Even if your provider encourages connection sharing, don't expect to get a WiFi router for just 5 EUR. Shipping to UK is 18 EUR, Czech Republic even 32.
The platform of choice in different parts of academia used to be hugely determined by what platform have the software tools that the scientists need been written for. Since you do not say what field you're talking about, I can't possible comment on the accuracy of your statement.
Here you might find a lot of very serious applications that are getting used on a daily basis. This is a quite recent initiative. But it's clear from the way Apple has incorporated distributed computing into the heart of OS X that it takes science seriously (if you have a Mac, have a look under the Sharing in System Preferences and look for Xgrid).
That's exactly the point (in disguise). The GP is clearly either making fun of us, or he's one of the paranoid tinfoil hat prone enviromentalists. Anything is toxic in the wrong amounts! E.g. a glass of wine is fine and yet you can die of alcohol poisoning. Hence the adage "everything in moderation". Hence even a small number of "the paranoid tinfoil hat prone enviromentalists" are good for the society.
This is typical FUD! The article is not comparing the speed of OpenDoc vs Microsoft's Open XML. It's comparing the speed of OpenOffice vs. Microsoft Office. It does not make any sense.
How about if someone with a Windows PC at hand compared the speed of opening and saving OpenDocument vs. the usual.doc to give us some real numbers. (Microsoft's Open XML is not even available to compare speeds!)
I'm sure Microsoft would very much like to shift the debate from OpenDocument vs. Open XML to OpenOffice vs MS Office. Let's not fool ourselves MS Office has many advantages.
I would expand on this. Theives who steal laptops are not known for their intelligence. Usually they're rather sorry sods who need some cash to get the next hit. Hence they take the laptop to a random pawn shop and get very little money (but enough to get their drugs) for it. It then gets re-sold to some middleman who reinstalls it (how else would you explain to the potential buyer that you don't know the password?) and sold on ebay. None of the people involved are particularly intelligent. But the whole process _still_ makes the afromentioned software pretty much useless.
This makes binary and externally compiled drivers (including nvidia and vmware drivers that I use) break on every kernel update, and probably unnecessarily
Unfortunately this is because the ABI _could_ change on every recompile. Hence the kernel version number has to be changed to reflect the fact that some drivers might be incompatible.
I've always wondered why someone like Sony doesn't go the Apple way i.e. take their superior hardware and release a BSD based operating system that's optimized for the hardware (perfect drivers, software update etc.). Apart from being pre-installed, optimized and with simple interface, they could also keep the drivers to themselves if they choose to, unlike with GNU/Linux. For home users this could have very real benefits of ease of use and security.
But you sound right to me. Having said that, I would have absolutely no objection to IBM porting support for ultra-parallel RAID to Linux. In fact, there are probably a number of areas in the kernel that they could use their experience in parallel architectures to tighten up on.
NOOOO!!!! You've just finally provided SCO with the evidence it needed! Filesytems were used in UNIX and SCO owns everything UNIX related. Now they know that IBM could maybe consider integating, ehm, UNIX technologies, we mean UNIX source code into Linux.
Well, according to TFA Linux is counted separately from UNIX, so if you put Linux and Unix together you get about 23 billion, while MS is still at 18 billion. I don't quite understand this distinction. Where does *BSD go? And what about OS X server, is it UNIX? Or is it a separate category again?
In a country where 28% percent of BBC radio listeners voted for Karl Marx as "Greatest Philosopher" (see here for the data), you don't need to make statistics up. You can just use the real numbers and then stare in disbelief.
My understanding of this is twofolds. On the local (individual level), there's the winner (the guy who needs one less employee). And there's the loser; the employe who got fired. And no mainstream economic model assumes that the winner compensates the loser. It's a cold hard world, unless you've got something to offer, you don't get anything.
On the global level, the average person is better of, because he can get more for less. I believe that this division is what confuses many people.
I'm worried for the opposite reason. On Linux or Mac, the antivirus probably won't run, simply because it'll be a windows only thing. Would the bank ban me from using their website, because it couldn't confirm that my computer was "clean"?
And even if they let me log in, but increase the banking charges to cover their payments to Symantec, what should I, as a Mac user do? Or as Windows user who trust AVG more and has thus payed for an AVG license? Or even worse as a Linux user, where I'm forced to pay Windows tax pretty much every time I buy a computer and now I would be forced to pay Symantec tax, becase Windows is so insecure? This is just getting ridiculous!
Indeed, even the KHTML part of Safari is GPLed. So Apple owes a lot to GPL. On a lighter note it would be great fun to see Steve Jobs and Richard Stallman clash... such two dominant personalities... maybe one of them is made of anti-matter and if they touched they'd anihilate in a bright flash of light.
Very good point:-)). But surely the terrorist are not stupid and if they know that the detention period would be now 90 days, then they'll use longer keys, encrypt things a few times, etc. hence bringing the time to decrypt the hard drive to something more like 1 year.
Would we then be prepared to support detention for one year without a charge?!? I know I won't. The police simply has to work around the hard drive encryption, when collecting evidence.
Man I'm really sorry to say this, but you're wrong with all the points you make.
companies exist to serve the consumer, not visa versa No, companies exist to make profit.
until companies figure that out, you don't use them Eh?
you pirate until the companies figure out that trying to own you is a turn off Actually you _can_ do that. If you set aside the moral issues... I mean, just because you don't want to buy something at a price being offered, it doesn't mean you're always morally entitled to steal it...I'm not saying that pirating musinc is necessarily a deadly sin. I'm just playing the devils advocate here.
the point is: you are the consumer, you are king No, the point is: we, as consumers are the king. Unless most people don't realise that crappy DRM is bad for them the companies can keep ignoring minorities like us. It's a sad, but its' a fact. Look at how many people use Windows, even though it's arguably bad for them.
If you wanted to exercise your right as a consumer you'd buy a few of them and then return them as faulty, because it prints stuff that it's not supposed to. And then you'd do it again and again. And again.
If everyone who cares about this did that, then it will cost the manufacturers a significant amount of money, since the profit margins on printers are not that great.
I think that we're somewheat missing the point here. I think AMD will be selling those to ISPs who'll then offer them bundled with your internet connection. They won't be for the average Slashdot reader.
What you'll get (for say $30 a month if you sign a 1year contract) is a hassle free device that provides basic PC and internet functionality and it never breaks, if it does the ISP does sort it out remotely, including software updates etc. or simply replaces the faulty unit.
It even says, that they'll be customizable by the ISPs and _then_ limit installation of 3rd party software; thus limiting instability. Ideal for the purpose. Think of it as a mobile phone (if the ISP subsidises the price and then locks you in) or even better as a set top box (if they just rent them out for free).
While Microsoft writes operating systems with the shoot first ask questions later, Apple does a good job when designing products. On the other hand Microsoft is very careful with any lawsuits it gets into, while Apple is occasionally a bit too trigger happy. Gues which company makes better software;-)
More to the point, many Americans could just start using cars which are more fuel efficient. And they won't neccesarily even have to be small cars. You can have a huge people carrier with a 2 litre diesel engine that does 40 to 50 mpg.
Now since most cars in America are driven by 1 person 99% of the time, you could go for a small car and get 65 mpg out of it.
So they can even reduce their fuel bill without doing anything too radical with their lifestyles.
The point is that Americans shouldn't be complaining about high fuel prices, those are here to stay, even if they can start extracting loads more oil in Colorado. There is a rising demand for oil and by the time more oil is extracted in Colorado China and India would have probably more then doubled their demand.
Btw. I cycle daily and I don't own a car, but that's my personal choice and I know very well it's not for everyone; hence I'm not even suggesting a bike to a SUV owner.
I dare say that a lot of hackers (which here I will use in the popular media sense, i.e. someone wishing to gain unauthorized access to a computer system), use more complicated scenario.
1, Sit at a computer in the US. 2, Hack into a computer in China, Eastern Europe or wherever. Hope that the owner / admin won't notice a thing. 3, Hack into the system of an US government agency, company or wherever you need. 4, Hope that no-one notices. If they do never mind, you have a 99.9% chance that they'll assume the attack is comming from China and do nothing about it.
IP spoofing does not necessarily have to do anything with it. The only thing that could go wrong is if the owner of the Chineese / East European server noticed it's been hacked _and_ notified the US government. How likely is that though?
Some year, it seems, we'll have 121% of the population using Macs.
Sorry for the flames: no you fool, if 11% switch every year it means, that there are 11% less of windows users every i.e. I have 100 windows users in year 0, 89 in year 1, say 80 in year 2, 72 in year 3 etc.
So even at this rate the number of people using windows will never be less than 0. 11% out of 0 is 0.
No Manu Chao, no Mano Negra, no Banco de Gaia, one album from Duke Ellington....
If anyone thinks this will stop illegal music downloads then they should think again, because 99% of stuff I'd want probably won't be on available legally trough this channel.
Presumably though the algorithm they used in GPUsort can be made to work on a Pentium IV.
Yes, but the algorithm won't be anything special. It won't be a better algorithm than qsort and definitely not more efficient than O(n log n) comparisons. What is special is that it runs on a GPU.
they should have compared GPUsort on the CPU as well
And how exactly were they supposed to do that?!? GPUsort has been programmed to run on a GPU, and even if you don't know the first thing about computers, the G should suggest that GPU is very different from a CPU.
One can prove that no sorting algorithm using binary comparisons can do better than use O(n log n) comparisons. Hence GPUsort couldn't have been asymptotically more efficient that qsort.
If you think about it, the standart qsort implementation is definitely more optimised than most algorithms out there; it has been around for very long. But none of this matters; GPUsort can't run on a CPU.
Slashdot Mirror
Even if your provider encourages connection sharing, don't expect to get a WiFi router for just 5 EUR. Shipping to UK is 18 EUR, Czech Republic even 32.
The platform of choice in different parts of academia used to be hugely determined by what platform have the software tools that the scientists need been written for. Since you do not say what field you're talking about, I can't possible comment on the accuracy of your statement.
Here you might find a lot of very serious applications that are getting used on a daily basis. This is a quite recent initiative. But it's clear from the way Apple has incorporated distributed computing into the heart of OS X that it takes science seriously (if you have a Mac, have a look under the Sharing in System Preferences and look for Xgrid).
That's exactly the point (in disguise). The GP is clearly either making fun of us, or he's one of the paranoid tinfoil hat prone enviromentalists. Anything is toxic in the wrong amounts! E.g. a glass of wine is fine and yet you can die of alcohol poisoning. Hence the adage "everything in moderation". Hence even a small number of "the paranoid tinfoil hat prone enviromentalists" are good for the society.
This is typical FUD! The article is not comparing the speed of OpenDoc vs Microsoft's Open XML. It's comparing the speed of OpenOffice vs. Microsoft Office. It does not make any sense.
.doc to give us some real numbers. (Microsoft's Open XML is not even available to compare speeds!)
How about if someone with a Windows PC at hand compared the speed of opening and saving OpenDocument vs. the usual
I'm sure Microsoft would very much like to shift the debate from OpenDocument vs. Open XML to OpenOffice vs MS Office. Let's not fool ourselves MS Office has many advantages.
I would expand on this. Theives who steal laptops are not known for their intelligence. Usually they're rather sorry sods who need some cash to get the next hit. Hence they take the laptop to a random pawn shop and get very little money (but enough to get their drugs) for it. It then gets re-sold to some middleman who reinstalls it (how else would you explain to the potential buyer that you don't know the password?) and sold on ebay. None of the people involved are particularly intelligent. But the whole process _still_ makes the afromentioned software pretty much useless.
This makes binary and externally compiled drivers (including nvidia and vmware drivers that I use) break on every kernel update, and probably unnecessarily
Unfortunately this is because the ABI _could_ change on every recompile. Hence the kernel version number has to be changed to reflect the fact that some drivers might be incompatible.
I've always wondered why someone like Sony doesn't go the Apple way i.e. take their superior hardware and release a BSD based operating system that's optimized for the hardware (perfect drivers, software update etc.). Apart from being pre-installed, optimized and with simple interface, they could also keep the drivers to themselves if they choose to, unlike with GNU/Linux. For home users this could have very real benefits of ease of use and security.
China of today is thus as much communist as North Korea is democratic ("People's Democratic Republic of Korea") .
...
This reminds me of a joke which used to be rather popular some years ago. It goes something like:
Do you know what the difference between "democracy" and "people's democracy" is?
Well, it's really the same difference as between a "jacket" and a "strait jacket."
But you sound right to me. Having said that, I would have absolutely no objection to IBM porting support for ultra-parallel RAID to Linux. In fact, there are probably a number of areas in the kernel that they could use their experience in parallel architectures to tighten up on.
NOOOO!!!! You've just finally provided SCO with the evidence it needed! Filesytems were used in UNIX and SCO owns everything UNIX related. Now they know that IBM could maybe consider integating, ehm, UNIX technologies, we mean UNIX source code into Linux.
Well, according to TFA Linux is counted separately from UNIX, so if you put Linux and Unix together you get about 23 billion, while MS is still at 18 billion. I don't quite understand this distinction. Where does *BSD go? And what about OS X server, is it UNIX? Or is it a separate category again?
"You're technically correct Hermes Konrad, the best type of correct." Futurama.
In a country where 28% percent of BBC radio listeners voted for Karl Marx as "Greatest Philosopher" (see here for the data), you don't need to make statistics up. You can just use the real numbers and then stare in disbelief.
My understanding of this is twofolds. On the local (individual level), there's the winner (the guy who needs one less employee). And there's the loser; the employe who got fired. And no mainstream economic model assumes that the winner compensates the loser. It's a cold hard world, unless you've got something to offer, you don't get anything.
On the global level, the average person is better of, because he can get more for less. I believe that this division is what confuses many people.
I'm worried for the opposite reason. On Linux or Mac, the antivirus probably won't run, simply because it'll be a windows only thing. Would the bank ban me from using their website, because it couldn't confirm that my computer was "clean"?
And even if they let me log in, but increase the banking charges to cover their payments to Symantec, what should I, as a Mac user do? Or as Windows user who trust AVG more and has thus payed for an AVG license? Or even worse as a Linux user, where I'm forced to pay Windows tax pretty much every time I buy a computer and now I would be forced to pay Symantec tax, becase Windows is so insecure? This is just getting ridiculous!
Indeed, even the KHTML part of Safari is GPLed. So Apple owes a lot to GPL. On a lighter note it would be great fun to see Steve Jobs and Richard Stallman clash... such two dominant personalities... maybe one of them is made of anti-matter and if they touched they'd anihilate in a bright flash of light.
Very good point :-)). But surely the terrorist are not stupid and if they know that the detention period would be now 90 days, then they'll use longer keys, encrypt things a few times, etc. hence bringing the time to decrypt the hard drive to something more like 1 year.
Would we then be prepared to support detention for one year without a charge?!? I know I won't. The police simply has to work around the hard drive encryption, when collecting evidence.
companies exist to serve the consumer, not visa versa
No, companies exist to make profit.
until companies figure that out, you don't use them
Eh?
you pirate until the companies figure out that trying to own you is a turn off
Actually you _can_ do that. If you set aside the moral issues... I mean, just because you don't want to buy something at a price being offered, it doesn't mean you're always morally entitled to steal it...I'm not saying that pirating musinc is necessarily a deadly sin. I'm just playing the devils advocate here.
the point is: you are the consumer, you are king
No, the point is: we, as consumers are the king. Unless most people don't realise that crappy DRM is bad for them the companies can keep ignoring minorities like us. It's a sad, but its' a fact. Look at how many people use Windows, even though it's arguably bad for them.
If you wanted to exercise your right as a consumer you'd buy a few of them and then return them as faulty, because it prints stuff that it's not supposed to. And then you'd do it again and again. And again.
If everyone who cares about this did that, then it will cost the manufacturers a significant amount of money, since the profit margins on printers are not that great.
I think that we're somewheat missing the point here. I think AMD will be selling those to ISPs who'll then offer them bundled with your internet connection. They won't be for the average Slashdot reader.
What you'll get (for say $30 a month if you sign a 1year contract) is a hassle free device that provides basic PC and internet functionality and it never breaks, if it does the ISP does sort it out remotely, including software updates etc. or simply replaces the faulty unit.
It even says, that they'll be customizable by the ISPs and _then_ limit installation of 3rd party software; thus limiting instability. Ideal for the purpose. Think of it as a mobile phone (if the ISP subsidises the price and then locks you in) or even better as a set top box (if they just rent them out for free).
While Microsoft writes operating systems with the shoot first ask questions later, Apple does a good job when designing products. On the other hand Microsoft is very careful with any lawsuits it gets into, while Apple is occasionally a bit too trigger happy. Gues which company makes better software ;-)
More to the point, many Americans could just start using cars which are more fuel efficient. And they won't neccesarily even have to be small cars. You can have a huge people carrier with a 2 litre diesel engine that does 40 to 50 mpg.
Now since most cars in America are driven by 1 person 99% of the time, you could go for a small car and get 65 mpg out of it.
So they can even reduce their fuel bill without doing anything too radical with their lifestyles.
The point is that Americans shouldn't be complaining about high fuel prices, those are here to stay, even if they can start extracting loads more oil in Colorado. There is a rising demand for oil and by the time more oil is extracted in Colorado China and India would have probably more then doubled their demand.
Btw. I cycle daily and I don't own a car, but that's my personal choice and I know very well it's not for everyone; hence I'm not even suggesting a bike to a SUV owner.
I dare say that a lot of hackers (which here I will use in the popular media sense, i.e. someone wishing to gain unauthorized access to a computer system), use more complicated scenario.
1, Sit at a computer in the US.
2, Hack into a computer in China, Eastern Europe or wherever. Hope that the owner / admin won't notice a thing.
3, Hack into the system of an US government agency, company or wherever you need.
4, Hope that no-one notices. If they do never mind, you have a 99.9% chance that they'll assume the attack is comming from China and do nothing about it.
IP spoofing does not necessarily have to do anything with it. The only thing that could go wrong is if the owner of the Chineese / East European server noticed it's been hacked _and_ notified the US government. How likely is that though?
Some year, it seems, we'll have 121% of the population using Macs.
Sorry for the flames: no you fool, if 11% switch every year it means, that there are 11% less of windows users every i.e. I have 100 windows users in year 0, 89 in year 1, say 80 in year 2, 72 in year 3 etc.
So even at this rate the number of people using windows will never be less than 0. 11% out of 0 is 0.
No Manu Chao, no Mano Negra, no Banco de Gaia, one album from Duke Ellington....
If anyone thinks this will stop illegal music downloads then they should think again, because 99% of stuff I'd want probably won't be on available legally trough this channel.
Presumably though the algorithm they used in GPUsort can be made to work on a Pentium IV.
Yes, but the algorithm won't be anything special. It won't be a better algorithm than qsort and definitely not more efficient than O(n log n) comparisons. What is special is that it runs on a GPU.
they should have compared GPUsort on the CPU as well
And how exactly were they supposed to do that?!? GPUsort has been programmed to run on a GPU, and even if you don't know the first thing about computers, the G should suggest that GPU is very different from a CPU.
One can prove that no sorting algorithm using binary comparisons can do better than use O(n log n) comparisons. Hence GPUsort couldn't have been asymptotically more efficient that qsort.
If you think about it, the standart qsort implementation is definitely more optimised than most algorithms out there; it has been around for very long. But none of this matters; GPUsort can't run on a CPU.