Does the UT in your name stand for UT Austin? This is part for my own curiousity and part to know your coverage area. T-Mobile's Austin coverage is great, though UT's building block the signal in some areas.
I use T-Mobile's service over bluetooth with my T610. Its bluetooth stack is good for GPRS but seems to have problems syncing over the virtual serial port (I sometimes have to reboot the phone). My latency is 800-1400ms in Austin, TX. I have no idea why the lag is so high.
Looks like Sprint offers unlimited data for
$80 now. That's twice as much as T-Mobile.
AT&T does not appear to offer unmetered
service.
I have T-Mobile "all you can eat" with the VPN option (public IP and no blocked ports). The plan is called "T-Mobile Unlimited Internet VPN" if you're curious. It costs $20 per month, and I get data rates comparable to a 56K modem connected at near full speed. I go through my Sony Ericsson T610 with bluetooth for the connection.
Whyowhy doesn't Yahoo *advertise* it's own brilliance? It has so much good stuff, and it behaves like Apple. Invent gobsmackingly cool apps, and then halfheartedly advertise them. And all the while Microsoft papers the planet with adverts which announce a 'brand! new! chat! system!' for windows.
Apple's advertising is well recognized for its ingenuity. They may not advertise individual programs directly; they advertise the complete package, especially the hardware. Remember that Apple is a hardware company. The software they have is often advertising for their hardware. Take iTunes; Apple's official statement is that it IS an ad for iPods. Why market the marketing?
By the way, I am not an Apple user. I own no Apple products and never have; I just think their marketing is an interesting case study.
I'd personally like to see point-to-point 2.4GHz hardware that uses the ENTIRE spectrum for extremely high bandwidth applications... that'd be very cool
Analogy: I'd personally like to see a widget the color red that is every color for extremely high bandwidth applications... that'd be very cool
2.4GHz is a specified part of the spectrum. Do you perhaps mean "every IEEE 802.11b/g channel"?
One could also interpret your statement to mean an UWB device that happens to include 2.4GHz in its range, but I doubt that you mean that because then the 2.4GHz means says little about the UWB hardware. Such an interpretation would be analogous to specifying that a full-color LCD displays red.
Forget Amazon suing anyone else over one-click; what if someone else loses their senses and licenses one-click? What then?
You get fast and easy (one click) licensing.
Re:what about Internet connection over BT phone?
on
Spammed by Bluetooth
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Not easily. I use exactly the technology you're describing. The phone must be paired with the PC to use the phone's modem (a.k.a. dial-up networking) profile. Also, it's not IP data going over the bluetooth connection. It's what would go over a serial cable to an external modem.
How about conflicts in the company philosophies? Apple is a native of San Francisco (which is known for one thing), and Novell is based in Utah (which is known for another). Their company policies and executive makeup reflect their respective environments. Apple and IBM seems a more likely pair, given their product lines and politics.
Novell DOS is what NetWare required prior to version 5. It became the default, though not a requirement, in version 5. I think they killed it for good in version 6. In other words, Novell DOS was not necessarily a desktop move; it was long an important (though not integral) part of NetWare.
Deontology would not allow ethnic cleansing unless it's considered "right" by other means first. Deontology is not a system for judging whether individual actions are right or wrong if they are 100% right or 100% wrong. Deontology fills in the numerous gray areas by giving a means for weighing whether an action of mixed moral implications is overall good or bad. In deontology, good never outweighs the bad. So, if you think even a part of ethnic cleasing is wrong, its implementation is entirely wrong under deontology. You could, however, justify such actions under utilitarianism if you could prove how it was "greatest good for greates number." I think you have the two systems confused.
Not one of your arguments supports the posession of anything more powerful than a handgun or hunting rifle.
Second, my point about the military is that, in that unlikely scenario where they take power and oppress everyone, no survivalist has the means to stop them, so why try (and let every other civilian try) and risk all the consequences of doing so?
Third, you say bias is inherent and needn't cloud accuracy, yet you accuse me of bias at the end (which I admittedly have), implying such inaccuracy. That implication is contradictory. Also, by my recommendation to seek a less biased source, I was not labeling myself as such.
Finally, Canada is an example, and when foreign nations have good model policies, the response of a democratic republic (like the U.S.) should not be "move there if you like it" without any self-examination and consideration of reform.
I never said my ideas would create a utopia, though a 1/2 to 1% reduction in gun crimes would be great. Also, 1/2 to 1% is not 0%, so obviously some criminals do use them.
Furthermore, I believe the government should act deontologically when it comes to rights. If there's any legitimate use, then it should be legal (though possibly regulated). My argument is based on principle: semi-automatic weapons do not have any uses among citizens that do not deserve heavy regulation (or even banning). Your utilitarian arguments do not sway me. I know utility is the normal justification for gun control, but I think deontology is more consistant with my other positions in politics and supports my reasoning adequately.
In other words... I'm John Q. Public. And I'm a militia of one.
Well-organized usually implies that organization is not an automatic state. A one-person militia is automatically perfectly organized.
All the more reason for the citizens to be able to defend themselves.
You have Ebola. Is it all the more reason to take antivirals? No, you say? They don't really have any effect? (Sorry for the annoying sarcasm)
Disclaimer...
The national guard and the reserve are quite different from the real thing. Also, what's the alternative to having a strong military defend your interests against another strong military? Whether you trust the military or not, they're your best bet.
Regarding the police officers, a card-carrying ACLU member is the last to trust the police blindly, but your interpretation holds little weight. How does an overly powerful firearm protect you better from manipulation by the police than a pistol? You already said that they have pistols. I never said anything about your not having something equally powerful. I just don't think a submachine gun is justified.
I'm not saying that every citizen has a clear need to be walking around with a 50-cal.
Exactly.
The same is largely true of gun control: what the gun nuts fear is a state where the only people with firearms are the criminals and the police.
Such a state existing and automatically being oppressive is empirically denied, not that I support the formation of such a state. If our democracy can't limit some actions or states (such as ownership) in the true public interest (not USA PATRIOT act garbage), then we're screwed already.
Since this is slashdot, I have to say something inaccurate that doesn't even support my point: I live in Texas, and our mobile phones come equipped with bullets instead of cameras. You might think Bluetooth is useless, but it really does help aiming.
What makes you think your freedom of speech would be worth anything in the event of a government coup?
It wouldn't be, but planning to put up pathetic resistance doesn't change anything. When it comes to an oppresive government, the difference is analogous to having an OS with security holes you're not allowed to patch (restrictive gun laws) and being allowed patches that do nothing or just change the backdoor (permissive gun laws). The only difference in the real world is that the latter means you're putting stupidly overpowered lethal weapons in the hands of citizens. This is not an argument against handguns and hunting rifles. This is an argument against the laws advocated by gun lobbyists intended to allow assault weapons, since these weapons cannot even serve their sole useful purpose, defending against oppresive government.
The ACLU takes no actual action on second-amendment issues, so their stance is mostly irrelevent anyway, but in case you care, you should try basing the stance of what they say it is, or at least off what a neutral third-party says it is. The site you used is highly biased, and that bias is evident in the quoted statement.
Next, the second amendment makes quite clear that its justification is the need for a "well-regulated militia." This amendment is the only one in the bill of rights to have a justification of any kind. Thus, the interpretation is different, even if it uses the term "the people."
Third, you must agree that some limits are highly justifiable. Just as one cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theater, a convicted violent criminal should not carry firearms.
Finally, the U.S. military has incredible power.
You're deluding yourself if your think a sub-machine gun will keep you alive in the event of a military coup.
The military and police will defend you in other significant scenarios.
Even restrictive gun laws (like in Canada) allow you to have self defense in much smaller scenarios (i.e. robbery).
I can't think of any situation where gun-nut friendly laws would have a net benefit.
Cache does not make processor automatically hot. The Pentium-M in my ThinkPad has a 1MB on-board cache, and it runs very cool. My Athlon XP tower has only 256KB cache, but it's quite hot.
Then why are Alpha chips, which are getting very little support in comparison, beating it? Also notable is that the architecture manual for Itanium is massive. The magnitude of documentation is understandably not a direct measure for the quality of the architecture, but it does mean people don't want to use it for anything low-level, leaving Intel the responsibility to create an awesome compiler, one that won't be free to use.
I also think your argument about Intel's politics is bunk. Intel's poured the future of their company into this architecture, including stupid contracts with HP, etc. If anything, politics is the only thing keeping this processor on life support. Argue compiler technology, if you wish, but it's not politics.
Dell gave one of UT's ACES clusters a free Itanium 2. Guess what it's doing? Nothing. This is because it sucks compared to the Power 4 units in real-life work.
Finally, by your standards, the 1.6GHz Pentium-M in my ThinkPad is a superior server processor because it gets the same benchmarks as a 2.4GHz Pentium 4 desktop.
Xserve uses IDE and non-ECC RAM. It's not highly redundant, and it's not enterprise grade at all. Apple doesn't even try to market it as such. Also, TRIPS is not even intended to be sold on the open market. It's a proof of concept. Finally, there's a big difference between designing a processor, like IBM did for the G5, and fabbing one.
Itanium is a poor architecture. This isn't just my opinion, it's the opinion of the professor here at UT Austin working on the multi-core lightweight processor (a.k.a. TRIPS) that IBM will hopefully be fabbing soon. Seeing a cost comparison with the Athlon64/Opteron would be more enlightening. Also consider that it would be almost impossible to buy Itanium or any other "enterprise" system without all the redundant hardware (ECC RAM, etc.) for which the G5 cluster compensates in software.
If you're talking for a workstation, with NT, 2000, and XP Pro, then it's less than $500 (including rebates), assuming you're on the upgrade track (which most are).
If it's a home user, 98 and XP Home total about $200 with upgrades.
Finally, don't forget to include the lifespan of each OS. You can't just go from 2000's intital release to XP's and include the costs of both. You have to include XP's life also. So for home users, we're looking at a span from 1998 (Windows 98's start) to 2005 (Windows XP's demise) for a total sum of about 7.5 years at a cost of $200. That's about $27 per year.
Workstation users paid around $200 a pop for NT4, 2000, and XP. NT4 began it's life conservatively around 1996, and XP will, again, be current until 2005. That's about 9.5 years at $600, or $63 per year.
Windows ME is hardly an upgrade to Windows 2000. Try comparing Windows ME to Windows 98 (its predecessor) and Windows XP (its successor). Windows 2000 Professional should be compared to Windows NT 4.0 (its predecessor) and Windows XP (its successor). Also, don't forget the significant rebates associated with the NT to 2000 transition and the smaller rebates from 2000 to XP.
Your example is like buying every new release of Photoshop and Photoshop Elements. It's stupid. I don't know one 2000 user who went to ME.
Oh, and since longer release cycles are better by your standard, you should be happy to include Windows Longhorn in there, which seems to be coming out in 2005, four years after XP.
Slashdot Mirror
Why use the white pages when you can use the national do not call list?
Does the UT in your name stand for UT Austin? This is part for my own curiousity and part to know your coverage area. T-Mobile's Austin coverage is great, though UT's building block the signal in some areas.
I use T-Mobile's service over bluetooth with my T610. Its bluetooth stack is good for GPRS but seems to have problems syncing over the virtual serial port (I sometimes have to reboot the phone). My latency is 800-1400ms in Austin, TX. I have no idea why the lag is so high.
I have T-Mobile "all you can eat" with the VPN option (public IP and no blocked ports). The plan is called "T-Mobile Unlimited Internet VPN" if you're curious. It costs $20 per month, and I get data rates comparable to a 56K modem connected at near full speed. I go through my Sony Ericsson T610 with bluetooth for the connection.
Apple's advertising is well recognized for its ingenuity. They may not advertise individual programs directly; they advertise the complete package, especially the hardware. Remember that Apple is a hardware company. The software they have is often advertising for their hardware. Take iTunes; Apple's official statement is that it IS an ad for iPods. Why market the marketing?
By the way, I am not an Apple user. I own no Apple products and never have; I just think their marketing is an interesting case study.
You could at least use his Slashdot ID.
Analogy: I'd personally like to see a widget the color red that is every color for extremely high bandwidth applications... that'd be very cool
2.4GHz is a specified part of the spectrum. Do you perhaps mean "every IEEE 802.11b/g channel"?
One could also interpret your statement to mean an UWB device that happens to include 2.4GHz in its range, but I doubt that you mean that because then the 2.4GHz means says little about the UWB hardware. Such an interpretation would be analogous to specifying that a full-color LCD displays red.
You get fast and easy (one click) licensing.
Not easily. I use exactly the technology you're describing. The phone must be paired with the PC to use the phone's modem (a.k.a. dial-up networking) profile. Also, it's not IP data going over the bluetooth connection. It's what would go over a serial cable to an external modem.
How about conflicts in the company philosophies? Apple is a native of San Francisco (which is known for one thing), and Novell is based in Utah (which is known for another). Their company policies and executive makeup reflect their respective environments. Apple and IBM seems a more likely pair, given their product lines and politics.
Novell DOS is what NetWare required prior to version 5. It became the default, though not a requirement, in version 5. I think they killed it for good in version 6. In other words, Novell DOS was not necessarily a desktop move; it was long an important (though not integral) part of NetWare.
I can't even imagine a recursive sig.
Deontology would not allow ethnic cleansing unless it's considered "right" by other means first. Deontology is not a system for judging whether individual actions are right or wrong if they are 100% right or 100% wrong. Deontology fills in the numerous gray areas by giving a means for weighing whether an action of mixed moral implications is overall good or bad. In deontology, good never outweighs the bad. So, if you think even a part of ethnic cleasing is wrong, its implementation is entirely wrong under deontology. You could, however, justify such actions under utilitarianism if you could prove how it was "greatest good for greates number." I think you have the two systems confused.
Second, my point about the military is that, in that unlikely scenario where they take power and oppress everyone, no survivalist has the means to stop them, so why try (and let every other civilian try) and risk all the consequences of doing so?
Third, you say bias is inherent and needn't cloud accuracy, yet you accuse me of bias at the end (which I admittedly have), implying such inaccuracy. That implication is contradictory. Also, by my recommendation to seek a less biased source, I was not labeling myself as such.
Finally, Canada is an example, and when foreign nations have good model policies, the response of a democratic republic (like the U.S.) should not be "move there if you like it" without any self-examination and consideration of reform.
Furthermore, I believe the government should act deontologically when it comes to rights. If there's any legitimate use, then it should be legal (though possibly regulated). My argument is based on principle: semi-automatic weapons do not have any uses among citizens that do not deserve heavy regulation (or even banning). Your utilitarian arguments do not sway me. I know utility is the normal justification for gun control, but I think deontology is more consistant with my other positions in politics and supports my reasoning adequately.
Well-organized usually implies that organization is not an automatic state. A one-person militia is automatically perfectly organized.
All the more reason for the citizens to be able to defend themselves.
You have Ebola. Is it all the more reason to take antivirals? No, you say? They don't really have any effect? (Sorry for the annoying sarcasm)
Disclaimer...
The national guard and the reserve are quite different from the real thing. Also, what's the alternative to having a strong military defend your interests against another strong military? Whether you trust the military or not, they're your best bet.
Regarding the police officers, a card-carrying ACLU member is the last to trust the police blindly, but your interpretation holds little weight. How does an overly powerful firearm protect you better from manipulation by the police than a pistol? You already said that they have pistols. I never said anything about your not having something equally powerful. I just don't think a submachine gun is justified.
I'm not saying that every citizen has a clear need to be walking around with a 50-cal.
Exactly.
The same is largely true of gun control: what the gun nuts fear is a state where the only people with firearms are the criminals and the police.
Such a state existing and automatically being oppressive is empirically denied, not that I support the formation of such a state. If our democracy can't limit some actions or states (such as ownership) in the true public interest (not USA PATRIOT act garbage), then we're screwed already.
Since this is slashdot, I have to say something inaccurate that doesn't even support my point: I live in Texas, and our mobile phones come equipped with bullets instead of cameras. You might think Bluetooth is useless, but it really does help aiming.
It wouldn't be, but planning to put up pathetic resistance doesn't change anything. When it comes to an oppresive government, the difference is analogous to having an OS with security holes you're not allowed to patch (restrictive gun laws) and being allowed patches that do nothing or just change the backdoor (permissive gun laws). The only difference in the real world is that the latter means you're putting stupidly overpowered lethal weapons in the hands of citizens. This is not an argument against handguns and hunting rifles. This is an argument against the laws advocated by gun lobbyists intended to allow assault weapons, since these weapons cannot even serve their sole useful purpose, defending against oppresive government.
Next, the second amendment makes quite clear that its justification is the need for a "well-regulated militia." This amendment is the only one in the bill of rights to have a justification of any kind. Thus, the interpretation is different, even if it uses the term "the people."
Third, you must agree that some limits are highly justifiable. Just as one cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theater, a convicted violent criminal should not carry firearms.
Finally, the U.S. military has incredible power.
I can't think of any situation where gun-nut friendly laws would have a net benefit.
Official ACLU Stance
Bill of Rights
Cache does not make processor automatically hot. The Pentium-M in my ThinkPad has a 1MB on-board cache, and it runs very cool. My Athlon XP tower has only 256KB cache, but it's quite hot.
I also think your argument about Intel's politics is bunk. Intel's poured the future of their company into this architecture, including stupid contracts with HP, etc. If anything, politics is the only thing keeping this processor on life support. Argue compiler technology, if you wish, but it's not politics.
Dell gave one of UT's ACES clusters a free Itanium 2. Guess what it's doing? Nothing. This is because it sucks compared to the Power 4 units in real-life work.
Finally, by your standards, the 1.6GHz Pentium-M in my ThinkPad is a superior server processor because it gets the same benchmarks as a 2.4GHz Pentium 4 desktop.
Xserve uses IDE and non-ECC RAM. It's not highly redundant, and it's not enterprise grade at all. Apple doesn't even try to market it as such. Also, TRIPS is not even intended to be sold on the open market. It's a proof of concept. Finally, there's a big difference between designing a processor, like IBM did for the G5, and fabbing one.
Itanium is a poor architecture. This isn't just my opinion, it's the opinion of the professor here at UT Austin working on the multi-core lightweight processor (a.k.a. TRIPS) that IBM will hopefully be fabbing soon. Seeing a cost comparison with the Athlon64/Opteron would be more enlightening. Also consider that it would be almost impossible to buy Itanium or any other "enterprise" system without all the redundant hardware (ECC RAM, etc.) for which the G5 cluster compensates in software.
The per-year figures for a workstation do not include rebates. That lowers the sum by about $100. Thus, per-year costs are actually lower than $63.
If you're talking for a workstation, with NT, 2000, and XP Pro, then it's less than $500 (including rebates), assuming you're on the upgrade track (which most are).
If it's a home user, 98 and XP Home total about $200 with upgrades.
Finally, don't forget to include the lifespan of each OS. You can't just go from 2000's intital release to XP's and include the costs of both. You have to include XP's life also. So for home users, we're looking at a span from 1998 (Windows 98's start) to 2005 (Windows XP's demise) for a total sum of about 7.5 years at a cost of $200. That's about $27 per year.
Workstation users paid around $200 a pop for NT4, 2000, and XP. NT4 began it's life conservatively around 1996, and XP will, again, be current until 2005. That's about 9.5 years at $600, or $63 per year.
OS X is more expensive to run.
Your example is like buying every new release of Photoshop and Photoshop Elements. It's stupid. I don't know one 2000 user who went to ME.
Oh, and since longer release cycles are better by your standard, you should be happy to include Windows Longhorn in there, which seems to be coming out in 2005, four years after XP.