I heard an interview in the town square last month about this and the gentleman was gushing about how in a few years we won't carry bushels of supplies to barter in our oxcarts anymore. Which seems to miss the point that we carry other supplies in oxcarts. My pitchfork, shovel, rake are all still in there, plus some gold shillings for places which don't barter.
Meanwhile, why would I use Paper Money? Most stores don't support it and, in my area, they probably won't for several years. And if I'm out and about I'm going to have both my oxcart and gold shillings on me. I don't see th benefit of paying for something with paper money.
Mod up this guy up --- ppplease!
I heard there's a thing called television - but my radio works just fine....
Ha ha ha! - do you have a gig at the Comedy club? Really? You're serious? You actually believe that shit?
Uncle Surgi runs a market garden, Uncle Bonnoventure runs a trucking company, Cousin Pascaly runs a restaurant, Brother Vincent runs a fishing boat, Mr Ibrahymen runs a night club... throw in a property developer/hotelier and the odd gold prospector and your virtual money plan craps out. I've changed the names (any resemblance to real people is intentional) - but if all the resources of CrimTrek, FinTrek, CasLoan, and the AKKK can't prove criminal enterprise when millions and millions of dollars electronically passes between these groups - then other forms of virtual currency won't work either (there are companies that ensure that). Cousin Pascaly just got convicted for 9 figures worth of product - only because his family turned him in for not sharing (daddy learnt the lesson after being knee-capped and losing the leg, by Mr Girls-hat). Once that money hits a till, it's gone - those accountants, investors, bankers, car yards, boat sellers, councillors, developers, newspapers, television stations, football team owners, Formula 1 promoters - aren't going to give up a good thing - it become the institution.
As for the value of gold - it's stable (doesn't burn or decompose easily), unless a lucky meteorite strikes it'll remain rare, it's easy to verify it's authenticity - it's industrial uses has little bearing on it's value. Governments come and go - but their printed currency is only worth the gold reserves it's backed against. That's the problem with bitcoins - they rely only on scarcity which is based on trust (of the algorithm). Trust is fine for small amounts...
Putting a value on debt is called "speculation" (didn't work so good for the International Bank did it?).... and using a story about criminals caught (shopped by a competing cartel - the leader broke out of a Mexican prison recently) moving cash into banks to somehow magically show that virtual money will stop money laundry is just dumb. The example I gave is where (is) groups launder lower in the chain (at the 1/4 oz level) - virtual money will stop that you think?
Known (busted twice) amphetamine producer runs a series of sweatshop enterprises and a motorcycle yard - his silk screeners, embroiders, sales staff, and mechanics get paid in speed.... it's a virtual currency too. That's small scale - the big scale "accounting service" (getting money to the till" is a big business, in Sydney it's dominated by the son of Mr BrightYellow (ex business partner of Ms. SunComesUp O'Irish) - but there are actual accounting companies that specialize in it, and plenty of accountants willing to try their hand (Nugan Hand ring a bell?).
Perhaps if you knew how much money moving through BOA and G&S is illegal drug money you'd appreciate that money laundry is business as usual.
About all it seems to do is enable Google to watch what I purchase. Sorry, I'm going to need something of benefit to me first.
Yeah but the average Joe doesn't know that and if he did he probably wouldn't care. Soon enough Google will get enough ignorant or apathetic Joes so that most Cashiers will want to support it and bam it'll be convenient for you. Then the only other downside will be its hard to buy hookers with Google Wallet.
Really? The local brothels take credit cards - they don't even show "brothel" on the bill (I set up their POS, and yes, brothels are legal here). I'm told the local drug dealer (for one of the brothels) takes credit cards - they named two restaurants (one in Manuka) that appear on the receipts.... I'm tempted to believe the brothel manager given the owner of the restaurants has since been busted (released on bail) for importing a large amount of cocaine. Google Wallet transactions for the same things is no big stretch. Google around and you'll find botnets that rent out to credit cards.
It's a mistake to think "legitimate" business and "criminal" business live in different parts of town... HINT: Wall Street would collapse if drugs were legalised in the US.
But, unlike email which served a theoretical purpose at that time, this serves no particular use. We have credit cards that do all that, and the only situations I can think of where it would be useful to have it built into the phone are the same instances where one is likely to not have their cell phone.
Progress is great, but progress for the sake of progress is best left to researchers.
Can you do micro transactions on your credit card? As far as I can tell (so far) the advantage of this is for retailers - not consumers. Either way, without a compelling reason I'm not in a huge rush to sign up.
Probably considered redundant and expensive now that reliable cultivation by innoculation is considered trivial (my kids sometimes work on a neighbouring truffle farm). They just work through the soil around the tree roots on a regular basis, yields are high and reliable.
It's a Tasmanian company that sells the innoculation - wild truffles aren't worth much now (and pigs are cheap).
Maybe, just maybe (given that they only tested seagulls) - the seagulls aquired the resistant bacteria from the same place humans do.
I'd want to see a study on bacteria in sewers and other birds before I jumped to the conclusion seagulls are the source. Oh wait - that would be thinking.
I've already seen the result of testing chickens. (Hi Mr Steggles)
You can legalize marijuana, but what about cocaine and the other dangerous synthetic drugs? Besides, the violence and cartels don't go away just because you legalize something. Blanket legalization would create a landslide of problems on top of the ones we already have. The cartels just start killing the legitimate business owners to stamp out competition right along with the other cartels. The problem with the drug trade is so multi-pronged it's not even funny. There is no blanket solution and people would do well to stop acting like there is.
Agreed - but we live in a world of colour, dominated by morons who can only see black and white (or Republican and Democrat). Alcohol and tobacco are the most dangerous drugs - but removing them, like decriminalizing other drugs, would destroy the US economy (and others).
"Bbbbbut" cry the morons who refuse to recognise where all that cartel money goes (Wall Street) and what the collapse of the private prison industry would do to the state that provided their sub-standard "educmication". Grow a brain idiots - the War on Drugs is bullshit - you can't have a war on inanimate objects - only people. And people saying "psst - want to score?" aren't the problem (and yes, they surely exist) - it's the legions of people with money asking "psst, where can I get an edge?" that are the fucking problem.
HINT: recreational drug use is not a problem per se. It can be an aspect of a social problem. Just as bullets are not a problem... when someone points a gun at you and shoots you - the bullet becomes an "aspect" of the problem. Get it? No? Then you are the problem. To paraphrase Bill Hicks, evolution didn't stop with opposing thumbs - and people who can't cope with complexity lower the standards for the rest of the evolved world (I'm looking at you Glenn).
If I gave everyone in favour of "assassination squad" "drug war" solutions a dollar - it still wouldn't begin to match the money spend daily by the "cartels", "dealer", "drug counsellors", "defence lawyers" and all the other associated industries on keeping recreational drugs illegal. "Bbbbut we're just trying to pay our mortgage" - you are scum - and the yuppie Nuremburg defence is bullshit.
To those that believe "abstinence" and forcing their opinions on others are the answer - context and extrapolation are clearly beyond you - so do the world a favour and go suck a tailpipe, take a dive off a covered bridge, or drive down some tobbacco road and bite a bullet.
But to anybody who has ever experienced an actual Police State, that statement is flat out insulting. Especially since the Police weren't even involved.
Too true - Police states don't tend to treat security guards with much respect either.
A few days ago, I had a really nasty virus that held my computer hostage (it wouldn't stop unless I paid them $50)! I was desperate for solutions, and no product seemed to work! Then I found my computer works better now...
Can we get Anon to go after this idiot?
Too late - they've already taken over his computer, maxed out his ISP account, got him kicked off the net for spamming, and drained his bank account of his affiliate commissions.
Google track you, and if you search for geeky things regularly then it will learn thats what you are usually looking for and deliver relevant results.
If you use a completely clean browser, from an IP you've not used before, you will get different results...
Google claims it so that they can add value to your search results (and I believe them - so far) - I'm paraphrasing "when Bob searches for malt he means beer, when Jill searches for malt she means whiskey".
As for tracking - turn off geolocation in Firefox, wipe your cookies, and try out the new https://encrypted.google.com/
There is also the advantage of small marketshare...
You have all the spammers out there trying their best to game google, but how many of them bother to try gaming bing or some of the other small engines? Same thing happened in the early days of google, altavista was full of spam while google had clean results.
Damn - does that mean duckduckgo and blekko are going to turn crappy too - oh well, I can live with Google (all the free stuff helps). Sure they get gamed, but Matt Dunn seems to be on top of things.
So his finding links to microsoft on google easier are a result of google favouring their own services, and the SEO junk link spamming campaign microsoft uses to give shitty results in google, whic it's own service ignores?
That makes no sense
Agreed. Sounds like spin control to me. And it makes me wonder how many of those alleged Google searches that didn't lead to pages being loaded, were Bing (and others) scraping Google search results. I know that some engines openly scape Google's search engine.
Try this:- Create a website and don't register it with any search engines - put some nonsensical words into meta keywords - keep an eye on your logs for search bot and see how long it takes for Google to crawl the site (generally just a day or two, robots.txt allowing). When the nonsense word turns up in the Google results see if you can find it in Bings (it works) - then see how much longer it takes for Bing (or Yahoo) to actually crawl the site with their magic time-travelling search bots.
As another exercise to demonstrate how useful Bing is at building it's own database - see how long it takes Bing to crawl a site *after* you register it with them. Tip: pack plenty of food and clothes first:-D
Perhaps we just have a different perspective on history.
Every properly-configured 386SX/DX board I ran across worked fine, whether big-name OEM or aftermarket...except for one strange AMD 386SX/40 board I had which had issues with DMA.
Definitely a different perspective, on history to - I dealt with companies that would ask what chipset you'd like on the motherboards *cough* PC Chips *cough* - you could literally buy any chipsets you wanted - problem was it was just sticky labels not actual chipsets, the company I worked for was the first manufacturer to sell a machine running a 386 chipset - and early motherboards had an extremely high failure rate. It wasn't until the end of '85 (when Minix was released, nearly a year after we'd had the first CPU that we shipped a working machine.
By the late 80's there was so many problems with fake chips that UMC stopped making them under their own name. For the record - no-one had run Linux on a 386 (or any other chip) prior to Sept '91, by which time the AMD 386 had already changed Intels game (I recall them stalling on the first 484s 'cause suddenly qc counted).
I have an AT&T/NCR 386SL laptop running a (quite old) version of Slackware. There were no nightmares involved with the installation that had anything to do with the type of CPU. It's as stable as a rock, although it does do slightly more stuff than most rocks...
If there are problems with the design that affect software, I'd like to say that they were sorted quite a long time ago.
They were a nice laptop, though I never owned one. Not all early 386s were a nightmare - most of the "big" brands were well supported (I had a Compaq and a PS/2) - but many of the (low-end) home user machines were total crap - get just one jumper wrong and the machine would play dead. Redhill.net.au probably has a list of the worst - I recall buying one of the first non-Compaq 386's off them - it was a "full" AT board that the family could sit around - and was incapable of even running IBM DOS that ran fine on my PS/2 (286) - they were kind enough to apologise and refund my money. Most of my memories of that era revolve around trying to get Minix to do something (anything) and trying to get early Linux to play nice with the MCA bus and IBMs weird hdd format.
When I said it was a hack I meant ugly hack, and hack only in that it's not the recommended/traditional way to do the job. I like hacks to be elegant, if not, then difficult is good;-p
I have a computer from 1993 still operating and running MS-DOS 5. I'm not about to write an article about it.
Want a bet? Just make it sound harder than it actually is and sex it up with a picture. It's Hackaday - their diserning editors are... oh yeah - Slashdot! Different dog - same leg action.
How about every source on the internet I could find? I checked Wikipedia, the free dictionaries, various grammar sites, Chicago Manual of Style,
"quiet copyediting" - (unless where inappropriate or uncertain) instead of inserting a bracketed sic, such as by substituting in brackets the correct word (if known) in place of the incorrect word - that's your Wikipedia quote, attributed to the "American unofficial style guide". Which bears little resemblance to what the "Interpolations and Clarifications" 13.5.9 (16th edition) actually says - but you've read that... right?
Oxford Dictionary of American Usage and Style
"Usage of sic greatly increased in the mid-twentieth century." A classic 1998 work of fiction by Byraon A. Garner - the deceptively titled rehash of the Dictionary of Modern American Usage
and so forth. I couldn't find a single reference, nor have I ever seen one, that has "sic" meaning, well, whatever the hell you intended it to mean (it's not at all clear).
So you selectively scanned the page at Wikipedia. What next - you're going to use one of their "authoritative" references - like the author's blog? or maybe that article in the Phillipino newspaper?
The accepted usage in the wider English speaking world is [sic] denotes the editor highlighting a verbatim mistake, or (sic) denoting the writer clarifying something ambiguously worded, usually because it requires context.
Indeed!:-(. Certainly not my intention. My apologies for the bum steer.
What I should of written (if it wasn't 3am at the end of 18 day) was:- "the hardware - on which they made a profit, now they're charging again for the "ideas"..
I'd be surprised if anyone uses any of the hardware they developed - but it hasn't been my field for a decade. It's my belief based on reading that none of the patents for which they claim ownership are based on hardware they developed OR concepts first used by them. Here's a few of the things they earn millions of dollars from annually, note that very few of these bear much resemblance to the actual patents:- software application management, GPRS, WCDMA (3G), 802.11, portable radio antenna design, wireless email, proximity sensing, location-based services , multi-device synchronization. That's the main earners and almost everyone is deceptively titled, many are based on work originally done by Sony.
The US military paid Motorola's initial hardware development costs, at absolutely no risk to Motorola. Motorola now sells the same components on the civilian market (as the restriction period has expired). They made a profit the first time around, the second time around they had zero development costs and they charged less for the hardware - on which they made a profit, now they're charging again. (Emphasis added.)
So I ask you again: What ten-year-old phone hardware components are being used today?
I have no idea - probably quite a few. Certainly Motorola sold licenses to many of their components - how many of those designs (like etched antennae) are still in use (but different form factors). And it's irrelevant to the discussion (that's imjustmatthew who claimed it was a reasonable charge for hardware). Motorola is extorting payments for patents on ideas - if recovering costs is their justification for it, as I stated earlier, it's bogus - given that they made a profit on all of that development - and the early "pioneering" work they did (mostly technology theft from other countries) was on no-risk military contracts.
Other than with the expected value of a patent monopoly, how will the maker of a new drug finance FDA-mandated clinical trials? Show a viable alternative to patents for industries that are as heavily regulated for product safety and truth in advertising as the drug industry, and the case against patents will become clearer.
Pharmaceuticals is probably the most profitable legal industry. Development costs compared to return are trivial compared to other industries like car manufacturers. Are pharmaceutical companies patenting ideas to are they? Patenting a manufacturing process - or a new variation of a product is a strawman when used to argue for patents on software "ideas". Patenting ideas is patenting the reworking of existing products - like building a house out of bricks and mortar then trying to patent the idea of building a house out of bricks and mortar. Why should development risks be removed *some* industries - if it's so critical to the planet maybe their should be strict accounting of the development costs, and if the product proves useful the development costs can be refunded. There right, wrong, and legal. Then there's naming a price people don't want to pay - guess what happens when people want something they can't afford, and want it a lot? (laws or no laws). Do you think Lily pharmaceuticals has regained their investment in methadone yet? Don't get me wrong - I'm all for business making a profit, but business monopolies (which patents are being misused for) are bad for Business, which is not good for the majority of people
The 386SX was a 32-bit CPU internally (but with a 24-bit external address bus and 16-bit external data bus 7 circuitry to split 32-bit wide requests into two 16-bit ones) and will run Linux just fine given enough RAM, but many boards designed with the SX in mind would only accept 4Mb (sometimes less) which is not going to be enough for a modern kernel.
The SX should run anything the DX would but slower for 32-bit code at any given clock rate due to 32-bit requests needing to be made using two due to the 16-bit data bus, and due to some boards for the DX having support for a small amounts of cache ram which the cheaper boards (probably including all SX ones) lacked.
Some early 386 chips were faulty and would not run 32-bit code 100% correctly. These were actually sold as working "16 bit only" chips - if you have some of those they are not going to run Linux successfully. I don't remember if that affected SX models as well or if it had been sorted before they were first released.
I remember running a Linux variant (some version of slackware IIRC) on my old 386SX40 (AMD made a version clocked that fast) with 4Mb RAM, though I never did anything useful with Linux until the early Pentium days.
One of the main problems with the earlier 386s was the boards and cards. I remember some of the crippled chips you refer to - I also remember fake cache.
I no longer have my HyperRam cards or the PS/2s they fitted in - but one of the problems with the SX was the 16MB ram limit. It's not that Linux *can't* support the SX as much as it *doesn't* - and that policy was/is just to avoid all the problems. With big name manufacturers it wasn't so hard - but all those clones.... anyway. Except for the AMD386 nothing good happened between the 286 and the first of the 486s. (IMO)
I've managed to install to 386-DX chipsets with 4MB of RAM, but not the SX. Very impressive. Especially given the price I can pick up industrial single card 386-SX boards. Not of interest to gamers and such, but very, very useful non-the-less.
Back in the day I had first Slackware (3.x?) and then RedHat (5,x) running on an Am386SX-40, with 4x 1MB 30 pin SIMMs and an ISA SVGA card (Cirrus I believe). Was NBD, just a PITA loading Slack from endless floppies. (RedHat I installed via an ISA NE2000 clone from an FTP server on the LAN...)
The AMD was a game changer indeed. This is why I appreciate Google and Linux - it forces the established powers to pick up their game. AMD made Intel drop their prices and stop shipping crap.
Internally the SX had 32bits, only the data bus was 16 bits.
Yes... That was what I meant by "Because it's (the SX) not a DX chip (full 32-bit)" - The problem with the 16-bit data bus was not just limiting the total memory that could be addressed - there was also cache addressing problems. If there was just one 386-SX it'd probably have been better supported - from (fuzzy) memory most of the problems we encountered then (I worked for Compaq at the time) were motherboard ones rather than CPU. I.M.O. IBM made the smart move by ignoring the 386 at the time - they were expensive, and the boards to support them even more so. (and the SL series was an even bigger nightmare).
Using parentheses (or "round brackets" as you call them) does not change the fact that you used "sic" incorrectly.
Care to share the source of the authority to back your opinion? Or is it a secret between you and your college English lit teacher? I'll stick with the Oxford Shorter and Macquarie definitions until I then.
Slashdot Mirror
The last thing I need is somebody lifting my wallet without lifting it.
Then you need a card that's not attached to a bank. Easy fixed.
Materials:- sharp scissors, lid off an old icecream container, a ruler, a felt tipped indelible marker pen
1. mark out a credit card sized rectangle with the ruler and the marker.
2. carefully cut along the line with the scissors....
I heard an interview in the town square last month about this and the gentleman was gushing about how in a few years we won't carry bushels of supplies to barter in our oxcarts anymore. Which seems to miss the point that we carry other supplies in oxcarts. My pitchfork, shovel, rake are all still in there, plus some gold shillings for places which don't barter.
Meanwhile, why would I use Paper Money? Most stores don't support it and, in my area, they probably won't for several years. And if I'm out and about I'm going to have both my oxcart and gold shillings on me. I don't see th benefit of paying for something with paper money.
Mod up this guy up --- ppplease!
I heard there's a thing called television - but my radio works just fine....
Because virtual money can't be laundered.
Ha ha ha! - do you have a gig at the Comedy club? Really? You're serious? You actually believe that shit?
Uncle Surgi runs a market garden, Uncle Bonnoventure runs a trucking company, Cousin Pascaly runs a restaurant, Brother Vincent runs a fishing boat, Mr Ibrahymen runs a night club... throw in a property developer/hotelier and the odd gold prospector and your virtual money plan craps out. I've changed the names (any resemblance to real people is intentional) - but if all the resources of CrimTrek, FinTrek, CasLoan, and the AKKK can't prove criminal enterprise when millions and millions of dollars electronically passes between these groups - then other forms of virtual currency won't work either (there are companies that ensure that). Cousin Pascaly just got convicted for 9 figures worth of product - only because his family turned him in for not sharing (daddy learnt the lesson after being knee-capped and losing the leg, by Mr Girls-hat). Once that money hits a till, it's gone - those accountants, investors, bankers, car yards, boat sellers, councillors, developers, newspapers, television stations, football team owners, Formula 1 promoters - aren't going to give up a good thing - it become the institution.
As for the value of gold - it's stable (doesn't burn or decompose easily), unless a lucky meteorite strikes it'll remain rare, it's easy to verify it's authenticity - it's industrial uses has little bearing on it's value. Governments come and go - but their printed currency is only worth the gold reserves it's backed against. That's the problem with bitcoins - they rely only on scarcity which is based on trust (of the algorithm). Trust is fine for small amounts...
Putting a value on debt is called "speculation" (didn't work so good for the International Bank did it?).... and using a story about criminals caught (shopped by a competing cartel - the leader broke out of a Mexican prison recently) moving cash into banks to somehow magically show that virtual money will stop money laundry is just dumb. The example I gave is where (is) groups launder lower in the chain (at the 1/4 oz level) - virtual money will stop that you think?
Known (busted twice) amphetamine producer runs a series of sweatshop enterprises and a motorcycle yard - his silk screeners, embroiders, sales staff, and mechanics get paid in speed.... it's a virtual currency too. That's small scale - the big scale "accounting service" (getting money to the till" is a big business, in Sydney it's dominated by the son of Mr BrightYellow (ex business partner of Ms. SunComesUp O'Irish) - but there are actual accounting companies that specialize in it, and plenty of accountants willing to try their hand (Nugan Hand ring a bell?).
Perhaps if you knew how much money moving through BOA and G&S is illegal drug money you'd appreciate that money laundry is business as usual.
Wake up and smell the shit.
About all it seems to do is enable Google to watch what I purchase. Sorry, I'm going to need something of benefit to me first.
Yeah but the average Joe doesn't know that and if he did he probably wouldn't care. Soon enough Google will get enough ignorant or apathetic Joes so that most Cashiers will want to support it and bam it'll be convenient for you. Then the only other downside will be its hard to buy hookers with Google Wallet.
Really? The local brothels take credit cards - they don't even show "brothel" on the bill (I set up their POS, and yes, brothels are legal here). I'm told the local drug dealer (for one of the brothels) takes credit cards - they named two restaurants (one in Manuka) that appear on the receipts.... I'm tempted to believe the brothel manager given the owner of the restaurants has since been busted (released on bail) for importing a large amount of cocaine. Google Wallet transactions for the same things is no big stretch. Google around and you'll find botnets that rent out to credit cards.
It's a mistake to think "legitimate" business and "criminal" business live in different parts of town... HINT: Wall Street would collapse if drugs were legalised in the US.
But, unlike email which served a theoretical purpose at that time, this serves no particular use. We have credit cards that do all that, and the only situations I can think of where it would be useful to have it built into the phone are the same instances where one is likely to not have their cell phone.
Progress is great, but progress for the sake of progress is best left to researchers.
Can you do micro transactions on your credit card? As far as I can tell (so far) the advantage of this is for retailers - not consumers. Either way, without a compelling reason I'm not in a huge rush to sign up.
Can we modify it, so it can smell weed
Done already - ditto pollen tracking
or truffles?
Probably considered redundant and expensive now that reliable cultivation by innoculation is considered trivial (my kids sometimes work on a neighbouring truffle farm). They just work through the soil around the tree roots on a regular basis, yields are high and reliable.
It's a Tasmanian company that sells the innoculation - wild truffles aren't worth much now (and pigs are cheap).
Maybe, just maybe (given that they only tested seagulls) - the seagulls aquired the resistant bacteria from the same place humans do.
I'd want to see a study on bacteria in sewers and other birds before I jumped to the conclusion seagulls are the source. Oh wait - that would be thinking.
I've already seen the result of testing chickens. (Hi Mr Steggles)
Presumably the 45 patents they held have expired....
You can legalize marijuana, but what about cocaine and the other dangerous synthetic drugs? Besides, the violence and cartels don't go away just because you legalize something. Blanket legalization would create a landslide of problems on top of the ones we already have. The cartels just start killing the legitimate business owners to stamp out competition right along with the other cartels. The problem with the drug trade is so multi-pronged it's not even funny. There is no blanket solution and people would do well to stop acting like there is.
Agreed - but we live in a world of colour, dominated by morons who can only see black and white (or Republican and Democrat). Alcohol and tobacco are the most dangerous drugs - but removing them, like decriminalizing other drugs, would destroy the US economy (and others).
"Bbbbbut" cry the morons who refuse to recognise where all that cartel money goes (Wall Street) and what the collapse of the private prison industry would do to the state that provided their sub-standard "educmication". Grow a brain idiots - the War on Drugs is bullshit - you can't have a war on inanimate objects - only people. And people saying "psst - want to score?" aren't the problem (and yes, they surely exist) - it's the legions of people with money asking "psst, where can I get an edge?" that are the fucking problem.
HINT: recreational drug use is not a problem per se. It can be an aspect of a social problem. Just as bullets are not a problem... when someone points a gun at you and shoots you - the bullet becomes an "aspect" of the problem. Get it? No? Then you are the problem. To paraphrase Bill Hicks, evolution didn't stop with opposing thumbs - and people who can't cope with complexity lower the standards for the rest of the evolved world (I'm looking at you Glenn).
If I gave everyone in favour of "assassination squad" "drug war" solutions a dollar - it still wouldn't begin to match the money spend daily by the "cartels", "dealer", "drug counsellors", "defence lawyers" and all the other associated industries on keeping recreational drugs illegal. "Bbbbut we're just trying to pay our mortgage" - you are scum - and the yuppie Nuremburg defence is bullshit.
To those that believe "abstinence" and forcing their opinions on others are the answer - context and extrapolation are clearly beyond you - so do the world a favour and go suck a tailpipe, take a dive off a covered bridge, or drive down some tobbacco road and bite a bullet.
Now there's two operating systems I'll never run.
But to anybody who has ever experienced an actual Police State, that statement is flat out insulting. Especially since the Police weren't even involved.
Too true - Police states don't tend to treat security guards with much respect either.
A few days ago, I had a really nasty virus that held my computer hostage (it wouldn't stop unless I paid them $50)! I was desperate for solutions, and no product seemed to work! Then I found my computer works better now...
Can we get Anon to go after this idiot?
Too late - they've already taken over his computer, maxed out his ISP account, got him kicked off the net for spamming, and drained his bank account of his affiliate commissions.
Google track you, and if you search for geeky things regularly then it will learn thats what you are usually looking for and deliver relevant results. If you use a completely clean browser, from an IP you've not used before, you will get different results...
Google claims it so that they can add value to your search results (and I believe them - so far) - I'm paraphrasing "when Bob searches for malt he means beer, when Jill searches for malt she means whiskey".
As for tracking - turn off geolocation in Firefox, wipe your cookies, and try out the new https://encrypted.google.com/
There is also the advantage of small marketshare... You have all the spammers out there trying their best to game google, but how many of them bother to try gaming bing or some of the other small engines? Same thing happened in the early days of google, altavista was full of spam while google had clean results.
Damn - does that mean duckduckgo and blekko are going to turn crappy too - oh well, I can live with Google (all the free stuff helps). Sure they get gamed, but Matt Dunn seems to be on top of things.
So his finding links to microsoft on google easier are a result of google favouring their own services, and the SEO junk link spamming campaign microsoft uses to give shitty results in google, whic it's own service ignores?
That makes no sense
Agreed. Sounds like spin control to me. And it makes me wonder how many of those alleged Google searches that didn't lead to pages being loaded, were Bing (and others) scraping Google search results. I know that some engines openly scape Google's search engine.
Try this:- Create a website and don't register it with any search engines - put some nonsensical words into meta keywords - keep an eye on your logs for search bot and see how long it takes for Google to crawl the site (generally just a day or two, robots.txt allowing). When the nonsense word turns up in the Google results see if you can find it in Bings (it works) - then see how much longer it takes for Bing (or Yahoo) to actually crawl the site with their magic time-travelling search bots.
As another exercise to demonstrate how useful Bing is at building it's own database - see how long it takes Bing to crawl a site *after* you register it with them. Tip: pack plenty of food and clothes first :-D
Perhaps we just have a different perspective on history.
Every properly-configured 386SX/DX board I ran across worked fine, whether big-name OEM or aftermarket...except for one strange AMD 386SX/40 board I had which had issues with DMA.
Definitely a different perspective, on history to - I dealt with companies that would ask what chipset you'd like on the motherboards *cough* PC Chips *cough* - you could literally buy any chipsets you wanted - problem was it was just sticky labels not actual chipsets, the company I worked for was the first manufacturer to sell a machine running a 386 chipset - and early motherboards had an extremely high failure rate. It wasn't until the end of '85 (when Minix was released, nearly a year after we'd had the first CPU that we shipped a working machine. By the late 80's there was so many problems with fake chips that UMC stopped making them under their own name. For the record - no-one had run Linux on a 386 (or any other chip) prior to Sept '91, by which time the AMD 386 had already changed Intels game (I recall them stalling on the first 484s 'cause suddenly qc counted).
For the record:
I have an AT&T/NCR 386SL laptop running a (quite old) version of Slackware. There were no nightmares involved with the installation that had anything to do with the type of CPU. It's as stable as a rock, although it does do slightly more stuff than most rocks...
If there are problems with the design that affect software, I'd like to say that they were sorted quite a long time ago.
They were a nice laptop, though I never owned one. Not all early 386s were a nightmare - most of the "big" brands were well supported (I had a Compaq and a PS/2) - but many of the (low-end) home user machines were total crap - get just one jumper wrong and the machine would play dead. Redhill.net.au probably has a list of the worst - I recall buying one of the first non-Compaq 386's off them - it was a "full" AT board that the family could sit around - and was incapable of even running IBM DOS that ran fine on my PS/2 (286) - they were kind enough to apologise and refund my money. Most of my memories of that era revolve around trying to get Minix to do something (anything) and trying to get early Linux to play nice with the MCA bus and IBMs weird hdd format.
When I said it was a hack I meant ugly hack, and hack only in that it's not the recommended/traditional way to do the job. I like hacks to be elegant, if not, then difficult is good ;-p
I have a computer from 1993 still operating and running MS-DOS 5. I'm not about to write an article about it.
Want a bet? Just make it sound harder than it actually is and sex it up with a picture. It's Hackaday - their diserning editors are... oh yeah - Slashdot! Different dog - same leg action.
How about every source on the internet I could find? I checked Wikipedia, the free dictionaries, various grammar sites, Chicago Manual of Style,
"quiet copyediting" - (unless where inappropriate or uncertain) instead of inserting a bracketed sic, such as by substituting in brackets the correct word (if known) in place of the incorrect word - that's your Wikipedia quote, attributed to the "American unofficial style guide". Which bears little resemblance to what the "Interpolations and Clarifications" 13.5.9 (16th edition) actually says - but you've read that... right?
Oxford Dictionary of American Usage and Style
"Usage of sic greatly increased in the mid-twentieth century." A classic 1998 work of fiction by Byraon A. Garner - the deceptively titled rehash of the Dictionary of Modern American Usage
and so forth. I couldn't find a single reference, nor have I ever seen one, that has "sic" meaning, well, whatever the hell you intended it to mean (it's not at all clear).
So you selectively scanned the page at Wikipedia. What next - you're going to use one of their "authoritative" references - like the author's blog? or maybe that article in the Phillipino newspaper?
The accepted usage in the wider English speaking world is [sic] denotes the editor highlighting a verbatim mistake, or (sic) denoting the writer clarifying something ambiguously worded, usually because it requires context.
Are you being obtuse? Did I say it was hardware components?
Yes, you did:
Indeed! :-(. Certainly not my intention. My apologies for the bum steer.
What I should of written (if it wasn't 3am at the end of 18 day) was:- "the hardware - on which they made a profit, now they're charging again for the "ideas"..
I'd be surprised if anyone uses any of the hardware they developed - but it hasn't been my field for a decade. It's my belief based on reading that none of the patents for which they claim ownership are based on hardware they developed OR concepts first used by them. Here's a few of the things they earn millions of dollars from annually, note that very few of these bear much resemblance to the actual patents:- software application management, GPRS, WCDMA (3G), 802.11, portable radio antenna design, wireless email, proximity sensing, location-based services , multi-device synchronization. That's the main earners and almost everyone is deceptively titled, many are based on work originally done by Sony.
The US military paid Motorola's initial hardware development costs, at absolutely no risk to Motorola. Motorola now sells the same components on the civilian market (as the restriction period has expired). They made a profit the first time around, the second time around they had zero development costs and they charged less for the hardware - on which they made a profit, now they're charging again. (Emphasis added.)
So I ask you again: What ten-year-old phone hardware components are being used today?
I have no idea - probably quite a few. Certainly Motorola sold licenses to many of their components - how many of those designs (like etched antennae) are still in use (but different form factors). And it's irrelevant to the discussion (that's imjustmatthew who claimed it was a reasonable charge for hardware). Motorola is extorting payments for patents on ideas - if recovering costs is their justification for it, as I stated earlier, it's bogus - given that they made a profit on all of that development - and the early "pioneering" work they did (mostly technology theft from other countries) was on no-risk military contracts.
Other than with the expected value of a patent monopoly, how will the maker of a new drug finance FDA-mandated clinical trials? Show a viable alternative to patents for industries that are as heavily regulated for product safety and truth in advertising as the drug industry, and the case against patents will become clearer.
Pharmaceuticals is probably the most profitable legal industry. Development costs compared to return are trivial compared to other industries like car manufacturers. Are pharmaceutical companies patenting ideas to are they? Patenting a manufacturing process - or a new variation of a product is a strawman when used to argue for patents on software "ideas". Patenting ideas is patenting the reworking of existing products - like building a house out of bricks and mortar then trying to patent the idea of building a house out of bricks and mortar. Why should development risks be removed *some* industries - if it's so critical to the planet maybe their should be strict accounting of the development costs, and if the product proves useful the development costs can be refunded. There right, wrong, and legal. Then there's naming a price people don't want to pay - guess what happens when people want something they can't afford, and want it a lot? (laws or no laws). Do you think Lily pharmaceuticals has regained their investment in methadone yet? Don't get me wrong - I'm all for business making a profit, but business monopolies (which patents are being misused for) are bad for Business, which is not good for the majority of people
The 386SX was a 32-bit CPU internally (but with a 24-bit external address bus and 16-bit external data bus 7 circuitry to split 32-bit wide requests into two 16-bit ones) and will run Linux just fine given enough RAM, but many boards designed with the SX in mind would only accept 4Mb (sometimes less) which is not going to be enough for a modern kernel. The SX should run anything the DX would but slower for 32-bit code at any given clock rate due to 32-bit requests needing to be made using two due to the 16-bit data bus, and due to some boards for the DX having support for a small amounts of cache ram which the cheaper boards (probably including all SX ones) lacked. Some early 386 chips were faulty and would not run 32-bit code 100% correctly. These were actually sold as working "16 bit only" chips - if you have some of those they are not going to run Linux successfully. I don't remember if that affected SX models as well or if it had been sorted before they were first released. I remember running a Linux variant (some version of slackware IIRC) on my old 386SX40 (AMD made a version clocked that fast) with 4Mb RAM, though I never did anything useful with Linux until the early Pentium days.
One of the main problems with the earlier 386s was the boards and cards. I remember some of the crippled chips you refer to - I also remember fake cache.
I no longer have my HyperRam cards or the PS/2s they fitted in - but one of the problems with the SX was the 16MB ram limit. It's not that Linux *can't* support the SX as much as it *doesn't* - and that policy was/is just to avoid all the problems. With big name manufacturers it wasn't so hard - but all those clones.... anyway. Except for the AMD386 nothing good happened between the 286 and the first of the 486s. (IMO)
I've managed to install to 386-DX chipsets with 4MB of RAM, but not the SX. Very impressive. Especially given the price I can pick up industrial single card 386-SX boards. Not of interest to gamers and such, but very, very useful non-the-less.
Back in the day I had first Slackware (3.x?) and then RedHat (5,x) running on an Am386SX-40, with 4x 1MB 30 pin SIMMs and an ISA SVGA card (Cirrus I believe). Was NBD, just a PITA loading Slack from endless floppies. (RedHat I installed via an ISA NE2000 clone from an FTP server on the LAN...)
The AMD was a game changer indeed. This is why I appreciate Google and Linux - it forces the established powers to pick up their game. AMD made Intel drop their prices and stop shipping crap.
Internally the SX had 32bits, only the data bus was 16 bits.
Yes... That was what I meant by "Because it's (the SX) not a DX chip (full 32-bit)" - The problem with the 16-bit data bus was not just limiting the total memory that could be addressed - there was also cache addressing problems. If there was just one 386-SX it'd probably have been better supported - from (fuzzy) memory most of the problems we encountered then (I worked for Compaq at the time) were motherboard ones rather than CPU. I.M.O. IBM made the smart move by ignoring the 386 at the time - they were expensive, and the boards to support them even more so. (and the SL series was an even bigger nightmare).
Using parentheses (or "round brackets" as you call them) does not change the fact that you used "sic" incorrectly.
Care to share the source of the authority to back your opinion? Or is it a secret between you and your college English lit teacher? I'll stick with the Oxford Shorter and Macquarie definitions until I then.