Like Ian Murdock says, Linux distributions are comprised of many different software packages, all contributing to a working whole. I think this is why Gentoo is doing so well. I'll be the first to admit that Gentoo has been difficult to set up. Because I'm not a distro maker, my box doesn't have the slick polish of Lindows or Red Hat. On the other hand, now that I am set up, Portage (Gentoo's package manager) is so flexible, powerful, and up-to-date that all of the software I care about is as fresh as CVS and the software I don't care about is just not installed. To me, it doesn't even make sense to put a version number on Gentoo, because it is always changing, and always current.
would anyone connect a Samba server directly to the internet anyway? This is only an exploit of stupidity, of which there are many.
You're really missing the point. Many universities (like the one I attend) use Samba to provide network file serving to the campus, and those servers definitely aren't connected directly to the internet. The NetBios ports are blocked at the firewall anyway, to protect students on campus with blank Administrator passwords. The problem is that there are 20,000 different people with access to these servers, both administrative and student, and you really can't trust all of them not to try to r00t your b0>.
You need 6-7W for the backlight if you're using a CCFL (cold cathode flourescent lamp) to light the LCD, and then only for laptop screens. PDAs (and the new Gameboy Advance SP) use white LEDs, which run at low voltages and draw current on the order of milliamps, not amps.
There are two misconceptions being propagated in the comments today-
1. SVCD is just like VCD: low-res MPEG-1. 2. DivX is feasible for a free Tivo-clone.
Here's the truth - 1. SVCD is glorious 480x480 MPEG-2, not 320x240 MPEG-1. You can fit an average of 45 minutes per disc, enough for a 1-hour TV show without ads. 2. DivX is incredibly CPU-intensive to encode, and relatively CPU-intensive to decode. divx.com does not currently offer a Linux version of the encoder. In addition, good luck going from NTSC to fullframe, fullmotion DivX on anything but the fastest PCs.
Patent Infringement?
on
3D LCD Display
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Dimension Technologies makes products which, by the looks of their technology, are identical to Sharp's "new" breakthrough. DTI's made their first display with this technique years ago, and claims to have several patents.
Can anyone show how Sharp is not infringing on DTI's patents?
The front page of 3dWM's website asks, "Why Not?" The reason not to is given by their own promotional material. They note that the command line is 1-D, the desktop is 2-D, and their product is 3-D. Well, not quite. It's still being displayed on a 2-D device (a monitor), and it's still controlled and manipulated by a 2-D device (a mouse). 3-D user interface paradigms hold promise when the parts that interface with the user are actually 3-D (think: volumetric displays; hand-mounted, motion-sensing pointing devices). Otherwise, getting things done becomes more difficult and less intuitive.
So how do they possibly justify asking $20000 just to look at the low-resolution images coming out of this ovoid?
From their FAQ:
" 10Q. What function does the RAPID(TM) software perform?
10A. After the patient returns the Given® Data Recorder to the physician and the data has been downloaded from the recorder to the RAPID(TM) Workstation, Given's proprietary RAPID(TM) software performs advanced image and data processing on the video and data. It transforms them into a video that may be viewed and reviewed by the physician offline at a rate faster or slower than real-time."
You've got to forgive me for being skeptical. Image sequencing and processing? Here's a link to a screenshot of their software:
http://www.givenimaging.com/usa/product.asp?x=4&y= 1
Yup, that's either Win2k or WinME. On x86 hardware. Perhaps there's specialized hardware for downloading the data, but it can't be that complicated. And the total cost of the hardware can't be more than $1000, not to mention that most doctor's offices don't need another Wintel box.
The only reason I can imagine for forcing you to buy an entire Windows workstation just to look at pictures with a pretty front-end is so that they can recoup some of the development costs involved in making the pill and the costs of running clinical trials.
Slashdot Mirror
You like my watch? It's #135 on the Top 500 Supercomputers chart.
Like Ian Murdock says, Linux distributions are comprised of many different software packages, all contributing to a working whole. I think this is why Gentoo is doing so well.
I'll be the first to admit that Gentoo has been difficult to set up. Because I'm not a distro maker, my box doesn't have the slick polish of Lindows or Red Hat. On the other hand, now that I am set up, Portage (Gentoo's package manager) is so flexible, powerful, and up-to-date that all of the software I care about is as fresh as CVS and the software I don't care about is just not installed.
To me, it doesn't even make sense to put a version number on Gentoo, because it is always changing, and always current.
IANAGE.
The problem is that there are 20,000 different people with access to these servers, both administrative and student, and you really can't trust all of them not to try to r00t your b0>.
You need 6-7W for the backlight if you're using a CCFL (cold cathode flourescent lamp) to light the LCD, and then only for laptop screens. PDAs (and the new Gameboy Advance SP) use white LEDs, which run at low voltages and draw current on the order of milliamps, not amps.
There are two misconceptions being propagated in
the comments today-
1. SVCD is just like VCD: low-res MPEG-1.
2. DivX is feasible for a free Tivo-clone.
Here's the truth -
1. SVCD is glorious 480x480 MPEG-2, not 320x240
MPEG-1. You can fit an average of 45 minutes per
disc, enough for a 1-hour TV show without ads.
2. DivX is incredibly CPU-intensive to encode,
and relatively CPU-intensive to decode. divx.com
does not currently offer a Linux version of the
encoder. In addition, good luck going from
NTSC to fullframe, fullmotion DivX on anything
but the fastest PCs.
Dimension Technologies makes products which, by the looks of their technology, are identical to Sharp's "new" breakthrough. DTI's made their first display with this technique years ago, and claims to have several patents. Can anyone show how Sharp is not infringing on DTI's patents?
I bet the Department of Labor just wishes they were as successful as this "unemployed" guy.
The front page of 3dWM's website asks, "Why Not?" The reason not to is given by their own promotional material. They note that the command line is 1-D, the desktop is 2-D, and their product is 3-D. Well, not quite. It's still being displayed on a 2-D device (a monitor), and it's still controlled and manipulated by a 2-D device (a mouse). 3-D user interface paradigms hold promise when the parts that interface with the user are actually 3-D (think: volumetric displays; hand-mounted, motion-sensing pointing devices). Otherwise, getting things done becomes more difficult and less intuitive.
So how do they possibly justify asking $20000 just to look at the low-resolution images coming out of this ovoid?
= 1
From their FAQ:
" 10Q. What function does the RAPID(TM) software perform?
10A. After the patient returns the Given® Data Recorder to the physician and the data has been downloaded from the recorder to the RAPID(TM) Workstation, Given's proprietary RAPID(TM) software performs advanced image and data processing on the video and data. It transforms them into a video that may be viewed and reviewed by the physician offline at a rate faster or slower than real-time."
You've got to forgive me for being skeptical. Image sequencing and processing? Here's a link to a screenshot of their software: http://www.givenimaging.com/usa/product.asp?x=4&y
Yup, that's either Win2k or WinME. On x86 hardware. Perhaps there's specialized hardware for downloading the data, but it can't be that complicated. And the total cost of the hardware can't be more than $1000, not to mention that most doctor's offices don't need another Wintel box.
The only reason I can imagine for forcing you to buy an entire Windows workstation just to look at pictures with a pretty front-end is so that they can recoup some of the development costs involved in making the pill and the costs of running clinical trials.
$20000 still seems pretty extravagent.