Yes, but they're bulky, heavy, use lots of power and generate lots of heat. Basically the worst possible thing to use on a spacecraft besides uninsulated O-rings... Why didn't they go with flat-panel (plasma or LCD) displays?
Simple: reliability. Remember, NASA is a government agency. They want something that is completely, totally proven reliable. CRTs are just that. Yes, they're heavier and draw more power than LCD; but they're MUCH better than the scores of dials and gagues that were there before. And, they're more sturdy. A glass display is much more flightworthy than LCD.
And, even the many CRTs that are in the new cockpit weigh less than the old gagues. And for all of you wondering what happens when the displays go out? Not only would they have backup systems (at least 3,) but all aircraft with glass cockpits are required to have manual gague backups of the most important six instruments. I would assume that this is true for the shuttle as well, although I haven't seen high enough quality pictures of the new cockpit to be certain.
I've also seen some posts about how old the hardware in the space shuttle is. Two things about that:
The shuttle was designed in the early '70s. That means the equipment had to have been proven equipment at the time.
The same is true now. The equipment being used in the upgrade has to be proven hardware. That means that the new hardware is probably at least 10 years old.
To run the cockpit systems doesn't take much power. A system equivalent to a 286, with 500k of memory, is more than enough to run a glass cockpit.
For glass cockpit displays, the only part that really takes any power is the actual display, and that is usually taken care of with dedicated hardware.
The VentureStar (the scheduled replacement for the Shuttle) is at least a decade away. The X-33 is just the small-scale prototype of it. The X-33 will undergo at least 3 years of testing before work even starts on the VentureStar. I honestly believe that a private company will end up making a replacement before NASA gets around to it. One to look into is Rotary Rockets. They are scheduled to make their first orbital flight later this year or early next year. (This would be the first time that a private venture, as opposed to a government, has sent a human in space.)
Well, I've seen a few 'comical' posts about this story, so I just have to weigh in. I'm an Aerospace Engineer, and I have friends who are 'Aviation Computer Scientists'. That means that they program the computers that run airplanes.
Observation 1. The 'glass cockpit' displays in airplanes (and, presumably the Space Shuttle) do not run off the shelf operating systems. They are custom, proprietary operating systems written specifically for what they do. They have no need to use a general purpose OS, when what they need above all else is rock solid stability for just a few functions. One of my old college buddies is even working on the code for the 'operating system' of the new space station.
Myth: Glass displays are fragile. This is simply not true. The space shuttle has had glass displays since the first one, but there just weren't as many, and as prevalent as they are after this refurbishing. Glass displays can handle the 4 G's experienced by the shuttle just fine, as well as the vibration. For one, jet fighters have glass displays in them, and regularly handle worse G forces than the shuttle ever does.
Hopefully this clears it up a little more. Any questions, just post.
Aha! I just read the more recent article on Wired, which has a way around this in the future. If you sign over your rights to the FSF as soon as you GPL the software, then noone can buy your rights from you (like Mattel did.) They can then harras the FSF, but the FSF is much less likely to fold, and much more likely to fight and win in court. Unfortunately, the authors of cphack didn't do this, so my point still stands.
In fact, the Wired article states both my point and the way around it very clearly. If you haven't yet, read it.
Where in the GPL is there any provision to allow the user of that code to change licence if you want them to? There isn't (unless you add it in, of course), so you can't force them to change licences without downloading another copy of your program.
Ah, true... But... Mattel owns the code. They may not be able to change the license under which someone has already agreed to, but, they can revoke that license. Copyright law gives them that right. I'm not saying I like what they're doing (and they can only have my copies if they take my hard drive, and burn all my backup CDs,) I'm just saying that it appears that they do have legal grounds. Yes, there is no way in hell that they can make this program disappear once it's out (see DeCSS for proof,) but it does mean that they can make all copies truly illegal.
What I am saying is that the GPL needs a clause added that states that once something is GPLed, noone, not even the copyright holder, can change the license. In other words, the GPL not only needs to limit the Licensee, but the copyright owner as well. THEN, the GPL couldn't be removed, no matter who buys the code. (If the GPL contained such a clause, then Mattel defenitely wouldn't have a leg to stand on.) Unfortunately, this couldn't prevent AOL's revokation of GNUtella, since technically AOL is probably the copyright owner, so the authors had no rights to give up to the GPL. I like companies that let their employees own the code they write on their own time...
Remember the distinction... The writer of the code (the copyright owner) always has rights to do with it whatever he wants, no matter what license he puts on it. He can even revoke the license, meaning that all copies of his software are now UNLICENSED. Even if it was GPLed in the first place. Licensees have limited rights, limited to the rights that the owner gives them in their license. If that license is revoked, then NO MATTER WHAT TERMS THEY AGREED TO, their rights to the code are now null and void. However, I have seen nothing saying that Mattel has revoked their license on it, so technically, all copies are still legal until they think to revoke the licenses. Also remember, if I write a piece of GPLed software, and you download it, you are a licensee to me. If you give a copy to someone else, they are not licensing it from you, but still from me. Just because you are a licensee does not give you ownership rights to license it out again. I can't sublicense a copy of Microsoft Word, just as I can't sublicense a copy of Red Hat. Red Hat (or, technically, everyone who owns a piece of Linux code) will always be the copyright holder, so you are always licensing from THEM. If you modify the software I license to you, THEN copy it to someone, they are licensing it from BOTH of us. If I revoke my license, then even though they have a legal license from you, everything I wrote is now unlicensed, so your parts become illegal.
One thing most people seem to assume is that once you release under the GPL, you cannot change your license. That is not true. If I release a piece of software (say, a mail program) that is entirely my own work, entirely written by me, on my own time; I own the software. Lets say that I have this piece of software, and that I decide to release it for the world to enjoy. Being a good little boy, I license it under the GNU GPL. Most of you understand that the GPL limits what the LICENSEE can do. If you download my mail program, then make a modification, you MUST make the modification and the source available under the GPL. But, the original program is still owned by me, and is always covered under the licence I gave it. If, three months down the road, I decide I don't want to support it anymore, I can change the license! There is nothing in the GPL that prevents the ORIGINAL CODE OWNER from changing his licensing scheme. Licenses are changed all the time, and my mail software will be no different.
Now, to the case of cphack... The two authors wrote it, and licensed it under the GPL. But, THEY STILL OWN IT. If they want to revoke the GPL licensing, they can! Now that Mattel has 'bought' the rights to the software (they bought the acutal ownership, not just a license,) Mattel can relicense it any way they want, because they are now the copyright holders. And copyright law takes precedence over licensing issues.
Remember, the GPL only limits LICENSEEs, it does not, and can not, limit the OWNER of the software. The only way to do that would be if the owner of the code specifically signed documents placing his work into the public domain. Then, licensing is uneccesary, as anyone can OWN their own copy of the source, as NOONE owns the entire copyright when something is in the public domain.
But, that all said, IANAL, and this is just my opinion after conferring with a friend who is a lawyer. We'll really find out if and when something regarding this ever goes to court. (Heck, I should write a program, GPL it, revoke the GPL, then have my lawyer friend sue me just so we can set the precedent...)
Well, since everyone else has pointed out that the MD camera is available in the US, I guess I'll point out that there is a car DVD player available, too. I wasn't able to find the manufacturer, but a local car audio chain stocks it. I'll stop by after work today and post the manufacturer/model when I get home.
That's why the more likely (and scary) approach would be to block entire servers. A router could easily block packets from/to a specific IP address, it would simply drop them, no added overhead. The client web browser would just think that the server doesn't exist, because it isn't returning any of its packets.
Of course, what would make more sense is to impliment this as firewalls, not routers. You would have to replace all ISP's gateways with transparent filtering firewalls/proxies, which could selectively block URLs at any level, with much less of a performance hit. However, this still has the problems of bad filtering.
All in all, this is a bad idea, no matter how it is implimented.
Heck, a friend of mine back in school even programmed a version of it for the old TI-81 caculator after seeing the version I had on my HP-48. I still can't believe he made a fully functional (if simple-looking,) version of Tetris in just 2400 bytes of memory, in a programming language that makes BASIC look as powerful as C++.
Of course, it's the only one of my links that I didn't check beforehand... All the others I verified. I even had to knock one off my list because it wasn't valid anymore. Oh well. That'll teach me to double check my links.
All of these are smaller, independent bookstores that aren't huge conglomerates (or Internet behemoths,) and are very good alternatives to the conventional. This list has a good selection of online bookstores, including the ones listed above.
Or, there's always the old fasioned way. Walk to your local used bookstore. I guarantee that there is one in your town, and you might just find something worth reading.
Yes, but that was drum memory. Emphasis on 'memory'. How would you like it if your main memory was barely faster than your hard drive? Considering our main memory is now up to 400MHz (PC800 RAMBUS memory, which could be compared to 400,000,000 rpm...) in sizes of up to 512MB (which can hold approx 1073741824 decimal digits,) I think we've come a long way. So what if our hard storage only spins at 15,000 rpms; it can hold easily a terabyte in the space that your Univac drum memory took up.
Although, I think RAMBUS still takes an hour to spin down and ten minutes to spin up...;-)
Quick thing to clear up, they are selling the chip for $95. In bulk. That means that if a motherboard manufacturer decides to integrate it into a motherboard, it will add $95 to the cost of the board. And that actual gigabit cards will cost much more. (Heck, the Intel 82559 10/100 chip costs only about $30 by itself, but a NIC that uses it costs around $150!)
Read http://www.cnn.com/2000/TECH/computing/01/31/johan sen.interview.idg/index.html for an interview with Linux World. This will answer some of your questions before he is asked a repeat question.
Last month, the DVD Copyright Control Association sued 72 hackers and Web site authors for posting - or even linking to software (DeCSS) that unlocks the system for preventing illegal copying of video discs.
This is not what CSS does...
You're right. I assume (hope) Mr. Katz knows the difference as well. But... The DVD CCA sued claiming that that is what DeCSS was for. They claimed that DeCSS was solely to illegally copy DVDs. Yes, this is wrong, and that is part of the problem with their case. No DeCSS is needed to duplicate DVDs. DeCSS is just needed to view them.
Yes, MS gets around the "no purchase required" by making it a loan. However, because they call it a loan, you may still have to pay it back! It's not that they are giving you free money, just that they are loaning it to you, and your loan is payed back as internet access fees.
True, IANAL, but that's my interpretation of the Staples contract at this link.
Re:I have a P3/500 in my laptop already...
on
Laptop Pentium IIIs
·
· Score: 2
This is why I like my new Sony PictureBook. It's small. It has just the features I need (USB, FireWire, Infrared, PC Card, and a camera.) And, it already supports lowering the processor speed. It has a Pentium MMX 266MHz chip. I can lower (via software or the BIOS) that to 66, 133, or 200MHz. (Speeds of 25%, 50%, and 75%.) I have checked with WCPUID that it is indeed running at those speeds.
No MacOS - I know it's not great, but I bet a machine running appleshare server would do pretty well...
I agree here. I know of one Macintosh server (My old high school's SE/30, running System 6) that has been going continuously for at least 9 years. (I went back a few months ago, and it STILL hadn't been rebooted since my Freshman year.) Assuming it is exactly 9 years (possibly more) that means it has been up for 3206 days!
As for Windows 2000 only being up for 49 days? IT'S BETA!!! I'm sure that 50 days after it is officially released, the record will be 50 days. Of course it has low uptimes now; it gets a new major release every three weeks. How many of you have a release of Mozilla running for 49 days? (Or even have the same version installed for that long?)
But, I completely understand why BSD is the king. I've worked with BSD for years, and it is by far the most stable OS I have ever worked with. Yes, Linux is good, but BSD just seems to be more inherently able to stay up for that long. Wether it's due to downing for maintenance, or a crash, Windows will never last 1000+ days. Linux may last a long time, but every few months you usually have to down it for SOME maintenance. Of course, the 1994 day record equates to 5.5 years. Any Linux/Windows box that has been running that long is hopelessly out of date for todays uses. A Windows box that old wouldn't have the processing power to do anything useful, or even the capability to serve modern Windows systems. A Linux box that old would have such an old kernel that I wouldn't dare run it.
What is this doing here? It never appeared on the main page even.
But, all-in-all, this is pretty cool. Maybe we'll finally see Palm-style Open Souce handhelds.
And, if you're wondering, an open souce handheld would be great. Why settle for what Palm (or Microsoft) thinks is good for you when you can write your own look and feel?! Just think, you could probably add compatibility for both Palm apps and Wince apps. Now all we need is some good touchscreen support, and we're set! (Or is there already touchscreen support I don't know about?)
Ah, if you're in Vancouver, just make sure not to make any large purchases in Oregon. The Washington IRS (Whatever they're called) have been known to arrest people for buying large things (cars, boats, etc.) in Oregon to avoid sales tax. They make you pay the tax you would have owed, and then some!
As for Income vs. Sales? Well, Income is called a "progressive" tax, in that it taxes the rich proportionally more than the poor. (If you make more money, more of your money goes to the government.) A sales tax is a "regressive" tax because it taxes the poor more than the rich. (The poor tend to spend a higher percentage of their money on items they buy, as opposed to investments and other non-taxable items; so they end up paying a higher PERCENTAGE of their income in tax under a sales tax.)
I am a fan of income tax, and I dislike sales tax. I also happen to live in Oregon. (I went to college out of state, and it was a happy surprise going to Burger King my first day back, ordering a $2.99 value meal, and getting to pay with $3.00, with a penny back! Instead of buying a $2.99 meal, and having to dig out another 23 cents.)
stay a normal distance away. The thing I'm curious over is, why is HDTV almost 50% higher resolution than this? HDTV goes up to 1920x1080, and this is significantly lower... But, it's what Mr. Lucas is using for Ep 2.. Oh well. At least it means no more scratches.
That's the point I could barely identify it, but the watermarking program could still find its embedded watermark... I have no clue how it did it. About the only thing I didn't do was photocopy it as well... But, since this watermarking program was meant to leave a watermark that could be used to identify modified copies, I guess it should survive that as well.
Yes, one of my cow-orkers (a [bad] technical support wonk) told me "Linux went public today!" I gave him a funny look and said "wha?" The sad thing is that he answers questions about our server products in a public forum, including answering Linux questions. (Hell, he even has a "VA Linux Systems" box in his cubicle!) At least I'm in training tomorrow, so he'll get to deal with the customer I pissed off today.:-)
Okay, my bad. Just a little misunderstanding of the terminology. (Hey, I work with computers, I'm not a stock broker.) I had understood that the real meaning of "opened" to mean the offering price. (Which, I guess, is called the offering price...) So I guess I was wrong. My boss got "the letter"... And he had his stock broker get extra shares. He was a millionaire yesterday, I'll bet he's a multimillionaire today.
Slashdot Mirror
Simple: reliability. Remember, NASA is a government agency. They want something that is completely, totally proven reliable. CRTs are just that. Yes, they're heavier and draw more power than LCD; but they're MUCH better than the scores of dials and gagues that were there before. And, they're more sturdy. A glass display is much more flightworthy than LCD.
And, even the many CRTs that are in the new cockpit weigh less than the old gagues. And for all of you wondering what happens when the displays go out? Not only would they have backup systems (at least 3,) but all aircraft with glass cockpits are required to have manual gague backups of the most important six instruments. I would assume that this is true for the shuttle as well, although I haven't seen high enough quality pictures of the new cockpit to be certain.
I've also seen some posts about how old the hardware in the space shuttle is. Two things about that:
For glass cockpit displays, the only part that really takes any power is the actual display, and that is usually taken care of with dedicated hardware.
The VentureStar (the scheduled replacement for the Shuttle) is at least a decade away. The X-33 is just the small-scale prototype of it. The X-33 will undergo at least 3 years of testing before work even starts on the VentureStar. I honestly believe that a private company will end up making a replacement before NASA gets around to it. One to look into is Rotary Rockets. They are scheduled to make their first orbital flight later this year or early next year. (This would be the first time that a private venture, as opposed to a government, has sent a human in space.)
Well, I've seen a few 'comical' posts about this story, so I just have to weigh in. I'm an Aerospace Engineer, and I have friends who are 'Aviation Computer Scientists'. That means that they program the computers that run airplanes.
Observation 1. The 'glass cockpit' displays in airplanes (and, presumably the Space Shuttle) do not run off the shelf operating systems. They are custom, proprietary operating systems written specifically for what they do. They have no need to use a general purpose OS, when what they need above all else is rock solid stability for just a few functions. One of my old college buddies is even working on the code for the 'operating system' of the new space station.
Myth: Glass displays are fragile. This is simply not true. The space shuttle has had glass displays since the first one, but there just weren't as many, and as prevalent as they are after this refurbishing. Glass displays can handle the 4 G's experienced by the shuttle just fine, as well as the vibration. For one, jet fighters have glass displays in them, and regularly handle worse G forces than the shuttle ever does.
Hopefully this clears it up a little more. Any questions, just post.
Aha! I just read the more recent article on Wired, which has a way around this in the future. If you sign over your rights to the FSF as soon as you GPL the software, then noone can buy your rights from you (like Mattel did.) They can then harras the FSF, but the FSF is much less likely to fold, and much more likely to fight and win in court. Unfortunately, the authors of cphack didn't do this, so my point still stands.
In fact, the Wired article states both my point and the way around it very clearly. If you haven't yet, read it.
Ah, true... But... Mattel owns the code. They may not be able to change the license under which someone has already agreed to, but, they can revoke that license. Copyright law gives them that right. I'm not saying I like what they're doing (and they can only have my copies if they take my hard drive, and burn all my backup CDs,) I'm just saying that it appears that they do have legal grounds. Yes, there is no way in hell that they can make this program disappear once it's out (see DeCSS for proof,) but it does mean that they can make all copies truly illegal.
What I am saying is that the GPL needs a clause added that states that once something is GPLed, noone, not even the copyright holder, can change the license. In other words, the GPL not only needs to limit the Licensee, but the copyright owner as well. THEN, the GPL couldn't be removed, no matter who buys the code. (If the GPL contained such a clause, then Mattel defenitely wouldn't have a leg to stand on.) Unfortunately, this couldn't prevent AOL's revokation of GNUtella, since technically AOL is probably the copyright owner, so the authors had no rights to give up to the GPL. I like companies that let their employees own the code they write on their own time...
Remember the distinction... The writer of the code (the copyright owner) always has rights to do with it whatever he wants, no matter what license he puts on it. He can even revoke the license, meaning that all copies of his software are now UNLICENSED. Even if it was GPLed in the first place. Licensees have limited rights, limited to the rights that the owner gives them in their license. If that license is revoked, then NO MATTER WHAT TERMS THEY AGREED TO, their rights to the code are now null and void. However, I have seen nothing saying that Mattel has revoked their license on it, so technically, all copies are still legal until they think to revoke the licenses. Also remember, if I write a piece of GPLed software, and you download it, you are a licensee to me. If you give a copy to someone else, they are not licensing it from you, but still from me. Just because you are a licensee does not give you ownership rights to license it out again. I can't sublicense a copy of Microsoft Word, just as I can't sublicense a copy of Red Hat. Red Hat (or, technically, everyone who owns a piece of Linux code) will always be the copyright holder, so you are always licensing from THEM. If you modify the software I license to you, THEN copy it to someone, they are licensing it from BOTH of us. If I revoke my license, then even though they have a legal license from you, everything I wrote is now unlicensed, so your parts become illegal.
Pardon my rant... I'm done now.
One thing most people seem to assume is that once you release under the GPL, you cannot change your license. That is not true.
If I release a piece of software (say, a mail program) that is entirely my own work, entirely written by me, on my own time; I own the software. Lets say that I have this piece of software, and that I decide to release it for the world to enjoy. Being a good little boy, I license it under the GNU GPL.
Most of you understand that the GPL limits what the LICENSEE can do. If you download my mail program, then make a modification, you MUST make the modification and the source available under the GPL. But, the original program is still owned by me, and is always covered under the licence I gave it. If, three months down the road, I decide I don't want to support it anymore, I can change the license! There is nothing in the GPL that prevents the ORIGINAL CODE OWNER from changing his licensing scheme. Licenses are changed all the time, and my mail software will be no different.
Now, to the case of cphack... The two authors wrote it, and licensed it under the GPL. But, THEY STILL OWN IT. If they want to revoke the GPL licensing, they can! Now that Mattel has 'bought' the rights to the software (they bought the acutal ownership, not just a license,) Mattel can relicense it any way they want, because they are now the copyright holders. And copyright law takes precedence over licensing issues.
Remember, the GPL only limits LICENSEEs, it does not, and can not, limit the OWNER of the software. The only way to do that would be if the owner of the code specifically signed documents placing his work into the public domain. Then, licensing is uneccesary, as anyone can OWN their own copy of the source, as NOONE owns the entire copyright when something is in the public domain.
But, that all said, IANAL, and this is just my opinion after conferring with a friend who is a lawyer. We'll really find out if and when something regarding this ever goes to court. (Heck, I should write a program, GPL it, revoke the GPL, then have my lawyer friend sue me just so we can set the precedent...)
Well, since everyone else has pointed out that the MD camera is available in the US, I guess I'll point out that there is a car DVD player available, too. I wasn't able to find the manufacturer, but a local car audio chain stocks it. I'll stop by after work today and post the manufacturer/model when I get home.
That's why the more likely (and scary) approach would be to block entire servers. A router could easily block packets from/to a specific IP address, it would simply drop them, no added overhead. The client web browser would just think that the server doesn't exist, because it isn't returning any of its packets.
Of course, what would make more sense is to impliment this as firewalls, not routers. You would have to replace all ISP's gateways with transparent filtering firewalls/proxies, which could selectively block URLs at any level, with much less of a performance hit. However, this still has the problems of bad filtering.
All in all, this is a bad idea, no matter how it is implimented.
The king of all simple, addictive games:
TETRIS!!!
Heck, a friend of mine back in school even programmed a version of it for the old TI-81 caculator after seeing the version I had on my HP-48. I still can't believe he made a fully functional (if simple-looking,) version of Tetris in just 2400 bytes of memory, in a programming language that makes BASIC look as powerful as C++.
D-OH!
Of course, it's the only one of my links that I didn't check beforehand... All the others I verified. I even had to knock one off my list because it wasn't valid anymore. Oh well. That'll teach me to double check my links.
Bad Barnes and Noble, bad!
My favorite physical bookstore has a presence online, along with plenty of other independent bookstores:
All of these are smaller, independent bookstores that aren't huge conglomerates (or Internet behemoths,) and are very good alternatives to the conventional. This list has a good selection of online bookstores, including the ones listed above.
Or, there's always the old fasioned way. Walk to your local used bookstore. I guarantee that there is one in your town, and you might just find something worth reading.
Yes, but that was drum memory. Emphasis on 'memory'. How would you like it if your main memory was barely faster than your hard drive? Considering our main memory is now up to 400MHz (PC800 RAMBUS memory, which could be compared to 400,000,000 rpm...) in sizes of up to 512MB (which can hold approx 1073741824 decimal digits,) I think we've come a long way. So what if our hard storage only spins at 15,000 rpms; it can hold easily a terabyte in the space that your Univac drum memory took up.
;-)
Although, I think RAMBUS still takes an hour to spin down and ten minutes to spin up...
Quick thing to clear up, they are selling the chip for $95. In bulk. That means that if a motherboard manufacturer decides to integrate it into a motherboard, it will add $95 to the cost of the board. And that actual gigabit cards will cost much more. (Heck, the Intel 82559 10/100 chip costs only about $30 by itself, but a NIC that uses it costs around $150!)
Read http://www.cnn.com/2000/TECH/computing/01/31/johan sen.interview.idg/index.html for an interview with Linux World. This will answer some of your questions before he is asked a repeat question.
You're right. I assume (hope) Mr. Katz knows the difference as well. But... The DVD CCA sued claiming that that is what DeCSS was for. They claimed that DeCSS was solely to illegally copy DVDs. Yes, this is wrong, and that is part of the problem with their case. No DeCSS is needed to duplicate DVDs. DeCSS is just needed to view them.
Yes, MS gets around the "no purchase required" by making it a loan. However, because they call it a loan, you may still have to pay it back! It's not that they are giving you free money, just that they are loaning it to you, and your loan is payed back as internet access fees.
True, IANAL, but that's my interpretation of the Staples contract at this link.
This is why I like my new Sony PictureBook. It's small. It has just the features I need (USB, FireWire, Infrared, PC Card, and a camera.) And, it already supports lowering the processor speed. It has a Pentium MMX 266MHz chip. I can lower (via software or the BIOS) that to 66, 133, or 200MHz. (Speeds of 25%, 50%, and 75%.) I have checked with WCPUID that it is indeed running at those speeds.
I agree here. I know of one Macintosh server (My old high school's SE/30, running System 6) that has been going continuously for at least 9 years. (I went back a few months ago, and it STILL hadn't been rebooted since my Freshman year.) Assuming it is exactly 9 years (possibly more) that means it has been up for 3206 days!
As for Windows 2000 only being up for 49 days? IT'S BETA!!! I'm sure that 50 days after it is officially released, the record will be 50 days. Of course it has low uptimes now; it gets a new major release every three weeks. How many of you have a release of Mozilla running for 49 days? (Or even have the same version installed for that long?)
But, I completely understand why BSD is the king. I've worked with BSD for years, and it is by far the most stable OS I have ever worked with. Yes, Linux is good, but BSD just seems to be more inherently able to stay up for that long. Wether it's due to downing for maintenance, or a crash, Windows will never last 1000+ days. Linux may last a long time, but every few months you usually have to down it for SOME maintenance. Of course, the 1994 day record equates to 5.5 years. Any Linux/Windows box that has been running that long is hopelessly out of date for todays uses. A Windows box that old wouldn't have the processing power to do anything useful, or even the capability to serve modern Windows systems. A Linux box that old would have such an old kernel that I wouldn't dare run it.
Oh well, meandering comment over.
What is this doing here? It never appeared on the main page even.
But, all-in-all, this is pretty cool. Maybe we'll finally see Palm-style Open Souce handhelds.
And, if you're wondering, an open souce handheld would be great. Why settle for what Palm (or Microsoft) thinks is good for you when you can write your own look and feel?! Just think, you could probably add compatibility for both Palm apps and Wince apps. Now all we need is some good touchscreen support, and we're set! (Or is there already touchscreen support I don't know about?)
Ah, if you're in Vancouver, just make sure not to make any large purchases in Oregon. The Washington IRS (Whatever they're called) have been known to arrest people for buying large things (cars, boats, etc.) in Oregon to avoid sales tax. They make you pay the tax you would have owed, and then some!
As for Income vs. Sales? Well, Income is called a "progressive" tax, in that it taxes the rich proportionally more than the poor. (If you make more money, more of your money goes to the government.) A sales tax is a "regressive" tax because it taxes the poor more than the rich. (The poor tend to spend a higher percentage of their money on items they buy, as opposed to investments and other non-taxable items; so they end up paying a higher PERCENTAGE of their income in tax under a sales tax.)
I am a fan of income tax, and I dislike sales tax. I also happen to live in Oregon. (I went to college out of state, and it was a happy surprise going to Burger King my first day back, ordering a $2.99 value meal, and getting to pay with $3.00, with a penny back! Instead of buying a $2.99 meal, and having to dig out another 23 cents.)
stay a normal distance away.
The thing I'm curious over is, why is HDTV almost 50% higher resolution than this? HDTV goes up to 1920x1080, and this is significantly lower... But, it's what Mr. Lucas is using for Ep 2.. Oh well. At least it means no more scratches.
That's the point I could barely identify it, but the watermarking program could still find its embedded watermark... I have no clue how it did it. About the only thing I didn't do was photocopy it as well... But, since this watermarking program was meant to leave a watermark that could be used to identify modified copies, I guess it should survive that as well.
Yes, one of my cow-orkers (a [bad] technical support wonk) told me "Linux went public today!" I gave him a funny look and said "wha?" The sad thing is that he answers questions about our server products in a public forum, including answering Linux questions. (Hell, he even has a "VA Linux Systems" box in his cubicle!) At least I'm in training tomorrow, so he'll get to deal with the customer I pissed off today. :-)
Okay, my bad. Just a little misunderstanding of the terminology. (Hey, I work with computers, I'm not a stock broker.) I had understood that the real meaning of "opened" to mean the offering price. (Which, I guess, is called the offering price...) So I guess I was wrong. My boss got "the letter"... And he had his stock broker get extra shares. He was a millionaire yesterday, I'll bet he's a multimillionaire today.