The lack of USB2.0 is a mistake and hopefully it's something they can fix in firmware updates but with 1394 pci cards running roughly $15 most media junkie folks have picked them up as a scsi replacement.
The slit thought experiment compares really well with Schroedinger's Cat as sublime in it's simplicity to convey an advanced Quantum Mechanics idea to someone without lots of math background.
This is just another money-grubbing scheme, same as the X-33, same as countless others before it. The last thing they want is to really lower the cost of space launch and let the riff-raff in. I assume you have some facts to back up your jaundiced opinions. If not then stfu.
The shuttle platform is an old design with an aging fleet that will continue to cost more for each flight with higher attendant risks. For some tasks, it is the only tool available today and needs to be kept in service to perform those functions. Also, there is a minimum number of flights per year that can be taken before attrition sets in.
The last point that you are so painfully oblivious to is engineering attrition. Those technology development programs (read "new toys") you speak of are needed to keep engineering talent fruitfully occupied and ready to tackle the real challenges ahead. Like any other technology staff, there is a minimum point at which people start to walk away in droves and in this single employer industry segment, you can't hire them back from the other companies they've gone to since once they leave NASA many of them will convert to other industries.
Your points are so obviously indefensible and purely opinion that I can't for the life of me see why anyone modded your comment up.
Ha! The south bay transit grid is a mess. As an advocate of sidewalks, coffee shops you can't drive through, and efficient mass transit I was always depressed about the state of mass transit in that area.
I lived in Mountain View for five years and the last half of that was working in a shop on Zanker. I finally realized that the reason startups were over there (and effectively off the poor transit grid) was that it was reverse commute from Los Altos Hills where all the execs lived and they love to drive their big expensive cars to work.
Maybe the threat of tech exodus will cause some things to change but I doubt it. I'm living in another state at the moment and will be heading back eventually since for exciting startups there's nothing even remotely like it. The other thing to remember is that engineering managers and senior engineers are worth ten times their weight in junior staff and it's only the junior staff leaving the area since all the senior folks already own their homes and have to stick it out to avoid the equity loss. When things turn around you'll see all the junior people flooding back into the area (hopefully with newly minted grad degrees so we can be the senior folks next round).
It's strange that Intel's PR department has any credibility when they make these kinds of claims.
There are a number of problems with this recent claim:
1) CDPD (Cellular Digital Packet Data) is well deployed and delivers all the functions Intel is touting in their new design line.
2) The division of Intel that used to be the company DSPC produces a series of TDMA single chip solutions which are pretty cool but largely irrelevant as all USA TDMA providers are now moving to GSM and CDMA due to TDMA's poor voice quality and data hostility.
3) DSPC's questionably meritable claim to fame was the integration of an Intel ARM core with TDMA and handset related functions. www.dspc.com Since these are both low power cores, they make a fairly good fit. A laptop CPU core on the other hand is power hungry, noise producing, and is subject to high levels of design churn which make it uniqely unfit for this kind of core integration.
Added to all of this is the quote by the DCPC staffer pointing out that they are largely a P4 fab which points to Intel buying them for obscured reasons and putting their fabs to use.
This sounds like a classic case of an Intel PR monkey being told to say something about how darned important DSCP's technology is and how wise Intel was for making this purchase. They clearly failed to understand the core value of DSPC and gathered quotes by confused Intel executives to create a compelling story that like most things out of Intel's PR department, fail to make any sense when examined.
Imagine working for a movie studio taking older films and time compressing them to make them more palatable to today's market. Punch up slow scenes with digital effects such as camera jitter, zoom and cut, or any of a dozen very accepted post-modern camera techniques to increase the cut pace.
I can't take credit for the idea but when I read this in a science fiction novel years ago, it really made me wonder what the average attention span will be in twenty or thirty years.
Re:Science fiction/Fantasy is not interesting anym
on
Hugo Award Voting Open
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
There just isn't the plot depth necessary to carry these 'novels' these days.
Please give us some examples of what you are talking about. I've read a number of science fiction books in the last couple years that would stand up against any classic SF for character, plot, and exploration of science contributed cultural changes.
Bear, Benford, Brin, Card, Gibson, Haldeman, Moran, Robinson, Sheffeild, Simmons, Stevenson, Vinge(both of them), Willis, and others I've forgotten have written books in the last ten years that really left me thinking after closing the cover.
There are certainly a large number of formulas these days and many authors who live inside them crafting very readable but unimpressive works to pay the bills. You can find these staples of the genre choking every supermarket bookstand. But equally, there are authors that don't publish nearly as often but produce works that after reading, you put the book on the shelf because this one is NOT going back to the bookstore.
>> First of all:
Sometimes you have to run other people's code, and you may not have control over what they targeted.
And your point???
It's called linking baby, get with the 90's. If the old code sucks, build a lex for it and bring it forward. fuck this legacy shit in the gsa.
The crusoe sucks from just about all perspectives... Did any of the talent stay there ater jan99?? Did someone recruit them all to another company that had a clue? hmmmmm.... The x86 is for fools who don't know how to chose their embedded dev environment.
I.E., if your're here, i'm sorry and i completely understand that sometimes the boss-man sticks the ungreased pole up your ass because he understands a spreadsheet and little else but still, get a clue..... anyone doing embedded work on an x86 has got a serious legacy problem (like working for a telco or govt).
Get with the plan and do your embedded work on a mips or ppc core where shit's so fast it makes your eyes bleed at 1.5v.
if you can give me even one reason why x86 is better, i'll eat these words. Surprise me.;)
>>This is so funny. I've noticed that the vast majority of people on slashdot don't even understand what constitutes the embedded market.
I totally agree. Having spent a fair amount of time working with coldfire, kahlua, and various mips cores my perspective grew substantially.
I don't read slashdot too often for exactly this reason. Too many people speak authoritatively when it's clear they only have a vague idea what they are talking about.
This site seems to be fueled by fringe issues and the people who love being an expert in them. Having worked in the semiconductor industry in a lab and FAE role, I have some knowledge of the biz and have to laugh when I read some of these posts.
Ask any design engineer and they'll tell you that their favorite job is to design cpus but then try to hire them into a company that does only that to watch their expression slowly change into discomfort as they try to wriggle away. The simple fact is that 100 cpus are designed for ten that get to market and of those, only one will actually make any money.
Transmeta had an interesting idea and if they could have executed in a reasonable time frame, they might have gotten some market share. At this point, unless they are very careful, they will miss the portable embedded market cycle power cost curve as well.
>>The plain fact is that we don't have the commitment any more; NASA knows this and is running scared.
I'm not sure I'd take it that far. I'd say that they have political realities that they have to work within and are doing the best they can with the available resources.
NASA has a completely different objective today of advancing space technology, evangelizing the heroics of space flight, and serving as a development platform for the nascent space industries. The shuttle does a wonderfull job of those items.
The apollo mission was a no cost barred affair to put an american on the moon ahead of the russians and if you want to quibble, had a substantially worse safety record than the shuttle program at a much higher cost.
The shuttle is plainly out of date but as with anything carrying meat cargo, the cost of initial engineering is so high that we have to design looking forward 20 years to justify the expense.
The whole premise of the 'better, faster, cheaper' program is that we can use current technology to produce lower quality space exploration vehicles and advance robotic space exploration. Only by making mistakes do we prove our technology and I'd much rather slam a robot into mars than a person.
The ISS is a boondoggle just like Mir and may come into full service only to be rendered irrelevant by robotic space industry and exploration. The simple math is that you can send 100x robotic payloads into orbit for the cost of one human when you include support costs.
I believe in the dream of human space exploration myself but I'm a realist and know that it's going to take a lot of small steps to get us there and that we have to develop reasons for humans to be in space beyond just the glory.
Seriously, it's deleted. Now what gives them the right to do that without even asking me. The aggreement you say 'ok' to says nothing about deleting 3rd party software installed on your machine. It went into c:\prog\net\blah and deleted the fscking binary for netscape.
ARGH!!!
why are they so freakin incompetant? it's not like they don't spend tons of money addressing this issue. i mean really.... would they rather have us think them incompetant or intentionally evil??
>>In fact, the sympathetic response by many of those on Slashdot suggests to me that maybe punishments need to be made stronger in order to firmly establish that breaking into someone's computer is NO DIFFERENT from breaking into
someone's house<<
Ok, check your local criminal code again before you post since 7 f*cking years is a lot more than you would get for B+E in most rational places.
>>t's an open-and-shut case, and if your relay has been compromised in this manner, regardless of your moral responsibility to secure the relay in the first place, you can sue the spammer for the damages.<<
Not quite. It is difficult to prove that an open relay is not a public sidewalk in front of your house that you are required to maintain and are failing to do so.
If I trip on your sidewalk, I can sue you. If a spammer uses your open relay, I should be able to sure you since you are _equally at fault_ as the spammer.
Then again, if you have an open relay you belong in the rbl and it'll never bother me.
Slashdot Mirror
The lack of USB2.0 is a mistake and hopefully it's something they can fix in firmware updates but with 1394 pci cards running roughly $15 most media junkie folks have picked them up as a scsi replacement.
Exactly!!
The slit thought experiment compares really well with Schroedinger's Cat as sublime in it's simplicity to convey an advanced Quantum Mechanics idea to someone without lots of math background.
Remember the general guide of two months worth of bodies for an engagement ring.
This is just another money-grubbing scheme, same as the X-33, same as countless others before it. The last thing they want is to really lower the cost of space launch and let the riff-raff in.
I assume you have some facts to back up your jaundiced opinions. If not then stfu.
The shuttle platform is an old design with an aging fleet that will continue to cost more for each flight with higher attendant risks. For some tasks, it is the only tool available today and needs to be kept in service to perform those functions. Also, there is a minimum number of flights per year that can be taken before attrition sets in.
The last point that you are so painfully oblivious to is engineering attrition. Those technology development programs (read "new toys") you speak of are needed to keep engineering talent fruitfully occupied and ready to tackle the real challenges ahead. Like any other technology staff, there is a minimum point at which people start to walk away in droves and in this single employer industry segment, you can't hire them back from the other companies they've gone to since once they leave NASA many of them will convert to other industries.
Your points are so obviously indefensible and purely opinion that I can't for the life of me see why anyone modded your comment up.
Ha! The south bay transit grid is a mess. As an advocate of sidewalks, coffee shops you can't drive through, and efficient mass transit I was always depressed about the state of mass transit in that area.
I lived in Mountain View for five years and the last half of that was working in a shop on Zanker. I finally realized that the reason startups were over there (and effectively off the poor transit grid) was that it was reverse commute from Los Altos Hills where all the execs lived and they love to drive their big expensive cars to work.
Maybe the threat of tech exodus will cause some things to change but I doubt it. I'm living in another state at the moment and will be heading back eventually since for exciting startups there's nothing even remotely like it. The other thing to remember is that engineering managers and senior engineers are worth ten times their weight in junior staff and it's only the junior staff leaving the area since all the senior folks already own their homes and have to stick it out to avoid the equity loss. When things turn around you'll see all the junior people flooding back into the area (hopefully with newly minted grad degrees so we can be the senior folks next round).
It's strange that Intel's PR department has any credibility when they make these kinds of claims.
There are a number of problems with this recent claim:
1) CDPD (Cellular Digital Packet Data) is well deployed and delivers all the functions Intel is touting in their new design line.
2) The division of Intel that used to be the company DSPC produces a series of TDMA single chip solutions which are pretty cool but largely irrelevant as all USA TDMA providers are now moving to GSM and CDMA due to TDMA's poor voice quality and data hostility.
3) DSPC's questionably meritable claim to fame was the integration of an Intel ARM core with TDMA and handset related functions. www.dspc.com Since these are both low power cores, they make a fairly good fit. A laptop CPU core on the other hand is power hungry, noise producing, and is subject to high levels of design churn which make it uniqely unfit for this kind of core integration.
Added to all of this is the quote by the DCPC staffer pointing out that they are largely a P4 fab which points to Intel buying them for obscured reasons and putting their fabs to use.
This sounds like a classic case of an Intel PR monkey being told to say something about how darned important DSCP's technology is and how wise Intel was for making this purchase. They clearly failed to understand the core value of DSPC and gathered quotes by confused Intel executives to create a compelling story that like most things out of Intel's PR department, fail to make any sense when examined.
Imagine working for a movie studio taking older films and time compressing them to make them more palatable to today's market. Punch up slow scenes with digital effects such as camera jitter, zoom and cut, or any of a dozen very accepted post-modern camera techniques to increase the cut pace.
I can't take credit for the idea but when I read this in a science fiction novel years ago, it really made me wonder what the average attention span will be in twenty or thirty years.
It wasn't funny and it wasn't on topic.
What's wrong with down moderation?
There just isn't the plot depth necessary to carry these 'novels' these days.
Please give us some examples of what you are talking about. I've read a number of science fiction books in the last couple years that would stand up against any classic SF for character, plot, and exploration of science contributed cultural changes.
Bear, Benford, Brin, Card, Gibson, Haldeman, Moran, Robinson, Sheffeild, Simmons, Stevenson, Vinge(both of them), Willis, and others I've forgotten have written books in the last ten years that really left me thinking after closing the cover.
There are certainly a large number of formulas these days and many authors who live inside them crafting very readable but unimpressive works to pay the bills. You can find these staples of the genre choking every supermarket bookstand. But equally, there are authors that don't publish nearly as often but produce works that after reading, you put the book on the shelf because this one is NOT going back to the bookstore.
>> First of all:
;)
Sometimes you have to run other people's code, and you may not have control over what they targeted.
And your point???
It's called linking baby, get with the 90's. If the old code sucks, build a lex for it and bring it forward. fuck this legacy shit in the gsa.
The crusoe sucks from just about all perspectives... Did any of the talent stay there ater jan99?? Did someone recruit them all to another company that had a clue? hmmmmm.... The x86 is for fools who don't know how to chose their embedded dev environment.
I.E., if your're here, i'm sorry and i completely understand that sometimes the boss-man sticks the ungreased pole up your ass because he understands a spreadsheet and little else but still, get a clue..... anyone doing embedded work on an x86 has got a serious legacy problem (like working for a telco or govt).
Get with the plan and do your embedded work on a mips or ppc core where shit's so fast it makes your eyes bleed at 1.5v.
if you can give me even one reason why x86 is better, i'll eat these words. Surprise me.
alan
>> I've been eagerly awaiting one of the Single Board Computer (SBC) venders to make a device with a Crusoe on it
WTF are you talking about?? You must not be an embedded developer. The crusoe is irrelevant to just about everyone....
So, let me ask, what exactly are you waiting for???
it certainly not a job as an embedded programmer. feh, crusor for fools and market wishers...
Transmeta was never a going concern. They had crap for technology and fools for marketing. Late to market and off target with poor controls. feh.
>>This is so funny. I've noticed that the vast majority of people on slashdot don't even understand what constitutes the embedded market.
I totally agree. Having spent a fair amount of time working with coldfire, kahlua, and various mips cores my perspective grew substantially.
I don't read slashdot too often for exactly this reason. Too many people speak authoritatively when it's clear they only have a vague idea what they are talking about.
This site seems to be fueled by fringe issues and the people who love being an expert in them. Having worked in the semiconductor industry in a lab and FAE role, I have some knowledge of the biz and have to laugh when I read some of these posts.
Ask any design engineer and they'll tell you that their favorite job is to design cpus but then try to hire them into a company that does only that to watch their expression slowly change into discomfort as they try to wriggle away. The simple fact is that 100 cpus are designed for ten that get to market and of those, only one will actually make any money.
Transmeta had an interesting idea and if they could have executed in a reasonable time frame, they might have gotten some market share. At this point, unless they are very careful, they will miss the portable embedded market cycle power cost curve as well.
I'm not sure I'd take it that far. I'd say that they have political realities that they have to work within and are doing the best they can with the available resources.
NASA has a completely different objective today of advancing space technology, evangelizing the heroics of space flight, and serving as a development platform for the nascent space industries. The shuttle does a wonderfull job of those items.
The apollo mission was a no cost barred affair to put an american on the moon ahead of the russians and if you want to quibble, had a substantially worse safety record than the shuttle program at a much higher cost.
The shuttle is plainly out of date but as with anything carrying meat cargo, the cost of initial engineering is so high that we have to design looking forward 20 years to justify the expense.
The whole premise of the 'better, faster, cheaper' program is that we can use current technology to produce lower quality space exploration vehicles and advance robotic space exploration. Only by making mistakes do we prove our technology and I'd much rather slam a robot into mars than a person.
The ISS is a boondoggle just like Mir and may come into full service only to be rendered irrelevant by robotic space industry and exploration. The simple math is that you can send 100x robotic payloads into orbit for the cost of one human when you include support costs.
I believe in the dream of human space exploration myself but I'm a realist and know that it's going to take a lot of small steps to get us there and that we have to develop reasons for humans to be in space beyond just the glory.
THOSE FSCKERS!!!!
Seriously, it's deleted. Now what gives them the right to do that without even asking me. The aggreement you say 'ok' to says nothing about deleting 3rd party software installed on your machine. It went into c:\prog\net\blah and deleted the fscking binary for netscape.
ARGH!!!
why are they so freakin incompetant? it's not like they don't spend tons of money addressing this issue. i mean really.... would they rather have us think them incompetant or intentionally evil??
pig fsckers, all of them...
>>In fact, the sympathetic response by many of those on Slashdot suggests to me that maybe punishments need to be made stronger in order to firmly establish that breaking into someone's computer is NO DIFFERENT from breaking into
someone's house<<
Ok, check your local criminal code again before you post since 7 f*cking years is a lot more than you would get for B+E in most rational places.
>>t's an open-and-shut case, and if your relay has been compromised in this manner, regardless of your moral responsibility to secure the relay in the first place, you can sue the spammer for the damages.<<
Not quite. It is difficult to prove that an open relay is not a public sidewalk in front of your house that you are required to maintain and are failing to do so.
If I trip on your sidewalk, I can sue you. If a spammer uses your open relay, I should be able to sure you since you are _equally at fault_ as the spammer.
Then again, if you have an open relay you belong in the rbl and it'll never bother me.