Speed wise, it's a little sluggish starting up on the salvaged P233/64mb laptops we use, but once it's started (15-30 seconds), there's no noticeable speed difference.
Makes sense. These are not CPU-bound applications, so most of the delay is getting the binaries from disk to RAM. MS Office isn't actually any better, but they have a little autorun program that loads all the dynamic libraries at boot time.
Very sexy. You might be interested in this UK web site I stumbled on while googling the R520. They sell SIM-free European phones that can be delived to North America overnight. Expensive, of course.
I have to thank you for mentioning the sim locking issue, which I was ignorant of. Not a trivial matter if you're buying a third-party GSM phone!
Lust, desire, obsession. I've been thinking about almost exactly your configuration ever since Amazon started offering a T68i bundled with a T-Mobile plan. I mean jeez, having an always-on web browser in your PDA. I'd never be offline again!
Two reasons I haven't done it: I didn't know how well Bluetooth works on a PDA (especially battery drain). I probably would have risked that anyway, except that I'm also out of a job.
Another issue: Amazon no longer sells this phone, and T-Mobile doesn't bundle Bluetooth phones. There's always third-party sources for the phone, of course, but that eliminates the usual phone-service-bundle discount, about $100 in this case. Where'd you get yours?
By the way, anyone missing all those low-power campus and community stations...this has not been standing in the way. If they were there once they worked under the existing rules. Economics has probably led to the demise of most.
Its economics all right, but not the way you mean. There's no grandfather clause for 10-watt radio stations. The ones that are still around are the ones that could afford to upgrade. And in the process, had to become "public" stations with a much bigger reliance on network programming.
The fact that a an FM transmitter can cause problems for the people next door is beside the point. Any electronic device can cause this kind of problem. (It used to be a big issue with computers, before manufacturers got good at making low-emmission systems.) Federal law says that if you own such a device that radiates RF, and somebody experiences interference as a result, you have to fix the problem or shut down. That's true even if the device is a malfunctioning toaster. But if your RF energy does cause anybody any problems, there is no legal issue. This rule works find for everybody else. Why do we need a special rule for FM transmitters?
You're right about Slashdot being the wrong place to ask for legal advice. Or any kind of advice that doesn't rate as Peer Counselling for Geeks. (Though Cliffdoesn'tseemtoagree.) But the legal question is only a small part of the problem. A person in this kind of a situation needs to know more than whether they have a legal rememdy -- they also have to decide whether a legal remedy is worth pursuing. Which is an appropriate question to ask of ones peers.
Then again, this guy seems to be assuming that he only has two choices: play the gigolo, or face losing his consulting contracts. With a little self-esteem and a little tact, one could probably let down a sexually aggressive boss without provoking a crisis. Alas, Slashdotters are not notable for self-esteem or tact. Perhaps the question should be directed to a psychologist. Or an advice columnist. Even an ettiquite expert would probably give better advice!
Yeah, lots of people prefer/need text only services. And it makes sense for T-Mobile to want to provide this service. But a lot more people need a combination of data and voice services. You can get one affordable, or the other affordably, but not both!
(Incidentally, you don't have to be deaf to like text messaging. Asian cell providers have rate plans that make it affordable to get a cell just to send and receive SMS messages -- and message traffic is in the billions. In Europe, where almost all phones have SMS messaging, people appreciate being able to send or receive a quick message without disturbing other people in a meeting, or a theater.)
When I cease being unemployed, I might end up keeping my current CDMA service and getting a GSM phone just for the data service. (Not a Sidekick -- I need Bluetooth.) Seems silly to have to carry two cell phones though.
They've already dropped their prices as far as they can. This is not a commodity product. It's got a lot of proprietary or specialized technology. A lot less than it use to (unlike a Sun workstation, you can plug in an ordinary PC keyboard) but still a lot.
Nor could you sell this kind of specialized system through Best Buy. Sales channels like that barely have the expertise to deal with ordinary PCs, never mind fancy workstations with proprietary OSs.
SGI did try to do a system for the masses: the Indy. But not enough people decided it was a practical alternative to a PC or Mac. Cost them a bundle.
Contrast is a particularly important issue, and not just for the color blind. Too many web sites use color combinations that are hard to use unless you have a pretty good monitor and it's carefully configured and the user has near-perfect color vision.
Here's one thing that I find frustrating: web design pundits love to talk about color palettes, and how using the correct one can supposedly maximize monitor compatibity and sight-impaired accessibility. But that's an obsolete concept, based on video adapter limitations that no longer apply. What I would find useful is sets of color pairs that could be used in combination to maximize contrast, and still design a web site that looks cool in full-color mode.
My previous post was based on research I did a couple of months ago. The plan you're referring to is something they just came up with, which offers unlimited Internet access -- but charges for every single voice call minute!
God, what are these guys thinking of? You can get voice service that's effectively flat-rate (unless you practically live on your cell). Or you can get data service that is flat rate. But you can't get both together.
And if you want to get Bluetooth or infrared connectivity, you have to get your hardware from a third party. Similar weirdnesses appear in the offerings of T-Mobile's competitors. I do not understand the thought processes of U.S. cellular providers!
RDBS is the name of the technology, and it's been around for a long time. Back in the 80s, some people had pocket devices that gave them stock market quote streams. Don't know what other applications there are, but lots of FM radio stations generate a little extra income by providing RDBS services on their sideband. And you can buy RDBS radios that provide program information and such, though they've never been popular. Here's an expensive toy that lets you say "Tune to an oldies station".
Huh. Church of the Subgenius reminds me of Slashdot's more obnoxious trolls. It's hard to tell when they're being sarcastic and when they're being serious. Which is deliberate, because any time you pick a hole in their logic, they can say, "Oh, I was just trolling!"
You don't need to find an unlicensed station to listen to Counterspin. All the public radio stations carry it -- it helps them relieve their "sold out to NPR" guilt. But I find CS's unremitting righteousness thoroughly irritating.
I have to provide a link to my local Free Radio Station. I never listen (they don't play anything to my taste) but I support them on general principle.
Interference was always a straw man. Media monopolies like Clear Channel (yikes! how unintentionally appropriate!) just want to maximize the spectrum available for their musical monoculture.
What I really miss is all those low-power campus and community stations. Yeah, they mostly played crap, but it was local crap. And it was a good way for budding young radio DJs and journalists to break into the field. I've always found it strange that NPR is on the "stop interference!" bandwagon, since all their best people come from the low-power community.
I thought he was referring to the fact that the Chrome Cube reduces to an amorphous shape unless you're looking at it from 2 inches away. Thanks for the correction!
T-Mobile: These guys actually have a decent priced unlimited plan at $29.00 a month. BUT, it looks like their speeds are limited to around 56k. I'd really like more speed, but I suppose that's the trade off for the cheap price.
Never mind the cost. AFAIK, the infrastructure for fast cellular data just isn't there yet. And I have to wonder if it ever will be. It's not as if there's a lot of spectrum available.
I've looked at T-Mobile myself. IIRC, that $30/month isn't an all-you-can-eat plan. And the additional bandwidth charges are pretty steep. It might be affordable for checking your email on the road, provided you configure your client not to download everything every time you check.
The right keyword for Googling cellular data service is GPRS. I personally consider GPRS to be the only cellular data technology worth paying attention to. Though maybe I'm just prejudiced against CDMA-based data services because U.S.-only wireless standards are a major pain.
If you must have a lot of bandwidth on the road, you should consider signing up with a Wireless Hotspot service. Then all you have to do is schlep your way to the nears Borders or Starbucks (neither is in the Gobi Desert yet, but I think they're working on it), plug in your WiFi card, and surf. Or you could just get the WiFi card and look for Free Hotspots or other open networks.
When I worked at SGI (1998) everything had weird color schemes, the walls, the furniture, everything. And strange architecture too. Though the strangest set of buildings just got subleased to Google. Which I guess is about getting away from their "Star Wars" image.
Which is they rebranded in 1998 to make the company logo the letters sgi with the bottoms cut off, as if they were appearing over the horizon. (New motto: "The Solution is in Sight!") But I guess that's even more obscure then the original logo, because now they just use the three letters.
And the original logo is very obscure. It's not a bug! It's the Chrome Cube! The whole point being that you need an SGI workstation to render the damn thing. But nobody ever got that. So sad!
Though honestly, much of MS software is also sold shrinkwrapped. This gives a latency between the final build, documentation print run, CD pressing, packaging and distribution that doesn't exist with something like the linux kernel. During this time development continues, which is why you can have patches for a game or application avaliable before said product is even in wide distribution.
Well, it's possible to have a patch ready before the product is on the shelves. But is it acceptable? The delay between RTM and availablity is only a couple of months. I've worked on a number of shrink-wrap products, and not one of them had enough bugs to merit a major patch within the first 2 or 3 months after RTM. No, I take that back, there was one, but everybody involved with it agreed that it was your classic meltdown project.
Yes, every product has quality issues. But Microsoft products have way more than their share.
Hey, when the spam started getting out of control in my Yahoo account, I got all righteous. God a paid account at Spamcop. Followed up every single bit of spam, made sure all providers and open relay owners got an earfull. I might even have shut down one or two.
Except they just changed providers, and it started using up too much of my time, and the amount of spam I was getting kept getting worse and worse until I had to abandon the account.
Now I'm very careful about putting my email where it might be harvested. My spam situation is tolerable, except it's really a pain that there's no email white pages for finding old friends.
Face it, the current email system is an old Arpanet thing that relies on a level of network courtesy that no longer exists. Spam will go away when we get a new email infrastructure based on verifiable identities, not before. All the "spammer hunting" is futile exercise is self-righteousness.
So a particularly stupid spammer spams a forum frequented by technically clueful spam haters. After much effort, these guys might make life difficult for this particular spammer. At best this will result in a reduction of spam that's too small to measure. So why should anybody care?
This discussion does have a huge flame factor, doesn't it? I'm getting pretty discouraged by the declining maturity level in the Slashdot community. Though it would also have helped if Timothy had taken the time to look up some more informative links, thus giving people something to think about before they jerked their knees.
Browser technology is 10 years old somewhat and its mature enough in implementing the essential standards that one does not need to code to browser but can code to standard now days.
You're right, it's not that hard to write a compliant web page. But it does take some effort. The biggest part is learning the new stuff (CSS2 mainly) that makes compliance feasible. You also have to unlearn the deprecated techniques that the standards people are trying to banish. I suspect most HTML coders don't know that <center>, for example, is deprecated, much less why.
Javascrip is pretty much implemented by all the browsers and html/css are pretty good too. The only reasons for incompatabilities is if non-standard extentions are used which should nto happend for apps like voting systems anyway.
I don't think JavaScript has that good a track record for being standards-compliant. Hey, if you even say "JavaScript" instead of "ECMAScript" you're talking about a particular vendor -- albeit the original one.
And the big problem with HTML compatibility isn't extensions. The problem is that early versions of HTML were deliberately vague about exactly how tags should be interpretated. B-L and company thought of the web purely as a way of sharing content, and didn't anticipate that presentation would be such a big deal. But it is a big deal, and web developers use all kind of tricks to make pages look exactly the way they should. (Slashdot is a case in point.) Getting developers to stop using these tricks is difficult. Especially when the main alternatives (HTML4 and CSS2) have so little support by browser vendors.
Why the Windows requirement? Is that really going to make online voting secure?
To answer your second question first: no, it's not. Actually, there are too many security issues with online voting, regardless of the platform. But Windows is a particularly insecure platform, and your concern is appropriate.
As for "Why Windows", the SERVE web site says, "All required software is downloaded automatically as needed when you access various parts of the SERVE website." That seems to indicate some kind of embedded web application. I'd guess this application is native code, since Windows no longer comes with Java, and there's no mention of a Java download.
Or it might be that whoever wrote the FAQ page doesn't know much about the app, and is tapdancing around the details. Certainly it would make sense to implement this app entirely on the server. If that's the case, then it's reasonable to ask why other platforms with compliant servers aren't acceptable.
The answer to that would be QA. On a project like this, they have to carefully test the app, and even with their current limitations they have 4 different browser-platform combinations (IE and Netscape, Pre-NT and NT Windows) to test.
This points up a big problem with web applications. Most of us would like to see web developers code to a standard, not to a browser. Until they do, browser implementers has no incentive to support standards, and all that cool stuff in HTML4 and cSS2 is just so much noise.
(And yes, Internet Explorer -- except for the Mac version -- is particularly bad. But all browsers have serious compliance issues, so we can't put all the blame on Mister Bill.)
But why should web developers bother? Even if they're aware of the importance of standards -- and most appear not to be -- it doesn't save them from the need to test their apps on every browser-platform combination they claim to support. So what does compliance buy them, except extra work?
Slashdot Mirror
I have to thank you for mentioning the sim locking issue, which I was ignorant of. Not a trivial matter if you're buying a third-party GSM phone!
Get a life!
Two reasons I haven't done it: I didn't know how well Bluetooth works on a PDA (especially battery drain). I probably would have risked that anyway, except that I'm also out of a job.
Another issue: Amazon no longer sells this phone, and T-Mobile doesn't bundle Bluetooth phones. There's always third-party sources for the phone, of course, but that eliminates the usual phone-service-bundle discount, about $100 in this case. Where'd you get yours?
The fact that a an FM transmitter can cause problems for the people next door is beside the point. Any electronic device can cause this kind of problem. (It used to be a big issue with computers, before manufacturers got good at making low-emmission systems.) Federal law says that if you own such a device that radiates RF, and somebody experiences interference as a result, you have to fix the problem or shut down. That's true even if the device is a malfunctioning toaster. But if your RF energy does cause anybody any problems, there is no legal issue. This rule works find for everybody else. Why do we need a special rule for FM transmitters?
Then again, this guy seems to be assuming that he only has two choices: play the gigolo, or face losing his consulting contracts. With a little self-esteem and a little tact, one could probably let down a sexually aggressive boss without provoking a crisis. Alas, Slashdotters are not notable for self-esteem or tact. Perhaps the question should be directed to a psychologist. Or an advice columnist. Even an ettiquite expert would probably give better advice!
(Incidentally, you don't have to be deaf to like text messaging. Asian cell providers have rate plans that make it affordable to get a cell just to send and receive SMS messages -- and message traffic is in the billions. In Europe, where almost all phones have SMS messaging, people appreciate being able to send or receive a quick message without disturbing other people in a meeting, or a theater.)
When I cease being unemployed, I might end up keeping my current CDMA service and getting a GSM phone just for the data service. (Not a Sidekick -- I need Bluetooth.) Seems silly to have to carry two cell phones though.
Nor could you sell this kind of specialized system through Best Buy. Sales channels like that barely have the expertise to deal with ordinary PCs, never mind fancy workstations with proprietary OSs.
SGI did try to do a system for the masses: the Indy. But not enough people decided it was a practical alternative to a PC or Mac. Cost them a bundle.
Here's one thing that I find frustrating: web design pundits love to talk about color palettes, and how using the correct one can supposedly maximize monitor compatibity and sight-impaired accessibility. But that's an obsolete concept, based on video adapter limitations that no longer apply. What I would find useful is sets of color pairs that could be used in combination to maximize contrast, and still design a web site that looks cool in full-color mode.
God, what are these guys thinking of? You can get voice service that's effectively flat-rate (unless you practically live on your cell). Or you can get data service that is flat rate. But you can't get both together.
And if you want to get Bluetooth or infrared connectivity, you have to get your hardware from a third party. Similar weirdnesses appear in the offerings of T-Mobile's competitors. I do not understand the thought processes of U.S. cellular providers!
Let's see if you can do better!
RDBS is the name of the technology, and it's been around for a long time. Back in the 80s, some people had pocket devices that gave them stock market quote streams. Don't know what other applications there are, but lots of FM radio stations generate a little extra income by providing RDBS services on their sideband. And you can buy RDBS radios that provide program information and such, though they've never been popular. Here's an expensive toy that lets you say "Tune to an oldies station".
You don't need to find an unlicensed station to listen to Counterspin. All the public radio stations carry it -- it helps them relieve their "sold out to NPR" guilt. But I find CS's unremitting righteousness thoroughly irritating.
And they have a range of maybe 5 feet. Hardly relevent to the current discussion.
Interference was always a straw man. Media monopolies like Clear Channel (yikes! how unintentionally appropriate!) just want to maximize the spectrum available for their musical monoculture.
What I really miss is all those low-power campus and community stations. Yeah, they mostly played crap, but it was local crap. And it was a good way for budding young radio DJs and journalists to break into the field. I've always found it strange that NPR is on the "stop interference!" bandwagon, since all their best people come from the low-power community.
I thought he was referring to the fact that the Chrome Cube reduces to an amorphous shape unless you're looking at it from 2 inches away. Thanks for the correction!
I've looked at T-Mobile myself. IIRC, that $30/month isn't an all-you-can-eat plan. And the additional bandwidth charges are pretty steep. It might be affordable for checking your email on the road, provided you configure your client not to download everything every time you check.
The right keyword for Googling cellular data service is GPRS. I personally consider GPRS to be the only cellular data technology worth paying attention to. Though maybe I'm just prejudiced against CDMA-based data services because U.S.-only wireless standards are a major pain.
If you must have a lot of bandwidth on the road, you should consider signing up with a Wireless Hotspot service. Then all you have to do is schlep your way to the nears Borders or Starbucks (neither is in the Gobi Desert yet, but I think they're working on it), plug in your WiFi card, and surf. Or you could just get the WiFi card and look for Free Hotspots or other open networks.
QNX is a way cool OS. But back in the 80s QNX blew its chance to be the PC OS, mainly by overpricing licenses. I'll never forgive them for that!
Which is they rebranded in 1998 to make the company logo the letters sgi with the bottoms cut off, as if they were appearing over the horizon. (New motto: "The Solution is in Sight!") But I guess that's even more obscure then the original logo, because now they just use the three letters.
And the original logo is very obscure. It's not a bug! It's the Chrome Cube! The whole point being that you need an SGI workstation to render the damn thing. But nobody ever got that. So sad!
Yes, every product has quality issues. But Microsoft products have way more than their share.
Except they just changed providers, and it started using up too much of my time, and the amount of spam I was getting kept getting worse and worse until I had to abandon the account.
Now I'm very careful about putting my email where it might be harvested. My spam situation is tolerable, except it's really a pain that there's no email white pages for finding old friends.
Face it, the current email system is an old Arpanet thing that relies on a level of network courtesy that no longer exists. Spam will go away when we get a new email infrastructure based on verifiable identities, not before. All the "spammer hunting" is futile exercise is self-righteousness.
So a particularly stupid spammer spams a forum frequented by technically clueful spam haters. After much effort, these guys might make life difficult for this particular spammer. At best this will result in a reduction of spam that's too small to measure. So why should anybody care?
This discussion does have a huge flame factor, doesn't it? I'm getting pretty discouraged by the declining maturity level in the Slashdot community. Though it would also have helped if Timothy had taken the time to look up some more informative links, thus giving people something to think about before they jerked their knees.
And the big problem with HTML compatibility isn't extensions. The problem is that early versions of HTML were deliberately vague about exactly how tags should be interpretated. B-L and company thought of the web purely as a way of sharing content, and didn't anticipate that presentation would be such a big deal. But it is a big deal, and web developers use all kind of tricks to make pages look exactly the way they should. (Slashdot is a case in point.) Getting developers to stop using these tricks is difficult. Especially when the main alternatives (HTML4 and CSS2) have so little support by browser vendors.
As for "Why Windows", the SERVE web site says, "All required software is downloaded automatically as needed when you access various parts of the SERVE website." That seems to indicate some kind of embedded web application. I'd guess this application is native code, since Windows no longer comes with Java, and there's no mention of a Java download.
Or it might be that whoever wrote the FAQ page doesn't know much about the app, and is tapdancing around the details. Certainly it would make sense to implement this app entirely on the server. If that's the case, then it's reasonable to ask why other platforms with compliant servers aren't acceptable.
The answer to that would be QA. On a project like this, they have to carefully test the app, and even with their current limitations they have 4 different browser-platform combinations (IE and Netscape, Pre-NT and NT Windows) to test.
This points up a big problem with web applications. Most of us would like to see web developers code to a standard, not to a browser. Until they do, browser implementers has no incentive to support standards, and all that cool stuff in HTML4 and cSS2 is just so much noise.
(And yes, Internet Explorer -- except for the Mac version -- is particularly bad. But all browsers have serious compliance issues, so we can't put all the blame on Mister Bill.)
But why should web developers bother? Even if they're aware of the importance of standards -- and most appear not to be -- it doesn't save them from the need to test their apps on every browser-platform combination they claim to support. So what does compliance buy them, except extra work?