FYI, RS232 works well with only 3 wires. The other 5 wires are used for handshaking between the DTE/DCE.
What you mentioned is the problem with standards. In order to function, they need to be relatively static. If you have too many "standards", then you really do not have a standard. If you are changing or creating new standards every few years to incorporate advancements, you will alienate those with older equipment that does not meet the current spec.
Keep in mind, most customers treat computers as commodities and really don't care about good design. Those that do go with the higher priced, "stylish" computers (Apple,Sony,etc).
The trouble with hybrids is that is you are dragging around the dead weight of ICE fuel and engine itself all the time PLUS the batteries.
The ICE engine usually runs to provide supplimental power (to drive air conditioners, boost performance, etc) in addition to the batteries. A 10kW ICE can be very compact.
Also, BEVs arent wasting energy for idling which AFAIK hybrids still do. And just think how much of idling does an engine do when driving in peak traffic hours.
If designed properly, the idling ICE should be recharging the batteries.
A more sensible approach would have an ICE trailer for long trips.
This requires people to plan out all of their trips. I'd not want to hear from the person who had to make an unscheduled long trip and was unable to get home to pick up the ICE trailer. Granted, this is rare, but I think the gains (convenience, increased range and performance) of the ICE engine outweigh the costs (lower efficiency).
People often buy vehicles, not for how they will use them 95% of the time, but rather for that other 5% of uses. This is why SUVs are so popular. Hardly anyone ever goes off road or carries a large load in their car on a regular basis. But people like being able to go to the store and get some lumber, or load up 6 kids to go somewhere. Having two vehicles may be more efficient, but it is not very convenient. If a car isn't convenient, it won't sell, no matter how efficient it is.
Since many households already own multiple vehicles they can use electric vehicles as main vehicles and fire up the dinosour burners when they need to go long distances.
Why have 2 cars with one largely collecting dust? Just use a hybrid design. With more power from batteries, you can use a smaller gas engine.
Also, as said earlier Power != Energy. The batteries may be able to deliver more power, but their energy density has not changed. Since it takes a certian amount of energy to get from point A to point B, this advance is not likely to impact the automotive issues.
No because the gas mileage per passenger is lower on the airbus "SUV".
But only on routes that can fill the plane. Here in the US, we are trying to get away from the hub-and-spoke system and more towards direct flight. For this system, more smaller aircraft are needed.
I just really think that if you are going to have someone in a role to do a comparison right, you really want a person with deep technical understanding in that role to really understand any comparison at a deep level.
As he said, he spends most of his time talking to customers, not fiddling with software. He hires technical people to do all the fiddling (with Linux and Windows).
He's a middleman. He finds out what customers want and then he gets workers to develop a solution. And the important thing to remember here is he talks to customers. This means the people who pay Microsoft, not nessecarily the people who use their products.
They still run VxWorks and then run something else on top. In this case, Linux. But VxWorks is still handling the hardware, etc. This is also how RTLinux works as well.
Upon discovering that, I'd be inheriently curious.. what exactly is it they're protecting me from?
Because our society values the freedom to make your own decisions. That's why there's a stink everytime the gov't tries to restrict our expressions.
In China and other places, the people are brought up believing in the Government as a protector, as a father. Since there is little to contradict this, they believe that the government is acting in their best interests when it tells them not to do something. Because of their lifelong conditioning, they accept this fact and move on with their lives.
This is how humans in general operate, and because we are conditioned differently in the West, we have a different response to and view of our governments. North Korea is another example of this. There was a show on PBS showing the horrific conditions in the country. The only reason they put up with it is because they honestly feel that South Korea and their imperialist allies will kill each and every one of them. They are in a completely different reality.
I'm worried that some black smoker habitats were wiped out.
Why are you worried about this? Its not like you had anything to do with this, or could have helped the black smoker worms afterwards. Besides, with the black smoker environments changing constantly, I'm sure they're quite capable of dealing with events like this.
Folks, we need to accept the fact that this is a changing world and occasionally things happen that have a negative impact on life. Fretting over the fate of some prehistoric lifeform that will probably outlive the human race is silly.
OK, here's the text from the law itself regarding infringement (This is from US Code Title 15 section 1114 : Remedies; infringement; innocent infringement by printers and publishers.)...
(1) Any person who shall, without the consent of the registrant--
(a) use in commerce any reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation of a registered mark in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution, or advertising of any goods or services on or in connection with which such use is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive; or
(b) reproduce, counterfeit, copy, or colorably imitate a registe red mark and apply such reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation to labels, signs, prints, packages, wrappers, receptacles or advertisements intended to be used in commerce upon or in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution, or advertising of goods or services on or in connection with which such use is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive,
shall be liable in a civil action by the registrant for the remedies hereinafter provided....
Notice the highlighted parts. Using someone else's trademark to direct traffic to your site will "cause confusion, or to cause mistake" because it is reasonable that people associate a trademark with a particular company's product.
Providing notice (and advertising) about competitors is not illegal, unethical, or prohibited under the scope of trademark protection.
It is when you use someone else's trademark to promote your product.
Try to take out an ad in a magazine or anywhere else using Microsoft's Windows logo, which is a trademark, and a URL pointing to your favorite free OS.
there's nothing wrong or illegal about using someone else's trademark.
It is illegal when you use it to promote your product.
There's no justification for that claim. Frequently, the opposite is true. Many searchers would be very happy to learn about a cheaper competitor to a name-brand product.
Sure, that can be allowed in a "Competitors" area perhaps. But to see a trademark in a paid advertisers area and have it link to a competitor is deceptive.
What if Microsoft started this practice with Linux and started paying Google to have Linux search ads with links to microsoft.com?
Oh, there you go again! You used 4 different trademarks in that line! Good thing the law doesn't work the way you thought, or you'd be going to jail...
No, because I am not using any of these trademarks to promote my product.
If Company B advertises its products within the search results of Company A, Company B is not using Company A's trademarks. No where within Company B's advertisements does Company B represent the products as having anything to do with Company A.
Company B is using Company A's trademark when it tells Google to do something with it.
There are plenty of search results that appear on the same page and yet have nothing to do with each other.
That is fine for search results, not for paid advertisements. Company B can create a clever webpage that ranks higher in a search for Company A's products using established methods like saying "Company B's bees beat Company A's honeymakers in a taste test".
Search results are not being contested here. The issue is when Company B pays Google to take searches for Company A's trademark and send customers to their website. The user has no interest in Company B's products if they are searching for Company A's trademark. If they were comparison shopping, they would use more generic terms.
What if Microsoft started this practice with Linux and started paying Google to have Linux search ads with links to microsoft.com? Around here, we know the difference, but does joe public know? The average Joe might go ahead and buy an OS from microsoft.com, even though his friend told him to get Linux from someone.
Hitachi can't market a Z3 because it would be confused with the BMW Z3.
In the case cited, that's exactly what happened. A knock off company put up a website similar to Louis Vitton's and sold similiar looking products. Although the website itself did not use the trademark directly, they used the trademark to get people into their store where they saw what they were looking for.
This is similiar to phishing attacks where a customer is fooled just long enough to part them with their money (or maybe longer).
I see no rational reason why search terms should fall under trademark protection.
This is not for search terms, this is for advertisements triggered by search terms. If you type in BMW Z3, you should not see another automotive advertisement for a Z3 other than BMW or their dealers. However, you can look in the search results and find whatever is out there on the Web. These are two different things. One is a search for information and the other is a paid advertisement. It is the paid advertisement that needs to be controlled.
Not legally, because that would imply that either Ford is using the BMW trademark to represent their product or that BMW is using Ford's Mustang trademark to represent theirs. Remeber, traditional trademark law says that BMW cannot make a car named Mustang. It can probably get away with a motorcycle, though (unless someone makes a Mustang motorcycle).
Remember this is only for Advertisements. Ford can get around this by creating a web page extolling the virtues and value of the Mustang over the BMW Z3. But they have to be careful that the page makes a clear distinction between Ford's product and the BMW product. It is not illegal to use another company's trademarks, you just have to make sure that you are not using their trademark to represent your product.
I find this highly unreasonable. Right now, it is permissible for Company A to advertise its products on a huge billboard right in front of Company B's building. Are you suggesting this practice be banned too?
But Company B cannot use Company A's trademarks to represent its products. That is the issue. They can advertise wherever they want, they are only limited to using their trademarks, not someone else's.
Chevy cannot put up a billboard with the word "Mustang" and a picture of a Camero. But they can put up a Chevy Camero billboard in front of a Ford dealership. Two entirely different issues.
This issue is to keep a trademark from being used by other companies. In this case a knock-off was using Louis Vitton's trademarks to take business away from them. The customer would reasonably expect that the merchants listed are dealing in Louis Vitton's products and not knock-offs.
If the knock-off companies want to compete, they should build their own brand (e.g. Lois Viton) and trademark it instead of using someone else's.
Hitachi is free to advertise to whomever they like. They just have to use their trademarks and not someone else's. If Hitachi wants to make a car, then I trademark law says they can't make a Z3.
So if Hitachi cannot make a Z3 in the automotive space, why should they be allowed to use another company's trademark as search term? If the customer types in "auto Z3", then the customer is looking for a BMW Z3 and not a Hitachi H3.
Is going to determine and keep track of which companies are competitors? How the hell is anyone supposed to do that for every single company in existence?
The company taking the orders. Remember this is a trademark issue and another company paid Google to serve up ads on a trademark that was not theirs.
This will end up as a legal phrase in the contract on the lines of "all the adwords that you are requesting are not trademarked by other companies in your industry". And I'm sure the fine folks at google will simply develop a tool to help them determine if a company has rights to a particular word.
So Chevrolet cannot get ads when people search for Mustang. BMW cannot get ads when people search for Boxter. Etc. This is not suprising or unreasonable.
What I heard on the radio recently was that his main motivation for Iraq was to set up a functioning democracy in the middle east. He understands that the best way to combat terrorism is to give people something better to do with their time. But people living under opressive regimes are not able to do this. He chose Iraq because the population was more accustomed to dealing with a secular government. Once a more benign government is in place, then the people will become more interested in building their own country and creating their own opportunity.
That's the theory I heard anyway. I can see the "get tyranny out of the way" argument. I think selling the American people on the war using WMDs was not the best idea, but I doubt he could have gotten the war going otherwise. So in his mind, distracting the American public is justified by the end of establishing a free Iraq.
I do not like this approach, although I do understand it. Doing the war alone was insane. If he could have waited a few more months, I'm sure more countries would have grown tired of Saddam's shennanigans w.r.t. the weapons inspectors.
I do not think he is using it as a get-rich-quick scheme, although people are getting rich quick. I think he is more motivated by the "right thing to do" mentality. How can freeing 25 million people not be the right thing? If some friends get rich, so much the better.
Remeber, these are my observations of his thinking, not my own ideas.
I think they are looking for something like the Windows 'flag'. Something simple, a bit more abstract and suitable for a logo.
I think all the BSD folks recently attended a marketing 101 class somewhere, because they all want to change logos. NetBSD recently changed to an orange flag. Maybe FreeBSD will pick blue (sorry, I'm a Florida Gator).
Just curious, what is the advantage to one endianness over the other?
When I look at schematics on a little endian machine, the data lines line up. That is, a 16 bit part will be connected to D0.
On a big-endian machine, like our Motorola Coldfires, the D0 on the part is tied to the D16 on the CPU because when the CPU issues a 16 bit read/write, the read is on the high order bytes. Same with an 8 bit read (D24-D31). This seems like a bass-ackwards way of doing things.
The only advantage I have seen in big endian is when looking at memory dumps.
Give each member a share of common stock for x dollars and run the business as any other. Any profits can be reinvested in the business or payed to the members as a dividend. Then the fans are the owners and the conventional business model will not be upset.
Most components only need positive voltage. One exception is RS-232, which is generally not available anymore on a laptop. Another can be the display, which often requires a negative voltage for contrast adjustments. Drives, memory, CPUs, etc are all positive voltage.
There are ICs that you can buy that generate a negative voltage. It works by switching the leads on a capacitor to charge it backwards and the switching the leads back to present it to the system. Since the leads were switched, the polarity of the voltage is switched. At least that's my understanding of how those parts work.
Too bad you were clouded by his political venting and missed the point that the Webb *isn't a better system*! It's a *different* system.
Where did I say that Webb was the replacement? What's the problem with getting another optical telescope?
Keep in mind the LEO severely limits the capabilities of the telescope. There's no long term ( > 45 min) viewing of any object because the Earth gets in the way.
The Hubble was supposed to have something like a 7 year lifespan. It is well beyond that now. It is a nice piece of hardware, but if we keep servicing it with expensive shuttle missions or expensive robot missions (and they will be expensive) then NASA will have no reason to get a better instrument up there.
Also, don't confuse this as support for cutting a space telescope out of the budget. I do believe that we should either develop a new optical scope (my preferred choice) _or_ service the existing one. I'd rather them service the scope instead of cut the program altogether.
This is one of my gripes with NASA. They tend to do things in fits and stops instead of having a continuous smooth development of a program. And I have written my congressman on this matter. Be sure to do the same.
Slashdot Mirror
FYI, RS232 works well with only 3 wires. The other 5 wires are used for handshaking between the DTE/DCE.
What you mentioned is the problem with standards. In order to function, they need to be relatively static. If you have too many "standards", then you really do not have a standard. If you are changing or creating new standards every few years to incorporate advancements, you will alienate those with older equipment that does not meet the current spec.
Keep in mind, most customers treat computers as commodities and really don't care about good design. Those that do go with the higher priced, "stylish" computers (Apple,Sony,etc).
The trouble with hybrids is that is you are dragging around the dead weight of ICE fuel and engine itself all the time PLUS the batteries.
The ICE engine usually runs to provide supplimental power (to drive air conditioners, boost performance, etc) in addition to the batteries. A 10kW ICE can be very compact.
Also, BEVs arent wasting energy for idling which AFAIK hybrids still do. And just think how much of idling does an engine do when driving in peak traffic hours.
If designed properly, the idling ICE should be recharging the batteries.
A more sensible approach would have an ICE trailer for long trips.
This requires people to plan out all of their trips. I'd not want to hear from the person who had to make an unscheduled long trip and was unable to get home to pick up the ICE trailer. Granted, this is rare, but I think the gains (convenience, increased range and performance) of the ICE engine outweigh the costs (lower efficiency).
People often buy vehicles, not for how they will use them 95% of the time, but rather for that other 5% of uses. This is why SUVs are so popular. Hardly anyone ever goes off road or carries a large load in their car on a regular basis. But people like being able to go to the store and get some lumber, or load up 6 kids to go somewhere. Having two vehicles may be more efficient, but it is not very convenient. If a car isn't convenient, it won't sell, no matter how efficient it is.
Since many households already own multiple vehicles they can use electric vehicles as main vehicles and fire up the dinosour burners when they need to go long distances.
Why have 2 cars with one largely collecting dust? Just use a hybrid design. With more power from batteries, you can use a smaller gas engine.
Also, as said earlier Power != Energy. The batteries may be able to deliver more power, but their energy density has not changed. Since it takes a certian amount of energy to get from point A to point B, this advance is not likely to impact the automotive issues.
And when you have evidence of another organ, please present it. Until then it is just speculative fiction.
No because the gas mileage per passenger is lower on the airbus "SUV".
But only on routes that can fill the plane. Here in the US, we are trying to get away from the hub-and-spoke system and more towards direct flight. For this system, more smaller aircraft are needed.
If you don't want stuff getting out can't you just CC: someone in the legal department? Or have I been watching "Law and Order" too much?
I just really think that if you are going to have someone in a role to do a comparison right, you really want a person with deep technical understanding in that role to really understand any comparison at a deep level.
As he said, he spends most of his time talking to customers, not fiddling with software. He hires technical people to do all the fiddling (with Linux and Windows).
He's a middleman. He finds out what customers want and then he gets workers to develop a solution. And the important thing to remember here is he talks to customers. This means the people who pay Microsoft, not nessecarily the people who use their products.
At least he's up front about all this.
They still run VxWorks and then run something else on top. In this case, Linux. But VxWorks is still handling the hardware, etc. This is also how RTLinux works as well.
Upon discovering that, I'd be inheriently curious.. what exactly is it they're protecting me from?
Because our society values the freedom to make your own decisions. That's why there's a stink everytime the gov't tries to restrict our expressions.
In China and other places, the people are brought up believing in the Government as a protector, as a father. Since there is little to contradict this, they believe that the government is acting in their best interests when it tells them not to do something. Because of their lifelong conditioning, they accept this fact and move on with their lives.
This is how humans in general operate, and because we are conditioned differently in the West, we have a different response to and view of our governments. North Korea is another example of this. There was a show on PBS showing the horrific conditions in the country. The only reason they put up with it is because they honestly feel that South Korea and their imperialist allies will kill each and every one of them. They are in a completely different reality.
I'm worried that some black smoker habitats were wiped out.
Why are you worried about this? Its not like you had anything to do with this, or could have helped the black smoker worms afterwards. Besides, with the black smoker environments changing constantly, I'm sure they're quite capable of dealing with events like this.
Folks, we need to accept the fact that this is a changing world and occasionally things happen that have a negative impact on life. Fretting over the fate of some prehistoric lifeform that will probably outlive the human race is silly.
OK, here's the text from the law itself regarding infringement (This is from US Code Title 15 section 1114 : Remedies; infringement; innocent infringement by printers and publishers.) ...
...
(1) Any person who shall, without the consent of the registrant--
(a) use in commerce any reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation of a registered mark in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution, or advertising of any goods or services on or in connection with which such use is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive; or
(b) reproduce, counterfeit, copy, or colorably imitate a registe red mark and apply such reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation to labels, signs, prints, packages, wrappers, receptacles or advertisements intended to be used in commerce upon or in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution, or advertising of goods or services on or in connection with which such use is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive,
shall be liable in a civil action by the registrant for the remedies hereinafter provided.
Notice the highlighted parts. Using someone else's trademark to direct traffic to your site will "cause confusion, or to cause mistake" because it is reasonable that people associate a trademark with a particular company's product.
You may not like this law, but it is the law.
Providing notice (and advertising) about competitors is not illegal, unethical, or prohibited under the scope of trademark protection.
It is when you use someone else's trademark to promote your product.
Try to take out an ad in a magazine or anywhere else using Microsoft's Windows logo, which is a trademark, and a URL pointing to your favorite free OS.
there's nothing wrong or illegal about using someone else's trademark.
It is illegal when you use it to promote your product.
There's no justification for that claim. Frequently, the opposite is true. Many searchers would be very happy to learn about a cheaper competitor to a name-brand product.
Sure, that can be allowed in a "Competitors" area perhaps. But to see a trademark in a paid advertisers area and have it link to a competitor is deceptive.
What if Microsoft started this practice with Linux and started paying Google to have Linux search ads with links to microsoft.com?
Oh, there you go again! You used 4 different trademarks in that line! Good thing the law doesn't work the way you thought, or you'd be going to jail...
No, because I am not using any of these trademarks to promote my product.
If Company B advertises its products within the search results of Company A, Company B is not using Company A's trademarks. No where within Company B's advertisements does Company B represent the products as having anything to do with Company A.
Company B is using Company A's trademark when it tells Google to do something with it.
There are plenty of search results that appear on the same page and yet have nothing to do with each other.
That is fine for search results, not for paid advertisements. Company B can create a clever webpage that ranks higher in a search for Company A's products using established methods like saying "Company B's bees beat Company A's honeymakers in a taste test".
Search results are not being contested here. The issue is when Company B pays Google to take searches for Company A's trademark and send customers to their website. The user has no interest in Company B's products if they are searching for Company A's trademark. If they were comparison shopping, they would use more generic terms.
What if Microsoft started this practice with Linux and started paying Google to have Linux search ads with links to microsoft.com? Around here, we know the difference, but does joe public know? The average Joe might go ahead and buy an OS from microsoft.com, even though his friend told him to get Linux from someone.
Hitachi can't market a Z3 because it would be confused with the BMW Z3.
In the case cited, that's exactly what happened. A knock off company put up a website similar to Louis Vitton's and sold similiar looking products. Although the website itself did not use the trademark directly, they used the trademark to get people into their store where they saw what they were looking for.
This is similiar to phishing attacks where a customer is fooled just long enough to part them with their money (or maybe longer).
I see no rational reason why search terms should fall under trademark protection.
This is not for search terms, this is for advertisements triggered by search terms. If you type in BMW Z3, you should not see another automotive advertisement for a Z3 other than BMW or their dealers. However, you can look in the search results and find whatever is out there on the Web. These are two different things. One is a search for information and the other is a paid advertisement. It is the paid advertisement that needs to be controlled.
Not legally, because that would imply that either Ford is using the BMW trademark to represent their product or that BMW is using Ford's Mustang trademark to represent theirs. Remeber, traditional trademark law says that BMW cannot make a car named Mustang. It can probably get away with a motorcycle, though (unless someone makes a Mustang motorcycle).
Remember this is only for Advertisements. Ford can get around this by creating a web page extolling the virtues and value of the Mustang over the BMW Z3. But they have to be careful that the page makes a clear distinction between Ford's product and the BMW product. It is not illegal to use another company's trademarks, you just have to make sure that you are not using their trademark to represent your product.
I find this highly unreasonable. Right now, it is permissible for Company A to advertise its products on a huge billboard right in front of Company B's building. Are you suggesting this practice be banned too?
But Company B cannot use Company A's trademarks to represent its products. That is the issue. They can advertise wherever they want, they are only limited to using their trademarks, not someone else's.
Chevy cannot put up a billboard with the word "Mustang" and a picture of a Camero. But they can put up a Chevy Camero billboard in front of a Ford dealership. Two entirely different issues.
This issue is to keep a trademark from being used by other companies. In this case a knock-off was using Louis Vitton's trademarks to take business away from them. The customer would reasonably expect that the merchants listed are dealing in Louis Vitton's products and not knock-offs.
If the knock-off companies want to compete, they should build their own brand (e.g. Lois Viton) and trademark it instead of using someone else's.
This is not unreasonable.
Does BMW compete with Hitachi?
Is Hitachi trying to use BMW's trademark?
Hitachi is free to advertise to whomever they like. They just have to use their trademarks and not someone else's. If Hitachi wants to make a car, then I trademark law says they can't make a Z3.
So if Hitachi cannot make a Z3 in the automotive space, why should they be allowed to use another company's trademark as search term? If the customer types in "auto Z3", then the customer is looking for a BMW Z3 and not a Hitachi H3.
Is going to determine and keep track of which companies are competitors? How the hell is anyone supposed to do that for every single company in existence?
The company taking the orders. Remember this is a trademark issue and another company paid Google to serve up ads on a trademark that was not theirs.
This will end up as a legal phrase in the contract on the lines of "all the adwords that you are requesting are not trademarked by other companies in your industry". And I'm sure the fine folks at google will simply develop a tool to help them determine if a company has rights to a particular word.
So Chevrolet cannot get ads when people search for Mustang. BMW cannot get ads when people search for Boxter. Etc. This is not suprising or unreasonable.
What I heard on the radio recently was that his main motivation for Iraq was to set up a functioning democracy in the middle east. He understands that the best way to combat terrorism is to give people something better to do with their time. But people living under opressive regimes are not able to do this. He chose Iraq because the population was more accustomed to dealing with a secular government. Once a more benign government is in place, then the people will become more interested in building their own country and creating their own opportunity.
That's the theory I heard anyway. I can see the "get tyranny out of the way" argument. I think selling the American people on the war using WMDs was not the best idea, but I doubt he could have gotten the war going otherwise. So in his mind, distracting the American public is justified by the end of establishing a free Iraq.
I do not like this approach, although I do understand it. Doing the war alone was insane. If he could have waited a few more months, I'm sure more countries would have grown tired of Saddam's shennanigans w.r.t. the weapons inspectors.
I do not think he is using it as a get-rich-quick scheme, although people are getting rich quick. I think he is more motivated by the "right thing to do" mentality. How can freeing 25 million people not be the right thing? If some friends get rich, so much the better.
Remeber, these are my observations of his thinking, not my own ideas.
I think they are looking for something like the Windows 'flag'. Something simple, a bit more abstract and suitable for a logo.
I think all the BSD folks recently attended a marketing 101 class somewhere, because they all want to change logos. NetBSD recently changed to an orange flag. Maybe FreeBSD will pick blue (sorry, I'm a Florida Gator).
And finally, it uses big-endian addressing.
Just curious, what is the advantage to one endianness over the other?
When I look at schematics on a little endian machine, the data lines line up. That is, a 16 bit part will be connected to D0.
On a big-endian machine, like our Motorola Coldfires, the D0 on the part is tied to the D16 on the CPU because when the CPU issues a 16 bit read/write, the read is on the high order bytes. Same with an 8 bit read (D24-D31). This seems like a bass-ackwards way of doing things.
The only advantage I have seen in big endian is when looking at memory dumps.
But I could be missing something.
Give each member a share of common stock for x dollars and run the business as any other. Any profits can be reinvested in the business or payed to the members as a dividend. Then the fans are the owners and the conventional business model will not be upset.
Most components only need positive voltage. One exception is RS-232, which is generally not available anymore on a laptop. Another can be the display, which often requires a negative voltage for contrast adjustments. Drives, memory, CPUs, etc are all positive voltage.
There are ICs that you can buy that generate a negative voltage. It works by switching the leads on a capacitor to charge it backwards and the switching the leads back to present it to the system. Since the leads were switched, the polarity of the voltage is switched. At least that's my understanding of how those parts work.
Too bad you were clouded by his political venting and missed the point that the Webb *isn't a better system*! It's a *different* system.
Where did I say that Webb was the replacement? What's the problem with getting another optical telescope?
Keep in mind the LEO severely limits the capabilities of the telescope. There's no long term ( > 45 min) viewing of any object because the Earth gets in the way.
The Hubble was supposed to have something like a 7 year lifespan. It is well beyond that now. It is a nice piece of hardware, but if we keep servicing it with expensive shuttle missions or expensive robot missions (and they will be expensive) then NASA will have no reason to get a better instrument up there.
Also, don't confuse this as support for cutting a space telescope out of the budget. I do believe that we should either develop a new optical scope (my preferred choice) _or_ service the existing one. I'd rather them service the scope instead of cut the program altogether.
This is one of my gripes with NASA. They tend to do things in fits and stops instead of having a continuous smooth development of a program. And I have written my congressman on this matter. Be sure to do the same.