LIke anything else, you have to spend some time actually LEARNING to use linux. It doesn't all just come naturally, simply because you some experience with Windows, or C-64's.
I remember when I got my very first mouse, attached to my PCjr somewhere abouts 1984 or so. I didn't know how to copy a single file from one disk to another (the mouse.com driver or whatever it was). All I knew how to do was copy entire diskettes. I spent HOURS dorking around, trying to figure out how to copy a single file. In the process I learned quite a bit, and I had been "programming" and using computers for almost 2 years at that point.
It was the same thing with linux, when I first installed linux in 1995 or so, I could barely navigate around the shell and didn't know about make, grep, ls, etc, despite that fact that I could do just about anything in windows and had hex-edited my COMMAND.COM to be more "interesting".
Linux is different, and more powerful than Windows, and the learning curve can be steep.
I am hard pressed to see the difference between talking on a cell phone
The main difference is that talking to passengers, or twiddling the radio doesn't tie up one of your free hands for many minutes at a time. You are *technically* s'posed tohave both hands on the wheel. Talking on a hand-held phone will ensure this doesn't happen. Also, the radio is placed such that you don't have to move your eyes too far to see it, and intereact with it, it also has large buttons that are easy to see/find/push. The cellphone on the other hand is overall about twice the size of a chicklet, with keys proportionally smaller.
Overall, I'm not against the use of cellphones while driving, but a good headset coupled to a phone with a voice-dial capability should be the baseline requirement.
Considering that most remote controls have a range of about 30 feet indoors, I'm highly doubtful that they would be of any use outdoors to pre-empt a traffic light. The IR light in the sunlight would essentially drive the S/N ratio down to the point that the remote controls tiny LED flashing away would never be registered by the sensor.
The plans I have also seen require a specific sequence/pattern of the flashing IR light, which an ordinary remote would not be able to reproduce (most of them are centered on a 38Khz pulse).
Not only is the Internet pretty much my sole source of info (I do keep a small forest of dead tree reference manuals for various computer/network/electronics info on hand), if Google can't find it, I pretty much assume the subject matter to be without enough merit to warrant further investigation.
I'm not sure if you've ever seen the punchcards up close, but I'd be surprised if you could push a wire hanger (or similar) though more than 5 or 6 of them stacked up, much less 100 or so.
You could possibly do it with something like a power drill (but you're still talking about stacks of cards about a foot high).
The biggest flaw that I see in this "logic" is that all the cards would have a very similar hole in them, and due to the cards underneath the punch-thru hole would look much different than a normal legit punch.
Seems more like a media conspiracy theory than a reality to me...
I tend to agree... Mini-ITX system boards have now been stuck in all sorts of odd cases, in vehicles, on bikes, on boats, etc. Its not interesting to see that someone else has simply wrapped a PC in a new skin.
WE GET IT ALREADY, you can put mini-itx mobo's in places that you can't put other mobos.
Also, while we're on the topic, small LCD screens are no longer "kewl" either, they're readily available, and not all that expensive, and easy to interface to.
I don't think the user name swappage would work. You're still tied to an IP addy, which is what they're *really* going by anyway. It's not like the RIAA is asking Comcast to give up the information on user "bigp1mpd00d@kazaa". The usernames are just a convienient (for now) way of identifying people until they have real names to attach to the lawsuits.
IP addresses and phone numbers don't really map in the way you are trying to imply. For one thing, if you actually have an IP block assigned to you, it can be advertised out of whatever ISP you wish. We do this all the time with co-lo customers, they bring their own servers and IP blocks to our data centers, and we advertise the routes appropriately so that the packets know which way to go.
In terms of DNS and phone books... Phone books are not the same as DNS, you can (theoretically) always ask for the same webpage (www.foo.com) and the DNS servers will transparently map it to the proper/current IP in the background. You don't have to know when the IP has changed, as a user, and re-look it up, like you would with a phone book.
The truth is that number portability ISN'T all that difficult, and preventing it is an artificial way of limiting churn. The wireless phone infrastructure is new enough and flexible enough that it does not have to follow the same rules/restrictions of the copper network. It is more like a large switched network...
It is easier to get competitive wireless service than it is land-line service in most areas.
Many people who are canceling their land-lines are doing so because they already have wireless devices that basically de-value their land-line.
While canceling land-lines might not make any of the bells suddenly "see the light", it will shift more of their income to their wireless markets, which have competition, which *might* just force them to offer competitive services/prices.
Even if canceling land-lines doesn't fix anything, there is no point in paying $40/month for a useless service.
Just this morning the wife and I were talking about canceling our VZ land-line (we both have VZW phones and a cable modem).
This is just another reinforcing reason to do so. The only calls we really get on the land-line are telemarketers anyway, yet a basic line with callerid and a minimal LD plan is $38.00/month.
The consumer/end-user in this country is really getting screwed by the government and various utility oligopolies.
Try this site: http://home.att.net/~mevenmo/audiovideo.html Most of the info is for Sony receivers, but it might work with other brands as well. I know my Tivo didn't ask which brand of DSS I had, it just "worked" (although I did happen to use Sony DSS units anyway).
How so? Going back to my "internal combustion" analogy, that's like saying that schools should not teach gasoline-engine repair simply because it is the dominant technology.
No, it's more like saying schools shouldn't teach about fuel cells because internal combustion engines are the dominant source of power.
To carry it further, maybe the financial donor realizes that the best way to break the cycle is to provide an incentive to try an alternative solution.
Eliminating MS products from colleges will not eliminate the students access to those products.
Students of today, especially at the college level have had plenty of exposure to Windows PC's. Many of them probably haven't had as much exposure to Linux. Linux is gaining marketshare amongst business, both as desktop OS, and as Server OS (depending on what studies you quote, the yearly gains vary from insignificant to in excess of 100%:) ).
It is a disservice to students (IMO) to NOT expose them to linux at school. And by exposure I mean actual use and administration, not 1 semester of doing 'ls' and 'cd' and 'more'.
As long as no one challenges the system, the dominant players will stay dominant, regardless of their suitability. Saying that Microsoft should be used only because it is the dominant OS is a strawman argument.
I think of Opera as a kind of "geeky" browser, for the more progressive or literate users. Similarly, I regard MSN.com as a rather non-useful site overall. They don't provide (IMO) any unique or overly valuable content.
I guess what I'm saying is: does anybody really care that MSN is shooting themselves in the foot to prevent some people from accessing their site? Do they really beleive that people want to see MSN.com so bad that they will switch browsers?
And you missed my point... The article pretty much says what we all know, that dynamic content existed before this patent, and that it was linked from static links (i'm not sure if the yahoo example would qualify, as a lot of that was dynamic content generated from dynamic search requests).
Anyway, the point of the article was to cite specific examples of pre-1996 dynamic content linked from statis links as examples of prior art to invalidate this patent claim.
Well, just because we see *now* that the main logical way to link to dynamic content is with a static link doesn't mean that it was so obvious at the time the patent was filed (1996).
The real point of the whole article is that not much dynamic content existed at the time prior to the patent, so it's hard to find much prior art.
Yes, I for instance pay $0.02 per text message. For some amount of money, I can buy some pre-defined amount of messages, and for (I think) like $20.00US or something I can receive (and send) unlimited texts.
If the *sender* had to pay, then of course this entire thread would never have had a need to exist:) Same thing for email, "SPAM" would be a problem if the sender actually incurred some fee for sending.
One thing to note, though, is that if the *sender* had to pay, you probably wouldn't have these free services like the Yahoo and MSN alerts. Maybe that's not a Bad Thing after all, but it's worth pondering....
>And this gives you cause to sue them in small claims court.
Really? You can send anyone of your chossing a bill and then sue them just 'cause they didn't pay? How do you know you're even sending it to the proper accounts payable department?
Granted that Yahoo! may in fact be causing this guys' cell phone bill to creap up $0.02 at a time (at least thats what text messages cost to my vzw phone), but I don't believe Yahoo is liable.
They *should* however make it a fsck of a lot easier to get rid of these text messages.
Also keep in mind that most text messages are limited to an insanely small amount of characters, typ. 120-300. You think they want to waste "precious marketing space" with such frivolities as unsubscribe info?
Slashdot Mirror
LIke anything else, you have to spend some time actually LEARNING to use linux. It doesn't all just come naturally, simply because you some experience with Windows, or C-64's.
I remember when I got my very first mouse, attached to my PCjr somewhere abouts 1984 or so. I didn't know how to copy a single file from one disk to another (the mouse.com driver or whatever it was). All I knew how to do was copy entire diskettes. I spent HOURS dorking around, trying to figure out how to copy a single file. In the process I learned quite a bit, and I had been "programming" and using computers for almost 2 years at that point.
It was the same thing with linux, when I first installed linux in 1995 or so, I could barely navigate around the shell and didn't know about make, grep, ls, etc, despite that fact that I could do just about anything in windows and had hex-edited my COMMAND.COM to be more "interesting".
Linux is different, and more powerful than Windows, and the learning curve can be steep.
Well, they must have put it back. I just got done reading it.
I am hard pressed to see the difference between talking on a cell phone
The main difference is that talking to passengers, or twiddling the radio doesn't tie up one of your free hands for many minutes at a time. You are *technically* s'posed tohave both hands on the wheel. Talking on a hand-held phone will ensure this doesn't happen. Also, the radio is placed such that you don't have to move your eyes too far to see it, and intereact with it, it also has large buttons that are easy to see/find/push. The cellphone on the other hand is overall about twice the size of a chicklet, with keys proportionally smaller.
Overall, I'm not against the use of cellphones while driving, but a good headset coupled to a phone with a voice-dial capability should be the baseline requirement.
You've downloaded all the "good" music, as in *both* songs?
Hehe...
Considering that most remote controls have a range of about 30 feet indoors, I'm highly doubtful that they would be of any use outdoors to pre-empt a traffic light. The IR light in the sunlight would essentially drive the S/N ratio down to the point that the remote controls tiny LED flashing away would never be registered by the sensor.
The plans I have also seen require a specific sequence/pattern of the flashing IR light, which an ordinary remote would not be able to reproduce (most of them are centered on a 38Khz pulse).
Mod me as troll if you wish, but it seems that "Microsoft" and "almost here" are practically linked together permanently anymore.
I don't care what is "almost here". I can't (use|deploy) that which is "almost here".
Not only is the Internet pretty much my sole source of info (I do keep a small forest of dead tree reference manuals for various computer/network/electronics info on hand), if Google can't find it, I pretty much assume the subject matter to be without enough merit to warrant further investigation.
I'm not sure if you've ever seen the punchcards up close, but I'd be surprised if you could push a wire hanger (or similar) though more than 5 or 6 of them stacked up, much less 100 or so.
You could possibly do it with something like a power drill (but you're still talking about stacks of cards about a foot high).
The biggest flaw that I see in this "logic" is that all the cards would have a very similar hole in them, and due to the cards underneath the punch-thru hole would look much different than a normal legit punch.
Seems more like a media conspiracy theory than a reality to me...
I tend to agree... Mini-ITX system boards have now been stuck in all sorts of odd cases, in vehicles, on bikes, on boats, etc. Its not interesting to see that someone else has simply wrapped a PC in a new skin.
WE GET IT ALREADY, you can put mini-itx mobo's in places that you can't put other mobos.
Also, while we're on the topic, small LCD screens are no longer "kewl" either, they're readily available, and not all that expensive, and easy to interface to.
So, how exactly do you send that from a linux command prompt?
I don't think the user name swappage would work. You're still tied to an IP addy, which is what they're *really* going by anyway. It's not like the RIAA is asking Comcast to give up the information on user "bigp1mpd00d@kazaa". The usernames are just a convienient (for now) way of identifying people until they have real names to attach to the lawsuits.
IP addresses and phone numbers don't really map in the way you are trying to imply. For one thing, if you actually have an IP block assigned to you, it can be advertised out of whatever ISP you wish. We do this all the time with co-lo customers, they bring their own servers and IP blocks to our data centers, and we advertise the routes appropriately so that the packets know which way to go.
In terms of DNS and phone books... Phone books are not the same as DNS, you can (theoretically) always ask for the same webpage (www.foo.com) and the DNS servers will transparently map it to the proper/current IP in the background. You don't have to know when the IP has changed, as a user, and re-look it up, like you would with a phone book.
The truth is that number portability ISN'T all that difficult, and preventing it is an artificial way of limiting churn. The wireless phone infrastructure is new enough and flexible enough that it does not have to follow the same rules/restrictions of the copper network. It is more like a large switched network...
It is easier to get competitive wireless service than it is land-line service in most areas.
Many people who are canceling their land-lines are doing so because they already have wireless devices that basically de-value their land-line.
While canceling land-lines might not make any of the bells suddenly "see the light", it will shift more of their income to their wireless markets, which have competition, which *might* just force them to offer competitive services/prices.
Even if canceling land-lines doesn't fix anything, there is no point in paying $40/month for a useless service.
Just this morning the wife and I were talking about canceling our VZ land-line (we both have VZW phones and a cable modem).
This is just another reinforcing reason to do so. The only calls we really get on the land-line are telemarketers anyway, yet a basic line with callerid and a minimal LD plan is $38.00/month.
The consumer/end-user in this country is really getting screwed by the government and various utility oligopolies.
Try this site: http://home.att.net/~mevenmo/audiovideo.html Most of the info is for Sony receivers, but it might work with other brands as well. I know my Tivo didn't ask which brand of DSS I had, it just "worked" (although I did happen to use Sony DSS units anyway).
These stopped being funny about 8 hours ago. Some were good, but now we seem to be scraping the bottom of the barrel.
How so? Going back to my "internal combustion" analogy, that's like saying that schools should not teach gasoline-engine repair simply because it is the dominant technology.
No, it's more like saying schools shouldn't teach about fuel cells because internal combustion engines are the dominant source of power.
To carry it further, maybe the financial donor realizes that the best way to break the cycle is to provide an incentive to try an alternative solution.
Eliminating MS products from colleges will not eliminate the students access to those products.
Students of today, especially at the college level have had plenty of exposure to Windows PC's. Many of them probably haven't had as much exposure to Linux. Linux is gaining marketshare amongst business, both as desktop OS, and as Server OS (depending on what studies you quote, the yearly gains vary from insignificant to in excess of 100% :) ).
It is a disservice to students (IMO) to NOT expose them to linux at school. And by exposure I mean actual use and administration, not 1 semester of doing 'ls' and 'cd' and 'more'.
As long as no one challenges the system, the dominant players will stay dominant, regardless of their suitability. Saying that Microsoft should be used only because it is the dominant OS is a strawman argument.
I think of Opera as a kind of "geeky" browser, for the more progressive or literate users. Similarly, I regard MSN.com as a rather non-useful site overall. They don't provide (IMO) any unique or overly valuable content.
I guess what I'm saying is: does anybody really care that MSN is shooting themselves in the foot to prevent some people from accessing their site? Do they really beleive that people want to see MSN.com so bad that they will switch browsers?
At the time (1996) yahoo was mostly just a search engine and didn't have much dynamic content from static links, like they do now.
And you missed my point... The article pretty much says what we all know, that dynamic content existed before this patent, and that it was linked from static links (i'm not sure if the yahoo example would qualify, as a lot of that was dynamic content generated from dynamic search requests).
Anyway, the point of the article was to cite specific examples of pre-1996 dynamic content linked from statis links as examples of prior art to invalidate this patent claim.
Well, just because we see *now* that the main logical way to link to dynamic content is with a static link doesn't mean that it was so obvious at the time the patent was filed (1996).
The real point of the whole article is that not much dynamic content existed at the time prior to the patent, so it's hard to find much prior art.
Yes, I for instance pay $0.02 per text message. For some amount of money, I can buy some pre-defined amount of messages, and for (I think) like $20.00US or something I can receive (and send) unlimited texts.
:) Same thing for email, "SPAM" would be a problem if the sender actually incurred some fee for sending.
If the *sender* had to pay, then of course this entire thread would never have had a need to exist
One thing to note, though, is that if the *sender* had to pay, you probably wouldn't have these free services like the Yahoo and MSN alerts. Maybe that's not a Bad Thing after all, but it's worth pondering....
>And this gives you cause to sue them in small claims court.
Really? You can send anyone of your chossing a bill and then sue them just 'cause they didn't pay? How do you know you're even sending it to the proper accounts payable department?
Granted that Yahoo! may in fact be causing this guys' cell phone bill to creap up $0.02 at a time (at least thats what text messages cost to my vzw phone), but I don't believe Yahoo is liable.
They *should* however make it a fsck of a lot easier to get rid of these text messages.
True 'dat
Also keep in mind that most text messages are limited to an insanely small amount of characters, typ. 120-300. You think they want to waste "precious marketing space" with such frivolities as unsubscribe info?