That alludes to Martin Luther, the man who started the Protestant Reformation in the 1500s, which split Christianity from just one denomenation (Catholic,) into the Protestant denomenations (Lutheran, Protestant, Episcopal, Baptist,) and Catholicism.
As is mentioned in the story, the link is using an EasyStreet Online-provided DSL link. The telco for that area is Qwest. Assuming the sponsoring company isn't footing the bill for a business-class link, all of that WiFi traffic has to share a single 640k/256k connection.
One video stream, great. Two, acceptable. Three? Nope.
It would be fun to have an internal-WiFi-net video link though, so I can sit by third base, and watch the view from first and the outfield from other WiFi participants with cameras...:-)
(Hmmm... iChatAV, plus a couple PowerBooks with iSights.... Rendezvous would help them find each other..)
If BuyMusic ever tries to play these on TV, they'll get their asses handed to them by Apple in a heartbeat. (It's only parody if its not being done as direct competition for profit, otherwise it's plagarism.)
Yeah, I was dumbstruck by the lack of originality. At least the Tommy Lee one was original (even though it didn't really make much sense.) While I use my Windows machine ten times more than my Mac, I only use the Mac for music. (Yes, I've spent more than I should have on the iTunes Music Store before I gave it up cold turkey. Of course, next paycheck.....)
Yeah, the only problem is that law enforcement can force them to reveal it. (Court order, etc.) And, some of the things they sell (can't tell 'cause the website's down) may fall under a list of 'controlled substances', which may mean that some of the radioactive stuff they HAVE to report.
I take issue with assertion two, that all whole numbers are infinitely precise.
For example, my digital speedometer reads only in whole number increments. Does that mean that my car is only capable of going in speeds that are integers? My car will be going 55mph one moment, then immediately 56, with no smooth acceleration in between?
There is no such thing as infinitely precise to scientists. In theoretical mathematics, maybe, but not science. (And the article is referring to measurements in science, not theoretical mathematics.)
The scales used to measure tractor-trailer rigs are very imprecise, measuring usually in 100 pound blocks (or larger.) Those are whole numbers, does that mean that if I add my son to a truck, the truck's weight doesn't change? Because the weight is in whole numbers does not make it infintely precise.
Again, I return to my "Two point what" comment. Any scientist will not accept 'two' as a 'precise' answer.
You're forgetting significant figures. 2, as written, has only one significant figure. Therefore, it isn't very precise. To a scientist, you never IMPLY any degree of precision. 2 is a very imprecise answer. If I am asking how much something weighs, and you respond '2 grams', I'd probably respond 'two point what?'. If I had written 2.0000000, it would be MORE precise, but still not AS precise as the long number I wrote. It would still be more accurate, though.
I'm no physicist, astronomer or the like, but how can they POSSIBLY know if they are even close to being accurate? Accuracy requires one to be as close to the current answer as possible within a reasonable amount of error, but how can they possibly know what that answer is? There's no way to gauge it. (Or is there and I'm just being ignorant/dense/both?)
It comes from the common confusion of accuracy with precision. Obviously, the *MEANT* precision. They just didn't have the sense to know that's what they meant. It's amazing how often (seemingly) reputable sources confuse the two.
(For those that don't know the difference, precision is the level of detail you achieve. Accuracy is how close you are to the true measurement/answer. So if I ask you what one plus one is; 1.9293875834967890457 is the more PRECISE answer, but 2 is the more accurate.)
Apparently one company did make a Voodoo2 card that had a pass-through, so it did work on the internal monitor.
Re:Replacement Impossible
on
eMac Video Upgrade
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Actually, even the iMacs don't have replaceable video. The very first generation (233MHz) had an undocumented/unsupported 'mezzanine' slot that an enterprising company managed to use as an interface for a VooDoo card, but that was really a video add-on, not an upgrade. (Only an external monitor was accelerated, and only accelerated video appeared on the external monitor; so the OS was internal, games were external.)
Back when BBSes were popular when I was in high school, a friend ran one out of his house. One day his computer died, and he was replacing something in it, so he had it open. He was doing it as quickly as he could, so he just pulled out various cards and laid them wherever was handy. His leg happened to be the 'handy' place to set the internal modem (a 2400 baud, IIRC.) He set it component-side-up. With the phone cord still plugged in. Now, his BBS was reasonably popular (for a one-line BBS.) So, inevitably, someone called while he was working on it. Sent him a decent sized jolt through his leg. He had little burn marks where the phone line connectors were touching his leg for about a week.
Yes, I was there for this adventure. The three of us who were there (aside from him, of course,) were laughing histerically.
Erm... no. The difference is not the data. The difference is the size of the pointer. If you compile your program with -mpowerpc64, your pointers will be 64 bits wide. If you only use the lower 32 bits of them, you're going to be shuttling a lot of zeros in and out of L2 and L1 cache. That's very inefficient.
Sorry, that was what I was meaning, I just phrased it differently.
And, yes, I forgot to take memory address space into account. So, yes, if your picture is only 256 bytes large, the 8-bit program would be faster. Just like if you're processing a 32-bit depth image, that is smaller than 4GB in size (32-bit's addressing space,) a 32-bit program will be faster than a 64-bit one.
Yes. Assuming the data being processed is only 16-bits or 8-bits wide. For example, if you were to make a piece of photo editing software that could only do 8-bit grayscale images, it would be more efficient as an 8-bit program than as a 32-bit program. (Assuming that the host processor had an 8-bit instruction set that is the same as it's 32-bit instruction set.) Likewise, if you write it as a 16-bit program, and have a fully modern 16-bit OS to go with it, (say, ELKS, the 16-bit Linux derivative,) and run it on a Pentium 4, it would be faster than the same thing (again, processing 16-bit data) on a 32-bit version.
In the case of the PowerPC 970, it is the exact same instruction set, in 32-bit or 64-bit modes. The only difference is the data being processed. If you don't *NEED* to use 64-bit data, then 32-bit mode will be faster, as you're not 'padding' the data with an extra 32-bits of unecessary info. The PowerPC architecture was designed from the get-go to be 64-bit, with 32-bit as a subset of it. Until now, there haven't been any PowerPC processors that have been capable of processing the full 64-bit width of data though. (Yes, the original PowerPC 601 could theoretically be redesigned to allow 64-bit data, and it wouldn't take too terribly much work.)
It's not at all like the IA-32 (386-Pentium 4/Xeon/AthlonXP,) AMD-64 (Athlon64/Opteron,) or the IA-64 (Itanium) architectures.
IA-32 was a kludge of the existing 16-bit instruction set. AMD-64 is a further extension of the old 16-bt set. IA-64 is an all-new instruction set, not at all compatible with the old IA-32. (The Itanium Processors have hardware IA-32 decoders in them, but the IA-64 spec doesn't call for it at all. Intel could make a later Itanium that cannot run existing 32-bit code at all, and it would be fully compliant with the IA-64 spec.)
For some reason, 15" LCDs seem to be able to more easily hit higher resolutions. I have yet to see a 17" or 18" LCD with a resolution higher than 1400x900 (widescreen) or 1280x1024. Yet 15.4" screens are available with full HDTV-capable 1920x1200. I haven't yet seen a good explanation as for why this is the case. For some reason, LCD manufacturers just don't seem to be able to break 100ppi on screens larger than 15.4".
This 17", 1400x900 screen has a raw resolution of 99.89 pixels per inch. By contrast, the 15.4" screens that Dell uses at HDTV resolution are a whopping 147.02 ppi, and Sony's miniscule U-series micro-notebooks, with their 6.4" screens, are an unreadable 200ppi.
I've had two emails containing it arrive in the past two days on my work computer. Alarmingly, Norton Antivirus 2003 did not detect it the first time! (I submitted it to Symantec, and they replied "The latest defenition file will find this virus." Only it didn't.) Luckily, I'm not about to open a random *.pif file in an email from a random nobody, so I wasn't about to infect my system; but it was alarming that NAV didn't catch it. Oddly, when a second email infected with it arrived today, NAV caught this one. I was therefore equally alarmed when an email came through and a script ran right away, with no asking for permission. (Frickin' Outlook.) It was only a humor email, containing a text-based animation (Aaaah, ASCII animation, it's been years since I've seen some of that,) using a javascript to animate it, but it still scared me that it ran the script with no warning. So off to prefs to find how to disable scripts in Outlook. (Picture previewing is already disabled.)
Oh, and my Mac at home has recieved it three times, and I think it's fun double clicking it, and watching nothing happen.
A web host that charges ONLY for bytes transferred, and disk space used..
Nearly Free Speech is great for that. I host my business' web site with them, and I've gone for more than a year on only my initial $50 deposit. (My company's name can be determined through other means, I'm not going to invite/. readers to use up all my bandwidth.)
There is no difference. The official term for the current version of the USB specification is "USB 2.0" The term for devices capable of speeds faster than 12 Mb/s is "Hi-Speed USB".
Devices that use 480Mb/s signalling are "Hi-Speed USB" devices, which conform to the "USB 2.0" specification.
Devices that go 12Mb/s are "Full Speed USB" (Or just plain "USB") devices, which can conform to either the "USB 2.0" or "USB 1.1" specifications. So a slow devices can still be "USB 2.0".
"Low Speed USB" (also referred to as just plain "USB") devices use 1.5Mb/s, and again, can be either "USB 1.1", or "USB 2.0"
So, there is no official "USB 2". It's just a company being lazy in advertising a "USB 2.0" compliant product. It also does not tell anything about the speed, which would be signified by a regular "USB" or a "Hi-Speed USB" logo. (The "Hi-Speed USB" logo is the one with the extra red bar above the normal USB logo.)
Yes, re-reading it, I didn't get my main point across about keyboards. I cut that short. What I meant by USB 2.0 keyboards is (insert immediately after "Yes, that means your new keyboard can be a USB 2.0 device.":
"For example, some USB keyboards have built-in hubs. The keyboard portion only needs to operate at 2Mb/s, but the hubs need to support full 480Mb/s speed to be useful anymore. That means that your keyboard, even though it only uses 2Mb/s, is a USB 2.0 device. If you try plugging a 480Mb/s device (DVD-RW) into a USB 1.1 keyboard, it will drop to 12Mb/s, the maximum speed for USB 1.1."
Okay, the license text is available at The Archive, and it includes the following text (section 2.1, paragraph a:)
"SCO claims no ownership interest in any portion of such a modification or DERIVED BINARY PRODUCT that is not part of a SOURCE CODE PRODUCT."
So, their giving you FULL OWNERSHIP of any derivative binaries. That means that if you compile the source, you become an owner of that binary, not a licensee. As long as you are not trying to claim ownership of the source code. However, decompiling reproduces source to something you fully own. That means that you know own the decompiled source.
So SCO has completely given away the System V source in this manner. They can no longer claim full ownership because they offered this license.
(Of course, IANAL, so this is all based on a semi-educated layman's interpretation.)
"When your license is approved, SCO will return a copy to you, and will notify the PDP Unix Preservation society. They are licensees of the source code, and their society will help you obtain a copy of the source code."
You're paying $100 for a license with no warranty, no instructions, no media, not even a guaranty that you can even get ahold of the product! You have to rely on a third-party to give you access to the product.
Old USB 1.1 devices aren't renamed. New devices that support the USB 2.0 signalling (even if they do not support the 480Mb/s speed,) are USB 2.0 devices. 2Mb/s is 'Low Speed', 12Mb/s (the USB 1.1 maximum) is 'Full Speed', and 480Mb/s is 'High Speed'.
Long form:
DEVICES that were USB 1.1 devices are still 'USB 1.1' devices. They operate at either 2 Megabits per second (Low Speed,) or 12 Megabits per second (Full Speed.)
Devices that are designed around the USB 2.0 specification (which includes more than just raw data rate,) are 'USB 2.0' devices, and may operate at 2 Megabits per second (Low Speed,) 12 Megabits per second (Full Speed,) or 480 Megabits per second (High Speed.) So, even though they can be just as slow as 'USB 1.1' devices, if they are 'compatible' with high speed devices (as in, they won't cause your new CD-RW drive to drop to 4x just because they're on the same chain,) then they are USB 2.0 devices. Yes, that means your new keyboard can be a USB 2.0 device. Note that USB 2.0 devices MUST be USB 1.1 compatible. That means that your USB 2.0 mouse will be a USB 2.0 device when connected to a USB 2.0 controller (even though it may only use 2 Megabits per second of bandwidth,) and will be a USB 1.1 device when connected to a USB 1.1 controller. Some devices will be pointless in USB 1.1 mode, such as a DVD-RW drive, where even 1x is too fast for 12 Mb/s. But it will still function, albeit as a 4x CD-RW drive.
Controllers that were USB 1.1 controllers are still USB 1.1 controllers, they allow devices to connect using USB 1.1 signalling, at 2 or 12 Megabits per second.
Controllers that support the USB 2.0 standard are 'USB 2.0' controllers. From what I have gleaned, in order to be a 'USB 2.0' controller, it must support the 480 Mb/s speed. Of course, it also supports 2Mb/s and 12Mb/s at both USB 1.1 and USB 2.0 signalling.
In short, yes, devices that are slower than 480Mb/s *CAN* be USB 2.0 devices. That doesn't mean that *ALL* slower devices are now called USB 2.0.
That's the sound of Trink Guarino's butt being copied onto the copies of this release going to SCO's headquarters...
Point by point translation:
Since filing a lawsuit against IBM, SCO has made public statements and accusations about IBM's Unix license and about Linux in an apparent attempt to create fear uncertainty and doubt among IBM's customers and the open source community.
SCO, shut up or put up.
IBM's Unix license is irrevocable, perpetual and fully paid up. It cannot be terminated. This matter will eventually be resolved in the normal legal process.
Just who do you think you are?
IBM will continue to ship, support and develop AIX which represents years of IBM innovation, hundreds of millions of dollars of investment and many patents. As always, IBM will stand behind our products and our customers.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, an 'Americanized' version of the joke would go along the lines of:
"Yeah, I had an old piece of parchment, I threw it out awhile ago. Declaration of something..."
"No, it's okay, some guys had written their names on it, George, Thomas, John, a whole bunch of them.."
Not quite as funny, as the Gutenberg/Martin Luther one is more believable.
Okay, I'll explain the punchline...
"Scribbled in by Martin something."
That alludes to Martin Luther, the man who started the Protestant Reformation in the 1500s, which split Christianity from just one denomenation (Catholic,) into the Protestant denomenations (Lutheran, Protestant, Episcopal, Baptist,) and Catholicism.
As is mentioned in the story, the link is using an EasyStreet Online-provided DSL link. The telco for that area is Qwest. Assuming the sponsoring company isn't footing the bill for a business-class link, all of that WiFi traffic has to share a single 640k/256k connection.
:-)
One video stream, great. Two, acceptable. Three? Nope.
It would be fun to have an internal-WiFi-net video link though, so I can sit by third base, and watch the view from first and the outfield from other WiFi participants with cameras...
(Hmmm... iChatAV, plus a couple PowerBooks with iSights.... Rendezvous would help them find each other..)
heh.. Didn't catch that.
You mean these ads? They're current.
If BuyMusic ever tries to play these on TV, they'll get their asses handed to them by Apple in a heartbeat. (It's only parody if its not being done as direct competition for profit, otherwise it's plagarism.)
Yeah, I was dumbstruck by the lack of originality. At least the Tommy Lee one was original (even though it didn't really make much sense.) While I use my Windows machine ten times more than my Mac, I only use the Mac for music. (Yes, I've spent more than I should have on the iTunes Music Store before I gave it up cold turkey. Of course, next paycheck.....)
Actually, your email should now be at comcast dot net.
Yeah, the only problem is that law enforcement can force them to reveal it. (Court order, etc.) And, some of the things they sell (can't tell 'cause the website's down) may fall under a list of 'controlled substances', which may mean that some of the radioactive stuff they HAVE to report.
I take issue with assertion two, that all whole numbers are infinitely precise.
For example, my digital speedometer reads only in whole number increments. Does that mean that my car is only capable of going in speeds that are integers? My car will be going 55mph one moment, then immediately 56, with no smooth acceleration in between?
There is no such thing as infinitely precise to scientists. In theoretical mathematics, maybe, but not science. (And the article is referring to measurements in science, not theoretical mathematics.)
The scales used to measure tractor-trailer rigs are very imprecise, measuring usually in 100 pound blocks (or larger.) Those are whole numbers, does that mean that if I add my son to a truck, the truck's weight doesn't change? Because the weight is in whole numbers does not make it infintely precise.
Again, I return to my "Two point what" comment. Any scientist will not accept 'two' as a 'precise' answer.
You're forgetting significant figures. 2, as written, has only one significant figure. Therefore, it isn't very precise. To a scientist, you never IMPLY any degree of precision. 2 is a very imprecise answer. If I am asking how much something weighs, and you respond '2 grams', I'd probably respond 'two point what?'. If I had written 2.0000000, it would be MORE precise, but still not AS precise as the long number I wrote. It would still be more accurate, though.
It comes from the common confusion of accuracy with precision. Obviously, the *MEANT* precision. They just didn't have the sense to know that's what they meant. It's amazing how often (seemingly) reputable sources confuse the two.
(For those that don't know the difference, precision is the level of detail you achieve. Accuracy is how close you are to the true measurement/answer. So if I ask you what one plus one is; 1.9293875834967890457 is the more PRECISE answer, but 2 is the more accurate.)
Apparently one company did make a Voodoo2 card that had a pass-through, so it did work on the internal monitor.
Actually, even the iMacs don't have replaceable video. The very first generation (233MHz) had an undocumented/unsupported 'mezzanine' slot that an enterprising company managed to use as an interface for a VooDoo card, but that was really a video add-on, not an upgrade. (Only an external monitor was accelerated, and only accelerated video appeared on the external monitor; so the OS was internal, games were external.)
Back when BBSes were popular when I was in high school, a friend ran one out of his house. One day his computer died, and he was replacing something in it, so he had it open. He was doing it as quickly as he could, so he just pulled out various cards and laid them wherever was handy. His leg happened to be the 'handy' place to set the internal modem (a 2400 baud, IIRC.) He set it component-side-up. With the phone cord still plugged in. Now, his BBS was reasonably popular (for a one-line BBS.) So, inevitably, someone called while he was working on it. Sent him a decent sized jolt through his leg. He had little burn marks where the phone line connectors were touching his leg for about a week.
Yes, I was there for this adventure. The three of us who were there (aside from him, of course,) were laughing histerically.
Sorry, that was what I was meaning, I just phrased it differently.
And, yes, I forgot to take memory address space into account. So, yes, if your picture is only 256 bytes large, the 8-bit program would be faster. Just like if you're processing a 32-bit depth image, that is smaller than 4GB in size (32-bit's addressing space,) a 32-bit program will be faster than a 64-bit one.
Yes. Assuming the data being processed is only 16-bits or 8-bits wide. For example, if you were to make a piece of photo editing software that could only do 8-bit grayscale images, it would be more efficient as an 8-bit program than as a 32-bit program. (Assuming that the host processor had an 8-bit instruction set that is the same as it's 32-bit instruction set.) Likewise, if you write it as a 16-bit program, and have a fully modern 16-bit OS to go with it, (say, ELKS, the 16-bit Linux derivative,) and run it on a Pentium 4, it would be faster than the same thing (again, processing 16-bit data) on a 32-bit version.
In the case of the PowerPC 970, it is the exact same instruction set, in 32-bit or 64-bit modes. The only difference is the data being processed. If you don't *NEED* to use 64-bit data, then 32-bit mode will be faster, as you're not 'padding' the data with an extra 32-bits of unecessary info. The PowerPC architecture was designed from the get-go to be 64-bit, with 32-bit as a subset of it. Until now, there haven't been any PowerPC processors that have been capable of processing the full 64-bit width of data though. (Yes, the original PowerPC 601 could theoretically be redesigned to allow 64-bit data, and it wouldn't take too terribly much work.)
It's not at all like the IA-32 (386-Pentium 4/Xeon/AthlonXP,) AMD-64 (Athlon64/Opteron,) or the IA-64 (Itanium) architectures.
IA-32 was a kludge of the existing 16-bit instruction set. AMD-64 is a further extension of the old 16-bt set. IA-64 is an all-new instruction set, not at all compatible with the old IA-32. (The Itanium Processors have hardware IA-32 decoders in them, but the IA-64 spec doesn't call for it at all. Intel could make a later Itanium that cannot run existing 32-bit code at all, and it would be fully compliant with the IA-64 spec.)
For some reason, 15" LCDs seem to be able to more easily hit higher resolutions. I have yet to see a 17" or 18" LCD with a resolution higher than 1400x900 (widescreen) or 1280x1024. Yet 15.4" screens are available with full HDTV-capable 1920x1200. I haven't yet seen a good explanation as for why this is the case. For some reason, LCD manufacturers just don't seem to be able to break 100ppi on screens larger than 15.4".
This 17", 1400x900 screen has a raw resolution of 99.89 pixels per inch. By contrast, the 15.4" screens that Dell uses at HDTV resolution are a whopping 147.02 ppi, and Sony's miniscule U-series micro-notebooks, with their 6.4" screens, are an unreadable 200ppi.
I've had two emails containing it arrive in the past two days on my work computer. Alarmingly, Norton Antivirus 2003 did not detect it the first time! (I submitted it to Symantec, and they replied "The latest defenition file will find this virus." Only it didn't.) Luckily, I'm not about to open a random *.pif file in an email from a random nobody, so I wasn't about to infect my system; but it was alarming that NAV didn't catch it. Oddly, when a second email infected with it arrived today, NAV caught this one. I was therefore equally alarmed when an email came through and a script ran right away, with no asking for permission. (Frickin' Outlook.) It was only a humor email, containing a text-based animation (Aaaah, ASCII animation, it's been years since I've seen some of that,) using a javascript to animate it, but it still scared me that it ran the script with no warning. So off to prefs to find how to disable scripts in Outlook. (Picture previewing is already disabled.)
Oh, and my Mac at home has recieved it three times, and I think it's fun double clicking it, and watching nothing happen.
A web host that charges ONLY for bytes transferred, and disk space used..
/. readers to use up all my bandwidth.)
Nearly Free Speech is great for that. I host my business' web site with them, and I've gone for more than a year on only my initial $50 deposit. (My company's name can be determined through other means, I'm not going to invite
There is no difference. The official term for the current version of the USB specification is "USB 2.0" The term for devices capable of speeds faster than 12 Mb/s is "Hi-Speed USB".
Devices that use 480Mb/s signalling are "Hi-Speed USB" devices, which conform to the "USB 2.0" specification.
Devices that go 12Mb/s are "Full Speed USB" (Or just plain "USB") devices, which can conform to either the "USB 2.0" or "USB 1.1" specifications. So a slow devices can still be "USB 2.0".
"Low Speed USB" (also referred to as just plain "USB") devices use 1.5Mb/s, and again, can be either "USB 1.1", or "USB 2.0"
So, there is no official "USB 2". It's just a company being lazy in advertising a "USB 2.0" compliant product. It also does not tell anything about the speed, which would be signified by a regular "USB" or a "Hi-Speed USB" logo. (The "Hi-Speed USB" logo is the one with the extra red bar above the normal USB logo.)
Yes, re-reading it, I didn't get my main point across about keyboards. I cut that short. What I meant by USB 2.0 keyboards is (insert immediately after "Yes, that means your new keyboard can be a USB 2.0 device.":
"For example, some USB keyboards have built-in hubs. The keyboard portion only needs to operate at 2Mb/s, but the hubs need to support full 480Mb/s speed to be useful anymore. That means that your keyboard, even though it only uses 2Mb/s, is a USB 2.0 device. If you try plugging a 480Mb/s device (DVD-RW) into a USB 1.1 keyboard, it will drop to 12Mb/s, the maximum speed for USB 1.1."
Okay, the license text is available at The Archive, and it includes the following text (section 2.1, paragraph a:)
"SCO claims no ownership interest in any portion of such
a modification or DERIVED BINARY PRODUCT that is not part of a
SOURCE CODE PRODUCT."
So, their giving you FULL OWNERSHIP of any derivative binaries. That means that if you compile the source, you become an owner of that binary, not a licensee. As long as you are not trying to claim ownership of the source code. However, decompiling reproduces source to something you fully own. That means that you know own the decompiled source.
So SCO has completely given away the System V source in this manner. They can no longer claim full ownership because they offered this license.
(Of course, IANAL, so this is all based on a semi-educated layman's interpretation.)
And you don't even get the source itself...
"When your license is approved, SCO will return a copy to you, and will notify the PDP Unix Preservation society. They are licensees of the source code, and their society will help you obtain a copy of the source code."
You're paying $100 for a license with no warranty, no instructions, no media, not even a guaranty that you can even get ahold of the product! You have to rely on a third-party to give you access to the product.
Alright, here is a summary:
Old USB 1.1 devices aren't renamed. New devices that support the USB 2.0 signalling (even if they do not support the 480Mb/s speed,) are USB 2.0 devices. 2Mb/s is 'Low Speed', 12Mb/s (the USB 1.1 maximum) is 'Full Speed', and 480Mb/s is 'High Speed'.
Long form:
DEVICES that were USB 1.1 devices are still 'USB 1.1' devices. They operate at either 2 Megabits per second (Low Speed,) or 12 Megabits per second (Full Speed.)
Devices that are designed around the USB 2.0 specification (which includes more than just raw data rate,) are 'USB 2.0' devices, and may operate at 2 Megabits per second (Low Speed,) 12 Megabits per second (Full Speed,) or 480 Megabits per second (High Speed.) So, even though they can be just as slow as 'USB 1.1' devices, if they are 'compatible' with high speed devices (as in, they won't cause your new CD-RW drive to drop to 4x just because they're on the same chain,) then they are USB 2.0 devices. Yes, that means your new keyboard can be a USB 2.0 device. Note that USB 2.0 devices MUST be USB 1.1 compatible. That means that your USB 2.0 mouse will be a USB 2.0 device when connected to a USB 2.0 controller (even though it may only use 2 Megabits per second of bandwidth,) and will be a USB 1.1 device when connected to a USB 1.1 controller. Some devices will be pointless in USB 1.1 mode, such as a DVD-RW drive, where even 1x is too fast for 12 Mb/s. But it will still function, albeit as a 4x CD-RW drive.
Controllers that were USB 1.1 controllers are still USB 1.1 controllers, they allow devices to connect using USB 1.1 signalling, at 2 or 12 Megabits per second.
Controllers that support the USB 2.0 standard are 'USB 2.0' controllers. From what I have gleaned, in order to be a 'USB 2.0' controller, it must support the 480 Mb/s speed. Of course, it also supports 2Mb/s and 12Mb/s at both USB 1.1 and USB 2.0 signalling.
In short, yes, devices that are slower than 480Mb/s *CAN* be USB 2.0 devices. That doesn't mean that *ALL* slower devices are now called USB 2.0.
Point by point translation:
SCO, shut up or put up.
Just who do you think you are?
Fuck off.
Translation:
IBM: <yawn> <glances over shoulder> Oh, SCO? You still there? Eh, fuck off, will you? <goes back to sleep>