There's a possibility you're not supposed to stack things on top of it. Cooling is only one of the reasons. For example, my previous laptop (a Toshiba Satellite) had a weird indentation on the outside of the lid/screen. There was an explanation that it is there to discourage use as a writing pad, to reduce potential for damage. It's kind of patronizing, but in the end it works, and besides it maintains a nicer look over time.
Speaking of looks, you shouldn't underestimate the importance of nice design in a device that is going to be rather visible in a living room. I get the impression that the PS3 is designed to stand upright, though it should also work horizontally.
My main problem with the JS there is that it breaks a pretty universal UI feature: scrolling the page with arrow keys. When the search field is visible, it takes focus no matter what, so you cannot scroll with arrows -- or even with PgUp/PgDn! You can try this neatly by scrolling to the very bottom; from there you can scroll up with the keyboard, but only until you see the search field.
I came across a similar problem very recently on another site, and promptly complained.
Some JS effects are actually quite useful, like Slashdot's new discussion system.. Such ideas can add to existing functionality without breaking the old, which is nice.
I used to think scrollwheels on mice are useless gimmicks, since the arrow keys provide the same functionality. It seems the solution is to disable the oldskool way via software, so you can sell more mice. Or you can probably use the scrollbars on the side/bottom, if you prefer the extremely inconvenient way of life.
To me, it's more about loving the Linux way than hating Windows. If you get this, you realize that people have different preferences, and not everyone loves OSX even though you do.
To the genius who said "Linux is for those who hate Windows, BSD is for those who love Unix", I would like to repeat that different people like different things. I happen to like Linux more than the traditional kind of Unix. Though I'm much more comfortable using BSD, Solaris or OSX than Windows any day:)
My understanding of patents (based on mechanical and electronics engineering) is that only commercial usage of the invention is restricted. The patent is a public document that anyone can study, and even build a copy of the invention as long as it's not used commercially. The original idea of patents was to encourage inventors to disseminate their ideas, by giving them some limited protection.
So, if the same idea applies to software patents -- and why should it not -- then how can any non-commercial software violate any patents?
Of course, software patents are tricky as they aren't included in the traditional ideas of what you can patent (in this case, math), and they are also covered by copyright law. Traditionally patents and copyright were meant for different kinds of work. Also, different jurisdictions regard these issues differently.
I'm looking forward to experimenting with the Cell processor. A workstation with the same specs would be worth much more than the $600, though it would need a lot more memory. Of course, if you regard it as a console (=appliance), the idea of Linux on it is a little funny. To me it looks more like a workstation, with much more processing power than most x86 machines you can buy these days.
There really seems to be no question of "Do these people want to be converted?"
Seconded. In a related discussion I found reference to Linux is NOT Windows, which has good points for people considering Linux as a Windows alternative.
I hate to post a 'me too' response, but Fortran does the same since the '90 standard. Even though it's genuinely a dinosaur of programming languages:)
The idea with Fortran (and presumably with these new languages) is that it's higher level than something like C. You need higher level structures in order to represent parallel vs. sequential operations in many cases. For example, if you're writing a parallelizable operation as a C-style sequential loop, you're actively prohibiting the compiler's attempts at parallelizing it.
I don't care if you're folding proteins to cure cancer, searching for aliens, sticking a finger up at the RIAA or just keeping it running to tell all your friends about your big swinging dick uptime - it's all a waste.
Maybe it's a waste to you, but different people have different priorities. Science always takes energy and time from other activities, but it often results in net energy savings in the long run. For a rather ironic example, take a look at http://climateprediction.net/. The project expects you to keep computers running in order to deal with global warming; they estimate that the energy thus wasted is not significant to global warming itself. I can't remember the exact reference, but the mere existence of that project should be indicative of the general thinking involved.
As for me, one tiny reason for keeping a computer turned on is to host my personal website, since my university-provided web space is too limited. This is also a matter of control; you could always pay for someone for hosting, and pray that they do things the way you like. I guess this is the kind of thing that is economically inefficient, as opposed to specialization, but many people prefer such irrational DIY ways of life.
I'm trying to say that LCDs are less harsh/irritating than CRTs in this respect, but still bad when someone forces the black-on-white scheme on you (since both are light sources).
I, for one, am glad we have progressed beyond the days of green text on a black background. Perhaps you have your monitor turned up too bright?
On the other hand, you could argue that we have progressed beyond the days of paper and ink, and we are no longer restricted by that technology's color combination. It's great that we can choose the colors to our liking; I don't particularly like green on black, but grey or cyan on black is quite nice.
Somehow I don't like the idea that background color should be the main light source. I think background by definition should be passive, which in a light-emitting display means dark. It's the same kind of rationalization that music has quiet passages (rather than white noise) when there's nothing going on.
Of course, this rationalization doesn't necessarily hold in practice, and since I mainly use LCDs anyway, black on white is not so bad. But I like to question this whole paper-based mentality that is also reflected in the desktop metaphor and WYSIWYG. I think it's seriously limiting to think of computers as fancy, extensible typewriters, and I think the color scheme can guide your thinking to some extent.
Scrolling down works incredibly well with monitors -- it might be a hassle with actual paper but the web doesn't always have to be a metaphor for the physical world.
Right on! Another paper-based oddity that I'd like to get rid of is the use of black text on white background. If you use a CRT and read such pages, you could be just as well staring at a light bulb.
Nigel: "You see, most blokes will be networking at 255. You're on 255, all the way up, all the way up...Where can you go from there? Nowhere. What we do, is if we need that extra push over the cliff... 257. Two louder."
DiBergi: "Why don't you just make 255 louder and make 255 be the top number, and make that a little louder?"
Nigel (after taking a moment to let this sink in): "These go to 257."
"We are not amused" is just a Monty Python way of saying "this is not funny". It was used in a sketch of Queen Victoria, who presumably referred to herself in plural. If you didn't recognize the line, please hand in your geek card on the way out;)
However, I also have a (Finnish) name that's pretty incomprehensible to English speakers, so I feel qualified to note when people make fun of something on the basis that they don't understand it.
We are not amused. The name looks like it's related to Jerusalem, it just looks a little odd in English due to the particular transliteration (cf. Iesus, Iehova). There are countless other examples of family names based on cities, this is pretty much like "von Jerusalem".
There are places where it's actually illegal to drive if you're dangerously tired.
Yes, but there isn't a fixed minimum time that guaranteed sufficient sleep for everyone. It's tough if the government requires you to sleep 7 hours a night, if you happen to be fine with 6. Besides, it's pretty hard to enforce that you are actually asleep, and hard to measure how tired someone is.
Compared to this, drug legislation is like mandatory 20-hour sleep each night, so that it's more than safe enough for absolutely everyone. And it would be applied to everyone every night, not just truck drivers prior to workdays.
Well, you seem to know what you're talking about:) so I'd like to clarify my stance on this issue. As you pointed out, these are complicated issues, hence the RPM myth. It would be better for people to look at actual, practical performance instead of blindly staring at the RPM number.
Another point is that I'm certainly not against developing HD technology further. However, it's unfortunate if RPM is used as the main development metric simply to satisfy the SUV mentality of consumers. Especially if it results in noisier and less reliable products. The problem is quite analogous to MHz myth that gave us Pentium 4, and I'd rather not see it happen again.
I wonder if the RPM myth is going to be the new MHz myth. Does anyone have any figures on performance of a 5400RPM perpendicular drive against a 7200RPM non-perpendicular drive? Considering the increased information density, I'd imagine the perpendicular drive would do better.
I agree. In fact, let's forget about the technology and focus on the actual information density, since that's what counts. For the same total capacity, a laptop drive has higher density than a desktop drive, so it should achieve equal performance with slower RPM, meaning also quieter operation. Of course, this will ruin the RPM pissing contest, but personally I've found laptop drives faster in practice, so I don't care about the numbers that much.
Of course, you have to remember that larger disks have higher linear velocities for the same RPM? So why don't the pissing contestants use 5.25'' drives? I think it has something to do with seeking across cylinders, which is another point where laptop drives rule.
I second this. Phase inversion is ridiculously simple if you know anything about op-amps. It's simple even in software, but then the main problem comes from hardware and OS latency, so there's not much point. Funny how so many Slashdotters have the 'software hammer' syndrome.
When you "make install" a new Linux kernel, it makes a symlink/boot/vmlinuz to the new kernel. So you won't even have to edit menu.lst if the boot option is this symlink. Grub also has the nice feature of editing the kernel entry at bootup, so you can go back to the old kernel if necessary.
First of all, as Vo0k pointed out, there has to be a way to install and use without actually agreeing anything. However...
People are used to going through EULAs, so it's not necessarily like it makes GPL software look worse. It might be a nice place to advertise the idea of Free software, since most people are probably not aware of the difference. The GPL already has a phrase about how it gives you more rights than copyright, it should stand out at the beginning. I'm sure it would give a pleasant surprise to some people, and make some of them dig deeper into OSS.
In standard unix shortcuts, Ctrl-K cuts from the cursor position to the end of line. Hence thou shalt not use it for search. After you've ticked on the unix shortcuts option, you can access search with Ctrl-L followed by Tab, assuming it's the field next to the address bar.
Slashdot Mirror
There's a possibility you're not supposed to stack things on top of it. Cooling is only one of the reasons. For example, my previous laptop (a Toshiba Satellite) had a weird indentation on the outside of the lid/screen. There was an explanation that it is there to discourage use as a writing pad, to reduce potential for damage. It's kind of patronizing, but in the end it works, and besides it maintains a nicer look over time.
Speaking of looks, you shouldn't underestimate the importance of nice design in a device that is going to be rather visible in a living room. I get the impression that the PS3 is designed to stand upright, though it should also work horizontally.
This may be a Firefox bug, as it worked slightly better in Konqueror. Sideways scrolling was still affected though.
My main problem with the JS there is that it breaks a pretty universal UI feature: scrolling the page with arrow keys. When the search field is visible, it takes focus no matter what, so you cannot scroll with arrows -- or even with PgUp/PgDn! You can try this neatly by scrolling to the very bottom; from there you can scroll up with the keyboard, but only until you see the search field. I came across a similar problem very recently on another site, and promptly complained.
Some JS effects are actually quite useful, like Slashdot's new discussion system.. Such ideas can add to existing functionality without breaking the old, which is nice.
I used to think scrollwheels on mice are useless gimmicks, since the arrow keys provide the same functionality. It seems the solution is to disable the oldskool way via software, so you can sell more mice. Or you can probably use the scrollbars on the side/bottom, if you prefer the extremely inconvenient way of life.
To me, it's more about loving the Linux way than hating Windows. If you get this, you realize that people have different preferences, and not everyone loves OSX even though you do.
To the genius who said "Linux is for those who hate Windows, BSD is for those who love Unix", I would like to repeat that different people like different things. I happen to like Linux more than the traditional kind of Unix. Though I'm much more comfortable using BSD, Solaris or OSX than Windows any day :)
My understanding of patents (based on mechanical and electronics engineering) is that only commercial usage of the invention is restricted. The patent is a public document that anyone can study, and even build a copy of the invention as long as it's not used commercially. The original idea of patents was to encourage inventors to disseminate their ideas, by giving them some limited protection.
So, if the same idea applies to software patents -- and why should it not -- then how can any non-commercial software violate any patents?
Of course, software patents are tricky as they aren't included in the traditional ideas of what you can patent (in this case, math), and they are also covered by copyright law. Traditionally patents and copyright were meant for different kinds of work. Also, different jurisdictions regard these issues differently.
I'm looking forward to experimenting with the Cell processor. A workstation with the same specs would be worth much more than the $600, though it would need a lot more memory. Of course, if you regard it as a console (=appliance), the idea of Linux on it is a little funny. To me it looks more like a workstation, with much more processing power than most x86 machines you can buy these days.
Seconded. In a related discussion I found reference to Linux is NOT Windows, which has good points for people considering Linux as a Windows alternative.
I hate to post a 'me too' response, but Fortran does the same since the '90 standard. Even though it's genuinely a dinosaur of programming languages :)
The idea with Fortran (and presumably with these new languages) is that it's higher level than something like C. You need higher level structures in order to represent parallel vs. sequential operations in many cases. For example, if you're writing a parallelizable operation as a C-style sequential loop, you're actively prohibiting the compiler's attempts at parallelizing it.
I thought port wine is better the older it is...
Maybe it's a waste to you, but different people have different priorities. Science always takes energy and time from other activities, but it often results in net energy savings in the long run. For a rather ironic example, take a look at http://climateprediction.net/. The project expects you to keep computers running in order to deal with global warming; they estimate that the energy thus wasted is not significant to global warming itself. I can't remember the exact reference, but the mere existence of that project should be indicative of the general thinking involved.
As for me, one tiny reason for keeping a computer turned on is to host my personal website, since my university-provided web space is too limited. This is also a matter of control; you could always pay for someone for hosting, and pray that they do things the way you like. I guess this is the kind of thing that is economically inefficient, as opposed to specialization, but many people prefer such irrational DIY ways of life.
I'm trying to say that LCDs are less harsh/irritating than CRTs in this respect, but still bad when someone forces the black-on-white scheme on you (since both are light sources).
On the other hand, you could argue that we have progressed beyond the days of paper and ink, and we are no longer restricted by that technology's color combination. It's great that we can choose the colors to our liking; I don't particularly like green on black, but grey or cyan on black is quite nice.
Somehow I don't like the idea that background color should be the main light source. I think background by definition should be passive, which in a light-emitting display means dark. It's the same kind of rationalization that music has quiet passages (rather than white noise) when there's nothing going on.
Of course, this rationalization doesn't necessarily hold in practice, and since I mainly use LCDs anyway, black on white is not so bad. But I like to question this whole paper-based mentality that is also reflected in the desktop metaphor and WYSIWYG. I think it's seriously limiting to think of computers as fancy, extensible typewriters, and I think the color scheme can guide your thinking to some extent.
Right on! Another paper-based oddity that I'd like to get rid of is the use of black text on white background. If you use a CRT and read such pages, you could be just as well staring at a light bulb.
Nigel: "You see, most blokes will be networking at 255. You're on 255, all the way up, all the way up...Where can you go from there? Nowhere. What we do, is if we need that extra push over the cliff... 257. Two louder."
DiBergi: "Why don't you just make 255 louder and make 255 be the top number, and make that a little louder?"
Nigel (after taking a moment to let this sink in): "These go to 257."
"We are not amused" is just a Monty Python way of saying "this is not funny". It was used in a sketch of Queen Victoria, who presumably referred to herself in plural. If you didn't recognize the line, please hand in your geek card on the way out ;)
However, I also have a (Finnish) name that's pretty incomprehensible to English speakers, so I feel qualified to note when people make fun of something on the basis that they don't understand it.
We are not amused. The name looks like it's related to Jerusalem, it just looks a little odd in English due to the particular transliteration (cf. Iesus, Iehova). There are countless other examples of family names based on cities, this is pretty much like "von Jerusalem".
Yes, but there isn't a fixed minimum time that guaranteed sufficient sleep for everyone. It's tough if the government requires you to sleep 7 hours a night, if you happen to be fine with 6. Besides, it's pretty hard to enforce that you are actually asleep, and hard to measure how tired someone is.
Compared to this, drug legislation is like mandatory 20-hour sleep each night, so that it's more than safe enough for absolutely everyone. And it would be applied to everyone every night, not just truck drivers prior to workdays.
Well, you seem to know what you're talking about :) so I'd like to clarify my stance on this issue. As you pointed out, these are complicated issues, hence the RPM myth. It would be better for people to look at actual, practical performance instead of blindly staring at the RPM number.
Another point is that I'm certainly not against developing HD technology further. However, it's unfortunate if RPM is used as the main development metric simply to satisfy the SUV mentality of consumers. Especially if it results in noisier and less reliable products. The problem is quite analogous to MHz myth that gave us Pentium 4, and I'd rather not see it happen again.
I agree. In fact, let's forget about the technology and focus on the actual information density, since that's what counts. For the same total capacity, a laptop drive has higher density than a desktop drive, so it should achieve equal performance with slower RPM, meaning also quieter operation. Of course, this will ruin the RPM pissing contest, but personally I've found laptop drives faster in practice, so I don't care about the numbers that much.
Of course, you have to remember that larger disks have higher linear velocities for the same RPM? So why don't the pissing contestants use 5.25'' drives? I think it has something to do with seeking across cylinders, which is another point where laptop drives rule.
I second this. Phase inversion is ridiculously simple if you know anything about op-amps. It's simple even in software, but then the main problem comes from hardware and OS latency, so there's not much point. Funny how so many Slashdotters have the 'software hammer' syndrome.
When you "make install" a new Linux kernel, it makes a symlink /boot/vmlinuz to the new kernel. So you won't even have to edit menu.lst if the boot option is this symlink. Grub also has the nice feature of editing the kernel entry at bootup, so you can go back to the old kernel if necessary.
First of all, as Vo0k pointed out, there has to be a way to install and use without actually agreeing anything. However...
People are used to going through EULAs, so it's not necessarily like it makes GPL software look worse. It might be a nice place to advertise the idea of Free software, since most people are probably not aware of the difference. The GPL already has a phrase about how it gives you more rights than copyright, it should stand out at the beginning. I'm sure it would give a pleasant surprise to some people, and make some of them dig deeper into OSS.
In standard unix shortcuts, Ctrl-K cuts from the cursor position to the end of line. Hence thou shalt not use it for search. After you've ticked on the unix shortcuts option, you can access search with Ctrl-L followed by Tab, assuming it's the field next to the address bar.
If the same processor can be used to generate eye candy and cure cancer, I wouldn't call it application specific.