... I never heard anyone place such irrational constraints on how AI can be implemented. It's a good thing the Wright brothers didn't have a "if it's not flapping it's wings, it's not flying" constraint placed on them, otherwise we wouldn't be allowed to call air travel "flying". Can't you see how ridiculous your rationale is?
The quote you're looking for is: "The question of whether Machines Can Think... is about as relevant as the question of whether Submarines Can Swim." -Dijkstra
Ok, cool, but let me expand on it a bit. Instead of having a physical object with you, you just remember a secret passphrase. Then, whenever you sit down at a public terminal, you enter this passphrase and it goes out and grabs a copy of all your files and settings, and pulls up your work/game/movie at the spot you left off. That way, you don't have to worry as much about losing this precious mobile device.
We have that today. It's called the Internet. How is it better to have to have all your important data tied to a unique physical object?
Seconded! I don't use the 802.11n that heavily since I'm usually on my desktop or an old PowerBook, but it's been fantastic overall. The best part is that it works great under OpenWRT and I believe it should be well supported for quite a while due to the fact that it doesn't need any closed source drivers, AFAIK.
The GPL3 is about preventing companies from using GPL'ed software on locked down devices. When you see a company refusing to use software because it's under the GPL3 it basically means that they'd like the opportunity to sell you locked-down, unmodifiable hardware. Sure, the GPL2 made sure the user got the source, but if they couldn't make changes and put those changes back on their computer/phone/tivo/device what good is it? Right now we take the openness of desktop/laptop computers for granted, but it's clear that some corporations are eager to put an end to that. I personally don't feel any need to make it cheap or easy for them to do so, and apparently the developers behind Samba feel the same way. No one is forcing you to use the GPL3...
Re:The "two features" thread starts here ...
on
Xfce 4.8 Released
·
· Score: 1
Not at all. I tend to use it on any machine that has 1GB of RAM or less. Even on more powerful machines I tend to oscillate back and forth between WM and GNOME ever couple years. Also, a couple months ago I did a new install of it on a laptop I inherited from someone upgrading and was pleased to see that http://dockapps.org/ is still up, which made me all sorts of happy.:D
I'll add to this from the Linux side. I love that keyboards have a windows key. It basically means that in linux I have another key down by ctrl and alt that I can use for custom keybindings without having to worry about overlapping with the keybindings in some application. Also Alt+SysRq is very helpful for kernel debugging. I'd actually be happy to lose dedicated PgDn, PgUp, Home, and End keys and have those be typed by pressing an Fn key along with the cursor keys. In short, an Apple Macbook keyboard with the Eject key mapped to SysRq sounds perfect to me.
On the other hand, a hyrbrid system similar to the Chevy Volt would be fantastic for something like this. At very low speeds the instant torque and lack of stall speed of an electric motor would be a perfect fit. Then as you got moving the high(er) speed efficiency of gas or diesel motor could kick in to charge the batteries and move the wheels. In fact, you'd probably only need to have the gas motor power the rear wheels and leave the fronts to be powered only by electric...
Maybe it's ok if shortsighted, easily manipulated people don't use Linux, especially on the server side. Basically, we're getting to the point, for servers at least, where the people who know, use Linux (or FreeBSD), and the people who have no clue use Windows. Then the market starts to divide up in such a way that when Microsoft tries to play to its strengths (being the obvious choice of people who don't know any better), what they end up doing is trying to market a server OS down to a lower and lower skill level. Simply by listening to the message from Microsoft, it basically makes Linux look like an exclusive club full of people who know what they're doing. In the server world that *helps* Linux. Microsoft gets to deal with the "high-maintenance" users who need hand-holding every step of the way, and Linux attracts the would-be developers and hackers who want to build the "next big thing" on top of Linux.
On the 'consumer'-facing side, I think the answer is that companies who make products that involve Linux as a building block will do their own marketing. Eg, Google, et al and the mass of other Android promoters.
I appreciate your optimism, but I really don't believe your thinkpad uses 10W of energy during any kind of normal use. Depending on what model it is I'd bet that even your CPU alone probably uses twice that. Also, the optimal conditions for solar cells tend to be directly facing the sun: You'd have to have the lid mostly closed, not mostly open. A bigger rollout or foldout mat with 6W output in ideal conditions connected by cable to a cellphone or PDA might actually break even.
When you call support and get a fast busy when your server is down, how are you to know that the place didn't blow up or go bankrupt and cut its losses? Very troubling. Sorry to point out the obvious, but the place did blow up!
So, let's try your suggestion: 1) Spammers break Google CAPTCHA 2) Google responds by taking GMail offline for 12 hours 3) Users are piseed at Google, Google's stock tanks, Spammers keep using Hotmail and Yahoo to spam 4) Other groups realize they can pull off a DoS on Google just by signing up for GMail accounts and spamming.
As an aside, I think that the world really needs to know personally just how much of the internet is being held for ransom (either explicitly or implicitly) by the various organised crime syndicates. It's at least an order of magnitude more than most tech savy people realise, and that's a damned shame.
Everyone has their own pet concerns. Some people worry about pesticides on the food, some about global warming, some about that devil music the kids listen to. There aren't enough hours in the day for everyone to worry about every problem.
First of all, the framework already exists in Debian (and I'm sure RedHat-based distros...) to have two versions of Python installed. This is not rocket science. And before you gloat too much about C++, having two versions of g++ installed has been a fairly constant experience for many Linux users as well. This is totally a non-issue and will make no difference to package maintainers...
It also doesn't help that so many Windows users see "click here for free smilies" and think it's a good idea to do so. The best part is when they get mad and argue with you when you try to remove the malware they put there. "But I *liked* the free smiley faces!" "It's spyware, handing your personal info and passwords to nefarious third-parties! You weren't supposed to be installing random software on your work computer to begin with." "So I can't keep the smiley faces?" "No!"
Maybe a little late to respond to this, but it seems like TI is also a member of the OHA, and they have several chips in the OMAP line that have a big fat "J" in the name. I should know, I'm ssh'ed into one right now.:) Maybe Android can use the ARM Jazelle bits when they're available and fall back on software. It seems like that would create quite a performance gap, though.
The GSM chipset for the iPhone probably costs Apple $20 in bulk. The iPod Touch is the same hardware as the iPhone minus GSM, Bluetooth, and microphone/speaker and yet starts at $300. Maybe Apple (or someone else) could *build* what you want for $200, but it will definitely cost more after markup.
So it's like a cell phone without the GSM hardware? With those functions it sounds pretty close to PDA hardware you want, and consumers as a whole have shown a complete lack of interest in that market segment. On the other hand, it also sounds a lot like Nokia's Internet Tablet series (770/N800/N810) which judging by the fact that they're still around suggests that Nokia thinks the market is there. The only problem is that what you want will probably cost more than a cell phone in up-front costs, both because it isn't subsidized by a carrier/longterm contract and because it's aimed at a smaller market.
Other implementors of the ARM archictecture (think Marvel and TI) have implementations of Jazelle as well it seems, from some quick googling of press releases.
Good. With that out of the way, I have to say I'm really looking forward to seing what Google can do in terms of getting functionality that has typically been the domain of "smartphones" that typically go for more than $200 w/ contract into the domain of phones that range from free to $50 (again w/ contract). With the minimum requirements set at an ARM9 @ 200MHz, this platform should allow open development on a huge new range of phones. I've already seen people earlier today making dire predictions about how Google is not going to be able to compete with the iPhone or how they prefer phones based on Symbian...and I think these people are completely missing Google's whole plan. I'm sure that initially phones based on Android will fall closer to the smartphone price range, but I can't help but think that eventually Google has to be aiming at the free-to-$50 phones. The "just a basic phone" market is an area in desperate need of a unifyied platform. Between lack of openness and the lack of a properly standardized Java implementation development for a wide range of low end phones is pretty much intractible. If Google can get Android onto low-cost phones *and* ensure "write once, run anywhere" between them I think they will have all the developer support they need. And since they already have the ears of the carriers (T-Mobile, Sprint, etc) they've already ensured they have a way to get this on shipping phones.
Why do I think low end phones are so important to these companies in the open handset alliance, when they don't have the profit margins of smartphones or "feature-phones"? Simple: Emerging markets. For billions of people around the world it is too expensive or impractical to own and maintain an Internet connected PC. It may be because of upfront cost or it may be a lack of Internet infrastructure in their area. For those people a phone will be their first (and maybe only) connection to the Internet. Right now the browsing experience on basic phones ranges from useless to unbearably slow and there is an impressive *lack* of easily accessible third party applications. If someone could change that it would add incredible value to that class of phones. So what's in it for Google? Making sure that their page is the first one a couple billion people see the first time they get on the Internet is probably worth it.
Well, for once you're better off not reading the article. Hit Nokia's product page on the N810 and look at the specs yourself. It has one miniSDHC slot. That slot will also take a microSD(HC) card in an extender.
Where's the -1:Wrong moderation when you need it? The N810 has one (1) miniSDHC slot. It will take a microSD(HC) card with an extender but full sized SD cards are right out.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm curious as to *why* you think a DIY NAS will use more power?
... I never heard anyone place such irrational constraints on how AI can be implemented. It's a good thing the Wright brothers didn't have a "if it's not flapping it's wings, it's not flying" constraint placed on them, otherwise we wouldn't be allowed to call air travel "flying". Can't you see how ridiculous your rationale is?
The quote you're looking for is:
"The question of whether Machines Can Think... is about as relevant as the question of whether Submarines Can Swim." -Dijkstra
Ok, cool, but let me expand on it a bit. Instead of having a physical object with you, you just remember a secret passphrase. Then, whenever you sit down at a public terminal, you enter this passphrase and it goes out and grabs a copy of all your files and settings, and pulls up your work/game/movie at the spot you left off. That way, you don't have to worry as much about losing this precious mobile device.
We have that today. It's called the Internet. How is it better to have to have all your important data tied to a unique physical object?
Seconded! I don't use the 802.11n that heavily since I'm usually on my desktop or an old PowerBook, but it's been fantastic overall. The best part is that it works great under OpenWRT and I believe it should be well supported for quite a while due to the fact that it doesn't need any closed source drivers, AFAIK.
What do you think runs on the DSP? That's right, software.
Or the text input field of that window isn't covered, but other parts (that I don't care about at the moment) are.
Or unicorn bacon. mmmmm.
The GPL3 is about preventing companies from using GPL'ed software on locked down devices. When you see a company refusing to use software because it's under the GPL3 it basically means that they'd like the opportunity to sell you locked-down, unmodifiable hardware. Sure, the GPL2 made sure the user got the source, but if they couldn't make changes and put those changes back on their computer/phone/tivo/device what good is it? Right now we take the openness of desktop/laptop computers for granted, but it's clear that some corporations are eager to put an end to that. I personally don't feel any need to make it cheap or easy for them to do so, and apparently the developers behind Samba feel the same way. No one is forcing you to use the GPL3...
Not at all. I tend to use it on any machine that has 1GB of RAM or less. Even on more powerful machines I tend to oscillate back and forth between WM and GNOME ever couple years. Also, a couple months ago I did a new install of it on a laptop I inherited from someone upgrading and was pleased to see that http://dockapps.org/ is still up, which made me all sorts of happy. :D
I'll add to this from the Linux side. I love that keyboards have a windows key. It basically means that in linux I have another key down by ctrl and alt that I can use for custom keybindings without having to worry about overlapping with the keybindings in some application. Also Alt+SysRq is very helpful for kernel debugging. I'd actually be happy to lose dedicated PgDn, PgUp, Home, and End keys and have those be typed by pressing an Fn key along with the cursor keys. In short, an Apple Macbook keyboard with the Eject key mapped to SysRq sounds perfect to me.
On the other hand, a hyrbrid system similar to the Chevy Volt would be fantastic for something like this. At very low speeds the instant torque and lack of stall speed of an electric motor would be a perfect fit. Then as you got moving the high(er) speed efficiency of gas or diesel motor could kick in to charge the batteries and move the wheels. In fact, you'd probably only need to have the gas motor power the rear wheels and leave the fronts to be powered only by electric ...
Maybe it's ok if shortsighted, easily manipulated people don't use Linux, especially on the server side. Basically, we're getting to the point, for servers at least, where the people who know, use Linux (or FreeBSD), and the people who have no clue use Windows. Then the market starts to divide up in such a way that when Microsoft tries to play to its strengths (being the obvious choice of people who don't know any better), what they end up doing is trying to market a server OS down to a lower and lower skill level. Simply by listening to the message from Microsoft, it basically makes Linux look like an exclusive club full of people who know what they're doing. In the server world that *helps* Linux. Microsoft gets to deal with the "high-maintenance" users who need hand-holding every step of the way, and Linux attracts the would-be developers and hackers who want to build the "next big thing" on top of Linux.
On the 'consumer'-facing side, I think the answer is that companies who make products that involve Linux as a building block will do their own marketing. Eg, Google, et al and the mass of other Android promoters.
I appreciate your optimism, but I really don't believe your thinkpad uses 10W of energy during any kind of normal use. Depending on what model it is I'd bet that even your CPU alone probably uses twice that. Also, the optimal conditions for solar cells tend to be directly facing the sun: You'd have to have the lid mostly closed, not mostly open. A bigger rollout or foldout mat with 6W output in ideal conditions connected by cable to a cellphone or PDA might actually break even.
1) Spammers break Google CAPTCHA
2) Google responds by taking GMail offline for 12 hours
3) Users are piseed at Google, Google's stock tanks, Spammers keep using Hotmail and Yahoo to spam
4) Other groups realize they can pull off a DoS on Google just by signing up for GMail accounts and spamming.
Everyone has their own pet concerns. Some people worry about pesticides on the food, some about global warming, some about that devil music the kids listen to. There aren't enough hours in the day for everyone to worry about every problem.
Nice try. Engadget says, "What's an iPhone? 14.3m Windows Mobile phones sold in the past six months alone," but you can read it for yourself:
Engadget: http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/11/whats-an-iphone-14-3m-windows-mobile-phones-sold-in-the-past-s/
Source article: http://www.pocket-lint.co.uk/news/news.phtml/12780/13804/microsoft-windows-mobile-phone-sales.phtml
First of all, the framework already exists in Debian (and I'm sure RedHat-based distros...) to have two versions of Python installed. This is not rocket science. And before you gloat too much about C++, having two versions of g++ installed has been a fairly constant experience for many Linux users as well. This is totally a non-issue and will make no difference to package maintainers...
"But I *liked* the free smiley faces!"
"It's spyware, handing your personal info and passwords to nefarious third-parties! You weren't supposed to be installing random software on your work computer to begin with."
"So I can't keep the smiley faces?"
"No!"
Maybe a little late to respond to this, but it seems like TI is also a member of the OHA, and they have several chips in the OMAP line that have a big fat "J" in the name. I should know, I'm ssh'ed into one right now. :) Maybe Android can use the ARM Jazelle bits when they're available and fall back on software. It seems like that would create quite a performance gap, though.
The GSM chipset for the iPhone probably costs Apple $20 in bulk. The iPod Touch is the same hardware as the iPhone minus GSM, Bluetooth, and microphone/speaker and yet starts at $300. Maybe Apple (or someone else) could *build* what you want for $200, but it will definitely cost more after markup.
So it's like a cell phone without the GSM hardware? With those functions it sounds pretty close to PDA hardware you want, and consumers as a whole have shown a complete lack of interest in that market segment. On the other hand, it also sounds a lot like Nokia's Internet Tablet series (770/N800/N810) which judging by the fact that they're still around suggests that Nokia thinks the market is there. The only problem is that what you want will probably cost more than a cell phone in up-front costs, both because it isn't subsidized by a carrier/longterm contract and because it's aimed at a smaller market.
Other implementors of the ARM archictecture (think Marvel and TI) have implementations of Jazelle as well it seems, from some quick googling of press releases.
...welcome our Android overlords.
Good. With that out of the way, I have to say I'm really looking forward to seing what Google can do in terms of getting functionality that has typically been the domain of "smartphones" that typically go for more than $200 w/ contract into the domain of phones that range from free to $50 (again w/ contract). With the minimum requirements set at an ARM9 @ 200MHz, this platform should allow open development on a huge new range of phones. I've already seen people earlier today making dire predictions about how Google is not going to be able to compete with the iPhone or how they prefer phones based on Symbian...and I think these people are completely missing Google's whole plan. I'm sure that initially phones based on Android will fall closer to the smartphone price range, but I can't help but think that eventually Google has to be aiming at the free-to-$50 phones. The "just a basic phone" market is an area in desperate need of a unifyied platform. Between lack of openness and the lack of a properly standardized Java implementation development for a wide range of low end phones is pretty much intractible. If Google can get Android onto low-cost phones *and* ensure "write once, run anywhere" between them I think they will have all the developer support they need. And since they already have the ears of the carriers (T-Mobile, Sprint, etc) they've already ensured they have a way to get this on shipping phones.
Why do I think low end phones are so important to these companies in the open handset alliance, when they don't have the profit margins of smartphones or "feature-phones"? Simple: Emerging markets. For billions of people around the world it is too expensive or impractical to own and maintain an Internet connected PC. It may be because of upfront cost or it may be a lack of Internet infrastructure in their area. For those people a phone will be their first (and maybe only) connection to the Internet. Right now the browsing experience on basic phones ranges from useless to unbearably slow and there is an impressive *lack* of easily accessible third party applications. If someone could change that it would add incredible value to that class of phones. So what's in it for Google? Making sure that their page is the first one a couple billion people see the first time they get on the Internet is probably worth it.
Well, for once you're better off not reading the article. Hit Nokia's product page on the N810 and look at the specs yourself. It has one miniSDHC slot. That slot will also take a microSD(HC) card in an extender.
Product page: http://www.nokiausa.com/A4626059
Where's the -1:Wrong moderation when you need it? The N810 has one (1) miniSDHC slot. It will take a microSD(HC) card with an extender but full sized SD cards are right out.