Most accidents, or potential accidents that occur, at least with me, are because of poor driving on others parts.
I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me, or disagreeing, or if this is just a tangent. But it basically supports my point -- you may be a perfectly good driver, but how fast can you react if someone else swerves into your lane? Nanoseconds?
For now, you may be right. But the "arbitrary machine" can react a lot faster than you. If the technology is solid (no 1.0 for me, thanks), it can only be a good thing.
I must admit, I used to not think SCO had a case, but now it's starting to look like they do have a very good one.
Based on what? The evidence as interpretted by a Communications major with a minor in French? As far as can be reasonably assumed, they've got nothing.
Also it needed about a 37-minute trim to the Helm's Deep battle sequence.
"I don't understand it; it can't possibly survive"
on
The Death of Bluetooth?
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
The replies on zdnet pretty much sum up everything there is to say already: Bluetooth and 802.11b serve entirely different purposes. It's like saying "I don't understand why we have boats when cars are so good and popular". Bluetooth is for ad-hoc very-short-range wireless networks -- of *course* it's not going to succeed as a replacement for 802.11. But it doesn't need to, as they're not competitors.
I remember reading a while ago that the goal is to make it cost about $1.00 to add bluetooth to ANY device, *including* engineering costs. That might not be here yet, but it's somewhere that 802.11 isn't ever going to go.
Well, the plans seem to imply that the RFIDs would need to encode unique identifiers, not just one-number-per-product as with current barcodes. This would enable things like scanning an entire still-packed crate and getting a count of its contents. There's less incentive to do this with barcodes, since you'd still have to unpack the box and scan each one by hand, and you might as well just count 'em while you're doing that.
Plus, I suppose someone could drive a truck by your house and scan to see how good of a consumer you are.
So is AIX, but SCO is threatening to revoke their license (it remains to be seen whether that's legal or not) due to claims of technology transfer to Linux. Since Sun ships Linux solutions too it is conceivable that they might get entangled in the same way.
As I understand it, Sun has a different kind of license than IBM, one for which they presumably paid a lot more money. I forget where I read this, but it was somewhere on the Internet so I think it was pretty credible. Doubly so now that I've posted it on Slashdot.
Providing the solution is not his job. In a more general sense, the people who are best suited to notice and complain about problems are by definition not the people who are best suited to fix them. This is why programmers don't do all of their own QA. "This is broken" is a completely legitimate thing to say, even if you're not going to be the one to fix it.
Rumor nothing. The stripped-down version of the Pentium M, called the Mobile Celeron 600A, is used in the Sony U101 subnotebook. See here or here (use babelfish or just check out the screenshot) for some info on the CPU. And you can order one in the US from Dynamism or Japan Rush.
And, sorry, but your post is an example of poor reading comprehension. Or maybe you just didn't read as far as the second paragraph. Sounds like we're actually in agreement, but you somehow feel the need to make an antagonistic statement (if it's not meant to be a flame, I'm not sure *what* it's meant to be....).
I never even implied the all-caps equation that you claim I assume. In fact, I basically identify that as the problem, because many ease-of-use suggestions are in fact dumbing-down, and people are justified in being opposed to that. To re-word what I said, there is a lot of resistance to ill-thought-through ideas, but you'll be hard pressed to find an example of a real improvement being rejected.
Proponents of said bad ideas are quick to throw the Linux-users-want-it-to-be-hard accusation, but someone with a good idea will find the situation quite different.
Having an option to choose between an advanced and basic interface is one way to approach the problem that I'm generally happy with, although in many cases it can feel like a kludge rather than a real design improvement.
The first obstacle to overcome is the bad attitude many linux users have that if something is easy to install, or easy to use, it is therefore bad.
Where are these theoretical more-leet-than-thou users? Ok, maybe a few hanging out on IRC channels, but in general, this is a ridiculous myth. Linux users want easy-to-use as much as anyone. However, in general, we don't want to sacrifice ease of use for advanced users just for a questionable gain in ease of use for new folks. I can see how someone in frustration might characterize this attitude as being roughly what you claim, but it's not really fair.
The problem is that many people who are all excited about their new innovative ease-of-use idea are really just dumbing-down the application, and when it comes time to do something more advanced, they'll find themselves reinventing the wheel, probably poorly. Of course there's a pushback against that, but I think you'll find that ease-of-use ideas that are truly improvements across the board are very widely and quickly adopted.
Seriously. On my BU Linux 3.0 (Red Hat 9-based) system, rpm -q --whatrequires libz.so.1|wc -l gives me 172. But that's not all: some of those things are libraries themselves -- kdelibs, for example. And what's worse, were everything statically linked, I couldn't use a simple command like rpm --whatrequries to find where the code is used. So I'd basically have to rebuild the whole distro to be safe. Yeah, *that* reduces administrator hassle.
E-mail to Intel support proved unhelpful -- they didn't seem to know anything about Scott McLaughlin's statements. Can you shed some light on this? Is the wireless chipset the primary concern here, or is even getting support for chipset features like DMA for IDE a problem? Have you (or anyone) asked Intel for specs so an open source driver can be written, or is the complaint a lack of drivers just given to us?
Also, is the binary vs. source issue important to you? Of course, it'd be nicest if Intel would produce good open source drivers, but failing that, would you prefer for Intel to release technical information and allow drivers to be written, or do you just want binaries that "go"?
Arguably, though, the international trademark classes are too ridiculously broad for technology names. There's not actually a category for software per se, and it's usually all lumped in class 9, which is
Scientific, nautical, surveying, electric, photographic, cinematographic, optical, weighing, measuring, signalling, checking (supervision), life-saving and teaching apparatus and instruments; apparatus for recording, transmission or reproduction of sound or images; magnetic data carriers, recording discs; automatic vending machines and mechanisms for coin operated apparatus; cash registers, calculating machines, data processing equipment and computers; fire extinguishing apparatus.
That's right, software is right in there with cameras, scales, movie projectors, vending machines, TVs, and possibly life-rafts.
So, from a lawyers-battling standpoint, had the Firebird DB people enough money to stand up to AOL, it's very probable that they'd have a real case. But I'm not sure this is meaningful either way for the moral/ethical argument.
What, exactly, is that NRA card going to do for you? This idealistic notion of a citizen's revolt to throw off an oppresive government is a total anacronism against the most powerful and high-tech military in the world. So what's the benefit? Placebo effect, I suppose. People can scream about the importance of their right to have guns, when meanwhile their real civil liberties are taken away with no complaints.
Slashdot Mirror
Um, I said that.
These days, those people are probably buying multiple systems in a cluster, in which case it makes sense to save $200/node and buy a lot more nodes.
There's still some problems which can't be easily split that way -- but then, people who have those probably aren't crunching them on PC hardware.
That dependency hunt sounds awful familiar, and is one reason I abandoned RPM forever long ago.
Which is kinda silly, since it has nothing to do with RPM. In fact, RPM can help you avoid it. Just use yum or apt on top of it.
And suppose it reacts a lot faster than the guy behind me - I get rear-ended.
Yes. This is why such techologies should be mandatory.
Most accidents, or potential accidents that occur, at least with me, are because of poor driving on others parts.
I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me, or disagreeing, or if this is just a tangent. But it basically supports my point -- you may be a perfectly good driver, but how fast can you react if someone else swerves into your lane? Nanoseconds?
For now, you may be right. But the "arbitrary machine" can react a lot faster than you. If the technology is solid (no 1.0 for me, thanks), it can only be a good thing.
I must admit, I used to not think SCO had a case, but now it's starting to look like they do have a very good one.
Based on what? The evidence as interpretted by a Communications major with a minor in French? As far as can be reasonably assumed, they've got nothing .
I was really afraid that the special edition would be an extra hour of yet more battle -- I'm encouraged to see that it apparently isn't.
Also it needed about a 37-minute trim to the Helm's Deep battle sequence.
The replies on zdnet pretty much sum up everything there is to say already: Bluetooth and 802.11b serve entirely different purposes. It's like saying "I don't understand why we have boats when cars are so good and popular". Bluetooth is for ad-hoc very-short-range wireless networks -- of *course* it's not going to succeed as a replacement for 802.11. But it doesn't need to, as they're not competitors.
I remember reading a while ago that the goal is to make it cost about $1.00 to add bluetooth to ANY device, *including* engineering costs. That might not be here yet, but it's somewhere that 802.11 isn't ever going to go.
Well, the plans seem to imply that the RFIDs would need to encode unique identifiers, not just one-number-per-product as with current barcodes. This would enable things like scanning an entire still-packed crate and getting a count of its contents. There's less incentive to do this with barcodes, since you'd still have to unpack the box and scan each one by hand, and you might as well just count 'em while you're doing that.
Plus, I suppose someone could drive a truck by your house and scan to see how good of a consumer you are.
Unless you have aluminum siding.
Actually, I think the redundancy makes sense here.
Things which are obvious are not supposed to be patentable -- and this idea appears to be obviously obvious.
That exact line occurs exactly zero times in the Linux 2.4.20 source. So looks like we're okay.
So is AIX, but SCO is threatening to revoke their license (it remains to be seen whether that's legal or not) due to claims of technology transfer to Linux. Since Sun ships Linux solutions too it is conceivable that they might get entangled in the same way.
As I understand it, Sun has a different kind of license than IBM, one for which they presumably paid a lot more money. I forget where I read this, but it was somewhere on the Internet so I think it was pretty credible. Doubly so now that I've posted it on Slashdot.
Providing the solution is not his job. In a more general sense, the people who are best suited to notice and complain about problems are by definition not the people who are best suited to fix them. This is why programmers don't do all of their own QA. "This is broken" is a completely legitimate thing to say, even if you're not going to be the one to fix it.
whoo, congratulations. sounds like you're well on your way to inventing plan 9.
Because obviously, you never make mistakes.
C'mon, this is an old one. It's been proven again and again that exposing crypto code to peer review is the only way to know that it's safe.
Rumor nothing. The stripped-down version of the Pentium M, called the Mobile Celeron 600A, is used in the Sony U101 subnotebook. See here or here (use babelfish or just check out the screenshot) for some info on the CPU. And you can order one in the US from Dynamism or Japan Rush.
... edged right out of their tiny 15% and 80% market niches. Tremble, AMD and Intel, tremble.
And, sorry, but your post is an example of poor reading comprehension. Or maybe you just didn't read as far as the second paragraph. Sounds like we're actually in agreement, but you somehow feel the need to make an antagonistic statement (if it's not meant to be a flame, I'm not sure *what* it's meant to be....).
I never even implied the all-caps equation that you claim I assume. In fact, I basically identify that as the problem, because many ease-of-use suggestions are in fact dumbing-down, and people are justified in being opposed to that. To re-word what I said, there is a lot of resistance to ill-thought-through ideas, but you'll be hard pressed to find an example of a real improvement being rejected.
Proponents of said bad ideas are quick to throw the Linux-users-want-it-to-be-hard accusation, but someone with a good idea will find the situation quite different.
Having an option to choose between an advanced and basic interface is one way to approach the problem that I'm generally happy with, although in many cases it can feel like a kludge rather than a real design improvement.
The first obstacle to overcome is the bad attitude many linux users have that if something is easy to install, or easy to use, it is therefore bad.
Where are these theoretical more-leet-than-thou users? Ok, maybe a few hanging out on IRC channels, but in general, this is a ridiculous myth. Linux users want easy-to-use as much as anyone. However, in general, we don't want to sacrifice ease of use for advanced users just for a questionable gain in ease of use for new folks. I can see how someone in frustration might characterize this attitude as being roughly what you claim, but it's not really fair.
The problem is that many people who are all excited about their new innovative ease-of-use idea are really just dumbing-down the application, and when it comes time to do something more advanced, they'll find themselves reinventing the wheel, probably poorly. Of course there's a pushback against that, but I think you'll find that ease-of-use ideas that are truly improvements across the board are very widely and quickly adopted.
Seriously. On my BU Linux 3.0 (Red Hat 9-based) system, rpm -q --whatrequires libz.so.1|wc -l gives me 172. But that's not all: some of those things are libraries themselves -- kdelibs, for example. And what's worse, were everything statically linked, I couldn't use a simple command like rpm --whatrequries to find where the code is used. So I'd basically have to rebuild the whole distro to be safe. Yeah, *that* reduces administrator hassle.
On your web site, there's a recent "Michael's Minute" about Intel's failure to provide Linux drivers. This was picked up by everyone's favorite tech tabloid, and a few days later, Intel spokesman Scott McLaughlin was telling CNET that we expect complete Linux driver support for the Intel Centrino mobile technology.
E-mail to Intel support proved unhelpful -- they didn't seem to know anything about Scott McLaughlin's statements. Can you shed some light on this? Is the wireless chipset the primary concern here, or is even getting support for chipset features like DMA for IDE a problem? Have you (or anyone) asked Intel for specs so an open source driver can be written, or is the complaint a lack of drivers just given to us?
Also, is the binary vs. source issue important to you? Of course, it'd be nicest if Intel would produce good open source drivers, but failing that, would you prefer for Intel to release technical information and allow drivers to be written, or do you just want binaries that "go"?
That's right, software is right in there with cameras, scales, movie projectors, vending machines, TVs, and possibly life-rafts.
So, from a lawyers-battling standpoint, had the Firebird DB people enough money to stand up to AOL, it's very probable that they'd have a real case. But I'm not sure this is meaningful either way for the moral/ethical argument.
What, exactly, is that NRA card going to do for you? This idealistic notion of a citizen's revolt to throw off an oppresive government is a total anacronism against the most powerful and high-tech military in the world. So what's the benefit? Placebo effect, I suppose. People can scream about the importance of their right to have guns, when meanwhile their real civil liberties are taken away with no complaints.