I was always under the impression that "roaming" mode was analogous to analog mode.
Uhm, no. Roaming and analog have nothing to do with each other.
When I'm using my Sprint PCS phone, and I'm not near a digital network, my phone will start roaming in analog mode.
While that's true, it's irrelevant. It also happens to be vacuously true.: it's like saying, "When something isn't wet, it's dry." Of course when there's no digital signal, you will use analog. However, the fact that you have to roam to get it is a function of being a Sprint customer since Sprint doesn't own or operate any analog towers or networks.
If you were a Verizon or AT&T customer, you could use analog without roaming since both own their own analog networks.
I like *not* having an external antenna on my TiPB. My laptop constantly goes in and out of my school bag. I prefer not having to pay extra attention to a little peice of plastic sticking out in these and other such situations.
I agree completely. I had a G3 PowerBook (Lombard, not Pismo, so no internal AirPort slot -- running Linux no less!) with a Lucent card before my TiBook. I love my Lombard: it makes a great Linux laptop. But the Lucent card was a pain to pull in and out and start/stop the drivers.
Having integrated wireless is so nice: you just open the lid and it's on; close the lid and it's off. Nothing to insert or remove; nothing to type, nothing to click.
Also, for the record, the later model TiBooks improved the wireless reception (I have a spanking new 800 MHz model). I get reception virtually as good as my Lombard got (at least for all the places I do wireless). Only once was it slightly worse. But in my house, cafe, and at work, the base station isn't far so it's not an issue.
It is still only 10 base while all the desktop units are gigabit.
First, 802.11b is 11 Mbit, not 10. Second, an Airport card in a desktop G4 is still 11 Mbit.
Who still uses 10bit? No artissts I know. They all hook up with 100 base cable.
OK, so you're really not talking about Gbit, you're talking about 100 Mbit. And wired ethernet, not wireless.
Apple is supposed to be an innovator not the lazy company that lets its technolgy rot as every other manufactuer comes out with their own system that has much greater speed capibility.
Apple isn't in the wireless chipset business. They don't make, research, or innovate their own wireless cards any more than they make, research, or innovate hard disks, flat panel displays, modems, or most of the other commodity hardware they use. They buy/license the hardware and technology from other vendors. By the way, Lucent makes the Airport cards for Apple.
Apple needs to be compatible with other wireless networks where PCs can connect. They can't simply have their own proprietary wireless standard just because it's faster. Apple isn't Microsoft: they can't pull the same kind of crap that MS does with their own proprietary standards.
Apple needs to put out a wireless Gigabit aiport and cards for the extreame [sic] price they are charging.
Wireless gigabit doesn't exist. There is, however, 802.11a and 802.11g that offer more bandwidth. Unforunately, the market hasn't decided which of these two incompatible standards to settle on. 802.11g is slower, but backwards compatible with 802.11b. My bet is that Apple will eventually go with that one. But the market penetration of non-802.11b wireless is currently insignificant.
Extreme price? The Airport card is $99 which is about $40-$50 cheaper than 3rd party 802.11b cards.
You really have no idea what you're talking about.
Replace mechanic with dealer; some telemarketers leave voice mail; my banker calls me frequently about investments (as I asked him to do), but he calls my land line. (His news is important, but not urgent.)
One (of many examples): you drop your car off for an inspection into some mechanical problem with the possibility of repair. The mechanic is supposed to call you once they've determined what the problem is and get your authorization for the work. You need to give the mechanic your phone number. Once you do that, it's in their computer.
Now repeat the above for your doctor's office (test results), dentist (reschedule appointments), banks (loan applications), and oodles of other people.
I find it hard to believe that you couldn't think of these yourself.
That's why you never give out your cell phone number!
If you have only the one number and you must fill in a phone number on a form or you must give a contact number to somebody, then you really have no choice.
... cellular telephone service, or other radio common carrier service, if the person being called would be charged for the call...
And I bet the telemarketer could successfully argue that the person being called would not be charged for the call since cell phone plans are sold in blocks of minutes and many people don't use their entire monthly block. Hence, there is no extra charge to receive the call.
But that presupposes it even gets to court. Most people called would simply hang up or asked to be put on a Do Not Call List rather than sue. Being sued by the very small minority of cellphone users who would actually have the stamina to do so would simply be regarded as a "cost of doing business" by the telemarketer. As long as the overall profit is greater than that, it's cheaper to pay the FCC fine, if any.
Why are people still even using land lines?... All I use my home phone for is for dialing out to the Net. I have no telephones connected to it at home, thus, no telemarketers.
... until you fill out some form where it has a spot for your phone number. Since you have no lang line, you give your cell number. Congratulations: your number is now "out there" in some database to be sold to telemarketers... eventually. If you haven't gotten a telemarketing call on your cell phone yet, you will.
I have all of the major concepts, and relationships in mind, but refuse to write one line of code until I have a good design plan.
You sound like a manager who has just completed a software methodology course and now wants to force all of the staff to use what he's learned in class. Bah! At least I, and probably others, think in code and use an editor as a scratchpad to come up with a design.
There are things you sometimes don't or can't see until you try to code it. Often, it's the case that it's difficult or impossible to do something a certain way due to constraints of the language.
Iterative design and prototyping are, IMHO, much better than the old "design, then code" method.
ex[a]ctly why they need a tightly controlled.kids domain
This will never work because there's no financial incentive for companies to provide content for.kids.us since kids can't buy things they see. The only companies that may be in.kids.us are giant companies like Disney that will just be pushing no-brainer cartoons. Never mind that all real educational and scientific information will not be in.kids.us (and the current proposal forbids linking outside of it).
C++ is designed to be a compiled language not for run time interpretation...
This is completely false. There's absolutely no reason a C++ VM can't exist. C++ can be ported to many platforms. You just make up a virtual platform, write a VM for it, then port a C++ compiler to emit VM code. If I had the time, I'd do this to shut up all the Java people who are so pro-Java because of the VM.
I guess the term "regular expression" is pretty vague/useless these days. You have to identify the language _and_ its revision to get an accurate idea of the regexp feature set you're dealing with
That's true only if you confuse "regular expression" as the formal concept with implementation languages.
The formal concepts for regular expressions are explained in gory detail in
this book
among other places.
This stuff hasn't changed in decades.
Does that make anyone else think of a gay pride parade slogan?
FYI: the "rainbow" word was used by the Rainbow Family way before the gay movement adopted it. It's also been used by Jessie Jackson's "Rainbow Coalition" since.
I still don't get it why people think they can make money from developing open source products.
The software is free, hence no money.
"Open source" doesn't equate to "free" as in "free beer." Somebody developing a software product for which the source is open is free to charge money for it. Granted, a lot of open-source software is under the GPL in which case this isn't true; but software doesn't need to be GPL'd to be open-source.
Note also that "open source" doesn't equate to your ability to download it from the 'net for free either. Somebody can distribute open-source software on CD just like closed-source software (the difference being they'd get the source code on the CD in addition to the binary).
Why would anybody pay for software they can freely view the source code for? Why not? Does making software closed-source, such as Microsoft Office, prevent it from being copied? Not one bit.
Only because it's trying to sell you something to cause a money transaction.
Local intrastate gun and drug trafficking is interstate commerce.
People don't traffic guns and drugs for free: money is changing hands.
The DMCA is probably based on the interstate commerce clause. Trademark law definately is. Maybe that's not the way it should be, but that's certainly the way it is.
And what does this have to do with the price of tea in China?
People doing searches don't generally pay to use search engines. No money transaction = no commerce.
The fact that companies pay money to have links there is irrelevant and doesn't make it "commerce" any more than me paying my ISP makes my website "commerce."
Slashdot Mirror
If you were a Verizon or AT&T customer, you could use analog without roaming since both own their own analog networks.
Having integrated wireless is so nice: you just open the lid and it's on; close the lid and it's off. Nothing to insert or remove; nothing to type, nothing to click.
Also, for the record, the later model TiBooks improved the wireless reception (I have a spanking new 800 MHz model). I get reception virtually as good as my Lombard got (at least for all the places I do wireless). Only once was it slightly worse. But in my house, cafe, and at work, the base station isn't far so it's not an issue.
Apple needs to be compatible with other wireless networks where PCs can connect. They can't simply have their own proprietary wireless standard just because it's faster. Apple isn't Microsoft: they can't pull the same kind of crap that MS does with their own proprietary standards.
Wireless gigabit doesn't exist. There is, however, 802.11a and 802.11g that offer more bandwidth. Unforunately, the market hasn't decided which of these two incompatible standards to settle on. 802.11g is slower, but backwards compatible with 802.11b. My bet is that Apple will eventually go with that one. But the market penetration of non-802.11b wireless is currently insignificant.Extreme price? The Airport card is $99 which is about $40-$50 cheaper than 3rd party 802.11b cards.
You really have no idea what you're talking about.
Replace mechanic with dealer; some telemarketers leave voice mail; my banker calls me frequently about investments (as I asked him to do), but he calls my land line. (His news is important, but not urgent.)
Now repeat the above for your doctor's office (test results), dentist (reschedule appointments), banks (loan applications), and oodles of other people.
I find it hard to believe that you couldn't think of these yourself.
But that presupposes it even gets to court. Most people called would simply hang up or asked to be put on a Do Not Call List rather than sue. Being sued by the very small minority of cellphone users who would actually have the stamina to do so would simply be regarded as a "cost of doing business" by the telemarketer. As long as the overall profit is greater than that, it's cheaper to pay the FCC fine, if any.
There are things you sometimes don't or can't see until you try to code it. Often, it's the case that it's difficult or impossible to do something a certain way due to constraints of the language.
Iterative design and prototyping are, IMHO, much better than the old "design, then code" method.
Note also that "open source" doesn't equate to your ability to download it from the 'net for free either. Somebody can distribute open-source software on CD just like closed-source software (the difference being they'd get the source code on the CD in addition to the binary).
Why would anybody pay for software they can freely view the source code for? Why not? Does making software closed-source, such as Microsoft Office, prevent it from being copied? Not one bit.
The fact that companies pay money to have links there is irrelevant and doesn't make it "commerce" any more than me paying my ISP makes my website "commerce."