You overestimate the proliferation of Bluetooth in personal computers.
I never said a word about my estimation of the proliferation of Bluetooth in personal computers, but now that you brought it up, I'll mention that my complaint is about laptop mice. Having to add a RF dongle is not a major handicap in systems where more than 6 USB ports are available & can readily be extended by adding a USB hub. Laptops have fewer USB ports available & even the small USB RF dongles some mice come with can cause damage to a laptop.
I'll add that for for higher end laptops that BT integration is pretty much universal, from Apple to Dell to Toshiba. Now that Intel & other WLAN vendors have integrated BT support into their mini-PCI cards, BT availability can only become more universal as choosing the card with BT support costs the same as the one without it.
The MS Wireless Laser Mouse 8000 mentioned in TFA is a Bluetooth mouse. You can even see the logo for it in the picture.
Thanks for pointing this out. I'd overlooked the BT label in the picture & the article didn't mention it. Too bad the middle (scroll) button is hard to click (as I use it all the time to open links in new tabs in FF & to paste in emacs).
Yup, same exprience here. I have a nice BT mouse that is responsive, very power conservative & of a decent size to not cramp my large hands (I cannot stand those micro BT mice they sell for portable use). My worry is that one day it will fail & I will not be able to replace it.
A hub. That I have to pull out & plug into my laptop every time that I want to use my mouse.
Hey why don't they come up with an incompatible dongle for connecting external keyboards, and another incompatible RF dongle to link cell phones to PCs. Add yet another incompatible dongle to be able to use the wireless mike+headphones use for skype. All I need is a 5 port powered USB hub to be able to connect all this, yeah that's a great idea.
Why is it that you cannot see that your "suggestion" is even less optimal than using a USB RF dongle?
I am aware thet BT licensing adds to the cost. I will pay more for a good BT mouse (as would many other people that want to use their existing BT instead of adding RF dongles & USB hubs).
Security issues are not an issue. I only enable the BT profiles I will be using & only as long as I will be using them. I am not afraid that someone can impersonate my mouse.
Early BT mice do eat batteries (my first BT mouse would eat 2 AA batteries in under 12 hours of use), but later ones do not. The BT mouse I use with my laptop actually came with my Dell dimension e520 that I bought with a BT mouse & keyboard a few years ago. I change the rechargable batteries every month & it has never run out on me. If Dell offered a way to order it by itself I would order another just to be safe if my current mouse dies.
BT is a very good idea when the implementation has been performed correctly.
My major beef with all the mice presented & with the article is that NONE of the mice shown are bluetooth models.
Every laptop I have bought over the past 5 years has had Bluetooth pre-installed to be able to sync/transfer files to/from my cellphone. I will NOT condemn a USB port just to communicate with some mouse's non-standard RF when my PC already has a usable means of communicating with my mouse.
Have you verified that they are gone? I removed comodo immediately then discovered that it was still there when I went in to clean out the others that I do not recognize.
It doen't appear to be possible to remove cert autorities in firefox 3.0.5 ("Tools=>Options" then Advanced tab & click on "View Certificates" then choose the "Authorities" tab). While you can select certificate authorities and click on "Delete" to erase them, this does not stick. Exit & then reenter the certificate manager and the "deleted" certificate authority will be back.
Your reasoning is faulty. The reasons you give did not stop prohibition from being repealed.
While prosecution of people caught drinking & trafficking in alcohol tailed off once it became clear that it would be repealed, people who were condemned while it was in effect still had to serve out their time in jail. The end of federally mandated Prohibition was replaced with the freedom to drink or State laws & County/town ordinances that even today make public consomation of alcohol against the law in some "dry" areas of the USA.
Hey AC, come out of your mother's basement and discover that what you think you know isn't true.
I've worked in dozens of companies over the years & most of them push theit MS patches out during the day (12:15 is a popular choice) so that the PCs they are targeting are turned on. Those that tried to use WOL to run them at night discovered that WOL isn't as reliable as they had hoped. It only takes one worm or virus loose on the net because of unpatched PCs (& the resulting panic & recriminations sometimes resulting in someone getting fired) for them to push patches out during the day. Your lost time because you didn't save your work is worth less to them than their job security.
You need a tatoo on your inner eyelids to tell you to shut up before talking about things you know little about. A courage pill to help you avoid posting drivel as an AC would help too.
Which means nothing to the overwhelming majority who need to use software developed to Microsoft's specifications that need admin access to function. It is only with their reworked specifications for the DRMOS (aka Vista) that this changed.
A: Had MS not made their catastrophic choice to push IE so low in the system that the UI depends on it, then updating IE would not force a reboot. Switching to firefox may not change the way windows works, but using a browser without low level hooks in the system is still a better idea.
B: When using firefox, I can regain almost all of my context after a forced reboot.
When FF needs to install critical patches it restarts itself & conserves as much context as possible.
When windows needs to install critical patches it reboots the system & loses all context. Even if you delay the reboot to finish critical tasks the reminder that you need to reboot pops up periodically with reboot preselected. If you were performing an unrelated task & happen to hit enter at the wrong time the system reboots without saving your work possibly corrupting it.
I've seen it happen a few times & people do switch browsers after being burnt or seeing it happen to colleagues, but I suppose you'll just stick your fingers in your ears, close your eyes & mumble your prayers to the Redmond God to spare you...
No need to be embarrassed, it's a complex subject which many of us would like to understand better and your posts have enlightened us somewhat. If you could explain what anticipated means in this context we would be further enlightened.
Check out my profile before making assumptions on where I live...
You're hearing your info from who exactly? I'm sure, as I said earlier that it's not coming from people in Canada's military. I have no doubt that most Canadians feel like you do. The people actually doing the work on the other hand...
While I do hear good things about unit performance, the chronic underfunding & resulting force structure means that Canada is incapable of deploying and maintaining it's deployments without the help of nations you implicitly criticized. I won't argue that Canada hasn't made oversized contributions to the UN, just that it's contributions are only possible because they fall back on the USA (sometimes camouflaged as Nato) every time their force structure is inadequate to the tasks they are called on to attempt to fulfill.
It's kind of like hearing from a guy who still lives at his parents home spouting off how life is good & everyone should emulate him to his friends who have moved out and are now paying for a house, doing their own shopping, etc. It's not a model that can be emulated without special conditions and cannot be generalized in any case without undermining the special conditions that make it possible in the first place.
Unless your definition of a better military is one that is almost non-functional, then you would do well to talk to some members of the Canadian military forces. I've met quite a few & not a single one thinks that the ahem, "Canadian model" works well. If you want to pretend that Canada does not need functional military forces as you can sponge off & benefit from proximity to the USA, I'd recommend a stay with some of your armed forces deployed on peacekeeping missions.
As pointed out elsewhere it wasn't a 5-4 decision on the most important element of the case: Whether or not the federal court overstepped it's bounds. The navy won that one 8-1.
The common criticism of the use of this sonar as useless because it "gives away your position" shows ignorance of how the sonar is to be used & why it is needed.
This isn't for some some stealthy sub vs sub "whoever sees first shoots & wins". The enemy sub in the scenario where the sonar is needed is already sitting in an choke point or other area where the USN needs to operate. The ships the USN is deploying are not subs but a MEU, a freighter group carrying a division or a carrier group that are in no way stealthy. The sub already knows that the USN is in the area. The USN cannot prevent the sub from shooting at and maybe sinking A ship if it has chosen it's hiding spot well. However, the USN will willingly trade a frigate against the Gator or carrier the sub really wants to take out & frigates have a better chance of escaping a torpedo in any case. If the sub shoots at the frigate it surrenders it's stealth & will be killed before it can get to a high value target.
The USN needs this sonar & training to make sure that the (sacrificial if necessary) frigates that will employ the sonar are thorough enough to be able to sweep clean the ocean before the high value carrier/Gator/freighters get within range.
I was using write over a 1/4 century ago on AT&T 3B5's. On the really old PDP's we inherited they didn't even have write. I had to use a script that grepped & cut their tty from who & then used cat to redirect my keyboard to their screen...
Thanks Sycraft,
While your explanation of why smaller nets pay for peering is clear, I don't see how this applies to Cogent, who if I understand correctly had peering with all the other majors. It may be that my impression of Cogent having more server traffic than client access traffic is false. Maybe the ISP's they bought to acquire their peering agreements have made them client access heavy...
It all boils down to the ratios but Sprint just says that they are unacceptable without detailing them. Does anyone know where we could find more data on this?
There is something I can't figure out. From what I'd heard, Cogent has more servers connected to it than DSL networks (end users) while Sprint is more balanced. Shouldn't Sprint be paying Cogent?
London and Paris need to learn of this idea of free WiFi.
WIFI in Paris has boomed because of the proliferation of ADSL services like Free, Orange, N9uf/SFR, Darty, Alice, etc that all include a box that does ADSL, WIFI, telephone & TV. It is now rare to find someone who has ADSL without having an associated WIFI hotspot even when they do not use the WIFI. As all these boxes come configured with WPA PSK, finding open hotspots has gotten extremely rare as it takes someone who knows what they are doing & is willing to share their ADSL line.
London also needs to understand the idea of running their subway all night.
Paris needs the same lesson, but it won't come until they have automated the train drivers out of existance due to the labor unions blocking any progress on this point. Maybe my kids will be able to go out to a nightclub & get home before 6AM, but I've tired of running around Paris in the middle of the night looking for a taxi or walking home...
Slashdot Mirror
I never said a word about my estimation of the proliferation of Bluetooth in personal computers, but now that you brought it up, I'll mention that my complaint is about laptop mice. Having to add a RF dongle is not a major handicap in systems where more than 6 USB ports are available & can readily be extended by adding a USB hub. Laptops have fewer USB ports available & even the small USB RF dongles some mice come with can cause damage to a laptop.
I'll add that for for higher end laptops that BT integration is pretty much universal, from Apple to Dell to Toshiba. Now that Intel & other WLAN vendors have integrated BT support into their mini-PCI cards, BT availability can only become more universal as choosing the card with BT support costs the same as the one without it.
Thanks for pointing this out. I'd overlooked the BT label in the picture & the article didn't mention it. Too bad the middle (scroll) button is hard to click (as I use it all the time to open links in new tabs in FF & to paste in emacs).
Yup, same exprience here. I have a nice BT mouse that is responsive, very power conservative & of a decent size to not cramp my large hands (I cannot stand those micro BT mice they sell for portable use). My worry is that one day it will fail & I will not be able to replace it.
A hub. That I have to pull out & plug into my laptop every time that I want to use my mouse.
Hey why don't they come up with an incompatible dongle for connecting external keyboards, and another incompatible RF dongle to link cell phones to PCs. Add yet another incompatible dongle to be able to use the wireless mike+headphones use for skype. All I need is a 5 port powered USB hub to be able to connect all this, yeah that's a great idea.
Why is it that you cannot see that your "suggestion" is even less optimal than using a USB RF dongle?
I am aware thet BT licensing adds to the cost. I will pay more for a good BT mouse (as would many other people that want to use their existing BT instead of adding RF dongles & USB hubs).
Security issues are not an issue. I only enable the BT profiles I will be using & only as long as I will be using them. I am not afraid that someone can impersonate my mouse.
Early BT mice do eat batteries (my first BT mouse would eat 2 AA batteries in under 12 hours of use), but later ones do not. The BT mouse I use with my laptop actually came with my Dell dimension e520 that I bought with a BT mouse & keyboard a few years ago. I change the rechargable batteries every month & it has never run out on me. If Dell offered a way to order it by itself I would order another just to be safe if my current mouse dies.
BT is a very good idea when the implementation has been performed correctly.
My major beef with all the mice presented & with the article is that NONE of the mice shown are bluetooth models.
Every laptop I have bought over the past 5 years has had Bluetooth pre-installed to be able to sync/transfer files to/from my cellphone. I will NOT condemn a USB port just to communicate with some mouse's non-standard RF when my PC already has a usable means of communicating with my mouse.
yeah, me too. If you look at my friends you might recognize a dame or two like derek lyons...
Have you verified that they are gone? I removed comodo immediately then discovered that it was still there when I went in to clean out the others that I do not recognize.
I'm on FF 3.0.5 on windows. You?
It doen't appear to be possible to remove cert autorities in firefox 3.0.5 ("Tools=>Options" then Advanced tab & click on "View Certificates" then choose the "Authorities" tab). While you can select certificate authorities and click on "Delete" to erase them, this does not stick. Exit & then reenter the certificate manager and the "deleted" certificate authority will be back.
Your reasoning is faulty. The reasons you give did not stop prohibition from being repealed.
While prosecution of people caught drinking & trafficking in alcohol tailed off once it became clear that it would be repealed, people who were condemned while it was in effect still had to serve out their time in jail. The end of federally mandated Prohibition was replaced with the freedom to drink or State laws & County/town ordinances that even today make public consomation of alcohol against the law in some "dry" areas of the USA.
Hey AC, come out of your mother's basement and discover that what you think you know isn't true.
I've worked in dozens of companies over the years & most of them push theit MS patches out during the day (12:15 is a popular choice) so that the PCs they are targeting are turned on. Those that tried to use WOL to run them at night discovered that WOL isn't as reliable as they had hoped. It only takes one worm or virus loose on the net because of unpatched PCs (& the resulting panic & recriminations sometimes resulting in someone getting fired) for them to push patches out during the day. Your lost time because you didn't save your work is worth less to them than their job security.
You need a tatoo on your inner eyelids to tell you to shut up before talking about things you know little about. A courage pill to help you avoid posting drivel as an AC would help too.
Which means nothing to the overwhelming majority who need to use software developed to Microsoft's specifications that need admin access to function. It is only with their reworked specifications for the DRMOS (aka Vista) that this changed.
A: Had MS not made their catastrophic choice to push IE so low in the system that the UI depends on it, then updating IE would not force a reboot. Switching to firefox may not change the way windows works, but using a browser without low level hooks in the system is still a better idea.
B: When using firefox, I can regain almost all of my context after a forced reboot.
Your comment shows ignorance.
When FF needs to install critical patches it restarts itself & conserves as much context as possible.
When windows needs to install critical patches it reboots the system & loses all context. Even if you delay the reboot to finish critical tasks the reminder that you need to reboot pops up periodically with reboot preselected. If you were performing an unrelated task & happen to hit enter at the wrong time the system reboots without saving your work possibly corrupting it.
I've seen it happen a few times & people do switch browsers after being burnt or seeing it happen to colleagues, but I suppose you'll just stick your fingers in your ears, close your eyes & mumble your prayers to the Redmond God to spare you...
No need to be embarrassed, it's a complex subject which many of us would like to understand better and your posts have enlightened us somewhat. If you could explain what anticipated means in this context we would be further enlightened.
Check out my profile before making assumptions on where I live...
You're hearing your info from who exactly? I'm sure, as I said earlier that it's not coming from people in Canada's military. I have no doubt that most Canadians feel like you do. The people actually doing the work on the other hand...
While I do hear good things about unit performance, the chronic underfunding & resulting force structure means that Canada is incapable of deploying and maintaining it's deployments without the help of nations you implicitly criticized. I won't argue that Canada hasn't made oversized contributions to the UN, just that it's contributions are only possible because they fall back on the USA (sometimes camouflaged as Nato) every time their force structure is inadequate to the tasks they are called on to attempt to fulfill.
It's kind of like hearing from a guy who still lives at his parents home spouting off how life is good & everyone should emulate him to his friends who have moved out and are now paying for a house, doing their own shopping, etc. It's not a model that can be emulated without special conditions and cannot be generalized in any case without undermining the special conditions that make it possible in the first place.
Unless your definition of a better military is one that is almost non-functional, then you would do well to talk to some members of the Canadian military forces. I've met quite a few & not a single one thinks that the ahem, "Canadian model" works well. If you want to pretend that Canada does not need functional military forces as you can sponge off & benefit from proximity to the USA, I'd recommend a stay with some of your armed forces deployed on peacekeeping missions.
Hey!...
well of course I agree with you.
As pointed out elsewhere it wasn't a 5-4 decision on the most important element of the case: Whether or not the federal court overstepped it's bounds. The navy won that one 8-1.
The common criticism of the use of this sonar as useless because it "gives away your position" shows ignorance of how the sonar is to be used & why it is needed.
This isn't for some some stealthy sub vs sub "whoever sees first shoots & wins". The enemy sub in the scenario where the sonar is needed is already sitting in an choke point or other area where the USN needs to operate. The ships the USN is deploying are not subs but a MEU, a freighter group carrying a division or a carrier group that are in no way stealthy. The sub already knows that the USN is in the area. The USN cannot prevent the sub from shooting at and maybe sinking A ship if it has chosen it's hiding spot well. However, the USN will willingly trade a frigate against the Gator or carrier the sub really wants to take out & frigates have a better chance of escaping a torpedo in any case. If the sub shoots at the frigate it surrenders it's stealth & will be killed before it can get to a high value target.
The USN needs this sonar & training to make sure that the (sacrificial if necessary) frigates that will employ the sonar are thorough enough to be able to sweep clean the ocean before the high value carrier/Gator/freighters get within range.
Ahhhh, the joys of xbounce & xroach...
Over ten years, over ten years...
I was using write over a 1/4 century ago on AT&T 3B5's. On the really old PDP's we inherited they didn't even have write. I had to use a script that grepped & cut their tty from who & then used cat to redirect my keyboard to their screen...
Bmcage needs to look into what lifting bodies are -- they do not need wings.
Wings were added to the shuttle to respond to the the USAF's crossrange requirements & some of the early shuttle plans looked a lot like this.
Thanks Sycraft, While your explanation of why smaller nets pay for peering is clear, I don't see how this applies to Cogent, who if I understand correctly had peering with all the other majors. It may be that my impression of Cogent having more server traffic than client access traffic is false. Maybe the ISP's they bought to acquire their peering agreements have made them client access heavy... It all boils down to the ratios but Sprint just says that they are unacceptable without detailing them. Does anyone know where we could find more data on this?
There is something I can't figure out. From what I'd heard, Cogent has more servers connected to it than DSL networks (end users) while Sprint is more balanced. Shouldn't Sprint be paying Cogent?
WIFI in Paris has boomed because of the proliferation of ADSL services like Free, Orange, N9uf/SFR, Darty, Alice, etc that all include a box that does ADSL, WIFI, telephone & TV. It is now rare to find someone who has ADSL without having an associated WIFI hotspot even when they do not use the WIFI. As all these boxes come configured with WPA PSK, finding open hotspots has gotten extremely rare as it takes someone who knows what they are doing & is willing to share their ADSL line.
Paris needs the same lesson, but it won't come until they have automated the train drivers out of existance due to the labor unions blocking any progress on this point. Maybe my kids will be able to go out to a nightclub & get home before 6AM, but I've tired of running around Paris in the middle of the night looking for a taxi or walking home...