"While a slightly larger percentage of men than women are online (68 percent vs 66 percent)" totaling 134%. So where is the other all important 34% population that is above and beyond the existing 100% population.
We must take steps to protect our fetal-browser population, bringing on babysbrowsetoo.com
I am sure Microsoft has a listing of ALL programmers who have contributed to Windows programming (kinda a requirement for legal reasons, and ISO certification, if I remember correctly.
So, lets take a different stance. Say Microsoft was not part of the equation. Since the OS is windows, all software run above windows is required to disclose. Why is that impossible?
nah. I think that its just a bunch of trippe, trying to evade a level of accountability that they do not want to have to adhere to. Afterall, what if (not saying it will) but if something happened? it would litterally mean the end of Diebold.
Basically, I am doing the exact same thing. Currently, they have 8 systems, 1 server, no wireless. I installed Norton AV on all of them last year, for around $100. Worked out fairly nice, Norton was offering 3 user packs for 19.99 after rebates. So it was like $6.00 per installation.
However, since norton has not released 2006 before the subscriptions on these systems were up, and $35 per machine was a little too much, I have been looking into CA eTrust. We already use it at one site, and it works really well. Great thing about eTrust, is that the installation is the same, regardless of the OS level. It works with just about everything. And if you have tried to install Norton Home edition or Pro on a Windows 2003 server, you know what I mean. Its rediculus to have to purchase a server and client copy for $400 to just protect one server.
Check out eTrust. Been pretty happy with it. The other option is doing shares, and run clamscan across the network to protect those machines.
#1 The specs say "Weight: 1.9kg(when fully equipped with AtomChip® Quantum® II processor) and 2,20kg(when fully equipped with 4 x Intel® Pentium® M processors"
Meaning that it "supports" quad Pentium Ms. This is bogus, as the chip will not support dual, let alone multi processor SMP.
#2 The quoted spec of "6.8 ghz" seems strikingly similar to "4x1.7Ghz" Pm or 6.8ghz. Hence, again bogus. See falacy #1
#3 the interface for the storage device is labeled on board as "IDEX1," which means that it is an IDE implementation of CF onboard. Max speed is maybe 20MB/s, hardly operable for a "6.8ghz" machine
#4 it has a "Windows XP" sticker, which you can only carry as a VAR if you have done Windows XP certifications.
#5 "PRO/Wireless 2100/2200BG/2915ABG network connection" These are three different chips... pick one, cause you can't pick all three. 2200BG is a centrino chip, meaning that it would nont work with the custom opti-quantum cpu.
#6 whats "Bluetoth"
#7 "welcome to the world of nanomicrons" wtf is a nanomicron, small microns? is that like inch-feet? or something? try taking a class in physics.
Might turns some heads at that remark, but think about it like this.
The Pentium Pro, the True P6 chip, that was developed during the early 90's was nothing to anyone, except in business / mainframe environments. The P6, with its true cores and integrated memory, was hands down the champ, when compared to the P5. Amazingly enough, every incarnation of the Intel X86 processor is STILL based on the P6. Yes, there have been improvements (MMC, SSI, HT, DC, etc) but the core design principles themselves have remained unchanged.
The Itanium (which sucked ass when I was developing on it) was a new start, at a new core. Itanium2 (which is what became available shortly after Intel realized how bad the I1 was) was a push to market.
Now, a few years have passed, and AMD got the great idea of releasing the x86_64, to act as a bridge between 32bit and 64bit. Intel IA64 requires wholly new programs to really take advantage of the 64bit, whereas Opteron/64 don't.
Intel then realized its mistake, in not creating a 64bit bridge. Tadaa! EMT64 comes out.
But what is happening on the back side? Itanium going away? No. The ia64 will continue, just at the p6 did. Give it a few years, and you will find that x86ia64 chips are starting to be developed. That being, a single chip with a front side x86_64 implementation, and a backside ia64 implementation. These chips will act as a branch point between the two architectures.
Intel will continue to develop, until the market has reached the necessary 51% saturation, and then start phasing out x86.
Processor development is near linear. If clock speeds can't be increased, you increase the core count. When core counts can't be increased, you increase to bus width. Lather, Rinse, Repeat.
By the time the OS is ready, Intel will have the Dual Core Desktop Pentium M available.
Jobs has already stated that the Pentium M is a better product than the G5, because of thermal concerns. Hence, most boxes will likely ship with the 32bit, 64bit for workstations, and low power for laptops.
In the late 90's and early 00's, SCO was messing around with a product called LKP (Linux Kernel Personality) which was a method for allowing system calls from linux applications to the UNIX kernel.
If SCO was so anti-linux, why would they make a move to incorporate linux into its own product. That step right there discounts any claims they might have regarding linux code source.
I think that instead of this being a problem with the quality of goods, (because honestly, silicon ise basically just as good as the next) This is the result of marketing driven manufacturing processes.
Deadlines have to be held, or else the cursed "slip date." And in order to make those deadlines, where is the one area where you can cut a few corners? Quality testing.
Why spend 72-hours straight in a burn-in for every device, when you can make 1 72-hour burn in for 1 device out of the batch (maybe 2) and hope for the best.
Doesn't work, and my 3 week old, and supposedly "burned-in" monitor can attest.
Slashdot Mirror
"While a slightly larger percentage of men than women are online (68 percent vs 66 percent)" totaling 134%. So where is the other all important 34% population that is above and beyond the existing 100% population.
We must take steps to protect our fetal-browser population, bringing on babysbrowsetoo.com
I am sure Microsoft has a listing of ALL programmers who have contributed to Windows programming (kinda a requirement for legal reasons, and ISO certification, if I remember correctly.
So, lets take a different stance. Say Microsoft was not part of the equation. Since the OS is windows, all software run above windows is required to disclose. Why is that impossible?
nah. I think that its just a bunch of trippe, trying to evade a level of accountability that they do not want to have to adhere to. Afterall, what if (not saying it will) but if something happened? it would litterally mean the end of Diebold.
that is absolutely hillarious.
Basically, I am doing the exact same thing. Currently, they have 8 systems, 1 server, no wireless. I installed Norton AV on all of them last year, for around $100. Worked out fairly nice, Norton was offering 3 user packs for 19.99 after rebates. So it was like $6.00 per installation.
However, since norton has not released 2006 before the subscriptions on these systems were up, and $35 per machine was a little too much, I have been looking into CA eTrust. We already use it at one site, and it works really well. Great thing about eTrust, is that the installation is the same, regardless of the OS level. It works with just about everything. And if you have tried to install Norton Home edition or Pro on a Windows 2003 server, you know what I mean. Its rediculus to have to purchase a server and client copy for $400 to just protect one server.
Check out eTrust. Been pretty happy with it. The other option is doing shares, and run clamscan across the network to protect those machines.
Several things strike me as bogus about this.
e s/Teacher.jpeg
#1 The specs say "Weight: 1.9kg(when fully equipped with AtomChip® Quantum® II processor) and 2,20kg(when fully equipped with 4 x Intel® Pentium® M processors"
Meaning that it "supports" quad Pentium Ms. This is bogus, as the chip will not support dual, let alone multi processor SMP.
#2 The quoted spec of "6.8 ghz" seems strikingly similar to "4x1.7Ghz" Pm or 6.8ghz. Hence, again bogus. See falacy #1
#3 the interface for the storage device is labeled on board as "IDEX1," which means that it is an IDE implementation of CF onboard. Max speed is maybe 20MB/s, hardly operable for a "6.8ghz" machine
#4 it has a "Windows XP" sticker, which you can only carry as a VAR if you have done Windows XP certifications.
#5 "PRO/Wireless 2100/2200BG/2915ABG network connection" These are three different chips... pick one, cause you can't pick all three. 2200BG is a centrino chip, meaning that it would nont work with the custom opti-quantum cpu.
#6 whats "Bluetoth"
#7 "welcome to the world of nanomicrons" wtf is a nanomicron, small microns? is that like inch-feet? or something? try taking a class in physics.
#8 http://atomchip.com/db4/00366/atomchip.com/_uimag
That said, I will eat my words gladly if anything of this turns out true. Anyone up for a trip to CES this year?
Sounds kinda familiar.
When can we expect the space elevator on mars to be operational? Will we also be colonizing Pheobos and Deomos?
Might turns some heads at that remark, but think about it like this.
The Pentium Pro, the True P6 chip, that was developed during the early 90's was nothing to anyone, except in business / mainframe environments. The P6, with its true cores and integrated memory, was hands down the champ, when compared to the P5. Amazingly enough, every incarnation of the Intel X86 processor is STILL based on the P6. Yes, there have been improvements (MMC, SSI, HT, DC, etc) but the core design principles themselves have remained unchanged.
The Itanium (which sucked ass when I was developing on it) was a new start, at a new core. Itanium2 (which is what became available shortly after Intel realized how bad the I1 was) was a push to market.
Now, a few years have passed, and AMD got the great idea of releasing the x86_64, to act as a bridge between 32bit and 64bit. Intel IA64 requires wholly new programs to really take advantage of the 64bit, whereas Opteron/64 don't.
Intel then realized its mistake, in not creating a 64bit bridge. Tadaa! EMT64 comes out.
But what is happening on the back side? Itanium going away? No. The ia64 will continue, just at the p6 did. Give it a few years, and you will find that x86ia64 chips are starting to be developed. That being, a single chip with a front side x86_64 implementation, and a backside ia64 implementation. These chips will act as a branch point between the two architectures.
Intel will continue to develop, until the market has reached the necessary 51% saturation, and then start phasing out x86.
Processor development is near linear. If clock speeds can't be increased, you increase the core count. When core counts can't be increased, you increase to bus width. Lather, Rinse, Repeat.
By the time the OS is ready, Intel will have the Dual Core Desktop Pentium M available.
r s
Jobs has already stated that the Pentium M is a better product than the G5, because of thermal concerns. Hence, most boxes will likely ship with the 32bit, 64bit for workstations, and low power for laptops.
Check this http://arstechnica.com/columns/mac/mac-20050608.a
In the late 90's and early 00's, SCO was messing around with a product called LKP (Linux Kernel Personality) which was a method for allowing system calls from linux applications to the UNIX kernel.
If SCO was so anti-linux, why would they make a move to incorporate linux into its own product. That step right there discounts any claims they might have regarding linux code source.
According to the register, Sony and Micro$haft will be debuting their platforms on the 16th, not the 12th.
_ ps 3_xbox2_launch/
Double header.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/04/11/sony_ms
gotta love 4.1 humor.
narf.
Lets pose a hypothetical situation:
SCO starts wins over IBM, Linux becomes illegal.
Microsoft, who is now apparently backing SCO, aquires SCO in a take-over. Microsoft now owns the rights to UNIX and a significant portion of Linux.
How can it be a monopoly, if there is no competition?
I think that instead of this being a problem with the quality of goods, (because honestly, silicon ise basically just as good as the next) This is the result of marketing driven manufacturing processes.
Deadlines have to be held, or else the cursed "slip date." And in order to make those deadlines, where is the one area where you can cut a few corners? Quality testing.
Why spend 72-hours straight in a burn-in for every device, when you can make 1 72-hour burn in for 1 device out of the batch (maybe 2) and hope for the best.
Doesn't work, and my 3 week old, and supposedly "burned-in" monitor can attest.