If I make myself CyberKnet76 because 76 was the year I was born, while it's easy for me to remember, it's highly unlikely that my friends are going to think "Oh! CK was born in 76! Silly me, how did I forget that!".
FWIW, My icq # is 554430. How easy is *that* to remember. I never noticed when I registered, or I would have kept trying for 554433. I cant claim a slow slash UID (I never posted for the longest time) but my ICQ is relatively low.
Look at it this way. People are great at remembering streed addresses and also great at remembering phone numbers. Does that mean we should only use one of those identifiers for both mail AND telephony? Not really. It would be a major pain trying to dial 18 N Cherry Pl. Omaha, Nebraska 39281 on a phone. And it would be impossible to redirect a slightly mangled address if it was just a phone number.
I do agree that these nine digit icq numbers are a little more difficult to remember, but still... when it comes down to it, I honestly believe that your friends are *not* going to remember your messenger (ICQ/AIM/MS/etc) UID. No matter what it is. And that is why every messenger has searching capabilities, which are usually more than adequate to make up for this fact.
Neither system is superior, imho, and users of both systems will fight tooth and nail to try to say that theirs is.
Why does having to be TOCT1987 instead of TheOnlyCoolTim because 30 other people tried it before you make so much more sense?
ICQ's system gives you a unique identifier, and lets you choose your own nick name, even if other people use it too. The same nickname that lets people find you by a name, instead of a number. Although the nickname may have to be used in conjunction with other identifying information, if the nickname is too common, but still...
I'm not saying either system makes more sense, however, if we're being critical of cryptic identifiers, then let's do be fair.
Correction: Lynx users and people with screen readers would not show up in the access statistics for that site. They would still very much be able to browse that site though.
I think you will find that whilst effective against combatting ASCII art, the lameness filter is one of the most annoying things slashdot ever implemented... try posting code some time. yeeesh. talk about a nightmare to try and get through.
BTW, I notice I'm on your friend list. Do I know you from somewhere?
No, you can get CDR media with a silver, stamped-CD-like bottom suitable for use in a regular CD burner from caloptic.com. This media type is not that uncommon... I'm sure I've seen it in walmart/compusa/bestbuy before too. At $24 for a 50 pack, they're not *terrible* value either. Not great, by any stretch of the imagination, but not terrible either.
We should have access to (most) code that we helped pay for with taxes. It follows that we both believe that some sort of open license should be applied. We both believe that that license should allow us to do pretty much what we want with the code that our taxes paid for.
Where our viewpoints differ though, is that you also want access to the code changes a private company made and paid for. Changes that our taxes had absolutely nothing to do with other than to provide the original source.
I do not think that we have a right to expect access to those changes. I don't think that I should have to feel obliged to provide the private company with changes I make and pay for.
This scenario is vastly different from the regular opensource movement. In that scenario, public money was never used to initiate the development, we have no innate right to that code. We have access to it only because of they choose to allow us access to it, by which use we agree to hand changes back to them.
(Most) Publicly funded code should be made public. Privately funded changes should not have to be made available to the public.
Any public domain style license would make much more sense in this case, rather than a copyleft. The BSD license comes to mind, but I'm certain there are others that fit the critereon just as well. The GPL/LGPL does not.
I've been thinking about this same problem for a while. Especially before I had broadband.
Checking the posts, I see someone mentioned a solution similar to what I am thinking about, but for binary kernel downloads. Whilst nice, I think few people actually trust a binary they didn't build themselves.
I've been wondering why kernel.org didn't create a download configurator somewhat like the one that existed for djgpp in the delorie days.
The poster is right in a sense, there are a multitude of drivers in the kernel that a large percentage of people will never use, but which are still invaluable for the people who do. So why not allow a custom download somewhat like make menuconfig. Select the packages you *could* end up building, download them, and then build your kernel on the local machine.
Given that I have absolutely zero knowledge about the kernel source, it's highly likely that I am overlooking something rather basic... is there something I am missing?
There shouldn't be a problem making high speed transmitters or receivers fast enough for speeds higher than the current rate of transmission between IRDA devices.
The problem is twofold.
On one side, there is large demand for some things to remain backards compatible with legacy devices like VCRs and Stereos, which is much easier to do when your standard rate of transmission is lower.
However, with that said, I believe the real "problem" with IRDA lies in on the error detection and correction side of things. The same is true of TCP/IP. It could be significantly faster (ala UDP) if we did not want guarenteed delivery.
IRDA is significantly slower than things like microwave PTP because they leave room in the modulation timing for not quite perfectly aligned transmissions. Whilst motor skills in the human hand allow for the precision neccessary to enact a successful transmission, more often than not there will be either vertical or latteral movement in the outer extremities of the device (usually the end with the transmitting diode on it) which would cause transmissions with faster modulation to fail... as it is, the millisecond sync loss is (usually) able to be recovered from my simply resending the data sent since the last acknowledgement packet.
In short, yes, you could do it, but you would have to hold those things *REALLY* steady, maybe to the point of having to set them on a solid surface whenever you wanted them to communicate... since the manufacturers are catering to the general unwashed masses, they create the device to be idiot proof ala very slow transmission speeds and large error windows.
Unfortunately not. Last time I tried to order something from walmart.com in Australia, they emailed me to let me know the order would not be shipped, and my credit card would be reimbursed. I'm not exactly sure why this is.
That would be, of course, what the website (and article) showed. Lots of building-level antennas getting a lick of paint (as well as new moulded . Not antenna towers masquerading as trees.
the hack didn't cause a disaster... yet. Assuming they re-issie card numbers to the people affected.
People who have to wait for a new card.
People who might not be at liberty to pick it up (ie what if they were overseas, with a now defunct credit card, or worse, have to keep using a compromised credit card?.
People who still have to look for erroneous charges to their old card.
People who would then still have to re-instate any auto-debits they have charging to that card number.
There was annoyance to more than just the card issuers... and it wasn't even the card issuers fault, they shouldn't have had the annoyance any more than the card owner!
It's high time that credit card transaction processors were forced to pay up for the inconveniences as well as the charges they cause when their systems are breached.
go look at the html code from google - notice how they abbreviate every object name to ONE letter in the interest of bandwidth
That's all very well if you only have a low number of objects on each page, but when the objects move into the hundreds you're likely to run into a little more trouble whilst keeping track of all said objects. After all, not every application is a search engine.
i'm sorry that you learned how to code sloppily, and are bitching about streamlining code for efficiency, and cost savings.
That's highly subjective, at best.
There are benefits other than bandwidth saving to take into consideration. I.E. The time it takes a new coder to become familiar with a new (Web) application, ease of documentation, and debugging.
most of us dont need the damn hungarian notation that MS has spreads like gospel truth. It makes for unreadable names that convey less meaning that a nice clear variable name.
Explain to me exactly how hungarian notation makes for unreadable names that convey less meaning?
Hungarian notation would add scope and type (depending on the strain) information (in lower case) before your "Clear Variable Name" (in title case), and not take anything away from it at all...
I've personally have never seen Microsoft spread hungarian notation as gospel truth. I find this most evident by the fact that Microsoft documentation / code samples in MSDN sways from using it partially, completely or not at all.
However... despite all this, if you have any factual sources or meaningful (read: backed up) statistics to confirm what is so far just libel and slander, please do post again...
I would argue that unless a (real) music artist uses this format then it would actually be for the far lesser audience... =P
(case in point, how many teenage female titanicites/older gay men/older love-lonely women do you know use linux? There's the Celine Dion marketshare right there)
By my calculations, that would have put you about half way down the comments page at the time of posting before the light clicked on [the same page which is chocked full of afd jokes]... I seriously hope that the coffee is gonna help. =)
sure you could... go ahead. a) We were not allowed to use windows9x... it was deemed insecure in our environment, so we had to use Windows NT Workstation. So there are the (badly stated) windows access licenses. b) To connect to Windows NT 4 for a terminal server session, you must have Windows NT Terminal Server Edition on the server (very expensive), and a Terminal Server License for each terminal that will be accessing it. (Even if you are using Citrix) c) We opted not to use Microsofts unproven technology, and were going to use Citrix instead... Remember though, you still need to be running terminal server, and you still need those Terminal Server Licenses. My impression of citrix (unbenchmarked.. just the 'how it feels' indicator) was that it was orders of magnitude faster in response times. You must have a Citrix license for each client that connected to the citrix server. d) To log on to an NT domain or access files on an NT share, you need NT Server CALs (Client Access Licenses). One for each computer (client) that was accessing it.
So... bearing in mind that these were thin clients, not thin client software running on an old PC/Mac... we're talking about dedicated hardware here... Tell me how you figure you see a lot of 'licenses for NT' in that list that could easily be avoided... I'm dying to hear.
For what its worth... you cant. The information was directly from Microsoft Australia... so even if you think you can, I'm pretty sure I know whom I would trust as more in the know about Microsoft's licensing scheme at the time I am talking about... Microsoft.
I know a few years back at an Australian university we looked at thin clients for our computer labs. FWIW, the cost (Back then) of thin clients was about the clost of a Celeron computer, and did not come with a monitor either. The server (IIRC) had to have a whole bunch of memory (some 64mb per client, plus a very large overhead for windows + citrix), then they added Windows access licenses for NT on to each terminal that needed to access the server, plus NT client access licenses... in the end it was just WAY more expensive than individual computers, even including total cost of ownership. However, I will re-iterate, this was some three years ago though... the scene has probably changed...
You do not have to use the mouse... simply holding shift while navigating with those right-handed left/right cursor keys one char at a time, or if you hold down control as well then one "word" at a time, as well as up or down... but I dont see the point... you have to use the mouse in linux too... (unless you're in vi, in which case I spectacularly fail to remember what the yank keystroke is... all the time... you'd think I'd remember).
Of course, being a geek, you know that it is Mhz AND IPC which will denote how "fast" your CPU is running. So nobody needs to remind you. right? I thought so.
Sony chose to organize a port of free software to their platform and, then, sell it to recoup their costs.... Just be thankful that there is yet another platform on which free software is available
Does anyone else see the irony of this statement? =)
Let me get this straight.
And that, from you, would be a very, very large accomplishment. Unfortunately, you failed.
Intel is happy that their compiler can beat another compiler? I'd hope so... They designed the damn chips, had a head start, have cash money to buy a few smart compiler dudes.. you'd think they'd have enough pride to work on a compiler until it was the best it could be. Probably. They invest a lot of money in these things. About the only point right you got in your whole damned convoluted post.
It is interesting to see Intel pick on GCC. They are in the CHIP BUSINESS... A compiler (any compiler) helps them. Okay. So. You COMPLETELY miss the fact that this was Open Magazine. How convenient. (Guess who didnt read the article... *gasp*)
You'd think THEY would be the ones to release a compiler into open source so they could get the rest of the world looking at how to do even more optimizations for their chips. As indeed they have. Check out egcs.
GCC has been out there for well over a decade. Open to anyone to improve... or just stare at. No prize for guessing which one of those YOU did
Intel could show us all how to make a better compiler. Open up their source code... but someone might improve on their techniques and that would make them sad. So, instead they berate a compiler that has done them only a service. Berate? Oh yeah, that was open magazine. (again). My bad.
Just my thoughts. Yours may vary. And that is pretty bloody likely.
Slashdot Mirror
If I make myself CyberKnet76 because 76 was the year I was born, while it's easy for me to remember, it's highly unlikely that my friends are going to think "Oh! CK was born in 76! Silly me, how did I forget that!".
FWIW, My icq # is 554430. How easy is *that* to remember. I never noticed when I registered, or I would have kept trying for 554433. I cant claim a slow slash UID (I never posted for the longest time) but my ICQ is relatively low.
Look at it this way. People are great at remembering streed addresses and also great at remembering phone numbers. Does that mean we should only use one of those identifiers for both mail AND telephony? Not really. It would be a major pain trying to dial 18 N Cherry Pl. Omaha, Nebraska 39281 on a phone. And it would be impossible to redirect a slightly mangled address if it was just a phone number.
I do agree that these nine digit icq numbers are a little more difficult to remember, but still... when it comes down to it, I honestly believe that your friends are *not* going to remember your messenger (ICQ/AIM/MS/etc) UID. No matter what it is. And that is why every messenger has searching capabilities, which are usually more than adequate to make up for this fact.
Neither system is superior, imho, and users of both systems will fight tooth and nail to try to say that theirs is.
Why does having to be TOCT1987 instead of TheOnlyCoolTim because 30 other people tried it before you make so much more sense?
ICQ's system gives you a unique identifier, and lets you choose your own nick name, even if other people use it too. The same nickname that lets people find you by a name, instead of a number. Although the nickname may have to be used in conjunction with other identifying information, if the nickname is too common, but still...
I'm not saying either system makes more sense, however, if we're being critical of cryptic identifiers, then let's do be fair.
Correction: Lynx users and people with screen readers would not show up in the access statistics for that site. They would still very much be able to browse that site though.
I think you will find that whilst effective against combatting ASCII art, the lameness filter is one of the most annoying things slashdot ever implemented... try posting code some time. yeeesh. talk about a nightmare to try and get through.
BTW, I notice I'm on your friend list. Do I know you from somewhere?
No, you can get CDR media with a silver, stamped-CD-like bottom suitable for use in a regular CD burner from caloptic.com. This media type is not that uncommon... I'm sure I've seen it in walmart/compusa/bestbuy before too. At $24 for a 50 pack, they're not *terrible* value either. Not great, by any stretch of the imagination, but not terrible either.
We should have access to (most) code that we helped pay for with taxes. It follows that we both believe that some sort of open license should be applied. We both believe that that license should allow us to do pretty much what we want with the code that our taxes paid for.
Where our viewpoints differ though, is that you also want access to the code changes a private company made and paid for. Changes that our taxes had absolutely nothing to do with other than to provide the original source.
I do not think that we have a right to expect access to those changes. I don't think that I should have to feel obliged to provide the private company with changes I make and pay for.
This scenario is vastly different from the regular opensource movement. In that scenario, public money was never used to initiate the development, we have no innate right to that code. We have access to it only because of they choose to allow us access to it, by which use we agree to hand changes back to them.
(Most) Publicly funded code should be made public. Privately funded changes should not have to be made available to the public.
Any public domain style license would make much more sense in this case, rather than a copyleft. The BSD license comes to mind, but I'm certain there are others that fit the critereon just as well. The GPL/LGPL does not.
I've been thinking about this same problem for a while. Especially before I had broadband.
Checking the posts, I see someone mentioned a solution similar to what I am thinking about, but for binary kernel downloads. Whilst nice, I think few people actually trust a binary they didn't build themselves.
I've been wondering why kernel.org didn't create a download configurator somewhat like the one that existed for djgpp in the delorie days.
The poster is right in a sense, there are a multitude of drivers in the kernel that a large percentage of people will never use, but which are still invaluable for the people who do. So why not allow a custom download somewhat like make menuconfig. Select the packages you *could* end up building, download them, and then build your kernel on the local machine.
Given that I have absolutely zero knowledge about the kernel source, it's highly likely that I am overlooking something rather basic... is there something I am missing?
There shouldn't be a problem making high speed transmitters or receivers fast enough for speeds higher than the current rate of transmission between IRDA devices.
The problem is twofold.
On one side, there is large demand for some things to remain backards compatible with legacy devices like VCRs and Stereos, which is much easier to do when your standard rate of transmission is lower.
However, with that said, I believe the real "problem" with IRDA lies in on the error detection and correction side of things. The same is true of TCP/IP. It could be significantly faster (ala UDP) if we did not want guarenteed delivery.
IRDA is significantly slower than things like microwave PTP because they leave room in the modulation timing for not quite perfectly aligned transmissions. Whilst motor skills in the human hand allow for the precision neccessary to enact a successful transmission, more often than not there will be either vertical or latteral movement in the outer extremities of the device (usually the end with the transmitting diode on it) which would cause transmissions with faster modulation to fail... as it is, the millisecond sync loss is (usually) able to be recovered from my simply resending the data sent since the last acknowledgement packet.
In short, yes, you could do it, but you would have to hold those things *REALLY* steady, maybe to the point of having to set them on a solid surface whenever you wanted them to communicate... since the manufacturers are catering to the general unwashed masses, they create the device to be idiot proof ala very slow transmission speeds and large error windows.
Hope this helps.
You have got to get some video footage of that and post it.
Simply outrageous.
Email me if you ever do.
No... Emacs *IS* the kernel =P
Silly me.
*smacks himself*
And here was I, thinking that inflation was the cause!
Unfortunately not.
Last time I tried to order something from walmart.com in Australia, they emailed me to let me know the order would not be shipped, and my credit card would be reimbursed. I'm not exactly sure why this is.
For a somewhat working version of their website try:
http://www.armadilloaerospace.com/n.x
That would be, of course, what the website (and article) showed. Lots of building-level antennas getting a lick of paint (as well as new moulded . Not antenna towers masquerading as trees.
anyway.
the hack didn't cause a disaster... yet.
Assuming they re-issie card numbers to the people affected.
People who have to wait for a new card.
People who might not be at liberty to pick it up (ie what if they were overseas, with a now defunct credit card, or worse, have to keep using a compromised credit card?.
People who still have to look for erroneous charges to their old card.
People who would then still have to re-instate any auto-debits they have charging to that card number.
There was annoyance to more than just the card issuers... and it wasn't even the card issuers fault, they shouldn't have had the annoyance any more than the card owner!
It's high time that credit card transaction processors were forced to pay up for the inconveniences as well as the charges they cause when their systems are breached.
go look at the html code from google - notice how they abbreviate every object name to ONE letter in the interest of bandwidth
... despite all this, if you have any factual sources or meaningful (read: backed up) statistics to confirm what is so far just libel and slander, please do post again...
That's all very well if you only have a low number of objects on each page, but when the objects move into the hundreds you're likely to run into a little more trouble whilst keeping track of all said objects. After all, not every application is a search engine.
i'm sorry that you learned how to code sloppily, and are bitching about streamlining code for efficiency, and cost savings.
That's highly subjective, at best.
There are benefits other than bandwidth saving to take into consideration. I.E. The time it takes a new coder to become familiar with a new (Web) application, ease of documentation, and debugging.
most of us dont need the damn hungarian notation that MS has spreads like gospel truth. It makes for unreadable names that convey less meaning that a nice clear variable name.
Explain to me exactly how hungarian notation makes for unreadable names that convey less meaning?
Hungarian notation would add scope and type (depending on the strain) information (in lower case) before your "Clear Variable Name" (in title case), and not take anything away from it at all...
I've personally have never seen Microsoft spread hungarian notation as gospel truth. I find this most evident by the fact that Microsoft documentation / code samples in MSDN sways from using it partially, completely or not at all.
However
- Dell spokesman Mike Maher said his company would still sell HP branded printers that it purchases through distributors
Just in case you didnt read the article, and believed the headline.I would argue that unless a (real) music artist uses this format then it would actually be for the far lesser audience... =P
(case in point, how many teenage female titanicites/older gay men/older love-lonely women do you know use linux? There's the Celine Dion marketshare right there)
By my calculations, that would have put you about half way down the comments page at the time of posting before the light clicked on [the same page which is chocked full of afd jokes]... I seriously hope that the coffee is gonna help. =)
sure you could ... go ahead. ... it was deemed insecure in our environment, so we had to use Windows NT Workstation. So there are the (badly stated) windows access licenses.
... Tell me how you figure you see a lot of 'licenses for NT' in that list that could easily be avoided... I'm dying to hear.
... Microsoft.
a) We were not allowed to use windows9x
b) To connect to Windows NT 4 for a terminal server session, you must have Windows NT Terminal Server Edition on the server (very expensive), and a Terminal Server License for each terminal that will be accessing it. (Even if you are using Citrix)
c) We opted not to use Microsofts unproven technology, and were going to use Citrix instead... Remember though, you still need to be running terminal server, and you still need those Terminal Server Licenses. My impression of citrix (unbenchmarked.. just the 'how it feels' indicator) was that it was orders of magnitude faster in response times. You must have a Citrix license for each client that connected to the citrix server.
d) To log on to an NT domain or access files on an NT share, you need NT Server CALs (Client Access Licenses). One for each computer (client) that was accessing it.
So... bearing in mind that these were thin clients, not thin client software running on an old PC/Mac... we're talking about dedicated hardware here
For what its worth... you cant. The information was directly from Microsoft Australia... so even if you think you can, I'm pretty sure I know whom I would trust as more in the know about Microsoft's licensing scheme at the time I am talking about
Thanks Anyway.
I know a few years back at an Australian university we looked at thin clients for our computer labs. FWIW, the cost (Back then) of thin clients was about the clost of a Celeron computer, and did not come with a monitor either. The server (IIRC) had to have a whole bunch of memory (some 64mb per client, plus a very large overhead for windows + citrix), then they added Windows access licenses for NT on to each terminal that needed to access the server, plus NT client access licenses ... in the end it was just WAY more expensive than individual computers, even including total cost of ownership. However, I will re-iterate, this was some three years ago though... the scene has probably changed...
You do not have to use the mouse... simply holding shift while navigating with those right-handed left/right cursor keys one char at a time, or if you hold down control as well then one "word" at a time, as well as up or down... but I dont see the point... you have to use the mouse in linux too... (unless you're in vi, in which case I spectacularly fail to remember what the yank keystroke is... all the time... you'd think I'd remember).
Of course, being a geek, you know that it is Mhz AND IPC which will denote how "fast" your CPU is running. So nobody needs to remind you. right? I thought so.
This is actually kind of funny =)
.... Just be thankful that there is yet another platform on which free software is available
Sony chose to organize a port of free software to their platform and, then, sell it to recoup their costs
Does anyone else see the irony of this statement? =)
You, sir, are an idiot.
.. you'd think they'd have enough pride to work on a compiler until it was the best it could be.
... or just stare at.
Let me get this straight.
And that, from you, would be a very, very large accomplishment. Unfortunately, you failed.
Intel is happy that their compiler can beat another compiler? I'd hope so... They designed the damn chips, had a head start, have cash money to buy a few smart compiler dudes
Probably. They invest a lot of money in these things. About the only point right you got in your whole damned convoluted post.
It is interesting to see Intel pick on GCC. They are in the CHIP BUSINESS... A compiler (any compiler) helps them.
Okay. So. You COMPLETELY miss the fact that this was Open Magazine. How convenient. (Guess who didnt read the article... *gasp*)
You'd think THEY would be the ones to release a compiler into open source so they could get the rest of the world looking at how to do even more optimizations for their chips.
As indeed they have. Check out egcs.
GCC has been out there for well over a decade. Open to anyone to improve
No prize for guessing which one of those YOU did
Intel could show us all how to make a better compiler. Open up their source code... but someone might improve on their techniques and that would make them sad. So, instead they berate a compiler that has done them only a service.
Berate? Oh yeah, that was open magazine. (again). My bad.
Just my thoughts. Yours may vary.
And that is pretty bloody likely.