I know people might hate this idea, but Linux will never see the kinds of growth Apple and Microsoft experienced.
Why? Because most Linux types are using Linux to use Linux. Most consumers use computers to chat with text and video. They want to watch movies. They want to read email. They don't want to be computer experts and they don't use any particular OS in order to be using that OS.
The package in the OP was from Best Buy for a Samsung player. Best odds are that Samsung knows absolutely nothing about this guy, they just told Best Buy that "hey, here's a firmware update for player model xyz."
I thought is was just our (and astronomers') view of it that was at risk...
That and the turtles. Sea turtles are thrown off by city glow on the coast lines. Confuses them as when it's time to mate and what not.
And being "one of the best viewing sites on the West Coast" really isn't all that much to be proud about. Go inland a few hundred miles to the high desert, say Flagstaff, AZ. Then come tell us how wonderful the coastal mountains of California are for viewing.
Publicly-funded how? They've gotten government subsidies, but then again most things have. But doing business with the public isn't being publicly-funded. Anymore than you are publicly-funded for doing business with members of the public (e.g. shopping at stores, working a job, attending a school.)
And yes they do have the right to selectively ask people to leave as long as it isn't for reasons such as race, religion, age, nationality, etc. But if they just want to ask someone to leave because they are wearing a beige jacket, they can do that. Beige jackets aren't protected. And being 60 years old doesn't magically protect you, you still can be asked to leave for wearing a beige jacket. Or carrying a camera.
Everything is third-party. JACK only gives you a microsecond-precise information about audio system. You can do the rest yourself.
So what you're saying then, if I got this right, is that the best audio system on the planet is the one that you have to write yourself? Awesome.
That doesn't matter. It's still not hard to do using kernel streaming.
Didn't say it was hard. Said no other OS is doing it. Your argument seems to be that it's possible to do something, therefore it's already been done. To go for the car analogy, you are saying that since you can melt a Honda Civic down and recycle the materials into some of the parts needed to custom build a super car, a Honda Civic is better than a Bentley Continental.
Show me another OS that, out of the box, has the same feature set that Vista has. Any linux distro. Any kernel. And I'll concede that Vista doesn't have the most advanced audio system. Until them blather on, but you're still wrong.
Wikipedia's comments (which btw indicate that it is possible for an app to disable the new signal processing features and have its audio data delivered directly to the hardware.)
"It is by far the most advanced personal computer audio system available on any platform." - is a complete lie.
True. I wasn't exactly clear. I'm talking OS audio subsystem for delivering audio from apps to the hardware. Not apps.
JACK (http://jackaudio.org/) is probably the best personal high-quality audio system (it has a zero-latency design). It's followed by PulseAudio which is now not quite yet zero-latency but much more efficient.
Right. Zero latency. Talk about lies. It establishes callbacks in the apps, writing into shared memory segments which are then mixed and delivered to the standard linux audio device. Yeah. Zero latency as long as you stay ahead of the playback. Just like pretty much every sound system since the days of the original Soundblaster Pro using DMA. Where's the signal processing layer in there? Oh, it's third party. Where's the channel synchronization? Can't find it. And awesome how it punts sample rate changes back to the apps. And it uses floats as the sample format? Talk about a really bad design decision. I mean you get three of four apps going in hi definition audio (96/24/7.1) and you're going to be seeing twenty or thirty percent of your system going down the shit hole just to do sample format conversions. And what is the upside? Nothing. For every 32 bits of sample data you get 24 bits of mantissa and a useless exponent. And shockingly enough it's all software. Where's that hardware acceleration you're so fond of?
And what happens under load and the realtime scheduler can't quite keep up? Ah, I see, you get drop outs. What happens on Vista? Nothing, they hook into the scheduler to guarantee that their audio paths get time on the CPU.
Adding some more latency into audiobuffers to adjust timing is a fairly trivial task. Also, a good implementation would just turn off this misfeature if the system uses only one sound sink.
It's not a matter of delaying individual streams. It's a matter of delaying individual channels from the same stream. So that your rear speakers sitting against the far wall behind you play just a bit earlier.
For one - Vista doesn't come with a full compliment of guitar effects, like auto-wah, delay, echo, reverb, chorus, pitch-shifter, flanger, ring modulator, etc, and Creative's latest audio offering for Vista computers doesn't even come close to the same functionality. XP with SBLive! destroys Vista in audio production, most gaming, and most music listening, hands-down.
Those are application level features. That they've been implemented in third party drives doesn't change that.
On the other hand Vista's audio system provides automatic calibration that detects the distance of a presumed head position from each of your speakers then adjusts when it delivers the audio signal to each speaker resulting in the audio reaching your head position simultaneously from all speakers. Seriously, the Vista audio system is terribly under appreciated.
The problem is you just don't understand what the audio system in Vista does. It is by far the most advanced personal computer audio system available on any platform. Which is the reason that it needs a more consistent stream of data. Because adjusting the timing to the computer's various speakers so that the audio arrives at your head at the same time rather than leaves the speakers at the same time isn't free.
Here are a few thoughts for you: 1) 99% of all life that has ever lived on this planet is extinct.
So? That doesn't mean that we would prefer to increase extinction rates.
2) During times when it was much hotter than it is now the earth was teeming with life.
So? You might want to live in a Cretaceous jungle climate, but I don't.
Address my argument, not some random arguments that you are making up. The post I was responding to claimed the choices are survival or extinction, then qualified to all or most lives on the planet. My point is that that isn't the choice at all. The fact is, the climate is going to change. Humanity have no capability to stop it. The choice is try and control it and completely destroy the quality of life of everyone, or to adapt and make accommodations for the people who are currently living in areas where health won't be sustainable.
3) There were times when the atmosphere of the Earth was 80% CO2.
When? I don't know that it's ever been above 10,000 ppmv while multicellular life has existed. (And even if true: so? See above.)
It's not my job to inform you, but you might start with "second atmosphere." And the point is that even with conditions far beyond the "OMG! We're all going to FUCKING DIE!" levels of CO2, life developed and evolved and we have the planet we live on now.
Give it a rest already. GISTEMP doesn't disagree with either NCDC, HADCRUT, RSS, or UAH.
Huh? You want people to "give it a rest" that Hansen fabricated much of the data used to prove global warming? You want the most significant economic and environmental policy ever proposed to be based on the word of a proven liar? You think we should all base our planning on the predictions of people who have been 100% wrong in every model they've ever presented?
Sorry, but at least 30% of the warming in Hansen's numbers is completely fabricated (some people believe that number is 100%.) It has nothing to do with agreement with other researchers or institutions. It has everything to do with the Goddard numbers for historical temperatures being repeatedly adjusted to demonstrate progressively greater warming (pre-1970 temperatures lowered and post-1970 temperatures raised.)
We need the best science not uninformed, blind activism and rhetoric.
Sometimes benefit, as in the difference between survival and extintion, makes any cost worth of it. How much a life worth? and all/most lives in the planet?
And this is a very classic example of the religious approach to climate change. It's just flat out logically broken, completely outside the realm of science, or a false dichotomy.
Here are a few thoughts for you: 1) 99% of all life that has ever lived on this planet is extinct. 2) During times when it was much hotter than it is now the earth was teeming with life. 3) There were times when the atmosphere of the Earth was 80% CO2. 4) James Hansen (NASA big wig involved in climate study and the keeper of the US climate data) has adjusted the numbers to make previous years cooler and more recent years hotter.
And a quote for you:
"According to Hadley's (the UK organization responsible for climate study) data, worldwide temperatures have declined since 1998 and the Earth is not much warmer now than it was than it was in 1878 or 1941.
Both the UAH and RSS satellite data agree with Hadley and show temperatures declining over the past decade with only a slight increase above the 30-year average between 1978 and 2008."
So when you start talking like the Earth is going to turn into a barren lifeless wasteland, and presenting questions like "how much a life worth", it is obvious you have no clue and can only argue by appealing to emotion rather than presenting actual facts and informed arguments.
You don't think that striving is beneath you. You think that giving up a little pleasure now for a hugely improved life tomorrow is pretty damned smart. You don't think that having to skip a few nights out at the bar is a violation of your human rights. You don't think that some dude shooting his load inside your mother somehow entitles you to a life of luxury and idleness. You aren't so full of false pride that you have to be the center of attention and importance in everything you do. You don't reject every piece of advice because you know that you don't know everything. You aren't a lazy whiner who thinks that even the slightest bit of effort is too much. You don't insist that everyone blindly and baselessly treat you with the respect and deference given to people who've spent decades proving their capability and knowledge.
And yet for some reason Jimbo "the slut" Wales seems to think that everyone wants to give him free shit, like hundred dollar bottles of wine, the actual content that makes his little website even slightly relevant, etc. Maybe they need to butch the fuck up and review their spending practices and realize that maybe they should be a little bit responsible and take their role as a focal point of a public endevour. Stop acting like they are special and deserve some kind of rock-star life style merely because nobody gets off the internet and checks up on their behavior off line.
And once they start running ads, well hope they enjoy being a for profit organization at that point.
To me, this sounds like you have NO FUCKING CLUE how to read a patent. READ THE FUCKING CLAIMS. The claims define the metes and bounds.
I read the claims. When they got to "the method in claim 2 where the user input command is a keyboard command", I pretty much had it figured out. Nobody does exactly what they claim. Since they went forward with litigation anyway they must have some theory. Looking at their targets (Apple, Google, & Microsoft) their theory apparently covers previews. Which is why I bring up their technique of acquiring a preview and, absent their technique other people were doing previews long before they applied.
However, the basic invention is a method of grabbing a screenshot of the running program. Everything else is just puffery. Without claim 1 the rest of their claims are meaningless. Particularly since many of the claims, for example claim 4:
4. The method of claim 1, further comprising the step of storing information related to the application for manipulating the one or more computer files in the memory along with the icon.
Are things that have been done for literally decades prior to the filing. Apple's been doing that since the mid eighties (custom icons & file type/application associations). Without the take a picture of what the document looks like step, it means nothing.
And the make the icon look like what the document looks like step? Xv was doing that in 1994.
And even ignoring the prior art aspect, the phrase "...wherein the icon is created while the application was manipulating the icon's corresponding one or more computer files..." makes the patent ridiculously specific. Rendering a file falls far short of manipulating that file. If you throw out "manipulation" as being not terribly important, then you're back to what John Bradley was doing with xv.
And to answer your last question, well, it's because they haven't figured out how to block assholes like yourself. You thought you learned some terms of art and you suddenly figured you were Einstein or something.
AFAIK, Solaris patches don't even automatically check firmware levels or block installs, but I might be wrong.
Any patch that Sun has identified as being extra risky, requires a password that you have to get from the readme file.
Not to forget that Solaris, as it exists now, isn't meant to be a consumer OS. You are expected to be informed and have sufficient recovery hardware on hand when needed. And, if you care that much, you can buy an annual contract that gets you a Sun engineer at your location within four hours with spare parts to fix your failed equipment.
Unless, of course, you take it to your local Apple store, Best Buy, Circuit City, etc. Then they'll likely have it fixed for you in fifteen minutes. But, yes, it's a PITA.
Since you failed to provide a source for your number, I stuck "overseas tourism 17%" into Google and got zero hits relevant to people coming to the U.S. I think you made that number up.
Reading the patent, what they have patented is a third party application that grabs a screen shot and allows you to select the document you desire to work on via that screen shot. One aspect that doesn't seem to exist anywhere in Windows or Mac OS X:
The present invention provides an improved method and system for storing, navigating and retrieving files and documents in a computer system. A method by which this is accomplished includes the following: the use of graphical representations of the documents and applications as viewed on the screen at the time of `capture`, a Snapshot Navigator Menu that automatically appears when the mouse pointer is directed to the edge of the screen and disappears when the mouse leaves the visible area of the Snapshot Navigator Menu.
To me this sounds like they patented a computer program.
However, if their argument is that any kind of preview for file browsing is covered, then they are a number of years late to the party. In 1994 xv was doing this with it's visual schnauzer, providing thumbnails of all your images, etc.
One example I can think of now would be the first season of Heroes: Whereas the story was quite compelling (for me at least), and the events are quite out of the ordinary, the supporting special effects were quite marginal.
No! Heroes ended after about the fifth episode: "Save the cheerleader, save the world." OK. They saved the cheerleader. It's over. The world will be fine. Everything after that is just afterglow.
Just because you say there are many people with have no problem with this does not make it true.
Of course you have evidence for all your claims? I mean since you feel it is a valid argument to say "Just because you say... does not make it true", you've got supporting evidence, right?
And in case you lacked the wisdom to read the linked documents, here's a quote for you: "From its inception on January 5, 2004 to the present, USâ"VISIT has biometrically screened more than 130 million aliens at the time they applied for admission to the United States."
I'd say 26 million people a year qualifies as many.
Now I'd like evidence for these claims of yours:
1 - The US Government is "similarly totalitarian" re. Russia and China. 2 - There will be a "considerable reduction in tourism" re. this new rule.
Personally, I don't think you have the capability to prove either one. That is, I'm going to paraphrase you: Just because you say it, doesn't make it true.
Yeah, because of the fifty busiest ports in the world, Canada has one on the list (Vancouver) and the United States has six and five of them move more cargo than Vancouver.
The only ports that freeze are in the great lakes, you know the ones that ship out the majority of the grain to the rest of the world.
This confuses me. Not the freezing ports part, but the grain shipping, because the US exports twelve times as much grain as Canada. With 22% going via California, and the next 16% going via Washington and New York.
It means that if you throw a hissy fit, we simply say 'our market is now europe' and they buy our goods, or japan, or anyone else.
Yeah, because Asia is going to totally want to import goods from a half way around the world where it's twice as expensive to produce the goods, than they will from multiple countries right next door where labor is cheaper. I mean why import goods from Malaysia into Japan when you can ship stuff from Canada.
And yeah, I agree, it's going to be totally trivial for Canada to find new markets for 80% of their total exports. Not.
While you're very good at consuming our goods, and tell me something do you even have the manufacturing base left to make anything?
Slashdot Mirror
I know people might hate this idea, but Linux will never see the kinds of growth Apple and Microsoft experienced.
Why? Because most Linux types are using Linux to use Linux. Most consumers use computers to chat with text and video. They want to watch movies. They want to read email. They don't want to be computer experts and they don't use any particular OS in order to be using that OS.
The package in the OP was from Best Buy for a Samsung player. Best odds are that Samsung knows absolutely nothing about this guy, they just told Best Buy that "hey, here's a firmware update for player model xyz."
That and the turtles. Sea turtles are thrown off by city glow on the coast lines. Confuses them as when it's time to mate and what not.
And being "one of the best viewing sites on the West Coast" really isn't all that much to be proud about. Go inland a few hundred miles to the high desert, say Flagstaff, AZ. Then come tell us how wonderful the coastal mountains of California are for viewing.
Publicly-funded how? They've gotten government subsidies, but then again most things have. But doing business with the public isn't being publicly-funded. Anymore than you are publicly-funded for doing business with members of the public (e.g. shopping at stores, working a job, attending a school.)
And yes they do have the right to selectively ask people to leave as long as it isn't for reasons such as race, religion, age, nationality, etc. But if they just want to ask someone to leave because they are wearing a beige jacket, they can do that. Beige jackets aren't protected. And being 60 years old doesn't magically protect you, you still can be asked to leave for wearing a beige jacket. Or carrying a camera.
So what you're saying then, if I got this right, is that the best audio system on the planet is the one that you have to write yourself? Awesome.
Didn't say it was hard. Said no other OS is doing it. Your argument seems to be that it's possible to do something, therefore it's already been done. To go for the car analogy, you are saying that since you can melt a Honda Civic down and recycle the materials into some of the parts needed to custom build a super car, a Honda Civic is better than a Bentley Continental.
Show me another OS that, out of the box, has the same feature set that Vista has. Any linux distro. Any kernel. And I'll concede that Vista doesn't have the most advanced audio system. Until them blather on, but you're still wrong.
A couple of links.
Audio Innovations in Vista
Wikipedia's comments (which btw indicate that it is possible for an app to disable the new signal processing features and have its audio data delivered directly to the hardware.)
True. I wasn't exactly clear. I'm talking OS audio subsystem for delivering audio from apps to the hardware. Not apps.
Right. Zero latency. Talk about lies. It establishes callbacks in the apps, writing into shared memory segments which are then mixed and delivered to the standard linux audio device. Yeah. Zero latency as long as you stay ahead of the playback. Just like pretty much every sound system since the days of the original Soundblaster Pro using DMA. Where's the signal processing layer in there? Oh, it's third party. Where's the channel synchronization? Can't find it. And awesome how it punts sample rate changes back to the apps. And it uses floats as the sample format? Talk about a really bad design decision. I mean you get three of four apps going in hi definition audio (96/24/7.1) and you're going to be seeing twenty or thirty percent of your system going down the shit hole just to do sample format conversions. And what is the upside? Nothing. For every 32 bits of sample data you get 24 bits of mantissa and a useless exponent. And shockingly enough it's all software. Where's that hardware acceleration you're so fond of?
And what happens under load and the realtime scheduler can't quite keep up? Ah, I see, you get drop outs. What happens on Vista? Nothing, they hook into the scheduler to guarantee that their audio paths get time on the CPU.
It's not a matter of delaying individual streams. It's a matter of delaying individual channels from the same stream. So that your rear speakers sitting against the far wall behind you play just a bit earlier.
Those are application level features. That they've been implemented in third party drives doesn't change that.
On the other hand Vista's audio system provides automatic calibration that detects the distance of a presumed head position from each of your speakers then adjusts when it delivers the audio signal to each speaker resulting in the audio reaching your head position simultaneously from all speakers. Seriously, the Vista audio system is terribly under appreciated.
True. You have to calibrate it first. But once calibrated it delivers to the position you told it your head would be in.
The problem is you just don't understand what the audio system in Vista does. It is by far the most advanced personal computer audio system available on any platform. Which is the reason that it needs a more consistent stream of data. Because adjusting the timing to the computer's various speakers so that the audio arrives at your head at the same time rather than leaves the speakers at the same time isn't free.
Address my argument, not some random arguments that you are making up. The post I was responding to claimed the choices are survival or extinction, then qualified to all or most lives on the planet. My point is that that isn't the choice at all. The fact is, the climate is going to change. Humanity have no capability to stop it. The choice is try and control it and completely destroy the quality of life of everyone, or to adapt and make accommodations for the people who are currently living in areas where health won't be sustainable.
It's not my job to inform you, but you might start with "second atmosphere." And the point is that even with conditions far beyond the "OMG! We're all going to FUCKING DIE!" levels of CO2, life developed and evolved and we have the planet we live on now.
Huh? You want people to "give it a rest" that Hansen fabricated much of the data used to prove global warming? You want the most significant economic and environmental policy ever proposed to be based on the word of a proven liar? You think we should all base our planning on the predictions of people who have been 100% wrong in every model they've ever presented?
Sorry, but at least 30% of the warming in Hansen's numbers is completely fabricated (some people believe that number is 100%.) It has nothing to do with agreement with other researchers or institutions. It has everything to do with the Goddard numbers for historical temperatures being repeatedly adjusted to demonstrate progressively greater warming (pre-1970 temperatures lowered and post-1970 temperatures raised.)
We need the best science not uninformed, blind activism and rhetoric.
And this is a very classic example of the religious approach to climate change. It's just flat out logically broken, completely outside the realm of science, or a false dichotomy.
Here are a few thoughts for you: 1) 99% of all life that has ever lived on this planet is extinct. 2) During times when it was much hotter than it is now the earth was teeming with life. 3) There were times when the atmosphere of the Earth was 80% CO2. 4) James Hansen (NASA big wig involved in climate study and the keeper of the US climate data) has adjusted the numbers to make previous years cooler and more recent years hotter.
And a quote for you:
So when you start talking like the Earth is going to turn into a barren lifeless wasteland, and presenting questions like "how much a life worth", it is obvious you have no clue and can only argue by appealing to emotion rather than presenting actual facts and informed arguments.
You don't think that striving is beneath you. You think that giving up a little pleasure now for a hugely improved life tomorrow is pretty damned smart. You don't think that having to skip a few nights out at the bar is a violation of your human rights. You don't think that some dude shooting his load inside your mother somehow entitles you to a life of luxury and idleness. You aren't so full of false pride that you have to be the center of attention and importance in everything you do. You don't reject every piece of advice because you know that you don't know everything. You aren't a lazy whiner who thinks that even the slightest bit of effort is too much. You don't insist that everyone blindly and baselessly treat you with the respect and deference given to people who've spent decades proving their capability and knowledge.
7. 17. Twenty one. Three point one four. Eighteen thousand, seven hundred and sixty two. Zero point zero three percent.
And yet for some reason Jimbo "the slut" Wales seems to think that everyone wants to give him free shit, like hundred dollar bottles of wine, the actual content that makes his little website even slightly relevant, etc. Maybe they need to butch the fuck up and review their spending practices and realize that maybe they should be a little bit responsible and take their role as a focal point of a public endevour. Stop acting like they are special and deserve some kind of rock-star life style merely because nobody gets off the internet and checks up on their behavior off line.
And once they start running ads, well hope they enjoy being a for profit organization at that point.
Only expose is for locating open windows. Not activating a file system browsing application.
I read the claims. When they got to "the method in claim 2 where the user input command is a keyboard command", I pretty much had it figured out. Nobody does exactly what they claim. Since they went forward with litigation anyway they must have some theory. Looking at their targets (Apple, Google, & Microsoft) their theory apparently covers previews. Which is why I bring up their technique of acquiring a preview and, absent their technique other people were doing previews long before they applied.
However, the basic invention is a method of grabbing a screenshot of the running program. Everything else is just puffery. Without claim 1 the rest of their claims are meaningless. Particularly since many of the claims, for example claim 4:
Are things that have been done for literally decades prior to the filing. Apple's been doing that since the mid eighties (custom icons & file type/application associations). Without the take a picture of what the document looks like step, it means nothing.
And the make the icon look like what the document looks like step? Xv was doing that in 1994.
And even ignoring the prior art aspect, the phrase "...wherein the icon is created while the application was manipulating the icon's corresponding one or more computer files..." makes the patent ridiculously specific. Rendering a file falls far short of manipulating that file. If you throw out "manipulation" as being not terribly important, then you're back to what John Bradley was doing with xv.
And to answer your last question, well, it's because they haven't figured out how to block assholes like yourself. You thought you learned some terms of art and you suddenly figured you were Einstein or something.
Any patch that Sun has identified as being extra risky, requires a password that you have to get from the readme file.
Not to forget that Solaris, as it exists now, isn't meant to be a consumer OS. You are expected to be informed and have sufficient recovery hardware on hand when needed. And, if you care that much, you can buy an annual contract that gets you a Sun engineer at your location within four hours with spare parts to fix your failed equipment.
Unless, of course, you take it to your local Apple store, Best Buy, Circuit City, etc. Then they'll likely have it fixed for you in fifteen minutes. But, yes, it's a PITA.
Since you failed to provide a source for your number, I stuck "overseas tourism 17%" into Google and got zero hits relevant to people coming to the U.S. I think you made that number up.
Reading the patent, what they have patented is a third party application that grabs a screen shot and allows you to select the document you desire to work on via that screen shot. One aspect that doesn't seem to exist anywhere in Windows or Mac OS X:
To me this sounds like they patented a computer program.
However, if their argument is that any kind of preview for file browsing is covered, then they are a number of years late to the party. In 1994 xv was doing this with it's visual schnauzer, providing thumbnails of all your images, etc.
No! Heroes ended after about the fifth episode: "Save the cheerleader, save the world." OK. They saved the cheerleader. It's over. The world will be fine. Everything after that is just afterglow.
Of course you have evidence for all your claims? I mean since you feel it is a valid argument to say "Just because you say ... does not make it true", you've got supporting evidence, right?
And in case you lacked the wisdom to read the linked documents, here's a quote for you: "From its inception on January 5, 2004 to the present, USâ"VISIT has biometrically screened more than 130 million aliens at the time they applied for admission to the United States."
I'd say 26 million people a year qualifies as many.
Now I'd like evidence for these claims of yours:
1 - The US Government is "similarly totalitarian" re. Russia and China.
2 - There will be a "considerable reduction in tourism" re. this new rule.
Personally, I don't think you have the capability to prove either one. That is, I'm going to paraphrase you: Just because you say it, doesn't make it true.
Yeah, because of the fifty busiest ports in the world, Canada has one on the list (Vancouver) and the United States has six and five of them move more cargo than Vancouver.
This confuses me. Not the freezing ports part, but the grain shipping, because the US exports twelve times as much grain as Canada. With 22% going via California, and the next 16% going via Washington and New York.
Yeah, because Asia is going to totally want to import goods from a half way around the world where it's twice as expensive to produce the goods, than they will from multiple countries right next door where labor is cheaper. I mean why import goods from Malaysia into Japan when you can ship stuff from Canada.
And yeah, I agree, it's going to be totally trivial for Canada to find new markets for 80% of their total exports. Not.
I don't know. Maybe air planes, heavy equipment, trucks, microprocessors, DRAM & flash. Then of course we have things like tanks, airplanes & submarines, aircraft carriers, fighter planes & submarines. And there are vaccines and medicines.
But, hey, we import our socks, so yeah, I can totally see why you'd think the US isn't capable of producing anything.
The only reason the US imports manufactured goods is because it's cheaper. Barring protectionist policies, every industrialized country does the same.
No intent to be rude, but you won't be missed. There are many people from many countries that will have absolutely no problem with this.