This is at least the 2nd time that this argument has been used...
Please explain to me what body you have to license IPv* from?
Tell me again why I would need a commercial product to support IPv* when it has been in some form in free OEs for -years-?
Explain how IPv* has anything to do with "formats" when those "formats" (I'm assuming you're thinking things like video codecs, etc) are not part of the network layer?
China's IPv9 can only exist for one of 2 reasons:
1) They want more control over their own networks, perhaps by having China on IPv9 they have ways of better filtering IPv4/6 (I don't know) or maybe they suffer from the most common of all new network protocol designer's problems... "we like ours best" syndrom.
2) Perhaps IPv9 has definite technical advantages over IPv4/6 that will become more obvious as adoption goes on.... Anyway, beyond replying to your thread a bit...
It doesn't really matter... if IPv9 doesn't have major enhancements but is truly compatible with IPv6 then let the Chinese have the headache of maintaining the translations. If IPv9 -does- have major enhancements that the rest of the world desires, maybe you'll see it being adopted and IPv6 skipped in many locales.
It is supply and demand... yes, 1+ Billion Chinese has a lot of sway over standards adoption, but if the standards suck the 5+ Billion of the rest of us will ignore it. If it doesn't suck and is "Right" then good for them for kickstarting adoption.
What I am saying is the goal of Evo2 is to make architectural changes to the client (as in splitting out the Evo Data Server portion, improving the UI, etc) and make sure it is stable in that iteration before going to a new development technology.
1.5.x is the unstable testing version for Evo2... the Evo developers want to get Evo2 stable in time for GNOME 2.8 core inclusion in a timely manner (originally the target was GNOME 2.6) and that means not doing a significant shift in the way Evolution is developed.
If Evo2 were to ship with GNOME 2.8 -and- start using Mono as a core technology, Evo2 would either take a lot longer to release -or- it would be initially unstable:)
Like I said in the parent, I haven't personally used 1.5.x so I can't vouch for the stability (though I definitely like the things I've read both on stability and features).
As for the current version (1.4.x) being unstable... in my experience that depends on what you are using it for. Fast connections to an IMAP server without utilizing Evo1.4 plugins seems to work great. Start using any of the connectors and/or start working from remote (and I do have a very good broadband connection) and, well, even though Evo1.4 is the default mail client for the product I work on I am currently using Mozilla Mail for production use and Evo1.4 only for testing features.
My understanding is that Evolution 2.0 would -not- depend on Mono, since the goal is to revamp the client and make it stable first, but that versions beyond 2.0 would possibly begin to include Mono into the core and hence if you're planning on building a distro with Evo2 it makes sense to start getting Mono running and stable ASAP so that that is not a barrier.
NOTE: I get this from an email from a Java Desktop System engineer who said he got word straight from Nat that Evo2 would not have Mono dependencies.
GNOME will probably also be in much the same way... 2.8 and maybe 3.0 will likely not see a core dependency on Mono but afterwards I expect that Novell will begin moving towards a Mono base for development for GNOME and Evolution (remember that as of GNOME 2.8, Evo2 and Evo Data Server become core GNOME components).
As relates to Sun Java Desktop System (disclaimer: of which I work on in a tech marketing capacity) since obviously Sun is going to be much more interested in Java as a platform, not Mono (NOTE: I'm not saying Sun won't include a Mono platform in Java Desktop... I can't say that since I don't know what the final answer will be on that). However, Java is becoming more viable for GNOME (and therefore Evo) development as well. My guess is were about to see Java vs..NET in some form again. However, if Mono becomes a core of GNOME/Evo to where you can't function without it we will only have 2 choices... include Mono or take tons of time to provide Java alternatives. I think both have advantages and disadvantages.
Re:Further reading...
on
Amorphous Steel
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Old glass manufacturing technics were VERY imprecise. You might end up with a pane that had a thicker edge, in which case you would naturally put it on the bottom for balance.
Or you might end up with fairly uniform edges but have an irregular surface that looked like it was "flowing" but was static. I have picture windows in my house that are about 70 years old that have this "flow" pattern and have had people remark that the liquid must be pooling... it's simply irregular hand-made glass.
Even if glass -does- flow (see the "a" link at the beginning), math shows it would take millions of years to complete the process, meaning no glass made by man would yet show visible signs of deterioration.
And you're right, "glassy" in this case is about the physical structure of the metal, not the light transmitting/absorbing aspects though those are probably mildly affected (I imagine a glassy steel will hold a shiny polish better than a crystal steel).
Thanks, you're right... typing faster than I was thinking (common malady). I believe the Voom birds are around 62 degrees and because of mountains/hills I can't focus below 70.
Dozens of HDTV channels over satellite? Not if you are on one of the big 2 satellite providers (DirecTV or DishNet). You'll get at most -1- dozen today (actually, with DirecTV I think it's more like a 1/2 dozen right now with plans to double that this year).
The only way to get -dozens- of HDTV channels over satellite is via VOOM and from all reviews I've seen their channels are almost worthless except for the few that are also on DirecTV. Voom has such a small subscriber base today that I don't have much faith in them making it (plus their satellites are so far down in the southern sky that often people can point their dishes at them).
I don't have direct experience with Dish other than to know that I dislike their STB hardware so I avoid it. I don't have experience with HDTV over cable because I can't get digital cable where I live (and the analog signal goes over a couple of hundred of miles of repeaters and ghosts worse than OTA NTSC).
I completely agree with you that we need satellite and cable HDTV cards but there are 2 things that are going to stop you:
1) The satellite providers have to cooperate with you and they are NOT interested in this. Yes, I know all the arguments we would make to them to allow this but they don't buy them. Hell, go read the TiVo community forums for DirecTV users and pay attention to the Organize an HMO request thread for an example of DirecTV not paying attention to customer demand for PC convergence... and HMO is now -free- on standalone TiVo's.
2) The Cable companies do not have a unified standard (yet), hence the reason why the HDTiVo only supports satellite or OTA (for now). Until they have a standard not only agreed on but implemented it is way too fractionalized for an HDTV PC option to make sense to companies like ATI.
That 2nd point is being addressed and once you see the cable manufacturers adopt (I believe it is FCC mandated) an interoperable and compatible standard you probably will see PC options as well as an HDTiVo that handles them.
You will probably also see a large number of DirecTV/Dish subcribers moving and then see the satellite providers start dumping crap channels for HDTV channels. However I doubt you'll see a general purpose PC option for satellite HDTV viewing. MAYBE an OEMed one that includes the card reader and such but I don't think that the satellite providers are savvy enough to figure out how to make that work in a way that PC adopters would buy in to (it would probably be so crippled and expensive that we'd simply forget about it).
Having worked at a theater I can tell you of a super-secret other method...
If it is a life/death emergency that forces you to bug your doctor in the movie theater... call the theater (more likely than not you are calling an answering service) and tell them it is a freakin life or death situation and what movie the doctor is in.
Not kidding. It works. Does it annoy the patrons? Sure, but the -frequency- of annoyance is tiny. I think over 3 years I was on shift when a doctor got such a call thrice... that would be something like 3 times out of 9,000 showings while I was on shift. Conversely out of maybe 50 theater movies since then (that was 1989, before cellphones were too prevalent) I have heard a cellphone go off at -least- 5 times.
3:50 versus 3:9000... and I would be surprised if more than one or two of those were actually important calls.
The doctor, if they are on call or have deathly ill patients, has the responsibility to notify their call service or office/hospital where they will be when not at home or at work. That same doctor can use one of the many payphones that are usually at a theater or use a cellphone before and after the show to check in. There is -no- reason why cellphones must be enabled in a theater or any other similar venue for public safety.
If a Doctor feels it is not safe to be out of touch for an hour or two, then perhaps they shouldn't be doing whatever it is might take them out of range to begin with. What about camping, caving, diving, etc? Arrange for someone to cover if it is that important.
I am not saying every theater should have such shielding, but no way should they be prevented from doing it if they see fit. The compromise might be to have a sign when entering the theater that explains the situation so that people who must be contactable can notify the theater management of their location. It -does- work.
I wrote a 2 minute script (perl and wget are our friends) and let it run overnight. Their server started out really speedy, then started getting laggy so I shortened wget's timeout to 60 seconds (900 seconds? please:)
During this run the chances went from 30,000:1 to 50,000:1 to 100,000:1:)
Results... over approximately 10 hours the script iterated just under 30,000 times before getting an invite, which averaged out 50 hits per minute for me. If you assume most of the heavy hitters had a similar script (maybe, maybe not) running for the same time period where the server got 20,000,000 hits, that means 666 scripters;)
NOTE: I made my script relatively friendly... only 1 process at a time, it gave the server a minute to respond, and it slept for 1 second between requests. No forked processes, no running as fast as it can. Did I defeat the "feel" of the process, sure, but someone had to be expecting it because there was nothing in the HTML that made this at all difficult. This means I would guess I could have gotten closer to 1 hit per second if I'd -tried- but there didn't seem like much point.
I want to give a HEARTY congratulations for having a server with a dynamic page that took the load like a champ. No images had to help, but it was still pumping out >5K per request at 550-600 requests per second. Not an amazing feat technically, just good planning, but appreciated. I was quite surprised to see it had made it through the night (my invite came @ 8:30am, almost exactly when I woke to the thought of "hey, wonder if I got an invite?", maybe I accidentally invoked Telepathy::Broadcast).
And before someone goes "why did you waste your time for a freakin Gmail account", I spent 5 * the time needed to write the script to write this post... it is/. where my behavior is unexplainable:)
If you use an IMAP client and delete a message it doesn't actually get moved to the Trash folder (at least not in most cases), it simply gets "flagged" as deleted.
The client shows it as a folder and so that is where people think it is, but in reality it is still in your inbox.
If you use Evolution's V-Folders, it is the same idea... create a virtual folder based on message criteria.
While I don't have a Gmail account yet to compare, I would guess it is much the same thing.
I dunno, haven't tested it yet... which is EXACTLY WHY I WANT AN ACCOUNT.
I've gotten tired of Yahoo, even with the 100MB upgrade I still get a ton of SPAM.
I already have a TiVo monitoring my viewing habits, so I'm not too worried about Google seeing my email since I don't have state secrets in there anyway (and if I ever do I'll find something better than SMTP to transport them).
The big thing is it is new... I wanna test it. If it's better I'll switch.
The better question is "When will web designers break the mold of pixel size and start doing good designs with proper technologies so that pages look good on any reasonable device?".
Then again, I've been asking that question for about 7 years (94 through 97 were good years for resolution independent pages).
Make the design look good with -no- graphics and minimal tables. Then add the images to spruce it up for those devices that can view the images.
I'm not saying limit yourself to designing to text-based browsers, but there are numerous graphical browsers (PDAs, phones) that work better when the large images are turned off. I have seen many sites that do this well. On the other hand, there are sites like Bioware.com that barely load on a P3-800 with tons of RAM and a 1280x1024 display due to terrible design both with images and tables (I like bioware games, I hate their site).
There is an opportunity here for a PDA browser to help though... if I have a PDA with a 4:3 aspect ratio screen I would -love- to be able to tell the browser to scale down the images to emulate a resolution... in the case of large 4:3 ratio resolutions you wouldn't even need to resample the image to get decent results, just display every nth pixel/row. It wouldn't look great but we might actually be able to see the page done by over-done designs.
Hey, if Silicon Valley happens to get toasted, y'all are invited to the Boulder/Denver area. Lots of space to grow and far more stable tectonics. We've got a large number of unemployed tech workers leading to a great pool to hire from. All you folks used to biking around Cali would love it here. Oh yeah, and by 2007 we should have a BART-style rail system (we already have a great bus network).
I hear Austin might actually have a better labor pool and cheaper land, but seriously, it's HOT and not alot of outdoor activities for the geek types.
Woah pardner... you've now stomped your own debate twice:
1) calling all/.ers baboons (I'm not going to bother going back to the original to see what the first quote was) when you're still obviously a/.er
2) Pointing out that there is a stereotypical/.er... is there one? Sure... but by definition a stereotype doesn't define the whole. In fact, it often doesn't even describe the majority. It only describes the most obvious-to-the-outside faction.... if ya don't like it, go away. Yeah, I bit on the flamebait again, but yeesh you are either doing it on purpose (in which case you are quite happy right now) or you are a complete idiot wasting your time here (religious zealots do it all the time to hear themselves rail at society... you wouldn't be a Southern Baptist would you?)
Your suggestions are all fine... and I make a point of putting people who follow them on my friends list. However... this is/.... a free community forum that you don't pay squat for (well, unless you have a subscription, you don't do you?). You don't get to make up any rules... the people who pay for the site do. The only rule you get to make up is:
* If I don't like/. and it annoys the everliving crap out of me, I shall not post about it, I shall simply leave as there is surely another site on the net that would welcome my cybergoth mentality.
And go ahead and post again... it might show you're not just trolling... but I won't be replying as we've both lowered the signal:noise ratio enough for one thread.
Troll./. is like any other diverse congregation of people... some read the article and others just listen to the person talking about the article. Lumping them altogether is insulting... then again since you recursed yourself into the insult I guess I don't mind so much.
"some of the best spam-filtering available" has begun to rapidly decline in quality over the last few months. I used to get about a 1:1 SPAM:email ratio. Now it is closer to 6:1 and my usage patterns haven't changed.
Yeah, I know it is at the core the fault of the SPAM'ers not Yahoo, but once GMail goes live I plan on subscribing to a new account on both and seeing which one does the best over WRT for SPAM. If it is Gmail I'll just hop providers.
Will they care about one person switching? No... but apparently they do care about droves of people switching or they would have kept their meager disk allowance.
Heh, at least you had an excuse beyond being plain clueless.
Welcome to Nederland, Colorado....
Population: 1500
# Hotspots found in a 1 hour netstumbler session with a built-in (read: not very sensitive and very directional) antenna: 21
# Hotspots total: Unknown but I would guess over 40 if you count the ones who disabled SSID broadcast and who live in the 2 divisions I didn't drive through. If I'm right, that is approximately 1 AP for every 38 people...
# Hotspots found broadcasting DHCP and NAT'ing to their ISP without MAC filters and using default passwords: 4
# Wireless ISPs: 2
# Wireless ISPs accidentally giving out free bandwidth (read: completely commercially compromised) to the 4 open Hotspots: 2 (of 2)
I documented which hotspots were giving away bandwidth for free along with MAC addresses and IP addresses so that the ISPs could track them down. Question is, if the ISPs want to go after the user, is the user smart enough to even attempt to fix the problem (jeez, just disabling SSID broadcast would be a start).
This doesn't count the number of 802.11b -clients-... given that we have 2 wireless ISPs I would guess there are at least 50 end-users out there (I'm one).
Intereference on 2.4GHz is definitely my biggest network woe today. I dearly miss my last address's 400' proximity to a DSL enabled CO:)
Bluetooth range is purposefully very short. Generally speaking more than 6' away and you're going to lose connection with most devices. Remember that it was meant to be a personal network protocol.
I'm sure with boosted signals you could broadcast -to- other Bluetooth devices over far greater distances, but don't forget that those devices have to transmit -back- to the signal source. It doesn't do much good to have a 1-way network connection (works for headphones, not for bi-directional data).
Also remember that bluetooth devices are kept low-power because they tend to be put against parts of the human body. If you look at the current 802.11b offerings, most are too strong to be in direct contact with a body part and some are coming out that are so strong they aren't legally allowed in your laptop (for instance, 300mW and 400mW PCMCIA cards for use in wireless ISP devices). Since bluetooth is usually meant for phones, and phones are meant for your ear, they have to obey the same transmission strength guidelines as the other parts of the phone.
One of the things that make 802.11* economical for hotspot usage is that a single piece of equipment can cover a fairly wide area. The number of bluetooth access points needed for the same area would be extremely costly and complicated.
I don't expect you'll see it Bluetooth access points in the same manner as WiFi. What you -might- eventually see is Bluetooth replaced in favor of low-power 802.11* or 802.16*. I could see a device that used those protocols with a low power to send to a headset and which also allowed you to go into a high-power mode where the phone was disabled (to keep you from sticking it next to your head) that allowed it to function as a full-power networking device.
Now what might be useful is a combination 802.11* and Bluetooth chipset, both utilizing the same antenna. That may have interference issues, but I know that I've seen boxes with dual 802.11b cards, so perhaps the Bluetooth and WiFi chips could work together to figure out optimal channel usage to minimize interference.
Or better yet, utilize a CTS protection mode on both devices so that only one was transmitting at the same time (your 802.11 data rate might suffer while on a continuous bluetooth headset call, but I think it would work, especially given the small amount of data that a voice broadcast requires).
I think Bluetooth was an interesting idea, but one that could be easily obsoleted by a standardize low power option for 802.11/802.16. Especially if/when the WiFi + Cellular phones ever come about.
Sorry, but I don't see a reason to carry around a portable video player unless I can see stuff from my TiVo and/or a DVD on it without having to take a few hours prep'ing/converting the files.
I realize that is a long way off, I'm not expecting it tomorrow. I'm just trying to figure out the mass market applications for this other than to have a box that does a ton of things (that it often isn't used for) while listening to my music.
Part of the reason I use a portable player (Neuros, not iPod) is to have a device that is small enough to be convenient (ok, the Neuros isn't as good an example of that as the iPod) -and- is fairly rugged. As in doesn't have a screen that I am worried about cracking or scratching.
Now if it plugged in to a DVD reader of some sort, even if over a network share to my PC, and allowed me to rip content to it for travel... HELL yes, I would go for it. But not the current generations of machines.
If he has designs for a cellphone (common freqs from 800MHz to 1.9GHz) then this can probably apply to 2.4GHz.
For me, I don't care about smaller, I want more power from the size antenna that are already in use. I don't have a problem with the ears on my WRT54G but I sure wouldn't mind them being better/strong/faster.
Doesn't mean the appeals will die. There are any number of firms that are willing to pick up dead companies for next to nothing only to continue their legistlation in the hopes that a small portion of these investments will pay off.
I expect some version of SCO's cases will be in the system for 5+ years.
Slashdot Mirror
This is at least the 2nd time that this argument has been used ...
... "we like ours best" syndrom.
... Anyway, beyond replying to your thread a bit ...
... if IPv9 doesn't have major enhancements but is truly compatible with IPv6 then let the Chinese have the headache of maintaining the translations. If IPv9 -does- have major enhancements that the rest of the world desires, maybe you'll see it being adopted and IPv6 skipped in many locales.
... yes, 1+ Billion Chinese has a lot of sway over standards adoption, but if the standards suck the 5+ Billion of the rest of us will ignore it. If it doesn't suck and is "Right" then good for them for kickstarting adoption.
Please explain to me what body you have to license IPv* from?
Tell me again why I would need a commercial product to support IPv* when it has been in some form in free OEs for -years-?
Explain how IPv* has anything to do with "formats" when those "formats" (I'm assuming you're thinking things like video codecs, etc) are not part of the network layer?
China's IPv9 can only exist for one of 2 reasons:
1) They want more control over their own networks, perhaps by having China on IPv9 they have ways of better filtering IPv4/6 (I don't know) or maybe they suffer from the most common of all new network protocol designer's problems
2) Perhaps IPv9 has definite technical advantages over IPv4/6 that will become more obvious as adoption goes on.
It doesn't really matter
It is supply and demand
What I am saying is the goal of Evo2 is to make architectural changes to the client (as in splitting out the Evo Data Server portion, improving the UI, etc) and make sure it is stable in that iteration before going to a new development technology.
... the Evo developers want to get Evo2 stable in time for GNOME 2.8 core inclusion in a timely manner (originally the target was GNOME 2.6) and that means not doing a significant shift in the way Evolution is developed.
:)
... in my experience that depends on what you are using it for. Fast connections to an IMAP server without utilizing Evo1.4 plugins seems to work great. Start using any of the connectors and/or start working from remote (and I do have a very good broadband connection) and, well, even though Evo1.4 is the default mail client for the product I work on I am currently using Mozilla Mail for production use and Evo1.4 only for testing features.
1.5.x is the unstable testing version for Evo2
If Evo2 were to ship with GNOME 2.8 -and- start using Mono as a core technology, Evo2 would either take a lot longer to release -or- it would be initially unstable
Like I said in the parent, I haven't personally used 1.5.x so I can't vouch for the stability (though I definitely like the things I've read both on stability and features).
As for the current version (1.4.x) being unstable
My understanding is that Evolution 2.0 would -not- depend on Mono, since the goal is to revamp the client and make it stable first, but that versions beyond 2.0 would possibly begin to include Mono into the core and hence if you're planning on building a distro with Evo2 it makes sense to start getting Mono running and stable ASAP so that that is not a barrier.
... 2.8 and maybe 3.0 will likely not see a core dependency on Mono but afterwards I expect that Novell will begin moving towards a Mono base for development for GNOME and Evolution (remember that as of GNOME 2.8, Evo2 and Evo Data Server become core GNOME components).
... I can't say that since I don't know what the final answer will be on that). However, Java is becoming more viable for GNOME (and therefore Evo) development as well. My guess is were about to see Java vs. .NET in some form again. However, if Mono becomes a core of GNOME/Evo to where you can't function without it we will only have 2 choices ... include Mono or take tons of time to provide Java alternatives. I think both have advantages and disadvantages.
NOTE: I get this from an email from a Java Desktop System engineer who said he got word straight from Nat that Evo2 would not have Mono dependencies.
GNOME will probably also be in much the same way
As relates to Sun Java Desktop System (disclaimer: of which I work on in a tech marketing capacity) since obviously Sun is going to be much more interested in Java as a platform, not Mono (NOTE: I'm not saying Sun won't include a Mono platform in Java Desktop
Glass flowing is a myth.
... it's simply irregular hand-made glass.
Old glass manufacturing technics were VERY imprecise. You might end up with a pane that had a thicker edge, in which case you would naturally put it on the bottom for balance.
Or you might end up with fairly uniform edges but have an irregular surface that looked like it was "flowing" but was static. I have picture windows in my house that are about 70 years old that have this "flow" pattern and have had people remark that the liquid must be pooling
Even if glass -does- flow (see the "a" link at the beginning), math shows it would take millions of years to complete the process, meaning no glass made by man would yet show visible signs of deterioration.
And you're right, "glassy" in this case is about the physical structure of the metal, not the light transmitting/absorbing aspects though those are probably mildly affected (I imagine a glassy steel will hold a shiny polish better than a crystal steel).
Thanks, you're right ... typing faster than I was thinking (common malady). I believe the Voom birds are around 62 degrees and because of mountains/hills I can't focus below 70.
Dozens of HDTV channels over satellite? Not if you are on one of the big 2 satellite providers (DirecTV or DishNet). You'll get at most -1- dozen today (actually, with DirecTV I think it's more like a 1/2 dozen right now with plans to double that this year).
... and HMO is now -free- on standalone TiVo's.
The only way to get -dozens- of HDTV channels over satellite is via VOOM and from all reviews I've seen their channels are almost worthless except for the few that are also on DirecTV. Voom has such a small subscriber base today that I don't have much faith in them making it (plus their satellites are so far down in the southern sky that often people can point their dishes at them).
I don't have direct experience with Dish other than to know that I dislike their STB hardware so I avoid it. I don't have experience with HDTV over cable because I can't get digital cable where I live (and the analog signal goes over a couple of hundred of miles of repeaters and ghosts worse than OTA NTSC).
I completely agree with you that we need satellite and cable HDTV cards but there are 2 things that are going to stop you:
1) The satellite providers have to cooperate with you and they are NOT interested in this. Yes, I know all the arguments we would make to them to allow this but they don't buy them. Hell, go read the TiVo community forums for DirecTV users and pay attention to the Organize an HMO request thread for an example of DirecTV not paying attention to customer demand for PC convergence
2) The Cable companies do not have a unified standard (yet), hence the reason why the HDTiVo only supports satellite or OTA (for now). Until they have a standard not only agreed on but implemented it is way too fractionalized for an HDTV PC option to make sense to companies like ATI.
That 2nd point is being addressed and once you see the cable manufacturers adopt (I believe it is FCC mandated) an interoperable and compatible standard you probably will see PC options as well as an HDTiVo that handles them.
You will probably also see a large number of DirecTV/Dish subcribers moving and then see the satellite providers start dumping crap channels for HDTV channels. However I doubt you'll see a general purpose PC option for satellite HDTV viewing. MAYBE an OEMed one that includes the card reader and such but I don't think that the satellite providers are savvy enough to figure out how to make that work in a way that PC adopters would buy in to (it would probably be so crippled and expensive that we'd simply forget about it).
Having worked at a theater I can tell you of a super-secret other method ...
... call the theater (more likely than not you are calling an answering service) and tell them it is a freakin life or death situation and what movie the doctor is in.
... that would be something like 3 times out of 9,000 showings while I was on shift. Conversely out of maybe 50 theater movies since then (that was 1989, before cellphones were too prevalent) I have heard a cellphone go off at -least- 5 times.
... and I would be surprised if more than one or two of those were actually important calls.
If it is a life/death emergency that forces you to bug your doctor in the movie theater
Not kidding. It works. Does it annoy the patrons? Sure, but the -frequency- of annoyance is tiny. I think over 3 years I was on shift when a doctor got such a call thrice
3:50 versus 3:9000
The doctor, if they are on call or have deathly ill patients, has the responsibility to notify their call service or office/hospital where they will be when not at home or at work. That same doctor can use one of the many payphones that are usually at a theater or use a cellphone before and after the show to check in. There is -no- reason why cellphones must be enabled in a theater or any other similar venue for public safety.
If a Doctor feels it is not safe to be out of touch for an hour or two, then perhaps they shouldn't be doing whatever it is might take them out of range to begin with. What about camping, caving, diving, etc? Arrange for someone to cover if it is that important.
I am not saying every theater should have such shielding, but no way should they be prevented from doing it if they see fit. The compromise might be to have a sign when entering the theater that explains the situation so that people who must be contactable can notify the theater management of their location. It -does- work.
I wrote a 2 minute script (perl and wget are our friends) and let it run overnight. Their server started out really speedy, then started getting laggy so I shortened wget's timeout to 60 seconds (900 seconds? please :)
:)
... over approximately 10 hours the script iterated just under 30,000 times before getting an invite, which averaged out 50 hits per minute for me. If you assume most of the heavy hitters had a similar script (maybe, maybe not) running for the same time period where the server got 20,000,000 hits, that means 666 scripters ;)
... only 1 process at a time, it gave the server a minute to respond, and it slept for 1 second between requests. No forked processes, no running as fast as it can. Did I defeat the "feel" of the process, sure, but someone had to be expecting it because there was nothing in the HTML that made this at all difficult. This means I would guess I could have gotten closer to 1 hit per second if I'd -tried- but there didn't seem like much point.
... it is /. where my behavior is unexplainable :)
During this run the chances went from 30,000:1 to 50,000:1 to 100,000:1
Results
NOTE: I made my script relatively friendly
I want to give a HEARTY congratulations for having a server with a dynamic page that took the load like a champ. No images had to help, but it was still pumping out >5K per request at 550-600 requests per second. Not an amazing feat technically, just good planning, but appreciated. I was quite surprised to see it had made it through the night (my invite came @ 8:30am, almost exactly when I woke to the thought of "hey, wonder if I got an invite?", maybe I accidentally invoked Telepathy::Broadcast).
And before someone goes "why did you waste your time for a freakin Gmail account", I spent 5 * the time needed to write the script to write this post
If you use an IMAP client and delete a message it doesn't actually get moved to the Trash folder (at least not in most cases), it simply gets "flagged" as deleted.
... create a virtual folder based on message criteria.
The client shows it as a folder and so that is where people think it is, but in reality it is still in your inbox.
If you use Evolution's V-Folders, it is the same idea
While I don't have a Gmail account yet to compare, I would guess it is much the same thing.
I dunno, haven't tested it yet ... which is EXACTLY WHY I WANT AN ACCOUNT.
... I wanna test it. If it's better I'll switch.
I've gotten tired of Yahoo, even with the 100MB upgrade I still get a ton of SPAM.
I already have a TiVo monitoring my viewing habits, so I'm not too worried about Google seeing my email since I don't have state secrets in there anyway (and if I ever do I'll find something better than SMTP to transport them).
The big thing is it is new
nano and lpr ... who needs more?
The better question is "When will web designers break the mold of pixel size and start doing good designs with proper technologies so that pages look good on any reasonable device?".
... if I have a PDA with a 4:3 aspect ratio screen I would -love- to be able to tell the browser to scale down the images to emulate a resolution ... in the case of large 4:3 ratio resolutions you wouldn't even need to resample the image to get decent results, just display every nth pixel/row. It wouldn't look great but we might actually be able to see the page done by over-done designs.
Then again, I've been asking that question for about 7 years (94 through 97 were good years for resolution independent pages).
Make the design look good with -no- graphics and minimal tables. Then add the images to spruce it up for those devices that can view the images.
I'm not saying limit yourself to designing to text-based browsers, but there are numerous graphical browsers (PDAs, phones) that work better when the large images are turned off. I have seen many sites that do this well. On the other hand, there are sites like Bioware.com that barely load on a P3-800 with tons of RAM and a 1280x1024 display due to terrible design both with images and tables (I like bioware games, I hate their site).
There is an opportunity here for a PDA browser to help though
No no no, I own a home ... near a (small not well known) ski area ... I DEFINITELY want prices to go up :)
Hey, if Silicon Valley happens to get toasted, y'all are invited to the Boulder/Denver area. Lots of space to grow and far more stable tectonics. We've got a large number of unemployed tech workers leading to a great pool to hire from. All you folks used to biking around Cali would love it here. Oh yeah, and by 2007 we should have a BART-style rail system (we already have a great bus network).
I hear Austin might actually have a better labor pool and cheaper land, but seriously, it's HOT and not alot of outdoor activities for the geek types.
Woah pardner ... you've now stomped your own debate twice:
/.ers baboons (I'm not going to bother going back to the original to see what the first quote was) when you're still obviously a /.er
/.er ... is there one? Sure ... but by definition a stereotype doesn't define the whole. In fact, it often doesn't even describe the majority. It only describes the most obvious-to-the-outside faction. ... if ya don't like it, go away. Yeah, I bit on the flamebait again, but yeesh you are either doing it on purpose (in which case you are quite happy right now) or you are a complete idiot wasting your time here (religious zealots do it all the time to hear themselves rail at society ... you wouldn't be a Southern Baptist would you?)
... and I make a point of putting people who follow them on my friends list. However ... this is /. ... a free community forum that you don't pay squat for (well, unless you have a subscription, you don't do you?). You don't get to make up any rules ... the people who pay for the site do. The only rule you get to make up is:
/. and it annoys the everliving crap out of me, I shall not post about it, I shall simply leave as there is surely another site on the net that would welcome my cybergoth mentality.
... it might show you're not just trolling ... but I won't be replying as we've both lowered the signal:noise ratio enough for one thread.
1) calling all
2) Pointing out that there is a stereotypical
Your suggestions are all fine
* If I don't like
And go ahead and post again
Well spoken from a fellow slashdotter.
/. is like any other diverse congregation of people ... some read the article and others just listen to the person talking about the article. Lumping them altogether is insulting ... then again since you recursed yourself into the insult I guess I don't mind so much.
Troll.
That's ok, you also meant "robust" and not "roburst" ... though I kinda like that non-word :)
Because except for being twins, intelligent and not homely, they're not that attractive?
... but my google image searches, that is another thing entirely!
Hey, just being honest. I don't require the person I'm with to be drop-dead gorgeous
"some of the best spam-filtering available" has begun to rapidly decline in quality over the last few months. I used to get about a 1:1 SPAM:email ratio. Now it is closer to 6:1 and my usage patterns haven't changed.
... but apparently they do care about droves of people switching or they would have kept their meager disk allowance.
Yeah, I know it is at the core the fault of the SPAM'ers not Yahoo, but once GMail goes live I plan on subscribing to a new account on both and seeing which one does the best over WRT for SPAM. If it is Gmail I'll just hop providers.
Will they care about one person switching? No
Heh, at least you had an excuse beyond being plain clueless.
....
...
... given that we have 2 wireless ISPs I would guess there are at least 50 end-users out there (I'm one).
:)
Welcome to Nederland, Colorado
Population: 1500
# Hotspots found in a 1 hour netstumbler session with a built-in (read: not very sensitive and very directional) antenna: 21
# Hotspots total: Unknown but I would guess over 40 if you count the ones who disabled SSID broadcast and who live in the 2 divisions I didn't drive through. If I'm right, that is approximately 1 AP for every 38 people
# Hotspots found broadcasting DHCP and NAT'ing to their ISP without MAC filters and using default passwords: 4
# Wireless ISPs: 2
# Wireless ISPs accidentally giving out free bandwidth (read: completely commercially compromised) to the 4 open Hotspots: 2 (of 2)
I documented which hotspots were giving away bandwidth for free along with MAC addresses and IP addresses so that the ISPs could track them down. Question is, if the ISPs want to go after the user, is the user smart enough to even attempt to fix the problem (jeez, just disabling SSID broadcast would be a start).
This doesn't count the number of 802.11b -clients-
Intereference on 2.4GHz is definitely my biggest network woe today. I dearly miss my last address's 400' proximity to a DSL enabled CO
Bluetooth range is purposefully very short. Generally speaking more than 6' away and you're going to lose connection with most devices. Remember that it was meant to be a personal network protocol.
I'm sure with boosted signals you could broadcast -to- other Bluetooth devices over far greater distances, but don't forget that those devices have to transmit -back- to the signal source. It doesn't do much good to have a 1-way network connection (works for headphones, not for bi-directional data).
Also remember that bluetooth devices are kept low-power because they tend to be put against parts of the human body. If you look at the current 802.11b offerings, most are too strong to be in direct contact with a body part and some are coming out that are so strong they aren't legally allowed in your laptop (for instance, 300mW and 400mW PCMCIA cards for use in wireless ISP devices). Since bluetooth is usually meant for phones, and phones are meant for your ear, they have to obey the same transmission strength guidelines as the other parts of the phone.
One of the things that make 802.11* economical for hotspot usage is that a single piece of equipment can cover a fairly wide area. The number of bluetooth access points needed for the same area would be extremely costly and complicated.
I don't expect you'll see it Bluetooth access points in the same manner as WiFi. What you -might- eventually see is Bluetooth replaced in favor of low-power 802.11* or 802.16*. I could see a device that used those protocols with a low power to send to a headset and which also allowed you to go into a high-power mode where the phone was disabled (to keep you from sticking it next to your head) that allowed it to function as a full-power networking device.
Now what might be useful is a combination 802.11* and Bluetooth chipset, both utilizing the same antenna. That may have interference issues, but I know that I've seen boxes with dual 802.11b cards, so perhaps the Bluetooth and WiFi chips could work together to figure out optimal channel usage to minimize interference.
Or better yet, utilize a CTS protection mode on both devices so that only one was transmitting at the same time (your 802.11 data rate might suffer while on a continuous bluetooth headset call, but I think it would work, especially given the small amount of data that a voice broadcast requires).
I think Bluetooth was an interesting idea, but one that could be easily obsoleted by a standardize low power option for 802.11/802.16. Especially if/when the WiFi + Cellular phones ever come about.
Sorry, but I don't see a reason to carry around a portable video player unless I can see stuff from my TiVo and/or a DVD on it without having to take a few hours prep'ing/converting the files.
... HELL yes, I would go for it. But not the current generations of machines.
I realize that is a long way off, I'm not expecting it tomorrow. I'm just trying to figure out the mass market applications for this other than to have a box that does a ton of things (that it often isn't used for) while listening to my music.
Part of the reason I use a portable player (Neuros, not iPod) is to have a device that is small enough to be convenient (ok, the Neuros isn't as good an example of that as the iPod) -and- is fairly rugged. As in doesn't have a screen that I am worried about cracking or scratching.
Now if it plugged in to a DVD reader of some sort, even if over a network share to my PC, and allowed me to rip content to it for travel
If he has designs for a cellphone (common freqs from 800MHz to 1.9GHz) then this can probably apply to 2.4GHz.
For me, I don't care about smaller, I want more power from the size antenna that are already in use. I don't have a problem with the ears on my WRT54G but I sure wouldn't mind them being better/strong/faster.
Doesn't mean the appeals will die. There are any number of firms that are willing to pick up dead companies for next to nothing only to continue their legistlation in the hopes that a small portion of these investments will pay off.
I expect some version of SCO's cases will be in the system for 5+ years.
Not never, but not now. There is no pressure to lower prices if the growth is so high since it becomes obvious that cost isn't inhibiting profit.
Prices will go down when new subs taper off and old subs begin the cellular-phone-style regular service migration.