Sounds like your friend needs to take that sticky pad and write a script. Then create a big icon for the script and call it "Get Yahoo Mail, Click Here".
I have no idea if that can be done in windows. I know that it can be done with most, if not all, Linux desktop enviroments.
Linux on the desktop does not need to be "difficult". Linux remains the better option over Windows, you just have to get over being lazy. The bad news is you have to learn something new. The good news is you're gonna learn something new, and it's going to work.
So what if your friends mom can't/won't write scritps to automate her computing tasks. You do it for her for a fee (even if it's just chocolate chip cookies). You set up a Linux desktop for her once. Give her one button access to the things she wants to do and she'll be out of your hair. She damn sure won't be calling you to come fix her computer because of the daily BSOD.
"You want to be totally untainted by Evil Bill? Then you're still too close with Linux. There are similarities in desktop design, not to mention emulation layers like Wine."
That is only true depending on your CHOICE of desktop. There are quite a few desktops available for Linux/Unix that are very unlike Windows. At least you have a choice, it seems that Windows users are stuck with Explore for the most part.
As far as Wine, you don't have to run it. Hell, you don't even have to install it and Linux runs just fine.
The only way I can see that your still too close to "Evil Bill" is the memory of Xenix.
So now we hear from another economist about how the spectrum should be managed. Obviously he's the expert since the FCC has, in recent years, taken to selling spectrum for the government.
To hell with technical issues. To hell with getting the most use and re-use of spectrum. And just don't you worry about coordination with neighboring countries to provide rapid assignment of spectrum resources.
Nope, all of that seems to mean squat to the FCC. They are in it for the money. Auction it all off, that's what they say. Spectrum to the highest bidder, no matter what the bidder wants to do with it or how badly he wants to abuse the spectrum he gets.
There is no doubt in my mind that they are in it for the money. The odd thing about it is that the money goes into the general fund and the FCC's budget doesn't increase based upon how much revenue they bring in. So they still can't afford to do a decent job of enforcement with the silly rules they spew out.
Whatever. As long as they are raking in bucks to put against the public debt I guess.
I wasn't going to comment on his opinion of regulations. Oh how I wasn't going to go there. He seems to prefer some sort of anarchy.
You're right that the present framework is obsolete. I see the FCC making baby steps to find better solutions. I sit on the 700 MHz planning committe for Region 12 and view that as one of thier baby steps.
The biggest problem I see with the FCC and their present regulatory system is the lack of enforcement. Well, that and the fact that during the Clinton years they really seemed to be driven by the big money. But it's all fine and dandy to lay out the regulations laws, but if you don't have the engineers on staff to monitor and request legal action against those who don't abide......well, the regulations mean squat.
You are right, the wording is very poor. You are also correct that "ethernet" is the same as a radio system, or a telephone type system.
Regardless of media, you can divide the available bandwidth into channels. Each channel will only have so much bandwidth out of the total available (due to media selection).
Measuring the capacity of information you can communicate on those channels has very much to do with the technology used to encode/decode, transmit/receive, modulate/demodulate. The use of multiplexing or trunking technology can take advantage of idle time on each channel to make efficient use of each channel.
But repeating is simply a method to extend the range of the signal. It does nothing to increase the capacity of the available bandwidth.
Repeating is a method to relay a signal where a direct path does not exist. The idea of inserting repeaters into a path simply to reduce emission levels where a direct path does exist is not going to reduce the energy required to establish communication.
I guess if you wanted to look hard for a benefit you could say that the field strength will be less at each transmit location. Maybe that's a good thing. Certainly the transmit power and antenna system requirements will be less at each location which would make the equipment last longer and make it much smaller.
Routing would absolutely increase the efficiency of the system and make maximum use of the capacity available. I couldn't agree more. Maybe that is what the authors meant.
If so they should have been more clear in their claim. The way it reads they seem to be claiming that repeating alone will increase capacity. Repeating COMBINED with other techniques makes it so.
I agree that the concept is efficient in the case of point to point links and the use of multiple channels. But it does not increase spectrum capacity.
A given number of communication channels has a set amount of communication capacity. The act of repeating data does not, by itself, increase the amount of capacity of those channels, which is what I believed the author to claim. I can see where repeating combined with routing or multiplex techniques would increase the efficiency to maximize the use of that capacity.
Now routing would surely increase capacity, but I believe that the concept of routing would involve the use of multiple channels.
I still don't see where the authors claim that "repeating increases capacity" is possible. If the act of repeating has any effect on the capacity of a communications media I see only a negative effect.
With a store and forward type repeater you could use a simplex channel, this is true. If you can afford the delay in repeat transmission caused by the store and forward then that works well.
You still haven't increased the actual capacity of the channel. Only one device can transmit on the channel at any given time. By repeating the transmission you occupy the spectrum for a given conversation over a larger geographical area. The larger that area is the less availability of the channel for other users to engage in seperate use of the channel.
So store and forward techniques might allow you to use a single channel but they aren't going to increase channel capacity. In fact a store and forward repeating arrangement will not have any more capacity than a full duplex repeater arrangement and may even have less. Perhaps with some pretty fancy multiplexing footwork you can overcome that, but that wasn't the issue I don't believe.
I believe that your analogy mixes the concept of multiplexing with repeating. Repeating increases the range of the conversation. Multiplexing allows other conversations to take place during gaps in frequency use.
Without the use of multiplexing, the act of repeating in the manner you describe makes the conversation take longer and spreads use of the spectrum over a larger geographical area. It is true that it would be necessary to continue conversation but would hardly increase the capacity of the spectrum.
I don't understand how the use of repeaters can increase capacity. Since a repeater uses twice the bandwidth (instead of a single channel now you have an input channel and an output channel) you are using twice the spectrum as direct communications.
It would seem to me that the rate of development in technology could slow or even pause for a while and still not become "a real problem". But then maybe I don't understand.
From what I see of things we already have plenty of wonderful technology that isn't being used to its fullest. I'm curious if the real problem isn't that we aren't first taking full advantage of the technology we have now, finding more efficient and productive ways to use it.
Maybe, in a Douglas Adams sort of way, it's because we already have the answer, we just don't know what the question is. Just what is it that we're trying to accomplish? Do we know that?
I know that in the last few decades the microprocessor and memory seem to have replaced the muscle car. Bigger, faster, badder is better. It's a macho thing, sure. But what really is the point? Why is this "a real problem"?
Like I said, I'm no expert and that's why I'm asking.
For the sake of tossing ideas around tho, here is what I would assume to be more cost effective:
For in space service of things like Hubble it would seem far cheaper to dispatch a space only orbital craft from ISS. Such a craft would be far less expensive to build and operate since it would not be designed for multiple re-entry into the atmosphere, nor would it require large engines. Again, I'm no rocket science expert so it's just an assumption.
I do know, from recent NASA press releases that they have installed an airlock on the ISS which allows the ISS crew to do their own spacewalks. The do not have to rely on a shuttle for this any longer.
As for return of items to earth, the shuttle is not the only means of doing this. Soyez returns live crew to earth on a regular basis. Apollo, Genesis, and Mercury programs all used similar methods of capsule based re-entry. I've also read somewhere about baloon type technology that would work for some items but not for live crew.
Again, I plead ignorance but just assume based upon what little I know that the shuttle's method of launch and recovery is not the most efficient. From the figures I've seen on the costs of shuttle operation vs. Soyez operation it seems that single use craft are far less expensive to operate. With the possible exception of very large payload recovery, I don't understand why the things you have mentioned require the use of the shuttle instead of single use craft.
ISS is manned and orbital. Again, I'm not an expert in these matters but I would assume that most, if not all, experiments that require the shuttle for zero or low gravity could be performed on ISS.
I don't believe that I mentioned anything about giving manned spaceflight up to the Russians. I simply suggested that Soyez/Progress is a cheap and proven transportation platform that we could continue to use. They use it both in manned and unmanned flight.
By contracting with the Russians to provide transportation we would provide those people with jobs and income they need to survive. Because it would be contracted they wouldn't have the funding worries about continuing Soyez launches, it could be done on a cost plus basis. The Russian space program has been very dependable in recent decades as far as I am aware, at least as dependable as our own if not more.
If not then maybe we could buy that technology from them or license the use of it. We could then improve it ourselves and still have transportation to/from ISS and earth orbit for less than the shuttle.
My suggestion/idea/comment was that by doing this we might not need the shuttle and the cost savings from that program could be put into other areas. If manned spaceflight is needed then the money could be put into that. I just question the need for manned spaceflight in earth orbit using expensive systems.
Oh, about the nukes. I won't get into that political arguement except to say that the Soviet Union is gone and if we're going to learn to live TOGETHER on this planet it must be with cooperation. So in matters like this you just don't worry about the nukes so much and press on as if you are friends, or at least business partners.
And it's not as if we don't have many more megatons pointed in their direction.
As a former cold warrier I would have to insist that in the matter of the nukes, you are the one who is naive here.
That is my point, Soyez/Progress are fine for transporting and that's most of what needs to be done. What else is being done that really needs to be manned or done in a shuttle. I would think that the ISS could handle most of the experiments.
The arm is remote controlled, not robotic. As such it does need human control, but they are doing that from inside the spacecraft, could just as easily be done from a control room in Nebraska. I would think it would be cheaper to develop a remote piloted vehicle for repair and launch maneuvers. It certainly would improve crew safety a whole hell of a lot.
I would hope that they start by questioning the need for a shuttle to begin with. Manned orbital flight is pretty well handled with the ISS and the Russians have a cheaper, time proven method of transport to/from ISS that is pretty hard to beat.
As far as repair of orbitals, has that proven to be worth the expense? Maybe it is, especially if they use such a vehicle to do trash collection. Again, I'm no expert but I hope those who are will be considering these things.
It would seem to me that some of the would be costs of new shuttles would be better spent on upgrading the design of Soyez/Progress and making them even more efficient. The rest of the money could be better spent on other projects including unmanned deep space research or manned missions to other planets (assuming those make sense).
Oh now you've gone and done it. The crowd here obviously doesn't like big evil corporations. You can mention Sun and that's ok cuz they give supercomputing power to the Chinese and they're commies.
But now you've gone and mentioned Boeing which is not only a big corporation but a major U.S. defense contractor. Now none of these/.ers are going to want to use oo. You'll get RMS started spouting off about it too.
So let's just keep this Boeing thing under our Red Hat, shall we?
Sounds like this is a golden opportunity. Someone (Mandrake, RedHat, YOU) should sell a CD for $5 or $10 to WalMart that they can mark up and sell with the computers.
What would it have on it?
How about a simple, installs-itself-on-boot OS running the Linux kernel with support for the modem and everything in these machines built in.
Suddenly you can buy a cheap box, a cheap OS, and everything you need from WalMart. Linux then would get great exposure and look gooooood since it would be so easy for anyone to set up and get going with.
On the whole there is far more well based RMS bashing on this site than baseless RMS bashing. So skip the baseless stuff and you won't grow so weary.
I didn't spend any time at any AI lab or at MIT at all. Nor have I written anything noteable.
The primary reason that you don't see anyone lining up to hear a speech by me is that I don't give them.
You will find people lining up to listen to Rush Limbaugh and Dr. Laura. As far as I am aware neither of them attended MIT or wrote any software. Dr. M.L. King drew VERY large crowds and yet he didn't do those things either.
I was not aware of the requirement to attend MIT, work in an AI lab, or write software in order to be entitled to any sort of opinion.
At least here I can voice an opinion and do so without having to post anonymously.
It's exactly because he is at an extreme whacko end of the spectrum that it is shocking to think that such a radical could be put into a position of power.
Relax, it's all just in fun. Nobody takes any of this crap seriously.
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds like your friend needs to take that sticky pad and write a script. Then create a big icon for the script and call it "Get Yahoo Mail, Click Here".
I have no idea if that can be done in windows. I know that it can be done with most, if not all, Linux desktop enviroments.
Linux on the desktop does not need to be "difficult". Linux remains the better option over Windows, you just have to get over being lazy. The bad news is you have to learn something new. The good news is you're gonna learn something new, and it's going to work.
So what if your friends mom can't/won't write scritps to automate her computing tasks. You do it for her for a fee (even if it's just chocolate chip cookies). You set up a Linux desktop for her once. Give her one button access to the things she wants to do and she'll be out of your hair. She damn sure won't be calling you to come fix her computer because of the daily BSOD.
This looks to be one more way to divide what's left of the country.
"You want to be totally untainted by Evil Bill? Then you're still too close with Linux. There are similarities in desktop design, not to mention emulation layers like Wine."
That is only true depending on your CHOICE of desktop. There are quite a few desktops available for Linux/Unix that are very unlike Windows. At least you have a choice, it seems that Windows users are stuck with Explore for the most part.
As far as Wine, you don't have to run it. Hell, you don't even have to install it and Linux runs just fine.
The only way I can see that your still too close to "Evil Bill" is the memory of Xenix.
These guys were trying to cause a nuclear or enviromental accident? Why? What the hell is the point of that?!?!
So now we hear from another economist about how the spectrum should be managed. Obviously he's the expert since the FCC has, in recent years, taken to selling spectrum for the government.
To hell with technical issues. To hell with getting the most use and re-use of spectrum. And just don't you worry about coordination with neighboring countries to provide rapid assignment of spectrum resources.
Nope, all of that seems to mean squat to the FCC. They are in it for the money. Auction it all off, that's what they say. Spectrum to the highest bidder, no matter what the bidder wants to do with it or how badly he wants to abuse the spectrum he gets.
There is no doubt in my mind that they are in it for the money. The odd thing about it is that the money goes into the general fund and the FCC's budget doesn't increase based upon how much revenue they bring in. So they still can't afford to do a decent job of enforcement with the silly rules they spew out.
Whatever. As long as they are raking in bucks to put against the public debt I guess.
Have you ever met a wealthy economist?
If their so damn smart about money, how come they aren't rolling in it themselves?
Obviously these were created by someone who was a serious Douglas Adams fan.
I wasn't going to comment on his opinion of regulations. Oh how I wasn't going to go there. He seems to prefer some sort of anarchy.
You're right that the present framework is obsolete. I see the FCC making baby steps to find better solutions. I sit on the 700 MHz planning committe for Region 12 and view that as one of thier baby steps.
The biggest problem I see with the FCC and their present regulatory system is the lack of enforcement. Well, that and the fact that during the Clinton years they really seemed to be driven by the big money. But it's all fine and dandy to lay out the regulations laws, but if you don't have the engineers on staff to monitor and request legal action against those who don't abide......well, the regulations mean squat.
You are right, the wording is very poor. You are also correct that "ethernet" is the same as a radio system, or a telephone type system.
Regardless of media, you can divide the available bandwidth into channels. Each channel will only have so much bandwidth out of the total available (due to media selection).
Measuring the capacity of information you can communicate on those channels has very much to do with the technology used to encode/decode, transmit/receive, modulate/demodulate. The use of multiplexing or trunking technology can take advantage of idle time on each channel to make efficient use of each channel.
But repeating is simply a method to extend the range of the signal. It does nothing to increase the capacity of the available bandwidth.
Repeating is a method to relay a signal where a direct path does not exist. The idea of inserting repeaters into a path simply to reduce emission levels where a direct path does exist is not going to reduce the energy required to establish communication.
I guess if you wanted to look hard for a benefit you could say that the field strength will be less at each transmit location. Maybe that's a good thing. Certainly the transmit power and antenna system requirements will be less at each location which would make the equipment last longer and make it much smaller.
But actually reduce the energy? Come on!
Routing would absolutely increase the efficiency of the system and make maximum use of the capacity available. I couldn't agree more. Maybe that is what the authors meant.
If so they should have been more clear in their claim. The way it reads they seem to be claiming that repeating alone will increase capacity. Repeating COMBINED with other techniques makes it so.
I agree that the concept is efficient in the case of point to point links and the use of multiple channels. But it does not increase spectrum capacity.
A given number of communication channels has a set amount of communication capacity. The act of repeating data does not, by itself, increase the amount of capacity of those channels, which is what I believed the author to claim. I can see where repeating combined with routing or multiplex techniques would increase the efficiency to maximize the use of that capacity.
Now routing would surely increase capacity, but I believe that the concept of routing would involve the use of multiple channels.
I still don't see where the authors claim that "repeating increases capacity" is possible. If the act of repeating has any effect on the capacity of a communications media I see only a negative effect.
With a store and forward type repeater you could use a simplex channel, this is true. If you can afford the delay in repeat transmission caused by the store and forward then that works well.
You still haven't increased the actual capacity of the channel. Only one device can transmit on the channel at any given time. By repeating the transmission you occupy the spectrum for a given conversation over a larger geographical area. The larger that area is the less availability of the channel for other users to engage in seperate use of the channel.
So store and forward techniques might allow you to use a single channel but they aren't going to increase channel capacity. In fact a store and forward repeating arrangement will not have any more capacity than a full duplex repeater arrangement and may even have less. Perhaps with some pretty fancy multiplexing footwork you can overcome that, but that wasn't the issue I don't believe.
I believe that your analogy mixes the concept of multiplexing with repeating. Repeating increases the range of the conversation. Multiplexing allows other conversations to take place during gaps in frequency use.
Without the use of multiplexing, the act of repeating in the manner you describe makes the conversation take longer and spreads use of the spectrum over a larger geographical area. It is true that it would be necessary to continue conversation but would hardly increase the capacity of the spectrum.
I don't understand how the use of repeaters can increase capacity. Since a repeater uses twice the bandwidth (instead of a single channel now you have an input channel and an output channel) you are using twice the spectrum as direct communications.
Repeaters increase range. That is all they do.
Why does this become "a real problem"?
It would seem to me that the rate of development in technology could slow or even pause for a while and still not become "a real problem". But then maybe I don't understand.
From what I see of things we already have plenty of wonderful technology that isn't being used to its fullest. I'm curious if the real problem isn't that we aren't first taking full advantage of the technology we have now, finding more efficient and productive ways to use it.
Maybe, in a Douglas Adams sort of way, it's because we already have the answer, we just don't know what the question is. Just what is it that we're trying to accomplish? Do we know that?
I know that in the last few decades the microprocessor and memory seem to have replaced the muscle car. Bigger, faster, badder is better. It's a macho thing, sure. But what really is the point? Why is this "a real problem"?
Like I said, I'm no expert and that's why I'm asking.
For the sake of tossing ideas around tho, here is what I would assume to be more cost effective:
For in space service of things like Hubble it would seem far cheaper to dispatch a space only orbital craft from ISS. Such a craft would be far less expensive to build and operate since it would not be designed for multiple re-entry into the atmosphere, nor would it require large engines. Again, I'm no rocket science expert so it's just an assumption.
I do know, from recent NASA press releases that they have installed an airlock on the ISS which allows the ISS crew to do their own spacewalks. The do not have to rely on a shuttle for this any longer.
As for return of items to earth, the shuttle is not the only means of doing this. Soyez returns live crew to earth on a regular basis. Apollo, Genesis, and Mercury programs all used similar methods of capsule based re-entry. I've also read somewhere about baloon type technology that would work for some items but not for live crew.
Again, I plead ignorance but just assume based upon what little I know that the shuttle's method of launch and recovery is not the most efficient. From the figures I've seen on the costs of shuttle operation vs. Soyez operation it seems that single use craft are far less expensive to operate. With the possible exception of very large payload recovery, I don't understand why the things you have mentioned require the use of the shuttle instead of single use craft.
ISS is manned and orbital. Again, I'm not an expert in these matters but I would assume that most, if not all, experiments that require the shuttle for zero or low gravity could be performed on ISS.
I don't believe that I mentioned anything about giving manned spaceflight up to the Russians. I simply suggested that Soyez/Progress is a cheap and proven transportation platform that we could continue to use. They use it both in manned and unmanned flight.
By contracting with the Russians to provide transportation we would provide those people with jobs and income they need to survive. Because it would be contracted they wouldn't have the funding worries about continuing Soyez launches, it could be done on a cost plus basis. The Russian space program has been very dependable in recent decades as far as I am aware, at least as dependable as our own if not more.
If not then maybe we could buy that technology from them or license the use of it. We could then improve it ourselves and still have transportation to/from ISS and earth orbit for less than the shuttle.
My suggestion/idea/comment was that by doing this we might not need the shuttle and the cost savings from that program could be put into other areas. If manned spaceflight is needed then the money could be put into that. I just question the need for manned spaceflight in earth orbit using expensive systems.
Oh, about the nukes. I won't get into that political arguement except to say that the Soviet Union is gone and if we're going to learn to live TOGETHER on this planet it must be with cooperation. So in matters like this you just don't worry about the nukes so much and press on as if you are friends, or at least business partners.
And it's not as if we don't have many more megatons pointed in their direction.
As a former cold warrier I would have to insist that in the matter of the nukes, you are the one who is naive here.
That is my point, Soyez/Progress are fine for transporting and that's most of what needs to be done. What else is being done that really needs to be manned or done in a shuttle. I would think that the ISS could handle most of the experiments.
The arm is remote controlled, not robotic. As such it does need human control, but they are doing that from inside the spacecraft, could just as easily be done from a control room in Nebraska. I would think it would be cheaper to develop a remote piloted vehicle for repair and launch maneuvers. It certainly would improve crew safety a whole hell of a lot.
Not that I'm an expert by any means but...
I would hope that they start by questioning the need for a shuttle to begin with. Manned orbital flight is pretty well handled with the ISS and the Russians have a cheaper, time proven method of transport to/from ISS that is pretty hard to beat.
As far as repair of orbitals, has that proven to be worth the expense? Maybe it is, especially if they use such a vehicle to do trash collection. Again, I'm no expert but I hope those who are will be considering these things.
It would seem to me that some of the would be costs of new shuttles would be better spent on upgrading the design of Soyez/Progress and making them even more efficient. The rest of the money could be better spent on other projects including unmanned deep space research or manned missions to other planets (assuming those make sense).
Oh now you've gone and done it. The crowd here obviously doesn't like big evil corporations. You can mention Sun and that's ok cuz they give supercomputing power to the Chinese and they're commies.
/.ers are going to want to use oo. You'll get RMS started spouting off about it too.
But now you've gone and mentioned Boeing which is not only a big corporation but a major U.S. defense contractor. Now none of these
So let's just keep this Boeing thing under our Red Hat, shall we?
Sounds like this is a golden opportunity. Someone (Mandrake, RedHat, YOU) should sell a CD for $5 or $10 to WalMart that they can mark up and sell with the computers.
What would it have on it?
How about a simple, installs-itself-on-boot OS running the Linux kernel with support for the modem and everything in these machines built in.
Suddenly you can buy a cheap box, a cheap OS, and everything you need from WalMart. Linux then would get great exposure and look gooooood since it would be so easy for anyone to set up and get going with.
On the whole there is far more well based RMS bashing on this site than baseless RMS bashing. So skip the baseless stuff and you won't grow so weary.
I didn't spend any time at any AI lab or at MIT at all. Nor have I written anything noteable.
The primary reason that you don't see anyone lining up to hear a speech by me is that I don't give them.
You will find people lining up to listen to Rush Limbaugh and Dr. Laura. As far as I am aware neither of them attended MIT or wrote any software. Dr. M.L. King drew VERY large crowds and yet he didn't do those things either.
I was not aware of the requirement to attend MIT, work in an AI lab, or write software in order to be entitled to any sort of opinion.
At least here I can voice an opinion and do so without having to post anonymously.
Ok, I guess you missed the point of the sarcasm.
It's exactly because he is at an extreme whacko end of the spectrum that it is shocking to think that such a radical could be put into a position of power.
Relax, it's all just in fun. Nobody takes any of this crap seriously.