It's the latency. No matter what your bandwidth may be, some tasks (e.g. file servers) need to be "close" to keep latency from being nasty.
"Close" applies both in physical distance (I have to count picoseconds for the kind of stuff I do) and in network distance, since every router adds considerably.
For some jobs (backup is a classic) latency is relatively tolerable. However, even for those you have to watch out because one error can cause the whole process to back up for retries. Ten to the minus fifteen BER sounds good until you look at what it can do to your throughput in a long-latency environment.
do they propose to have copyrighted a binary file format? Infringement would require that the "copied" files be "substantially similar" to the ones SCOX has copyrighted.
Sounds a lot more like their usual squishy-"IP" claim: they hold the copyright on a book describing Unix utilities, so any implementation of grep violates their "IP."
Keep in mind that one of the main noise sources from most machines is the PS fan. Reducing supply losses from 30% to 10% means that the supply needs only one-third as much cooling, and thus one-third as much airflow.
In other words, efficiency can save your ears and lower your stress level too.
that the Feds would have the power to get wiretaps. They get the wiretaps, they do the legal legwork, and then if the victim has a bean the RIAA files its own suit and sucks the victim dry with most of the work being done at taxpayer expense.
However, the GPL also hasn't really been tested in court. And this makes it weak, in comparison to other licenses which *have.*
Of course it hasn't. Think about it. Here's SCOX telling the Court that their company was founded on distributing the copyrighted works of others without a valid license.
Pause.
At that point, IBM or whoever turns to the judge, shrugs, and rests their case.
It asks for evidence to be produced or the whole case thrown out.
No, it just asks for the Court to rule on Counterclaim 10. IBM has not asked for the case to be thrown out, nor have they suggested that SCOX produce more evidence.
They do point out that they have been asking for the detailed claims for almost a year now, and that the Court itself has twice had to order SCOX to provide them. Twice, SCOX has sworn to the Court that it has complied with those orders.
At this point, IBM is in the mode of saying that SCOX has had more than enough opportunity to come up with some adjudicable claims, and that the case should move forward with what is (or isn't) on the table.
In other words, read the frippin' linked documents before posting this stuff on the front page.
Petreley hasn't quite figured out that the GNOME v. KDE flamewars are dead yet.
I admit that I haven't seen much in the way of flamewars lately, but on the other hand interoperability between GNOME and KDE is circling the drain. Try to access a KDE app from outside of KDE (say, by using ssh) and you get a flood of error messages. Try to run a GNOME app from outside of GNOME (ssh, KDE, whatever) and you get a fatal "gconfd is not running" error.
For all practical purposes, the interoperability of X applications has been jettisoned.
Where did you get the idea that ASU was trying to change anything? They've got a sweet deal going now, and no reason to mess it up. They get lots of money from the Legislature, lots more money from the students, and rake in money from grants. In return, they produce grant proposals.
ASU's EE school has an enormous budget for toys, but they don't have a single faculty member who has ever worked with CMOS, don't have any classes in high-speed signaling, and don't have any faculty who have ever used logic synthesis. I've interviewed I-don'-know-how-many ASU grads (I am ashamed to admit I am one) who wouldn't know a Bode plot from a broccoli patch -- and they were the bright ones. I don't even bother with ASU grads any more unless they've managed to actually acquire some useful education or skills after leaving.
I've interviewed in Austin, but can't really comment. As far as Arizona is concerned, however, I'm a native.
When you say "Arizona" for technology, you actually mean "Metro Phoenix." In the Phoenix area you certainly have plenty of "space" mostly occupied by roads and red tile roofs: my commute is over 25 miles one way, with an average rush-hour time of 40 minutes by freeway. I live in the north Valley (far-north Phoenix) compared to the "East Valley" where the orifice is. Mass-transit consists of two busses and a transfer, net time about two hours one-way (not counting a half-hour walk to the bus stop in 110F weather.)
Despite the north/east thing, I have a shorter commute than several cow-orkers who live in the East Valley because (a) they actually live farther out, and (b) the east-west rush hour traffic through Tempe, Chandler, Mesa, and Gilbert crawls on a good day.
Technology employment used to consist of Motorola, now it's Intel that employs more engineers than everyone else combined. They sack 10% of their staff every year.
Education consists of Arizona State University, with 60,000 students who all commute and haven't any other schools to choose from: ASU knows that and treats them as nothing but revenue sources. The only requirement for tenure is hitting your quota of grant money. This might matter more if students ever saw a professor, but they have better things to do, like fill out grant applications.
Oh, and the only "open spaces" any of us see are when SR101 takes us past the Salt River Reservation (cotton fields, whiteflies that gum up your windshield) or SR202 takes us along the (dry) Salt River bed. Otherwise, it's a pretty fair drive to get out of town.
Don't forget those 110F summer days; it was 97F yesterday (late March). I happen to love the heat, but partly because I grew up here and partly because it keeps the riffraff locked up in air-conditioned denial. Yes, you can see mountains when the air clears. Just don't kid yourself that you'll be able to live in those "open spaces" and still work for Intel; even Craig Barrett has to fly to Montana for that.
Yes, you can produce overbars in the equation editor. Alas, that's not a whole lot of help in narrative text. Try reading an electrical spec sometime (e.g. JESD79) and imagine using the equation editor for all of the places that overbars appear.
Try making a table in OO.o and then displaying it in Word some time.
Try making a table in one version of MSWord and then displaying it in another version of MSWord. This is the one feature that MS has been absolutely consistent on since Word6: they screw with the table formatting in every single version, bar none.
Now, this is very convenient for MS because it makes it absolutely impossible for any other program to be "Word compatible." Save a table in OO.o, and if it displays perfectly in Word97, you can be sure it'll be hosed in Word2K. If it looks fine in WordXP, it'll be hosed in Word2003. All MS has to do is pull out the "right" version of their own tool to prove incompatibility.
Man, you know, the funny thing is that the one thing you pick on them for is true. Yes, even GPL'd software can have unresolved bugs sitting for months. Hell, go to the OO.o bug tracker and you can find entries from 2002 if you look for two minutes.
Sure you can. One of those is mine, in fact: OO.o doesn't have an overbar (opposite of underline) font attribute for text. Really a problem for doing technical documentation, but to date nobody has wanted to bother with it. Including me, as it happens; if it were important enough to $EMPLOYER we'd have added it already.
Of course, MSOffice doesn't have overbar either. Wonder what it would take for $EMPLOYER to enhance MSWord?
This is a big improvement over previous Microsoft FUD. They've managed to mostly avoid blatant lies, which may be at least partly due to the targets being familiar enough with OpenOffice.org to spot the real howlers.
Then again, it's got a way to go. For instance, they tell us that the (~$500) license cost of MSOffice isn't important, then they turn around to point out that OO.o doesn't have an e-mail client so that the customer would have to spend money to acquire one.
Usually before you bring a product into your company you evaluate it for technical soundness and applicability to user needs and business requirements.
Microsoft seems to assume that their upgrades will always meet these requirements.
No, they're quite realistically acting on the observation that eventually you'll adjust your requirements to fit their product. For instance, NT4.0 is going to be replaced because one of those "business requirements" is "continuing support."
I've watched as W2K replaced NT4.0 and WinXP replaced W2K. At each step, the IT staff reported all sorts of problems with the new version and no material benefits. In reponse, their management ordered them to solve the problems so that the new flavor could be deployed.
That's real life on the front lines, theory notwithstanding.
but for anyone with the time, it is absolutely worth going to actually see and hear the speech itself.
Moglen is a treat to watch and hear; in an era of dismal public speakers he's a reminder that people once went to Court and campaign gatherings just to hear English rhetoric as a fine art.
Looking over my resume (thirty years of it) I find that over two-thirds of the companies there no longer exist. Your best answer is to list the contact information for each tango-uniform employer with [defunct] or something similar.
Employers want to know how to get hold of your previous management, too, and pointing out that they're also not there any more tends to help.
The problem is the code written for the Government. Arguably, we should have access to it since we paid for it, but the authors have the copyright. Thus NASA's need for a special written-by-Government-contract-but-licensed-to-the -world license.
Slashdot Mirror
"Close" applies both in physical distance (I have to count picoseconds for the kind of stuff I do) and in network distance, since every router adds considerably.
For some jobs (backup is a classic) latency is relatively tolerable. However, even for those you have to watch out because one error can cause the whole process to back up for retries. Ten to the minus fifteen BER sounds good until you look at what it can do to your throughput in a long-latency environment.
do they propose to have copyrighted a binary file format? Infringement would require that the "copied" files be "substantially similar" to the ones SCOX has copyrighted. Sounds a lot more like their usual squishy-"IP" claim: they hold the copyright on a book describing Unix utilities, so any implementation of grep violates their "IP."
In other words, efficiency can save your ears and lower your stress level too.
that the Feds would have the power to get wiretaps. They get the wiretaps, they do the legal legwork, and then if the victim has a bean the RIAA files its own suit and sucks the victim dry with most of the work being done at taxpayer expense.
Of course it hasn't. Think about it. Here's SCOX telling the Court that their company was founded on distributing the copyrighted works of others without a valid license.
Pause.
At that point, IBM or whoever turns to the judge, shrugs, and rests their case.
On the other hand, my friends and I think it works better as "skow," rhymes with "now."
No, it just asks for the Court to rule on Counterclaim 10. IBM has not asked for the case to be thrown out, nor have they suggested that SCOX produce more evidence.
They do point out that they have been asking for the detailed claims for almost a year now, and that the Court itself has twice had to order SCOX to provide them. Twice, SCOX has sworn to the Court that it has complied with those orders.
At this point, IBM is in the mode of saying that SCOX has had more than enough opportunity to come up with some adjudicable claims, and that the case should move forward with what is (or isn't) on the table.
In other words, read the frippin' linked documents before posting this stuff on the front page.
I admit that I haven't seen much in the way of flamewars lately, but on the other hand interoperability between GNOME and KDE is circling the drain. Try to access a KDE app from outside of KDE (say, by using ssh) and you get a flood of error messages. Try to run a GNOME app from outside of GNOME (ssh, KDE, whatever) and you get a fatal "gconfd is not running" error.
For all practical purposes, the interoperability of X applications has been jettisoned.
Kinda sad to see IBM, HP, and others lagging so badly in commercializing this important new technology.
ASU's EE school has an enormous budget for toys, but they don't have a single faculty member who has ever worked with CMOS, don't have any classes in high-speed signaling, and don't have any faculty who have ever used logic synthesis. I've interviewed I-don'-know-how-many ASU grads (I am ashamed to admit I am one) who wouldn't know a Bode plot from a broccoli patch -- and they were the bright ones. I don't even bother with ASU grads any more unless they've managed to actually acquire some useful education or skills after leaving.
Arizona is a concealed-carry State.
When you say "Arizona" for technology, you actually mean "Metro Phoenix." In the Phoenix area you certainly have plenty of "space" mostly occupied by roads and red tile roofs: my commute is over 25 miles one way, with an average rush-hour time of 40 minutes by freeway. I live in the north Valley (far-north Phoenix) compared to the "East Valley" where the orifice is. Mass-transit consists of two busses and a transfer, net time about two hours one-way (not counting a half-hour walk to the bus stop in 110F weather.)
Despite the north/east thing, I have a shorter commute than several cow-orkers who live in the East Valley because (a) they actually live farther out, and (b) the east-west rush hour traffic through Tempe, Chandler, Mesa, and Gilbert crawls on a good day.
Technology employment used to consist of Motorola, now it's Intel that employs more engineers than everyone else combined. They sack 10% of their staff every year.
Education consists of Arizona State University, with 60,000 students who all commute and haven't any other schools to choose from: ASU knows that and treats them as nothing but revenue sources. The only requirement for tenure is hitting your quota of grant money. This might matter more if students ever saw a professor, but they have better things to do, like fill out grant applications.
Oh, and the only "open spaces" any of us see are when SR101 takes us past the Salt River Reservation (cotton fields, whiteflies that gum up your windshield) or SR202 takes us along the (dry) Salt River bed. Otherwise, it's a pretty fair drive to get out of town.
Don't forget those 110F summer days; it was 97F yesterday (late March). I happen to love the heat, but partly because I grew up here and partly because it keeps the riffraff locked up in air-conditioned denial. Yes, you can see mountains when the air clears. Just don't kid yourself that you'll be able to live in those "open spaces" and still work for Intel; even Craig Barrett has to fly to Montana for that.
FrameMaker is pretty much it for now.
Yes, you can produce overbars in the equation editor. Alas, that's not a whole lot of help in narrative text. Try reading an electrical spec sometime (e.g. JESD79) and imagine using the equation editor for all of the places that overbars appear.
Try making a table in one version of MSWord and then displaying it in another version of MSWord. This is the one feature that MS has been absolutely consistent on since Word6: they screw with the table formatting in every single version, bar none.
Now, this is very convenient for MS because it makes it absolutely impossible for any other program to be "Word compatible." Save a table in OO.o, and if it displays perfectly in Word97, you can be sure it'll be hosed in Word2K. If it looks fine in WordXP, it'll be hosed in Word2003. All MS has to do is pull out the "right" version of their own tool to prove incompatibility.
Sure you can. One of those is mine, in fact: OO.o doesn't have an overbar (opposite of underline) font attribute for text. Really a problem for doing technical documentation, but to date nobody has wanted to bother with it. Including me, as it happens; if it were important enough to $EMPLOYER we'd have added it already.
Of course, MSOffice doesn't have overbar either. Wonder what it would take for $EMPLOYER to enhance MSWord?
Then again, it's got a way to go. For instance, they tell us that the (~$500) license cost of MSOffice isn't important, then they turn around to point out that OO.o doesn't have an e-mail client so that the customer would have to spend money to acquire one.
Arthur C. Clarke anticipated this (as so much else!) with one of the Tales from the White Hart.
Microsoft seems to assume that their upgrades will always meet these requirements.
No, they're quite realistically acting on the observation that eventually you'll adjust your requirements to fit their product. For instance, NT4.0 is going to be replaced because one of those "business requirements" is "continuing support."
I've watched as W2K replaced NT4.0 and WinXP replaced W2K. At each step, the IT staff reported all sorts of problems with the new version and no material benefits. In reponse, their management ordered them to solve the problems so that the new flavor could be deployed.
That's real life on the front lines, theory notwithstanding.
Moglen is a treat to watch and hear; in an era of dismal public speakers he's a reminder that people once went to Court and campaign gatherings just to hear English rhetoric as a fine art.
FireDrake -- the logo could be pretty cool, too.
Employers want to know how to get hold of your previous management, too, and pointing out that they're also not there any more tends to help.
The problem is the code written for the Government. Arguably, we should have access to it since we paid for it, but the authors have the copyright. Thus NASA's need for a special written-by-Government-contract-but-licensed-to-the -world license.
Akitas, actually, so I suppose you could say that they were dropped from altitude.
OK, seriously, this is great. Too many kids are missing body parts from old munitions.