For mass produced embedded use, Linux has the advantage -- zero cost.
Until you want to play RealAudio, RealVideo, mp3, Flash in your portable browser. Then it turns out you have to license all these technologies, and pay for them too. That's when BeOS (or rather BeIA, Be's OS for Internet Appliances) starts to become really interesting.
It's static RAM AFAIK, which unlike dynamic RAM doesn't require power to keep its state. Flash is certainly NOT the future of RAM though, since it is very slow to read and write.
I can understand taking out the suicides, but why the accidents? If you accidentally get shot with your own gun, you're dead. Had you not had that gun, you would
still be alive.
The 75:1 ratio is a myth too of course. By presenting it this way you make believe that without guns, those 75 people would have died.
Still even it is "only" 4:1, you are putting yourself at risk. This argument is just like the smokers versus non-smokers debate though. In their heart everybody knows smoking is bad for you, yet the addicts don't want to give up their God-given right to put themselves and others at risk.
VBR sucks, since it does not allow for accurate arbitrary seeking in the file (since time is no longer a function of file-offset) and makes it unsuitable for streaming. Why impose these limitations on playback when for a few extra kilobytes you could have it all?
So says Handgun Control Inc. And you didn't even get the stat right
I'm pretty sure I got the "43 times" figure right. Unfortunately I accidentally deleted all my bookmarks, so I can't provide a URL (I bookmarked it for exactly this kind of discussion).
The thing they neglect to tell you is that that includes people you have
just met before. The other thing they don't tell you is that most home defense is against people you know
It doesn't matter who uses the gun against whom. When you confront an armed intruder in your house with a gun of your own, somebody is likely to get shot. Chances are, it's going to be you. Not confronting the intruder gives that intruder no reason to shoot you (either deliberately or in panic). If you value your VCR more than your life, then by all means go ahead and buy a gun. Gun owners are at an evolutionary disadvantage, so the problem will solve itself in the end;)
(also, consider for a moment why even people in high-crime areas in Europe (and most of the rest of the civilized world) get by just fine without weapons for "home defense")
People with guns in their house are 43 times more likely to be shot in their own home than people without a gun in their house. You're better off without the gun.
American law applies in America. Not in France, not in the UK, not anywhere else. Whoever marked that posting as "insightful" is a doofus (not only because what I said still holds true, but because the poster was even
proving my point: "The law means shit nowadays". To which I'd like to add: "especially American law in the UK").
These technologies don't remove the commercials for you, so what exactly would television execs have to make a stink
about that they didn't with VHS?
These devices are apparently going to have IP addresses. They also run linux, which makes them somewhat hackable. Now imagine someone replacing the software on there with software that
edits out commercials (not too hard, just scan the image for the station-logo, which goes away during commercials)
offers the files for download by anyone (it has an IP addres, remember?)
With bandwidth ever increasing, I don't think it is too far-fetched a scenario. The biggest use would probably be porn recorded from premium channels and distributed accross the internet. This is already done with regular computers and video capture cards right now, but a hacked Tivo could make it much easier.
If you'd care the actually read the patent (
here for example) you would have seen
that the patent is about A method for displaying on a computer screen multiple sets of information
needed on a recurring basis. There is no mention of tabs or other selection methods. The generic term "selection indicator" is used instead.
Having Jon Katz write "the truth" about file sharing is like having him write about Colombine, or asking Slashdot about the pros and cons of the GPL. You already know you'll get something
severely biased, so why even bother reading it?
Slashdot Mirror
Until you want to play RealAudio, RealVideo, mp3, Flash in your portable browser. Then it turns out you have to license all these technologies, and pay for them too. That's when BeOS (or rather BeIA, Be's OS for Internet Appliances) starts to become really interesting.
If only flash ram were that fast...
It's static RAM AFAIK, which unlike dynamic RAM doesn't require power to keep its state. Flash is certainly NOT the future of RAM though, since it is very slow to read and write.
I can understand taking out the suicides, but why the accidents? If you accidentally get shot with your own gun, you're dead. Had you not had that gun, you would still be alive.
The 75:1 ratio is a myth too of course. By presenting it this way you make believe that without guns, those 75 people would have died. Still even it is "only" 4:1, you are putting yourself at risk. This argument is just like the smokers versus non-smokers debate though. In their heart everybody knows smoking is bad for you, yet the addicts don't want to give up their God-given right to put themselves and others at risk.
VBR sucks, since it does not allow for accurate arbitrary seeking in the file (since time is no longer a function of file-offset) and makes it unsuitable for streaming. Why impose these limitations on playback when for a few extra kilobytes you could have it all?
I'm pretty sure I got the "43 times" figure right. Unfortunately I accidentally deleted all my bookmarks, so I can't provide a URL (I bookmarked it for exactly this kind of discussion).
The thing they neglect to tell you is that that includes people you have just met before. The other thing they don't tell you is that most home defense is against people you know
It doesn't matter who uses the gun against whom. When you confront an armed intruder in your house with a gun of your own, somebody is likely to get shot. Chances are, it's going to be you. Not confronting the intruder gives that intruder no reason to shoot you (either deliberately or in panic). If you value your VCR more than your life, then by all means go ahead and buy a gun. Gun owners are at an evolutionary disadvantage, so the problem will solve itself in the end ;)
(also, consider for a moment why even people in high-crime areas in Europe (and most of the rest of the civilized world) get by just fine without weapons for "home defense")
People with guns in their house are 43 times more likely to be shot in their own home than people without a gun in their house. You're better off without the gun.
Like I said: editing out commercials isn't that hard, and if you record from commercial-free premium channels, it's not even an issue.
American law applies in America. Not in France, not in the UK, not anywhere else. Whoever marked that posting as "insightful" is a doofus (not only because what I said still holds true, but because the poster was even proving my point: "The law means shit nowadays". To which I'd like to add: "especially American law in the UK").
These devices are apparently going to have IP addresses. They also run linux, which makes them somewhat hackable. Now imagine someone replacing the software on there with software that
- edits out commercials (not too hard, just scan the image for the station-logo, which goes away during commercials)
- offers the files for download by anyone (it has an IP addres, remember?)
With bandwidth ever increasing, I don't think it is too far-fetched a scenario. The biggest use would probably be porn recorded from premium channels and distributed accross the internet. This is already done with regular computers and video capture cards right now, but a hacked Tivo could make it much easier.You will notice he mentioned UK law. The lawsuit you mentioned was in the US, and as such pretty much irrelevant to UK law.
If you'd care the actually read the patent ( here for example) you would have seen that the patent is about A method for displaying on a computer screen multiple sets of information needed on a recurring basis. There is no mention of tabs or other selection methods. The generic term "selection indicator" is used instead.
Having Jon Katz write "the truth" about file sharing is like having him write about Colombine, or asking Slashdot about the pros and cons of the GPL. You already know you'll get something severely biased, so why even bother reading it?