>Wrong. Here's the counterpoint: The VGA code in the kernel is the same on every card. Yet it has undergone updates. VGA is supported by many more cards yet it made no difference. Therefore points 4 and 5 stand as regards to Nvidia cards.
>This paragraph makes no sense, grammatical or otherwise, so I don't know how to respond.
Sorry for the imperfect english. I was kind enough to skip over yours and was hoping you might do the same for me.
Let me explain it.
Lets say in Subject A situation 1 occurs.
Subject B is identical to Subject A except that subject B was created at a later time.
Barring differences occuring over time (and in my example there's been none) then situation 1 should occur to Subject B. ie: VGA drivers vs. Nvidia drivers. What happened above to the VGA support will happen to Nvidia support.
Is that a little more clear?
>This would totally not be in NVidia's best intrest, and they are not idiots. It only makes sound financial sense to continue selling and supporting a product that costs a minimal amount to support.
I can't come up with examples right now, but it wouldn't be the first time a company has dropped support for a product even if requires absolute minimal effort.
Oh wait, I just did...:-) Remember how SoundBlaster dropped support for the Cyrix processor in Windows way back when? All they had to do was recompile their drivers for the 486 but they wouldn't.
Even today, most companies still provide 486 compatible [closed source] Windows drivers today because the financial hardship imposed by compiling for another fully compatible processor is nil. Yet a company as big as Creative Labs wouldn't do it.
If Creative Labs would do that for hardware, why not Nvidia with software?
Nvidia might have no good reason to discontinue support. That is until Linus (or another important Linux member... I'm thinking RMS) does something to anger them (like Cyrix did to Creative). Then they'll drop Linux like a hot potato.
>"We can't trust NVidia to maintain the drivers, therefore they are bad. The only way we know for sure the drivers will be updated is to have open source ones." Well, let me put his to you: The only reason accellerated 3D works on Raedon at all is because ATI has been providing specs to the open source community. Don't believe me?
Oh, I believe you. But now the comminuty has the specs and can continue support for the ATi Radeon into perpetuity.
Nvidia users can only wish to be so lucky.
I don't base my high-price hardware decisions on maybes and "good vibes". I like to base them on hard facts. The hard fact is that (barring a lack of knowledge) one can keep their Radeon working in Linux (and in any other operating system) for as long as they want.
With an Nvidia card you will only have support on systems they want to support, and only for as long as they want to support it. Better hope they don't pull an S3, Number Nine, 3DFX, et al. on you!
>What if in the future, the Raedon 12500 XP Pro specs aren't released? Good bye ATI 3D.
Huh? Will my original Radeon all of a sudden stop working because a new one is realsed?
When they stop providing support for newer cards, this will affect future purchasing decisions. At least they can't hold me hostage into buying their new cards by not supporting older ones (or gasp! try to hold me hostage attempting to make me buy a proprietary OS if they give up on Linux).
I think my old Radeon (the one I bought with Open Source support) will continue to work in Linux long after your card requires revisions of software that don't work with anything made that decade.
>No thanks, I'd rather have a product that works fully NOW, including FSAA and hardware T&L (yeah, ATI drivers don't have that), rather than rant on about some damn licensing problemwhich isn't even an issue.
Just like I said. Fast and loose. I prefer slow and stable.
Pick your poison.
Don't come crying to anyone about your latest Nvidia card not working in Linux, though. It will fall on deaf ears, just as yours are deaf to the cries of open source software.
>You obviously have no idea how NVidia's cards work.
You obviously don't know how to set up a proper counter argument.
Let's pick it apart, shall we?
>Every NVidia chipset, on every platform, uses the same driver code.
Yes. But closed source.
>This totally negates points 4 and 5, and effectively negates point 1 and 6,
It does? You mean because their cards all use the same closed-source code they can avoid releasing updates for the kernel and X?
Wrong. Here's the counterpoint: The VGA code in the kernel is the same on every card. Yet it has undergone updates. VGA is supported by many more cards yet it made no difference. Therefore points 4 and 5 stand as regards to Nvidia cards.
Why do you think they will keep updating their closed-source drivers because their cards are the same? You are making no sense. If they drop linux, they will drop it. Plonk! No support for any cards, old or new. Points 1 and 6 stand.
>since as long as they make windows dirvers, the cost to port them to linux is almost zero for them, so they'll probably continue to do it.
Ahh, ok. I see. You are saying that because the effort involved in porting from one to the other is zero they will continue in the future.
You obviously have no idea about the political decisions companies have been known to make. Reply with business sense next time.
>Point 4 makes no sense, since the kernel loader is open source, and compiles on any kernel.
You obviously don't know how the kernel works! If they change it enough, trust me, there's absolutely no way that closed source module will fit.
Give it a couple of years. Tell me if kernel 3.0 will compile against the first revision of the closed source drivers Nvidia released, using whatever hacking you need in the open source section. If it's successful, tell me if your kernel panics when you insert the module. I think it'll break horribly.
>As for point 2, the drivers support the full range of features on the card
That's just peachy. I guess you put 100% trust in Nvidia, even though they've been known to perform the same dirty tricks as ATi to fake performance in their cards.
Personally, if I can't see it work, I won't trust it.
>(including TV out with no gay macrovision *ahem ATI lovers*)
Great. And when they decide to change that your recourse is... ? Run an outdated version of the code?
>so what more could I add?
Counterpoints that make sense, perhaps?
>As for point 3 and 5, it is up to the XFree86 team to make sure that binary XFree drivers work with new XFree versions, not NVidia.
Now you really show you don't have a clue.
XFree has no obligation to keep their software compatible with outdated binaries. Look how long DOS was supported in the MS Windows line and just see what it did for them (ugggh hellish nightmares coming to mind)...
Its called X, not XP. Get with the times. Continuing support for binaries in Linux was dead from the start.
>So that pretty much destryos your whol arguement. Any more FUD?
No, but then again I was right to start with and there's no FUD in my argument. Any more lies from you?
And also don't forget that because the drivers are closed Nvidia can:
- Stop making updates when linux isn't so "hot"
- Stop you from adding features
- Stop you from making modifications to make the binaries work with your system
- Stop supporting newer kernel revisions
- Stop supporting newer X releases
- Stop support for older cards
- Stop support for "clone" cards (should they be made)
- Make you pay for updates
And many, many, many other uncontrollable thinigs.
Fortunately, with open source, most all of those problems can be avoided.
I'd take slow and reliable over fast and loose any day. But that's just me.
[Chorus]
KPMG, we're strong as can be
The team of power and energy
We go for the gold
Together we hold, On to our vision of global strategy
(kpmg chorus sung cannon with just 'KPMG' once slowly + quietly in the background)
We create
We innovate
We pass the ones that are late
A global team
This is our dream of success that we create
We'll be #1
With effort and fun
Together each of us we run for gold
That charge like the sun in our eyes
The time is right
To lead the way
We share the same idea that may
Wend by the end of the day
Our strength is here to stay
I didn't see what energy was there to be which seems to be
These are the words that will lead us into our new world
(chorus sung cannon)
(chorus sung cannon)
(chorus sung cannon/w increased tempo and pitch)
(chorus sung cannon with opera type overtones)
So, when will Will Shatner do a remix of this for us?;-)
[corrections appreciated]
BTW: Is this song totally coprighted? It would make good fodder for my radio show...
>Nah, he owes nothing... sure, it's a lot of fun to screw around with spammers, but hope the guy realizes that one can't accept a contract by sending an email.
Now that's interesting. Does this mean if I buy something via email I don't have to pay if I don't want to?
Take it a step further... does that mean you can take whatever product the spammer sends you via email (such as email spamming software that they always try to push) and not pay them?
>For some bizarre processors, a byte is a single bit; you might want to disregard this rule in those cases to preserve your sanity.
'Bin there, done that. Not with real software, fortuantely, but with ainchent PLCs. [Didn't have to do much either since they were pretty much all malfunctioning -- got an easy pass in that class!]:-)
But I'm talking about the definitions which, over time, are written overwhelmingly in the most computer textbooks. You'd be hard pressed to find a computer book from most decades where computers were popular (70's-up) that would describe a byte as anything but 8 bits.
>I think the width of (integer) registers and/or execution units is a better measure of word width (aka the "bittyness" of a CPU), since that says more about the programming model of the CPU in question
Very right, and that's why the "word" definition is usually left pretty loose in textbooks. I'd probably say an Athlon has a 32-bit word, since virtual the mode is what's most used on it.
>Being primarily a software dude, that's more interesting to me than the width of the bus.
Totally understood. But imagine programming software nowadays if every texbook had a different definition of bits and bytes.
Computer memory sizes are a bit like Imperial vs. US measurements in that they vary. But fortunately when you pick one (eg. US or x86) the measurements stay the same.
Anyways, KB has never changed once to the best of my knowledge. But then again, I've never played about with core memory, so maybe I haven't been "in the business" long enough.:)
No rights to profit on most of Earth
on
Electronic Paper
·
· Score: 2
>If I write a book, and get it published, I have a right to be financially rewarded for my creative work.
[sarcasm on] And if I create software and get it published, I have the right to be financially rewarded for it. If I don't get financially rewarded for it then I suppose I have the right to sue people into buying the software. [/sarcasm]
You haven't a clue about business.
In business, you make products that people want to buy. This means if your book sucks or is over-priced people won't buy it and you lose.
I don't weep for you any more than I would weep if the X-Box didn't make it. If your book isn't being sold its because of one of these basic marketing ideas:
- Your book sucks.
- Your book costs too much
- Your book delivers too little
- The competition's book is better
- The restrictions you put on the book's use have scared people away
- Your book isn't written in the same language of those you are targetting
- etc.
Common, do it, sue me for not buying your book. I really need a laugh. That and I really need some $$$ countersuing someone for a frivilous lawsuit.
Oh, and if people are making digital copies of your book then this is why:
- They are cheap and wouldn't have bought it to start with
- They found your book somewhat useful but you wanted more than they wanted to spend
- They looked at it for a few minutes and didn't even bother saving it because it sucked
As far as cheap people go, you'll never make money off them. They'd do without rather than buy your book. Don't believe me? Ask how many home users of MS Office 2k would buy it at its opening price of $800.
If you want sales and aren't getting any, give a few copies to your friends and get them to write some margin notes and actually (gasp!) make the book into something they would want to buy.
>without people buying books these people will all be out of a job.
Sorry to hear your job will be replaced in the 21st century. I guess you're joining all the office clerks who weren't needed when computers replaced their jobs.
Maybe you should either consider a career change or a market change if the future scares you.
>You know, every time I hear someone parrot "Information wants to be free" I translate it as "I want everything handed to me on a plate and I shouldn't have to pay for it".
You know, ever time I hear someone say they have the right to be compensated for their time I translate it as "My company makes a crappy product and no one is buying it so our best business plan is to force them to buy it with laws!".
>Also, if everybody uses the K=1000 unit, wouldn't that be the standard? Stop whining about it.
If all companies started quoting that "laptop" kg were 5% lighter than "real" kg would you be so willing to accept it?
Just as firm and fast as the Kilobyte, the kg is predefinded and simply does not change no matter what kind of history-changing a company wants to do.
1 kg = 1000 grams
1 bit = On or Off
1 nybble = 2^2 bits
1 byte = 2^3 bits
1 word = Memory bus width on your computer. Probably 2^4 or 2^5 bits.
1 k = 2^10 bytes
And that's the way it is. Its been standard like that for decades, I see no reason to let Maxtor/WD/Fujitsu et al. warp reality.
Next thing you know they will be telling me my car gets 100 mpg, or my microwave is 10kWatts. Impossible you say! No -- those are "Car" miles and "Microwave" watts.
So, does your binary-only OS come with comments embedded in the executables?
If not, how can you possibly know that there's not lines like:
/* I hope they never really want to try this */
In the source?
>Most companies won't go with Linux because of the fact if something breaks they can't submit a bug report and withhold payment until it gets fixed.
Yeah, I'd like to see a company withhold payment from a software company till a bug is fixed.
I'd still not have paid for Windows 95 yet if this were possible.
>We don't hire OS programmers for the very reason that we buy our OS, we're DSP engineers.
Here's a quick question:
How much do you spend to "rent" your OS? Is it less than getting a programmer part-time to fixup the Linux kernel to your specs?
Just wondering.
>Once I go 6 months without a story on/. where a major fault has been introduced or missed in the Linux kernel I may rethink my opinion but until then I'll be suggesting that we buy our RTOS.
When I go 6 months without a vendor lieing to me that their software is A-OK I'll start purchasing more closed-source software.
Thanks for the help, but the only option that comes close is:
Show your real email address without cowering behind childish anonymity or obfuscation
But still, I can't choose my method of spam-proofing anymore since this displays your real email address, which if you change, you have to confirm by sending an email from the account (which, if properly spam-proofed, doesn't exist).:-(
Slashdot seemed to run much better on the old code. Oh well. Can't win them all.
Use LCD monitors for the desktops, and use computer "baskets" to hold the computers under the desk.
This increases the price, but they still will cost less than equivalent laptops, and retain the same "upgradeability".
My college chose not to go the LCD route, and instead designed a very cool desk with two levels.
The bottom "level" covers the entire desk and is at a normal desk height. Above that there is a shelf no wider than the base of the average monitor. This shelf is about 1/4" higher than the keyboard which sits on the bottom level.
Now when the student doesn't want to use the computer and instead wants to read a book, they push the keyboard under the shelf, and (as Serge would say) voila! you have a desk that is quite close to being empty. You lose about 8" of space because the monitor shelf is in the way, but that hasn't proven to be a big loss. Using LCDs would virtually eliminate that loss, and getting LCDs that can tilt out of the way eliminates the view problem.
Maybe I should be an interior decorator. They say programming is an art...
Our school solved this problem a decade ago by offsetting the blackboard from the computers. No, I won't tell you the angle. Hopefully you might be able to use some "new math" to figure it out.
Wow. If this is the level of education that teachers have to give its no wonder I gave up on my teachers years ago.
>There is more to tech in the classroom than you have even begun to contemplate.
And there's more to teaching than taking up the opportunity to chastise someone younger than yourself whenever they have an independent thought (tm). Didn't they teach you this when you were a child?
(This is, of course, assuming you are actually a teacher).
Most people in the world consider it dishonest to take someones work and purposely obscure their name from it so that they can put their name on it. (ie: Taking the glory when you've done no work).
It's plagarism, and I suppose you could say you want your work plagarized, so if that's what people licensing BSD code want people to do, well, maybe more people should be doing it.:-)
I think I should suggest to Microsoft they take BSD OS, rip all the references to BSD out of it (except in the binaries), and market it as Xenix generation 2.
>FreeBSD is the "lets all share and co-operate as much as possible" license
BSD is the license that let Microsoft steal your various IP utilities (FTP, et al.) and integrate them into their proprietary OS without giving back.
Do a grep for "regents" sometime in C:\windows (or wherever you find a windows install).
>GPL is the "lets all try to stop/ban proprietary software" type of license.
Yup. That's because GPL programmers don't want MS (and others) to lift sections of their code verbatim and call it theirs.
Do you notice that the level of difficulty of finding out who wrote ftp.exe on windows is way beyond the abilities of anyone who is a windows sysadmin? May as well be written by MS for all they know.
>FreeBSD allows even proprietary (closed-source) developers to contribute to open-source projects and still use the results in their own work/projects. This is a win for everybody.
That's interesting. Is MS working on Windows for BSD as co-operation for "using" BSD code?
Clearly, the BSD license is a big win for corporations, not such a big win for the "little guy".
>GPL is NOT about SHARING. You can share without GPL.
GPL is about HONESTY in sharing. Dishonest companies can lift BSD code without the slightest worry. Only honest companies committed to open source can use GPL.
>Well, of course I can't speak for all tube amp owners, but for me it is aesthetic.
If that is the reason, I can see why it would be hard to be satisfied with solid state. But, for me, I've never been partial to beauty in simplicity, and I guess that's why I have this horrible tangle of cables behind my computer right now.:-)
>If there were an "Analog CD" which recorded an analog signal which could then be played back using a laser rather than a stylus - that would be a true replacement technology.
Heh... you need a laserdisc player. 100% analog, all done with a laser reading aluminum. I can't comment too much on the sound reproduction quality, but most videophiles thought it was excellent.
The discs themselves had record-like properties -- you could see areas with lots of action, and you could see areas with very little action. And the spiral would shine in a similar way to a record.
Unfortunately, laserdiscs are prone to "laser rot", since they aren't as well designed as CDs.
>Tubes are easier on my ears, and CDs are easier to use. A winning (though not "true obsessed audiophile") combination!
No problem. I guess I see what you're all on about now...
Slashdot Mirror
I know you know this already, but you do hit on a problem.
:/
>God forbid you don't have the exact version of a library in the exact place that a new program expects.
/etc/ld.so.conf is your friend. Should be in bold in more books!
>God forbid you want to cut and paste something from one window to another.
I found out by mistake that you select with left and paste with middle. Again, why is this not in more books!
Argh! Linux books suck! Not linux!
>Linux IS difficult to use. Worse than that it's annoying a lot of the time.
Yes, a little annoying. Not that difficult to use though -- just VERY poorly documented. Then again, that's mostly why its annoying.
>Exactly what do you do to "break down the solution" when you're trying to explain why 1 + 1 = 2?
:)
Not really that hard.
Just put it in a frame of reference they understand.
Here's one apple.
Lets add one more apple to what you have.
How many apples? Two.
What if I gave you two more apples (hand them two more)?
That's four apples.
For zero you just say zero is how many apples are left when they've eaten them all.
Subtraction is taught by taking away apples from the child. Fractions are taught by cutting the apple up into pieces. etc... etc...
Division is best taught in groups. You have 30 apples to split evenly between 5 people. 5 into 30 is 6 apples each.
Multiplication and negative numbers, IIRC, were the hardest of all to learn. Oh well.
Well, to the vaguest of my memories, this is how I learned math.
>any card they make will continue to function until the end of time.
You are telling me something about the hardware, not the software.
Yes, I agree, their hardware is nice. We are talking about software in this thread, not hardware.
Please stay on topic!
>and still not have these crashes that shepd speaks of
Why is it people are having such a hard time looking into the future?
Yes, your card runs well now. Kernel 2.6 (or whatever) is coming up.
Tell me then how much support for Nvidia you feel.
>Wrong. Here's the counterpoint: The VGA code in the kernel is the same on every card. Yet it has undergone updates. VGA is supported by many more cards yet it made no difference. Therefore points 4 and 5 stand as regards to Nvidia cards.
:-) Remember how SoundBlaster dropped support for the Cyrix processor in Windows way back when? All they had to do was recompile their drivers for the 486 but they wouldn't.
>This paragraph makes no sense, grammatical or otherwise, so I don't know how to respond.
Sorry for the imperfect english. I was kind enough to skip over yours and was hoping you might do the same for me.
Let me explain it.
Lets say in Subject A situation 1 occurs.
Subject B is identical to Subject A except that subject B was created at a later time.
Barring differences occuring over time (and in my example there's been none) then situation 1 should occur to Subject B. ie: VGA drivers vs. Nvidia drivers. What happened above to the VGA support will happen to Nvidia support.
Is that a little more clear?
>This would totally not be in NVidia's best intrest, and they are not idiots. It only makes sound financial sense to continue selling and supporting a product that costs a minimal amount to support.
I can't come up with examples right now, but it wouldn't be the first time a company has dropped support for a product even if requires absolute minimal effort.
Oh wait, I just did...
Even today, most companies still provide 486 compatible [closed source] Windows drivers today because the financial hardship imposed by compiling for another fully compatible processor is nil. Yet a company as big as Creative Labs wouldn't do it.
If Creative Labs would do that for hardware, why not Nvidia with software?
Nvidia might have no good reason to discontinue support. That is until Linus (or another important Linux member... I'm thinking RMS) does something to anger them (like Cyrix did to Creative). Then they'll drop Linux like a hot potato.
>"We can't trust NVidia to maintain the drivers, therefore they are bad. The only way we know for sure the drivers will be updated is to have open source ones." Well, let me put his to you: The only reason accellerated 3D works on Raedon at all is because ATI has been providing specs to the open source community. Don't believe me?
Oh, I believe you. But now the comminuty has the specs and can continue support for the ATi Radeon into perpetuity.
Nvidia users can only wish to be so lucky.
I don't base my high-price hardware decisions on maybes and "good vibes". I like to base them on hard facts. The hard fact is that (barring a lack of knowledge) one can keep their Radeon working in Linux (and in any other operating system) for as long as they want.
With an Nvidia card you will only have support on systems they want to support, and only for as long as they want to support it. Better hope they don't pull an S3, Number Nine, 3DFX, et al. on you!
>What if in the future, the Raedon 12500 XP Pro specs aren't released? Good bye ATI 3D.
Huh? Will my original Radeon all of a sudden stop working because a new one is realsed?
When they stop providing support for newer cards, this will affect future purchasing decisions. At least they can't hold me hostage into buying their new cards by not supporting older ones (or gasp! try to hold me hostage attempting to make me buy a proprietary OS if they give up on Linux).
I think my old Radeon (the one I bought with Open Source support) will continue to work in Linux long after your card requires revisions of software that don't work with anything made that decade.
>No thanks, I'd rather have a product that works fully NOW, including FSAA and hardware T&L (yeah, ATI drivers don't have that), rather than rant on about some damn licensing problemwhich isn't even an issue.
Just like I said. Fast and loose. I prefer slow and stable.
Pick your poison.
Don't come crying to anyone about your latest Nvidia card not working in Linux, though. It will fall on deaf ears, just as yours are deaf to the cries of open source software.
>You obviously have no idea how NVidia's cards work.
You obviously don't know how to set up a proper counter argument.
Let's pick it apart, shall we?
>Every NVidia chipset, on every platform, uses the same driver code.
Yes. But closed source.
>This totally negates points 4 and 5, and effectively negates point 1 and 6,
It does? You mean because their cards all use the same closed-source code they can avoid releasing updates for the kernel and X?
Wrong. Here's the counterpoint: The VGA code in the kernel is the same on every card. Yet it has undergone updates. VGA is supported by many more cards yet it made no difference. Therefore points 4 and 5 stand as regards to Nvidia cards.
Why do you think they will keep updating their closed-source drivers because their cards are the same? You are making no sense. If they drop linux, they will drop it. Plonk! No support for any cards, old or new. Points 1 and 6 stand.
>since as long as they make windows dirvers, the cost to port them to linux is almost zero for them, so they'll probably continue to do it.
Ahh, ok. I see. You are saying that because the effort involved in porting from one to the other is zero they will continue in the future.
You obviously have no idea about the political decisions companies have been known to make. Reply with business sense next time.
>Point 4 makes no sense, since the kernel loader is open source, and compiles on any kernel.
You obviously don't know how the kernel works! If they change it enough, trust me, there's absolutely no way that closed source module will fit.
Give it a couple of years. Tell me if kernel 3.0 will compile against the first revision of the closed source drivers Nvidia released, using whatever hacking you need in the open source section. If it's successful, tell me if your kernel panics when you insert the module. I think it'll break horribly.
>As for point 2, the drivers support the full range of features on the card
That's just peachy. I guess you put 100% trust in Nvidia, even though they've been known to perform the same dirty tricks as ATi to fake performance in their cards.
Personally, if I can't see it work, I won't trust it.
>(including TV out with no gay macrovision *ahem ATI lovers*)
Great. And when they decide to change that your recourse is... ? Run an outdated version of the code?
>so what more could I add?
Counterpoints that make sense, perhaps?
>As for point 3 and 5, it is up to the XFree86 team to make sure that binary XFree drivers work with new XFree versions, not NVidia.
Now you really show you don't have a clue.
XFree has no obligation to keep their software compatible with outdated binaries. Look how long DOS was supported in the MS Windows line and just see what it did for them (ugggh hellish nightmares coming to mind)...
Its called X, not XP. Get with the times. Continuing support for binaries in Linux was dead from the start.
>So that pretty much destryos your whol arguement. Any more FUD?
No, but then again I was right to start with and there's no FUD in my argument. Any more lies from you?
And also don't forget that because the drivers are closed Nvidia can:
- Stop making updates when linux isn't so "hot"
- Stop you from adding features
- Stop you from making modifications to make the binaries work with your system
- Stop supporting newer kernel revisions
- Stop supporting newer X releases
- Stop support for older cards
- Stop support for "clone" cards (should they be made)
- Make you pay for updates
And many, many, many other uncontrollable thinigs.
Fortunately, with open source, most all of those problems can be avoided.
I'd take slow and reliable over fast and loose any day. But that's just me.
The lyrics are here:
/w increased tempo and pitch)
;-)
[Sung Alto]
[Chorus]
KPMG, we're strong as can be
The team of power and energy
We go for the gold
Together we hold, On to our vision of global strategy
(kpmg chorus sung cannon with just 'KPMG' once slowly + quietly in the background)
We create
We innovate
We pass the ones that are late
A global team
This is our dream of success that we create
We'll be #1
With effort and fun
Together each of us we run for gold
That charge like the sun in our eyes
(Entire chorus sung cannon)
(Entire chorus sung cannon)
The time is right
To lead the way
We share the same idea that may
Wend by the end of the day
Our strength is here to stay
I didn't see what energy was there to be which seems to be
These are the words that will lead us into our new world
(chorus sung cannon)
(chorus sung cannon)
(chorus sung cannon
(chorus sung cannon with opera type overtones)
So, when will Will Shatner do a remix of this for us?
[corrections appreciated]
BTW: Is this song totally coprighted? It would make good fodder for my radio show...
"There's no such thing as bad advertising" -- Some famous marketing dude
>Nah, he owes nothing... sure, it's a lot of fun to screw around with spammers, but hope the guy realizes that one can't accept a contract by sending an email.
Now that's interesting. Does this mean if I buy something via email I don't have to pay if I don't want to?
Take it a step further... does that mean you can take whatever product the spammer sends you via email (such as email spamming software that they always try to push) and not pay them?
Sounds like a great way to rip them off!
>For some bizarre processors, a byte is a single bit; you might want to disregard this rule in those cases to preserve your sanity.
:-)
:)
'Bin there, done that. Not with real software, fortuantely, but with ainchent PLCs. [Didn't have to do much either since they were pretty much all malfunctioning -- got an easy pass in that class!]
But I'm talking about the definitions which, over time, are written overwhelmingly in the most computer textbooks. You'd be hard pressed to find a computer book from most decades where computers were popular (70's-up) that would describe a byte as anything but 8 bits.
>I think the width of (integer) registers and/or execution units is a better measure of word width (aka the "bittyness" of a CPU), since that says more about the programming model of the CPU in question
Very right, and that's why the "word" definition is usually left pretty loose in textbooks. I'd probably say an Athlon has a 32-bit word, since virtual the mode is what's most used on it.
>Being primarily a software dude, that's more interesting to me than the width of the bus.
Totally understood. But imagine programming software nowadays if every texbook had a different definition of bits and bytes.
Computer memory sizes are a bit like Imperial vs. US measurements in that they vary. But fortunately when you pick one (eg. US or x86) the measurements stay the same.
Anyways, KB has never changed once to the best of my knowledge. But then again, I've never played about with core memory, so maybe I haven't been "in the business" long enough.
>If I write a book, and get it published, I have a right to be financially rewarded for my creative work.
[sarcasm on] And if I create software and get it published, I have the right to be financially rewarded for it. If I don't get financially rewarded for it then I suppose I have the right to sue people into buying the software. [/sarcasm]
You haven't a clue about business.
In business, you make products that people want to buy. This means if your book sucks or is over-priced people won't buy it and you lose.
I don't weep for you any more than I would weep if the X-Box didn't make it. If your book isn't being sold its because of one of these basic marketing ideas:
- Your book sucks.
- Your book costs too much
- Your book delivers too little
- The competition's book is better
- The restrictions you put on the book's use have scared people away
- Your book isn't written in the same language of those you are targetting
- etc.
Common, do it, sue me for not buying your book. I really need a laugh. That and I really need some $$$ countersuing someone for a frivilous lawsuit.
Oh, and if people are making digital copies of your book then this is why:
- They are cheap and wouldn't have bought it to start with
- They found your book somewhat useful but you wanted more than they wanted to spend
- They looked at it for a few minutes and didn't even bother saving it because it sucked
As far as cheap people go, you'll never make money off them. They'd do without rather than buy your book. Don't believe me? Ask how many home users of MS Office 2k would buy it at its opening price of $800.
If you want sales and aren't getting any, give a few copies to your friends and get them to write some margin notes and actually (gasp!) make the book into something they would want to buy.
>without people buying books these people will all be out of a job.
Sorry to hear your job will be replaced in the 21st century. I guess you're joining all the office clerks who weren't needed when computers replaced their jobs.
Maybe you should either consider a career change or a market change if the future scares you.
>You know, every time I hear someone parrot "Information wants to be free" I translate it as "I want everything handed to me on a plate and I shouldn't have to pay for it".
You know, ever time I hear someone say they have the right to be compensated for their time I translate it as "My company makes a crappy product and no one is buying it so our best business plan is to force them to buy it with laws!".
>I'm still suffering with LAME and NotLame notcompiles and I don't know how to write to my CD player with Linux.
:-)
Email me and I can (try to) help you with that.
My email user name is: realuzer
Me email server is: hotmail.com
Piece it together.
>Also, if everybody uses the K=1000 unit, wouldn't that be the standard? Stop whining about it.
If all companies started quoting that "laptop" kg were 5% lighter than "real" kg would you be so willing to accept it?
Just as firm and fast as the Kilobyte, the kg is predefinded and simply does not change no matter what kind of history-changing a company wants to do.
1 kg = 1000 grams
1 bit = On or Off
1 nybble = 2^2 bits
1 byte = 2^3 bits
1 word = Memory bus width on your computer. Probably 2^4 or 2^5 bits.
1 k = 2^10 bytes
And that's the way it is. Its been standard like that for decades, I see no reason to let Maxtor/WD/Fujitsu et al. warp reality.
Next thing you know they will be telling me my car gets 100 mpg, or my microwave is 10kWatts. Impossible you say! No -- those are "Car" miles and "Microwave" watts.
So, does your binary-only OS come with comments embedded in the executables?
/. where a major fault has been introduced or missed in the Linux kernel I may rethink my opinion but until then I'll be suggesting that we buy our RTOS.
If not, how can you possibly know that there's not lines like:
/* I hope they never really want to try this */
In the source?
>Most companies won't go with Linux because of the fact if something breaks they can't submit a bug report and withhold payment until it gets fixed.
Yeah, I'd like to see a company withhold payment from a software company till a bug is fixed.
I'd still not have paid for Windows 95 yet if this were possible.
>We don't hire OS programmers for the very reason that we buy our OS, we're DSP engineers.
Here's a quick question:
How much do you spend to "rent" your OS? Is it less than getting a programmer part-time to fixup the Linux kernel to your specs?
Just wondering.
>Once I go 6 months without a story on
When I go 6 months without a vendor lieing to me that their software is A-OK I'll start purchasing more closed-source software.
>what good is the info?
You could firewall their entire netblock into oblivion.
If you run an internet router, drop all their port 80 packets.
If more service providers would do this then perhaps lazy companies would smarten up pretty quick if the internet they've paid for becomes useless.
Thanks for the help, but the only option that comes close is:
:-(
Show your real email address without cowering behind childish anonymity or obfuscation
But still, I can't choose my method of spam-proofing anymore since this displays your real email address, which if you change, you have to confirm by sending an email from the account (which, if properly spam-proofed, doesn't exist).
Slashdot seemed to run much better on the old code. Oh well. Can't win them all.
>Still doesn't solve the desk-space issue though.
:-)
I got that one in the bag.
Use LCD monitors for the desktops, and use computer "baskets" to hold the computers under the desk.
This increases the price, but they still will cost less than equivalent laptops, and retain the same "upgradeability".
My college chose not to go the LCD route, and instead designed a very cool desk with two levels.
The bottom "level" covers the entire desk and is at a normal desk height. Above that there is a shelf no wider than the base of the average monitor. This shelf is about 1/4" higher than the keyboard which sits on the bottom level.
Now when the student doesn't want to use the computer and instead wants to read a book, they push the keyboard under the shelf, and (as Serge would say) voila! you have a desk that is quite close to being empty. You lose about 8" of space because the monitor shelf is in the way, but that hasn't proven to be a big loss. Using LCDs would virtually eliminate that loss, and getting LCDs that can tilt out of the way eliminates the view problem.
Maybe I should be an interior decorator. They say programming is an art...
>You obviously are not an educator.
And you are obviously not an interior decorator.
Our school solved this problem a decade ago by offsetting the blackboard from the computers. No, I won't tell you the angle. Hopefully you might be able to use some "new math" to figure it out.
Wow. If this is the level of education that teachers have to give its no wonder I gave up on my teachers years ago.
>There is more to tech in the classroom than you have even begun to contemplate.
And there's more to teaching than taking up the opportunity to chastise someone younger than yourself whenever they have an independent thought (tm). Didn't they teach you this when you were a child?
(This is, of course, assuming you are actually a teacher).
>not ugly graphics of Xfree
Wouldn't that be a problem with the window manager, not the program that simply interprets what dots are to be drawn on the screen?
>Either free incoming or "caller pays" incoming, the way real telcos do it.
:-)
Any company who does this is just asking for abuse.
Callback verification and three-way calling. Think about them for a moment, and combine the ideas.
Hmmm, maybe we should push for this billing option after all!
Most people in the world consider it dishonest to take someones work and purposely obscure their name from it so that they can put their name on it. (ie: Taking the glory when you've done no work).
:-)
It's plagarism, and I suppose you could say you want your work plagarized, so if that's what people licensing BSD code want people to do, well, maybe more people should be doing it.
I think I should suggest to Microsoft they take BSD OS, rip all the references to BSD out of it (except in the binaries), and market it as Xenix generation 2.
>FreeBSD is the "lets all share and co-operate as much as possible" license
BSD is the license that let Microsoft steal your various IP utilities (FTP, et al.) and integrate them into their proprietary OS without giving back.
Do a grep for "regents" sometime in C:\windows (or wherever you find a windows install).
>GPL is the "lets all try to stop/ban proprietary software" type of license.
Yup. That's because GPL programmers don't want MS (and others) to lift sections of their code verbatim and call it theirs.
Do you notice that the level of difficulty of finding out who wrote ftp.exe on windows is way beyond the abilities of anyone who is a windows sysadmin? May as well be written by MS for all they know.
>FreeBSD allows even proprietary (closed-source) developers to contribute to open-source projects and still use the results in their own work/projects. This is a win for everybody.
That's interesting. Is MS working on Windows for BSD as co-operation for "using" BSD code?
Clearly, the BSD license is a big win for corporations, not such a big win for the "little guy".
>GPL is NOT about SHARING. You can share without GPL.
GPL is about HONESTY in sharing. Dishonest companies can lift BSD code without the slightest worry. Only honest companies committed to open source can use GPL.
>Well, of course I can't speak for all tube amp owners, but for me it is aesthetic.
:-)
If that is the reason, I can see why it would be hard to be satisfied with solid state. But, for me, I've never been partial to beauty in simplicity, and I guess that's why I have this horrible tangle of cables behind my computer right now.
>If there were an "Analog CD" which recorded an analog signal which could then be played back using a laser rather than a stylus - that would be a true replacement technology.
Heh... you need a laserdisc player. 100% analog, all done with a laser reading aluminum. I can't comment too much on the sound reproduction quality, but most videophiles thought it was excellent.
The discs themselves had record-like properties -- you could see areas with lots of action, and you could see areas with very little action. And the spiral would shine in a similar way to a record.
Unfortunately, laserdiscs are prone to "laser rot", since they aren't as well designed as CDs.
>Tubes are easier on my ears, and CDs are easier to use. A winning (though not "true obsessed audiophile") combination!
No problem. I guess I see what you're all on about now...
>"perceived loudness" != "power output"
Generally a perceived increase in loudness when there isn't an increase in power output signifies a spike in the voice frequency range.
Just check out how much louder a 1 kHz test tone is compared with 100 hz and 10 kHz.
If there is a perceived increase in power, then I think there's a good chance there's something wrong with the test.