The OS X kernel is very modular. I think you're confusing "modular" and "microkernel" reading the rest of what you write about the kernel.
The reason OS X's kernel, XNU, isn't a microkernel isn't to do with it being unmodular. It's that the kernel doesn't fully protect modules from one another. This is similar to Linux, though Linux's "modules" were always a little second-class compared to kernels designed with a modular philosophy to begin with.
OS X's GUI is pretty modular too. It's split along similar lines to that of the average X11 system, right down to there being many, incompatable, widget libraries though Apple's keen on trying to have third parties overlay their libraries on the top of one of the existing Cocoa or Carbon APIs.
You wouldn't want to rewrite CoreGraphics and the WindowServer, because the entire collection is "owned" by Apple and therefore you risk treading on the toes of others without many advantages, but modular it is.
Solaris probably stands a better chance today than it did. The past-tense was about why it hasn't succeeded in the context of the article (eg why Windows "won" against "Unix" before GNU/Linux) In the time frame being talked about, it was tied to Sun hardware, and so its success depended on Sun hardware sales, which were, for the most part, workstation and server oriented.
1. Most Unix operating systems ran on proprietary hardware only. NT could be installed on cheap hardware you could buy from a store.
2. The exception was SCO Unix. But SCO treated it exclusively as a high-end product, so it didn't end up on desktops.
3. No serious push was made to put Unix on the desktop. As a result, Microsoft was able to sell NT as an operating system that the majority of system administrators were familiar with, as opposed to Unix where almost nobody had it on their desktops.
If these issues had been knocked on the head, Unix might have stood a chance. As for "rival" versions all making different decisions, who gives a crap? So "Unix" wasn't one operating system, but several: if it was five different operating systems, then it had five chances to be successful. Any one of them could have succeeded and changed the market. None of them did, not because they were rivals, but because they all had at least one major flaw as documented above:
AIX might have been successful had it been available for x86 and with low-cost desktop versions available that were properly pushed.
Solaris might have been successful had it been available for x86 (before Linux) and with low-cost desktop versions available that were properly pushed.
HPUX might have been successful had it been available for x86 and with low-cost desktop versions available that were properly pushed.
DEC Tru64 might have been successful had it been available for x86 and with low-cost desktop versions available that were properly pushed.
Whether, of course, it would have been capable of being properly pushed, given Microsoft's stranglehold on the desktop market in the early nineties, is open to question.
What the summary documents is a nonsense and ignores the real issues. Arguing that AUX didn't succeed because it competed with Solaris would be like arguing MSDOS didn't succeed because it competed with CP/M. The fact all of these operating systems shared a brandname does not mean they didn't independently fail. They may have failed for the same reasons, but they didn't fail because they were all slightly different yet had a brandname and some code in common. That's ridiculous.
If you can't believe that, if you believe that no one would behave as I do, if you believe you would never buy what you'd already burned for free, then perhaps you should examine your own honesty.
I'm not really sure what tempted you to write the crack-addled diatribe, but for what it's worth:
1. Yes, I believe a significant number of people given the opportunity to just record and archive with little intervention on their part will do so in preference to buying DVD sets of TV shows that have been freely broadcast. The fact you wouldn't is neither here nor there.
2. I don't believe that recording and archiving TV shows that are being broadcast for free is in any way immoral or "dishonest". I have major problems with people who stick stuff without authorization from the copyright holder on P2P networks or download it in preference to buying it, I have major problems with the "morality" of most Slashdotters I read who will justify any "cool technology" that gives them something for free that they'd otherwise pay for regardless of whether it actually damages the people who create the things that they take. However, in this specific instance, making a copy of something that's output for free, I don't see any moral objection whatsoever. I'd sincerely like to hear why you think someone who records a TV program in preference to buying the DVD set is "dishonest".
Unfortunately, you're probably wrong. The Betamax decision stated:
In summary, those findings reveal that the average member of the public uses a VTR principally to record a program he cannot view as it is being televised and then to watch it once at a later time. This practice, known as "time-shifting," enlarges the television viewing audience. For that reason, a significant amount of television programming may be used in this manner without objection from the owners of the copyrights on the programs. For the same reason, even the two respondents in this case, who do assert objections to time-shifting in this litigation, were unable to prove that the practice has impaired the commercial value of their copyrights or has created any likelihood of future harm.
In other words: unlimited time shifting and space shifting was fine in 1984 because it didn't encroach upon content producer's ability to make money from their products. Not only that, but some content producers didn't object to time shifting, therefore Sony making a generic product that did that was legal because there were clearly legal uses.
Roll forward to today, and things have changed fairly radically. The technology exists now to stream individual video programs. DVD sales now encompass all types of visual content. Cable companies make money from "video on demand". Further, it is easy to create, as TiVo has, restrictions that take into account cooperating content producer's wishes. As such, a generic device that just space shifts and time shifts could concievably reduce the commercial value of a product.
For example: I might be tempted to buy, on DVD, the complete season of "One Day To Defeat The Terrorists By Whispering Everything", the new hit Fox show, if I missed various episodes. Fox might release the DVD set with that in mind. However, if one can simply program their DVR to record every single show, they're not likely to buy it, especially if they can transfer the show to tape or DVD-R afterwards. Thus, one of the measures SCOTUS used in making the Betamax decision simply isn't true any more, as technology has improved.
Whether Betamax would get overturned is something for the lawyers to answer. But if I were TiVo, I wouldn't rely upon the Betamax decision to protect myself from potential copyright violation suits, especially in an environment in which other technologies which have tried to rely upon the space-shifting and "Substantially legal uses" defenses, such as Peer to Peer networks, have currently not won the support of the courts. Specifically, the supreme court's ruling has been over-simplified by many of its enthusiasts: it wasn't "Time and space shifting are human rights, man!", it was "Because there's no way today, in 1984, that this technology could reduce revenues for content producers, amongst other things, it's fair use, right now."
What we actually need, rather than this rather shakey Supreme Court ruling, is actual legislation that enshrines certain things people do with content into law. Of course, with half the advocates of this type of thing thinking that copying someone else's song to millions of anonymous strangers is "Fair use", it's going to be hard getting a consensus on what those rights should be, and to ensure Congress actually has something legitimate that doesn't actively damage artists at the end of the process.
Nonsense, this is just more evidence that UMDs are really taking off!
(Isn't that Sony's comment about everything these days? "We've managed to sell ten UMD disks to the five people who bought PSPs! That's 200% market penetration!", "We've sold more UMD copies of last year's blockbuster than the poorest selling DVD sold when DVDs came out! Therefore they're successful!", "Three new people have bought PSPs! This proves UMDs are taking off!", "We've had to sell the Vaio line to Amstrad, because otherwise we just wouldn't have the production resources to make the sell-out UMD systems!", "People aren't buying mini-discs any more. Isn't it obvious? They want UMDs instead!", "We just had a bunch of UMDs returned! This means people are going out there and buying them!")
In all seriousness, this sucks if you're working for Sony, and I hope the poor bastards directly affected by this are able to find work quickly.
Which means you're getting a double dose of therapy if you have a Slashdot journal I guess...
Personally, I write my journal for myself. It's nice to be able to rant about things that bother me "in public"; kind of wierd when people start talking about something I've written though.
Actually, no! Like I'd guess most people, I don't have backups of my home areas. While that's remiss of me, it's also perfectly normal - there's not enough hours in the day to be that anal about my own data. Most people I know are the same way. However, my operating system is completely "backed up" on the install disk it arrived on.
If it's a choice between a corrupted OS or my files being corrupted, give me the former any time.
I think that first sentence was supposed to be "That's not quite true" or "That's not exactly true" or something.
If it were Troll Tuesday, I'd flame myself for it or something, but it isn't Troll Tuesday.
Apparently I still have a minute to kill. Man you should have seen the car accident I was nearly in an hour or so ago. Some idiot in a white something-or-other (VW I think) decided not to look as she turned into the road I was on. We both slammed on the brakes. Heart goes pound-pound-pound. Thankfully neither of us was hurt.
That's not the true. Sure, placing the binary in a directory will not cause it to run straight away, but replacing a binary that runs automatically (or just ensuring the correct files are in/etc/rc.d or equivalent) will mean it'll run on the occurance of some event.
As a basic example, replacing init with something malicious would be a bad thing. Your evil init will eventually be run the next time the user reboots. Which is a good argument for 24/7 computing I guess, but that's not that popular an idea.
The artists get advances, and then the advance and some costs are charged against future royalties. Some costs are paid by the artists themselves, out of the advance, and this usually means the artists do not end up with much at the end of the process, but that's not the same as suggesting they never receive any money. The advances some from the record companies.
If what you had said was remotely true, the only music groups in existance would be composed of people independently wealthy who can afford the $50,000-$100,000 costs involved in producing a recording.
Artists get maltreated, but the notion that they never receive any money whatsoever from record companies and have to pay for studio time and production costs out of their life savings is so ridiculous I wonder what kind of crack you're on.
Well, yeah. The Russian Mafia certainly have fewer start-up costs involved in the production of music, and they can always supplement their income from protection rackets, "borrowing" the appropriate equipment, etc. Essentially, for them, it's a matter of buying (or borrowing) a $10 CD, and ripping it, and then running the web servers.
iTunes on the other hand has to pay record producers rather than buy a one-off $10 CD. Those record producers have to spend large amounts of money on studios, recording equipment, engineers, and, well, artists too. And Steve Jobs can't just "borrow" money from the local convenience store if he runs into problems.
I'm sure there's stuff to learn from AllOfMP3 as there is any music service. Sources of funding, and hence pricing decisions, however, are not one of them.
Want to actually challenge some facts rather than attack a rather crude simplification of my point? I own neither gadget, and am not affiliated with either group.
The PSP is expensive. The DS had a problem with a temporary shortage of games, the PSP still has a problem with such a shortage. Sony is trumpetting, and Slashdot dutifully repeating as fact, that it's a success because buyers are willing to stump up for UMD disks, when in fact it's clear that they're only willing to because PSP sales, ultimately, are limited to reasonably well-off gadget enthusiasts (if the PSP was priced at a level that made it likely it'd sell to all groups, and if there were actually games available so PSP owners didn't feel like their devices were expensive, overpriced, useless, bricks, you wouldn't expect UMD sales, as a proportion of PSP sales, to be particularly high.)
Sorry it's not good for Sony, but it's, well, not good for Sony. Like I said, Apple will learn some lessons from the device's failures, if they have any sense.
I predict that a year from now, the PSP will no longer exist in its present form. It might be half the price, it might be built in to a mobile phone or something, or it might simply be taken off the market. Planted stories like the one we're responding to may give the execs warm fuzzies and a sense that they might not actually get fired, but take a step back, and it doesn't appear to be a device with any future.
I suspect he was talking about the deal with Xenu. Now, he's still wrong, because Google essentially did literally what was asked of them while ensuring that CoS's legal threat was toothless - they removed the site requested, and included a link at the bottom of the search results reporting this fact...
...a link that tells you what website was removed.
Google can't be above the law, but they can, at least, render dumb laws useless, and that's what they did.
I just wanted to make sure the story was accessable without eagle eyed moderators having to plow through all the AC posts, wasting mod points on getting something to +2 when it could be +2 from the beginning. How is that "bad"? At least I'm not like 90% of people who post mirrors who either post links to inaccessable-behind-corporate-firewalls "NYUD" links or who post it with some NSFW joke at the expense of the people who run this website.
And I asked people not to mod me up. Only a troll like you could claim that's bad.
This is the most blatant example of karma whoring I've seen in a long time, right down to the comment encouraging people not to mod it up to make it look like the author's intentions are honourable.
If you're going to post mirrors, do it anonymously. People like the parent are just trying to get karma by posting stuff that's probably widely available anyway. This kind of thing needs to be stamped upon before it gets out of control.
A number of people are commenting that they can't see the FAQ. Here's a copy. None of the other pages work for me. Maybe those who are complaining just haven't tried the FAQ, I don't know, but it might get pulled anyway, so here it is:
Do NOT mod this up (unless it's modded down, obviously.) This is being posted at +2. It will be seen by all but the most selective Slashdotters. Use your mod points for something useful.
What is Google Secure Access?
Google Secure Access is a downloadable client application that allows users to establish a more secure
WiFi connection.
Why would I want to download and install Google Secure Access?
Google Secure Access allows you to establish a more secure connection while using Google WiFi.
By using Google Secure Access, your internet traffic will be encrypted, preventing others from viewing the information you transmit.
Does Google Secure Access connect to a VPN server?
Yes, Google Secure Access connects to Google's VPN ("Virtual Private Network") server provided for this service.
Why did Google develop Google Secure Access?
One of our engineers recognized that secure WiFi was virtually non-existent at most locations.
As a result, he used his 20% project time to begin an initiative to offer users more secure WiFi access.
Google Secure Access is the result of this endeavor.
What sort of information does Google have access to?
If you choose to use Google Secure Access, your internet traffic will be encrypted and sent through Google's
servers to the Internet. The data that is received will then be encrypted and sent back through our servers to your computer.
Your privacy is important to us, we strongly encourage you to read our Privacy Policy to be
fully informed about how your privacy is protected.
Is there a fee for using Google Secure Access?
No, Google Secure Access is free.
Where can I go to download Google Secure Access?
The program can currently be downloaded at certain Google WiFi locations in the San Francisco Bay Area.
When I install Google Secure Access, why does
it ask if I also want to install the Google Toolbar?
We've included the option to install the Google Toolbar because
it improves your browsing experience.
Can I uninstall Google Secure Access?
Yes. You can uninstall Google Secure Access by simply running the Uninstall program. This can be found
by clicking on Start Menu, Programs, Google Secure Access, and then choosing Uninstall.
How do I make my connection even more secure?
You can make your connection even more secure by using a software firewall. Windows XP
users with Service Pack 2 can find it by clicking on Start, Control Panel, and then choosing Windows Firewall.
Will my corporate VPN still work?
Yes. You can connect to your corporate VPN while running Google Secure Access.
I have configured Google Secure Access to connect automatically, but it's not working.
What's going on?
Certain wireless LAN management utilities and older wireless LAN adapter drivers prevent Google Secure Access
from detecting that you're connected to the Google WiFi network. In this case it will not connect automatically, and you should connect
manually to ensure the privacy and security of your network traffic.
Will Google Secure Access work at other locations?
While Google Secure Access should work, we have not tested it at other locations.
Why is Google Secure Access a beta product?
Google Secure Access is a new product that is only available at
certain locations in the San Francisco Bay Area. We are constantly working to improve this product.
I think it says a lot that Sony's having to constantly plant stories in the press about how the PSP is finally picking up, how UMDs are finally picking up, etc.
There were some minor problems with the DS initially because of a temporary shortage of games, but everyone knew the problems were temporary and the thing ended up selling itself. The PSP just doesn't have that. It's overpriced, largely because it supports a bunch of features that are redundant and poorly thought out.
The PSP really has two roles: it's for rich gadget enthusiasts to show they have the latest thing, and it's a free lesson for Apple lest it be considering building the fabled video iPod on how not to market portable video. Neither of these includes the magic words "profit center for Sony"
Why is the "UMD" taking off? Because people who have PSPs who don't necessarily have a DVD player, or simply don't care about the prices (the PSP is overpriced to begin with, so it's reasonable to assume a large proportion of its users are like this) are going to try the format anyway. This is predictable but it's also important to point out that just because UMD sales appear to be high in proportion to PSP sales, doesn't mean that UMD is a successful format or every going to be one.
Slashdot could do us a few favours by not publishing every single story about how UMD disks are "taking off". They're puff pieces from a desperate Sony marketing department. Slashdot and the gamer rags they link to are being played.
I run an SMTP server at home so I can receive email and deal with spam in an effective way. Like many people, I set up a domain, and set up an email address for each entity I do business with. If that entity passes on the email address to spammers, I close off that means of communication.
If everyone did the same thing, there'd be no spam. The fact I am doing this takes the load off my ISP who'd otherwise have to deal with any spam that would otherwise be sent to me on their own SMTP servers. Which they'd probably do badly.
So take your stupid, dumbass, "anti-spam" idea of blocking people from doing perfectly legitimate things with their connections, and stick it right up your arse. Spammers hurt the internet. Anti-spammers, however, are killing it.
"Hydrogen fuel" as a term tends to have two definitions, "pure hydrogen fuel" (which, I agree, isn't necessarily the best way of fueling vehicles, though it's not a bad way either and it certainly results in the best in-city polution as you'd get steam and nothing else coming out of your exhaust pipe) and "packaged hydrogen", which would include compounds like those you mention. Really, it's a matter of what's most convenient. If we can most efficiently convert electricity into ethanol, then that may well be the best form to use.
Wireless will continue to improve indefinitely, and is likely to retain a degree of backward compatability. Like any developing technology, you should ask yourself what's going to be useful to you for the next few years, and adopt it.
If you had made this decision four years ago, decided 802.11b was "right for you", and bought 802.11b cards, you'd still be in the position today that you can find compatable, cheap, equipment that'll suit your needs.
The only case where there's no direct backwards compatability is for 802.11a, and that's because 'a' works on a different frequency. But you can buy 802.11abg WAPs, they're a little more expensive than regular WAPs, but once you have your WAP, you can buy any equipment you need to go with it. Additionally, nothing stops you from buying additional WAPs implementing different standards in the future (they can all connect to the same Ethernet network)
Long term, you may increasingly have to replace equipment anyway. Your 486 probably will not run Windows XP. But the 486 will still work, still run 95 and GNU/Linux, and all the other things it did when you bought it. Likewise, your 802.11a WAP will still allow all the machines you bought 802.11a cards for to use your network. If they become scarce, you can think about buying a newer WAP, and have your newer hardware use that.
The problem is not about the availability of energy, but the ability to exploit that energy in an efficient way.
Nope. The problem, as I said, is that we've set ourselves up to limit our use of energy to one particular source. As currently set up, almost every car in the country relies upon fuel derived from crude oil. And there's a limited amount of that.
With fossile fuels we have to put in about 1 unit of energy to get 30 units back. But with many alternative sources of energy the numbers are quite different. Often it is more like putting in 1 unit of energy, and getting back only 1.5 unit over an extended period of time. In some cases we even haven't reached the break-even point. Often alternative sources of energy are only used, because governments are subsidizing them.
Fossil fuels include coal and natural gas, neither of which are seeing widespread use in motor vehicles and so, right now, form part of the universe of "alternative fuels" when we're talking about weaning the world off its gasoline addiction. As far as the remainder go, efficiency varies wildly and is often hidden by attempts by some economists to limit the scope of the measure of efficiency. On the face of it, bio-diesel isn't efficient when sold purely as fuel. However, when simply treated as the waste product of the restaurant industry, it's suddenly very economic. We couldn't run a country on bio-diesel, there's not enough of it in its efficient, economic, form, but we can make it part of a solution.
The true story is that many sources of alternative energy are more like batteries than real sources of energy.
The true story is that there are many, many, sources of energy. None are economic if you try to run your entire country off a single one, but if you ensure generation uses the local resources as economicly as possible, you can reduce your overall usage of crude oil dramatically. But in order to do this practically, you need to replace gasoline with a fuel that can be easily generated (so that those local energy resources can be turned into standardized fuel.)
You're not understanding this. Swapping in Hydrogen is swapping in Electricity. The issue is transporting that electricity. The easiest, most practical, way is to convert it to something that can regenerate that power quickly and efficiently, such as hydrogen which when coupled with a fuel cell is fairly efficient.
The alternative ways of transporting "electricity" are: via batteries, which is expensive, by recharging batteries built into the car which is exceptionally slow, too slow to be practical for long journeys, or by electrifying highways, which is dangerous, expensive, and limiting in terms of where you can send people.
None of these three solutions are practical for the reasons I just outlined.
Slashdot Mirror
The reason OS X's kernel, XNU, isn't a microkernel isn't to do with it being unmodular. It's that the kernel doesn't fully protect modules from one another. This is similar to Linux, though Linux's "modules" were always a little second-class compared to kernels designed with a modular philosophy to begin with.
OS X's GUI is pretty modular too. It's split along similar lines to that of the average X11 system, right down to there being many, incompatable, widget libraries though Apple's keen on trying to have third parties overlay their libraries on the top of one of the existing Cocoa or Carbon APIs.
You wouldn't want to rewrite CoreGraphics and the WindowServer, because the entire collection is "owned" by Apple and therefore you risk treading on the toes of others without many advantages, but modular it is.
Talk like a pirate day was last Monday. Thx. HAND.
Solaris probably stands a better chance today than it did. The past-tense was about why it hasn't succeeded in the context of the article (eg why Windows "won" against "Unix" before GNU/Linux) In the time frame being talked about, it was tied to Sun hardware, and so its success depended on Sun hardware sales, which were, for the most part, workstation and server oriented.
1. Most Unix operating systems ran on proprietary hardware only. NT could be installed on cheap hardware you could buy from a store.
2. The exception was SCO Unix. But SCO treated it exclusively as a high-end product, so it didn't end up on desktops.
3. No serious push was made to put Unix on the desktop. As a result, Microsoft was able to sell NT as an operating system that the majority of system administrators were familiar with, as opposed to Unix where almost nobody had it on their desktops.
If these issues had been knocked on the head, Unix might have stood a chance. As for "rival" versions all making different decisions, who gives a crap? So "Unix" wasn't one operating system, but several: if it was five different operating systems, then it had five chances to be successful. Any one of them could have succeeded and changed the market. None of them did, not because they were rivals, but because they all had at least one major flaw as documented above:
- AIX might have been successful had it been available for x86 and with low-cost desktop versions available that were properly pushed.
- Solaris might have been successful had it been available for x86 (before Linux) and with low-cost desktop versions available that were properly pushed.
- HPUX might have been successful had it been available for x86 and with low-cost desktop versions available that were properly pushed.
- DEC Tru64 might have been successful had it been available for x86 and with low-cost desktop versions available that were properly pushed.
Whether, of course, it would have been capable of being properly pushed, given Microsoft's stranglehold on the desktop market in the early nineties, is open to question.What the summary documents is a nonsense and ignores the real issues. Arguing that AUX didn't succeed because it competed with Solaris would be like arguing MSDOS didn't succeed because it competed with CP/M. The fact all of these operating systems shared a brandname does not mean they didn't independently fail. They may have failed for the same reasons, but they didn't fail because they were all slightly different yet had a brandname and some code in common. That's ridiculous.
1. Yes, I believe a significant number of people given the opportunity to just record and archive with little intervention on their part will do so in preference to buying DVD sets of TV shows that have been freely broadcast. The fact you wouldn't is neither here nor there.
2. I don't believe that recording and archiving TV shows that are being broadcast for free is in any way immoral or "dishonest". I have major problems with people who stick stuff without authorization from the copyright holder on P2P networks or download it in preference to buying it, I have major problems with the "morality" of most Slashdotters I read who will justify any "cool technology" that gives them something for free that they'd otherwise pay for regardless of whether it actually damages the people who create the things that they take. However, in this specific instance, making a copy of something that's output for free, I don't see any moral objection whatsoever. I'd sincerely like to hear why you think someone who records a TV program in preference to buying the DVD set is "dishonest".
Roll forward to today, and things have changed fairly radically. The technology exists now to stream individual video programs. DVD sales now encompass all types of visual content. Cable companies make money from "video on demand". Further, it is easy to create, as TiVo has, restrictions that take into account cooperating content producer's wishes. As such, a generic device that just space shifts and time shifts could concievably reduce the commercial value of a product.
For example: I might be tempted to buy, on DVD, the complete season of "One Day To Defeat The Terrorists By Whispering Everything", the new hit Fox show, if I missed various episodes. Fox might release the DVD set with that in mind. However, if one can simply program their DVR to record every single show, they're not likely to buy it, especially if they can transfer the show to tape or DVD-R afterwards. Thus, one of the measures SCOTUS used in making the Betamax decision simply isn't true any more, as technology has improved.
Whether Betamax would get overturned is something for the lawyers to answer. But if I were TiVo, I wouldn't rely upon the Betamax decision to protect myself from potential copyright violation suits, especially in an environment in which other technologies which have tried to rely upon the space-shifting and "Substantially legal uses" defenses, such as Peer to Peer networks, have currently not won the support of the courts. Specifically, the supreme court's ruling has been over-simplified by many of its enthusiasts: it wasn't "Time and space shifting are human rights, man!", it was "Because there's no way today, in 1984, that this technology could reduce revenues for content producers, amongst other things, it's fair use, right now."
What we actually need, rather than this rather shakey Supreme Court ruling, is actual legislation that enshrines certain things people do with content into law. Of course, with half the advocates of this type of thing thinking that copying someone else's song to millions of anonymous strangers is "Fair use", it's going to be hard getting a consensus on what those rights should be, and to ensure Congress actually has something legitimate that doesn't actively damage artists at the end of the process.
(Isn't that Sony's comment about everything these days? "We've managed to sell ten UMD disks to the five people who bought PSPs! That's 200% market penetration!", "We've sold more UMD copies of last year's blockbuster than the poorest selling DVD sold when DVDs came out! Therefore they're successful!", "Three new people have bought PSPs! This proves UMDs are taking off!", "We've had to sell the Vaio line to Amstrad, because otherwise we just wouldn't have the production resources to make the sell-out UMD systems!", "People aren't buying mini-discs any more. Isn't it obvious? They want UMDs instead!", "We just had a bunch of UMDs returned! This means people are going out there and buying them!")
In all seriousness, this sucks if you're working for Sony, and I hope the poor bastards directly affected by this are able to find work quickly.
Personally, I write my journal for myself. It's nice to be able to rant about things that bother me "in public"; kind of wierd when people start talking about something I've written though.
If it's a choice between a corrupted OS or my files being corrupted, give me the former any time.
If it were Troll Tuesday, I'd flame myself for it or something, but it isn't Troll Tuesday.
Apparently I still have a minute to kill. Man you should have seen the car accident I was nearly in an hour or so ago. Some idiot in a white something-or-other (VW I think) decided not to look as she turned into the road I was on. We both slammed on the brakes. Heart goes pound-pound-pound. Thankfully neither of us was hurt.
As a basic example, replacing init with something malicious would be a bad thing. Your evil init will eventually be run the next time the user reboots. Which is a good argument for 24/7 computing I guess, but that's not that popular an idea.
The artists get advances, and then the advance and some costs are charged against future royalties. Some costs are paid by the artists themselves, out of the advance, and this usually means the artists do not end up with much at the end of the process, but that's not the same as suggesting they never receive any money. The advances some from the record companies.
If what you had said was remotely true, the only music groups in existance would be composed of people independently wealthy who can afford the $50,000-$100,000 costs involved in producing a recording.
Artists get maltreated, but the notion that they never receive any money whatsoever from record companies and have to pay for studio time and production costs out of their life savings is so ridiculous I wonder what kind of crack you're on.
Hey! None of that! Talk Like A Pirate Day was yesterday!
iTunes on the other hand has to pay record producers rather than buy a one-off $10 CD. Those record producers have to spend large amounts of money on studios, recording equipment, engineers, and, well, artists too. And Steve Jobs can't just "borrow" money from the local convenience store if he runs into problems.
I'm sure there's stuff to learn from AllOfMP3 as there is any music service. Sources of funding, and hence pricing decisions, however, are not one of them.
The PSP is expensive. The DS had a problem with a temporary shortage of games, the PSP still has a problem with such a shortage. Sony is trumpetting, and Slashdot dutifully repeating as fact, that it's a success because buyers are willing to stump up for UMD disks, when in fact it's clear that they're only willing to because PSP sales, ultimately, are limited to reasonably well-off gadget enthusiasts (if the PSP was priced at a level that made it likely it'd sell to all groups, and if there were actually games available so PSP owners didn't feel like their devices were expensive, overpriced, useless, bricks, you wouldn't expect UMD sales, as a proportion of PSP sales, to be particularly high.)
Sorry it's not good for Sony, but it's, well, not good for Sony. Like I said, Apple will learn some lessons from the device's failures, if they have any sense.
I predict that a year from now, the PSP will no longer exist in its present form. It might be half the price, it might be built in to a mobile phone or something, or it might simply be taken off the market. Planted stories like the one we're responding to may give the execs warm fuzzies and a sense that they might not actually get fired, but take a step back, and it doesn't appear to be a device with any future.
Google can't be above the law, but they can, at least, render dumb laws useless, and that's what they did.
I just wanted to make sure the story was accessable without eagle eyed moderators having to plow through all the AC posts, wasting mod points on getting something to +2 when it could be +2 from the beginning. How is that "bad"? At least I'm not like 90% of people who post mirrors who either post links to inaccessable-behind-corporate-firewalls "NYUD" links or who post it with some NSFW joke at the expense of the people who run this website.
And I asked people not to mod me up. Only a troll like you could claim that's bad.
If you're going to post mirrors, do it anonymously. People like the parent are just trying to get karma by posting stuff that's probably widely available anyway. This kind of thing needs to be stamped upon before it gets out of control.
Do NOT mod this up (unless it's modded down, obviously.) This is being posted at +2. It will be seen by all but the most selective Slashdotters. Use your mod points for something useful.
What is Google Secure Access?
Google Secure Access is a downloadable client application that allows users to establish a more secure WiFi connection.
Why would I want to download and install Google Secure Access?
Google Secure Access allows you to establish a more secure connection while using Google WiFi. By using Google Secure Access, your internet traffic will be encrypted, preventing others from viewing the information you transmit.
Does Google Secure Access connect to a VPN server?
Yes, Google Secure Access connects to Google's VPN ("Virtual Private Network") server provided for this service.
Why did Google develop Google Secure Access?
One of our engineers recognized that secure WiFi was virtually non-existent at most locations. As a result, he used his 20% project time to begin an initiative to offer users more secure WiFi access. Google Secure Access is the result of this endeavor.
What sort of information does Google have access to?
If you choose to use Google Secure Access, your internet traffic will be encrypted and sent through Google's servers to the Internet. The data that is received will then be encrypted and sent back through our servers to your computer. Your privacy is important to us, we strongly encourage you to read our Privacy Policy to be fully informed about how your privacy is protected.
Is there a fee for using Google Secure Access?
No, Google Secure Access is free.
Where can I go to download Google Secure Access?
The program can currently be downloaded at certain Google WiFi locations in the San Francisco Bay Area.
When I install Google Secure Access, why does it ask if I also want to install the Google Toolbar?
We've included the option to install the Google Toolbar because it improves your browsing experience.
Can I uninstall Google Secure Access?
Yes. You can uninstall Google Secure Access by simply running the Uninstall program. This can be found by clicking on Start Menu, Programs, Google Secure Access, and then choosing Uninstall.
How do I make my connection even more secure?
You can make your connection even more secure by using a software firewall. Windows XP users with Service Pack 2 can find it by clicking on Start, Control Panel, and then choosing Windows Firewall.
Will my corporate VPN still work?
Yes. You can connect to your corporate VPN while running Google Secure Access.
I have configured Google Secure Access to connect automatically, but it's not working. What's going on?
Certain wireless LAN management utilities and older wireless LAN adapter drivers prevent Google Secure Access from detecting that you're connected to the Google WiFi network. In this case it will not connect automatically, and you should connect manually to ensure the privacy and security of your network traffic.
Will Google Secure Access work at other locations?
While Google Secure Access should work, we have not tested it at other locations.
Why is Google Secure Access a beta product?
Google Secure Access is a new product that is only available at certain locations in the San Francisco Bay Area. We are constantly working to improve this product.
There were some minor problems with the DS initially because of a temporary shortage of games, but everyone knew the problems were temporary and the thing ended up selling itself. The PSP just doesn't have that. It's overpriced, largely because it supports a bunch of features that are redundant and poorly thought out.
The PSP really has two roles: it's for rich gadget enthusiasts to show they have the latest thing, and it's a free lesson for Apple lest it be considering building the fabled video iPod on how not to market portable video. Neither of these includes the magic words "profit center for Sony"
Why is the "UMD" taking off? Because people who have PSPs who don't necessarily have a DVD player, or simply don't care about the prices (the PSP is overpriced to begin with, so it's reasonable to assume a large proportion of its users are like this) are going to try the format anyway. This is predictable but it's also important to point out that just because UMD sales appear to be high in proportion to PSP sales, doesn't mean that UMD is a successful format or every going to be one.
Slashdot could do us a few favours by not publishing every single story about how UMD disks are "taking off". They're puff pieces from a desperate Sony marketing department. Slashdot and the gamer rags they link to are being played.
I run an SMTP server at home so I can receive email and deal with spam in an effective way. Like many people, I set up a domain, and set up an email address for each entity I do business with. If that entity passes on the email address to spammers, I close off that means of communication.
If everyone did the same thing, there'd be no spam. The fact I am doing this takes the load off my ISP who'd otherwise have to deal with any spam that would otherwise be sent to me on their own SMTP servers. Which they'd probably do badly.
So take your stupid, dumbass, "anti-spam" idea of blocking people from doing perfectly legitimate things with their connections, and stick it right up your arse. Spammers hurt the internet. Anti-spammers, however, are killing it.
"Hydrogen fuel" as a term tends to have two definitions, "pure hydrogen fuel" (which, I agree, isn't necessarily the best way of fueling vehicles, though it's not a bad way either and it certainly results in the best in-city polution as you'd get steam and nothing else coming out of your exhaust pipe) and "packaged hydrogen", which would include compounds like those you mention. Really, it's a matter of what's most convenient. If we can most efficiently convert electricity into ethanol, then that may well be the best form to use.
Wireless will continue to improve indefinitely, and is likely to retain a degree of backward compatability. Like any developing technology, you should ask yourself what's going to be useful to you for the next few years, and adopt it.
If you had made this decision four years ago, decided 802.11b was "right for you", and bought 802.11b cards, you'd still be in the position today that you can find compatable, cheap, equipment that'll suit your needs.
The only case where there's no direct backwards compatability is for 802.11a, and that's because 'a' works on a different frequency. But you can buy 802.11abg WAPs, they're a little more expensive than regular WAPs, but once you have your WAP, you can buy any equipment you need to go with it. Additionally, nothing stops you from buying additional WAPs implementing different standards in the future (they can all connect to the same Ethernet network)
Long term, you may increasingly have to replace equipment anyway. Your 486 probably will not run Windows XP. But the 486 will still work, still run 95 and GNU/Linux, and all the other things it did when you bought it. Likewise, your 802.11a WAP will still allow all the machines you bought 802.11a cards for to use your network. If they become scarce, you can think about buying a newer WAP, and have your newer hardware use that.
That's where hydrogen comes in.
The alternative ways of transporting "electricity" are: via batteries, which is expensive, by recharging batteries built into the car which is exceptionally slow, too slow to be practical for long journeys, or by electrifying highways, which is dangerous, expensive, and limiting in terms of where you can send people.
None of these three solutions are practical for the reasons I just outlined.