I already have a sixth external sense... it's the sense of acceleration in my inner ear, colloquially known as the sense of balance. That one's just as important as the other senses.
Of course, there are other more minor senses that are subsets of the sense of touch, like heat and cold, which are actually different mechanisms, but those are arguable as truly separate senses. There's also the sense of body position, whose name escapes me, but that's not an external sense.
That was Lindow's original goal (which I thought was great), but then they abandoned it. Later, Microsoft sued them over the name Lindows, which they changed, and then Microsoft went away.
It doesn't matter how fast it is if it doesn't run the software that people want. That's the biggest thing that holds up Linux on the desktop.
If Linux for the desktop is ever going to really be a viable option, someone needs to come out with a distro with the goal of, "absolutely, positively, 100% Windows Compatible" via Wine or similar technologies.
That distro would conquer the world.
(Cue people giving the argument, "but Microsoft will just change Windows". Yes, they might, but that doesn't affect the installed base of applications, nor does it affect the myriad third party applications, and if there was a viable target, third party companies would ensure compatability.)
Untruthful, damaging speech is not protected. You can't say anything you want in a commercial venue. Being purposefully deceptive for monetary gain is not protected speech.
Shouting 'fire' has specific physical consequences, hence the reason we restrict that particular form of speech. The law errs on the side of freedom... deceptive speech has very specific rules about it. In this case, the man is giving his opinion about his own product. He might be trying to deceive or he might not, but it's his opinion, and he's entitled to it.
So how about I sell you a car after telling you how perfectly it runs. When you discover that there is no engine in it remember "caveat emptor" so you not going to sue me are you?
That's breech of contract. An entirely different thing. They promised to perform a service to a specific *objective* standard, and failed to live up to the standard.
Caveat emptor is someone selling you car telling you "it runs great" which you don't bother to check out until after you pay them. It's your responsibility to make sure the car is good before you buy it, not to trust the seller to tell you the whole story. "Runs great" is an opinion. Maybe in his opinion it *did* run great, but you're a fool if you assume you have the same standards of subjective "greatness".
Same with Carbonite. Where did he make a specific, objective, verifiable promise about the product that the product fails to live up to? "I think it's a great product!" and the like are subjective opinions. Caveat emptor.
It's not a good idea to "prosecute" people for holding opinions, even if they are opinions that they have an interest in. [Of course, in many places in Europe, they put you in jail for thinking the wrong thoughts, but I digress. Or do I?]
I would not be surprised that the actual probability of a double failure in a short timespan is much higher than most people think.
It's far more common to use exactly the same model of drive purchased at exactly the same time in multi-drive configurations than not. The fact that double failures are pretty much unheard of would pretty much doom your theory.
They should use them though, not having to worry about which way round batteries went would be nice.
They probably don't because there's a power loss from the diodes. You're going to get some amount of current flowing through the reversed diodes. The convenience of having reversible batteries is not worth the loss in battery life.
I wonder if you could incorporate the rectifier into the battery itself, and get a battery that could be inserted into any device either way round?
Well, that would only help ensure that positive and negative are *always* at a certain side of the battery, regardless of internal chemistry.:)
(Sorry, not trying to be (rudely) sarcastic... in other words, the point of the diode set-up is to resolve polarity within the device... it doesn't do any good to resolve it on the battery, it's already resolved there!)
Do you have any idea what this means?! The possibilities are mind-boggling! You'll be able to put the batteries in backwards!
This reminds me of a funny story (funny to hardware geek types, at least)... when I was about 13 or so, I was playing around with circuit diagrams and came up with an incredible invention that I felt sure was going to make me a fortune!
I invented a way for batteries to be put into a device in any direction. I showed my invention, that used only four diodes, to my electronic engineer father and his engineer friend who happened to be there. His friend said, laughing, "Yeah, I've needed one of those on occasion." I couldn't figure out why they found it funny.
(of course, I had just invented the full wave rectifier, not typically used for batteries, alas)
I'm really surprised that the Obama Administration wants McNealy to write a position paper on using Open Source when it would have been far more appropriate to ask someone at IBM write such a position paper.
IBM came to my mind as well, but IBM seems (to me) like mostly a company-by-committee in terms of OSS adoption. There isn't one guy you can point to as an expert in both OSS and proprietary software, who is also grounded in business.
You really can't think Obama will suck compared to what we just went through.
If you think "things can't get any worse", then you are very, very wrong. There's a lot of talk about the Great Depression lately in a romantic "woe is me" way, but few people understand just how bad it really was.
Bush sucked, but it's entirely possible Obama will suck in fantastically enormous ways (e.g., spending us into bankruptcy), all with an optimistic belief of doing the "right" thing. Good intentions count for nothing. Obama is brimming over with good intentions, but the only thing I care about is results. If he fails, then he's a failure.
I was starting to write here that McNealy is an odd choice for this, since he was somewhat dragged kicking-and-screaming to OSS.
But thinking about it, I actually can't think of a better choice. I can understand the administration wanting a "red blooded" businessman to write the paper rather than wild-eyed OSS advocate that might be less than objective about the pros and cons of OSS versus proprietary software. McNealy really does have a broad background... he's run a major business, he's sold proprietary software, and he's made major releases in OSS software.
And before that it was radio, before that it press, and before that it was in person. The simple fact is that time changes. I am 49 and would love to have kids see this from the net, rather than the TV.
And every step in that progression you mentioned was an improvement in quality. So you'd rather have kids watch an historic event in grainy, choppy, crappy video where they can barely watch what's going on, rather than in beautiful HDTV where they can see everything? Just so they don't have to see professional analysis (God Forbid!) AFTER the event?
This is one of the most retarded things I've seen posted on Slashdot in a while.
The fact is, since China has the unfair advantage of near-slave labor, the rest of the world as a whole needs to have stiff import tariffs to equalize this imbalance.
Yeah! Because stiff tariffs worked out so well in the past.
I just hate paying for programming that contains ads. I mean, isn't that what the ads are for?
Yes, the ads are paying for the programming. But not for the access. That's what your cable bill is for -- to pay for the wiring and access to the programming.
Or to put it another way, are you surprised that have to pay a bill to your ISP -and- you see ads on cnn.com?
I really don't know why people find the cable-TV concept so confusing.
[and yes, I realize cable is a bit more complicated, in that there are arrangements where cable kicks up some money to a channel for carrying the channel, but that isn't enough to pay for most programming. The point still stands.]
...that will unfortunately never catch on. Sadly, people are lazy to the core, and would rather just throw old stuff out and buy kitchsy "rustic" art at some shop somewhere.
What is your definition of "catch on" that would satisfy you? What percentage of garbage can actually be turned into something useful? And by "useful", I don't mean a bunch of garbage that's welded together and called art, which a microscopic number of people actually want in their homes.
Anyway, too many people wring their hands about garbage dumps. Today's dumps are tomorrow's oil fields.
Let me guess, you only listen to vinyl records and post to slashdot with a commodore64.
Sheesh, way to miss the point.
The point isn't that old technology is better (though, some insane people think vinyl is better and prefer the effect of the distortion), the point is that mechanical things are cool, because you can see the mechanics at work. You can't see what's going on inside an electronic device.
(As I said, if I have to explain it, you won't understand)
Slashdot Mirror
I already have a sixth external sense... it's the sense of acceleration in my inner ear, colloquially known as the sense of balance. That one's just as important as the other senses.
Of course, there are other more minor senses that are subsets of the sense of touch, like heat and cold, which are actually different mechanisms, but those are arguable as truly separate senses. There's also the sense of body position, whose name escapes me, but that's not an external sense.
What was TFA about, again? :)
That was Lindow's original goal (which I thought was great), but then they abandoned it. Later, Microsoft sued them over the name Lindows, which they changed, and then Microsoft went away.
People use applications, not operating systems.
It doesn't matter how fast it is if it doesn't run the software that people want. That's the biggest thing that holds up Linux on the desktop.
If Linux for the desktop is ever going to really be a viable option, someone needs to come out with a distro with the goal of, "absolutely, positively, 100% Windows Compatible" via Wine or similar technologies.
That distro would conquer the world.
(Cue people giving the argument, "but Microsoft will just change Windows". Yes, they might, but that doesn't affect the installed base of applications, nor does it affect the myriad third party applications, and if there was a viable target, third party companies would ensure compatability.)
Two more for you...false advertising.
What was objectively false about it, and what was advertising about it?
He was a private citizen giving his opinion.
Untruthful, damaging speech is not protected. You can't say anything you want in a commercial venue. Being purposefully deceptive for monetary gain is not protected speech.
Shouting 'fire' has specific physical consequences, hence the reason we restrict that particular form of speech. The law errs on the side of freedom... deceptive speech has very specific rules about it. In this case, the man is giving his opinion about his own product. He might be trying to deceive or he might not, but it's his opinion, and he's entitled to it.
So how about I sell you a car after telling you how perfectly it runs. When you discover that there is no engine in it remember "caveat emptor" so you not going to sue me are you?
That's breech of contract. An entirely different thing. They promised to perform a service to a specific *objective* standard, and failed to live up to the standard.
Caveat emptor is someone selling you car telling you "it runs great" which you don't bother to check out until after you pay them. It's your responsibility to make sure the car is good before you buy it, not to trust the seller to tell you the whole story. "Runs great" is an opinion. Maybe in his opinion it *did* run great, but you're a fool if you assume you have the same standards of subjective "greatness".
Same with Carbonite. Where did he make a specific, objective, verifiable promise about the product that the product fails to live up to? "I think it's a great product!" and the like are subjective opinions. Caveat emptor.
No, prosecuted. That is conflict of interest.
Three words: Freedom of Speech.
And here are two more words for you: caveat emptor.
It's not a good idea to "prosecute" people for holding opinions, even if they are opinions that they have an interest in. [Of course, in many places in Europe, they put you in jail for thinking the wrong thoughts, but I digress. Or do I?]
I'll bet you're a laugh riot at parties.
I would not be surprised that the actual probability of a double failure in a short timespan is much higher than most people think.
It's far more common to use exactly the same model of drive purchased at exactly the same time in multi-drive configurations than not. The fact that double failures are pretty much unheard of would pretty much doom your theory.
Just in case anyone is confused that this imitator is me, this is NOT me making this stupid comment. :)
[it's stupid because having the same failure *rate* does not mean they fail at the same time. Sheesh.]
They should use them though, not having to worry about which way round batteries went would be nice.
They probably don't because there's a power loss from the diodes. You're going to get some amount of current flowing through the reversed diodes. The convenience of having reversible batteries is not worth the loss in battery life.
I wonder if you could incorporate the rectifier into the battery itself, and get a battery that could be inserted into any device either way round?
Well, that would only help ensure that positive and negative are *always* at a certain side of the battery, regardless of internal chemistry. :)
(Sorry, not trying to be (rudely) sarcastic... in other words, the point of the diode set-up is to resolve polarity within the device... it doesn't do any good to resolve it on the battery, it's already resolved there!)
Do you have any idea what this means?! The possibilities are mind-boggling! You'll be able to put the batteries in backwards!
This reminds me of a funny story (funny to hardware geek types, at least)... when I was about 13 or so, I was playing around with circuit diagrams and came up with an incredible invention that I felt sure was going to make me a fortune!
I invented a way for batteries to be put into a device in any direction. I showed my invention, that used only four diodes, to my electronic engineer father and his engineer friend who happened to be there. His friend said, laughing, "Yeah, I've needed one of those on occasion." I couldn't figure out why they found it funny.
(of course, I had just invented the full wave rectifier, not typically used for batteries, alas)
I'm really surprised that the Obama Administration wants McNealy to write a position paper on using Open Source when it would have been far more appropriate to ask someone at IBM write such a position paper.
IBM came to my mind as well, but IBM seems (to me) like mostly a company-by-committee in terms of OSS adoption. There isn't one guy you can point to as an expert in both OSS and proprietary software, who is also grounded in business.
You really can't think Obama will suck compared to what we just went through.
If you think "things can't get any worse", then you are very, very wrong. There's a lot of talk about the Great Depression lately in a romantic "woe is me" way, but few people understand just how bad it really was.
Bush sucked, but it's entirely possible Obama will suck in fantastically enormous ways (e.g., spending us into bankruptcy), all with an optimistic belief of doing the "right" thing. Good intentions count for nothing. Obama is brimming over with good intentions, but the only thing I care about is results. If he fails, then he's a failure.
The more I learn about science, the more my faith in God increases.
Hmm, I find the more I learn about God, the more thankful I am that science doesn't require any blind faith.
I was starting to write here that McNealy is an odd choice for this, since he was somewhat dragged kicking-and-screaming to OSS.
But thinking about it, I actually can't think of a better choice. I can understand the administration wanting a "red blooded" businessman to write the paper rather than wild-eyed OSS advocate that might be less than objective about the pros and cons of OSS versus proprietary software. McNealy really does have a broad background... he's run a major business, he's sold proprietary software, and he's made major releases in OSS software.
He's actually a pretty good choice.
What's so vague about this? If it ain't in the Constitution, the government has no right to do it.
Unfortunately, there is also that pesky Ninth amendment that Libertarian types love to ignore:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
In other words, if the government decides the people have the right to universal health care, it's right there in the constitution.
And before that it was radio, before that it press, and before that it was in person. The simple fact is that time changes. I am 49 and would love to have kids see this from the net, rather than the TV.
And every step in that progression you mentioned was an improvement in quality. So you'd rather have kids watch an historic event in grainy, choppy, crappy video where they can barely watch what's going on, rather than in beautiful HDTV where they can see everything? Just so they don't have to see professional analysis (God Forbid!) AFTER the event?
This is one of the most retarded things I've seen posted on Slashdot in a while.
And when it comes to "nerds" and being rejected, just remember...
Everywhere, everyone is tired of his shit.
The fact is, since China has the unfair advantage of near-slave labor, the rest of the world as a whole needs to have stiff import tariffs to equalize this imbalance.
Yeah! Because stiff tariffs worked out so well in the past.
The way we used to say this in the Hospital game is, "different-good is as bad as different-bad."
Sheesh. Why don't you try reading past the first line of my post?
I just hate paying for programming that contains ads. I mean, isn't that what the ads are for?
Yes, the ads are paying for the programming. But not for the access. That's what your cable bill is for -- to pay for the wiring and access to the programming.
Or to put it another way, are you surprised that have to pay a bill to your ISP -and- you see ads on cnn.com?
I really don't know why people find the cable-TV concept so confusing.
[and yes, I realize cable is a bit more complicated, in that there are arrangements where cable kicks up some money to a channel for carrying the channel, but that isn't enough to pay for most programming. The point still stands.]
Dunno about loss of appetite... if one of the symptoms had been "munchies", then that would have clinched it.
What is your definition of "catch on" that would satisfy you? What percentage of garbage can actually be turned into something useful? And by "useful", I don't mean a bunch of garbage that's welded together and called art, which a microscopic number of people actually want in their homes.
Anyway, too many people wring their hands about garbage dumps. Today's dumps are tomorrow's oil fields.
Let me guess, you only listen to vinyl records and post to slashdot with a commodore64.
Sheesh, way to miss the point.
The point isn't that old technology is better (though, some insane people think vinyl is better and prefer the effect of the distortion), the point is that mechanical things are cool, because you can see the mechanics at work. You can't see what's going on inside an electronic device.
(As I said, if I have to explain it, you won't understand)