Pay attention here. The new X Desktop is pronounced "X" as in "X marks the spot." But the X in Mac OS X is pronounced "10." Got that? Okay, X Desktop will purportedly not only allow remote X applications to be displayed on the Mac OS X desktop, but will also include complete set of X tools and libraries to support local execution of X applications and X games on OS X. Extending Mac OS X with an X Window porting environment will enable high-resolution 3D-modeling and animation, graphical visualization and image rendering applications to be built directly on Mac OS X, says Holmgren.
Try reading that aloud, and getting all the X's right as appropriate:-)
Although not much sense. How can you trespass into a server that accepts anonymous connections via port 80 anyway? I agree there is some kind of claim here, but ebay should have had a harder time backing it up in the courtroom than calling it trespassing.
And do the implications of this apply only to competing sites that want to outdo each other (since they're more likely to go to court), or also to more intermediate sites like cnet?
Of course these companies could just hire some interns, monkeys, high school community service volunteers, etc. to go to a bunch of sites, find out the prices, and update the site every few hours or days.
Does this mean that if doubleclick et al gets ahold of this, they could do some market research?
[imagine ad here]
suppose this attention thing (I didn't read the article, free reg >:( ) could tell that you looked at the ad and were unconsciously intrigued (I used to do this on/.'s ads before I got junkbuster http://www.junkbusters.com) then they would know the ad is effective, and maybe worse could know you (specifically) looked at it and they'll get you with junk (e)mail!
by the way the technology has been around for about a decade now.
I'm noticing a pattern here; whenever anyone comes out with something that's efficient, like an all-day laptop or an electric car, it's geared toward the low-end market. When IBM demo'd their ThinkPad with a Crusoe CPU in it (story was on/. a while ago), they modified their worst model, with a tiny screen and no options.
Now Honda is basically doing the same thing.
However, Both companies obviously did it to see how efficient thay could make the product, while at the same time sacrificing lots of good stuff, such as IBM's LCD screen size, the biggest battery hog of all (which makes me wonder why they replaced the mirrors; it's the USB-equivalent kluge of rear-view mirrors:-) ). I wouldn't buy one of these yet; rather, I would wait until a better compromise comes along, similar to when IBM offers most of its notebooks with Crusoes (hopefully!).
Quoth the website, at the bottom of http://members.icann.org/join_now.htm :
"Your personal information will not be used for any purpose except At Large membership."
Of course this COULD mean anything...
(NOT DIRECTLY QUOTED, DON'T PANIC) "As a privileged At Large member, you will receive a subscription to numerous mailing lists which bring up issues for the internet community [like spamming] and will also receive door-to-door vote confirmation [i.e. they come to your house and beat you up if you don't vote how they want you to]"
I have nothing against ICANN in this respect, just a thought of what that statement means...
First: people seem to have lost interest. "Why are the gas prices so high? Let's bully those countries into submission instead!" and "You can power your car with that???"
Second: Back in the late seventies (Carter Administration) there was a little crisis in the middle east (Iran, right before hostage incident) which rose gas prices similar to their current trend (but don't complain, it's worse everywhere else in the world). Carter started a bunch of programs to look for alternative fuel sources. As a result lots of companies were created, and the scientific achievements led to the much increased efficiency of solar cells, the invention of fuel cells, among other things (I'd bet batteries and Power Wheels are the offsprings of this, but I don't know).
Why don't we have any of this in our cars >20 years later, you ask? Here's the Flamebait: Reagan stepped in, got rid of the programs as part of his government streamlining, the new companies went out of business, then Reagan decided we should waste our money he saved finding out how to play Space Invaders with nuclear missiles, a.k.a. Star Wars program. If not for Reagan I am certain we would be recharging our cars in our garages every night.
It seems to me that every wide barrier in software/hardware, such as Linux/Windows/Mac, Intel/AMD, M$/{Corel, Netscape, etc.}, all have bitter rivalries throughout. The reviewers seem to be the vultures, gaining a reputation among each of these divisions. For example (I'm not saying ANY or ALL of these are bad), a reviewer can praise MacOS X, Corel GNU/Linux, and Windows 2000 all at the same time, not offend anybody, and gain respect in all three "houses" at the same time.
The same thing is probably the driving force behind reviewers on Linux- Mac- or Windows-specific sites, which we can all agree with turn/. discussions into flamewars.
Thus I say that a reviewer IN GENERAL cannot be _fully_ trusted except in a comparison or something where thay have nothing to gain by lying (in the case of a comparison, the reviewer will have to offend somebody)
Anyway, seems to me the ingrained hatred just makes the reviewers more eager to please.
Does this guy know what he's talking about? 700K-1.2M??
The largest kernel I have EVER seen is 674K (albeit no SCSI); two of my home workstations have kernels both easily under 500K (close to 450K). My school's Linux server with SCSI has a 556K kernel. Unless you make some monolithic monster with support for 10 different ethernet cards and 3 SCSI adapters I find it hard to believe a _standard_ kernel can get that big (there may be exceptions, yes). Someone with a Windows box care to tell me how large kernel32.dll is? (keep in mind a windows 9x kernel doesn't have device drivers built in like many Linux kernels have, and is much less stable)
And about the C library: yes, it is a few Megabytes, but only when unstripped!! If your distribution strips its libraries (I know Debian does, RedHat didn't as of 6.1) you'd know that libc-2.1.3.so is around 400K. The rest is mostly debugging symbols. I can easily make a rescue disk set that contains all the basic functionality of a linux system (in terms of file manipulation and viewing) using a compressed ramdisk of about 1.3Mb; Windows can't give me all its functionality like that, MacOS can't either (anymore, as of 7.5.5?).
It's more efficient but not more cost-effective on a large scale. 16 or 32-processor computers like SGI Origins cost about $1,000,000. A 128-node beowulf cluster costs a mere $700,000 about. So which one's more cost-effective?
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds like it's made of some radioactive element, like Radon. I'm sure the gamma rays are traveling at the 183MHz range quite easily...
Boy, and I thought my SPARC ELC had some nasty EMI.
Let's see... X-Files, and X-Men...
How about Patrick Stewart?
"I've never seen anything like this..." or whatever his quote was, would be good here.
Pay attention here. The new X Desktop is pronounced "X" as in "X marks
:-)
the spot." But the X in Mac OS X is pronounced "10." Got that? Okay, X
Desktop will purportedly not only allow remote X applications to be
displayed on the Mac OS X desktop, but will also include complete set of X
tools and libraries to support local execution of X applications and X games
on OS X. Extending Mac OS X with an X Window porting environment
will enable high-resolution 3D-modeling and animation, graphical
visualization and image rendering applications to be built directly on Mac
OS X, says Holmgren.
Try reading that aloud, and getting all the X's right as appropriate
MI/X is all you really need... and free (not OSS)!
:-)
www.microimages.com/www/html/freestuf/mix/
so what if it's the Classic API??
of course if anybody can get it to do something other than just sit there, PLEASE let me know!
Although not much sense. How can you trespass into a server that accepts anonymous connections via port 80 anyway? I agree there is some kind of claim here, but ebay should have had a harder time backing it up in the courtroom than calling it trespassing.
And do the implications of this apply only to competing sites that want to outdo each other (since they're more likely to go to court), or also to more intermediate sites like cnet?
Of course these companies could just hire some interns, monkeys, high school community service volunteers, etc. to go to a bunch of sites, find out the prices, and update the site every few hours or days.
Does this mean that if doubleclick et al gets ahold of this, they could do some market research?
/.'s ads before I got junkbuster http://www.junkbusters.com) then they would know the ad is effective, and maybe worse could know you (specifically) looked at it and they'll get you with junk (e)mail!
[imagine ad here]
suppose this attention thing (I didn't read the article, free reg >:( ) could tell that you looked at the ad and were unconsciously intrigued (I used to do this on
by the way the technology has been around for about a decade now.
I'm noticing a pattern here; whenever anyone comes out with something that's efficient, like an all-day laptop or an electric car, it's geared toward the low-end market. When IBM demo'd their ThinkPad with a Crusoe CPU in it (story was on /. a while ago), they modified their worst model, with a tiny screen and no options.
:-) ). I wouldn't buy one of these yet; rather, I would wait until a better compromise comes along, similar to when IBM offers most of its notebooks with Crusoes (hopefully!).
Now Honda is basically doing the same thing.
However, Both companies obviously did it to see how efficient thay could make the product, while at the same time sacrificing lots of good stuff, such as IBM's LCD screen size, the biggest battery hog of all (which makes me wonder why they replaced the mirrors; it's the USB-equivalent kluge of rear-view mirrors
The comments from the second post are gone!
/. doesn't remove posts :-)
And they say
Actually Debian would have to be disbanded; the first entry in any Debian package is: /.
Quoth the website, at the bottom of http://members.icann.org/join_now.htm :
"Your personal information will not be used for any purpose except At Large membership."
Of course this COULD mean anything...
(NOT DIRECTLY QUOTED, DON'T PANIC)
"As a privileged At Large member, you will receive a subscription to numerous mailing lists which bring up issues for the internet community [like spamming] and will also receive door-to-door vote confirmation [i.e. they come to your house and beat you up if you don't vote how they want you to]"
I have nothing against ICANN in this respect, just a thought of what that statement means...
First: people seem to have lost interest. "Why are the gas prices so high? Let's bully those countries into submission instead!" and "You can power your car with that???"
Second:
Back in the late seventies (Carter Administration) there was a little crisis in the middle east (Iran, right before hostage incident) which rose gas prices similar to their current trend (but don't complain, it's worse everywhere else in the world). Carter started a bunch of programs to look for alternative fuel sources. As a result lots of companies were created, and the scientific achievements led to the much increased efficiency of solar cells, the invention of fuel cells, among other things (I'd bet batteries and Power Wheels are the offsprings of this, but I don't know).
Why don't we have any of this in our cars >20 years later, you ask? Here's the Flamebait: Reagan stepped in, got rid of the programs as part of his government streamlining, the new companies went out of business, then Reagan decided we should waste our money he saved finding out how to play Space Invaders with nuclear missiles, a.k.a. Star Wars program. If not for Reagan I am certain we would be recharging our cars in our garages every night.
I warned you...
It seems to me that every wide barrier in software/hardware, such as Linux/Windows/Mac, Intel/AMD, M$/{Corel, Netscape, etc.}, all have bitter rivalries throughout. The reviewers seem to be the vultures, gaining a reputation among each of these divisions. For example (I'm not saying ANY or ALL of these are bad), a reviewer can praise MacOS X, Corel GNU/Linux, and Windows 2000 all at the same time, not offend anybody, and gain respect in all three "houses" at the same time.
/. discussions into flamewars.
The same thing is probably the driving force behind reviewers on Linux- Mac- or Windows-specific sites, which we can all agree with turn
Thus I say that a reviewer IN GENERAL cannot be _fully_ trusted except in a comparison or something where thay have nothing to gain by lying (in the case of a comparison, the reviewer will have to offend somebody)
Anyway, seems to me the ingrained hatred just makes the reviewers more eager to please.
Does this guy know what he's talking about? 700K-1.2M??
The largest kernel I have EVER seen is 674K (albeit no SCSI); two of my home workstations have kernels both easily under 500K (close to 450K). My school's Linux server with SCSI has a 556K kernel. Unless you make some monolithic monster with support for 10 different ethernet cards and 3 SCSI adapters I find it hard to believe a _standard_ kernel can get that big (there may be exceptions, yes). Someone with a Windows box care to tell me how large kernel32.dll is? (keep in mind a windows 9x kernel doesn't have device drivers built in like many Linux kernels have, and is much less stable)
And about the C library: yes, it is a few Megabytes, but only when unstripped!! If your distribution strips its libraries (I know Debian does, RedHat didn't as of 6.1) you'd know that libc-2.1.3.so is around 400K. The rest is mostly debugging symbols. I can easily make a rescue disk set that contains all the basic functionality of a linux system (in terms of file manipulation and viewing) using a compressed ramdisk of about 1.3Mb; Windows can't give me all its functionality like that, MacOS can't either (anymore, as of 7.5.5?).
It's more efficient but not more cost-effective on a large scale. 16 or 32-processor computers like SGI Origins cost about $1,000,000. A 128-node beowulf cluster costs a mere $700,000 about. So which one's more cost-effective?