The term wireless has been used for cellular & PCS systems since the first forms of mobile phones appeared in the late 1940s. The term wireless was used for early telegraph systems back in the late 1800s. Anything that employs a radio can justifiably call itself "wireless". In case you did not know, a mobile phone is simply a fancy radio. The term "wireless" is not particular to WiFi, although WiFi also uses that term (WiFi is just a radio, too). If anything, it might be more appropriate to say that 802.11 hijacked the term, not the other way around, although the truth is that both mobile phones and WiFi have equal justification to use the word wireless.
Here is a brief history that someone put together of wireless communications. Note that WiFi isn't even on the list (although that's certainly because the list is outdated).
Similarly, when stinkers like Lesbian Gangster Yoga with Ben Affleck come out...
Huh...I think I missed that one when it was in the theaters. Must have been on Skinemax. Has Ben's career finally sunk so low that he is making cheap porn flicks?
Does this guy have a job? This guy is writing a book, working on a movie, making various portable game devices and who knows what else he is working on. Where do people find time to do all this stuff?
I assume this guy does not have a girlfriend/wife.
This brings to mind a curious question: would it make sense to include in the GPL a statement requiring that anyone who asserts software patents is not allowed to use the GPL'd software? As open source software grows into greater prominence, such a clause might make companies less inclined to assert software patents if there is a real downside to doing so.
(Why do I suspect I am going to get flamed badly for asking this question?;-))
I'll admit that I don't know much about kernels, but I'll try to summarize. The chart compares performance between the new OS Singularity, FreeBSD 5.3, Redhat Fedora Core 4 (kernel version 2.6.11-1.1369_FC4), and Windows XP (SP2). The goal of the chart, stated in the paragraphs above, is to show that the new Singularity architecture does not suffer any performance hits in order to make a more secure system.
The table shows the CPU cost of six different types of operations: "Read Cycle Counter", "ABI Call", "Thread yield", "2 thread wait-set ping pong", "2 message ping pong" and "Create and start process". For the first one, Windows seems to kick the butt of all others handily with Singularity being the worst of the bunch. For "ABI Call", each OS used different system calls that "operate on a readily available data structure in the respective kernels." The system calls seem to be completely different so I don't know if this test is valid, but the results show Singularity an order of magnitude more efficient than the others, with Linux beating Windows by a considerable margin and Windows beating FreeBSD by an equally considerable margin.
For the "thread yield" tests, FreeBSD & Linux are equal, Windows beats them by a reasonable percentage and Singularity is more than twice as fast as the Unixes. For the "2 wait-set ping pong", which measures "the cost of switching between two threads in the same process through a synchronization object", the chart shows that Singularity is somewhat more efficient than Windows and Windows is more than twice as fast as the Unixes. For the "2 message ping pong", which shows the cost of sending a 1-byte message back and forth between two processes, Singularity is 4 times more efficient than Linux, which is somewhat better than Windows, which kicks FreeBSDs butt decisively.
Lastly, for "Create and start process", Singularity is twice as fast as Linux, which is about 50% faster than FreeBSD. Windows comes out 7 times slower than Linux on this test. I don't know how much that matters in the real world since creating and starting a process is not something that is done hundreds of times a second.
All that said, it should probably be pointed out that there are many ways to measure an OS. The M$ guys may have simply picked the ones that support their "see we don't suck" position. And given that Singularity is not a complete OS, I would expect that more overhead will be added later that will bring down these numbers. I guess we'll see.
I don't think he was hailing the businesses. His statement is probably better interpreted as "the big, selfish companies are fighting each other and the winner will be the rest of us".
Ummm, aren't those patents effectively the same, differing mainly in the correction of grammatical errors and some rewording? If so, then did the USPTO effectively issue the same patent to the same company twice? Can they do that? Wouldn't the first patent exist as prior art for the second patent?
Judging by the looks of the two patents, I'd guess the first patent was written by someone not very skilled at writing patents (or writing in English, for that matter) and the second was written by an actual patent attorney. If you read the first paragraph of the first patent carefully, it arguably means that the patent covers only calls that aren't completed:
A cellular telecommunications system having a security feature which allows only pre-authorized users no complete cellular telephone calls.
I'm guessing that nasty typo needed to be corrected so they had to submit a new patent.
That is interesting. To me, it underscores the biases that exist in the sciences. I roll my eyes when I hear folks defend scientists and suggest that they reach all of their conclusions through empirical evidence and ration. Scientists are just human beings subject to the whims of their own biases, so even when the evidence strongly suggests otherwise, the entire body of the scientific community can be very hard to make admit their mistake. I suppose that's why I'm always more cautious than everybody else in assuming that if scientists say something is true, then it must be.
One simple phrase "Please place me on your Do-not-Solicit list." would cure most of it.
What a bunch of bullshit. I am ALWAYS VERY polite to the phone solicitors. I ALWAYS ask them to take me off their list. Still, I received 2 to 4 unsolicited calls EVERY night. After I put my name on the DNC list, I only get 1 or 2 calls a month. I only get those calls because some telemarketers take advantage of a loophole that lets them call me if I own a business (my wife and I have an LLC). Being polite to the telemarketers never did anything for me and is irrelevent anyway; no matter how much of an ass someone is, the telemarketer called them and disturbed them so the telemarketer should honor their request to be taken off the list. Anything less is purely unjustifiable vindictiveness.
I worked as a telemarketer for a year. I heard people yell at me every day and it didn't change anything. Those people would get calls over and over and over. It was the ones who were calm and said the magic phrase didn't call again.
I worked as a telemarketer for about 1.5 years for AT&T. I came to reaize over time that what we were doing was an irritating disruption and an intrusion into the peace of peoples homes. If someone was angry that I called, I marked their record indicating never to call them again. THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO ASK ME - I did it because they had made clear that they did not want the calls. No "magic phrase" needed. Again, anything less is vindictive bullshit.
RTFA? There is no article. The link leads to a message posted in a forum. And everyone on Slashdot realizes the DAVID system is based on WINE, but the point the grandparent poster was trying to make is that SpecOpsLabs is specifically hoping to be handed a system that is sufficiently obfuscated so it does not appear to be based on Wine.
I think the grandparent poster is dead on; if you can come up with a reasonable alternative explanation for why SpecOpsLabs is offering this bizarre contest with such an absurd deadline, I'd love to hear it.
Ha...it looks like someone tried to pull a fast one on SpecOps Labs. From their Investor Relations page:
PUBLIC WARNING
The website listed at domain name http://specops.jeff.net.ru/ is no way affiliated with Specops Laboratories, Philippines; the unscrupulous owners of the aforementioned website are infringing on our copyrighted material and have no authorization to represent our company in any fashion.
We believe that the purpose of this web site may to mislead the public and to defraud unsuspecting persons.
We are now conducting an investigation to determine the person(s) behind this fraud and we will be seeking assistant from legal authorities in the appropriate jurisdiction. If you have any information about the person(s) involved in this fraud please contact us at info@specopslabs.com
His post was reasonable and thoughtful. Your post was an ad hominem attack. Just because someone disagrees with you does not automatically mean they are pushing a political agenda. Not everybody believes everything they are told; some folks ask questions. Just stick to the science, please, open your mind to other possibilities and consider the possibility that some of what you believe might not be true. As I'm sure you well know, even scientists get it wrong sometimes. We are allowed to question them.
Climate change on Mars is expected and has been predicted.
Interesting. What is the cause of that climate change? Can you point to a source, please?
And if you are really lucky (and spammed), team up two telemarketers with each other, just as we saw with skype here [hopto.org].
That is hysterical!!! You should read this exchange between two unsuspecting men. They goes go so far as to arrange a date with each other. I would love to have seen the looks on their faces when they finally figured out their dream girl isn't a girl at all. Comedy gold!!
Oddly enough, I wonder if this might actually increase pirating. Since the major content providers will no longer be providing content that will play on existing PCs and DVD players, that will leave a lot of people unable to play new DVDs. That leaves a hole in the market that will very like be filled by DVD pirates who will convert the protected HD DVDs into non-protected old style DVDs. The quality will probably not be quite as good but the truth is that other than us geeks noone else cares about that; the quality of current DVDs are good enough for most people.
I know nothing about these devices, but, as far as I know, when you insert a USB drive into a USB port on a Windows PC there is no attempt by Windows to autoexecute any programs it finds on the drive. But the same can't be said of CD-ROMs; Windows will execute a program it finds on a CD-ROM. I suspect they chose to have this device emulate a CD-ROM because the mere insertion of the device will cause Windows to execute software that starts up the USB "server".
I find it really bizarre that these folks seem unable to provide a clear purpose for this bizarre device. Even more bizarre is that they hope the Open Souce community will think of one for them. Which is even more bizarre since it seems like this effort might be funded by Microsoft which surely has the ultimate goal of defeating Linux.
Sorry, but the parent was correct. The explanations given that try to show that part of the rotor is moving backwark make no sense.
On the rotor there are two sides, one which is retreating and one which is moving forward relative to the helicopter. As the helicopter reaches the Mu-1 speed, the retreating side of the rotor will be moving backward at the same speed as the helicopter is moving forward. From the perspective of the air, the retreating side of the rotor would appear to be standing still. That part makes sense
On the other side of the rotor, the blades are moving forward with respect to the helicopter. Those forward moving blades are rotating just as fast as the blades on the retreating side, however the blades on the forward moving side are traveling in the same direction as the helicopter. Therefore the forward moving blades must be moving faster than the helicopter with respect to the surrounding air. At the Mu-1 speed, the forward moving blades will be traveling twice as fast as the helicopter. It will not be moving forward at a slower speed than the helicopter relative to the air or anything else.
Slashdot Mirror
Dude, I have had the same thought for quite some time. I hope the editors are paying attention to what you are saying.
The term wireless has been used for cellular & PCS systems since the first forms of mobile phones appeared in the late 1940s. The term wireless was used for early telegraph systems back in the late 1800s. Anything that employs a radio can justifiably call itself "wireless". In case you did not know, a mobile phone is simply a fancy radio. The term "wireless" is not particular to WiFi, although WiFi also uses that term (WiFi is just a radio, too). If anything, it might be more appropriate to say that 802.11 hijacked the term, not the other way around, although the truth is that both mobile phones and WiFi have equal justification to use the word wireless.
Here is a brief history that someone put together of wireless communications. Note that WiFi isn't even on the list (although that's certainly because the list is outdated).
You saw the movie, didn't you? Is that why you posted AC?
Similarly, when stinkers like Lesbian Gangster Yoga with Ben Affleck come out...
Huh...I think I missed that one when it was in the theaters. Must have been on Skinemax. Has Ben's career finally sunk so low that he is making cheap porn flicks?
Does this guy have a job? This guy is writing a book, working on a movie, making various portable game devices and who knows what else he is working on. Where do people find time to do all this stuff?
I assume this guy does not have a girlfriend/wife.
A car that runs on water...are you sure you're not talking about this?
And not to be an attention whore, but I did a partial summary of the interesting parts of the M$ document, if that's helpful to anyone.
I believe this topic was already covered on SlashDot recently.
This brings to mind a curious question: would it make sense to include in the GPL a statement requiring that anyone who asserts software patents is not allowed to use the GPL'd software? As open source software grows into greater prominence, such a clause might make companies less inclined to assert software patents if there is a real downside to doing so.
;-))
(Why do I suspect I am going to get flamed badly for asking this question?
"Assignment: Earth" aired in March of 1968. Production was in 1967 (I think). By that time, Teri Garr had appeared in many roles.
I'll admit that I don't know much about kernels, but I'll try to summarize. The chart compares performance between the new OS Singularity, FreeBSD 5.3, Redhat Fedora Core 4 (kernel version 2.6.11-1.1369_FC4), and Windows XP (SP2). The goal of the chart, stated in the paragraphs above, is to show that the new Singularity architecture does not suffer any performance hits in order to make a more secure system.
The table shows the CPU cost of six different types of operations: "Read Cycle Counter", "ABI Call", "Thread yield", "2 thread wait-set ping pong", "2 message ping pong" and "Create and start process". For the first one, Windows seems to kick the butt of all others handily with Singularity being the worst of the bunch. For "ABI Call", each OS used different system calls that "operate on a readily available data structure in the respective kernels." The system calls seem to be completely different so I don't know if this test is valid, but the results show Singularity an order of magnitude more efficient than the others, with Linux beating Windows by a considerable margin and Windows beating FreeBSD by an equally considerable margin.
For the "thread yield" tests, FreeBSD & Linux are equal, Windows beats them by a reasonable percentage and Singularity is more than twice as fast as the Unixes. For the "2 wait-set ping pong", which measures "the cost of switching between two threads in the same process through a synchronization object", the chart shows that Singularity is somewhat more efficient than Windows and Windows is more than twice as fast as the Unixes. For the "2 message ping pong", which shows the cost of sending a 1-byte message back and forth between two processes, Singularity is 4 times more efficient than Linux, which is somewhat better than Windows, which kicks FreeBSDs butt decisively.
Lastly, for "Create and start process", Singularity is twice as fast as Linux, which is about 50% faster than FreeBSD. Windows comes out 7 times slower than Linux on this test. I don't know how much that matters in the real world since creating and starting a process is not something that is done hundreds of times a second.
All that said, it should probably be pointed out that there are many ways to measure an OS. The M$ guys may have simply picked the ones that support their "see we don't suck" position. And given that Singularity is not a complete OS, I would expect that more overhead will be added later that will bring down these numbers. I guess we'll see.
I don't think he was hailing the businesses. His statement is probably better interpreted as "the big, selfish companies are fighting each other and the winner will be the rest of us".
His point was completely logical.
Ummm, aren't those patents effectively the same, differing mainly in the correction of grammatical errors and some rewording? If so, then did the USPTO effectively issue the same patent to the same company twice? Can they do that? Wouldn't the first patent exist as prior art for the second patent?
Judging by the looks of the two patents, I'd guess the first patent was written by someone not very skilled at writing patents (or writing in English, for that matter) and the second was written by an actual patent attorney. If you read the first paragraph of the first patent carefully, it arguably means that the patent covers only calls that aren't completed:
I'm guessing that nasty typo needed to be corrected so they had to submit a new patent.
That is interesting. To me, it underscores the biases that exist in the sciences. I roll my eyes when I hear folks defend scientists and suggest that they reach all of their conclusions through empirical evidence and ration. Scientists are just human beings subject to the whims of their own biases, so even when the evidence strongly suggests otherwise, the entire body of the scientific community can be very hard to make admit their mistake. I suppose that's why I'm always more cautious than everybody else in assuming that if scientists say something is true, then it must be.
One simple phrase "Please place me on your Do-not-Solicit list." would cure most of it.
What a bunch of bullshit. I am ALWAYS VERY polite to the phone solicitors. I ALWAYS ask them to take me off their list. Still, I received 2 to 4 unsolicited calls EVERY night. After I put my name on the DNC list, I only get 1 or 2 calls a month. I only get those calls because some telemarketers take advantage of a loophole that lets them call me if I own a business (my wife and I have an LLC). Being polite to the telemarketers never did anything for me and is irrelevent anyway; no matter how much of an ass someone is, the telemarketer called them and disturbed them so the telemarketer should honor their request to be taken off the list. Anything less is purely unjustifiable vindictiveness.
I worked as a telemarketer for a year. I heard people yell at me every day and it didn't change anything. Those people would get calls over and over and over. It was the ones who were calm and said the magic phrase didn't call again.
I worked as a telemarketer for about 1.5 years for AT&T. I came to reaize over time that what we were doing was an irritating disruption and an intrusion into the peace of peoples homes. If someone was angry that I called, I marked their record indicating never to call them again. THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO ASK ME - I did it because they had made clear that they did not want the calls. No "magic phrase" needed. Again, anything less is vindictive bullshit.
RTFA? There is no article. The link leads to a message posted in a forum. And everyone on Slashdot realizes the DAVID system is based on WINE, but the point the grandparent poster was trying to make is that SpecOpsLabs is specifically hoping to be handed a system that is sufficiently obfuscated so it does not appear to be based on Wine.
I think the grandparent poster is dead on; if you can come up with a reasonable alternative explanation for why SpecOpsLabs is offering this bizarre contest with such an absurd deadline, I'd love to hear it.
His post was reasonable and thoughtful. Your post was an ad hominem attack. Just because someone disagrees with you does not automatically mean they are pushing a political agenda. Not everybody believes everything they are told; some folks ask questions. Just stick to the science, please, open your mind to other possibilities and consider the possibility that some of what you believe might not be true. As I'm sure you well know, even scientists get it wrong sometimes. We are allowed to question them.
Climate change on Mars is expected and has been predicted.
Interesting. What is the cause of that climate change? Can you point to a source, please?
This reorg was laid out a month ago almost exactly as it happened:
If I Were Steve Ballmer
That lady is either very smart, psychic or someone at MS read her article. I'm guessing the later.
This reorg was laid out a month ago almost exactly as it happened:
If I Were Steve Ballmer
That lady is either very smart, psychic or someone at MS read her article. I'm guessing the later.
And yet another perfect exchange. The ending has my sides hurting. I can see I will be spending quite a bit of time reading these.
Option 2)
And if you are really lucky (and spammed), team up two telemarketers with each other, just as we saw with skype here [hopto.org].
That is hysterical!!! You should read this exchange between two unsuspecting men. They goes go so far as to arrange a date with each other. I would love to have seen the looks on their faces when they finally figured out their dream girl isn't a girl at all. Comedy gold!!
Oddly enough, I wonder if this might actually increase pirating. Since the major content providers will no longer be providing content that will play on existing PCs and DVD players, that will leave a lot of people unable to play new DVDs. That leaves a hole in the market that will very like be filled by DVD pirates who will convert the protected HD DVDs into non-protected old style DVDs. The quality will probably not be quite as good but the truth is that other than us geeks noone else cares about that; the quality of current DVDs are good enough for most people.
I know nothing about these devices, but, as far as I know, when you insert a USB drive into a USB port on a Windows PC there is no attempt by Windows to autoexecute any programs it finds on the drive. But the same can't be said of CD-ROMs; Windows will execute a program it finds on a CD-ROM. I suspect they chose to have this device emulate a CD-ROM because the mere insertion of the device will cause Windows to execute software that starts up the USB "server".
I find it really bizarre that these folks seem unable to provide a clear purpose for this bizarre device. Even more bizarre is that they hope the Open Souce community will think of one for them. Which is even more bizarre since it seems like this effort might be funded by Microsoft which surely has the ultimate goal of defeating Linux.
Sorry, but the parent was correct. The explanations given that try to show that part of the rotor is moving backwark make no sense.
On the rotor there are two sides, one which is retreating and one which is moving forward relative to the helicopter. As the helicopter reaches the Mu-1 speed, the retreating side of the rotor will be moving backward at the same speed as the helicopter is moving forward. From the perspective of the air, the retreating side of the rotor would appear to be standing still. That part makes sense
On the other side of the rotor, the blades are moving forward with respect to the helicopter. Those forward moving blades are rotating just as fast as the blades on the retreating side, however the blades on the forward moving side are traveling in the same direction as the helicopter. Therefore the forward moving blades must be moving faster than the helicopter with respect to the surrounding air. At the Mu-1 speed, the forward moving blades will be traveling twice as fast as the helicopter. It will not be moving forward at a slower speed than the helicopter relative to the air or anything else.