I should have appended to that comment an explanation of how the distinction applies to music players.
Say you have an MP3 player that uses exFAT. The player can read the files off the flash without needing a paid license.
Now, say you plug the player into your computer's USB port and it shows up as a USB-attached disk. (and/or card reader) The OS will need exFAT drivers to be able to copy files to/from it. But when the commands to access the filesystem reach the player, they're not "open suchandsuch file" they're "read/write block 123456".
Now, on the other hand, if the MP3 player included an FM tuner and the manufacturer wanted to allow you to record audio from the radio to the exFAT card, it would require a paid license because it would need to understand how to correctly write to the card.
You don't have to understand the filesystem to be able to write data to it, as long as something else is telling you where to put the bytes.
So, for example, an SD-Card reader doesn't have to have a paid license because the card reader doesn't have to understand the filesystem. All it has to know about is reading and writing blocks. The OS has to know how exFAT works if that's the filesystem on the media.
Yes, exFAT is part of the new SD specifications. So is FAT32.
What's really interesting about the exFAT specification is the terms of the license it's under (at least through the SD Association)
If you need access to the standard so you can build a device (or program) that will only need to understand the contents of the filesystem when it's accessed in a read-only manner, you don't actually have to pay a licensing fee. So, an MP3/4 player won't need a paid license for exFAT. It's only if the device needs to *WRITE* to the filesystem (such as a camera) that a paid license is required.
Nope. The current Electronic Medical Record systems are not capable of exchanging information freely. There is no standard data format that everyone can exchange. There are a few standards that can package data, but they are not adequately specified for seamless interoperability. If you request records, they can print them out quickly for you though.
Such as HL7 which, from the reading I've been doing is actually quite thorough. And if both sides are using HL7 v3, which is XML-based, you can overcome formatting issues between software packages through the use of XSL stylesheets.
It appears that, in this case, you are correct. The Archos devices all contain harddrives.
There are cases, however, where "firmware" is still appropriate, even if the thing runs linux. Sometimes, the OS is stored in a compressed image in flash - the Linksys WRT54G*, for example. In that case, you really do have to replace the OS to get a new feature.
That all being said, however, I was specifically responding to the question posed by the parent to my original comment. I'll grant that the rationale I provided won't apply to all devices/situations, perhaps (even probably) even this one.
I still maintain, however, that it is a perfectly valid reason to withhold development support.
If people do replace core parts of the OS, then they probably know what they are doing and won't be calling tech support.
Well, either the person knows what they're doing or they found a website that gave them instructions to follow and precompiled binaries to install.
It would also increase the number of calls to tech support and a dip in customer satisfaction.
"I'm sorry your $THING doesn't work correctly. Can you tell me what firmware version you are using? That's not an official firmware image built by $COMPANY. I can't tell you why it doesn't work right and I can't help you with it. I'd recommend going to $URL and downloading the latest official firmware"
"You say you called earlier and a support person had you update your firmware? And now you can't $UNSUPPORTED_FEATURE? You're right. You can't do that using the official firmware. I understand that you tried thirdparty firmware from $SOMEONE_ELSE because you wanted $UNSUPPORTED_FEATURE. We cannot help you with thirdparty firmware. If the official firmware behaves as expected and there's a problem with the thirdparty firmware, you will have to go to $SOMEONE_ELSE for support with it."
I have read Mosman's decision (the first two paragraphs of the PDF) and skimmed through the background info, (the bulk of the rest of the document) and I have to say that I agree with him.
First, he's not saying that a warrant is not required for law enforcement to search your email. All he's saying is that they are not *required* to actually tell the account holder that the email has been searched. They still have to present the warrant to the email host.
This is exactly the state of affairs when it comes to physical searches of property stored at a 3rd party location. If I have stuff at a storage locker somewhere, police will take their warrant to the management office of the storage facility and say "Let us into the locker." Legally speaking, that's all they're required to do.
Now, in either case, I would expect to be notified by the host or storage facility that they complied with the search warrant. That's just good business.
Where the original case makes me uneasy isn't that the warrant was only given to the ISP. It's that the warrant included a supplemental gag order preventing them from telling anyone, INCLUDING THE ACCOUNT HOLDER, that they were complying with the search warrant.
IMHO, and I'm by no means a legal professional, they chose the wrong grounds upon which to try to appeal the decision. Rather than appeal on the grounds that they weren't notified of the search, they should have appealed on the grounds that the gag order was unjustified. I don't know that it would necessarily have gotten them anywhere, either, but it'd at least be a stance I can agree with.
Yet another interesting point is made in Mosman's discussion. In a normal, physical, search and seizure, they're required to leave a list of things they take. That way, you know what should be missing and can reclaim your property after the trial (if you're in a position to do so).
He argued that because nothing was actually *taken* -- the police simply made copies of their mail folders -- there was no need to leave a receipt, which would have served as a different means of alerting the account holder that their account had been searched.
This could have some potentially interesting consequences in physical searches as well. What if the police execute a search warrant for documents and rather than physically taking the papers to the police station, they instead set up a few high-speed duplex scanners and just scanned in the documents on the premesis? If that's all they do, they're not "depriving you of property" so there's no reason to leave a receipt.
Actually, the analogy of a crash rather than an infinite loop is more appropriate.
In an infinite loop, the same instructions are executed over and over.
In the hot-ice computer, "execution" occurs when the stuff crystallizes. Once the hot-ice crystallizes at a given spot in the matrix, it cannot crystallize again until you reset the system. (by boiling it and melting all of the crystals)
So, when the crystals form into a circular path in the system execution stops because there's no place for the reaction to spread before it stops.
That's right. This device will be available with CDMA support. Which means that people in the US who are customers of carriers who didn't adopt GSM like everybody else in the world ( eg: Sprint, Verizon ) will, in theory, be able to use the phone, too.
And before you say that we should all "get with the program" and switch carriers to one that uses GSM, for many of us, for various reasons, it really isn't an option.
Since you dragged the other discussion into this, allow me to point out a comment in that very discussion which points out why it's nowhere near the same thing. (Like the fact that Sun announced months in advance that they were going to do it, and the fact that you can, in fact remove it.)
That comment is +5 insightful. You don't even have to drill down to find it. Just scroll a bit. Given that (some of) the comments are regularly more fair and balanced than the article summaries, you ought to at least skim the discussion before you decide whether this guy is bringing something useful to the discussion or just throwing more FUD onto the pile.
They're not manipulating produced chips to produce a false scarcity.
The X3 chips, just like the original Intel Celerons were born because somebody said "Gee, we've got all of these chips that *mostly* work except for one of the cores / the cache / XX feature. If we use some microcode to work around the dead portion of the chip, we can still sell them!"
When they run out of the "defective" chips, either because of high demand or because their process improves to produce fewer of them, they have to choose between saying "oops, sorry. we're out of them" or taking perfectly good chips and lobotomizing them.
I've got one word for you. It's an acronym, actually.
HUD. That is: Heads-Up Display
The Vuzix display linked to by the OP is transparent. Which means you can look at the data being displayed or you can look *through* the data at the world around you.
And trust me, when the display is ~ 1 inch away from your eye, you'll definitely notice the benefits from higher resolution displays.
Running Firefox 3 here, and it rendered just fine. I did notice, however, that the page assumes that your browser window is at least 1000 pixels wide. I had to expand the Firefox window until the frame was 1019 pixels wide to make the horizontal scrollbar go away.
It's *possible* that the person fixed the page so it's more sane in the time between your comment and mine.
My statement about not requiring the previous version to be installed was not intended to imply that I sanction trying to save money by buying the upgrade release instead of the full version to set up a brand new computer.
In my experience, however, upgrading the OS frequently coincides with replacing the hard drive and possibly other components as well.
At any rate, are generally far better off, IMNSHO, installing the "upgrade OS" on a freshly wiped disk, or, if you must install on top of a previous version, reinstalling *that* on a freshly wiped disk and then performing the upgrade.
They do already. It's called the "Upgrade Edtition" which, contrary to popular belief *CAN* be used to perform a clean install of the OS, rather than requiring an older version to be installed first.
As can be seen on Microsoft's own website, the upgrade editions are all discounted $100 from the price of the full (new license) version.
Would you be willing to go to an interview w/o reimbursement, for a temporary 6-9 month job?
In a word, maybe. It would depend on my (and their) assessment of my chances on being hired and the expected expenses. Throw in consideration of how dire my financial situation had become and how the local job market was looking.
If we assume a 14 hour drive each way and we generously say you're able to average 65 miles/hr (including time spent stopping for gas, bathrooms, etc) we get 1820 miles round-trip. If you get 27 miles/gallon that's ~34 gallons of gas or call it ~$68 in gas money. Spend a night at a budget hotel. (or sleep in your car at a truck stop) 1-2 days worth of food can be packed into a cooler with ice.
So, conceivably, even with hotel, you could end up spending < $150 to go to this interview. If the recruiter honestly thought I had a decent shot, I'd probably do it. A chance at guaranteed employment is better than no employment, even if it means getting a short-term lease on an apartment while continuing to pay for your current place. You can always continue to look for another job.
While I agree that being more open is a good thing, this is likely to cause issues. The announcement that they are going to be more open is likely to cause an upsurge in the number of requests for information that are submitted.
I highly doubt that the Freedom Of Information offices in the different agencies are going to be permitted to hire additional personnel to handle the incoming requests. The last FOI request I sent to the FDA took almost a year and a half for them to look at -- not respond to, to look at.
Their excuse: All requests are handled in a first-in first-out basis. No exceptions.
you don't see the opportunities to reimplement things more efficiently, and end up with more stable code?
Actually, I do, to a point. I would be surprised if certain things ever see a parity in runtime, though, given the fundamental differences in design philosophies.
However, it takes effort to get it right and make improvements. Especially if you're working with non-existent or erroneous documentation. Making things worse is easy.
And as far as I'm concerned, it doesn't matter if a program crashes because of an error in the work of the WINE-coder or because of an error in the Microsoft-published documentation he was working from. Either way, it's still unusable in that environment. And if that program is critical to that user's workflow, that crash effectively keeps *NIX off of that user's desktop.
Don't get me wrong - WINE is a very impressive project. They've come a very long way, and for many people, it satisfies their needs. But there's still a long way to go before they have a faithful Win32 compatibility layer.
Slashdot Mirror
I should have appended to that comment an explanation of how the distinction applies to music players.
Say you have an MP3 player that uses exFAT. The player can read the files off the flash without needing a paid license.
Now, say you plug the player into your computer's USB port and it shows up as a USB-attached disk. (and/or card reader) The OS will need exFAT drivers to be able to copy files to/from it. But when the commands to access the filesystem reach the player, they're not "open suchandsuch file" they're "read/write block 123456".
Now, on the other hand, if the MP3 player included an FM tuner and the manufacturer wanted to allow you to record audio from the radio to the exFAT card, it would require a paid license because it would need to understand how to correctly write to the card.
You don't have to understand the filesystem to be able to write data to it, as long as something else is telling you where to put the bytes.
So, for example, an SD-Card reader doesn't have to have a paid license because the card reader doesn't have to understand the filesystem. All it has to know about is reading and writing blocks. The OS has to know how exFAT works if that's the filesystem on the media.
Yes, exFAT is part of the new SD specifications. So is FAT32.
What's really interesting about the exFAT specification is the terms of the license it's under (at least through the SD Association)
If you need access to the standard so you can build a device (or program) that will only need to understand the contents of the filesystem when it's accessed in a read-only manner, you don't actually have to pay a licensing fee. So, an MP3/4 player won't need a paid license for exFAT. It's only if the device needs to *WRITE* to the filesystem (such as a camera) that a paid license is required.
Quoting the wikipedia article:
High levels of methionine can be found in sesame seeds, Brazil nuts, fish, meats and some other plant seeds.
Nope. The current Electronic Medical Record systems are not capable of exchanging information freely. There is no standard data format that everyone can exchange.
There are a few standards that can package data, but they are not adequately specified for seamless interoperability.
If you request records, they can print them out quickly for you though.
Such as HL7 which, from the reading I've been doing is actually quite thorough. And if both sides are using HL7 v3, which is XML-based, you can overcome formatting issues between software packages through the use of XSL stylesheets.
It appears that, in this case, you are correct. The Archos devices all contain harddrives.
There are cases, however, where "firmware" is still appropriate, even if the thing runs linux. Sometimes, the OS is stored in a compressed image in flash - the Linksys WRT54G*, for example. In that case, you really do have to replace the OS to get a new feature.
That all being said, however, I was specifically responding to the question posed by the parent to my original comment. I'll grant that the rationale I provided won't apply to all devices/situations, perhaps (even probably) even this one.
I still maintain, however, that it is a perfectly valid reason to withhold development support.
If people do replace core parts of the OS, then they probably know what they are doing and won't be calling tech support.
Well, either the person knows what they're doing or they found a website that gave them instructions to follow and precompiled binaries to install.
It would also increase the number of calls to tech support and a dip in customer satisfaction.
"I'm sorry your $THING doesn't work correctly. Can you tell me what firmware version you are using? That's not an official firmware image built by $COMPANY. I can't tell you why it doesn't work right and I can't help you with it. I'd recommend going to $URL and downloading the latest official firmware"
"You say you called earlier and a support person had you update your firmware? And now you can't $UNSUPPORTED_FEATURE? You're right. You can't do that using the official firmware. I understand that you tried thirdparty firmware from $SOMEONE_ELSE because you wanted $UNSUPPORTED_FEATURE. We cannot help you with thirdparty firmware. If the official firmware behaves as expected and there's a problem with the thirdparty firmware, you will have to go to $SOMEONE_ELSE for support with it."
I have read Mosman's decision (the first two paragraphs of the PDF) and skimmed through the background info, (the bulk of the rest of the document) and I have to say that I agree with him.
First, he's not saying that a warrant is not required for law enforcement to search your email. All he's saying is that they are not *required* to actually tell the account holder that the email has been searched. They still have to present the warrant to the email host.
This is exactly the state of affairs when it comes to physical searches of property stored at a 3rd party location. If I have stuff at a storage locker somewhere, police will take their warrant to the management office of the storage facility and say "Let us into the locker." Legally speaking, that's all they're required to do.
Now, in either case, I would expect to be notified by the host or storage facility that they complied with the search warrant. That's just good business.
Where the original case makes me uneasy isn't that the warrant was only given to the ISP. It's that the warrant included a supplemental gag order preventing them from telling anyone, INCLUDING THE ACCOUNT HOLDER, that they were complying with the search warrant.
IMHO, and I'm by no means a legal professional, they chose the wrong grounds upon which to try to appeal the decision. Rather than appeal on the grounds that they weren't notified of the search, they should have appealed on the grounds that the gag order was unjustified. I don't know that it would necessarily have gotten them anywhere, either, but it'd at least be a stance I can agree with.
Yet another interesting point is made in Mosman's discussion. In a normal, physical, search and seizure, they're required to leave a list of things they take. That way, you know what should be missing and can reclaim your property after the trial (if you're in a position to do so).
He argued that because nothing was actually *taken* -- the police simply made copies of their mail folders -- there was no need to leave a receipt, which would have served as a different means of alerting the account holder that their account had been searched.
This could have some potentially interesting consequences in physical searches as well. What if the police execute a search warrant for documents and rather than physically taking the papers to the police station, they instead set up a few high-speed duplex scanners and just scanned in the documents on the premesis? If that's all they do, they're not "depriving you of property" so there's no reason to leave a receipt.
Really, really sad drugs.
You beat me to the suggestion.
SQLite is a very powerful SQL database engine that is highly powerful and comes in a single < 500K library. No server needed.
Interfaces to it exist for most modern languages.
Documentation for the C/C++ API is here
A more C++ friendly wrapper for SQLite is on CodeProject
Actually, the analogy of a crash rather than an infinite loop is more appropriate.
In an infinite loop, the same instructions are executed over and over.
In the hot-ice computer, "execution" occurs when the stuff crystallizes. Once the hot-ice crystallizes at a given spot in the matrix, it cannot crystallize again until you reset the system. (by boiling it and melting all of the crystals)
So, when the crystals form into a circular path in the system execution stops because there's no place for the reaction to spread before it stops.
Well, pisser.
You're right.
Wikipedia page on WCDMA
and CDMA2000
I guess that'll teach me to get my hopes up. /me goes to send Nokia some feedback asking them to support 3G CDMA.
You missed a big difference for people in the USA... Quoting the specifications page
Operating frequency
* Quad-band GSM EDGE 850/900/1800/1900
* WCDMA 900/1700/2100 MHz
That's right. This device will be available with CDMA support. Which means that people in the US who are customers of carriers who didn't adopt GSM like everybody else in the world ( eg: Sprint, Verizon ) will, in theory, be able to use the phone, too.
And before you say that we should all "get with the program" and switch carriers to one that uses GSM, for many of us, for various reasons, it really isn't an option.
Since you dragged the other discussion into this, allow me to point out a comment in that very discussion which points out why it's nowhere near the same thing. (Like the fact that Sun announced months in advance that they were going to do it, and the fact that you can, in fact remove it.)
That comment is +5 insightful. You don't even have to drill down to find it. Just scroll a bit. Given that (some of) the comments are regularly more fair and balanced than the article summaries, you ought to at least skim the discussion before you decide whether this guy is bringing something useful to the discussion or just throwing more FUD onto the pile.
Are you sure?
It certainly seems like Windsor is a suburb of Detroit.
You misunderstand the situation.
They're not manipulating produced chips to produce a false scarcity.
The X3 chips, just like the original Intel Celerons were born because somebody said "Gee, we've got all of these chips that *mostly* work except for one of the cores / the cache / XX feature. If we use some microcode to work around the dead portion of the chip, we can still sell them!"
When they run out of the "defective" chips, either because of high demand or because their process improves to produce fewer of them, they have to choose between saying "oops, sorry. we're out of them" or taking perfectly good chips and lobotomizing them.
I've got one word for you. It's an acronym, actually.
HUD. That is: Heads-Up Display
The Vuzix display linked to by the OP is transparent. Which means you can look at the data being displayed or you can look *through* the data at the world around you.
And trust me, when the display is ~ 1 inch away from your eye, you'll definitely notice the benefits from higher resolution displays.
Running Firefox 3 here, and it rendered just fine.
I did notice, however, that the page assumes that your browser window is at least 1000 pixels wide. I had to expand the Firefox window until the frame was 1019 pixels wide to make the horizontal scrollbar go away.
It's *possible* that the person fixed the page so it's more sane in the time between your comment and mine.
My statement about not requiring the previous version to be installed was not intended to imply that I sanction trying to save money by buying the upgrade release instead of the full version to set up a brand new computer.
In my experience, however, upgrading the OS frequently coincides with replacing the hard drive and possibly other components as well.
At any rate, are generally far better off, IMNSHO, installing the "upgrade OS" on a freshly wiped disk, or, if you must install on top of a previous version, reinstalling *that* on a freshly wiped disk and then performing the upgrade.
They do already. It's called the "Upgrade Edtition" which, contrary to popular belief *CAN* be used to perform a clean install of the OS, rather than requiring an older version to be installed first.
As can be seen on Microsoft's own website, the upgrade editions are all discounted $100 from the price of the full (new license) version.
You must be doing something wrong.
You asked to be modded offtopic, and instead got modded funny and insightful.
They don't just have to find a new job.
They have to find an employer who is willing and able to sponsor them for either an H1B or a green card.
Would you be willing to go to an interview w/o reimbursement, for a temporary 6-9 month job?
In a word, maybe. It would depend on my (and their) assessment of my chances on being hired and the expected expenses. Throw in consideration of how dire my financial situation had become and how the local job market was looking.
If we assume a 14 hour drive each way and we generously say you're able to average 65 miles/hr (including time spent stopping for gas, bathrooms, etc) we get 1820 miles round-trip. If you get 27 miles/gallon that's ~34 gallons of gas or call it ~$68 in gas money. Spend a night at a budget hotel. (or sleep in your car at a truck stop) 1-2 days worth of food can be packed into a cooler with ice.
So, conceivably, even with hotel, you could end up spending < $150 to go to this interview. If the recruiter honestly thought I had a decent shot, I'd probably do it. A chance at guaranteed employment is better than no employment, even if it means getting a short-term lease on an apartment while continuing to pay for your current place. You can always continue to look for another job.
While I agree that being more open is a good thing, this is likely to cause issues. The announcement that they are going to be more open is likely to cause an upsurge in the number of requests for information that are submitted.
I highly doubt that the Freedom Of Information offices in the different agencies are going to be permitted to hire additional personnel to handle the incoming requests. The last FOI request I sent to the FDA took almost a year and a half for them to look at -- not respond to, to look at.
Their excuse: All requests are handled in a first-in first-out basis. No exceptions.
Actually, I do, to a point. I would be surprised if certain things ever see a parity in runtime, though, given the fundamental differences in design philosophies.
However, it takes effort to get it right and make improvements. Especially if you're working with non-existent or erroneous documentation. Making things worse is easy.
And as far as I'm concerned, it doesn't matter if a program crashes because of an error in the work of the WINE-coder or because of an error in the Microsoft-published documentation he was working from. Either way, it's still unusable in that environment. And if that program is critical to that user's workflow, that crash effectively keeps *NIX off of that user's desktop.
Don't get me wrong - WINE is a very impressive project. They've come a very long way, and for many people, it satisfies their needs. But there's still a long way to go before they have a faithful Win32 compatibility layer.