You're correct in that the TI-89 Titanium has the same processor as the original TI-89, but the new TI-89's processor runs at 12 MHz, as opposed to the original 10 Mhz.
Granted, it's not a huge difference (20%), but it would be noticeable.
And as to your assertion about the 49g+, I haven't personally used it, but I've read a lot of reviews -- and it seems to be almost universally agreed that the 49g+ sucks.
Now, if you want to debate about the TI-89 versus the HP 48GX, then we can talk. I *have* used one of those, and I like it a lot better.
I agree with you. It's a lot harder to crack the screen on a graphing calculator (even with the cover off) than it is on a Palm.
Case in point -- my Palm IIIxe's screen was recently shattered due to carelessness on my part (had it in a pocket, working up on a ladder lifting heavy things), whereas I have carried a TI-89 (and a TI-85 before that) in a backpack for years with no problems at all.
I didn't have a PDA back in high school, but I can just see the evil eye I would have gotten from one of my math teachers had I tried to use one on a math exam. Graphing calculators were completely cool, though -- which is funny, because in college I discovered that it's possible to put just about the same, ah, information in a TI-89 as it is with a Palm...
Moreovert, unless you're buying a really low-end PDA, any graphing calculator from TI (with the exception of the discontinued TI-92) will cost far less.
Yeah -- but have you seen the TI-89 TITANIUM which is due to be released in a month or two?
Faster processor, THREE times as much RAM as the original TI-89, and (in my opinion) a much more ergonomic and slick-looking design.
Probably not worth upgrading, especially if you're done with college (like me), but back when I was in school I'd be drooling over this one. And my TI-89 isn't even three years old...
But, frankly, I still like my TI-85 for doing conversions. Easier to read screen, too.
You haven't explained why you think my argument is bogus.
Considering I'm both a computer (programming) and chemistry geek, I think I can reasonably say I know a thing or two about what I'm talking about. In fact, I still have the lecture notes from the day we talked about this very topic in p-chem, and I remember the prof saying that it's a common misconception that water extinguishes fires by way of displacing oxygen.
Nowhere did I mention "magic." What you call magic is the flow of thermal energy -- and in centuries past was in fact considered magic. It's not.
I suspect that we may both be right, in a way. It's true that dumping water on a fire does cover the area that is burning and would temporarily prevent local sites in the combustible material from getting oxygen. But dumping water on a fire cannot drive all the oxygen off -- as I said, only gas-based systems such as Halon do that.
Your argument about grease fires is well noted and completely true. That's one of the prime reasons you're supposed to read the type of fire extinguisher (A, B, or C, or all of the above) before putting out such a fire.
As a scientist, I accept the possibility that I may be wrong, but I place the burden upon you to prove it. I am using, as you say, "'big' science words like 'endothermic'" because for one, they're the correct terms -- take a chemistry class or two -- and because a significant portion of the audience here on Slashdot is well educated. I am not simply bandying about big words to make myself look important -- I studied this stuff so I could make arguments like this and actually [i]know[/i] what I'm talking about.
Fire suppression systems such as those that use Halon (which was outlawed in the '90s due to its ozone-destroying side-effects) put out fires by displacing oxygen with some other gas.
Spraying water on a fire does not "deprive" the fire of oxygen. In fact, this is why you aren't supposed to fight certain types of fires (a magnesium fire, for example) by spraying water on it. That's because if the fire is hot enough, it will "crack" the water molecules, liberating both oxygen and hydrogen -- which will of course make the fire much worse.
Spraying water on a fire robs the fire of thermal energy. Evaporation (converting a liquid to a gas) is an endothermic process; it takes a significant amount of energy. When you dump a bunch of water on a fire, it takes energy from the combustion reaction to turn the water into steam. Eventually so much thermal energy has been taken from the fire that the fire extinguishes.
Well spoken. You sound a lot like a friend of mine who is in the Army Reserve, stationed as an MP at Kirtland AFB in Albuquerque. He *did* have to pick up a rifle and go -- fortunately, where he went was only 75 miles away, and not clear across the world to Iraq or Afghanistan.
As he puts it, he has to "watch the C-130s not get stolen."
How the hell does a person manage to post a thousand comments, all within one minute of each other ? I thought Slashdot was supposed to prevent posts from the same IP within 2 minutes of each other?
Don't you think "corrupt government" is all but redundant?
I defy you to give me an example of any government, anywhere, at any time, that did not have at least *some* corruption.
Why not get into politics? Try to change things from the ground up? You sound like someone who could make a difference, if only you can stay pissed off for long enough.
Put your money where your mouth is and leave, if you're so pissed off. Perhaps there's a country somewhere that won't ask you to do a thing to contribute. Maybe.
I bet you don't vote, either. Nah, that'd be too much like "involuntary servitude," to go to the polls for all of a half an hour once a year, right?
You know, one of the things I love best about this country is that, although you are guaranteed the right to mouth off about how shitty you think the country is, I also have the right to tell you to shut the hell up or leave.
I've got a family and a great job. Matter of fact, I just bought a house. I have no desire to leave these things I've worked for years to gain.
However--as I always say when a discussion of the draft comes up--I also realize that what has enabled me to acquire a family and a house and be able to drive down the street and buy a gallon of milk for $3.00 is the fact that there are people willing to fight for those things.
Yeah, I'm a computer person. I love computers. Computers are putting food on my table and a roof over my head. I don't want to leave if I don't have to.
But if it ever got so bad that I was drafted, well, yeah I'd go. I'd go and fight so that others can have the same things I've been so fortunate to get. Things like freedom and happiness and generally living in a (mostly) free country.
My sentiment is probably not popular in this day and age. But if they tell me to go, I'll go. I'm not making a run for the border.
My contract with Dish Networks will be up at the end of May.
After realizing that all I really ever watch is CNN, CNN Headline News, The Weather Channel, and Spike, it seems that this doesn't really matter much to me.
But after paying upwards of $40 a month for the Top 100 package and for local broadcast channels, it seems to me I'd rather have that $40 per month to spend on other things (like high-speed wireless)...
All other issues aside, whether this is Viacom's or Echostar's fault is irrelevant. Due to a new contract being negotiated, I am now getting less value (channels) for my money. I don't care if Dish is "standing up to Viacom's strong-arm tactics," or whatever you choose to call it. Refunding $1 per month in exchange for my losing a dozen channels seems rather a pittance, but maybe I'm alone in my opinion.
My conclusion to this whole fiasco is, I hardly watch TV at all anyway. I'll be perfectly happy to cancel Dish at the end of May and live with no TV at all -- no satellite, no cable, no broadcast.
It's not a particularly fair deal, no -- unless you happen to be a shareholder. If I were, I would expect him to do what he is doing.
Would you say that SCO has a duty to the Linux community? If, as SCO claims, it is true that its code has been stolen and used without due credit to SCO, then wouldn't you say the Linux community is doing SCO a disservice? Wouldn't then the community have a duty to SCO? And, if SCO has a legitimate claim that its IP has been stolen/misappropriated, does not the CEO have a duty to his company and shareholders to rectify the situation?
Should McBride and SCO simply say something to the effect of, "Well, you Linux guys used our source code without permission and without giving us credit; but, since Linux has such a large installed base and since our rocking the boat could disrupt the Linux community, we'll simply keep quiet about it?" I personally feel that would be an irresponsible thing for SCO to do.
If SCO's claims are accurate, and not merely posturing to be bought or to regain relevance in the UNIX world, then I say more power to SCO. SCO has a right and a responsibility to investigate what has happened and to receive some sort of compensation if they have been wronged. However, if the court finds that SCO has been wronged, I would hope that SCO and the Linux community at large could reach an amicable solution--and it sounds as though McBride feels that way too.
I'm not saying SCO's claims are true; I'm merely speaking hypothetically. I've seen a lot of SCO bashing, especially on Slashdot. It may be warranted, but then again, it may not. I'm just trying to take the position of devil's advocate.
McBride is doing what a CEO is supposed to do
on
Darl McBride Interview
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
It occurs to me that, all the foaming-at-the-mouth "this guy is trying to destroy Linux!" responses aside, Darl McBride is doing what he is supposed to do: he is defending the interests of SCO and its shareholders.
You may not like what he is doing, or how he is going about it--I don't like it much myself--but I am forced to admit that, at least on the surface, he appears to be protecting the rights (that is, the intellectual property) of his company. How SCO got those rights, or even whether SCO has the rights it claims, is a separate issue.
I believe that there is a revolution taking place in the software world, and Slashdot is one of its major outlets. Intellectual property as it has been may be becoming obsolete. But it is not yet, and there are still companies such as SCO which cling desperately to the ways of old.
I refuse to demonize SCO simply because they are not in tune with the Open Source movement's way of doing things. SCO claims that code which it has claim to was lifted lock, stock and barrel and placed into the kernel without copyright notices. If that's true, then indeed SCO has been wronged. There is no escaping that. What will determine SCO's merit as a company will be how they enforce their rights when or if it is discovered that this is indeed what has occurred.
While I dread what this situation might do to the Linux world, I must say that I admire Mr. McBride for having the courage to stick to his guns and do what the company believes to be right. It may be a mistake--and likely will be--but in this age of CEOs taking the money and leaving the company to burn, I applaud McBride for trying to keep his struggling company together.
The way I interpret "the unit has little to be desired" is that the unit has very few features that I, or anyone, would desire. If the story poster had said "the unit leaves little to be desired," I would interpret that as a positive remark about the unit.
No, not at all. Does everything Slashdot doesn't review have little to be desired? Certainly not. There's lots of things that Slashdot has not reviewed and never will--several of the stories I've submitted, for example--that I consider to be news and interesting to all the Slashdot nerds.
All I was saying was that if Slashdot does a review of something that has no features that would interest any of the Slashdot community, then by definition, the product or service reviewed would not be of interest to us. The parent story admits itself that the product doesn't seem interesting--therefore, I don't see the logic of posting the story. Why would someone who finds something uninteresting post a story about it to Slashdot? It doesn't make sense to me.
But in my opinion, it's only "stuff that matters" if it has features that everyone, or at least I, am interested in. If the story post itself admits that the device has little to be desired, it doesn't strike me as news. To each his own.
How did you get battery acid, zinc and limestone to make chlorine gas?
Battery acid is sulfuric acid, H2SO4, zinc (obviously) Zn (provided it's elemental zinc and not oxidized or something), and limestone is calcium carbonate, CaCO3.
You would get hydrogen gas by reacting sulfuric acid with zinc, and you'd probably get bicarbonate ions (or something like that) by reacting with limestone, but far as I can tell, you wouldn't get any chlorine gas.
Seems to me, just about every time you guys post a story relating to black holes, in some way or another you always say "this is the first real evidence of the existence of black holes!
How much "first real evidence" can we have from separate researchers? It seems that different people have each been coming up with the "first real evidence" for the existence of black holes for years now, and every couple of months some new researcher claims that he's finally proven it, and then it seems another couple of months down the road someone else stakes the claim.
Your way makes much more sense, and is exactly what I would expect to happen. But it's not what I was taught or what I've found. I've had a credit card for several years (since I turned eighteen), and have always paid off my balances in full right away, never accruing interest.
The bank never raised my credit limit. Not one bit. So I began to wonder, and asked some knowledgeable people a few questions, and what they told me (and this may well be different for different banks, but) is that banks don't want you to pay off your balance in full right away. Banks don't make any money off the transaction if you never carry a balance. It seems counterintuitive to me too, but anyway, that's what I was told.
And after this holiday season, for the first time, I'm carrying a balance on my credit card. Not much of one, but one nonetheless. So I'll finally get to see what happens.
It's just too bad that my APR is something like 19%... =(
Slashdot Mirror
Uh, no.
You're correct in that the TI-89 Titanium has the same processor as the original TI-89, but the new TI-89's processor runs at 12 MHz, as opposed to the original 10 Mhz.
Granted, it's not a huge difference (20%), but it would be noticeable.
And as to your assertion about the 49g+, I haven't personally used it, but I've read a lot of reviews -- and it seems to be almost universally agreed that the 49g+ sucks.
Now, if you want to debate about the TI-89 versus the HP 48GX, then we can talk. I *have* used one of those, and I like it a lot better.
I agree with you. It's a lot harder to crack the screen on a graphing calculator (even with the cover off) than it is on a Palm.
Case in point -- my Palm IIIxe's screen was recently shattered due to carelessness on my part (had it in a pocket, working up on a ladder lifting heavy things), whereas I have carried a TI-89 (and a TI-85 before that) in a backpack for years with no problems at all.
I didn't have a PDA back in high school, but I can just see the evil eye I would have gotten from one of my math teachers had I tried to use one on a math exam. Graphing calculators were completely cool, though -- which is funny, because in college I discovered that it's possible to put just about the same, ah, information in a TI-89 as it is with a Palm...
Moreovert, unless you're buying a really low-end PDA, any graphing calculator from TI (with the exception of the discontinued TI-92) will cost far less.
Yeah -- but have you seen the TI-89 TITANIUM which is due to be released in a month or two?
...
Faster processor, THREE times as much RAM as the original TI-89, and (in my opinion) a much more ergonomic and slick-looking design.
Probably not worth upgrading, especially if you're done with college (like me), but back when I was in school I'd be drooling over this one. And my TI-89 isn't even three years old
But, frankly, I still like my TI-85 for doing conversions. Easier to read screen, too.
Didn't you just say basically the same thing about the new HP calculator on Slashdot yesterday?
You sound like a broken record.
Eh. But what incentive would the "smart kid" have for letting the other kids download his answers?
... seems like too much trouble for the bully. Why wouldn't he just beat up the smart kid and take his calculator, complete with answers?
Oh, oh, I get it! Here's what would happen.
Class bully's parents buy him a TI-84 Plus with an IR transceiver.
Class bully threatens to beat up the smart kid unless smart kid allows him to download answers.
Nah
Well, I didn't say people do, I said people are supposed to.
You haven't explained why you think my argument is bogus.
Considering I'm both a computer (programming) and chemistry geek, I think I can reasonably say I know a thing or two about what I'm talking about. In fact, I still have the lecture notes from the day we talked about this very topic in p-chem, and I remember the prof saying that it's a common misconception that water extinguishes fires by way of displacing oxygen.
Nowhere did I mention "magic." What you call magic is the flow of thermal energy -- and in centuries past was in fact considered magic. It's not.
I suspect that we may both be right, in a way. It's true that dumping water on a fire does cover the area that is burning and would temporarily prevent local sites in the combustible material from getting oxygen. But dumping water on a fire cannot drive all the oxygen off -- as I said, only gas-based systems such as Halon do that.
Your argument about grease fires is well noted and completely true. That's one of the prime reasons you're supposed to read the type of fire extinguisher (A, B, or C, or all of the above) before putting out such a fire.
As a scientist, I accept the possibility that I may be wrong, but I place the burden upon you to prove it. I am using, as you say, "'big' science words like 'endothermic'" because for one, they're the correct terms -- take a chemistry class or two -- and because a significant portion of the audience here on Slashdot is well educated. I am not simply bandying about big words to make myself look important -- I studied this stuff so I could make arguments like this and actually [i]know[/i] what I'm talking about.
What is your field, by the way?
Actually, it is the same thing.
Fire suppression systems such as those that use Halon (which was outlawed in the '90s due to its ozone-destroying side-effects) put out fires by displacing oxygen with some other gas.
Spraying water on a fire does not "deprive" the fire of oxygen. In fact, this is why you aren't supposed to fight certain types of fires (a magnesium fire, for example) by spraying water on it. That's because if the fire is hot enough, it will "crack" the water molecules, liberating both oxygen and hydrogen -- which will of course make the fire much worse.
Spraying water on a fire robs the fire of thermal energy. Evaporation (converting a liquid to a gas) is an endothermic process; it takes a significant amount of energy. When you dump a bunch of water on a fire, it takes energy from the combustion reaction to turn the water into steam. Eventually so much thermal energy has been taken from the fire that the fire extinguishes.
Well spoken. You sound a lot like a friend of mine who is in the Army Reserve, stationed as an MP at Kirtland AFB in Albuquerque. He *did* have to pick up a rifle and go -- fortunately, where he went was only 75 miles away, and not clear across the world to Iraq or Afghanistan.
As he puts it, he has to "watch the C-130s not get stolen."
Sure beats dodging bullets, though.
It should be an obligation.
How the hell does a person manage to post a thousand comments, all within one minute of each other ? I thought Slashdot was supposed to prevent posts from the same IP within 2 minutes of each other?
Weird.
Don't you think "corrupt government" is all but redundant?
I defy you to give me an example of any government, anywhere, at any time, that did not have at least *some* corruption.
Why not get into politics? Try to change things from the ground up? You sound like someone who could make a difference, if only you can stay pissed off for long enough.
You didn't say a word about hating the government. You said you hated this country. There's a fine but critical distinction.
I have no love for President Bush and a lot of his staff's policies and antics either. However, I do love my country.
And, uh, I have no intention of leaving. I like it here. Things need a little tweaking now and then, but overall it's a great place.
Sure beats a lot of the alternatives.
Put your money where your mouth is and leave, if you're so pissed off. Perhaps there's a country somewhere that won't ask you to do a thing to contribute. Maybe.
I bet you don't vote, either. Nah, that'd be too much like "involuntary servitude," to go to the polls for all of a half an hour once a year, right?
You know, one of the things I love best about this country is that, although you are guaranteed the right to mouth off about how shitty you think the country is, I also have the right to tell you to shut the hell up or leave.
And I am right now.
I've got a family and a great job. Matter of fact, I just bought a house. I have no desire to leave these things I've worked for years to gain.
However--as I always say when a discussion of the draft comes up--I also realize that what has enabled me to acquire a family and a house and be able to drive down the street and buy a gallon of milk for $3.00 is the fact that there are people willing to fight for those things.
Yeah, I'm a computer person. I love computers. Computers are putting food on my table and a roof over my head. I don't want to leave if I don't have to.
But if it ever got so bad that I was drafted, well, yeah I'd go. I'd go and fight so that others can have the same things I've been so fortunate to get. Things like freedom and happiness and generally living in a (mostly) free country.
My sentiment is probably not popular in this day and age. But if they tell me to go, I'll go. I'm not making a run for the border.
Myrrh
My contract with Dish Networks will be up at the end of May.
After realizing that all I really ever watch is CNN, CNN Headline News, The Weather Channel, and Spike, it seems that this doesn't really matter much to me.
But after paying upwards of $40 a month for the Top 100 package and for local broadcast channels, it seems to me I'd rather have that $40 per month to spend on other things (like high-speed wireless)...
All other issues aside, whether this is Viacom's or Echostar's fault is irrelevant. Due to a new contract being negotiated, I am now getting less value (channels) for my money. I don't care if Dish is "standing up to Viacom's strong-arm tactics," or whatever you choose to call it. Refunding $1 per month in exchange for my losing a dozen channels seems rather a pittance, but maybe I'm alone in my opinion.
My conclusion to this whole fiasco is, I hardly watch TV at all anyway. I'll be perfectly happy to cancel Dish at the end of May and live with no TV at all -- no satellite, no cable, no broadcast.
Myrrh
It's not a particularly fair deal, no -- unless you happen to be a shareholder. If I were, I would expect him to do what he is doing.
Would you say that SCO has a duty to the Linux community? If, as SCO claims, it is true that its code has been stolen and used without due credit to SCO, then wouldn't you say the Linux community is doing SCO a disservice? Wouldn't then the community have a duty to SCO? And, if SCO has a legitimate claim that its IP has been stolen/misappropriated, does not the CEO have a duty to his company and shareholders to rectify the situation?
Should McBride and SCO simply say something to the effect of, "Well, you Linux guys used our source code without permission and without giving us credit; but, since Linux has such a large installed base and since our rocking the boat could disrupt the Linux community, we'll simply keep quiet about it?" I personally feel that would be an irresponsible thing for SCO to do.
If SCO's claims are accurate, and not merely posturing to be bought or to regain relevance in the UNIX world, then I say more power to SCO. SCO has a right and a responsibility to investigate what has happened and to receive some sort of compensation if they have been wronged. However, if the court finds that SCO has been wronged, I would hope that SCO and the Linux community at large could reach an amicable solution--and it sounds as though McBride feels that way too.
I'm not saying SCO's claims are true; I'm merely speaking hypothetically. I've seen a lot of SCO bashing, especially on Slashdot. It may be warranted, but then again, it may not. I'm just trying to take the position of devil's advocate.
It occurs to me that, all the foaming-at-the-mouth "this guy is trying to destroy Linux!" responses aside, Darl McBride is doing what he is supposed to do: he is defending the interests of SCO and its shareholders.
You may not like what he is doing, or how he is going about it--I don't like it much myself--but I am forced to admit that, at least on the surface, he appears to be protecting the rights (that is, the intellectual property) of his company. How SCO got those rights, or even whether SCO has the rights it claims, is a separate issue.
I believe that there is a revolution taking place in the software world, and Slashdot is one of its major outlets. Intellectual property as it has been may be becoming obsolete. But it is not yet, and there are still companies such as SCO which cling desperately to the ways of old.
I refuse to demonize SCO simply because they are not in tune with the Open Source movement's way of doing things. SCO claims that code which it has claim to was lifted lock, stock and barrel and placed into the kernel without copyright notices. If that's true, then indeed SCO has been wronged. There is no escaping that. What will determine SCO's merit as a company will be how they enforce their rights when or if it is discovered that this is indeed what has occurred.
While I dread what this situation might do to the Linux world, I must say that I admire Mr. McBride for having the courage to stick to his guns and do what the company believes to be right. It may be a mistake--and likely will be--but in this age of CEOs taking the money and leaving the company to burn, I applaud McBride for trying to keep his struggling company together.
Flame away...
I think it could be interpreted two ways.
The way I interpret "the unit has little to be desired" is that the unit has very few features that I, or anyone, would desire. If the story poster had said "the unit leaves little to be desired," I would interpret that as a positive remark about the unit.
No, not at all. Does everything Slashdot doesn't review have little to be desired? Certainly not. There's lots of things that Slashdot has not reviewed and never will--several of the stories I've submitted, for example--that I consider to be news and interesting to all the Slashdot nerds.
All I was saying was that if Slashdot does a review of something that has no features that would interest any of the Slashdot community, then by definition, the product or service reviewed would not be of interest to us. The parent story admits itself that the product doesn't seem interesting--therefore, I don't see the logic of posting the story. Why would someone who finds something uninteresting post a story about it to Slashdot? It doesn't make sense to me.
I suppose ...
But in my opinion, it's only "stuff that matters" if it has features that everyone, or at least I, am interested in. If the story post itself admits that the device has little to be desired, it doesn't strike me as news. To each his own.
So if it has little to be desired, why are you posting the story to Slashdot?
How did you get battery acid, zinc and limestone to make chlorine gas?
Battery acid is sulfuric acid, H2SO4, zinc (obviously) Zn (provided it's elemental zinc and not oxidized or something), and limestone is calcium carbonate, CaCO3.
You would get hydrogen gas by reacting sulfuric acid with zinc, and you'd probably get bicarbonate ions (or something like that) by reacting with limestone, but far as I can tell, you wouldn't get any chlorine gas.
Were you thinking of hydrochloric acid, HCl?
Seems to me, just about every time you guys post a story relating to black holes, in some way or another you always say "this is the first real evidence of the existence of black holes!
How much "first real evidence" can we have from separate researchers? It seems that different people have each been coming up with the "first real evidence" for the existence of black holes for years now, and every couple of months some new researcher claims that he's finally proven it, and then it seems another couple of months down the road someone else stakes the claim.
Why? What's going on here?
Your way makes much more sense, and is exactly what I would expect to happen. But it's not what I was taught or what I've found. I've had a credit card for several years (since I turned eighteen), and have always paid off my balances in full right away, never accruing interest.
The bank never raised my credit limit. Not one bit. So I began to wonder, and asked some knowledgeable people a few questions, and what they told me (and this may well be different for different banks, but) is that banks don't want you to pay off your balance in full right away. Banks don't make any money off the transaction if you never carry a balance. It seems counterintuitive to me too, but anyway, that's what I was told.
And after this holiday season, for the first time, I'm carrying a balance on my credit card. Not much of one, but one nonetheless. So I'll finally get to see what happens.
It's just too bad that my APR is something like 19% ... =(