The receiver, not just its PLL, runs in standby mode. But even that does not have to run continuously, it just has to wake up often enough to make sure it doesn't miss an incoming call. I don't know enough about the GSM standard to say how long or often that is, but it could have a 1:100 duty cycle. The microprocessor has a low-power standby and might use only microwatts while waiting for an interrupt. That's how you get 200-hour standby times out of a battery with less than 4 Watt-hours total energy.
The backlight uses a lot of power, not the LCD. LCDs just modulate light, they don't emit it. oLED displays emit light. The backlit LCD or oLED display of a cell phone is an intermittent-use load with a duty cycle on the order of 1:1000, unless you use the phone as a PDA a lot.
The various segments of the readout are wired in a sort of square matrix to save wires at the chip outputs and driver transistors inside the chip or on the circuit board. They can't all be on at once because of the wires they share. They have to be driven in sequence. So, you see a sort of strobe light effect where each different part of the number is flashed at a different point while your head and eyes vibrate in a sort of arc.
The PLL component this is supposed to replace is a small-signal component. It is not a major user of the power budget of a cell phone. The big power users are the transmitter and the microprocessor. The PLL is not heat-sinked and does not run warm. If it's not hot, it's not a power hog.
From my perspective, Microsoft has done exactly what you are bothered by: they paid someone to skew netcraft's statistics. Apache enjoyed a large number of parked sites because it was technically best. GoDaddy did not switch off of Apache for technical reasons - nobody makes a press release about a server change unless they've been paid to do that.
Netcraft saw what was going on and featured it in their April report. They did not choose to change the way they report parked sites.
I'm just trying to put things back the way they were before Microsoft bribed GoDaddy's management. I would be delighted if Netcraft would get more sense about this.
Thanks for working on that ephemeris project. I don't get to spend enough time with my telescope.
Someone else in this thread suggested lobbying search engines not to index parked pages - perhaps thats a better approach then joining in?
We can do that too. And I mentioned in another posting that there should probably be a special HTTP status code for "parked domain". Something not currently used in the 2xx or 4xx codes. We'd have to write an RFC. That could be used to designate a site as parked to search engines, etc. And then we could persuade the search engines to add an additional penalty to parked sites that don't self-designate.
I am not talking about platform zealotry. There is benefit in teaching people about the benefits of Open Source and thus giving them more technical choices and the tools to make them. Don't be so swift to condemn.
I'm back to Apache, because lighty goes in the "Misc" category of the stats and thus doesn't do much good to change them. There is much to criticize in the Netcraft report. However, it is indeed true that Apache still holds the vast majority of active sites. Pointing out the parking issue as we have might indeed persuade Netcraft to put the active sites first. That would be the best outcome.
Actually, there is a solution the parking sites can implement. Return the usual page, and status 404 which is the "no such page" code. Browsers would display the page. But the status code would clue in the search engines, maybe netcraft, and perhaps some browsers. It might not be a good idea to do unless everybody agrees to do it, because the folks who return 200 would still be counted in netcraft, etc. Perhaps it would be better to make an RFC establishing a new 4XX status code for "parked site". Then, people who did not use it would not be standards compliant...
I own 80 domains. I don't have them to squat on them and sell - although I did try to auction one recently that had outlived its intended use. I have them because if I don't buy and hold them for a use I might not get to for a year or two, somebody else might lock them up forever. I'm sorry it's a zero-sum game, but I didn't make it that way and I don't know how to fix it.
we should try to "market" to CIOs that can look further than a glossy brochure.
Sure. But we should market to the other guys too.
One of the biggest lessons we need to learn as a community is toleration for people who do not think like us and willingness to meet them half-way and lead them gently to our way of thinking. Everybody wins if we can just make ourselves be willing to do that.
We need a big healthy business user community simply to protect Free Software from all of the nasty things that the other side is using the government to throw in its way. Do not discount that it could become illegal to use Apache or FreeBSD if we aren't vigilant.
I've done a lot to discredit Microsoft's publicity ploys in the press. If you'd like to start a "Get The Facts about The Facts":-) site, that might help too. This only took me one day to hack up, I am back to work on other stuff.
We all know that all the vast majority of high performing websites run Apache on a free unix-like O/S.
We know that.
Unfortunately, it is still the case that most people in the world do not think like us, do not follow the same news sources as us, and don't have your heartfelt belief in Apache's superiority.
It would be nice if the world would just leave us alone to code and run our own software. Unfortunately, they don't. We have to face software patenting, DMCA, TCPA, and whatever new law and technical hurdle they choose to make. To fight these things, we need to get our message to people in general and especially to legislators. Having users is key to this, because no legislator is going to care a bit about your hobby project. Unfortunately, lots of those people who don't think like us count mindshare when they make a technical choice, and the domain parking statistics are just one way that MS makes mindshare.
As far as I'm aware, only the apartment with the screaming woman and mine had X10. I didn't know she had it until the scream. Given the realities of apartment living, X10 switches in the wall might have been installed by a previous tenant, in which case she'd really not know WTF was going on.
After waking up in the middle of the night to find every light in the house on (twice) when I only had X10, Insteon has been a blessing.
That was me.
No, really. A long time ago I lived in an apartment court. About 40 units around a swimming pool. One time I took my X10 controller and sent the "All lights on" code to each of the 16 house codes. After a particular house code, I heard a woman scream in terror. At the top of her lungs. Really dramatic.
I decided to find other pursuits.
However, I have thought of doing that on the freuqency of the X10 RF controllers, with high power, somewhere where I can see thousands of lit suburban windows.
I'm talking about the comments you *JUST MADE* referencing capitaleye.
Which was: I would not wave off any interest or suspicion because of that revision.
See, it appears that you are doing a classical rhetorical trick. First, you put up a straw man. Then you knock it down. Then you use the knocking-down to cast aspersions upon the argument of the other speaker, when the other speaker didn't base his argument on that straw-man in the first place.
You can expect people to look askance at your argument when it's done that way.
Why am I trying to connect Abramoff and Microsoft? To make a point about the power and influence of Microsoft's lobbying. It looks as if PG&E was put together to be a lobbying proxy for Microsoft, and Abramoff worked there. I connected this with the fact that ODF lobbying has directly influenced a presidential candidate.
Paul Graham thinks that you won't be sued until you have money. But that's backwards. Suing people who have the money to defend themselves is much more risky than suing the little guy. That's why so many suits are against companies that don't have any choice but to settle, because they can't afford to continue the suit to a verdict. The worst software patent lawsuits are not brought to make money at all, but to restrain another party from doing business. A suit against Open Source developers would not seek to collect money, it would simply seek to shut them down.
And he thinks that Microsoft would be deterred by a boycott?
Also, Microsoft's efforts through Preston Gates are masked because Gates has a controlling interest in the company. Money for Abramoff spent by Gates through PG&E doesn't have to come through a registered expenditure.
I'm going to call you on this, because you're being deceptive.
It's interesting that you put so much faith in a group that can't seem to get their act together.
My speech doesn't make reference to capitaleye.org and nor do any of my postings until you brought it up, directly above in this thread. Indeed, I've never seen their material until this evening. And the reports I've cited don't mention it either. It's only here because you brought it up.
That said, if you go back to Adelstein's report, he points out a money linkage through BSA. Microsoft's behavior is to use proxies. As I posted to you before, their direct spend is irrelevant.
I think it's fair to post pointing out an impostor, even if you don't want to moderate. Other folks will then take a closer look and moderate. If the poster gets a certain amount of negative moderation, I think the software will then ban him from posting.
FYI, if you can show me that a poster on Technocrat.net is an impostor, I'll ban that person right away. I haven't had to ban anyone yet. Maybe when the site gets more popular. Freedom of speech doesn't include the freedom to use impersonation to mess with someone else's reputation. Rob and I seem to differ on this.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks
Bruce
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce
Bruce
From my perspective, Microsoft has done exactly what you are bothered by: they paid someone to skew netcraft's statistics. Apache enjoyed a large number of parked sites because it was technically best. GoDaddy did not switch off of Apache for technical reasons - nobody makes a press release about a server change unless they've been paid to do that.
Netcraft saw what was going on and featured it in their April report. They did not choose to change the way they report parked sites.
I'm just trying to put things back the way they were before Microsoft bribed GoDaddy's management. I would be delighted if Netcraft would get more sense about this.
Thanks for working on that ephemeris project. I don't get to spend enough time with my telescope.
Thanks
Bruce
We can do that too. And I mentioned in another posting that there should probably be a special HTTP status code for "parked domain". Something not currently used in the 2xx or 4xx codes. We'd have to write an RFC. That could be used to designate a site as parked to search engines, etc. And then we could persuade the search engines to add an additional penalty to parked sites that don't self-designate.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce
Bruce
Bruce
I wonder how many people doing that with similarly low-value names it would take to get them to stop. :-)
Bruce
Sure. But we should market to the other guys too.
One of the biggest lessons we need to learn as a community is toleration for people who do not think like us and willingness to meet them half-way and lead them gently to our way of thinking. Everybody wins if we can just make ourselves be willing to do that.
We need a big healthy business user community simply to protect Free Software from all of the nasty things that the other side is using the government to throw in its way. Do not discount that it could become illegal to use Apache or FreeBSD if we aren't vigilant.
Bruce
Bruce
We know that.
Unfortunately, it is still the case that most people in the world do not think like us, do not follow the same news sources as us, and don't have your heartfelt belief in Apache's superiority.
It would be nice if the world would just leave us alone to code and run our own software. Unfortunately, they don't. We have to face software patenting, DMCA, TCPA, and whatever new law and technical hurdle they choose to make. To fight these things, we need to get our message to people in general and especially to legislators. Having users is key to this, because no legislator is going to care a bit about your hobby project. Unfortunately, lots of those people who don't think like us count mindshare when they make a technical choice, and the domain parking statistics are just one way that MS makes mindshare.
Bruce
Yes.
Wikipedia has no invariant sections, so this would not be an issue.
Bruce
Bruce
That was me.
No, really. A long time ago I lived in an apartment court. About 40 units around a swimming pool. One time I took my X10 controller and sent the "All lights on" code to each of the 16 house codes. After a particular house code, I heard a woman scream in terror. At the top of her lungs. Really dramatic.
I decided to find other pursuits.
However, I have thought of doing that on the freuqency of the X10 RF controllers, with high power, somewhere where I can see thousands of lit suburban windows.
Bruce
It's a real connection.
Bruce
Which was: I would not wave off any interest or suspicion because of that revision.
See, it appears that you are doing a classical rhetorical trick. First, you put up a straw man. Then you knock it down. Then you use the knocking-down to cast aspersions upon the argument of the other speaker, when the other speaker didn't base his argument on that straw-man in the first place.
You can expect people to look askance at your argument when it's done that way.
Why am I trying to connect Abramoff and Microsoft? To make a point about the power and influence of Microsoft's lobbying. It looks as if PG&E was put together to be a lobbying proxy for Microsoft, and Abramoff worked there. I connected this with the fact that ODF lobbying has directly influenced a presidential candidate.
Bruce
And he thinks that Microsoft would be deterred by a boycott?
Bruce
Bruce
My speech doesn't make reference to capitaleye.org and nor do any of my postings until you brought it up, directly above in this thread. Indeed, I've never seen their material until this evening. And the reports I've cited don't mention it either. It's only here because you brought it up.
That said, if you go back to Adelstein's report, he points out a money linkage through BSA. Microsoft's behavior is to use proxies. As I posted to you before, their direct spend is irrelevant.
Bruce
FYI, if you can show me that a poster on Technocrat.net is an impostor, I'll ban that person right away. I haven't had to ban anyone yet. Maybe when the site gets more popular. Freedom of speech doesn't include the freedom to use impersonation to mess with someone else's reputation. Rob and I seem to differ on this.
Bruce