I believe they're using them for e-mail, word processing, data entry/spreadsheets, graphical information display (they mentioned a ground-control-style application suite for tracking the station's position).
Since they already use Windows for a great deal (most? all?) of that stuff on the ground, it only makes sense to keep the astronauts using the same systems once they're in orbit.
They may also have some other software not specifically mentioned in the article (like, say, data gathering software) that was written for NT/95.
Chances are, these guys are already familiar with Outlook. It's not exactly difficult to use.
Did anyone ever consider the fact that maybe these astronauts WERE consultated with respect to their operating systems of choice?
If I were going to use a PC to just check e-mail and do some occasional word processing, it pains me to say it, but I think I would choose Win95 over Linux. Linux is great for the things I use it for, but really, it's a bit overkill for what the astronauts need.
Think about this. The space station is orbiting several hundred miles up. Computer links with the ground are very lossy and prone to errors and they are NOT in 100% contact. There are times when the space station is completely out of contact with ground personnel.
These things makes remote administration somewhat difficult (including SSH to a Unix machine).
Besides, these systems are going to be pre-configured for optimal reliability by ground crew. They're not sending systems up with buggy/unstable drivers or loaded down with unnecessary and unpredicable applications. Problems like the ones you're describing are going to be nearly non-existant.
While I still think they made a good decision using Windows PC's for the astronauts themselves, the back-end stuff could have been done a lot more reliably and easily if they used a Unix server for it...
Though there might have been reasons they couldn't have. What if the data collection software they're using was written for NT? Since mass is a big thing, they would only want to take up the bare minimum of hardware. If they absolutely need an NT server for one or two tasks, a compromise with the e-mail system seems appropriate.
There's probably a lot more to the story than what we're reading on the CNN article. Just put your faith in the fact that these guys are NASA engineers and they've probably already thought of this.:)
Linux is not the best solution for this situation. The astronauts are not going to have the time nor desire to re-learn an OS (especially one with the learning curve of Linux/Unix).
A - Probably not, but if they did, so what? The ground crew is going to be spending hours upon hours reconfiguring it and setting it up so that it's as reliable as possible (which can be pretty reliable, especially considering the resourcefulness of NASA engineers)
B - Probably not, but even if they are, so what?
C - I doubt that. They aren't building your typical SOHO LAN here. They need to ensure the equipment is protected and will function without fail for several years in orbit around earth. Network problems and equipment failures must be avoided.
they found some guy with a lowly and super simple job that would actually talk about the project.
That lowly simple worker has ten times the brains you do and probably makes ten times what you do. NASA doesn't hire stupid or shortsighted people.
Thinkpads... good god.. why not something that is rugged and designed for scientific use?
Why design and build proprietary hardware (at ten times the cost) that can unexpectedly fail when you have commercial, high-quality, high-reliability solutions right off the shelf? Aside from the trip up there, this hardware is going to be in THE ULTIMATE of places with regards to G forces and shock. Also, the astronauts are not going to have the time or desire to re-learn an operating system or hardware tool. They use Windows on the ground and are all probably very familiar with it. Why force them to change?
as for the linux troll, yes linux could be used successfully and easily... no worries about gnome crap if you run a simple x windows or even use Metro-X. and there are several thousand linux systems still in use that are happily running 1.xx kernels and haven been updated for years.
But why force the astronauts to spend time learning to use a brand new, complex operating system? Why force them to use a different word processor, spreadsheet and e-mail program than what they've used before?
NASA engineers are not stupid.
NT/Win95 is probably the best choice here
on
Space Station's LAN
·
· Score: 1
Just because you lack the NT experience and finesse required to keep your NT machine up for any length of time does NOT mean there aren't others that can.
These machines are surely not going to be shipped up there empty with a box of 95/NT CDROMs. They are going to be installed and CONFIGURED by ground personnel. Unnecessary/unstable drivers and applications are going to be removed and the systems are going to be placed in a state to ensure optimum reliability.
Even if a Win95 machine crashes, what's lost? They're only using these things for word processing, spreadsheets, e-mail, and your typical office/laboratory data entry sort of stuff. Perhaps a game of solitaire. They're not using these things to adjust the space station's orientation or oxygen mixture.
I'm a Linux person, but I'm really getting kind of sick of all these stupid anti-Windows posts people are making.
Do you honestly think the people working at NASA managing and planning these things are STUPID? They're a fuckload smarter than you are and if I were you, I'd give them the benefit of the doubt every time.
Maybe he *was* saying Slashdot should become a business (a la Yahoo), which I don't necessarily agree with, but Rob could still apply common business models to the way he runs Slashdot to make it easier/cheaper for him.
Perhaps you can point me to a web page then? I've done an extensive amount of research into the "risks" attributed to cookies and the common myths and misconceptions. I have an extensive background in HTTP, TCP/IP and the web in general, so I know precisely what cookies can and can not do.
I also subscribe to BugTraq, where security issues (even relating to cookies, rare as they are) crop up and solutions devised. Patches are usually released within hours or days and are applied on my system regularly.
The ONLY conceivable risk cookies present is the ability for "evil" banner advertisement sites to use them to track your viewing habits among the few clients they have that you visit. Now, I'm not going to debate the ethical issues here, but it's sufficient to say that's the only bit of information they will be able to gleam.
Further, some browsers support *selective* enabling of cookies. Lynx does it, and IE has the concept of "zones" where you can list trusted sites (where cookies may or may not be enabled).
I always have cookies enabled. I haven't had anybody come knocking at my door after days of stalking me by way of my browser's cookies. No one has used cookies to break into my PC and steal my credit card number. As far as becoming a "statistic" and offering my browsing habits to advertising companies, I'd rather see 10 computer/tech-related advertisements than 10 advertisements of mixed content. Of course, I'd rather not see ads at all, but in this case, the cookies are doing me a service (unsolicited as it is). I only give my e-mail address out to reputable companies, so I don't get much spam. I haven't received any increase in either postal mail or e-mail since the invention of cookies.
I think YOU need to forget what the mass media has been hyping and do a little real research yourself as to what cookies are *really* capable of.
That, or point me to a URL or take some of your precious time to explain to me what it is you're so frightened about. Convince me that cookies are evil.
Some of these have been discussed in past articles, but I never saw any "real" interest besides user comments so I'll address some of what I can remember here:
Slashdot portal - A "portal for nerds: sites that matter" type of site would be sweet and could generate LOTS more advertising revenue.
Slashdot e-mail addresses - A simple e-mail forwarding service (or even something optionally web-based if you've got the bandwidth) in exchange for a donation would be nice. You could even let people register them under one or more various subdomains (email@contributor.slashdot.org, email@i.support.slashdot.org, email@slashdot.org).
Slashdot home page redirection - Like the e-mail forwarding above, redirect things like http://username.home.slashdot.org to a URL of the user's choice, or even something like http://contributors.slashdot.org/username. Both of these (email/web page) should be very light on the bandwidth and server load.
Anybody have some ideas I missed? The email address/home page redirection could be done very easily and would certainly give people incentive to donate. With a URL/email like those above, people KNOW you've contributed to slashdot, which is definitely a good first impression.
This wouldn't be the first time that the Internet opted to govern itself rather than let the government/for-profit corporations do it.
I wonder how much backing this would get by the big-wig universities and backbone providers...? How hard would it be to utilize a "public" domain service like this?
Let me first say that I'm shocked at the responce to this artical. There has been very little comment of any worth beyond pointing out the multi-cpu SA-110 PCI boards. All I can say is grow up.
Welcome to Slashdot, IRC script kiddie and college dropout capital of the 'Net.
I miss the days when the conversation used to be relevant and interesting...
This random story selection stuff
on
Tiny Linux Boxen
·
· Score: 1
You know, I started reading your comment with a negative response in mind, but really you're right..
I kinda feel bad for saying it, but six months or more ago I used to read nearly every article (easily 75%) because they were interesting/cool, but now, you're right.. I hit maybe 20% of the articles on a good day that look interesting. There've been days when I haven't had much of a desire to look at anything that's posted.
I think a lot of us seem to have noticed a similar trend. I think this story itself is rather interesting, but some of the others you mentioned simply aren't (except to a small minority, I'd wager)...
It is Rob's site, so really it's up to him to do whatever he wants with it. It started declining a bit when all of the loser's crawled out from under IRC with their annoying FC/troll posts but it doesn't help with the articles themselves aren't interesting to the majority of the readers.
Perhaps articles should be given a wider range of subject titles, LOTS more articles should be posted, and viewers should be given control over what they want to appear? Those of us who are interested in cool hardware could check that box, and those who are interested in misc. linux fun could check that. If they want to check every little checkbox, they'd get, say, 30-50 articles a day to wade through, but those of us who are interested in less would get more of what we want...
Back in "the days", the emulators were popular with the technically competant. Those people were able to make their own ROM's from games they already owned.
Once they started giving away their own personal ROM's, the emulator "warez" pups crawled out of the woodwork. Thus began the downfall of the emulator crowd.
You don't seem to understand the laws in question here. A company must protect its trademarks from DILUTION (being "watered down" to the point where it can be referred to a number of items not originally intended by the trademark holder).
Like it or not, your friend chose the name "Toys 'R' Gus" *because* of the name recognition factor. It isn't a matter of a coincidental sound-alike or anything unintentional. He took the Toys 'R' Us trademark and skewed it slightly because it was funny/a novelty.
IMO, Toys 'R' Us is in the right here. They are watching out for their trademarks. If everyone on the 'Net were allowed to make and market their own variations of "Toys 'R' Us", the *real* Toys 'R' Us would lose name recognition (which is why we say it "dilutes" their trademark). Companies have a responsibility to protect their trademarks or else they lose them. This should not have come as a surprise to Gus.
The ethernet idea is a pretty good idea. You could wire up ethernet jacks in front and for the rear seats and perhaps even one next to the gas cap. It'd be cool to be able to just plug an ethernet cable into a jack next to your fuel port (and what's a more logical place?) to do updates to your car. You could even run Samba on it and have your car appear in the Network Neighborhood for the Windows machines on your home LAN. Or, you know, you could go one step further and get a wireless network card...
I'd be wary, though, of using a 12VDC -> 120VAC power system, since you're just having to drop the voltage again to a low-voltage DC source for use with the computer. Those conversions are going to cost a lot in terms of power and heat. A far better solution is to find some way to stabilize the 12VDC power from the car and drop it to 5V or whatever for use directly with the computer.
Garages nowadays have computers that they simply hook up to your engine computer. They're able to diagnose a lot of problems that way, since the engine computer can provide the garage computer with tons of data about how the engine is functioning.
It seems to me like this could (and SHOULD) be easy to hook up to your own PC. A lot of the information would certainly help those of us that are capable of making repairs to our own cars.
Just remember that your replacement needs to be 100% reliable. A malfunction could conceivably damage the engine (not to mention the fact that a failure while cruising down the highway could have other disastrous consequences).
But it shouldn't hurt to tinker with. Sounds like fun, actually.
For a visible percentage of Linux users, I would agree here. A great deal of people do Linux because it's the "cool" thing ("hey dude, I use an *alternative* OS cause I'm smart like that"), not because they have any real need for the services a Linux system can provide. For myself, however, learning Linux allowed me to raise my level of productivity considerably. With Linux (or to be fair, any Unix really), I'm able to automate a tremendous amount of tasks, write solutions to problems that would take weeks of coding under a Windows platform, and generally do things with great ease that would take a considerable effort under Windows.
It took a while to learn how to do this stuff, but having this knowledge lets me get most things done faster and with less effort than any Windows person. (Fortunately, I also use Windows a great deal, so I utilize the best of both worlds.)
I've entered my username and password in the comment post form, clicked Submit, and then realized I must have typed my password in wrong (or used the wrong one) since the comment ended up being posted as an AC.
There's no warnings. It's an easy mistake. I don't consider myself "inept". The previous poster just chose to capitalize on that mistake to make the poster look foolish (thus lowering the "quality" of his arguments).
It sucks that people don't know their base units. What sucks even more is that the media makes it almost impossible. I've seen "mega-bits" written as "mb, MB, Mb" and "mega-bytes" written as "mb, MB and Mb".
From the metric system:
M = mega (in computers, 1024*1024)
G = giga (in computers, 1024*1024*1024)
T = tera (in computers, 1024*1024*1024*1024)
k = kilo (in computers, 1024)
K = kelvins (unit of temperature)
m = milli
g = gram
B = bytes, b = bits (computer units)
This makes for some useful and rather silly units of measure, depending on the letters you use and their case:
kB = Kilobyte (correct!)
MB = Megabyte
mB = Millibyte (not a real measurement)
Mb = Megabit (correct, not to be confused with MB)
mb = Millibit (not a real measurement)
KB = Kelvin-Byte (not a real measurement.. temperature/data-rate??)
gb = Gram-Bits (not a real measurement.. mass/data rate??)
So the next time someone says, "I have a 50K file for you," your next exclamation needs to be, "Wow, that's cold!"
Since the bulk of RedHat's traffic probably ends up going to US systems, and that bulk tends to reach a minimum while the US sleeps, it's logical to assume that RedHat's average bandwidth usage reaches a minimum during the night hours in the US.
Right, but read it with a legal eye. The last bit of that paragraph mentions that you can return the "unused product(s)" for a refund. If they intended that to apply to the software, they would have used the previously defined "SOFTWARE PRODUCT" (note the caps). Since they're not doing that, "unused product(s)" does not necessarily refer to the software/OS. It refers to the "product" (the thing you bought: the PC + OS + bundled software). I think a lawyer would be able to comment better, but I'm reasonably certain that this is how the EULA was meant to be interpreted.
Download the goddamn patches, people!
on
Linux 2.2.1
·
· Score: 1
NcFTP keeps track of the last *real* directory you were in. If you cd to "/pub/linux/kernel", that might just be a symlink to someplace like "/.1/mirrors/kernel", which is what NcFTP ends up saving.
When you reconnect using one of the mirror hostnames, it's actually picking an IP out of the list randomly, which means the "real" directory structure might differ.
Mirrors aren't always updated the instant something is released. It could take 5 minutes or an hour or a day. You're not likely to get any sort of decent download rate since everybody and their grandmother is trying to download the latest full kernel (as opposed to, say, the PATCH)... Might as well wait until things quiet down.
Replace the keyboard, mouse and monitor with a single, touch-sensitive LCD panel built into (or just sitting atop) the desk (or even allow it to stand up on desk mounts for when you're just watching something). Make it wide, too (like HDTV/theatrical proportions). Put your computer speakers out of sight and you have a nice workstation. Allow the use of a stylus for fine-grained control (such as with writing or drawing), but otherwise use a virtual (sensitive enough for the fast typers) or optional attached keyboard for textual input.
Make or enhance a window manager that supports and works well with this setup, and I will be one happy person (as soon as the LCD prices fall some more).
EULA says you can return the PRODUCT for a refund
on
Toshiba and EULA
·
· Score: 1
Here, "product" does not necessarily mean "software product", which is how some people are trying to define it.
The EULA's I've seen say it the same way. You are entitled to a refund for the PRODUCT you've purchased, which in these cases is the computer SYSTEM (hardware + OS + bundled software). You're not buying just the hardware from these companies, you're buying the complete package.
The EULA applies basically to the OS/software, but there is no provision for getting people refunds for ONLY the software component of their bundled system. The wording might seem ambiguous, but I believe, from a legal standpoint, it's in the vendor's favor, not yours.
The fact that vendors have been providing refunds is simply their way of taking the most cost-effective route. Taking this issue to court is going to be too much of a hassle (and would be expensive). It's far, far cheaper for them if they just send a dozen people refunds for the unused OS. I wouldn't be surprised if the vendors never even pursued a refund for the unused licenses from Microsoft.
Though don't get me wrong, there may be variations of the EULA that have provisions for getting refunds for ONLY the software component of the product. I'm also not a lawyer.
Slashdot Mirror
I believe they're using them for e-mail, word processing, data entry/spreadsheets, graphical information display (they mentioned a ground-control-style application suite for tracking the station's position).
Since they already use Windows for a great deal (most? all?) of that stuff on the ground, it only makes sense to keep the astronauts using the same systems once they're in orbit.
They may also have some other software not specifically mentioned in the article (like, say, data gathering software) that was written for NT/95.
What makes you think they NEED training?
Chances are, these guys are already familiar with Outlook. It's not exactly difficult to use.
Did anyone ever consider the fact that maybe these astronauts WERE consultated with respect to their operating systems of choice?
If I were going to use a PC to just check e-mail and do some occasional word processing, it pains me to say it, but I think I would choose Win95 over Linux. Linux is great for the things I use it for, but really, it's a bit overkill for what the astronauts need.
Think about this. The space station is orbiting several hundred miles up. Computer links with the ground are very lossy and prone to errors and they are NOT in 100% contact. There are times when the space station is completely out of contact with ground personnel.
These things makes remote administration somewhat difficult (including SSH to a Unix machine).
Besides, these systems are going to be pre-configured for optimal reliability by ground crew. They're not sending systems up with buggy/unstable drivers or loaded down with unnecessary and unpredicable applications. Problems like the ones you're describing are going to be nearly non-existant.
While I still think they made a good decision using Windows PC's for the astronauts themselves, the back-end stuff could have been done a lot more reliably and easily if they used a Unix server for it...
:)
Though there might have been reasons they couldn't have. What if the data collection software they're using was written for NT? Since mass is a big thing, they would only want to take up the bare minimum of hardware. If they absolutely need an NT server for one or two tasks, a compromise with the e-mail system seems appropriate.
There's probably a lot more to the story than what we're reading on the CNN article. Just put your faith in the fact that these guys are NASA engineers and they've probably already thought of this.
Linux is not the best solution for this situation. The astronauts are not going to have the time nor desire to re-learn an OS (especially one with the learning curve of Linux/Unix).
A - Probably not, but if they did, so what? The ground crew is going to be spending hours upon hours reconfiguring it and setting it up so that it's as reliable as possible (which can be pretty reliable, especially considering the resourcefulness of NASA engineers)
B - Probably not, but even if they are, so what?
C - I doubt that. They aren't building your typical SOHO LAN here. They need to ensure the equipment is protected and will function without fail for several years in orbit around earth. Network problems and equipment failures must be avoided.
they found some guy with a lowly and super simple job that would actually talk about the project.
That lowly simple worker has ten times the brains you do and probably makes ten times what you do. NASA doesn't hire stupid or shortsighted people.
Thinkpads... good god.. why not something that is rugged and designed for scientific use?
Why design and build proprietary hardware (at ten times the cost) that can unexpectedly fail when you have commercial, high-quality, high-reliability solutions right off the shelf? Aside from the trip up there, this hardware is going to be in THE ULTIMATE of places with regards to G forces and shock. Also, the astronauts are not going to have the time or desire to re-learn an operating system or hardware tool. They use Windows on the ground and are all probably very familiar with it. Why force them to change?
as for the linux troll, yes linux could be used successfully and easily... no worries about gnome crap if you run a simple x windows or even use Metro-X. and there are several thousand linux systems still in use that are happily running 1.xx kernels and haven been updated for years.
But why force the astronauts to spend time learning to use a brand new, complex operating system? Why force them to use a different word processor, spreadsheet and e-mail program than what they've used before?
NASA engineers are not stupid.
Just because you lack the NT experience and finesse required to keep your NT machine up for any length of time does NOT mean there aren't others that can.
These machines are surely not going to be shipped up there empty with a box of 95/NT CDROMs. They are going to be installed and CONFIGURED by ground personnel. Unnecessary/unstable drivers and applications are going to be removed and the systems are going to be placed in a state to ensure optimum reliability.
Even if a Win95 machine crashes, what's lost? They're only using these things for word processing, spreadsheets, e-mail, and your typical office/laboratory data entry sort of stuff. Perhaps a game of solitaire. They're not using these things to adjust the space station's orientation or oxygen mixture.
I'm a Linux person, but I'm really getting kind of sick of all these stupid anti-Windows posts people are making.
Do you honestly think the people working at NASA managing and planning these things are STUPID? They're a fuckload smarter than you are and if I were you, I'd give them the benefit of the doubt every time.
Maybe he *was* saying Slashdot should become a business (a la Yahoo), which I don't necessarily agree with, but Rob could still apply common business models to the way he runs Slashdot to make it easier/cheaper for him.
Perhaps you can point me to a web page then? I've done an extensive amount of research into the "risks" attributed to cookies and the common myths and misconceptions. I have an extensive background in HTTP, TCP/IP and the web in general, so I know precisely what cookies can and can not do.
I also subscribe to BugTraq, where security issues (even relating to cookies, rare as they are) crop up and solutions devised. Patches are usually released within hours or days and are applied on my system regularly.
The ONLY conceivable risk cookies present is the ability for "evil" banner advertisement sites to use them to track your viewing habits among the few clients they have that you visit. Now, I'm not going to debate the ethical issues here, but it's sufficient to say that's the only bit of information they will be able to gleam.
Further, some browsers support *selective* enabling of cookies. Lynx does it, and IE has the concept of "zones" where you can list trusted sites (where cookies may or may not be enabled).
I always have cookies enabled. I haven't had anybody come knocking at my door after days of stalking me by way of my browser's cookies. No one has used cookies to break into my PC and steal my credit card number. As far as becoming a "statistic" and offering my browsing habits to advertising companies, I'd rather see 10 computer/tech-related advertisements than 10 advertisements of mixed content. Of course, I'd rather not see ads at all, but in this case, the cookies are doing me a service (unsolicited as it is). I only give my e-mail address out to reputable companies, so I don't get much spam. I haven't received any increase in either postal mail or e-mail since the invention of cookies.
I think YOU need to forget what the mass media has been hyping and do a little real research yourself as to what cookies are *really* capable of.
That, or point me to a URL or take some of your precious time to explain to me what it is you're so frightened about. Convince me that cookies are evil.
- Slashdot portal - A "portal for nerds: sites that matter" type of site would be sweet and could generate LOTS more advertising revenue.
- Slashdot e-mail addresses - A simple e-mail forwarding service (or even something optionally web-based if you've got the bandwidth) in exchange for a donation would be nice. You could even let people register them under one or more various subdomains (email@contributor.slashdot.org, email@i.support.slashdot.org, email@slashdot.org).
- Slashdot home page redirection - Like the e-mail forwarding above, redirect things like http://username.home.slashdot.org to a URL of the user's choice, or even something like http://contributors.slashdot.org/username. Both of these (email/web page) should be very light on the bandwidth and server load.
Anybody have some ideas I missed? The email address/home page redirection could be done very easily and would certainly give people incentive to donate. With a URL/email like those above, people KNOW you've contributed to slashdot, which is definitely a good first impression.This wouldn't be the first time that the Internet opted to govern itself rather than let the government/for-profit corporations do it.
I wonder how much backing this would get by the big-wig universities and backbone providers...? How hard would it be to utilize a "public" domain service like this?
This is a really good idea.
Let me first say that I'm shocked at the responce to this artical. There has been very little comment of any worth beyond pointing out the multi-cpu SA-110 PCI boards. All I can say is grow up.
Welcome to Slashdot, IRC script kiddie and college dropout capital of the 'Net.
I miss the days when the conversation used to be relevant and interesting...
You know, I started reading your comment with a negative response in mind, but really you're right..
I kinda feel bad for saying it, but six months or more ago I used to read nearly every article (easily 75%) because they were interesting/cool, but now, you're right.. I hit maybe 20% of the articles on a good day that look interesting. There've been days when I haven't had much of a desire to look at anything that's posted.
I think a lot of us seem to have noticed a similar trend. I think this story itself is rather interesting, but some of the others you mentioned simply aren't (except to a small minority, I'd wager)...
It is Rob's site, so really it's up to him to do whatever he wants with it. It started declining a bit when all of the loser's crawled out from under IRC with their annoying FC/troll posts but it doesn't help with the articles themselves aren't interesting to the majority of the readers.
Perhaps articles should be given a wider range of subject titles, LOTS more articles should be posted, and viewers should be given control over what they want to appear? Those of us who are interested in cool hardware could check that box, and those who are interested in misc. linux fun could check that. If they want to check every little checkbox, they'd get, say, 30-50 articles a day to wade through, but those of us who are interested in less would get more of what we want...
Just an idea.
Back in "the days", the emulators were popular with the technically competant. Those people were able to make their own ROM's from games they already owned.
Once they started giving away their own personal ROM's, the emulator "warez" pups crawled out of the woodwork. Thus began the downfall of the emulator crowd.
You don't seem to understand the laws in question here. A company must protect its trademarks from DILUTION (being "watered down" to the point where it can be referred to a number of items not originally intended by the trademark holder).
Like it or not, your friend chose the name "Toys 'R' Gus" *because* of the name recognition factor. It isn't a matter of a coincidental sound-alike or anything unintentional. He took the Toys 'R' Us trademark and skewed it slightly because it was funny/a novelty.
IMO, Toys 'R' Us is in the right here. They are watching out for their trademarks. If everyone on the 'Net were allowed to make and market their own variations of "Toys 'R' Us", the *real* Toys 'R' Us would lose name recognition (which is why we say it "dilutes" their trademark). Companies have a responsibility to protect their trademarks or else they lose them. This should not have come as a surprise to Gus.
The ethernet idea is a pretty good idea. You could wire up ethernet jacks in front and for the rear seats and perhaps even one next to the gas cap. It'd be cool to be able to just plug an ethernet cable into a jack next to your fuel port (and what's a more logical place?) to do updates to your car. You could even run Samba on it and have your car appear in the Network Neighborhood for the Windows machines on your home LAN. Or, you know, you could go one step further and get a wireless network card...
I'd be wary, though, of using a 12VDC -> 120VAC power system, since you're just having to drop the voltage again to a low-voltage DC source for use with the computer. Those conversions are going to cost a lot in terms of power and heat. A far better solution is to find some way to stabilize the 12VDC power from the car and drop it to 5V or whatever for use directly with the computer.
Garages nowadays have computers that they simply hook up to your engine computer. They're able to diagnose a lot of problems that way, since the engine computer can provide the garage computer with tons of data about how the engine is functioning.
It seems to me like this could (and SHOULD) be easy to hook up to your own PC. A lot of the information would certainly help those of us that are capable of making repairs to our own cars.
Not to mention the geek factor...
Just remember that your replacement needs to be 100% reliable. A malfunction could conceivably damage the engine (not to mention the fact that a failure while cruising down the highway could have other disastrous consequences).
But it shouldn't hurt to tinker with. Sounds like fun, actually.
For a visible percentage of Linux users, I would agree here. A great deal of people do Linux because it's the "cool" thing ("hey dude, I use an *alternative* OS cause I'm smart like that"), not because they have any real need for the services a Linux system can provide. For myself, however, learning Linux allowed me to raise my level of productivity considerably. With Linux (or to be fair, any Unix really), I'm able to automate a tremendous amount of tasks, write solutions to problems that would take weeks of coding under a Windows platform, and generally do things with great ease that would take a considerable effort under Windows.
It took a while to learn how to do this stuff, but having this knowledge lets me get most things done faster and with less effort than any Windows person. (Fortunately, I also use Windows a great deal, so I utilize the best of both worlds.)
I've entered my username and password in the comment post form, clicked Submit, and then realized I must have typed my password in wrong (or used the wrong one) since the comment ended up being posted as an AC.
There's no warnings. It's an easy mistake. I don't consider myself "inept". The previous poster just chose to capitalize on that mistake to make the poster look foolish (thus lowering the "quality" of his arguments).
From the metric system:
- M = mega (in computers, 1024*1024)
- G = giga (in computers, 1024*1024*1024)
- T = tera (in computers, 1024*1024*1024*1024)
- k = kilo (in computers, 1024)
- K = kelvins (unit of temperature)
- m = milli
- g = gram
- B = bytes, b = bits (computer units)
This makes for some useful and rather silly units of measure, depending on the letters you use and their case:- kB = Kilobyte (correct!)
- MB = Megabyte
- mB = Millibyte (not a real measurement)
- Mb = Megabit (correct, not to be confused with MB)
- mb = Millibit (not a real measurement)
- KB = Kelvin-Byte (not a real measurement.. temperature/data-rate??)
- gb = Gram-Bits (not a real measurement.. mass/data rate??)
So the next time someone says, "I have a 50K file for you," your next exclamation needs to be, "Wow, that's cold!"Since the bulk of RedHat's traffic probably ends up going to US systems, and that bulk tends to reach a minimum while the US sleeps, it's logical to assume that RedHat's average bandwidth usage reaches a minimum during the night hours in the US.
Right, but read it with a legal eye. The last bit of that paragraph mentions that you can return the "unused product(s)" for a refund. If they intended that to apply to the software, they would have used the previously defined "SOFTWARE PRODUCT" (note the caps). Since they're not doing that, "unused product(s)" does not necessarily refer to the software/OS. It refers to the "product" (the thing you bought: the PC + OS + bundled software). I think a lawyer would be able to comment better, but I'm reasonably certain that this is how the EULA was meant to be interpreted.
NcFTP keeps track of the last *real* directory you were in. If you cd to "/pub/linux/kernel", that might just be a symlink to someplace like "/.1/mirrors/kernel", which is what NcFTP ends up saving.
When you reconnect using one of the mirror hostnames, it's actually picking an IP out of the list randomly, which means the "real" directory structure might differ.
Mirrors aren't always updated the instant something is released. It could take 5 minutes or an hour or a day. You're not likely to get any sort of decent download rate since everybody and their grandmother is trying to download the latest full kernel (as opposed to, say, the PATCH)... Might as well wait until things quiet down.
Replace the keyboard, mouse and monitor with a single, touch-sensitive LCD panel built into (or just sitting atop) the desk (or even allow it to stand up on desk mounts for when you're just watching something). Make it wide, too (like HDTV/theatrical proportions). Put your computer speakers out of sight and you have a nice workstation. Allow the use of a stylus for fine-grained control (such as with writing or drawing), but otherwise use a virtual (sensitive enough for the fast typers) or optional attached keyboard for textual input.
Make or enhance a window manager that supports and works well with this setup, and I will be one happy person (as soon as the LCD prices fall some more).
Here, "product" does not necessarily mean "software product", which is how some people are trying to define it.
The EULA's I've seen say it the same way. You are entitled to a refund for the PRODUCT you've purchased, which in these cases is the computer SYSTEM (hardware + OS + bundled software). You're not buying just the hardware from these companies, you're buying the complete package.
The EULA applies basically to the OS/software, but there is no provision for getting people refunds for ONLY the software component of their bundled system. The wording might seem ambiguous, but I believe, from a legal standpoint, it's in the vendor's favor, not yours.
The fact that vendors have been providing refunds is simply their way of taking the most cost-effective route. Taking this issue to court is going to be too much of a hassle (and would be expensive). It's far, far cheaper for them if they just send a dozen people refunds for the unused OS. I wouldn't be surprised if the vendors never even pursued a refund for the unused licenses from Microsoft.
Though don't get me wrong, there may be variations of the EULA that have provisions for getting refunds for ONLY the software component of the product. I'm also not a lawyer.