Just get a regular Chromebook, unlock it and install Linux.
That depends on whether the unlocking process also disables the firmware's "security feature" of begging the user to reenable "OS verification", which wipes the drive and reinstalls the stock OS. If someone unwittingly activates a wipe, you lose all uncommitted work and the use of the laptop until you return home to the recovery media.
I only recall seeing that on powerup and its a quite easy thing to answer "no" to. Never perceived it as a problem. In normal day-to-day work the device was just sleeping and waking and I don't recall any such prompt.
Also, nothing of value should exist on a single storage device. On the road I'll carry an encrypted USB stick to backup important files to periodically. There is not excuse for not having a backup.
Problem here is this process is highly inefficient and would turn the entire ANNUAL "output" of American rectums into 1.5 days worth of oil consumption.
As we increase our use of electric that waste will satisfy an increasing amount of our consumption.
32 million from sewage conversion is just a rounding error.
Or a drop in the bucket.
since the sewage comes out at many disparate locations across the country, building one of these plants at every sewer plant might not even be worth the hassle.
It depends entirely on the size and complexity of the plant. Plus fuel production may not be the only benefit. This new system also replaces whatever the current treatment and processing system is. There might be some sort of gain there.
Oil and internal combustion engines are not the problems. The problem is a fuel that is made from sequestered carbon, carbon not part of the current atmosphere. If the fuel is made from carbon already in the atmosphere it does not necessarily contribute to climate change. Only introducing additional carbon contributes to climate change.
The preceding is more apparent when the carbon is coming out of the atmosphere directly, for example when bacteria/algae/etc create the fuel. Of course when the carbon is coming out of a "solid" there could very well be a problem, it was "sequestered" and not part of the atmosphere. However that is only looking at one "step". It seems there are two paths for that "solid". (1) Atmosphere -> Plant -> Human and (2) Atmosphere -> Plant -> Animal -> Human. So perhaps there is no net carbon gain?
Your attempt at argument by authority fails. I have done lots of embedded work. Everything from microcontrollers on devices, a custom (non-Linux) kernel and c runtime environment to host applications on custom designed cpu boards, and daemons for embedded Linux environments to monitor/control attached devices.
Again, you fail at reading comprehension. Try reading the number list I provided you again. Android is not Linux, it is merely hosted on Linux. Your own post essentially says this, merely in a contorted manner.
You are an idiot. Android runs on Linux. All Android phones boot a Linux kernel. Stop misinforming people, and off you go now...
You need to work on reading comprehension. I have said:
(1) Android is nothing like a desktop linux.
(2) Android is an operating system in its own right.
(3) Android is hosted on Linux, it is not based on Linux.
(4) Android is not some sort of desktop environment as we find in desktop Linux.
(5) If the Linux kernel were to be replaced with the BSD kernel few would know or care.
Pay particular attention to (3), your "runs on Linux" is a similar but less precise statement; also regarding "boot a Linux kernel", that would be an important step in being hosted by Linux.
What's Windows got to do with it? Just get a regular Chromebook, unlock it and install Linux. Since it was running Linux before unlocking you know the hardware has drivers.
By the way, the National Science Foundation is training researchers in marketing and other traditional business skills. They want to improve the success rate of moving research out of the lab and into the marketplace so they are teaching researchers to do customer discovery, an iterative product development cycle, realistic planning to move from early adopters to a more mainstream market, etc.
This approach is founded on two false premises:
1) The only valuable scientific research is that which results in immediately marketable ideas, processes, and products
That is a false narrative, a straw man. If you had bothered to read the NSF's opening statement you would have known that the goal is to recognize commercial value when present. Please note such words as "can" and "also":
"This program teaches NSF grantees to identify valuable product opportunities that can emerge from academic research, and offers entrepreneurship training to participants by combining experience and guidance from established entrepreneurs through a targeted curriculum.
While knowledge gained from NSF-supported basic research frequently advances a particular field of science or engineering, some results also show immediate potential for broader applicability and commercial impact. I-Corps programs help researchers translate discoveries into technologies with near-term benefits for the economy and society."
2) We have the ability to know beforehand which avenues of inquiry are likely to result in profitable results
Again, straw man. Much of scientific discovery is a surprise, seeing something "strange" and unexpected. The NSF would like scientists to also recognize anything surprising or unexpected that may have a commercial impact, and it would like to train scientists to research and develop these ideas too.
do we really want those sharp and capable scientific minds having to spend time marketing themselves and their work? Wouldn't we be better off letting them get on with what they're already good at and passionate about?
Again, you speak from ignorance and misrepresent the NSF's initiative. Do you have a problem with scientists thinking about commercial and non-academic uses of their discoveries? Should the scientists limit their thinking to what can be published in a scientific journal?
I have built complete Android images from the source, and I can assure you, Android is indeed a Linux based OS. It has a Linux kernel and GNU user space tools. So please stop spreading misinformation. Thanks.
Android is hosted on Linux, it is not based on Linux. Android is basically an operating system, it is not some sort of desktop environment as we find in desktop Linux. If the Linux kernel were to be replaced with the BSD kernel few would know or care, even the majority of Android developers. This misinformation is yours, Android is Linux hosted not Linux based.
Private entrepreneurs, hoping to profit from research by promising researchers should be the ones financing it.
Not quite. The National Science Foundation provides an interesting "bridge" between basic research and an investible opportunity. The goal is to help NSF funded research "escape" from the laboratory. Sometimes a commercialization effort is too early or too high risk for the private investment community. This is where the NSF steps in with SBIR, to help scientists get from pure research to a point where private investors see opportunity. NSF SBIR is a bridge from the lab to Angels and VCs. https://www.nsf.gov/eng/iip/sb...
And the NSF has a training program to make scientists more likely to succeed when they are nearing the "bridge". NSF I-Corp trains researchers in basic product development and business tasks so that they are more likely to succeed with SBIR or private investment. https://www.nsf.gov/news/speci...
That is the single, most stupid take on research I have ever heard. If people like you were running the show, we would still be living in caves.
Not really, when that first researcher came along and proposed making an artificial man-made "cave" wherever wood could be found, it probably would have piqued the interest of the grant committee.:-)
By the way, the National Science Foundation is training researchers in marketing and other traditional business skills. They want to improve the success rate of moving research out of the lab and into the marketplace so they are teaching researchers to do customer discovery, an iterative product development cycle, realistic planning to move from early adopters to a more mainstream market, etc. https://www.nsf.gov/news/speci...
"Linux" can refer to the complete operating system or just the kernel. Linus Torvalds does so, other leading community people do so, various leading linux web sites and magazines do so, etc. The context is clear from the discussion. For example this article discussing desktop linux would indicate the context is the complete operating system and not the merely the kernel.
Linux is already king of the tablet, the phone,...
Linux is not the king of the tablet or phone. It is the peasant behind the scenes doing a few tasks. Android is the king of the tablet and phone and Android is not Linux, it is an operating system in its own right. Android is nothing like a desktop linux.
Twitter has never generated any profit and loses at least $100 Million every year.
Some products are not revenue generators themselves, they are complementary products that support something else that generates revenue. Or there is a hybrid model where it generates some revenue and also supports some other product that also generates revenue. It all depends on the buyer, and a buyer is probably not going to follow the current failed model you are referring to.
That still sticks out so it can hit something and break the port. That isn't a great solution.
It may be a great solution for the Apple Thunderbolt Displays. For laptops in the classroom or kitchen its still probably a good solution, the danger is someone yanking the cord. Banging the laptop, and in such a way to just hit the adapter perfectly, doesn't seem like one of the more common hazards.
The iPhone 6 was not a "spike above the trend", it was a catch-up design following a trend that had existed for years.
We're discussing sales not design, note the article topic. The spike in iPhones sales were related to the 6 and people accelerating their upgrade plans to get the larger screen. The 7 has no features that a large number of people would accelerate their upgrade plans for, they'll get a 7 (or 8) on their normal upgrade schedule. So sales number drop compared to the 6 but are on the trend for a longer term chart.
No, you are not. The idea that iPhones were "right-sized" was purely Jobs spin.
Uh, no. Its an opinion held by many who have carried both a 5 and a 6, each for over a year. The 5 is far more convenient to carry and that convenience outweighs the larger screen size. The reason I have a 6 is that development needs outweigh the convenience. I'll probably get an SE next, the modernized version of the 5.
Jobs had little or nothing to do with the Lisa. In fact, the Mac was considered a rival project within Apple, even though it built upon significant amounts of the Lisa's R&D.
Jobs was involved with the Lisa project from '78 to '82 when he was forced off the project. His design decisions while involved in the project helped doom it.
I'm not sure I'd call having a good size screen that every other manufacturer had been offering for a couple of years "phenomenal".
We're discussing sales not design. The sales were phenomenal, the spike was in the sales.
It's probably the headphone jack. People use it a lot, and they see that the iPhone 7 doesn't have one and the "solution" is a chain of dongles or $120 earbuds they have to charge and void losing, and decide to wait and see what happens next year.
Not really. The "solution" is to use the wired earbuds that come with the phone and plug into the lightning adapter. Most iPhone users use the earbuds that come with the phone. For the few that do otherwise, or need to plug into the car, there is the included dongle. There is one big use case where the current solution is a problem, charging while driving and while having the phone connect to the car. But there are 3rd party two way adapters for that.
Slashdot Mirror
Just get a regular Chromebook, unlock it and install Linux.
That depends on whether the unlocking process also disables the firmware's "security feature" of begging the user to reenable "OS verification", which wipes the drive and reinstalls the stock OS. If someone unwittingly activates a wipe, you lose all uncommitted work and the use of the laptop until you return home to the recovery media.
I only recall seeing that on powerup and its a quite easy thing to answer "no" to. Never perceived it as a problem. In normal day-to-day work the device was just sleeping and waking and I don't recall any such prompt. Also, nothing of value should exist on a single storage device. On the road I'll carry an encrypted USB stick to backup important files to periodically. There is not excuse for not having a backup.
Problem here is this process is highly inefficient and would turn the entire ANNUAL "output" of American rectums into 1.5 days worth of oil consumption.
As we increase our use of electric that waste will satisfy an increasing amount of our consumption.
It doesn't sound to me like this is a part of any carbon cycle
Atmosphere -> Plant -> Human -> Fuel -> Atmosphere
Atmosphere -> Plant -> Animal -> Human -> Fuel -> Atmosphere
32 million from sewage conversion is just a rounding error.
Or a drop in the bucket.
since the sewage comes out at many disparate locations across the country, building one of these plants at every sewer plant might not even be worth the hassle.
It depends entirely on the size and complexity of the plant. Plus fuel production may not be the only benefit. This new system also replaces whatever the current treatment and processing system is. There might be some sort of gain there.
So biodiesel exhaust made from deep frier waste supposedly smells like french fries. The exhaust from the fuel from this process smells like? :-)
Yeah, the pressures and temperatures of this process are different and breaks things into simpler molecules so there is probably no "special odor".
Yeah cuz we really need more oil OK??
Oil and internal combustion engines are not the problems. The problem is a fuel that is made from sequestered carbon, carbon not part of the current atmosphere. If the fuel is made from carbon already in the atmosphere it does not necessarily contribute to climate change. Only introducing additional carbon contributes to climate change.
The preceding is more apparent when the carbon is coming out of the atmosphere directly, for example when bacteria/algae/etc create the fuel. Of course when the carbon is coming out of a "solid" there could very well be a problem, it was "sequestered" and not part of the atmosphere. However that is only looking at one "step". It seems there are two paths for that "solid". (1) Atmosphere -> Plant -> Human and (2) Atmosphere -> Plant -> Animal -> Human. So perhaps there is no net carbon gain?
Your attempt at argument by authority fails. I have done lots of embedded work. Everything from microcontrollers on devices, a custom (non-Linux) kernel and c runtime environment to host applications on custom designed cpu boards, and daemons for embedded Linux environments to monitor/control attached devices.
Again, you fail at reading comprehension. Try reading the number list I provided you again. Android is not Linux, it is merely hosted on Linux. Your own post essentially says this, merely in a contorted manner.
You are an idiot. Android runs on Linux. All Android phones boot a Linux kernel. Stop misinforming people, and off you go now ...
You need to work on reading comprehension. I have said:
(1) Android is nothing like a desktop linux.
(2) Android is an operating system in its own right.
(3) Android is hosted on Linux, it is not based on Linux.
(4) Android is not some sort of desktop environment as we find in desktop Linux.
(5) If the Linux kernel were to be replaced with the BSD kernel few would know or care.
Pay particular attention to (3), your "runs on Linux" is a similar but less precise statement; also regarding "boot a Linux kernel", that would be an important step in being hosted by Linux.
Chromebook build that had Windows
What's Windows got to do with it? Just get a regular Chromebook, unlock it and install Linux. Since it was running Linux before unlocking you know the hardware has drivers.
By the way, the National Science Foundation is training researchers in marketing and other traditional business skills. They want to improve the success rate of moving research out of the lab and into the marketplace so they are teaching researchers to do customer discovery, an iterative product development cycle, realistic planning to move from early adopters to a more mainstream market, etc.
This approach is founded on two false premises:
1) The only valuable scientific research is that which results in immediately marketable ideas, processes, and products
That is a false narrative, a straw man. If you had bothered to read the NSF's opening statement you would have known that the goal is to recognize commercial value when present. Please note such words as "can" and "also":
"This program teaches NSF grantees to identify valuable product opportunities that can emerge from academic research, and offers entrepreneurship training to participants by combining experience and guidance from established entrepreneurs through a targeted curriculum.
While knowledge gained from NSF-supported basic research frequently advances a particular field of science or engineering, some results also show immediate potential for broader applicability and commercial impact. I-Corps programs help researchers translate discoveries into technologies with near-term benefits for the economy and society."
2) We have the ability to know beforehand which avenues of inquiry are likely to result in profitable results
Again, straw man. Much of scientific discovery is a surprise, seeing something "strange" and unexpected. The NSF would like scientists to also recognize anything surprising or unexpected that may have a commercial impact, and it would like to train scientists to research and develop these ideas too.
do we really want those sharp and capable scientific minds having to spend time marketing themselves and their work? Wouldn't we be better off letting them get on with what they're already good at and passionate about?
Again, you speak from ignorance and misrepresent the NSF's initiative. Do you have a problem with scientists thinking about commercial and non-academic uses of their discoveries? Should the scientists limit their thinking to what can be published in a scientific journal?
I have built complete Android images from the source, and I can assure you, Android is indeed a Linux based OS. It has a Linux kernel and GNU user space tools. So please stop spreading misinformation. Thanks.
Android is hosted on Linux, it is not based on Linux. Android is basically an operating system, it is not some sort of desktop environment as we find in desktop Linux. If the Linux kernel were to be replaced with the BSD kernel few would know or care, even the majority of Android developers. This misinformation is yours, Android is Linux hosted not Linux based.
Private entrepreneurs, hoping to profit from research by promising researchers should be the ones financing it.
Not quite. The National Science Foundation provides an interesting "bridge" between basic research and an investible opportunity. The goal is to help NSF funded research "escape" from the laboratory. Sometimes a commercialization effort is too early or too high risk for the private investment community. This is where the NSF steps in with SBIR, to help scientists get from pure research to a point where private investors see opportunity. NSF SBIR is a bridge from the lab to Angels and VCs.
https://www.nsf.gov/eng/iip/sb...
And the NSF has a training program to make scientists more likely to succeed when they are nearing the "bridge". NSF I-Corp trains researchers in basic product development and business tasks so that they are more likely to succeed with SBIR or private investment.
https://www.nsf.gov/news/speci...
That is the single, most stupid take on research I have ever heard. If people like you were running the show, we would still be living in caves.
Not really, when that first researcher came along and proposed making an artificial man-made "cave" wherever wood could be found, it probably would have piqued the interest of the grant committee. :-)
By the way, the National Science Foundation is training researchers in marketing and other traditional business skills. They want to improve the success rate of moving research out of the lab and into the marketplace so they are teaching researchers to do customer discovery, an iterative product development cycle, realistic planning to move from early adopters to a more mainstream market, etc.
https://www.nsf.gov/news/speci...
"Linux" can refer to the complete operating system or just the kernel. Linus Torvalds does so, other leading community people do so, various leading linux web sites and magazines do so, etc. The context is clear from the discussion. For example this article discussing desktop linux would indicate the context is the complete operating system and not the merely the kernel.
Linux is already king of the tablet, the phone, ...
Linux is not the king of the tablet or phone. It is the peasant behind the scenes doing a few tasks. Android is the king of the tablet and phone and Android is not Linux, it is an operating system in its own right. Android is nothing like a desktop linux.
Some products are not revenue generators themselves, they are complementary products that support something else that generates revenue.
True, but I'm struggling to identify revenue-generating something else that Twitter is complementing.
Possibly some news company? Its a fast way to pump out headlines, supply a link to the article on your site?
Twitter has never generated any profit and loses at least $100 Million every year.
Some products are not revenue generators themselves, they are complementary products that support something else that generates revenue. Or there is a hybrid model where it generates some revenue and also supports some other product that also generates revenue. It all depends on the buyer, and a buyer is probably not going to follow the current failed model you are referring to.
That still sticks out so it can hit something and break the port. That isn't a great solution.
It may be a great solution for the Apple Thunderbolt Displays. For laptops in the classroom or kitchen its still probably a good solution, the danger is someone yanking the cord. Banging the laptop, and in such a way to just hit the adapter perfectly, doesn't seem like one of the more common hazards.
Actually there is a new model with escape and function keys. A model without the Touch Bar.
http://www.apple.com/macbook-p...
Unlike Twitter itself, which has been making money hand over fist.
Twitter can be sold and make its investors money. Perhaps not as much as they dreamed of but still a profit.
You are doing it wrong. "Siri, press the escape key" :-)
The iPhone 6 was not a "spike above the trend", it was a catch-up design following a trend that had existed for years.
We're discussing sales not design, note the article topic. The spike in iPhones sales were related to the 6 and people accelerating their upgrade plans to get the larger screen. The 7 has no features that a large number of people would accelerate their upgrade plans for, they'll get a 7 (or 8) on their normal upgrade schedule. So sales number drop compared to the 6 but are on the trend for a longer term chart.
No, you are not. The idea that iPhones were "right-sized" was purely Jobs spin.
Uh, no. Its an opinion held by many who have carried both a 5 and a 6, each for over a year. The 5 is far more convenient to carry and that convenience outweighs the larger screen size. The reason I have a 6 is that development needs outweigh the convenience. I'll probably get an SE next, the modernized version of the 5.
Jobs had little or nothing to do with the Lisa. In fact, the Mac was considered a rival project within Apple, even though it built upon significant amounts of the Lisa's R&D.
Jobs was involved with the Lisa project from '78 to '82 when he was forced off the project. His design decisions while involved in the project helped doom it.
I'm not sure I'd call having a good size screen that every other manufacturer had been offering for a couple of years "phenomenal".
We're discussing sales not design. The sales were phenomenal, the spike was in the sales.
It's probably the headphone jack. People use it a lot, and they see that the iPhone 7 doesn't have one and the "solution" is a chain of dongles or $120 earbuds they have to charge and void losing, and decide to wait and see what happens next year.
Not really. The "solution" is to use the wired earbuds that come with the phone and plug into the lightning adapter. Most iPhone users use the earbuds that come with the phone. For the few that do otherwise, or need to plug into the car, there is the included dongle. There is one big use case where the current solution is a problem, charging while driving and while having the phone connect to the car. But there are 3rd party two way adapters for that.