Does anyone know of any inexpensive power meters that you can stick between an appliance and a wall socket that records power usage? My electric bill is insane nowadays, but it's really hard to track down exactly where the power is going. I've tried to find a cheap device like this ($50?) but have had no luck.
The idea is not to have just a meter that take an instantaneous reading, but to have something that adds it up over a 24 hour period (or whatever).
The problem isn't with the patch, it's with the Changelog, and RedHat didn't really have anything to do with it.
Red Hat should stand up for intelligence and rewrite the changelog in their own words if they have to. Just because Alan Cox is an idiot about everything except programming doesn't mean that Red Hat and everyone else should roll over. I don't particularly like the DMCA, and would like to see it overturned. But idiocy like this DAMAGES THE CAUSE.
I think everyone should publish the changelog and give a big F-you to Cox' stupidity.
Does it matter to anyone that they are basically lying that this violates the DMCA? Does it matter to anyone that this harms the cause, because legislators will just look at stunts like this as the BS that they are and ignore possibly future valid complaints?
Does it matter to anyone that Red Hat doesn't even appear to know what the DMCA is about?
Or maybe I'm wrong. Maybe some can post a NON-CONTRIVED, LOGICAL, NON-BULLSHIT argument that the patch in question tries to circumvent a software security device?
There is a lot of precedent for people willing to pay for "premium" services. For example, I'm more than willing to pay for my cable TV service, even though I can get "free" TV by putting up an antenna. If AOL can find sources of unique content that make it worth having, then they might have a shot at being the Cable TV of the Internet.
So far, however, there's not much that I'm aware of that is unique to AOL that is so valuable that it makes me run out and get it.
The operating system is TOTALLY irrelevent when it comes to most users. There are only three things that matter: 1) Applications, 2) Hardware support, and 3) Applications. You can have the worst operating system in the world (Windows 3.1) and utterly destroy a clearly superior operating system (OS/2) simply because you win the hardware and application battle.
Be was dead before it started, because the ONLY hope for a new operating system is compatibility with the current application base. What I don't understand is how Be deluded themselves into thinking that application developers are going to spend valuable resources porting to a completely new operating system without any users just because it's "new and cool".
No one cares about operating systems. Say it three times.
Simple question: so what? How does that help me get work done? Usually the opposite is true: slim means missing features, which means more work in other ways. Boot speed is irrelevent, except at the start of the day (I leave my computer on all the time anyway).
I still remember this demonstration from the Museum of Science and Industry when I was about 8 years old...
It was a large box with pegs, and a hole at the center, top. The balls would fall through the hole, down the pages, and land into slots at the bottom. On the front glass was a bell curve painted on the glass.
I watched in amazement as time after time, the balls would fall into the shape of the bell curve, even though they were falling randomly.
Actually, Usenet would be trivial to attack. You just attack the people posting movies or music. It's not that hard to track down where a posting is coming from, unless you use anonymous reposters. And they're aren't many of those, particularly ones that let you funnel gigabytes of data through them.
Law enforcement has already dropped the hammer on a lot of child porn posters.
I'll tell you why -- and it's a good lesson to understand about this battle.
The music industry doesn't care about shutting down every avenue of music trading, they care about music trading that is easy to use by normal people. Napster was the first application that made anonymous music trading easy to use by anyone. Usenet is NEVER going to be used by normal people, because there's no possibility for an instantaneous "search and download" capability.
but it's funny how most people are really trying hard to get to the US.
Nothing new. Particularly Europe, but most of the rest of the world feels a lot of frustration that their opinions are basically irrelevent in what happens in the world. They take this frustration out in foolish (one might say childish) criticisms of anything the US does.
But you know what really galls them? That the US cares so little what the rest of the world thinks. This particularly irritates countries like France who still want to think of themselves as a world power.
Then you factor in the fact that Europe enjoys what freedom they have through the power and defense of the US (they would be speaking Russian right now without the US, and probably would have had several more world wars by now) -- not to mention that we rebuilt the place after WW/II -- and it's inevitable that resentment builds up in many people. Particularly younger people who don't have any historical perspective.
I live in up in the hills in Palos Verdes (CA), by the way, with a view of the port of San Pedro. I have to admit, it's a pretty cool site seeing hundreds of ships in the harbor.:)
That doesn't really add up. If the union knew that the company was going to lock them out, then why do the slowdown? Seems like it would be better to let them lock them out "for no reason" in order to get more public sympathy.
It was my impression that the dock workers were not striking, but were instead, locked out of work by the corporation(s).
Technically they were locked out, but that was in response to a work slowdown. So in essence, the union performed a strike while still collecting paychecks (pretty slimy, if you ask me). Rather than pay the workers to strike, the companies shut the whole thing down.
Re:Our Parents are the evil fucks, not us
on
Generation Wrecked
·
· Score: 2
They rebelled against the establishment and won the right for a woman to choose the fate of her own body.
Some of us would argue that the "right" to kill one's own children is part of the selfish excesses.
There's so much wrong in your post it's almost not worth answering, but...
Oh, wait, that's Microsoft, and they're making bank.
That Microsoft makes hardware doesn't mean they depend on hardware. Or are you seriously suggesting that most of Microsoft's revenues come from hardware? Hardware is a drop in the bucket to Microsoft.
Where are you getting these numbers?
How about from THE LINK THAT THE POSTER HAD THAT I WAS REPLYING TO. From Apple's web site, I might add. Yes, the margins are extremely thin.
In an era where the Macintosh was Apple's only whole computer product, the Macintosh's market share was climbing, but Apple's was dwindling?
Yes, learn to read. The clone manufacturers were making MACINTOSHES. That means the MACINTOSH market share was climbing, but Apple's SHARE of the Macintosh market was declining. Exactly what do you think the clone manufacturers were cloning?
Even though traditionally and through to today, hardware profits are a large chunk of operation profits...
Sheesh, you are determined to miss the point. Yes, we ALL recognize that TODAY Apple gets their money from hardware. The issue at hand is whether they would be better off selling software.
Yah, 'cause really, iTunes is worth $400 to me.
Exactly WHO is talking about iTunes? If you're going to make a sarcastic point, at least write one that makes some sort of sense.
Here's a hint: the OS X upgrade package ain't floating the whole boat, and pretty much everything else is free.
It isn't now, but it could if they would sell TENS OF MILLIONS OF THEM to new customers. Are you seriously suggesting that there is no market to an alternative to Microsoft? The PC hardware makers would LOVE to give Microsoft the shaft after so many years of taking it in the butt.
Not to mention that it isn't impossible for Apple to actually make other products.
Because obviously it has nothing to do with such familiar terms as the applications barrier to entry
*sigh* How do you think Microsoft got to the point of having the power that they have? You think they just decided one day that "Hey! I think we'll sell to 90% of all desktops today!"
What's still in the air is how exactly you think that Apple was able to compete with the software company hired to make the operating system for the then-and-now dominant hardware platform for, what, 20 years now?
How about by having some freaking guts? We know from multiple sources that Apple maintains a version of OS/X running on Intel hardware. But they live in fear of not being able to lock their customers into their hardware platform.
They've been doing this for years, look how much has changed from Win 95 to XP. They just keep adding new "features" that new programs will require.
And look how much software still runs under Win/95 or Win/98. But anyway, of course Microsoft is going to continue adding enhancements. But so what? It's not like thousands of features come out every week.
How many programs REQUIRE IE 4/5?
I dunno; I can't think of any off-hand. But again, so what? It's not that hard to make it think that IE is installed when Mozilla really runs.
For Apple to become anything else WOULD be to shoot themselves in the foot.
Exactly how has it hurt Microsoft to be a software-only company? Do you REALLY think Microsoft would be dominant today if they had come out with a proprietary "Windows PC" that was completely closed?
If Apple's the ones that are too stupid and arrogant, I guess that explains why Apple still continues to be profitable [apple.com],
Yeah, and my lemonade stand is "profitable" because I made a clear $5 profit. But so what? Are you really impressed that Apple is able to cut and chop expenses enough to bring home $32 million on sales of 1.43 BILLION?
The reason the clones "failed" is because Apple didn't fully commit to the strategy. And it didn't even fail! Total Macintosh market share was CLIMBING. It was Apple's marketshare that was falling. Apple panicked and decided they couldn't compete, and shut it down. Apple could have gone two ways: a) accept that hardware was going to be a break-even or low profit proposition and make money from software, and b) forget hardware entirely and make money from software. The bottom line here is software. That's where the money is, and that's why Microsoft is dominant and Apple -- isn't.
1) Microsoft CANNOT infinitely change windows at will. They have to maintain compatibility with old applications.
2) As for shipping new components, you simply have to design the compatibility layer to run those in a cage. The other thing is that is usually limited to Microsoft applications. Third party applications don't do that, so it's a very limited set of applications that have that problem.
You know, it pains me to say it, but it's actually possible for it to be Apple.
But it won't be.
Because they're too stupid and too arrogant to realize that they ARE NOT, ARE NOT, and let me say it one more time, ARE NOT a hardware company. They are a software company that tries to maintain a monopoly on the hardware to lock in their customers.
If they would finally, at last, get a clue that they would be infinitely stronger by moving to the Industry Standard Computer Architecture, I fully believe that Microsoft's strength would finally be muted.
Failing that (and Apple probably will, since their history is nothing but shooting themselves in the head), the future will either be Microsoft, or it will be someone who finally creates a fully compatible Windows clone.
You'll note that the common theme between these two is application compatibility. Apple is the only Windows alternative platform with decent apps, so they have a shot. But other than that, compatibility is a must. Microsoft won by providing a relatively clean upgrade path from DOS on up.
It's theoretically possible that Wine might eventually make Windows compatibility possible, but I have my doubts that they will ever get the to the "absolutely, positively 100% compatible" level where any idiot loading Windows software onto Linux will "just work".
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly the thing! Thanks!
Does anyone know of any inexpensive power meters that you can stick between an appliance and a wall socket that records power usage? My electric bill is insane nowadays, but it's really hard to track down exactly where the power is going. I've tried to find a cheap device like this ($50?) but have had no luck.
The idea is not to have just a meter that take an instantaneous reading, but to have something that adds it up over a 24 hour period (or whatever).
The problem isn't with the patch, it's with the Changelog, and RedHat didn't really have anything to do with it.
Red Hat should stand up for intelligence and rewrite the changelog in their own words if they have to. Just because Alan Cox is an idiot about everything except programming doesn't mean that Red Hat and everyone else should roll over. I don't particularly like the DMCA, and would like to see it overturned. But idiocy like this DAMAGES THE CAUSE.
I think everyone should publish the changelog and give a big F-you to Cox' stupidity.
Does it matter to anyone that they are basically lying that this violates the DMCA? Does it matter to anyone that this harms the cause, because legislators will just look at stunts like this as the BS that they are and ignore possibly future valid complaints?
Does it matter to anyone that Red Hat doesn't even appear to know what the DMCA is about?
Or maybe I'm wrong. Maybe some can post a NON-CONTRIVED, LOGICAL, NON-BULLSHIT argument that the patch in question tries to circumvent a software security device?
P.S. Emphasis on the non-contrived part.
There is a lot of precedent for people willing to pay for "premium" services. For example, I'm more than willing to pay for my cable TV service, even though I can get "free" TV by putting up an antenna. If AOL can find sources of unique content that make it worth having, then they might have a shot at being the Cable TV of the Internet.
So far, however, there's not much that I'm aware of that is unique to AOL that is so valuable that it makes me run out and get it.
The operating system is TOTALLY irrelevent when it comes to most users. There are only three things that matter: 1) Applications, 2) Hardware support, and 3) Applications. You can have the worst operating system in the world (Windows 3.1) and utterly destroy a clearly superior operating system (OS/2) simply because you win the hardware and application battle.
Be was dead before it started, because the ONLY hope for a new operating system is compatibility with the current application base. What I don't understand is how Be deluded themselves into thinking that application developers are going to spend valuable resources porting to a completely new operating system without any users just because it's "new and cool".
No one cares about operating systems. Say it three times.
very very slim
Simple question: so what? How does that help me get work done? Usually the opposite is true: slim means missing features, which means more work in other ways. Boot speed is irrelevent, except at the start of the day (I leave my computer on all the time anyway).
I still remember this demonstration from the Museum of Science and Industry when I was about 8 years old...
It was a large box with pegs, and a hole at the center, top. The balls would fall through the hole, down the pages, and land into slots at the bottom. On the front glass was a bell curve painted on the glass.
I watched in amazement as time after time, the balls would fall into the shape of the bell curve, even though they were falling randomly.
All that needs to be changed is there needs to be 'index' files uploaded with the descriptions of the files
Great, so you have an index of about a day's worth of uploads. The odds of someone finding what they want is pretty slim.
Who are they going to sue?
Actually, Usenet would be trivial to attack. You just attack the people posting movies or music. It's not that hard to track down where a posting is coming from, unless you use anonymous reposters. And they're aren't many of those, particularly ones that let you funnel gigabytes of data through them.
Law enforcement has already dropped the hammer on a lot of child porn posters.
I wonder why this hasn't happened earlier
I'll tell you why -- and it's a good lesson to understand about this battle.
The music industry doesn't care about shutting down every avenue of music trading, they care about music trading that is easy to use by normal people. Napster was the first application that made anonymous music trading easy to use by anyone. Usenet is NEVER going to be used by normal people, because there's no possibility for an instantaneous "search and download" capability.
but it's funny how most people are really trying hard to get to the US.
Nothing new. Particularly Europe, but most of the rest of the world feels a lot of frustration that their opinions are basically irrelevent in what happens in the world. They take this frustration out in foolish (one might say childish) criticisms of anything the US does.
But you know what really galls them? That the US cares so little what the rest of the world thinks. This particularly irritates countries like France who still want to think of themselves as a world power.
Then you factor in the fact that Europe enjoys what freedom they have through the power and defense of the US (they would be speaking Russian right now without the US, and probably would have had several more world wars by now) -- not to mention that we rebuilt the place after WW/II -- and it's inevitable that resentment builds up in many people. Particularly younger people who don't have any historical perspective.
it's a pretty cool site...
Er, and the sight is even better! :)
I live in Seattle
I live in up in the hills in Palos Verdes (CA), by the way, with a view of the port of San Pedro. I have to admit, it's a pretty cool site seeing hundreds of ships in the harbor. :)
That doesn't really add up. If the union knew that the company was going to lock them out, then why do the slowdown? Seems like it would be better to let them lock them out "for no reason" in order to get more public sympathy.
It was my impression that the dock workers were not striking, but were instead, locked out of work by the corporation(s).
Technically they were locked out, but that was in response to a work slowdown. So in essence, the union performed a strike while still collecting paychecks (pretty slimy, if you ask me). Rather than pay the workers to strike, the companies shut the whole thing down.
They rebelled against the establishment and won the right for a woman to choose the fate of her own body.
Some of us would argue that the "right" to kill one's own children is part of the selfish excesses.
Reason to whine? Comparing now to the depression?
How about this: The current unemployment rate is 5.6%. At the height of the depression, the unemployment rate was 25%+
By historical standards, this "recession" is absolute peanuts. This generation has the most opportunity of any generation in HISTORY.
Every generation thinks they have it the worst.
There's so much wrong in your post it's almost not worth answering, but...
Oh, wait, that's Microsoft, and they're making bank.
That Microsoft makes hardware doesn't mean they depend on hardware. Or are you seriously suggesting that most of Microsoft's revenues come from hardware? Hardware is a drop in the bucket to Microsoft.
Where are you getting these numbers?
How about from THE LINK THAT THE POSTER HAD THAT I WAS REPLYING TO. From Apple's web site, I might add. Yes, the margins are extremely thin.
In an era where the Macintosh was Apple's only whole computer product, the Macintosh's market share was climbing, but Apple's was dwindling?
Yes, learn to read. The clone manufacturers were making MACINTOSHES. That means the MACINTOSH market share was climbing, but Apple's SHARE of the Macintosh market was declining. Exactly what do you think the clone manufacturers were cloning?
Even though traditionally and through to today, hardware profits are a large chunk of operation profits...
Sheesh, you are determined to miss the point. Yes, we ALL recognize that TODAY Apple gets their money from hardware. The issue at hand is whether they would be better off selling software.
Yah, 'cause really, iTunes is worth $400 to me.
Exactly WHO is talking about iTunes? If you're going to make a sarcastic point, at least write one that makes some sort of sense.
Here's a hint: the OS X upgrade package ain't floating the whole boat, and pretty much everything else is free.
It isn't now, but it could if they would sell TENS OF MILLIONS OF THEM to new customers. Are you seriously suggesting that there is no market to an alternative to Microsoft? The PC hardware makers would LOVE to give Microsoft the shaft after so many years of taking it in the butt.
Not to mention that it isn't impossible for Apple to actually make other products.
Because obviously it has nothing to do with such familiar terms as the applications barrier to entry
*sigh* How do you think Microsoft got to the point of having the power that they have? You think they just decided one day that "Hey! I think we'll sell to 90% of all desktops today!"
What's still in the air is how exactly you think that Apple was able to compete with the software company hired to make the operating system for the then-and-now dominant hardware platform for, what, 20 years now?
How about by having some freaking guts? We know from multiple sources that Apple maintains a version of OS/X running on Intel hardware. But they live in fear of not being able to lock their customers into their hardware platform.
They've been doing this for years, look how much has changed from Win 95 to XP. They just keep adding new "features" that new programs will require.
And look how much software still runs under Win/95 or Win/98. But anyway, of course Microsoft is going to continue adding enhancements. But so what? It's not like thousands of features come out every week.
How many programs REQUIRE IE 4/5?
I dunno; I can't think of any off-hand. But again, so what? It's not that hard to make it think that IE is installed when Mozilla really runs.
For Apple to become anything else WOULD be to shoot themselves in the foot.
Exactly how has it hurt Microsoft to be a software-only company? Do you REALLY think Microsoft would be dominant today if they had come out with a proprietary "Windows PC" that was completely closed?
If Apple's the ones that are too stupid and arrogant, I guess that explains why Apple still continues to be profitable [apple.com],
Yeah, and my lemonade stand is "profitable" because I made a clear $5 profit. But so what? Are you really impressed that Apple is able to cut and chop expenses enough to bring home $32 million on sales of 1.43 BILLION?
The reason the clones "failed" is because Apple didn't fully commit to the strategy. And it didn't even fail! Total Macintosh market share was CLIMBING. It was Apple's marketshare that was falling. Apple panicked and decided they couldn't compete, and shut it down. Apple could have gone two ways: a) accept that hardware was going to be a break-even or low profit proposition and make money from software, and b) forget hardware entirely and make money from software. The bottom line here is software. That's where the money is, and that's why Microsoft is dominant and Apple -- isn't.
There are two things to say about this:
1) Microsoft CANNOT infinitely change windows at will. They have to maintain compatibility with old applications.
2) As for shipping new components, you simply have to design the compatibility layer to run those in a cage. The other thing is that is usually limited to Microsoft applications. Third party applications don't do that, so it's a very limited set of applications that have that problem.
OS/2 died because it wasn't compatible with Windows, either at the Win32 level or the hardware level.
My first thought was, "I wonder if Stallman named it".
You know, it pains me to say it, but it's actually possible for it to be Apple.
But it won't be.
Because they're too stupid and too arrogant to realize that they ARE NOT, ARE NOT, and let me say it one more time, ARE NOT a hardware company. They are a software company that tries to maintain a monopoly on the hardware to lock in their customers.
If they would finally, at last, get a clue that they would be infinitely stronger by moving to the Industry Standard Computer Architecture, I fully believe that Microsoft's strength would finally be muted.
Failing that (and Apple probably will, since their history is nothing but shooting themselves in the head), the future will either be Microsoft, or it will be someone who finally creates a fully compatible Windows clone.
You'll note that the common theme between these two is application compatibility. Apple is the only Windows alternative platform with decent apps, so they have a shot. But other than that, compatibility is a must. Microsoft won by providing a relatively clean upgrade path from DOS on up.
It's theoretically possible that Wine might eventually make Windows compatibility possible, but I have my doubts that they will ever get the to the "absolutely, positively 100% compatible" level where any idiot loading Windows software onto Linux will "just work".