Firewire was out before USB. USB became ubiquitous because of its low cost, not the other way around. USB has lower cost because devices need much less intelligence, which leads to less complex, and therefore less expensive chips. You are right that Apple did collect royalties, and that did not help in the price war. But in order to get the functionality of firewire, you need a USB host controller with a USB stack running on it, which makes the cost more or less equivalent to Firewire. The only reason people use USB more today is because of its ubiquity.
If you are interested in performance, such as for moving video around or hooking up an external hard drive, you will always get much better performance out of the Firewire device. This is because Firewire is designed to move large blocks of data from one point to another. USB was designed to have a bunch of low speed devices talk to one master.
A bus is a collection of wires with a like purpose traveling together. IEEE1394 is definitely a bus.
A bus (for engineers) means more than a jumble of wires. It is the organization of data and any protocols that determine if something is a bus or a link. A bus connects two or more devices together. Many devices can hang off of a bus. IEEE-1394 does not do this - it is a point-to-point protocol. Once a transfer is initiated, it can complete without interruption. With USB block transfers, the device has to stop and wait to allow all the other devices to send their data and to allow the host to try and discover new devices. This is why USB disk drive performance is so much worse than the same drive with a Firewire interface.
I call shenanigans. If that were the only problem it would be easy to fix; you'd just query less often during periods of heavy activity. Problem solved.
Changing heavily entrenched standards is not "easy to fix".
It also doesn't explain why I can hook the same disk in a USB2/IEEE1394 enclosure up to USB2 and use 10% of my CPU to copy files and only get 14MB/sec, and then hook it up to my IEEE1394 interface and get 21MB/sec at 2% CPU.
Again, Firewire is more efficient at large block transfers.
Everything about USB is bad. Everything about 1394 is good, except the price. Some people complain that it doesn't make toast for you or whatever, but keeping it simple is a feature.
No, USB and Firewire serve different purposes. One is not "better" than the other until you decide on a particular application.
Your printer achieves this function because of the inexpensive microcontroler and firmware embedded within. You need to account for the cost of these components when doing a comparison.
Back in the 90's, USB was hooked to the computer and made dumb, because it was hooked to a computer. Firewire had to be smarter because video cameras of the day had very primitive microcontrolers.
Again, today there are hordes of alternative solutions, made possible by advancements in embedded computing.
IIRC, Firewire controllers need to be smarter than USB controllers because they might not be hooked up to a PC. For instance, your video camera might go straight to a recording deck, or some other electronic doodad. So the firewire controllers were designed to offload a lot more of the protocol to move stuff around, which made it easier to design systems. Of course this was done back before embedded controllers running Linux (and its USB stack) became cheap as dirt.
Firewire's main advantage now is the fact that it is a point to point mechanism, not a bus. USB suffers because every so often the host must interrupt things to discover new devices. This can slow down large block transfers quite a bit.
Finding the body does not automagically make Hans less of a threat. Why would his sentence be reduced ?
To motivate him to disclose the location of the body and allow the family to bury her. Providing closure to the family of the victim is one of the interests of justice.
Regardless of the precision of your measurement, what is a day? A book written for human consumption should assume that the units are familiar to them. Otherwise you run the risk of looking like you are trying to rewrite the Bible in order to reconcile the biblical account with the scientific one.
I have given up on trying to reconcile the biblical account of creation with what we currently observe and understand today. You have to get way too creative in your interpretation in order to make it happen, and in doing so, you create a bad precedent for the rest of the book.
A much simpler solution (for me) is to infer that the bible was a document created by Stone-Age men who had no clue how the world came about. They made something up based on someone's vision, dream, or hallucination and used that to establish the social order. Every document in the Bible was written in this fashion and included into the Bible by a committee of men, who decided somehow that it was inspired by a deity. To me, there is way too much confusion and disorder in that book for it to be written by the supreme creator.
It does not specify the date, but it does establish a time interval (6 days = 144 hours). Unless God-days are different from our days. The trouble with re-interpreting the Bible is that once you do it in one spot, you open the door to do it all over. And then you end up with N sub-sects which all interpret the Bible in their own way to meet their own agendas.
What I see troubling with the philosophy of reinterpreting things is that people start reinterpreting the wrong ideas. First you redefine how long a day is, then you redefine how long people live, and the next thing you know, astrology is classified as science because you have redefined "logic" to meet your religious needs.
People need to realize that the Bible is a shitty science and history book and was written to an end.
Many Merchant vessels used during WWII are also believed to have been lost in the Atlantic because of the same low grade steel used to speed construction. During the way, at least it was a decision made out of necessity; because of material availability.
Liberty ships had a problem with the welds, which was untested for marine shipbuilding. Once they figured out how to make better welds, the problems went away. But many ships were built before the problem was identified. The welds were used to speed up the shipbuilding process. It was a choice of quantity over quality.
And since patented ideas cannot be reused or expanded on, patents reduce the sharing and reuse of knowledge, they do not promote it.
You can patent an idea that improves on another patented idea. Also patents increase the sharing of knowledge because the process is stored in a public database for all to see. As opposed to a trade secret, which truly stifles innovation.
Patents do slow down the reuse of ideas, but only for a limited time.
Patents are a problem these days because examiners are awarding inappropriate patents, not because the system itself is flawed.
I guess these designers don't think about the ramifications of their design. Like the picture of the person who is working on the computer draped over their steering wheel.
The chip may be able to withstand it, but the circuit and enclosure is another story. Considering that most consumer electronics will shatter when dropped only about 10 feet, I'd say that the "My iPod can do that!" crowd is exceptionally ignorant.
if Apple doesn't get the sales contract cut from a carrier, they lose money. It's $$ lost.
Taking economics from the MPAA? Money not earned is not the same as money lost. You are not entitled to have your business model succeed. Just because you want to make money on service contracts, it does not mean that you will. In my opinion, Apple was very smart here and made the decision to not use the iPhone as a loss leader. They _always_ make money on the iPhone. No funny accounting is needed.
Money not earned = sold hardware for profit, no activation $ followed. Money lost = sold hardware as a loss leader, and no activation $ followed.
If the iPhone is manufactured and sold from the store at a profit (and every analysis I have seen indicates that it is), then this is a case of money not earned. If it was sold as a loss leader, then Apple had the money, paid for the hardware, and did not recover the cost of the hardware in the sale. Therefore the money was lost.
My brother-in-law is a policeman and had advised me to cut down some of the bushes around my house for that reason. Basically, you want to plant in a way that provides some privacy, but still allows the passerby to see someone outside the house. So avoid the "jungle house" look and go with bushes and shrubs that you can see through. They will provide enough cover to keep people from seeing into the house, but still allow someone outside the house (trying to pry a window open) to be seen.
Slashdot Mirror
Do what makes you happy, or you'll end up a crusty old man better armed than your local militias
Being better armed than my local militias is what makes me happy.
Joking aside, I do enjoy my job as an electrical engineer. You really must enjoy your work if you expect to be good at it for any length of time.
This is probably a really dumb question, but as I Brit I have never figured out why settlers chose to live in America.
I guess that some people were curious about what makes the clouds light up every 12 hours or so.
Because these solar plants are unmanned?
Firewire was out before USB. USB became ubiquitous because of its low cost, not the other way around. USB has lower cost because devices need much less intelligence, which leads to less complex, and therefore less expensive chips. You are right that Apple did collect royalties, and that did not help in the price war. But in order to get the functionality of firewire, you need a USB host controller with a USB stack running on it, which makes the cost more or less equivalent to Firewire. The only reason people use USB more today is because of its ubiquity.
If you are interested in performance, such as for moving video around or hooking up an external hard drive, you will always get much better performance out of the Firewire device. This is because Firewire is designed to move large blocks of data from one point to another. USB was designed to have a bunch of low speed devices talk to one master.
A bus is a collection of wires with a like purpose traveling together. IEEE1394 is definitely a bus.
A bus (for engineers) means more than a jumble of wires. It is the organization of data and any protocols that determine if something is a bus or a link. A bus connects two or more devices together. Many devices can hang off of a bus. IEEE-1394 does not do this - it is a point-to-point protocol. Once a transfer is initiated, it can complete without interruption. With USB block transfers, the device has to stop and wait to allow all the other devices to send their data and to allow the host to try and discover new devices. This is why USB disk drive performance is so much worse than the same drive with a Firewire interface.
I call shenanigans. If that were the only problem it would be easy to fix; you'd just query less often during periods of heavy activity. Problem solved.
Changing heavily entrenched standards is not "easy to fix".
It also doesn't explain why I can hook the same disk in a USB2/IEEE1394 enclosure up to USB2 and use 10% of my CPU to copy files and only get 14MB/sec, and then hook it up to my IEEE1394 interface and get 21MB/sec at 2% CPU.
Again, Firewire is more efficient at large block transfers.
Everything about USB is bad. Everything about 1394 is good, except the price. Some people complain that it doesn't make toast for you or whatever, but keeping it simple is a feature.
No, USB and Firewire serve different purposes. One is not "better" than the other until you decide on a particular application.
Your printer achieves this function because of the inexpensive microcontroler and firmware embedded within. You need to account for the cost of these components when doing a comparison.
Back in the 90's, USB was hooked to the computer and made dumb, because it was hooked to a computer. Firewire had to be smarter because video cameras of the day had very primitive microcontrolers.
Again, today there are hordes of alternative solutions, made possible by advancements in embedded computing.
IIRC, Firewire controllers need to be smarter than USB controllers because they might not be hooked up to a PC. For instance, your video camera might go straight to a recording deck, or some other electronic doodad. So the firewire controllers were designed to offload a lot more of the protocol to move stuff around, which made it easier to design systems. Of course this was done back before embedded controllers running Linux (and its USB stack) became cheap as dirt.
Firewire's main advantage now is the fact that it is a point to point mechanism, not a bus. USB suffers because every so often the host must interrupt things to discover new devices. This can slow down large block transfers quite a bit.
It will run your USB at Full Speed.
Finding the body does not automagically make Hans less of a threat. Why would his sentence be reduced ?
To motivate him to disclose the location of the body and allow the family to bury her. Providing closure to the family of the victim is one of the interests of justice.
A rental company must have a contract with the copyright owner in order to rent out their copyrighted works.
We don't rent it out. We sell it. If someone wants to return it, we take it back and offer a refund, minus a small restocking fee.
Regardless of the precision of your measurement, what is a day? A book written for human consumption should assume that the units are familiar to them. Otherwise you run the risk of looking like you are trying to rewrite the Bible in order to reconcile the biblical account with the scientific one.
I have given up on trying to reconcile the biblical account of creation with what we currently observe and understand today. You have to get way too creative in your interpretation in order to make it happen, and in doing so, you create a bad precedent for the rest of the book.
A much simpler solution (for me) is to infer that the bible was a document created by Stone-Age men who had no clue how the world came about. They made something up based on someone's vision, dream, or hallucination and used that to establish the social order. Every document in the Bible was written in this fashion and included into the Bible by a committee of men, who decided somehow that it was inspired by a deity. To me, there is way too much confusion and disorder in that book for it to be written by the supreme creator.
It does not specify the date, but it does establish a time interval (6 days = 144 hours). Unless God-days are different from our days. The trouble with re-interpreting the Bible is that once you do it in one spot, you open the door to do it all over. And then you end up with N sub-sects which all interpret the Bible in their own way to meet their own agendas.
What I see troubling with the philosophy of reinterpreting things is that people start reinterpreting the wrong ideas. First you redefine how long a day is, then you redefine how long people live, and the next thing you know, astrology is classified as science because you have redefined "logic" to meet your religious needs.
People need to realize that the Bible is a shitty science and history book and was written to an end.
What would it allow you to do that you couldn't do before?
Inventions can be patented. Discoveries cannot.
What could you predict?
I predict more lawyers becoming interested in the Math department over at the local U.
What would you gain?
A dumptruck load of money.
Before the flames come, I tend towards the "discovered" argument.
You can refer to the Kama Sutra for various orthogonal copulation techniques.
Are the Soyuz capsules capable of a water landing? Because "where" could be in a location that the device was not prepared for.
Many Merchant vessels used during WWII are also believed to have been lost in the Atlantic because of the same low grade steel used to speed construction. During the way, at least it was a decision made out of necessity; because of material availability.
Liberty ships had a problem with the welds, which was untested for marine shipbuilding. Once they figured out how to make better welds, the problems went away. But many ships were built before the problem was identified. The welds were used to speed up the shipbuilding process. It was a choice of quantity over quality.
And since patented ideas cannot be reused or expanded on, patents reduce the sharing and reuse of knowledge, they do not promote it.
You can patent an idea that improves on another patented idea. Also patents increase the sharing of knowledge because the process is stored in a public database for all to see. As opposed to a trade secret, which truly stifles innovation.
Patents do slow down the reuse of ideas, but only for a limited time.
Patents are a problem these days because examiners are awarding inappropriate patents, not because the system itself is flawed.
You have it backwards.
Because brainwashed muslims can go to engineering school.
"We're not doing it for the money. We're doing it for a shitload of money!"
Never underestimate greed and shortsightedness.
The angular velocity probably keeps the masses separated (centripetal acceleration and all that).
Aha! My sig is relevant to this discussion!
I guess these designers don't think about the ramifications of their design. Like the picture of the person who is working on the computer draped over their steering wheel.
Brilliant!
RADAR TECH - (he is making the sound effects) Shit. (makes more sound effects and dials phone) Sir? (in microphone)
...jammed.
COL SANDURZ - What is it?
RADAR TECH - (in microphone) Can I talk to for a minute, please, sir.
COL SANDURZ and DARK HELMET walk over to him
COL SANDURZ - Well.
RADAR TECH. (in microphone) I'm having trouble with the radar, sir.
COL SANDURZ - You don't need that, Private, we're right here. (hangs up microphone) Now, what is it?
RADAR TECH. (in microphone voice) I'm having trouble with radar, sir.
DARK HELMET (rips out the microphone) Now, what is it?
RADAR TECH - (normal voice) I'm having trouble with the radar, sir.
DARK HELMET - What's wrong with it?
RADAR TECH - I've lost the bleeps, I've the lost the sweeps, and I've lost the creeps.
DARK HELMET - The what?
COL SANDURZ - The what?
DARK HELMET - And the what?
RADAR TECH - You know. The bleeps, (makes bleeps sounds) the sweeps, (makes sweeps sounds) and the creeps. (makes creeps sounds)
DARK HELMET - (to Sandurz) That's not all he's lost.
RADAR TECH - Sir. The radar, sir. It appears to be....
Jam starts dripping down the screen.
RADAR TECH -
DARK HELMET - Jammed? (takes a taste of the jam) Raspberry. There's only one man who would dare give me the raspberry. (pulls down mask) Lone Starr!
The chip may be able to withstand it, but the circuit and enclosure is another story. Considering that most consumer electronics will shatter when dropped only about 10 feet, I'd say that the "My iPod can do that!" crowd is exceptionally ignorant.
if Apple doesn't get the sales contract cut from a carrier, they lose money. It's $$ lost.
Taking economics from the MPAA? Money not earned is not the same as money lost. You are not entitled to have your business model succeed. Just because you want to make money on service contracts, it does not mean that you will. In my opinion, Apple was very smart here and made the decision to not use the iPhone as a loss leader. They _always_ make money on the iPhone. No funny accounting is needed.
Money not earned = sold hardware for profit, no activation $ followed.
Money lost = sold hardware as a loss leader, and no activation $ followed.
If the iPhone is manufactured and sold from the store at a profit (and every analysis I have seen indicates that it is), then this is a case of money not earned. If it was sold as a loss leader, then Apple had the money, paid for the hardware, and did not recover the cost of the hardware in the sale. Therefore the money was lost.
My brother-in-law is a policeman and had advised me to cut down some of the bushes around my house for that reason. Basically, you want to plant in a way that provides some privacy, but still allows the passerby to see someone outside the house. So avoid the "jungle house" look and go with bushes and shrubs that you can see through. They will provide enough cover to keep people from seeing into the house, but still allow someone outside the house (trying to pry a window open) to be seen.