That one would probably not be useful here, since it wouldn't have shared access to the flash card, but web cameras are definitely another application for this general type of webserver.
Google is claiming the device failed because it failed to detect a wireless mic signal that just happened to be using the same frequency as a TV station. In other words, it detected the TV signal, and chose not to use that channel properly, but since it could not also discern the less powerful mic signal hidden on the same frequency, which would not happen since the mic would not have worked on the same channel as a TV station anyway, the FCC failed it.
How did they determine that it was avoiding the channel because it detected the TV station, or because it detected the microphone? I guess we don't know, because the results haven't been published yet?
When will the results be published, is that known at least?
Wouldn't a linksys WRTSL54GS (basically a wrt54g with a USB port) running openwrt and serving files off a USB stick be an easier and neater soloution?
It's a different solution, certainly. In a lot of circumstances it's superior, and if you have static files you wouldn't even need the USB port. On the other hand, if you already have the WAP (or WAPs), particularly if you've got multiple locations already set up and an existing inventory of devices...?
There are also existing mini-servers like the Gumstix device or Soekris' boxes that would be competing with this for other solutions. What I was really getting at is that there's plenty of applications for a small static web server that doen't have anything to do with putting a server on the internet for general world-wide access.:)
There's lots of applications for little http servers that have nothing to do with "websites".
Stick this server as the "upstream" of a wireless access point, and you've got a cheap throwdown local information server for a business without opening yourself up to wardrivers.
If you have a phone with a SD card and a camera, you can take some pictures then use this to post them on a LAN.
YOu can plug this in when your regular server is down for some reason.
If you're concerned about theft, something like this is easier to secure than some little computer that needs cooling and AC, and less of a loss if someone does rip it off.
Once they add the ability to drive control lines through a RESTful interface, you can stick this anywhere you can run ethernet to control relays, turn lights on and off, etcetera...
OK, if I was getting my internet service through Google instead of AT&T I'd be more worried about Google, as opposed to AT&T, tracking my online activity.
Not hat I'm exactly happy about Google's history, but damn, when an ISP can see every page you visit no matter who's hosting it they should be expected to hold to a higher standard of behavior.
Then quit calling then "bytes". I've used computers with 5 to 10 bit characters and 8 to 13 bit "bytes". The correct standardized term for 8 bits of data is an "octet".
So it's either MB (traditional) or MiO (formal). Never MiB.
What was once simple in 2k is now a bitch of a setup in Vista. Everything just changed. Usability wasnt increased, as it was just a "change cause I can do it".
Oh yes, XP started that but Vista has taken it to a whole new level.
The same kind of thing happens in KDE and Gnome and Mac OSX but not to anything like the same degree. Not that excuses "cange cause I can do it" elsewhere, of course.:p
The Judge seems to have left open the option of treating the files downloaded by MediaSentry as "unauthorised distribution". Which means the retrial may turn into a walk in the park for the RIAA.
so if an average worker spends an hour doing work online per day, and then spends 15 minutes of that time reading the news or ordering something from amazon, you'd get this same alarmist headline.
Apart from the slightly dodgy math, yes, that's the point.
Look at Vista as an example, and I'm the last person I'd expect to back MS. The belief here is that its the biggest pile of c%^p out there. Having used it its not as bad as people make out. For the average user its usable, if the hardware can handle it.
The belief here is that Vista is not as good as XP, not that it is "the biggest pile of crap out there". That's completely in line with "it's usable, if the hardware can handle it". And, you know, "it's usable, if the hardware can handle it" is hardly a ringing endorsement for using Vista instead of XP.
"senior IT people from the financial services industry in New York"... who are going to be fired.
Possibly, but the ones who need to be fired are the traders. Traders are gods, and IT people say "yes sir" or look for a new job. No matter what stupid stuff the traders want to do.
Every time a user now gets a rejection, the message: THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS MESSAGE IS UNDER NON-DISCLOSURE is displayed clearly in the letter.
Apple can send messages saying "the information contained in this message is under non-disclosure" all they want, but if you didn't sign anything it doesn't mean anything. You agreed to accept Apple's NDAs when you signed up for the dev kit. I've been modded down often enough for pointing out that the iPhone isn't an open system, that it won't be an open system, because Apple's been caught up in the whole paranoid cellphone worldview. Well, now you know. Don't develop for the iPhone unless you want to be treated like a contractor for Apple rather than an independent software vendor.
The fact that most people chose to use a crippled version of Windows Vista is their choice.
There's a non-crippled version of Vista? Without WGA and trusted media path and tilt switches and all the rest of the videogame copy protection code that has no business in an operating system?
Oh, you mean a *less crippled* version?
It's just a matter of how much crippling you're willing to pay to avoid, I guess.
That is obvious, but in my opinion, that is a flawed design. For a operating system that concentrates so much on being user friendly and 'intuitive' to the user's wishes, it doesn't seem to fulfill that role there.
I don't actually disagree with you there. Lord knows I have enough complaints of my own with many of Apple's design choices. But what the HELL does that have to do with packages, installers,... let alone whether Apple is open? Or are you mistaking me for an Apple fanboi and think you can troll me just by being critical of Apple?
Given that Vista felt more like Windows 98 to Windows Me, if Windows 7 doesn't feel like going from Windows Me to Windows XP they're going to be unhappy. And, practically, Microsoft can't pull that kind of improvement off... Windows NT/2000/XP was already too good an OS to make a non-forced upgrade essential.
People are not going to upgrade from "Windows 98" to "Windows Me Second Edition". No matter what they're called.
Now... I'd upgrade to Windows 7 if Microsoft made a few changes to Vista:
* Eliminate the DRM support, along with the encrypted media paths and tilt switches. That way you can keep supporting the XP drivers. * Unbundle Windows Media Player, if that's what's needed to pull the DRM. Make THAT an optional download along with the DRMed media support if you want. * Get rid of WGA. It doesn't make me buy XP or Vista, it just makes me stick to my Windows 2000 retail box. * Bundle Interix. I have to install it anyway, and it's long overdue for an upgrade.
And for people buying it pre-installed:
* Implement chroot, and make OEMs and VARs put all the bloatware in a chrooted environment, so they can pull it out in one chunk.
Difference is that in Windows, Linux, BSDs and pretty much most other desktop operating systems, new software automatically are added to menus.
The dock isn't a menu. And not all UNIX window managers even HAVE an application menu, let alone automatically add them. And that has nothing to do with an installer or the lack of an installer, it has to do with Apple's design decisions in the Dock and Finder. If they wanted an application menu, they'd pull the information for building it out of the property list like everything else the Frameworks manage.
Cross distro RPMs don't have dependencies.
So they bundle all the libraries they depend on? Or they don't depend on libraries?
And what do you do if you have an application that has a hook in to Open Office and to Gimp? On OS X, those kinds of things are handled by the Framework. On Windows, that kind of thing is handled by god knows what. Under the UNIX package systems I'm used to, that's handled by dependencies. Or do you simply not do that?
I can install firefox-2, firefox-3. Having both browsers on my system at the same time, it's the same thing with different libraries.
Try it with two versions of Firefox 2, or two versions of Firefox 3. I have had periods where I've routinely kept 3 or 4 minor versions of a big application around because it was being aggressively updated. I don't remember whether it was called Netscape or Firefox at the time, but I do remember having to rebuild it with a different $PREFIX to get it to work.
I also had to go through insane hoops to install two different JVMs and two different versions of Apache libraries to get two versions of Tomcat working using RPMs under RHEL 4. It was easier to build them from source on FreeBSD. I'd have set up separate chroot environments, but I didn't have the disk space for two sets of all the support THOSE beggers would have needed in a chroot environment.
The only 'benefit' I can see, is the application is easily 'installable' on other computers by just copying it.
Even if that's all *you* can see in it... what the hell is wrong with that?
Last time I poked at FreeBSD, the installer threw up a message asking me if I wanted to install GPL utilities, considering them less free.
I don't think I've ever seen that and I've been using FreeBSD since it was a set of patchkits for 386BSD (I did patchkit 23, and was the FreeBSD handbook maintainer for some years). And given that the system compiler is and has always been GCC, that's sure not optional.
Are you talking about some dialog that some guy put in some specific set of GPLed utilities in the package system? Those things are maintained by lots of people, there's nothing in those that makes them "policy".
Slashdot Mirror
That one would probably not be useful here, since it wouldn't have shared access to the flash card, but web cameras are definitely another application for this general type of webserver.
Google is claiming the device failed because it failed to detect a wireless mic signal that just happened to be using the same frequency as a TV station. In other words, it detected the TV signal, and chose not to use that channel properly, but since it could not also discern the less powerful mic signal hidden on the same frequency, which would not happen since the mic would not have worked on the same channel as a TV station anyway, the FCC failed it.
How did they determine that it was avoiding the channel because it detected the TV station, or because it detected the microphone? I guess we don't know, because the results haven't been published yet?
When will the results be published, is that known at least?
Wouldn't a linksys WRTSL54GS (basically a wrt54g with a USB port) running openwrt and serving files off a USB stick be an easier and neater soloution?
It's a different solution, certainly. In a lot of circumstances it's superior, and if you have static files you wouldn't even need the USB port. On the other hand, if you already have the WAP (or WAPs), particularly if you've got multiple locations already set up and an existing inventory of devices...?
There are also existing mini-servers like the Gumstix device or Soekris' boxes that would be competing with this for other solutions. What I was really getting at is that there's plenty of applications for a small static web server that doen't have anything to do with putting a server on the internet for general world-wide access. :)
But what exactly is Google claiming was happening during the test?
There's lots of applications for little http servers that have nothing to do with "websites".
Stick this server as the "upstream" of a wireless access point, and you've got a cheap throwdown local information server for a business without opening yourself up to wardrivers.
If you have a phone with a SD card and a camera, you can take some pictures then use this to post them on a LAN.
YOu can plug this in when your regular server is down for some reason.
If you're concerned about theft, something like this is easier to secure than some little computer that needs cooling and AC, and less of a loss if someone does rip it off.
Once they add the ability to drive control lines through a RESTful interface, you can stick this anywhere you can run ethernet to control relays, turn lights on and off, etcetera...
There's Glory for you!
(Remember Alice? It's a song about Alice)
OK, if I was getting my internet service through Google instead of AT&T I'd be more worried about Google, as opposed to AT&T, tracking my online activity.
Not hat I'm exactly happy about Google's history, but damn, when an ISP can see every page you visit no matter who's hosting it they should be expected to hold to a higher standard of behavior.
Then quit calling then "bytes". I've used computers with 5 to 10 bit characters and 8 to 13 bit "bytes". The correct standardized term for 8 bits of data is an "octet".
So it's either MB (traditional) or MiO (formal). Never MiB.
Would you say a $170 car is not a cheap car?
If a $170 graphics card can handle my 60 mile commute as well as my van, I'll order two tomorrow.
I guess, technically, I should say it's a "512 MiB" card, but I'd rather claw my eye out with a fork.
Wow, MiB is failing the spork test.
... because for someone who hasn't been following this in detail, TFA doesn't even make clear what exactly Page is claiming happened.
What was once simple in 2k is now a bitch of a setup in Vista. Everything just changed. Usability wasnt increased, as it was just a "change cause I can do it".
Oh yes, XP started that but Vista has taken it to a whole new level.
The same kind of thing happens in KDE and Gnome and Mac OSX but not to anything like the same degree. Not that excuses "cange cause I can do it" elsewhere, of course. :p
The Judge seems to have left open the option of treating the files downloaded by MediaSentry as "unauthorised distribution". Which means the retrial may turn into a walk in the park for the RIAA.
Blah, I misread "and then spends 15 minutes of that time reading the news" as "and then spends 15 minutes reading the news".
Apologies, your math isn't dodgy, my reading is.
so if an average worker spends an hour doing work online per day, and then spends 15 minutes of that time reading the news or ordering something from amazon, you'd get this same alarmist headline.
Apart from the slightly dodgy math, yes, that's the point.
Look at Vista as an example, and I'm the last person I'd expect to back MS. The belief here is that its the biggest pile of c%^p out there. Having used it its not as bad as people make out. For the average user its usable, if the hardware can handle it.
The belief here is that Vista is not as good as XP, not that it is "the biggest pile of crap out there". That's completely in line with "it's usable, if the hardware can handle it". And, you know, "it's usable, if the hardware can handle it" is hardly a ringing endorsement for using Vista instead of XP.
That's a good point, this study didn't say that 25% of the employee's time was personal, but 25% of their online activity was personal.
"senior IT people from the financial services industry in New York"... who are going to be fired.
Possibly, but the ones who need to be fired are the traders. Traders are gods, and IT people say "yes sir" or look for a new job. No matter what stupid stuff the traders want to do.
Apple can send messages saying "the information contained in this message is under non-disclosure" all they want, but if you didn't sign anything it doesn't mean anything. You agreed to accept Apple's NDAs when you signed up for the dev kit. I've been modded down often enough for pointing out that the iPhone isn't an open system, that it won't be an open system, because Apple's been caught up in the whole paranoid cellphone worldview. Well, now you know. Don't develop for the iPhone unless you want to be treated like a contractor for Apple rather than an independent software vendor.
The fact that most people chose to use a crippled version of Windows Vista is their choice.
There's a non-crippled version of Vista? Without WGA and trusted media path and tilt switches and all the rest of the videogame copy protection code that has no business in an operating system?
Oh, you mean a *less crippled* version?
It's just a matter of how much crippling you're willing to pay to avoid, I guess.
I'm sticking with Windows 2000.
That is obvious, but in my opinion, that is a flawed design. For a operating system that concentrates so much on being user friendly and 'intuitive' to the user's wishes, it doesn't seem to fulfill that role there.
I don't actually disagree with you there. Lord knows I have enough complaints of my own with many of Apple's design choices. But what the HELL does that have to do with packages, installers, ... let alone whether Apple is open? Or are you mistaking me for an Apple fanboi and think you can troll me just by being critical of Apple?
SUA requires Vista Ultimate or Vista Enterprise.
So SUA costs $120.
That's a funny kind of bundling.
His Europeans were polled at an Open Source conference. His Americans included "senior IT people from the financial services industry in New York".
Given that Vista felt more like Windows 98 to Windows Me, if Windows 7 doesn't feel like going from Windows Me to Windows XP they're going to be unhappy. And, practically, Microsoft can't pull that kind of improvement off... Windows NT/2000/XP was already too good an OS to make a non-forced upgrade essential.
People are not going to upgrade from "Windows 98" to "Windows Me Second Edition". No matter what they're called.
Now... I'd upgrade to Windows 7 if Microsoft made a few changes to Vista:
* Eliminate the DRM support, along with the encrypted media paths and tilt switches. That way you can keep supporting the XP drivers.
* Unbundle Windows Media Player, if that's what's needed to pull the DRM. Make THAT an optional download along with the DRMed media support if you want.
* Get rid of WGA. It doesn't make me buy XP or Vista, it just makes me stick to my Windows 2000 retail box.
* Bundle Interix. I have to install it anyway, and it's long overdue for an upgrade.
And for people buying it pre-installed:
* Implement chroot, and make OEMs and VARs put all the bloatware in a chrooted environment, so they can pull it out in one chunk.
Difference is that in Windows, Linux, BSDs and pretty much most other desktop operating systems, new software automatically are added to menus.
The dock isn't a menu. And not all UNIX window managers even HAVE an application menu, let alone automatically add them. And that has nothing to do with an installer or the lack of an installer, it has to do with Apple's design decisions in the Dock and Finder. If they wanted an application menu, they'd pull the information for building it out of the property list like everything else the Frameworks manage.
Cross distro RPMs don't have dependencies.
So they bundle all the libraries they depend on? Or they don't depend on libraries?
And what do you do if you have an application that has a hook in to Open Office and to Gimp? On OS X, those kinds of things are handled by the Framework. On Windows, that kind of thing is handled by god knows what. Under the UNIX package systems I'm used to, that's handled by dependencies. Or do you simply not do that?
I can install firefox-2, firefox-3. Having both browsers on my system at the same time, it's the same thing with different libraries.
Try it with two versions of Firefox 2, or two versions of Firefox 3. I have had periods where I've routinely kept 3 or 4 minor versions of a big application around because it was being aggressively updated. I don't remember whether it was called Netscape or Firefox at the time, but I do remember having to rebuild it with a different $PREFIX to get it to work.
I also had to go through insane hoops to install two different JVMs and two different versions of Apache libraries to get two versions of Tomcat working using RPMs under RHEL 4. It was easier to build them from source on FreeBSD. I'd have set up separate chroot environments, but I didn't have the disk space for two sets of all the support THOSE beggers would have needed in a chroot environment.
The only 'benefit' I can see, is the application is easily 'installable' on other computers by just copying it.
Even if that's all *you* can see in it... what the hell is wrong with that?
Last time I poked at FreeBSD, the installer threw up a message asking me if I wanted to install GPL utilities, considering them less free.
I don't think I've ever seen that and I've been using FreeBSD since it was a set of patchkits for 386BSD (I did patchkit 23, and was the FreeBSD handbook maintainer for some years). And given that the system compiler is and has always been GCC, that's sure not optional.
Are you talking about some dialog that some guy put in some specific set of GPLed utilities in the package system? Those things are maintained by lots of people, there's nothing in those that makes them "policy".