set, that is) as a testing ground for proposed (stable) kernel changes.
This really doesn't seem like a big deal, and it implies that the kernel people will focusing on stability for the time being.
Slashdot Mirror
but in pc laptops there's so much more _choice_, if you want a luggable desktop then you can buy that. if you just want a small lappy you can get that. if you want something in the middle you can get that too. you want a 64bit desktop laptop? hell, you can have that too today.
Ok, you're right, Apple doesn't sell a 64-bit laptop (yet).
I agree that this is a rather clumsy attempt, but it's better than nothing (and there are so few attempts that most teenagers have to get a boring beige Winbox). Among the features that I noticed are better integration with a phone/mp3 player, a decent attempt at style, a wall-mounted LCD to take care of lack of desk space, a desktop environment that sounds nice from the description.
I would think a 64-bit, 1.6 GHz, 17-inch iMac with an iPod and an iSight camera (can you say "videophone"?) would be better than nothing, and would appeal to "teanagers" more than this reworked laptop. It says "wallmount" on the website, but the picture didn't show any cables. With the bluetooth keyboard/mouse and the airport card, the only wire that needs to go into the iMac is the power cord (no power brick, either). I'd imagine mounting this 2-inch-thick computer on the wall wouldn't be too hard.
From the website, the "phone" integration is a sort of hotsync cradle for a rebadged cellphone, nothing more. An mp3 player with 512MB of memory? Hmm. I'm sure the first thing the "kids" would ask is whether it'll work with iTunes.
I believe that mplayer has a compatible Sorenson 3 codec decoder (no encoder). Alas, latest (Apple) audio codecs are not decodable by anything but the binary codecs :(
So, you are correct, sir... at least partially.
Perhaps you could watch the trailers and make up your own dialog?
Does this help?
Perhaps M$ will be getting fatter and ricer at slower rate. Even if Linux (or any other alternative) doesn't reduce market share, it could still take a bite out of profits if M$ had to "compete". The fact that a large company is using Linux as a bargaining chip still means that it's a threat to M$'s bottom line.
Can't gcc compile java code directly to native binary code?
Does this mean that one could make a shared library out of the java code for C-programmers to use?
This seems like a cool, relatively cheap kit to build your own robo-dog.
Mod me as a troll, but it seems to me that this should be listed under Politics rather than Science. The fact that most of the comments are about Bush vs. Kerry *Politics*, rather than anything about science.
Someone up there must have a problem with English Syntax...
That sounds like the kind of speech recognition one would want for a command/control interface to a computer (or a "smart home"). AFAIK, the Via Voice stuff is targeted at dictation, which is more difficult. Either way, if this becomes GPL-compatible, it opens the doors to hacking and improvement!
I disagree. It's also a lie if you knowingly tell what you don't know to be the truth.
I consider a non-truth to be anything that wasn't true. If I make up and answer ("... the [true] answer to that question is X"), but don't know it to be true, I am issuing a known non-truth. If I say that "I believe that the answer is X", but don't really believe it, then that, too, is a known non-truth and is therefore a lie. If I say "the answer to the question may be X", and X is within the perceived realm of possibility, then I am not telling a non-truth. (and I should become a politician or lawyer)
Falsehoods of omission are not outright lies, but are still deceiving.
It's easy to apply 20-20 hind-sight to all this. The UN issues a "search warrant" after Iraq's invasion into Kuwait was repelled, Iraq only selectively honors the search warrant, and the UN does what?
Meanwhile, the US experiences its biggest domestic attack from a foreign organization, and decides to knock on Iraq's door itself (being a bit touchy now), but Iraq refuses.
Iraq was a real threat not because they actually had the capability, but because we *didn't* know for sure. The stakes were huge, and I'm sure the fact that Iraq still refused to negotiate after the US massed troops at its border didn't make the decision-making process any easier.
If Saddam really believed that we would invade, do you think he would have made the decisions he did?
I guess the best thing to do is to put Saddam back into power, leave Iraq immediately, and say "we're sorry."
"... That would be to deceive the voting public."
I think you mean mislead .
It's only a *lie* if the person knowingly told a non-truth. It's what we normally call a mistake. In this case, the "mistake" occurred through multiple layers of the intelligence apparatus, which really should be the focus of concern. This is the same intelligence community that failed to see the fall of the Soviet empire coming, and the same intelligence community that issues these multi-hued terrorist threat alerts.
I didn't want to use the "M" word in my post (bad karma around here), but I'm curious as to what the stats are like, and exactly how does one go about counting "servers". Do you count physical machines, or server applications, or (as someone suggested) in revenue $$? Does M$ have 75% of the "server market", or is it more like 55%?
Does an Exchange server compete with sendmail/IMAP/POP3? How many "servers" are there out in the ether, anyway?
from the article:
"... That has helped Linux become the No. 2 operating system worldwide for server computers."
Dumb question, I know, but who exactly is number 1, and what constitutes a server, anyway?
It would require a wireless video/display protocol, but I think that has been in development for a while now.
I think it's called X11, but seriously, OS X gained a native X server with Panther.
I'm talking economic, in which capitalism says that everyone is better off when you try to make the most money, and the market dictats price and what not.
In free-market capitalism, the "price" for services or goods is determined by the mutual aggreement of both buyer and seller. If the two don't (or can't) agree, the goods or services aren't exchanged. The "market" doesn't *dictate* anything -- it ultimately boils down to just the individuals directly involved. The premise that (free-market) captialism is about maximizing profit is simply propaganda. I am free (as a seller) to offer my product/service for a fixed price based on my costs and expectations, regardless of how much a particular buyer is willing to offer.
With Pure Capitalism, you would charge whatever gets you the largest profit for your hard work
I beg to differ. With pure capitalism you would own the products of your labor and be free distribute it to others for what ever form of currency you wish (in the GPL case, it's the products of the next guy's labor, but could easily be some other form of barter under a different license). Some people think of the GPL-flavor of OSS as more a part of a Gift Economy, but I see it as an exchange of current goods (your contribution to the code) in exchange for the promise of future goods (derivative works) from others. Essentially you are "investing" your captial in the hopes that others will make improvements and return them to you (and everyone else, in this case).
Communism (in the Karl Marx sense) sees the products of your labor as owned by everyone outright, so you have no inherent "rights" to anything you produce above and beyond what everyone else has.
-using the GPL and sharing your code is a conscious decision, and people are perfectly free to use it or not. free market, baby ;)
I'd like to second that. The GPL is based on the premise that I own the products of my own labor, and I can stipulate how it can or can not be used.
... more like the other way around. Communism wouldn't recognize the GPL because it implies private ownership of published works.
And then what should he do with the existing iMac, ,throw it away? He still should put Linux on it (YDL or some other distro). The point was made in an earlier post that running Linux on PPC hardware gives the user a consistent operating/user environment across platform architectures. While one could install Fink, there are still differences in the development environment that delays porting from a regular GNU/Linux environment to the BSD/OSX environment. YDL essentially is Fedora Core (1?) on PPC, so going back and forth from an Intel-based machine is relatively painless.
I don't think that they actually included that patch to the -mm patch set (that was what the actual debate was really about, as I recall)
greg k-h: "Hm, seems kernel.org dropped my big patch,..."
His point was that devfs was unmaintained and buggy. (I don't know about the validity of his claims, though -- he also said that it was unused) He then uses the "new development model" as a further justification, which I'm not sure is a valid justification, either.
I think, without reading (for $$) the details on lwn.net, the point was that Linus was feeling productive working with Andrew Morton (who will become the 2.6 tree maintainer once they split to a 2.7 tree). Once there are sufficient changes between the released 2.6 and the patched 2.6.x-mm, Linus will move on to 2.7. There apparently will be some new features introduced directly into 2.6, but nothing really big.
It seems to me that everyone is assuming that there will never be a 2.7 tree. From the article, the simply quote Jonathan Corbet as saying that "2.7 will only be created when it becomes clear that there are sufficient patches which are truly disruptive enough to require it. When 2.7 *is* created, it could be highly experimental, and may turn out to be a throwaway tree."
They are just concentrating on the stable branch for now, and collecting a patch set (Andrew Morton's -mm patch set, that is) as a testing ground for proposed (stable) kernel changes.
This really doesn't seem like a big deal, and it implies that the kernel people will focusing on stability for the time being.