Well, I have Rogers/Wave (Rogers=local cable monopoly;) cable in sunny Toronto;-) and my experience has been that the bottleneck clearly isn't at my end. The average HTTP server gives me ~40 Kbytes, apple.com trailers ~90, really nice sites ~100. My current record holder is Real.com at about 140 kbytes, which works out to c. 1120 kbits (ah, but one megabit is actually 1024 kbits, forget this in my original post), so a little above DSL.
On their website Rogers/Wave have some blurb about their architecture which is overly abstruse and reassuringly vague. visit rogers.home.com for their take.
As far as the actual box goes, both Rogers and the manufacturer, Terayon, are deliberately vague. Rogers seem to imply that the limitation was the 10mbit ethernet connector card... But they used a 100mbit one... (Rogers are a particularly unimpressive breed of monopoly. I won't hazard my TOS and your patience by narrating my experiences with them, but they were positively Heller-esque at times). My 4mbit figure is taken from various books on networking in general I've read, and seems to be generally accepted as a baseline (at least for non-tech purposes). And I did mention that Cable varies quite significantly.
Really, if anyone was smoking crack it was the guy who made sweeping comments about specific 1mbit technology implementations when everyone knows there are a) a few impl.s and b) other (xDSL, cable, etc.) techs. about. No worries, though.:)
I quite like this idea of having a time limit on algorythm patents (it surprised me that algorythms based on artificial, relatively finite, formal systems got patented in the iirst place; unless you're likeminded to Penrose, this is almost like patenting a mathematical expression [patent pending];-).
However, there is one worrisome aspect. Essentially what we're trying to do here is acheive a balance between protecting a consumer who doesn't want to see his work fobbed of by someone (insert Big Monopoly of choice here), and protecting the skilful programmer, the careful orator of the formal system, in moving about in this problem space as he chooses.
I simply fear that 2 years is inadequate, (if we feel an algorithm is a patentable idea)) to protect programmers. IBM, Sunsoft, Really Big Widgets Inc. [patent pending] are not terribly concerned to squeeze another 10% out of the Widget; they are concerned about not having their oppenents squeeze 10% more than them. In some markets w/ high entry barriers it is easy to imagine the Big Companies simply waiting out this period.
Of course, the Internet is a great help in this, by promoting OpenSource, a spectacular exercise in cutting barriers to entry to software development.
In short, I think it would make the most sense to have some sort of variable patenting scheme. Of course, this would require the various patent offices actually stopping to think about grants GASP! instead of just blindly issueing them and then leaving the ensuing mess to the courts!
____________________________
...and if all else fails...
on
R.I.P. Iridium
·
· Score: 1
They would always make nice target practice for the new SDI-whatsits ;-)
You are essentially arguing against the tool/actions becuase it would give Borland sweeping powers. I disagree with this. I don't think that the threat of control needs such drastic measures to be effectively dealt with by Linux
I'm pretty sure that, one way or another, my Microsoft serfdom (W'95 factory installation) came with VBnxx.dll -- But it certainly did not come with the VCL stuff. However, when I installed BCB, both sets of apps still worked. So, technically(tm), there is no good reason why there could not be multiple packages on a machine -- and hence competition. There's nothing to stop someone (or at least somemultitude) taking Glade and GCC and writing a RAD, fully opensource. I think a VCL-style encapsulation library is a perfectly natural extension to the current collection of programming libraries.
I sympathise in your concern that someday overwhelming market share would someday enable Borland (or a competitor) to throw its weight around with the OS distributors, makers, etc., but ultimately, they could try to do the same thing without OS inclusion -- which is, after all, just a conveniance. The OpenSource/Linux model largely exists in reaction to attempts like this, and I have confidence that it will prove resiliant to anysuch attempts. Opensource will gaurantee continued competition from free programs which will prevent any such coup d'état from taking place.
KWord's insistence on 'select frame' is actually a logical decision for such an application. QuarkXPress (at least ver3), a leading proffesional (Mac, but that's a tautology in d.p.) layout/dp program works in a similar paradigm, where one mouse cursor selects the contents of a box, another the frame itself. Although Mac doesn't have 'right click', the various dialogues, windows, etc. all have different modes for the two selection modes. It works quite well, once you get used to it.
Mind, I haven't used the newer version -- I'm at a school, and know this through the Graphics/Design course, which necessarily uses older hard/software.
Perhaps it does show some bias, but I think it is (if then by accident!) an act of extraordinary clear mindedness to simply ignore what was essentially a media-manipulation exercise./. has posted many things on W2K in the past, and both sides had their say, and both sides were accordingly moderated up (and down!). I hope and expect that healthy discussion of That Other OS will continue in the future.
But really, what can one say about a product launch? I can see it now. "Oh yeah, and That Company finally really officially actually really said that W2K is out, after we've already been discussing the Gold Release for about two weeks." ;-)
Proposals may be submitted for the forthcoming IEEE 7893 "Female/Society Society/Female Interaction Protocol (SF/IP) 5.0" standard. While this model, like the entire IEEE 23234 "Homo Sapiens" class hgas gone through many revisions, it is rightly felt that a new societal protocal is needed to ensure fairness and equality.
Issues to be addressed are: Backwards compatibility with conservative backwaters (no offense, I hope!;-), non-cooperation with high level protocals like GC/IP (Glass Ceiling) and low level ones such as CB/IP (Classroom Bias). An important issue is network interactions with TS (Testosterone Superfluos) encoded packets.
Current suggestions are to use a flexible "Reproggramable Node" concept (Note: the idea of programmable nodes is actually under development), based around FS/IP (Family Support/Interaction Protocol).
Questions include the scope of this progect, and its stance in relation to FibreOptic technologies, cloning and spontaneous extinction of the human race.
Hmmm... Thinking about all this, as I stare into the obselescence that will shortly be my moniter (whoops, I think that's the other way round), attached to an equally obtuse cpu via v. low bandwith wires, a question comes to mind...
Can anyone out there give a (succinct) description of what the technical difficulties of increasing bandwidth are? I understand about s/n ratio, sort of, but do not really understand the recent trend towards the serial. For example, precisely *why* is it that ATA cannot be extended any further without signalling changes.
BTW, I while ago I saw someone apologise for being an EE instead of a CS. I would apologise for being a CS instead of an EE, except I'm neither!;-)
No, not really. (What did you think I was going to say?;-). Besides, you're the one makeing appeals to "[oh] my god";-)
I think you missed my point -- I'm really trying to point something out to the fanatics out there, although that may be a lost cause. My point is that the "word of God", (or gods, if you beleive in certain forms of Hinduism, I think) should not *have* to enter into a discussion. If God's so great do his arguments really need censorship to help him allong?
**Appeals of the divine? These are human issues.
And there are some who beleive that the arguments of their particular divinity enter into *every* question of life, even the "human" ones.
I admit, in retrospect, that my rhetoric was strong, but I was really just trying, in a rather akward way, to make a point which is not so far off from your own: Intolerance (religious or otherwise) is *BAD*.
Really, don't just grep for "Criminal" and "Divine" (wit' the capital 'D'), think about the thrust of my argument!
NO! My.SIG IS NOT WHAT JOHN SAID! (I was thinking of the idea "if it is of God, it will succeed. If not, not" Of course, the jury's still out on that one...)
Ultimately, we all have to stand up for what is right.
We can only pray & hope that our principles are just enough. Ultimately, it requires a final leap of faith in which you say that you do beleive there is a Platonic ideal, and you do beleive in our ability to determine the outcome. Perhaps this leap is dangerous, but where would we be without it?
I think what is important is that we always remember to allow for thought and dissent (the human spirit, if you beleive Orwell) in our views. It should be a fundamental tenet of any such deterministic model that discussion, free will, and even dissent are valid and encourageable. Trusting anything else is akin to letting the pigs run Animal Farm -- since they are, after all, smarter!
Some may interpret these as sacriligious, challenging God. (These people would also be likening Him to a pig, but nevermind). I am, as it happens, religious. I have a question for these people: But should not the appeals of the Divine, be able stand on their own to legs? (without *petty* human attempts to *unfairly* and *criminally* bias discussion. Criminal, I say, as ANY attempt to bias discussion must necessarily be).
Reminds me of John the Baptist's rather famous laissez-faire comments...
Well, it is good market-thinking... Except, ***WINE already *does* include DirectX.*** (or at least DX support)
Not only that , but large amounts of it. In fact, I've heard many beleivable stories about nuking Zerg (in Starcraft) under Linux. It seems, as always, entertainment leads the way...;-)
Really, I beleive the Win32 API includes a lot of low level system/OS interaction thingies (threads, start/stop, IDs, etc), so many that DirectX, despite its 'low level' suppport (it is after all, an abstraction layer, at least for 3D), cannot stand on its own--It sits on top. You really need W32 to make DX worth it.
Even a compatibility library wouldn't really be worth it, I don't think. But I'd have to go away and read the SDK [sitting on my harddrive!] to be either specific or authoratative. And I'm not (yet) that suicidal.;-)
Netscape's video probably is. However, this is likely more a reflection on Netscape than the X Server, though YMMV. (By and large, Linux can come pretty close or better... See the story on/. on 3D games a few days ago... )Sadly, netscape as a whole in Linux is only so-so. And microsoft, being determined to use one monopoly to prop up another will *never* give us IE! However, if you're interested in something a little, uh, adventurous, try Mozilla. Don't know what it's like under Linux, but didn't seem to crash under W'95 and *very* nice HTML 4 rendering.
Please, no one take offense at.sig It's a joke, from "God is just an idea in the mind of man".
True, but when I make the final switch (i.e. nuke my primary W98 partition), I think it will ultimatly be because I use computers as tools too much not too. I can site two examples of this.
One, with the exception of NC allocating *all* the memory (under an old kernel), and occaisionally just vapourizing, I have *never* seen my GNU/Linux/Caldera/Debian crash. Full stop. I use my computer extensively for my homework, and I'm not a good enough student to have wide margins on my deadlines. A good ol' GPF crash could be fatal, under some circumstances. Especially if my computer then decided not to reboot into Windows. (Which it has done spontaniously, twice) Fortuneatly, no really disasterous one has occured yet. Just in case, I keep my autosave at 2 minutes and my files within DOS length filenames' reach C:\.
Two, I do a little bit of playing god/sysadm for my school and home networks. At school, we have an old Apple LW which yields both spectacular print and astronomical toner prices. The various Powers That Be would like to charge for Laser Print. Having already implemented a Samba imitation of NT Server (since we cannot afford Wintel NT hard/software), I found it quite easy to find out about LPrng's accounting features. It's free, and we needed find a store which carries it. Had it not been adequate, *I* could have written a rudimentary system, because the Unix sytem gives you that freedom.
In short then, for people who use computers as appliances much of the time and hence need high versatility and efficiency, the only choice is still some variation on Unix.
Sorry if that was too long;-)
BTW, my.SIG's a joke. I wouldn't want to offend anyone. It's based on the idea "God is just an idea". I should probably change it;-).
Ah, but you see, the wonderful thing about a projectile weapon is it's simple enough to work.
There's certainly alot of fun to be had simply by messing about with lego, and, as the Steiner-esque Cliché goes "using your imagination".
But think also of the thrill you get when you build something that "works". It's what first got me interested in programming; it's the satisfaction which makes fixing things worth it.
The great thing about a gun is that it's a simple, clearly defined goal, seen in already implemented, which is clearly feasible, for which there are clearly defined goals (notably here rate of fire), and the guilt for which is minimal. At the end of the day, a device which spits out lego at half a metre a second does not make anyone "death, the destroyer of worlds".
Perhaps what is morbid is the fact that any youngish child to teen on the street (well, many in Toronto) knows about a spectacular range of the real devices.
Slashdot Mirror
On their website Rogers/Wave have some blurb about their architecture which is overly abstruse and reassuringly vague. visit rogers.home.com for their take.
As far as the actual box goes, both Rogers and the manufacturer, Terayon, are deliberately vague. Rogers seem to imply that the limitation was the 10mbit ethernet connector card... But they used a 100mbit one... (Rogers are a particularly unimpressive breed of monopoly. I won't hazard my TOS and your patience by narrating my experiences with them, but they were positively Heller-esque at times). My 4mbit figure is taken from various books on networking in general I've read, and seems to be generally accepted as a baseline (at least for non-tech purposes). And I did mention that Cable varies quite significantly.
Really, if anyone was smoking crack it was the guy who made sweeping comments about specific 1mbit technology implementations when everyone knows there are a) a few impl.s and b) other (xDSL, cable, etc.) techs. about. No worries, though. :)
Cable = (usual tech figure, sometimes more?) 4 Mbit~ 500 KB/s max
Now, the fact is that in some areas DSL will give much closer to max much more often, but still, know your figures!
______________________
However, there is one worrisome aspect. Essentially what we're trying to do here is acheive a balance between protecting a consumer who doesn't want to see his work fobbed of by someone (insert Big Monopoly of choice here), and protecting the skilful programmer, the careful orator of the formal system, in moving about in this problem space as he chooses.
I simply fear that 2 years is inadequate, (if we feel an algorithm is a patentable idea)) to protect programmers. IBM, Sunsoft, Really Big Widgets Inc. [patent pending] are not terribly concerned to squeeze another 10% out of the Widget; they are concerned about not having their oppenents squeeze 10% more than them. In some markets w/ high entry barriers it is easy to imagine the Big Companies simply waiting out this period.
Of course, the Internet is a great help in this, by promoting OpenSource, a spectacular exercise in cutting barriers to entry to software development.
In short, I think it would make the most sense to have some sort of variable patenting scheme. Of course, this would require the various patent offices actually stopping to think about grants GASP! instead of just blindly issueing them and then leaving the ensuing mess to the courts!
____________________________
(Link is to the American (only one?) projext).
___________________
I'm pretty sure that, one way or another, my Microsoft serfdom (W'95 factory installation) came with VBnxx.dll -- But it certainly did not come with the VCL stuff. However, when I installed BCB, both sets of apps still worked. So, technically(tm), there is no good reason why there could not be multiple packages on a machine -- and hence competition. There's nothing to stop someone (or at least somemultitude) taking Glade and GCC and writing a RAD, fully opensource. I think a VCL-style encapsulation library is a perfectly natural extension to the current collection of programming libraries.
I sympathise in your concern that someday overwhelming market share would someday enable Borland (or a competitor) to throw its weight around with the OS distributors, makers, etc., but ultimately, they could try to do the same thing without OS inclusion -- which is, after all, just a conveniance. The OpenSource/Linux model largely exists in reaction to attempts like this, and I have confidence that it will prove resiliant to anysuch attempts. Opensource will gaurantee continued competition from free programs which will prevent any such coup d'état from taking place.
________________________
Mind, I haven't used the newer version -- I'm at a school, and know this through the Graphics/Design course, which necessarily uses older hard/software.
________________
Ceci, n'est pas un troll!!
I thought it rather witty!
-Quintus
Yeah, it must have been my blinding brilliance. ;-) (And atrocious speling ;-)
____________________________
Perhaps it does show some bias, but I think it is (if then by accident!) an act of extraordinary clear mindedness to simply ignore what was essentially a media-manipulation exercise. /. has posted many things on W2K in the past, and both sides had their say, and both sides were accordingly moderated up (and down!). I hope and expect that healthy discussion of That Other OS will continue in the future.
But really, what can one say about a product launch? I can see it now. "Oh yeah, and That Company finally really officially actually really said that W2K is out, after we've already been discussing the Gold Release for about two weeks." ;-)
________________________________________
For a nice summary, see http://linuxtoday.com/stories/15936.html >
It may be updated periodically, thus rendering this link obselete, tho'.
Enjoy. (Yes, TV Card support may be easier, the article says... ;-)
_______________________________
{Shameless_Parody}
Proposals may be submitted for the forthcoming IEEE 7893 "Female/Society Society/Female Interaction Protocol (SF/IP) 5.0" standard. While this model, like the entire IEEE 23234 "Homo Sapiens" class hgas gone through many revisions, it is rightly felt that a new societal protocal is needed to ensure fairness and equality.
Issues to be addressed are: Backwards compatibility with conservative backwaters (no offense, I hope! ;-), non-cooperation with high level protocals like GC/IP (Glass Ceiling) and low level ones such as CB/IP (Classroom Bias). An important issue is network interactions with TS (Testosterone Superfluos) encoded packets.
Current suggestions are to use a flexible "Reproggramable Node" concept (Note: the idea of programmable nodes is actually under development), based around FS/IP (Family Support/Interaction Protocol).
Questions include the scope of this progect, and its stance in relation to FibreOptic technologies, cloning and spontaneous extinction of the human race.
{/Shameless_Parody}
________________________________
Can anyone out there give a (succinct) description of what the technical difficulties of increasing bandwidth are? I understand about s/n ratio, sort of, but do not really understand the recent trend towards the serial. For example, precisely *why* is it that ATA cannot be extended any further without signalling changes.
BTW, I while ago I saw someone apologise for being an EE instead of a CS. I would apologise for being a CS instead of an EE, except I'm neither! ;-)
____________________
No, not really. (What did you think I was going to say? ;-). Besides, you're the one makeing appeals to "[oh] my god" ;-)
I think you missed my point -- I'm really trying to point something out to the fanatics out there, although that may be a lost cause. My point is that the "word of God", (or gods, if you beleive in certain forms of Hinduism, I think) should not *have* to enter into a discussion. If God's so great do his arguments really need censorship to help him allong?
**Appeals of the divine? These are human issues.
And there are some who beleive that the arguments of their particular divinity enter into *every* question of life, even the "human" ones.
I admit, in retrospect, that my rhetoric was strong, but I was really just trying, in a rather akward way, to make a point which is not so far off from your own: Intolerance (religious or otherwise) is *BAD*.
Really, don't just grep for "Criminal" and "Divine" (wit' the capital 'D'), think about the thrust of my argument!
________________________________
NO! My .SIG IS NOT WHAT JOHN SAID! (I was thinking of the idea "if it is of God, it will succeed. If not, not" Of course, the jury's still out on that one...)
We can only pray & hope that our principles are just enough. Ultimately, it requires a final leap of faith in which you say that you do beleive there is a Platonic ideal, and you do beleive in our ability to determine the outcome. Perhaps this leap is dangerous, but where would we be without it?
I think what is important is that we always remember to allow for thought and dissent (the human spirit, if you beleive Orwell) in our views. It should be a fundamental tenet of any such deterministic model that discussion, free will, and even dissent are valid and encourageable. Trusting anything else is akin to letting the pigs run Animal Farm -- since they are, after all, smarter!
Some may interpret these as sacriligious, challenging God. (These people would also be likening Him to a pig, but nevermind). I am, as it happens, religious. I have a question for these people: But should not the appeals of the Divine, be able stand on their own to legs? (without *petty* human attempts to *unfairly* and *criminally* bias discussion. Criminal, I say, as ANY attempt to bias discussion must necessarily be).
Reminds me of John the Baptist's rather famous laissez-faire comments...
Well, it is good market-thinking... Except, ***WINE already *does* include DirectX.*** (or at least DX support)
Not only that , but large amounts of it. In fact, I've heard many beleivable stories about nuking Zerg (in Starcraft) under Linux. It seems, as always, entertainment leads the way... ;-)
Really, I beleive the Win32 API includes a lot of low level system/OS interaction thingies (threads, start/stop, IDs, etc), so many that DirectX, despite its 'low level' suppport (it is after all, an abstraction layer, at least for 3D), cannot stand on its own--It sits on top. You really need W32 to make DX worth it.
Even a compatibility library wouldn't really be worth it, I don't think. But I'd have to go away and read the SDK [sitting on my harddrive!] to be either specific or authoratative. And I'm not (yet) that suicidal. ;-)
Please, no one take offense at .sig It's a joke, from "God is just an idea in the mind of man".
One, with the exception of NC allocating *all* the memory (under an old kernel), and occaisionally just vapourizing, I have *never* seen my GNU/Linux/Caldera/Debian crash. Full stop. I use my computer extensively for my homework, and I'm not a good enough student to have wide margins on my deadlines. A good ol' GPF crash could be fatal, under some circumstances. Especially if my computer then decided not to reboot into Windows. (Which it has done spontaniously, twice) Fortuneatly, no really disasterous one has occured yet. Just in case, I keep my autosave at 2 minutes and my files within DOS length filenames' reach C:\.
Two, I do a little bit of playing god/sysadm for my school and home networks. At school, we have an old Apple LW which yields both spectacular print and astronomical toner prices. The various Powers That Be would like to charge for Laser Print. Having already implemented a Samba imitation of NT Server (since we cannot afford Wintel NT hard/software), I found it quite easy to find out about LPrng's accounting features. It's free, and we needed find a store which carries it. Had it not been adequate, *I* could have written a rudimentary system, because the Unix sytem gives you that freedom.
In short then, for people who use computers as appliances much of the time and hence need high versatility and efficiency, the only choice is still some variation on Unix.
Sorry if that was too long ;-)
BTW, my .SIG's a joke. I wouldn't want to offend anyone. It's based on the idea "God is just an idea". I should probably change it ;-).
There's certainly alot of fun to be had simply by messing about with lego, and, as the Steiner-esque Cliché goes "using your imagination".
But think also of the thrill you get when you build something that "works". It's what first got me interested in programming; it's the satisfaction which makes fixing things worth it.
The great thing about a gun is that it's a simple, clearly defined goal, seen in already implemented, which is clearly feasible, for which there are clearly defined goals (notably here rate of fire), and the guilt for which is minimal. At the end of the day, a device which spits out lego at half a metre a second does not make anyone "death, the destroyer of worlds".
Perhaps what is morbid is the fact that any youngish child to teen on the street (well, many in Toronto) knows about a spectacular range of the real devices.
_______________________