All we wanted was a console that blew away MS, Nintendo, and anyone else that came along. That refers to gameplay capabiilties and features like a hard disk, but not reworking every aspect of the PS2 and calling it a PS3, then saying, Oh yeah, it also plays games that will cost 100 each.
I'd love to put together a petition to help blow this up a bit more and send a message to the right people. Who'd be the best person to send the comments to?
You're saying the same thing, but with a different spin. There is no difference in what you say and what the person you replied to said, other than semantics. Either way, regardless of which way you wish to put it, you pay more.
For some reason, the pessimistic tone of the story seems to impose limitations by giving up a dream, rather than actually saying that the thing is possible, but perhaps now how it's currently being tested or designed. Howard Hughes had plenty of failures before creating drastically different breeds of aircraft that enabled a lot of advancements even in space travel. Einstein and many others developed the atomic bomb enabling tons of other advancements in science, regardless of moral issues here, the practice of the theories enabled more though of better uses for this energy. Laser beams, once just a theory often scoffed at because of "the unrealisticly huge amount of energy" or "impoossibly clean optical surfaces" which would be required to focus such a beam even if it could be created to become anything more than a light show.
We already know elevators work, we already know that rockets work, and we already know that super conducting electromagentic engines work. What would prevent one, all, or none of these technologies from actually making *any* dream into a reality where they could be used, or used to influence future design and though?
Aside from bad laws concerning copyright, patents, and censorship, nothing should prevent a dream from becoming a practical idea, and ultimately a reality. Damn, I got on a soapbox I guess.:)
I wrote a commentary a long time back Entitled 'Why I'm still a PC user.'
The main gist of this is very well put in your last sentence:
Apple could be so much more successful if they would stop being such a-hole control freaks and just sell their products and embrace people wanting to use THE SOFTWARE AND HARDWARE THAT THEY FREAKING OWN the way the want to.
I put it a bit more eloquent than this however, and even submitted it to Apple in their call for public input on what would make them buy an Mac or Apple branded product. That was what, 6 or more years go? And that was just before OSX was to hit the shelved.
My bigger point was that if Apple could just decouple the OS from the hardware as a separate business segment, then they would be even more successful than they currently are. It still holds true. Prior to the iPod, Apple was still on a bit of a slope and didn't have anywhere close to the traction they do now.
Good for them, money in their pockets to work on their OS and hardware to hopefully decouple the two and provided limited OS support for those that just purchase the OS, and "full support" for those that buy a coupled InMac. I dig their efforts, but just decouple the stupid hardware/OS combos and let us buy the OS without the hardware as consumers clearly want this.
But it's a damn *game*! WTF is wrong with anyone that they have to take things so seriously as to be oppressing others from the way someone plays a damn game!?
Why all the drama and politics in a.....*GAME*???
Regardless of your beliefs, and business practices, and stuff, it's still a damn game!!!
Geez, is it next going to be that people who make vids like Red and Blue or the Splinter Cell's Bob and Jim or whatever that one is, aren't going to be allowed because of something like this?
It's a damn GAME!!! Get off the serious wagon, and be upset that someone wants to enforce how a game is played based on un-expressed public discomfort over the fact. If no one had said anything at all, would this even be a big deal?
Let's not buy any hardware that *has* to have windows drivers, Windows logos, Made for Microsoft, and all that rot. Let's also ensure that we don't plan to write drivers, own drivers, or use drivers for any hardware requiring MS.
That said, I happen to have a version of win32 source code that will be fully obsolete as soon as the WIN64 platform is "done." And I'll sell it to all you hobbyists cheap! It's 100% royalty laden! What more could anyone ask for you say?
Well, it runs on Linux, Entirely DRM free, and can perform such tasks as running "calc", mspaint, and even possibly, maybe, some of your other favorite programs like MS Excel, MS Word, Internet Explorer, and maybe more!
As a matter of fact, it acts just like Windows! You might even be able to run a popular game or two!!! Yes! The future of Windows-like OSes is here and you can be part of history by owning this hobby based, royalty laden, DRM free, semi-windows-like OS for a fraction of the cost.
With Win-o-dows, you can go wrong!
(Did I mention I can't stand Bill and his Billions? Screw that guy. I can't wait till my new laptop get's here and I dont' have to run Windows anymore)
I agree that the field is made richer(in knowledge), based on what you say there. It's paramount that views both pro and con, for and against, etc, must be viewed, reviewed, and that we be allowed to have them, especially when it comes to law and politics. Problem is, you were thinking that an IP firm actually cares about what's "good for the people."
Your dissenting views aren't good for IP Law and politics as a business mechanism. If the firm stands to become richer(in money), then your views of dissention cannot be tolerated. IP Law is a nasty thing in general and Copyright is not what it was meant to be.
They have become tools of the few with the money and power to corrupt things which ought not to be for the good of the people and do so in the name of righteous law and governance. While I find your yearning for understanding and knowledge of great import to what's missing in the "Field" the "Business" you entered won't hear of it. The larger problem is also that "Law" as a business isn't good for the people regardless of what type of Law you work in. I'm sure that there is a point system or quota of some sort that many of these types of firms meet, even if you're not privy to them. Not much different from traffic cops in my mind, unfortunately, because they are tools of governments and powerful individuals as well and can be used for corrupt purposes when pointed in the right direction.
I'm cynical on these points, but until someone doesn't get fired because of dissenting views regarding the government, their industry, etc, especially in what I consider to be a "learn`ed" field, my cynicism will probably not be abated.
Using your brake pedal on the highways can cause traffic congestion, and can be illegal too, but is hardly a felony.
So the fact that I said that it could happen, must be close to a felony, right?
It seems a bubble is created when there are no checks and balances, yet when any bubble pops, that in itself is a way of balancing what is otherwised unbalanced. That said, I believe any person or other entity which receives let's say, new ability, might tend to abuse that ability at first and go through various cycles of progression to hopefully become better in the long run than at first.
Since money, in this country at least, is a motivating factor for our capitalist society, then it stands to reason that anything we can adapt which allows us to reap more benefit of the cash flow and business plans we set forth causing this bubble effect, due to "over use". That smacks highly of something like the slashdot effect I'd say, just put into different light.
When something new and useful comes along, we all want to use and possibly over use it to what end, not all benevolence, and thus all who partake in it are risking something. This is both good and bad, but hopefully, a much needed learning experience for all of us so that we may better fine-tune exactly what that balance is between too much and just enough.
One of the biggest reasons companies even think of spending lots of money on High-end hardware is because of the capabilities during error/failure states. For instance, on the IBM Regata, you can lose processors, memory sticks, bus paths, etc, and it has "self" healing technology by which the system stays up. This is a high dollar item for P-series though, it is possible to take advantage of some of this in their non-RS6000 line pSeries stuff as well.
Compaq Non-stop has similar technology for error/failure recovery/bypass, even on x86, but again that's another high-dollar item. HP has had stuff like this for a long time as well, so now that they're both one company, they've begun integrating some of those technologies.
All failures though have a direct impact in performance. If anything fails, and takes the system off-line, it is no longer performing as needed, or designed. So uptime counts in this case.
Those losses in system uptime, without redundant systems, can be directly seen in a business' financial performance because they may have SLAs to meet where they might pay their customers for outages outside of SLA.
So, error/failure recovery is a huge metric regarding performance of a system.
Bottlenecks are also important to test for. This can be easily accomplished by separating the subsystems, either by logical, or block diagram, and stress testing the components, as a subsystem, then measuring what capabilities are affected in the overall system.
The point of this testing method is to understand what roadblocks might happen during critical operating periods. Example: You have a database or application server performing a lot of internal(memory related) IO. This memory IO might exercise 3 of 4 specific subsystems in the system. When some abnormal behavior is encountered, what happens to that IO? Does the system have a way of balancing IOs to mitigate the performance impact?
Obviously, these are contrived tests, but still neccessary because this situation is likely to happen in a production environment.
Nothing impacts ROI like lots of errors or failures in a short time period. So unless you're going to run 192 hour stress tests to see if the system returns to normal afterward, I doubt you're going to be able to accurately account for everything that might happen in a short time period.
To highlight what I mean, say you have a system that is responsible for running an App server, small database of login credentials, and a web server. The system has 250 simultaneous users at any one time. For this you'd need a lot of ram and some decent IO, depending on the amount of interactivity the App or Web server has with the end users. Let's say though, that the system encounters an abnormal ending due to a hardware or worse, software/kernel bug. If this happens several times in a week, customers are likely to start asking for pay back based on their contract for service, etc.
So there as well, you have two or three possible avenues to investigate to find the cause of the errors/failures.
High dollar/High end systems aren't supposed to allow this sort of thing, though they don't always mitigate poor application performance, but you shouldn't encounter kernel bugs and stuff, unless you're doing something you shouldn't or the system is just broken.
Is Burt upset he didn't do it himself? Most pilots will say, "Any landing you can *walk* away from, is a good one." For the feet they've just performed, I'd say that this was a good launch, and a good landing.
Burt's acting like NASA doesn't have *any* problems *every time* they launch a shuttle. There's always problems when they launch the shuttle, it just has a lot of backup mechanisms and repalcement parts for redundancy. I've heard it said that it's fairly routine after reaching orbit that the crew's responsibility is to *again* recheck the redundant systems for failures. That said, this was an excellent *test* flight of an *experimental* aerospace craft. The data gained from these tests are invaluable to the improvement of the craft, the race, all the companies involved, and most importantly the people and lives surrounding the competition.
Maybe Burt's just got too much at stake in the wrong company?;)
One thing about this GUI that makes a lot of sense is the massive amount of desktop space it offers. Right now, I have 6 desktops in Linux in single head mode, and 12 in Dual head mode. This is an alternate form of multidimensional GUI personality. I recently got the 3DDesktop switcher and really do like it. More for it's gee-whiz aspect, but it does have some usefullness to it. Now, back to the subject at hand. This desktop is a sphere. Literally, with the user's viewport as the "center" of view. The reason this is nice because there is also depth taken into account. So you have lots of desktop space in the form of layers, and overall spherical realestate.
In short the inside of the sphere has a "size" in which the user can place many layers or use a spherical plane and place things oriented as a normal 2D desktop viewport might be, just you can look a little to the right, left, up, or down, and you have more. As for the increase in productivity. I could use this in Linux, really easily. Two spheres to replace my entire 12...oh..yeah.:)
Sun actually SHOULD get out of the chip business and turn a profit for once. Either that or stop thinking their chips are worth what they say they are.
I first thought, "About damn time", unfortunately, the article made me realize it's more of the same crap from Sun. Lay off employess, not admit defeat, repeat.
It seems to me, that if I bought an XBox or a PS2 that I should be allowed to use, modify, destroy, cannibalize, alter, fold, spindle, shred, or mutilate said hardware because I bought it with my own money, mod chipping included. If that chip enables me to do things the game companies don't like then the game companies should start offering those features I feel I'm not getting directly out of the hardware which I've purchased. Also, the cost of said features should be proportionate to the cost of commonly available mod chips.
How were mod chips created anyway? Because the features aren't possible to be enabled by the game console manufacturer and all of the sudden someone got an idea for this magic chip that can do what you need and magically the software to enable these functions was created from nothing, or is it because a specification already existed to enable some if not all of these features and that somehow got leaked? Or would those specifications be publicly available, or for sale even, in a public manner? Hearing or reading stuff like this is so frustrating, simply because it's highly ignorant and oppressive of the hardware companies.
I don't mod chip, but if I did, It might be to get those features which the companies didn't include by default. Sound like they need upgradeable proms and start providing updated firmware to those who buy the consoles via a more formal feature request/feedback system. Is that asking too much?
They're being ridiculed for not being up-front. That's dishonesty being practiced there. Yes, it's in their manuals, but they didn't say something like this: "Having seen what our competitor AMD has accomplished, we've decided to collaborate with them , at our request, and follow suit in extending the 32-bit architecture to 64-bit with seemless compatibility with said competitor."
Now I'm not some marketing guy, but I'm sure they could've put even more Intel-positive spin on this issue, rather than attempting to bury the truth in their manual, knowing that someone would see it and take offense for Intel not simply stating it by now. We should not encourage dishonesty where the public interest and common good are involved. i.e. collaboration for a common architecture can surely benefit the common good. No?
IANAL, but isn't there *something* in all those constitutional ammendments or previous rulings, that prevents businesses and individuals from over burdening the courts with frivolous law suits? Possibly could call all this frivolous because of the scale of attacks, and the lack of actual proof of damages alleged by any of the **AA's?
I thought the burden of proof was on the **AA's to provide, not just their words and "studies." Something is just plain wrong here, and it's getting fishier every day. Won't someone in the government put a stop to this crap?? And yes, I have written/phoned/faxed my congress person(s).
You can share iSCSI devices, if you do it the right way, between many different hosts. NBD sounds good, but for what you're asking, iSCSI or FCIP or some derivative sounds more correct. i.e. virtual block devices, or "real" block devices on a network that can be accessed by windows or *nix. you could RAID (md) iSCSI devices, or just use a system which "owns" all the iSCSI devices in an MD, and present it up using CIFS or SMB.
Seems to me that out of all of the possible challenges the GPL could face, SCO's legal tactics to date have ranged through many of those possibilities. Their defense posture has changed from one to the next at least 6 or 7 times, possibly more, by now. This is an excellent test for the FSF lawyers, the GPL, the use of Linux as a viable platform(legally, morally, and technically), and anyone who may one day be interested in using the GPL or other free software licenses. Also, thanks to whomever (M$?) for funding $CO's ability to make this all possible!;)
In relation to this "good timing" perhaps, maybe, that "official looking" email virus which purports that it comes from MS, really did? That's highly paranoid, I know, but why wouldn't they do that? A scare tactic to get everyone to get used to downloading "patches" every week.
Incidentally, after installing the latest set of patches, my Trillian no longer works at all.
Poor monitoring can be just as bad as too much, though too much monitoring isn't necessarily poor. It seems that the processes regarding monitoring and maintenance of the monitoring system(s) failed and caused the problems which ensued. If the proper preparation had been done to plan for the level of monitoring which was being done, i.e. 18 GB is didly squat compared to the hundreds of GB at many other enterprise sites, then this likely wouldn't have happened. Like wise, proper levels of logging and tuning are required to have a truly healthy and useful monitoring system. Also level of service, SLAs mainly, dictate what level of monitoring is also required. It's very easy to go crazy monitoring everything, but you can monitor hundreds of servers and not generate much in the way of logs, or you can monitor one and generate many GB of logs.
MPAA is as responsible for content being pirated, as are those who pirate after the fact of an initial illegal copy hitting the 'Net. I say this because apparently the MPAA is ignoring the fact that *TEST* coppies of movies which wound up on the cutting room floor actually make it to the 'Net before the final production release. Are you telling me that it's *our* fault, and not the keygrip, or the sound man, or whomever that works on the movies that are at fault for that as well? It seems a blind eye is turned to that by MPAA maybe? I mean, how is it possible that many of these movies they complain about are actually released on the 'Net *days* before the actual release date? How's that I ask of those bastards at the MPAA!!
Excuse me, when I buy something, which I then consider mine, becuase I have a physical item in my hand, and I digitize it, and give it to a friend, that's still sharing. They may/may not keep that copy. Lots of people I know, will buy music after having had a chance to let it *grow on them* for a while if they downloaded it from some p2p or something. That to me means more money and better following to the artists, than just sales. Sales alone do not an audience make.
Due to DRM restrictions, your eyes must be gouged out after the showing for reprocessing. That is all.
"Notice to all patrons: It is illegal to share information about this feature or it's contents with anyone outside the theater. We ask that you honor Microsoft and it's Studio partners wishes. To agree to these terms and be allowed to watch the feature, please press the green 'view' button on your chair's right arm rest now. If you do not agree, please press the 'refund' button instead. If you pressed 'refund' please see the ticket counter for a refund. Your show will begin momentarily. Again, please do not speak to anyone outside this theater about the feature or it's contents. Landmark Theaters, and Microsoft, Inc. Thank you. Enjoy your show."
Slashdot Mirror
All we wanted was a console that blew away MS, Nintendo, and anyone else that came along. That refers to gameplay capabiilties and features like a hard disk, but not reworking every aspect of the PS2 and calling it a PS3, then saying, Oh yeah, it also plays games that will cost 100 each.
GRR.. Sony's pissing me off, again.
Holy Crap. I didn't know /. was a haven for sexual predators. Suddenly this "Cowboy Neal" sounds like someone I don't want to know. ;)
I can't wait till this president is out, and this congress is out. These people suck.
I'd love to put together a petition to help blow this up a bit more and send a message to the right people. Who'd be the best person to send the comments to?
You're saying the same thing, but with a different spin. There is no difference in what you say and what the person you replied to said, other than semantics.
Either way, regardless of which way you wish to put it, you pay more.
For some reason, the pessimistic tone of the story seems to impose limitations by giving up a dream, rather than actually saying that the thing is possible, but perhaps now how it's currently being tested or designed.
:)
Howard Hughes had plenty of failures before creating drastically different breeds of aircraft that enabled a lot of advancements even in space travel.
Einstein and many others developed the atomic bomb enabling tons of other advancements in science, regardless of moral issues here, the practice of the theories enabled more though of better uses for this energy.
Laser beams, once just a theory often scoffed at because of "the unrealisticly huge amount of energy" or "impoossibly clean optical surfaces" which would be required to focus such a beam even if it could be created to become anything more than a light show.
We already know elevators work, we already know that rockets work, and we already know that super conducting electromagentic engines work. What would prevent one, all, or none of these technologies from actually making *any* dream into a reality where they could be used, or used to influence future design and though?
Aside from bad laws concerning copyright, patents, and censorship, nothing should prevent a dream from becoming a practical idea, and ultimately a reality.
Damn, I got on a soapbox I guess.
I put it a bit more eloquent than this however, and even submitted it to Apple in their call for public input on what would make them buy an Mac or Apple branded product. That was what, 6 or more years go? And that was just before OSX was to hit the shelved.
My bigger point was that if Apple could just decouple the OS from the hardware as a separate business segment, then they would be even more successful than they currently are. It still holds true. Prior to the iPod, Apple was still on a bit of a slope and didn't have anywhere close to the traction they do now.
Good for them, money in their pockets to work on their OS and hardware to hopefully decouple the two and provided limited OS support for those that just purchase the OS, and "full support" for those that buy a coupled InMac. I dig their efforts, but just decouple the stupid hardware/OS combos and let us buy the OS without the hardware as consumers clearly want this.
But it's a damn *game*! WTF is wrong with anyone that they have to take things so seriously as to be oppressing others from the way someone plays a damn game!?
Why all the drama and politics in a.....*GAME*???
Regardless of your beliefs, and business practices, and stuff, it's still a damn game!!!
Geez, is it next going to be that people who make vids like Red and Blue or the Splinter Cell's Bob and Jim or whatever that one is, aren't going to be allowed because of something like this?
It's a damn GAME!!! Get off the serious wagon, and be upset that someone wants to enforce how a game is played based on un-expressed public discomfort over the fact. If no one had said anything at all, would this even be a big deal?
I'll bet not much of one if any.
Let's not buy any hardware that *has* to have windows drivers, Windows logos, Made for Microsoft, and all that rot. Let's also ensure that we don't plan to write drivers, own drivers, or use drivers for any hardware requiring MS.
That said, I happen to have a version of win32 source code that will be fully obsolete as soon as the WIN64 platform is "done." And I'll sell it to all you hobbyists cheap! It's 100% royalty laden! What more could anyone ask for you say?
Well, it runs on Linux, Entirely DRM free, and can perform such tasks as running "calc", mspaint, and even possibly, maybe, some of your other favorite programs like MS Excel, MS Word, Internet Explorer, and maybe more!
As a matter of fact, it acts just like Windows! You might even be able to run a popular game or two!!! Yes! The future of Windows-like OSes is here and you can be part of history by owning this hobby based, royalty laden, DRM free, semi-windows-like OS for a fraction of the cost.
With Win-o-dows, you can go wrong!
(Did I mention I can't stand Bill and his Billions? Screw that guy. I can't wait till my new laptop get's here and I dont' have to run Windows anymore)
I agree that the field is made richer(in knowledge), based on what you say there. It's paramount that views both pro and con, for and against, etc, must be viewed, reviewed, and that we be allowed to have them, especially when it comes to law and politics. Problem is, you were thinking that an IP firm actually cares about what's "good for the people."
Your dissenting views aren't good for IP Law and politics as a business mechanism. If the firm stands to become richer(in money), then your views of dissention cannot be tolerated. IP Law is a nasty thing in general and Copyright is not what it was meant to be.
They have become tools of the few with the money and power to corrupt things which ought not to be for the good of the people and do so in the name of righteous law and governance.
While I find your yearning for understanding and knowledge of great import to what's missing in the "Field" the "Business" you entered won't hear of it. The larger problem is also that "Law" as a business isn't good for the people regardless of what type of Law you work in. I'm sure that there is a point system or quota of some sort that many of these types of firms meet, even if you're not privy to them. Not much different from traffic cops in my mind, unfortunately, because they are tools of governments and powerful individuals as well and can be used for corrupt purposes when pointed in the right direction.
I'm cynical on these points, but until someone doesn't get fired because of dissenting views regarding the government, their industry, etc, especially in what I consider to be a "learn`ed" field, my cynicism will probably not be abated.
Using your brake pedal on the highways can cause traffic congestion, and can be illegal too, but is hardly a felony. So the fact that I said that it could happen, must be close to a felony, right?
It seems a bubble is created when there are no checks and balances, yet when any bubble pops, that in itself is a way of balancing what is otherwised unbalanced. That said, I believe any person or other entity which receives let's say, new ability, might tend to abuse that ability at first and go through various cycles of progression to hopefully become better in the long run than at first.
Since money, in this country at least, is a motivating factor for our capitalist society, then it stands to reason that anything we can adapt which allows us to reap more benefit of the cash flow and business plans we set forth causing this bubble effect, due to "over use".
That smacks highly of something like the slashdot effect I'd say, just put into different light.
When something new and useful comes along, we all want to use and possibly over use it to what end, not all benevolence, and thus all who partake in it are risking something. This is both good and bad, but hopefully, a much needed learning experience for all of us so that we may better fine-tune exactly what that balance is between too much and just enough.
...Performance statistics.
One of the biggest reasons companies even think of spending lots of money on High-end hardware is because of the capabilities during error/failure states. For instance, on the IBM Regata, you can lose processors, memory sticks, bus paths, etc, and it has "self" healing technology by which the system stays up. This is a high dollar item for P-series though, it is possible to take advantage of some of this in their non-RS6000 line pSeries stuff as well.
Compaq Non-stop has similar technology for error/failure recovery/bypass, even on x86, but again that's another high-dollar item. HP has had stuff like this for a long time as well, so now that they're both one company, they've begun integrating some of those technologies.
All failures though have a direct impact in performance. If anything fails, and takes the system off-line, it is no longer performing as needed, or designed. So uptime counts in this case.
Those losses in system uptime, without redundant systems, can be directly seen in a business' financial performance because they may have SLAs to meet where they might pay their customers for outages outside of SLA.
So, error/failure recovery is a huge metric regarding performance of a system.
Bottlenecks are also important to test for. This can be easily accomplished by separating the subsystems, either by logical, or block diagram, and stress testing the components, as a subsystem, then measuring what capabilities are affected in the overall system.
The point of this testing method is to understand what roadblocks might happen during critical operating periods. Example: You have a database or application server performing a lot of internal(memory related) IO. This memory IO might exercise 3 of 4 specific subsystems in the system. When some abnormal behavior is encountered, what happens to that IO? Does the system have a way of balancing IOs to mitigate the performance impact?
Obviously, these are contrived tests, but still neccessary because this situation is likely to happen in a production environment.
Nothing impacts ROI like lots of errors or failures in a short time period. So unless you're going to run 192 hour stress tests to see if the system returns to normal afterward, I doubt you're going to be able to accurately account for everything that might happen in a short time period.
To highlight what I mean, say you have a system that is responsible for running an App server, small database of login credentials, and a web server. The system has 250 simultaneous users at any one time. For this you'd need a lot of ram and some decent IO, depending on the amount of interactivity the App or Web server has with the end users. Let's say though, that the system encounters an abnormal ending due to a hardware or worse, software/kernel bug. If this happens several times in a week, customers are likely to start asking for pay back based on their contract for service, etc.
So there as well, you have two or three possible avenues to investigate to find the cause of the errors/failures.
High dollar/High end systems aren't supposed to allow this sort of thing, though they don't always mitigate poor application performance, but you shouldn't encounter kernel bugs and stuff, unless you're doing something you shouldn't or the system is just broken.
Is Burt upset he didn't do it himself? Most pilots will say, "Any landing you can *walk* away from, is a good one." For the feet they've just performed, I'd say that this was a good launch, and a good landing.
;)
Burt's acting like NASA doesn't have *any* problems *every time* they launch a shuttle. There's always problems when they launch the shuttle, it just has a lot of backup mechanisms and repalcement parts for redundancy. I've heard it said that it's fairly routine after reaching orbit that the crew's responsibility is to *again* recheck the redundant systems for failures. That said, this was an excellent *test* flight of an *experimental* aerospace craft. The data gained from these tests are invaluable to the improvement of the craft, the race, all the companies involved, and most importantly the people and lives surrounding the competition.
Maybe Burt's just got too much at stake in the wrong company?
One thing about this GUI that makes a lot of sense is the massive amount of desktop space it offers. Right now, I have 6 desktops in Linux in single head mode, and 12 in Dual head mode. This is an alternate form of multidimensional GUI personality. I recently got the 3DDesktop switcher and really do like it. More for it's gee-whiz aspect, but it does have some usefullness to it.
:)
Now, back to the subject at hand. This desktop is a sphere. Literally, with the user's viewport as the "center" of view. The reason this is nice because there is also depth taken into account. So you have lots of desktop space in the form of layers, and overall spherical realestate.
In short the inside of the sphere has a "size" in which the user can place many layers or use a spherical plane and place things oriented as a normal 2D desktop viewport might be, just you can look a little to the right, left, up, or down, and you have more. As for the increase in productivity. I could use this in Linux, really easily. Two spheres to replace my entire 12...oh..yeah.
Sun actually SHOULD get out of the chip business and turn a profit for once. Either that or stop thinking their chips are worth what they say they are.
I first thought, "About damn time", unfortunately, the article made me realize it's more of the same crap from Sun. Lay off employess, not admit defeat, repeat.
It seems to me, that if I bought an XBox or a PS2 that I should be allowed to use, modify, destroy, cannibalize, alter, fold, spindle, shred, or mutilate said hardware because I bought it with my own money, mod chipping included. If that chip enables me to do things the game companies don't like then the game companies should start offering those features I feel I'm not getting directly out of the hardware which I've purchased. Also, the cost of said features should be proportionate to the cost of commonly available mod chips.
How were mod chips created anyway? Because the features aren't possible to be enabled by the game console manufacturer and all of the sudden someone got an idea for this magic chip that can do what you need and magically the software to enable these functions was created from nothing, or is it because a specification already existed to enable some if not all of these features and that somehow got leaked? Or would those specifications be publicly available, or for sale even, in a public manner? Hearing or reading stuff like this is so frustrating, simply because it's highly ignorant and oppressive of the hardware companies.
I don't mod chip, but if I did, It might be to get those features which the companies didn't include by default. Sound like they need upgradeable proms and start providing updated firmware to those who buy the consoles via a more formal feature request/feedback system. Is that asking too much?
They're being ridiculed for not being up-front. That's dishonesty being practiced there. Yes, it's in their manuals, but they didn't say something like this: "Having seen what our competitor AMD has accomplished, we've decided to collaborate with them , at our request, and follow suit in extending the 32-bit architecture to 64-bit with seemless compatibility with said competitor."
Now I'm not some marketing guy, but I'm sure they could've put even more Intel-positive spin on this issue, rather than attempting to bury the truth in their manual, knowing that someone would see it and take offense for Intel not simply stating it by now. We should not encourage dishonesty where the public interest and common good are involved. i.e. collaboration for a common architecture can surely benefit the common good. No?
IANAL, but isn't there *something* in all those constitutional ammendments or previous rulings, that prevents businesses and individuals from over burdening the courts with frivolous law suits? Possibly could call all this frivolous because of the scale of attacks, and the lack of actual proof of damages alleged by any of the **AA's?
I thought the burden of proof was on the **AA's to provide, not just their words and "studies." Something is just plain wrong here, and it's getting fishier every day. Won't someone in the government put a stop to this crap?? And yes, I have written/phoned/faxed my congress person(s).
You can share iSCSI devices, if you do it the right way, between many different hosts. NBD sounds good, but for what you're asking, iSCSI or FCIP or some derivative sounds more correct. i.e. virtual block devices, or "real" block devices on a network that can be accessed by windows or *nix. you could RAID (md) iSCSI devices, or just use a system which "owns" all the iSCSI devices in an MD, and present it up using CIFS or SMB.
Seems to me that out of all of the possible challenges the GPL could face, SCO's legal tactics to date have ranged through many of those possibilities. Their defense posture has changed from one to the next at least 6 or 7 times, possibly more, by now. This is an excellent test for the FSF lawyers, the GPL, the use of Linux as a viable platform(legally, morally, and technically), and anyone who may one day be interested in using the GPL or other free software licenses. ;)
Also, thanks to whomever (M$?) for funding $CO's ability to make this all possible!
In relation to this "good timing" perhaps, maybe, that "official looking" email virus which purports that it comes from MS, really did? That's highly paranoid, I know, but why wouldn't they do that? A scare tactic to get everyone to get used to downloading "patches" every week.
Incidentally, after installing the latest set of patches, my Trillian no longer works at all.
Poor monitoring can be just as bad as too much, though too much monitoring isn't necessarily poor.
It seems that the processes regarding monitoring and maintenance of the monitoring system(s) failed and caused the problems which ensued. If the proper preparation had been done to plan for the level of monitoring which was being done, i.e. 18 GB is didly squat compared to the hundreds of GB at many other enterprise sites, then this likely wouldn't have happened. Like wise, proper levels of logging and tuning are required to have a truly healthy and useful monitoring system.
Also level of service, SLAs mainly, dictate what level of monitoring is also required. It's very easy to go crazy monitoring everything, but you can monitor hundreds of servers and not generate much in the way of logs, or you can monitor one and generate many GB of logs.
MPAA is as responsible for content being pirated, as are those who pirate after the fact of an initial illegal copy hitting the 'Net. I say this because apparently the MPAA is ignoring the fact that *TEST* coppies of movies which wound up on the cutting room floor actually make it to the 'Net before the final production release. Are you telling me that it's *our* fault, and not the keygrip, or the sound man, or whomever that works on the movies that are at fault for that as well? It seems a blind eye is turned to that by MPAA maybe? I mean, how is it possible that many of these movies they complain about are actually released on the 'Net *days* before the actual release date? How's that I ask of those bastards at the MPAA!!
Excuse me, when I buy something, which I then consider mine, becuase I have a physical item in my hand, and I digitize it, and give it to a friend, that's still sharing. They may/may not keep that copy. Lots of people I know, will buy music after having had a chance to let it *grow on them* for a while if they downloaded it from some p2p or something. That to me means more money and better following to the artists, than just sales. Sales alone do not an audience make.
"Notice to all patrons: It is illegal to share information about this feature or it's contents with anyone outside the theater. We ask that you honor Microsoft and it's Studio partners wishes. To agree to these terms and be allowed to watch the feature, please press the green 'view' button on your chair's right arm rest now. If you do not agree, please press the 'refund' button instead. If you pressed 'refund' please see the ticket counter for a refund. Your show will begin momentarily. Again, please do not speak to anyone outside this theater about the feature or it's contents. Landmark Theaters, and Microsoft, Inc. Thank you. Enjoy your show."
How's that for EULA infringing on every day life?