I would only ground one end, and the end at the hub, since that would be the most common point of the network.
But this raises the question: Why are you using shielded ethernet? Ethernet is differential, and thus pretty immune to common mode noise.
I've had 25m ethernet cables draped across running engines (test equipment) with HEI ignition, and not experienced any problems (I can't say that I checked the error counters very often, but in high speed data collections, I wasn't seeing any unexpected decreased throughput).
In addition, I live on a houstboat, and I have ethernet run in the same conduits as AC power carring 5 to 15 amps on 4 different circuits, and don't experience any problems (max cable length is probably 20 meteres)
Like many a 'bot writer, I wrote a 'bot that seems to do everything their patent describes, *if* IRC is considered an IM.
This was written over 2 years ago (although I didn't post it's existence until Dec of 2001). The demo is not currently running, but a "production" version is. I do have IRC logs that go back to the original inception, plus access to the logs of about a dozen users.
Can this be used in a prior-art refutement of their patent?
I haven't read all the articles in this thread, but a large question is how much of the neighbors house is showing up in the pics. If your camera is capable of seeing people coming and going from their front door, it's a lot more of an issue than if you have a small portion of their roof line.
If your cameras are fixed position, considering using software to black out the portion they find offensive, and see if that flies with them.
While I agree it's best to get along with the neighbors, I doubt there are any laws that explicitly state that it's illegal to photograph anything you can see from your window. Well, unless you happen to be near Area 51.
--jcwren
Plenty of cheap GPS
on
GPS Receivers?
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Based on your criteria, I don't see why you'd have any problem finding one. There are dozens of GPS's for < $200 USD that have serial output. You could (Dog forbid) even use Hyperterm to log the data to a file.
Most of the headless GPSs do not have internal batteries, but a cheap 6 amp hour 12V sealed lead acid battery or gel-cell will run it for days. The one I use in an application (which is standalone, but requires a PC board to mount it) pulls 30 milliamps. A 6 amp hour battery would run it for approximately 180 hours.
Check Garmin, Sirf, Motorola, etc. There is no shortage of lost cost GPSs
My question in all this mess is WHY is the Mac executing this code? I am a Mac owner (well, my wife is), but I know next to nothing about it, internally.
Under Windows and Linux, binary files have a header that contains signature bytes indicating it's an executable file. In Windows, if it's a.COM file, nothing is checked..EXEs have the 'MZ' bytes indicating it's executable. Linux has the elf32 header, among others. Surely MAC OS9 has something similiar, as that's what allows the OS to know what kind of file it is (since MAC OS9 doesn't require file extensions, as I understand it).
So either machines aren't checking the headers of these files before executing them, or Key2Audio has deliberately placed executable code there. If this is the case, could this not be considered a virus? And if it's a virus, could they be nailed under any of our wonderful DMCA or terrorist act laws?
My use for such a database is partly for to make sure I haven't already read something (I just love buying the same book twice because the cover changed), and for insurance reasons.
I want to be able to use a barcode scanner (or even type the ISBN by hand), and pull all the relevant information from a DB to my local machine. This is exactly the point of CDDB, as I see it.
If I don't have to enter all the information by hand for a CD, why should I have to do it for a book?
If you look closely, the key phrase was "support a wide variety of devices". There are a number of projects that will support a small class, maybe 15 or 20 different devices. Finding a programmer implementation that can support something like the range of a Needham, Data I/O or BP Micro is completely different.
There are two problems. One is that the hardware tends not to be cheap because of pin driver issues. To support a wide range of devices, you need a high pin driver count, and each pin driver needs to be capable of supporting at a minimum 3.3 volts, 5 volts, and 12 volts. And that won't handle the more esoteric 2.7 volt parts. In addition to supporting voltage, a *good* programmer needs to be able to measure current on each pin, so that if a part being programmed is inserted incorrectly that can be detected, along with able to detect general part faults.
Now you get to the software issue. Many parts don't have their programming algorithms well documented. Even programmer manufacturers that get their data straight from the device manufacturer sometimes have problems in their algorithms. And the part manufacturers aren't well known for providing timely support to the little guys. They'd rather hand the documentation over to BP Micro and Data I/O instead of the small guys. I know this from having talked to the engineers at Needhams several times.
By the time you've built your own hardware, it would have been cheaper to just drop $500 for a Needham, Tribal, or other low-end programmer that's capable of support several thousand parts.
Now, if you want to make an impact, here's my theory. I once wrote an open letter to the top 7 programmer manufacturers. I suggested that instead of proprietary software for the programmers, they keep their low-level algorithms private, and expose a common interface, so that a 3rd party company could write an application that would be consistent across all programmers.
I've used BP Micros quite a bit, and generally like their interface, especially when compared to any of the others. Not perfect, but good. Needhams makes a nicely priced programmer, but their DOS software is an eyesore, and the macro capability is a complete joke. Data I/O programs every part under the sun, but has an interface so horrid that flies die in mid-air over the programmer. My general complaint was they all did everything differently. I'd rather be able to whip out my customized interface on any programmer I walk up to. Kind of like bringing your own copy of.bashrc where ever you go.
So why focus on developing programming algorithms, and instead, let XYZ Corp or the OSS groups write the nice user interface that runs under Windows, *nix, or Macs? Then you get a quality programming algorithm, the cost should be able to go down slightly because the company isn't focussing on user-interface issues, and we get a usable interface. Naturally, I never got a reply.
More than 10 years ago I worked for a company that produced an ISA card that DES encrypted the entire disk transparently to any OS that used the BIOS calls. We also had drivers for SCO Unix that allowed any file system to be encrypted. Our system was used by private corporations, the FBI, Delta Force (which according to a guy named Major Harrington doesn't exist, and never to to ship packages Attn: Delta Force, Fort Bragg), and several other governmental agencies.
Barring the fact that DES is no longer considered unbreakable, the card rendered the HD in a system unrecoverable without the card installed. *Every* sector was encrypted, including the boot sector. To gain access, you had to enter a user name and password (similiar to a BIOS password) when the machine started. After 3 failed attempts, the machine had to be power cycled to try again (to prevent keyboard spoofing attacks).
At one time, if I recall correctly, we had a contest for a high stakes prize if anyone defeated the system. Several universities attempted it, and all failed.
This system was considered the ultimate in security until the 386 machines started appearing on the market. Because of the CPU cache, it became possible with some sophisticated trickery to defeat the system.
If anyone feels this information is relevant to this patent, and can *seriously* use additional information (this product is not a current product, so please don't ask where you can buy one), please feel free to contact me at the above email address.
I know little to nothing about patent processes, but I believe this definitely constitutes prior art.
What these sites that want to charge for content fail to realize is that (as others have mentioned), it all adds up. I'm already appalled at my "communications bill" every month. $70 for DirectTV. $90 for telco/ADSL. $150 for two cellular phones. $99/yr for Tivo. Luckily, I don't have a pager, or that'd be another $7 a month.
We're getting nickle and dimed to death on all the stuff, and after a while, people are going to stop being willing and/or able to pay. *I'm* not paying $4.95 a month. And in SlashDots case, unless the ads suddenly start taking the whole screen, I don't even notice them. Some sites are in my firewall database so I never see the content anyway.
And incidently, how effective are these ads? It appears that ThinkGeek advertises a lot, but I never click through to them. I can probably count the number of ads I've clicked through on.
Now, for one time fees, like Opera, it's worth paying the $$$ to get rid of the ads. THOSE types of ads use screen space you can't get rid of, since it's integrated into the browser. For SlashDot type ads, they scroll right off the screen.
So does SD really think anyone will pay $4.95 for ad free, *other* than as a method to support the site (ie, they'd pay anyway, but this way they feel like they're getting something for their money?)
And speaking of nickles and dimes, anyone check their phone bill recently? New charge: Infra Structure Upgrade for disasters. Greaaat. And I'm not even done grousing about paying for 911 service on a line that I never (in fact, can't) make a voice call from.
Personally, I'd like to see hits to pages marked, and the top 100 hits from each search are fed back in to be re-indexed. This would eliminated a lot of dead site material, I should think.
Re:Guilt By Association, don't buy it
on
Monsanto and PCBs
·
· Score: 1
I think it has little to do with the actual subject of GM foods, but that if Monsanto went through this much trouble to cover up PCB toxicity and dumping practices, and they declare "GM foods are safe!" how do we know we can trust them?
It's pretty evident, as mentioned both here and in the article, that Monsanto doesn't give a hoot about how their products affect people and the environment.
All personal preferences of bloat, security, blah blah blah aside, I believe the primary reason that MS isn't very interested in MSOffice on the Linux desktop is because of product licensing control.
It's far too easy (in MS's view) for software to be copied under Linux. As a class of users, Apple users tend to be "more honest" about paying for their software. Windows users are questions in a non-business environment (heh, but a number of businesses also, really). But with XP, there will be more control over product licensing.
With Linux, they lose all this, or it becomes far harder to maintain. Also consider this issue: Cost of support for MS. With all the different distros available, I tend to think they mind find the cost of support under Linux as not yet being tolerable.
Linux has it's own version of "DLL Hell" in the libraries. With a MS product, it's *generally* pretty safe to force an upgrade of a MS DLL with a new MS DLL. But what about libraries they have no control over? The only way around that is to replicate the seemingly near 500MB of libraries. And then people complain about bloat!
I'm no big MS business model fan, but I find some of their products (Outlook not included) quite usable. I run Linux, OSX, Debian, FreeBSD, NT4, and Win2K here in my shop. I still use Windows/MSOffice for business work, because I have yet to find anything as good as MSOffice for Linux. Sad, but true, from MY perspective. Anyways, in some respects, they're in a lose-lose situation. They can't control the libraries, etc, and when they load their own, people will whine that it takes a full gig to install MSOffice. What's a company to do? Not bother, that's what.
My only disagreement with this is that the satisfaction of seeing something run on a real piece of hardware is far higher than seeing the output of the simulator.
And, perhaps if done correctly, the student could keep the PDA with his/her code. After all, if PDAs are constantly becoming obsolete, turnover shouldn't be a problem, right?
If I sold flower pots, I'd want one in every home. Preferrably 10. That's a stupid statement on Sony's part, really. Anyone who sells anything wants lots of them everywhere. It's called "selling product to make money". Sheeh.
Many high end cameras now support this function. The reason should be pretty obvious: If the back is opened for some reason ("Gee, I thought it was empty!"), the film with your Ansel Adams quality pictures won't get wiped out.
Since a cheap camera is more likely to bust open if you drop it (or tinker with in the car while driving to Florida...), you'll only lose the last 1 or 2 pictures.
I've been designing and hand building boards for a long time. My personal experience with wire-wrap is not very good. I much prefer point to point (PtP) for ease of rework, more readily available sockets, and fewer holes in my fingers.
As one user commented, availability of parts suitable for simple construction are slowly dying out. Surface mount is cheaper to manufacturer (in volume), smaller in size, and generally has lower power consumption. The only advantage DIP really has any more is that in low volume it is cheaper to produce. With the lower demand for the larger parts, availability is going down (although far from gone). Cost seems to pretty much stay the same. Certain component classes have all but disappeared, such as certain types of connectors. Many of these can be worked around with DIP parts, and a little creative engineering, however.
If you have even moderate vision and stable hands, you can do surface mount at home. It takes a fine tip soldering iron, liquid flux, and patience. The old Weller WTC-201 25 watt iron is NOT going to cut it. If you do a lot of surface mount, THE iron to have is a Metcal. There is no substitute. These are expensive new, but can be had as pretty good deals on eBay.
I've started a tutorial on prototyping, mostly focusing on PtP techniques. It's not compete, and the photos aren't up yet, but it can be seen at www.tinymicros.com/proto. Ignore the pictures of the dog for now. Those will be changed to real pictures of a product I worked on as soon as I finish the current software project I'm working on. I plan to expand this to a tutorial on surface mount, how to do low cost layout, and various other techniques.
My problem with the entire model is that, unlike a paperback book, you're dependant on the eBooks infrastructure to be able to use it (not day to day, but for new books, replacements, etc).
Once I buy a paperback book, it requires no other support to keep using it. With eBooks, what happens if you damage your unit? How do you replace the books you've already bought, and prove that you bought them? What happens when, like all other technology, this becomes obsolete, or RCA/Nuvomedia servers are no longer available? How long do they plan to keep supporting this product?
Some of these questions are speculative, others because I don't know how the complete eBooks model works. I *do* know that I have been burned by buying CAD software that required a key from the company whenever you reinstalled it. I lost a machine a few years ago, and the software company was no longer in business. Because of the security scheme they used, backing up the HD wasn't sufficient (they wrote to unallocated sectors, and also used the volume serial number).
Now, I make sure that *whatever* software I buy can be reinstalled, and doesn't require a remote server or customer service contact to be able to use it. Dongles are also unacceptable, since they can be blown, and not be replaceable. As far as operating obsolence, I keep all versions of OSs I need to support a product.
So how does the eBook model work, with regards to these kind of things?
Not only do they count on people not filling out the rebate form, they get to earn the interest on the float. Which, on certain high volume products (such as DirecTV), can be a substantial amount of money.
It's not 5 to 6 weeks because it takes that long to process, that's 5 to 6+ weeks of interest on potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars.
There's an old saying, "Never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence".
I don't really believe the majority of rebates are out to rip us off. I think the problem is more that most companies are not setup to handle rebates, and don't want to pay for outsourcing them. So, we basically get an inexperienced company, with $3.50/hour employees, who don't know what they're doing.
Some states are trying to pass laws that require all rebates to be "instant" rebates, which means they take the price out at the register. This makes it easier for the consumer, and makes the store have to deal with the company, which they are more typically setup for (since they already have the infrastructure in place for sales rep, bulk ordering, etc).
Having been "burned" in the past by DirectTV, I find the best thing you can do is not buy products that require a mail-in rebate. If that's not avoidable, be SURE to make a copy of what you sent, and date it. Stick it in a prominent place where you pay bills, whatever, so you can be reminded to look for the rebate. Make a note of the phone number for checking on the rebate (most have these), and how many weeks to expect the check in. And if it's late, don't hesitate to pester them. They're customer service is there to make *you* happy. And if *you* aren't happy, make waves.
If you see legislature in your area requiring instant rebates, vote for it. This the best deal for us, as consumers.
One final consideration. Some rebates JUST AREN'T WORTH IT. If you get a $5 rebate on a pack of CDRs, and you're a consultant charging $75 an hour, is it really worth the more than 4 minutes it's going to take you to deal with the rebate garbage? It may be just cheaper to eat the $5 than the time lost messing with bogus mail-in rebate plans.
Except for the latest modules, it's all open loop, so you don't know if the anything actually switched on or not. There's no load sensing by the modules, so even if you know the module switched on, you have no idea if the load is switched or not.
X10 uses power line carrier as a transport medium. It sends the data near the zero-crossing of the line. This means that data has trouble transitioning across phases in a system. They make coupling modules for that purpose, but they're very unreliable.
X10 has no noise immunity. There are far better technologies, that still use the power line as the transport medium, but use spread spectrum techniques to reliably deliver data. There are at least 3 vendors that have excellent technologies for this, Intellon being the main one that comes to mind.
CEBUS controllers are starting to make an appearance. Now that the standards for all 5 mediums (PLC, RF, IR, UTP, and coax) are ratified, more companies are starting to implement CEBUS protocols (why they didn't do this 8 years ago, who knows. No one bought CEBUS because no controllers were available, and no one was manufacturing them because no one was buying them. Go figure!)
Microsoft has some sort of Home Controller Initiative that they're working on. I haven't researched this in a while, but my understanding is that it's CEBUS that has been "improved". The real question is will this be a proprietary product, or an open standard (open standard from MS? Is a bear Catholic?)
Personally, I wouldn't install X10 except as a last desparate move. It's prone to falsing, fails to actuate, is open loop, and unless you lay out the big bucks for the Leviton controllers, they're prone to fail (the wall switches are the worst. The beryllium (sp?) contacts erode the plating on the PC board, and the switches fail to perform the local control function).
Unless your walls don't permit it, you're better off doing a hardwire system.
Slashdot Mirror
I would only ground one end, and the end at the hub, since that would be the most common point of the network.
But this raises the question: Why are you using shielded ethernet? Ethernet is differential, and thus pretty immune to common mode noise.
I've had 25m ethernet cables draped across running engines (test equipment) with HEI ignition, and not experienced any problems (I can't say that I checked the error counters very often, but in high speed data collections, I wasn't seeing any unexpected decreased throughput).
In addition, I live on a houstboat, and I have ethernet run in the same conduits as AC power carring 5 to 15 amps on 4 different circuits, and don't experience any problems (max cable length is probably 20 meteres)
...would return "Parameter of type parameter may not be type parameter".
Other Fortran compilers may return the same error, but luckily, I've only had experience on that one.
...for stupid people.
Like many a 'bot writer, I wrote a 'bot that seems to do everything their patent describes, *if* IRC is considered an IM.
This was written over 2 years ago (although I didn't post it's existence until Dec of 2001). The demo is not currently running, but a "production" version is. I do have IRC logs that go back to the original inception, plus access to the logs of about a dozen users.
Can this be used in a prior-art refutement of their patent?
--jcwren
I haven't read all the articles in this thread, but a large question is how much of the neighbors house is showing up in the pics. If your camera is capable of seeing people coming and going from their front door, it's a lot more of an issue than if you have a small portion of their roof line.
If your cameras are fixed position, considering using software to black out the portion they find offensive, and see if that flies with them.
While I agree it's best to get along with the neighbors, I doubt there are any laws that explicitly state that it's illegal to photograph anything you can see from your window. Well, unless you happen to be near Area 51.
--jcwren
Based on your criteria, I don't see why you'd have any problem finding one. There are dozens of GPS's for < $200 USD that have serial output. You could (Dog forbid) even use Hyperterm to log the data to a file.
Most of the headless GPSs do not have internal batteries, but a cheap 6 amp hour 12V sealed lead acid battery or gel-cell will run it for days. The one I use in an application (which is standalone, but requires a PC board to mount it) pulls 30 milliamps. A 6 amp hour battery would run it for approximately 180 hours.
Check Garmin, Sirf, Motorola, etc. There is no shortage of lost cost GPSs
--jcwren
My question in all this mess is WHY is the Mac executing this code? I am a Mac owner (well, my wife is), but I know next to nothing about it, internally.
Under Windows and Linux, binary files have a header that contains signature bytes indicating it's an executable file. In Windows, if it's a .COM file, nothing is checked. .EXEs have the 'MZ' bytes indicating it's executable. Linux has the elf32 header, among others. Surely MAC OS9 has something similiar, as that's what allows the OS to know what kind of file it is (since MAC OS9 doesn't require file extensions, as I understand it).
So either machines aren't checking the headers of these files before executing them, or Key2Audio has deliberately placed executable code there. If this is the case, could this not be considered a virus? And if it's a virus, could they be nailed under any of our wonderful DMCA or terrorist act laws?
--jcwren
My use for such a database is partly for to make sure I haven't already read something (I just love buying the same book twice because the cover changed), and for insurance reasons.
I want to be able to use a barcode scanner (or even type the ISBN by hand), and pull all the relevant information from a DB to my local machine. This is exactly the point of CDDB, as I see it.
If I don't have to enter all the information by hand for a CD, why should I have to do it for a book?
--jcwren (owner of about 2700 books)
If you look closely, the key phrase was "support a wide variety of devices". There are a number of projects that will support a small class, maybe 15 or 20 different devices. Finding a programmer implementation that can support something like the range of a Needham, Data I/O or BP Micro is completely different.
.bashrc where ever you go.
There are two problems. One is that the hardware tends not to be cheap because of pin driver issues. To support a wide range of devices, you need a high pin driver count, and each pin driver needs to be capable of supporting at a minimum 3.3 volts, 5 volts, and 12 volts. And that won't handle the more esoteric 2.7 volt parts. In addition to supporting voltage, a *good* programmer needs to be able to measure current on each pin, so that if a part being programmed is inserted incorrectly that can be detected, along with able to detect general part faults.
Now you get to the software issue. Many parts don't have their programming algorithms well documented. Even programmer manufacturers that get their data straight from the device manufacturer sometimes have problems in their algorithms. And the part manufacturers aren't well known for providing timely support to the little guys. They'd rather hand the documentation over to BP Micro and Data I/O instead of the small guys. I know this from having talked to the engineers at Needhams several times.
By the time you've built your own hardware, it would have been cheaper to just drop $500 for a Needham, Tribal, or other low-end programmer that's capable of support several thousand parts.
Now, if you want to make an impact, here's my theory. I once wrote an open letter to the top 7 programmer manufacturers. I suggested that instead of proprietary software for the programmers, they keep their low-level algorithms private, and expose a common interface, so that a 3rd party company could write an application that would be consistent across all programmers.
I've used BP Micros quite a bit, and generally like their interface, especially when compared to any of the others. Not perfect, but good. Needhams makes a nicely priced programmer, but their DOS software is an eyesore, and the macro capability is a complete joke. Data I/O programs every part under the sun, but has an interface so horrid that flies die in mid-air over the programmer. My general complaint was they all did everything differently. I'd rather be able to whip out my customized interface on any programmer I walk up to. Kind of like bringing your own copy of
So why focus on developing programming algorithms, and instead, let XYZ Corp or the OSS groups write the nice user interface that runs under Windows, *nix, or Macs? Then you get a quality programming algorithm, the cost should be able to go down slightly because the company isn't focussing on user-interface issues, and we get a usable interface. Naturally, I never got a reply.
--jcwren
Why would we care what happens to Canada? Those jerks unleashed Celine Dione on the world!
More than 10 years ago I worked for a company that produced an ISA card that DES encrypted the entire disk transparently to any OS that used the BIOS calls. We also had drivers for SCO Unix that allowed any file system to be encrypted. Our system was used by private corporations, the FBI, Delta Force (which according to a guy named Major Harrington doesn't exist, and never to to ship packages Attn: Delta Force, Fort Bragg), and several other governmental agencies.
Barring the fact that DES is no longer considered unbreakable, the card rendered the HD in a system unrecoverable without the card installed. *Every* sector was encrypted, including the boot sector. To gain access, you had to enter a user name and password (similiar to a BIOS password) when the machine started. After 3 failed attempts, the machine had to be power cycled to try again (to prevent keyboard spoofing attacks).
At one time, if I recall correctly, we had a contest for a high stakes prize if anyone defeated the system. Several universities attempted it, and all failed.
This system was considered the ultimate in security until the 386 machines started appearing on the market. Because of the CPU cache, it became possible with some sophisticated trickery to defeat the system.
If anyone feels this information is relevant to this patent, and can *seriously* use additional information (this product is not a current product, so please don't ask where you can buy one), please feel free to contact me at the above email address.
I know little to nothing about patent processes, but I believe this definitely constitutes prior art.
What these sites that want to charge for content fail to realize is that (as others have mentioned), it all adds up. I'm already appalled at my "communications bill" every month. $70 for DirectTV. $90 for telco/ADSL. $150 for two cellular phones. $99/yr for Tivo. Luckily, I don't have a pager, or that'd be another $7 a month.
We're getting nickle and dimed to death on all the stuff, and after a while, people are going to stop being willing and/or able to pay. *I'm* not paying $4.95 a month. And in SlashDots case, unless the ads suddenly start taking the whole screen, I don't even notice them. Some sites are in my firewall database so I never see the content anyway.
And incidently, how effective are these ads? It appears that ThinkGeek advertises a lot, but I never click through to them. I can probably count the number of ads I've clicked through on.
Now, for one time fees, like Opera, it's worth paying the $$$ to get rid of the ads. THOSE types of ads use screen space you can't get rid of, since it's integrated into the browser. For SlashDot type ads, they scroll right off the screen.
So does SD really think anyone will pay $4.95 for ad free, *other* than as a method to support the site (ie, they'd pay anyway, but this way they feel like they're getting something for their money?)
And speaking of nickles and dimes, anyone check their phone bill recently? New charge: Infra Structure Upgrade for disasters. Greaaat. And I'm not even done grousing about paying for 911 service on a line that I never (in fact, can't) make a voice call from.
--John (running out of nickles and dimes)
Personally, I'd like to see hits to pages marked, and the top 100 hits from each search are fed back in to be re-indexed. This would eliminated a lot of dead site material, I should think.
--John
I'm surprised APL hasn't been mentioned. I wrote a few lines of APL a hundred years ago, and it's certainly not as popular as it used to be, but it was designed as a mathematical programming language. A couple of resources, obtained with Google, using this search rule. http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,,sid9_gc i213454,00.html
http://www.engin.umd.umich.edu/CIS/course.des/cis4 00/apl/apl.html
I think it has little to do with the actual subject of GM foods, but that if Monsanto went through this much trouble to cover up PCB toxicity and dumping practices, and they declare "GM foods are safe!" how do we know we can trust them?
It's pretty evident, as mentioned both here and in the article, that Monsanto doesn't give a hoot about how their products affect people and the environment.
And now I don't trust my carpet...
All your satellites are belong to us!
All personal preferences of bloat, security, blah blah blah aside, I believe the primary reason that MS isn't very interested in MSOffice on the Linux desktop is because of product licensing control.
It's far too easy (in MS's view) for software to be copied under Linux. As a class of users, Apple users tend to be "more honest" about paying for their software. Windows users are questions in a non-business environment (heh, but a number of businesses also, really). But with XP, there will be more control over product licensing.
With Linux, they lose all this, or it becomes far harder to maintain. Also consider this issue: Cost of support for MS. With all the different distros available, I tend to think they mind find the cost of support under Linux as not yet being tolerable.
Linux has it's own version of "DLL Hell" in the libraries. With a MS product, it's *generally* pretty safe to force an upgrade of a MS DLL with a new MS DLL. But what about libraries they have no control over? The only way around that is to replicate the seemingly near 500MB of libraries. And then people complain about bloat!
I'm no big MS business model fan, but I find some of their products (Outlook not included) quite usable. I run Linux, OSX, Debian, FreeBSD, NT4, and Win2K here in my shop. I still use Windows/MSOffice for business work, because I have yet to find anything as good as MSOffice for Linux. Sad, but true, from MY perspective. Anyways, in some respects, they're in a lose-lose situation. They can't control the libraries, etc, and when they load their own, people will whine that it takes a full gig to install MSOffice. What's a company to do? Not bother, that's what.
--John
My only disagreement with this is that the satisfaction of seeing something run on a real piece of hardware is far higher than seeing the output of the simulator.
And, perhaps if done correctly, the student could keep the PDA with his/her code. After all, if PDAs are constantly becoming obsolete, turnover shouldn't be a problem, right?
--jcwren
If I sold flower pots, I'd want one in every home. Preferrably 10. That's a stupid statement on Sony's part, really. Anyone who sells anything wants lots of them everywhere. It's called "selling product to make money". Sheeh.
--jcwren
Many high end cameras now support this function. The reason should be pretty obvious: If the back is opened for some reason ("Gee, I thought it was empty!"), the film with your Ansel Adams quality pictures won't get wiped out.
Since a cheap camera is more likely to bust open if you drop it (or tinker with in the car while driving to Florida...), you'll only lose the last 1 or 2 pictures.
I've been designing and hand building boards for a long time. My personal experience with wire-wrap is not very good. I much prefer point to point (PtP) for ease of rework, more readily available sockets, and fewer holes in my fingers.
As one user commented, availability of parts suitable for simple construction are slowly dying out. Surface mount is cheaper to manufacturer (in volume), smaller in size, and generally has lower power consumption. The only advantage DIP really has any more is that in low volume it is cheaper to produce. With the lower demand for the larger parts, availability is going down (although far from gone). Cost seems to pretty much stay the same. Certain component classes have all but disappeared, such as certain types of connectors. Many of these can be worked around with DIP parts, and a little creative engineering, however.
If you have even moderate vision and stable hands, you can do surface mount at home. It takes a fine tip soldering iron, liquid flux, and patience. The old Weller WTC-201 25 watt iron is NOT going to cut it. If you do a lot of surface mount, THE iron to have is a Metcal. There is no substitute. These are expensive new, but can be had as pretty good deals on eBay.
I've started a tutorial on prototyping, mostly focusing on PtP techniques. It's not compete, and the photos aren't up yet, but it can be seen at www.tinymicros.com/proto. Ignore the pictures of the dog for now. Those will be changed to real pictures of a product I worked on as soon as I finish the current software project I'm working on. I plan to expand this to a tutorial on surface mount, how to do low cost layout, and various other techniques.
My problem with the entire model is that, unlike a paperback book, you're dependant on the eBooks infrastructure to be able to use it (not day to day, but for new books, replacements, etc).
Once I buy a paperback book, it requires no other support to keep using it. With eBooks, what happens if you damage your unit? How do you replace the books you've already bought, and prove that you bought them? What happens when, like all other technology, this becomes obsolete, or RCA/Nuvomedia servers are no longer available? How long do they plan to keep supporting this product?
Some of these questions are speculative, others because I don't know how the complete eBooks model works. I *do* know that I have been burned by buying CAD software that required a key from the company whenever you reinstalled it. I lost a machine a few years ago, and the software company was no longer in business. Because of the security scheme they used, backing up the HD wasn't sufficient (they wrote to unallocated sectors, and also used the volume serial number).
Now, I make sure that *whatever* software I buy can be reinstalled, and doesn't require a remote server or customer service contact to be able to use it. Dongles are also unacceptable, since they can be blown, and not be replaceable. As far as operating obsolence, I keep all versions of OSs I need to support a product.
So how does the eBook model work, with regards to these kind of things?
--jcwren
Not only do they count on people not filling out the rebate form, they get to earn the interest on the float. Which, on certain high volume products (such as DirecTV), can be a substantial amount of money.
It's not 5 to 6 weeks because it takes that long to process, that's 5 to 6+ weeks of interest on potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars.
-- jcwren
There's an old saying, "Never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence".
I don't really believe the majority of rebates are out to rip us off. I think the problem is more that most companies are not setup to handle rebates, and don't want to pay for outsourcing them. So, we basically get an inexperienced company, with $3.50/hour employees, who don't know what they're doing.
Some states are trying to pass laws that require all rebates to be "instant" rebates, which means they take the price out at the register. This makes it easier for the consumer, and makes the store have to deal with the company, which they are more typically setup for (since they already have the infrastructure in place for sales rep, bulk ordering, etc).
Having been "burned" in the past by DirectTV, I find the best thing you can do is not buy products that require a mail-in rebate. If that's not avoidable, be SURE to make a copy of what you sent, and date it. Stick it in a prominent place where you pay bills, whatever, so you can be reminded to look for the rebate. Make a note of the phone number for checking on the rebate (most have these), and how many weeks to expect the check in. And if it's late, don't hesitate to pester them. They're customer service is there to make *you* happy. And if *you* aren't happy, make waves.
If you see legislature in your area requiring instant rebates, vote for it. This the best deal for us, as consumers.
One final consideration. Some rebates JUST AREN'T WORTH IT. If you get a $5 rebate on a pack of CDRs, and you're a consultant charging $75 an hour, is it really worth the more than 4 minutes it's going to take you to deal with the rebate garbage? It may be just cheaper to eat the $5 than the time lost messing with bogus mail-in rebate plans.
-- jcwren
The reality is that X10 is garbage.
Except for the latest modules, it's all open loop, so you don't know if the anything actually switched on or not. There's no load sensing by the modules, so even if you know the module switched on, you have no idea if the load is switched or not.
X10 uses power line carrier as a transport medium. It sends the data near the zero-crossing of the line. This means that data has trouble transitioning across phases in a system. They make coupling modules for that purpose, but they're very unreliable.
X10 has no noise immunity. There are far better technologies, that still use the power line as the transport medium, but use spread spectrum techniques to reliably deliver data. There are at least 3 vendors that have excellent technologies for this, Intellon being the main one that comes to mind.
CEBUS controllers are starting to make an appearance. Now that the standards for all 5 mediums (PLC, RF, IR, UTP, and coax) are ratified, more companies are starting to implement CEBUS protocols (why they didn't do this 8 years ago, who knows. No one bought CEBUS because no controllers were available, and no one was manufacturing them because no one was buying them. Go figure!)
Microsoft has some sort of Home Controller Initiative that they're working on. I haven't researched this in a while, but my understanding is that it's CEBUS that has been "improved". The real question is will this be a proprietary product, or an open standard (open standard from MS? Is a bear Catholic?)
Personally, I wouldn't install X10 except as a last desparate move. It's prone to falsing, fails to actuate, is open loop, and unless you lay out the big bucks for the Leviton controllers, they're prone to fail (the wall switches are the worst. The beryllium (sp?) contacts erode the plating on the PC board, and the switches fail to perform the local control function).
Unless your walls don't permit it, you're better off doing a hardwire system.
--jcwren