Something that was not raised was what the randomness applied to. If you're dealing with an error factor in the fabrication of the processor, you are going to more than likely alter the program running on the machine. Even a single instruction being altered in most programs generally leads to catastrophic failure of the program. Now on the other hand, if the data was being handled with 30% inaccuracy, I believe that 9assuming the program didn't crash as a result of absurd data) what we got out would be worse than worthless. A small change in initial conditions in many algorithms leads to a major change in the output data. (the "butterfly effect")
I can only see this 'error margin' having very limited applications, where a small gain in speed is worth severely impacting the probability of correctness. Most of what we do with computers is done because we need deterministic results - every time we add 2 and 2 we NEED to get 4. In those cases, 3.999997 is no better than 115, it's still not 4.
it was the first thought that came to mind when I read
"Analysts say the chip bundle and software will transform the PC into an all-purpose multimedia device designed to function as a CD and DVD player, digital video recorder, game console, as well as a machine for traditional data processing and Internet."
"Oh, they're going to turn it into a Macintosh?" (referring to the iLife software bundle, currently in its second year of shipping)
.. is that the licensor can define all the terms (subject to certain restrictions of law) as to how the licensee can use the licensor's property. They could say you "need a license for each left-handed dyslexic that uses our software" and they'd probably be within their legal right to do it.
Laws should not be written based on the assumptions of the writers as to how people will operate within the law... they should be written with the expectation that people will behave in the worst possible way they can within the law. In this way, the concept of "software licensing" is broken. It's too easy to abuse, and we cannot rely on "bandaid" legislation or peer pressure against big business, because neither is even remotely effecitve.
Re:Parent is flamebait and trollish. Mod down.
on
LokiTorrent Shut Down
·
· Score: 1
The law allows for ONE archival backup. Unfortunately, at the time the law was drafted, it was based on considerations only for written materials, and "copy protection" for written materials did not exist. There was no need at that time for the law to include a clause that forbid the content creators from preventing the consumer from being physically able to produce the archival backup they were permitted by law to make. Just because you are ALLOWED to do something does not mean you are ABLE to do it. Now that technology has advanced and content creators are able to (through technological or sometimes legal means) prevent the consumer from making the backup copy, the law needs to be updated.
I carry a CD wallet with my laptop, it's a large one and is full of DVDs and CDs. The CDs are ALL burned. My orginals are safe at home. Due to my use of the discs, I occasionally have to reburn a copy of one due to damage. This seems quite reasonable. Unfortunately, I don't have the immediate ability to make backup copies of my DVDs, and I have already damaged two of them. Pisses me off. Legally I'm allowed to make a copy, but no one is legally allowed to WRITE a program to make said copy. Said it before and I'll say it again.. PISSES ME OFF.
Two things google has going for it over yahoo... first is the main page - google is just what you need, no extra crap. Second is the search results - both google and yahoo have "sponsor results", but where yahoo places them above the "real" hits, google places them off to the right so you don't even have to skip over them visually to get to the meat. Much cleaner interface all-around.
My take on all this is that programmers realize there's just so much sloth the typical user is going to stand for. When their application reaches that point, they baulk and start optimizing or stop adding features, due to "performance concerns". So on the average, system responsiveness will probably continue to remain a constant. Not because of technlogy races in careful balance, but rather that the user's tolerance is a constant factor and the developers cater to that tolerance level.
That being said, until the average user becomes less patient, we won't see more responsive systems.
Last I checked, in the US your credit card liability is limited by law to $50. Most banks, in the interest of increasing customer confidence, have a $0 policy. (which is really rather surprising considering banks never allow themselves to be on the losing end)
Even if the bank had such an online banking policy in writing, I'd imagine losing 90 grand is going to sting a little bit more than usual, and statistically it migth be worth their time to try to fight it.
That would actually be a fun thing to work on... parking oneself in the room for a few weeks with what little of wiring diagrams could be found, determining IP addresses, mapping network segments, and drafting new network maps. Trying to research/guess passwords to machines no one had logged into for years. Figuring out what services each machine provides and to whom.
Then comes the exciting part when you start unplugging all the cables you think aren't in use and downing the machines that should be redundant or defunct. (somewhat nervously listening for the phone to ring or the pager to go off) You'd be amazed how often the blinky lights are only blinking because several machines are talking with eachother and absolutely no one else outside the room.
Some people may view this as a frightening thing to try, but I'd call it a once-in-a-lifetime challenge.:)
I recall reading about a university that "lost" a server. It was one of those unix boxes that can sit untouched for years and not need restarting. After noticing it was missing, they tracked it down by systematically unplugging network cables, and found a cable that went into a wall and never came out. Turns out the server got sealed in by construction as a panel was put on the other side of it, making it part of a wall.
I think part of the gripe here is that MS "hoards" their updates and releases them periodically. This means the latest hole found a day after the scheduled update is going to remain an unpached hole for the next 30 days. At least with redhat, you can choose to run updates more frequently, and patch potential nasty things the day after they're discovered. If you don't want to be bothered with redhat's more frequent updates, then is it so hard to just run the updater on your favorite day of the month?
Not too likely... a couple yrs ago I pulled my Apple//c out of storage and went through about a dozen 5.25's and none of them would boot all the way up. At that, I tossed the box (including the computer) into the trash can. Not much good without a bootable disc.
That analogy is overlooking an important point... I wouldn't mind buying a car/PC that had one or two flaws from the factory. I *DO* mind buying a car/pc that has HUNDREDS of critical issues, so much that it's not even safe to drive home / boot on internet to actually get the repairs made.
If the car/os is that badly constructed, be pissed at the manufacturer for making such a bad product, or be pissed at yourself for making an uninformed decision to purchase said product. Your pick, there are good arguments for both.
Unfortunately, the reality is that most consumers are not experts on either cars or computers. The majority of them are making uninformed decisions and the marketing engine of the cars/os's is out in front blinding what little vision they have, and so they buy. For many this is just a way of life, buying crap and coming to accept it no matter how insufferable it becomes.
The most effective solution to this whole mess is education. Unfortunately it's not so easy to make Joe Consumer an expert on cars or computers, so we're left with feeding them a summary warning about what products to avoid, and hope they listen more to us than the marketing FUD. That's basically all the article is trying to do.
Three levels of gain - 15, 19, and the highest being a very respectable 24dbi. That would probably be overkill for your use - just placing the 15dbi gain one up on each end and aiming them properly should give you an excellent signal point to point. They're fully weatherproof too, unlike the "pringles can" jobbies, and they're actually reasonably priced. The 24 is under $70 iirc and you don't have to buy a pigtail. (cantenna pigtails cost as much as the cantenna does!)
Mice need to have some degree of asymetry to them so you can "home" your grip on the bugger to a fixed orientation without having to take your eyes off what you're working on. Heck, even word-processing, if you're typing (both hands on keyboard) and see a word earlier in the paragraph you need to change, you have to reach for the mouse. Taking your eyes off the text you're working on interrupts your workflow, so most people will just glance at the mouse using their peripheral vision and grab it. If you grab a puckmouse, it's anybody's guess what direction the pointer is going to fly off in when you try to move it to the word to change.
I work on macs every day, and I get to open up a powerbook several times a week. Trust me, there's no room in there to fit a wider keyboard. There are components under the speaker grille on both sides. Apple builds them very tight, and you have to be very careful that all the cables are routed correctly or they'll get pinched by the top case when it's reinstalled.
To get the keyboard wider on the 17, they'd need to ditch the speakers and the keyboard backlight, and I think I'd rather have those than a wider keyboard.
Although it's aggrivating, what they're doing is sensible.
The consumers didn't pay for the service, they paid for the ability to access the service via the software. There was no promise made that the service itself would continue to exist indefinitely.
I bought a modem for my computer years ago, to access the dial-up BBSs in my area. Today, none of those BBSs are still around - is the modem manufacturer liable for this? Of course not. I paid for the ability to access a service, without any guarantee whatsoever that the service itself would be available tomorrow. The fact that Intuit is both the provider of the access and the provider of the service has no relevence to this.
Now if they had stated on the box that the customer would have "free access for life to online banking services" then yes, there would be a valid claim. But they didn't. No company in their right mind would make a promise like that.
All this accomplishes is generating negative publicity for Intuit - reminding the consumers that Intuit makes no future promises and could very well disable the online features the day after you buy their product.
If you want to get real technical about it, quicken could very well completely deactivate their products older than 3 yrs if they wanted to, since you didn't purchase the software, you licensed it. And read the fine print - they can cancel your license at any time, for any reason, so it would actually be legal. (though it would make them look like complete nazi's and would have a profound impact on their bottom line, so they won't likely do something like that)
Do you expect more than 5% of pc users to be able to do those things? And you, an expert with them, take two hours to do this? My god, how many days would it take Joe Average to do the same thing, and what are the chances of him managing this without breaking his system?
Saying this is a reasonable solution is like saying send a mechanic to fix the mars rover. Possible? maybe. Practical? Get outa here.
Clarification: there are two or three clicks to add in addtition to the number, and zero counts as 10. (plus the 2 or 3) So to dial a 7 you'd have to click it like 10 times... but at 10 clicks/second, which could be a little challenging.
UT 2004 runs in OS X. I can vouch for this as an avid UT2k4 player with a 15" powerbook. As of 10.3.7, Apple has finally straightened out their OpenGL drivers for the laptops, so I get good FPS. (35-45) Warcraft is also opengl-driven, and should be performing the same now.
True, some games are not ported or are ported some time after the PC-versions release, but then again you could say the same thing comparing game consoles with PCs.
One factor not often mentioned in gaming is stability. Of the group I play with, I am the only mac user. I'm also the only one that has not had to reinstall the game at least twice in the last six months. Two of the PC gamers have overheat problems, and two more have issues with their games just quitting or disconnecting from the server for no apparent reason. All of the PCs except one (the laptop) make almost as much noise as my hair dryer. (one ties it) Having seen all this first-hand, there's no way I'd consider a PC for a game system unless I had a few thousand dollars to throw away and a lot of maintenance time to throw at it. (but why bother?)
I've set my SSID to "call (my phone number)" and leave WEP off. But then my WAP is on the outside of my NAT router, on its own IP address. As with yours, all they can do is internet and soforth, not play with my machines. I have my WAP set to email me access logs periodically, and so far I've only seen one foreign MAC in the logs, and I have yet to get a phonecall. But then I'm in an "old" neighborhood, not too many grannies with wifi cards around here I guess.
as it is the phones. A friend of mine recently got one of those new fancy 2.6ghz cordless phones, and was calling me and complaining that his wireless kept going out. I just said "phone...". He then put 2 and 2 together and realized that every time his phone rang, he lost his signal.
Gotta love the FCC's bandplan. Stacking wifi and cordless phones onto the same spectrum.
Slashdot Mirror
Something that was not raised was what the randomness applied to. If you're dealing with an error factor in the fabrication of the processor, you are going to more than likely alter the program running on the machine. Even a single instruction being altered in most programs generally leads to catastrophic failure of the program. Now on the other hand, if the data was being handled with 30% inaccuracy, I believe that 9assuming the program didn't crash as a result of absurd data) what we got out would be worse than worthless. A small change in initial conditions in many algorithms leads to a major change in the output data. (the "butterfly effect")
I can only see this 'error margin' having very limited applications, where a small gain in speed is worth severely impacting the probability of correctness. Most of what we do with computers is done because we need deterministic results - every time we add 2 and 2 we NEED to get 4. In those cases, 3.999997 is no better than 115, it's still not 4.
it was the first thought that came to mind when I read
"Analysts say the chip bundle and software will transform the PC into an all-purpose multimedia device designed to function as a CD and DVD player, digital video recorder, game console, as well as a machine for traditional data processing and Internet."
"Oh, they're going to turn it into a Macintosh?" (referring to the iLife software bundle, currently in its second year of shipping)
.. is that the licensor can define all the terms (subject to certain restrictions of law) as to how the licensee can use the licensor's property. They could say you "need a license for each left-handed dyslexic that uses our software" and they'd probably be within their legal right to do it.
Laws should not be written based on the assumptions of the writers as to how people will operate within the law... they should be written with the expectation that people will behave in the worst possible way they can within the law. In this way, the concept of "software licensing" is broken. It's too easy to abuse, and we cannot rely on "bandaid" legislation or peer pressure against big business, because neither is even remotely effecitve.
The law allows for ONE archival backup. Unfortunately, at the time the law was drafted, it was based on considerations only for written materials, and "copy protection" for written materials did not exist. There was no need at that time for the law to include a clause that forbid the content creators from preventing the consumer from being physically able to produce the archival backup they were permitted by law to make. Just because you are ALLOWED to do something does not mean you are ABLE to do it. Now that technology has advanced and content creators are able to (through technological or sometimes legal means) prevent the consumer from making the backup copy, the law needs to be updated.
I carry a CD wallet with my laptop, it's a large one and is full of DVDs and CDs. The CDs are ALL burned. My orginals are safe at home. Due to my use of the discs, I occasionally have to reburn a copy of one due to damage. This seems quite reasonable. Unfortunately, I don't have the immediate ability to make backup copies of my DVDs, and I have already damaged two of them. Pisses me off. Legally I'm allowed to make a copy, but no one is legally allowed to WRITE a program to make said copy. Said it before and I'll say it again.. PISSES ME OFF.
The law is broken.
Two things google has going for it over yahoo... first is the main page - google is just what you need, no extra crap. Second is the search results - both google and yahoo have "sponsor results", but where yahoo places them above the "real" hits, google places them off to the right so you don't even have to skip over them visually to get to the meat. Much cleaner interface all-around.
My take on all this is that programmers realize there's just so much sloth the typical user is going to stand for. When their application reaches that point, they baulk and start optimizing or stop adding features, due to "performance concerns". So on the average, system responsiveness will probably continue to remain a constant. Not because of technlogy races in careful balance, but rather that the user's tolerance is a constant factor and the developers cater to that tolerance level.
That being said, until the average user becomes less patient, we won't see more responsive systems.
Last I checked, in the US your credit card liability is limited by law to $50. Most banks, in the interest of increasing customer confidence, have a $0 policy. (which is really rather surprising considering banks never allow themselves to be on the losing end)
Even if the bank had such an online banking policy in writing, I'd imagine losing 90 grand is going to sting a little bit more than usual, and statistically it migth be worth their time to try to fight it.
That would actually be a fun thing to work on... parking oneself in the room for a few weeks with what little of wiring diagrams could be found, determining IP addresses, mapping network segments, and drafting new network maps. Trying to research/guess passwords to machines no one had logged into for years. Figuring out what services each machine provides and to whom.
:)
Then comes the exciting part when you start unplugging all the cables you think aren't in use and downing the machines that should be redundant or defunct. (somewhat nervously listening for the phone to ring or the pager to go off) You'd be amazed how often the blinky lights are only blinking because several machines are talking with eachother and absolutely no one else outside the room.
Some people may view this as a frightening thing to try, but I'd call it a once-in-a-lifetime challenge.
I've done this sort of thing before, twice, and it IS quite a rush. One of them was only slightly less tangled than this fun picture: http://vftp.net/virtual1/temp/IMAGE011_1wires.jpg
I recall reading about a university that "lost" a server. It was one of those unix boxes that can sit untouched for years and not need restarting. After noticing it was missing, they tracked it down by systematically unplugging network cables, and found a cable that went into a wall and never came out. Turns out the server got sealed in by construction as a panel was put on the other side of it, making it part of a wall.
I think part of the gripe here is that MS "hoards" their updates and releases them periodically. This means the latest hole found a day after the scheduled update is going to remain an unpached hole for the next 30 days. At least with redhat, you can choose to run updates more frequently, and patch potential nasty things the day after they're discovered. If you don't want to be bothered with redhat's more frequent updates, then is it so hard to just run the updater on your favorite day of the month?
Choice is good.
Not too likely... a couple yrs ago I pulled my Apple //c out of storage and went through about a dozen 5.25's and none of them would boot all the way up. At that, I tossed the box (including the computer) into the trash can. Not much good without a bootable disc.
That analogy is overlooking an important point... I wouldn't mind buying a car/PC that had one or two flaws from the factory. I *DO* mind buying a car/pc that has HUNDREDS of critical issues, so much that it's not even safe to drive home / boot on internet to actually get the repairs made.
If the car/os is that badly constructed, be pissed at the manufacturer for making such a bad product, or be pissed at yourself for making an uninformed decision to purchase said product. Your pick, there are good arguments for both.
Unfortunately, the reality is that most consumers are not experts on either cars or computers. The majority of them are making uninformed decisions and the marketing engine of the cars/os's is out in front blinding what little vision they have, and so they buy. For many this is just a way of life, buying crap and coming to accept it no matter how insufferable it becomes.
The most effective solution to this whole mess is education. Unfortunately it's not so easy to make Joe Consumer an expert on cars or computers, so we're left with feeding them a summary warning about what products to avoid, and hope they listen more to us than the marketing FUD. That's basically all the article is trying to do.
http://shopping.netsuite.com/s.nl/c.403468/sc.5/c
Three levels of gain - 15, 19, and the highest being a very respectable 24dbi. That would probably be overkill for your use - just placing the 15dbi gain one up on each end and aiming them properly should give you an excellent signal point to point. They're fully weatherproof too, unlike the "pringles can" jobbies, and they're actually reasonably priced. The 24 is under $70 iirc and you don't have to buy a pigtail. (cantenna pigtails cost as much as the cantenna does!)
(original link in case that one is a temp... http://www.rangeextender.com/)
Mice need to have some degree of asymetry to them so you can "home" your grip on the bugger to a fixed orientation without having to take your eyes off what you're working on. Heck, even word-processing, if you're typing (both hands on keyboard) and see a word earlier in the paragraph you need to change, you have to reach for the mouse. Taking your eyes off the text you're working on interrupts your workflow, so most people will just glance at the mouse using their peripheral vision and grab it. If you grab a puckmouse, it's anybody's guess what direction the pointer is going to fly off in when you try to move it to the word to change.
I've gotten that msg every time I've tried to follow a MirrorDot link here on slashdot. Worthless.
I work on macs every day, and I get to open up a powerbook several times a week. Trust me, there's no room in there to fit a wider keyboard. There are components under the speaker grille on both sides. Apple builds them very tight, and you have to be very careful that all the cables are routed correctly or they'll get pinched by the top case when it's reinstalled.
To get the keyboard wider on the 17, they'd need to ditch the speakers and the keyboard backlight, and I think I'd rather have those than a wider keyboard.
Good lord, every other entry in the discussions below that linked story were "click me for free mac mini". Idiots and their pyramid schemes...
Although it's aggrivating, what they're doing is sensible.
The consumers didn't pay for the service, they paid for the ability to access the service via the software. There was no promise made that the service itself would continue to exist indefinitely.
I bought a modem for my computer years ago, to access the dial-up BBSs in my area. Today, none of those BBSs are still around - is the modem manufacturer liable for this? Of course not. I paid for the ability to access a service, without any guarantee whatsoever that the service itself would be available tomorrow. The fact that Intuit is both the provider of the access and the provider of the service has no relevence to this.
Now if they had stated on the box that the customer would have "free access for life to online banking services" then yes, there would be a valid claim. But they didn't. No company in their right mind would make a promise like that.
All this accomplishes is generating negative publicity for Intuit - reminding the consumers that Intuit makes no future promises and could very well disable the online features the day after you buy their product.
If you want to get real technical about it, quicken could very well completely deactivate their products older than 3 yrs if they wanted to, since you didn't purchase the software, you licensed it. And read the fine print - they can cancel your license at any time, for any reason, so it would actually be legal. (though it would make them look like complete nazi's and would have a profound impact on their bottom line, so they won't likely do something like that)
or so the steam forums server says. That is, if "slight problem" can be translated to "half our customers are severely pissed off right now."
I've got a .NET domain registered (with register.com) for the next 9 yrs. I assume this will transfer over automatically?
Do you expect more than 5% of pc users to be able to do those things? And you, an expert with them, take two hours to do this? My god, how many days would it take Joe Average to do the same thing, and what are the chances of him managing this without breaking his system?
Saying this is a reasonable solution is like saying send a mechanic to fix the mars rover. Possible? maybe. Practical? Get outa here.
Clarification: there are two or three clicks to add in addtition to the number, and zero counts as 10. (plus the 2 or 3) So to dial a 7 you'd have to click it like 10 times... but at 10 clicks/second, which could be a little challenging.
UT 2004 runs in OS X. I can vouch for this as an avid UT2k4 player with a 15" powerbook. As of 10.3.7, Apple has finally straightened out their OpenGL drivers for the laptops, so I get good FPS. (35-45) Warcraft is also opengl-driven, and should be performing the same now.
True, some games are not ported or are ported some time after the PC-versions release, but then again you could say the same thing comparing game consoles with PCs.
One factor not often mentioned in gaming is stability. Of the group I play with, I am the only mac user. I'm also the only one that has not had to reinstall the game at least twice in the last six months. Two of the PC gamers have overheat problems, and two more have issues with their games just quitting or disconnecting from the server for no apparent reason. All of the PCs except one (the laptop) make almost as much noise as my hair dryer. (one ties it) Having seen all this first-hand, there's no way I'd consider a PC for a game system unless I had a few thousand dollars to throw away and a lot of maintenance time to throw at it. (but why bother?)
I've set my SSID to "call (my phone number)" and leave WEP off. But then my WAP is on the outside of my NAT router, on its own IP address. As with yours, all they can do is internet and soforth, not play with my machines. I have my WAP set to email me access logs periodically, and so far I've only seen one foreign MAC in the logs, and I have yet to get a phonecall. But then I'm in an "old" neighborhood, not too many grannies with wifi cards around here I guess.
as it is the phones. A friend of mine recently got one of those new fancy 2.6ghz cordless phones, and was calling me and complaining that his wireless kept going out. I just said "phone...". He then put 2 and 2 together and realized that every time his phone rang, he lost his signal.
Gotta love the FCC's bandplan. Stacking wifi and cordless phones onto the same spectrum.