You must have never worked in a legal environment, or a healthcare environment. You can see photos like those of the patients with botched surgery, and almost (albeit not quite) as bad of hospital conditions in any med-mal attorneys office.
I imagine Cuba's medical system is not the greatest in the world. But I'd be willing to bet that it is one of the best in the third-world, for those who have no money.
The hospitals for foreigners are better. Great, so I hear, but they cost money. Is that fair to the Cuban people? Foreigners get good cheap medical care, and locals get garbage. No, but don't get me wrong, my intention is not to defend Castro. I am simply making a point
Because AMD has the same thing being introduced (hyperflash is believe they are calling it). Intel is making a bit of noise, and it is a good thing, but it is not a unique thing.
It's really ironic how you sound like a grammar nazi, and proceed into a nonsensical rambling with no paragraph breaks, or even a logical thought process. This is not unlike the way a fifth grade student writes. Writing should be clear and tend to revolve around a single point. You seem to jump from point A to point Q. Personally, I could care less. This is just a goofy geek forum website. Irregardless of this fact, your hypocrisy was just too priceless to pass up.
Now, notice the use of ironic here. It is used in a roughly correct manner. You intended to blast horrible writing, but created horrible writing in the process. Some could argue that this is still not irony, but it is at least a decent use of the word.
"This is not unlike" is a valid phrase. It highlights that there are few things dissimilar. The phrase "This is like" would tend to highlight the similarities. It all depends on the tone, and what you would like to highlight.
The saying, "I could care less," means, "I care for some reason. I have the capacity and capability to not care. As a matter of fact, I'm not sure why I care." Whereas, "I could not care less," simply means, "I don't care at all."
"Irregardless" is a word. It means "regardless." And while I agree that it should not be used outside familiar conversation, it is not considered a double negative. But as shown with "This is not unlike," even double negatives have a place. Now it's time for someone to blast me on my misuse of commas or something.
That's true the downfall in tubes is power spikes, not voltage. I did oversimplify the situation. The heat from the current induced must be enough to cause physical damage to the tube elements.
And yes, solid-state devices are infinitely more suceptable to EMP because of voltage spikes. ESD to a MOSFET is much like overvoltage on a capacitor. It can arc through and destroy the dielectric.
At anyrate, you are correct, tubes are less suceptable to induced voltages such as EMP than solid state devices. However, they are not immune, was my original point.
Also, any nuclear attack aimed at creating an EMP would be close enough to do catastrophic damage. The weapon would be detonated only a couple miles overhead. It would be strong enough to burn people and destroy antennas. They won't light off nukes to "maybe destroy most solid state devices." They would go for max damage. Which really would entail a surface detonation anyhow.
Wrong, they are just as vulnerable to an Electro-Magnetic Pulse as anything else. Induce excess voltage into the the plate and you have too much current, which means too much heat, and POP!
I think you underestimate the amount of EM energy generated by a nuclear weapon. Couple this by the fact that the tubes are almost always attached to an antenna, (although inderectly.) And you get a prime target to have EMP damage.
However, most modern, critical radio systems are protected from EMP by detection circuits in either the impedence matching network, or shortly before. Any overpower condition will ground out the antenna, before the power is shot back through the transmitter.
Why they bother with this, I don't know. You may be saving the equipment but your still pretty screwed... Your antenna just got nuked. What the hell good is your transmitter now?
There are some very undesireable things about semiconductors. They are low power devices. They don't work well at high frequencies. Couple these faults together and you let out the magic smoke on higher frequency applications (mostly Sat-Comms).
There are work arounds for the low power problem. In my job, (US Navy Electronics Technician) I've worked on an LF transmitter that could crank out over 150KW. It was all solid-state. The workaround to not cook silicon? It used about a freaking million amplifier circuit cards. I think it might have been more efficetive to just use 4 PA tubes but whatever.
Now the problem is high frequency and high power together. Consider the semiconductor. Two (slightly) different materials with a depletion region in the center. Well that's basically like a capacitor. Capacitors tend to pass higher frequency signals. If the signal is getting passed, it is not getting amplified. This problem is called inter-electrode capacitance. Tubes suffer from the same downfall. They dont just resemble capacitors, they are capacitors to a degree.
The tube world has to use some pretty crazy devices to amplify signals at high frequencies. These methods cannot transfer to the solid state world. For more information google for "klystron", and "travelling wave tube".
But because the issue of inter-electrode capacitance cannot be easily solved with workarounds. The only way to have a high frequency, high power amp, is with a tube. With higher quality semiconductors, this will no longer be true.
Individual systems on Navy vessels run many diferent operating systems. Many systems run NT or Win2k, others run Unixes, and most are firmware driven. So to ask what OS a freakin' aircraft carrier (read: floating city) runs, is just as vauge as asking what OS IBM uses.
The thing I can't wait for is 64-bit laptops with a real advantage over their 32-bit counterparts
You won't see this with Itanium2 any time soon do you have any idea what kind of power the suck up? Unless you want to carry around a battery pack the size of a small UPS keep waiting.
It has been quite a number of years since the jump was made between 16 and 32 bits... It's high time to make the next jump to 64 bits!
I agree to the extent that the consumer end market is ready for the power that a 64 bit processor can deliver. Most importantly RAM limits. (I'm almost using all of my 640k;) However, don't think that 64 bits is new it's been out since at least the early 90's just only for scientific and other number crunching applications.
In addition to all the wonders of 64 bit computers running UNIX-like operating systems, such as it being WAY COOL, there is a REAL ADVANTAGE for the free software community in these developments! I firmly believe that if the free software community embraces 64-bit architectures as soon as possible...
Free/OSS comunities already have embraced 64 bit architectures. Linux and GNU run on MIPS, Sparc, PPC64, IA64, Alpha, and are well underway (Done?) with x86-64. It's not the lack of the community embracing the architechture, it's OEMs not producing a 64bit system that is affordable. Look at the damn prices for an Itanium1 or Sparc station.
The buisness model is that a big company is paying someone to develop a piece of Free/OpenSource Software even though it is not one they own. It is one they use and thus have a vested interest of it. This helps debunk the weak but widely popular argument that if all companies used and created Free/OpenSouce Software, the poor bluecollar programmers would be without a job. This is not true. Other companies who do not directly hire developers will fund the project if they find it useful i.e. DARPA funding OpenBSD.
Perhaps buisness model was not the best phrase but the english language sucks and my vocabulary is not very.... good.
You're trying to tell me that buisnessmen, with their buisness management degrees, in charge of big buisnesses, finally are figuring out the buisness model that is the opensource concept.
Seriously I'm acctually shocked to see this in the press presented in such a clear and logical manner. Usually when the press refers to any Free/Opensource project they place a little blurb about how anyone can make contributions to the code. Almost never do they drop names of companies/governments who do. I guess this just goes to show after a while people can unlearn the proprietary method of software development.
Phase 2- get them to realise the idea of Free Software. Let them know it should be their right to change, develop, and distribute code.
Shhh.. Just listen
on
Legacy-Free PCs
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
This is the part where some asshole will chime in with "But does it run Linux?"
Honestly though, this dumb question really has an underlying insight with the reason I run older hardware and everyone runs hardware that has geneology in legacy systems. It might not be the most efficient way to do things but it sure is the easiest and safest.
Take the obvious example cars. 100 and some odd years ago someone found a good way of putting a car together. Everyone took that concept and decided to build upon it. We could have started all over again, but that would have no guarentee of them being any good.
It may be better to build cars in the shape of a doughnut out of space age polymers. But I'll never know because I won't be the one driving them when the first batch of them explodes and kills everyone inside. I'll wait 5 years until they become tested legacy technology cars.
I was just wondering, did you guys wake up one morning and just decide to be evil? Or did you have to work at it for a while? Or did it just happen by accident?
I was going to start my own Evil Corporation(TM) and I was trying to gauge the level of effort required. Also, you didn't happen to aquire the IP rights on Evil(TM) as well, did you? If so, what are your licencing fees for that one? I don't want to get sued over here.
I don't know why people are so eager to jump in bed with one [apple.com] monopolist when they clearly hate another.
Apple has never been legally found to be a monopoly. Microsoft has.
Apple still sells software for its own systems that it refuses to port to other systems. They refuse to open their architecture.
Apple is a hardware vendor. Poeple don't critisize IBM because AIX won't run on their sparc workstation. Why should OS X run on your Athlon? They make software to compliment and help sell their hardware. The buisness model is not rocket science.
But they have opened their software to a degree. Darwin will run on x86. And the license is OSI approved. (Not FSF approved but to me the clause preventing its approval is minor.)
They don't open their hardware specs because that would spell doom to them. Remember the short Mac-clone era. It nearly killed them. And if I recall, it was Steve Jobs that they brought back to save them. But I degress.
The point is, although many people may not agree with all of Apple's buisness moves. They have never openly bullied the market like Microsoft. Comparing the two as similar is pretty harsh.
ILM has released OpenEXR as free software. The OpenEXR software distribution includes:
* IlmImf, a library that reads and writes OpenEXR images.
* Half, a C++ class for manipulating half values as if they were a built-in C++ datatype.
* Imath, a math library with support for matrices, 2d- and 3d-transformations, solvers for linear/quadratic/cubic equations, and more.
* exrdisplay, a sample application for viewing OpenEXR images on a display at various exposure settings.
The OpenEXR software distribution is now licensed under the modified BSD license, available here.
I would call the software they released under a BSD type license "tools to create graphics." Your milage may vary.
What the hell are you talking about? Everything you wrote was a full sentence. But at no time did you ever acctually say anything. Did you have a point in your own head? Some people are now acutally dumber after reading your post.
I think you miss the whole point of the powerPC architecture. The fact of the matter is powerPCs were designed to be extremely scaleable. They are all over the place in systems you would never know. The best example I can think of is the electronic control unit in many cars.
It just happens that the powerPCs you hear about the most are Motorola's G4s, IBM's Power970, etc. The whole concept of the powerPC is to have a powerful unified processor "backbone" for anything from a blender to a rackmount server.
I think sarcasm is becoming lost in its true intended form. Granted one cannot hear a physical tone of voice in text. But I think my statements were just outlandish enough so no one could ever take them seriously. Silly me.
We all know MS is bad and they are hard at work on Evil Master Plan v1.0
Are you kidding, they've been artificially inflating their product numbers for years. Seriously how much of an improvement was "Evil Master Plan Me(TM)" over "Evil Master Plan 98SE(TM)"? I think they're working on "Evil Master Plan Zt(TM)" right now.
Man, I remember when computing was easy and they only had "Hey, I Think Being A Little Evil Can Make Us Money 5.2(TM)"
I guess it just shows, version numbers don't sell. Year numbers don't sell. But cool letters equal cash!
Why does America routinely pull shit like: * try to destroy country and most people in it
* wait 30 years
* get buddy-buddy with said country despite uncountable POW/MIA presence and the fact that we only 30 years ago wanted them gone
It's very simple, The prior and current acts of the American Government does not reflect the views of all its people.
You cannot equate the actions/opinions of a person, group of people, corporation, or government with the actions/opinions of a country as an aggregate. I don't think Lee Felsenstein tried to destroy Laos and most people in it. Therefore, you have no evidence his opinion on Laos has changed.
Well my brain hurts like hell after reading more into this subject, going over the GPL/LGPL line by line.... After reading the LGPL I now see how linking can create a derivative work. In that being compiled against the library the result now shares common code... I agree with this now.
However I am now failing to see how a program could simply "use" a library. If someone could enlighten me I would appreciate it.
Slashdot Mirror
You must have never worked in a legal environment, or a healthcare environment. You can see photos like those of the patients with botched surgery, and almost (albeit not quite) as bad of hospital conditions in any med-mal attorneys office.
I imagine Cuba's medical system is not the greatest in the world. But I'd be willing to bet that it is one of the best in the third-world, for those who have no money.
The hospitals for foreigners are better. Great, so I hear, but they cost money. Is that fair to the Cuban people? Foreigners get good cheap medical care, and locals get garbage. No, but don't get me wrong, my intention is not to defend Castro. I am simply making a point
Because AMD has the same thing being introduced (hyperflash is believe they are calling it). Intel is making a bit of noise, and it is a good thing, but it is not a unique thing.
It's really ironic how you sound like a grammar nazi, and proceed into a nonsensical rambling with no paragraph breaks, or even a logical thought process. This is not unlike the way a fifth grade student writes. Writing should be clear and tend to revolve around a single point. You seem to jump from point A to point Q. Personally, I could care less. This is just a goofy geek forum website. Irregardless of this fact, your hypocrisy was just too priceless to pass up.
Now, notice the use of ironic here. It is used in a roughly correct manner. You intended to blast horrible writing, but created horrible writing in the process. Some could argue that this is still not irony, but it is at least a decent use of the word.
"This is not unlike" is a valid phrase. It highlights that there are few things dissimilar. The phrase "This is like" would tend to highlight the similarities. It all depends on the tone, and what you would like to highlight.
The saying, "I could care less," means, "I care for some reason. I have the capacity and capability to not care. As a matter of fact, I'm not sure why I care." Whereas, "I could not care less," simply means, "I don't care at all."
"Irregardless" is a word. It means "regardless." And while I agree that it should not be used outside familiar conversation, it is not considered a double negative. But as shown with "This is not unlike," even double negatives have a place. Now it's time for someone to blast me on my misuse of commas or something.
That's true the downfall in tubes is power spikes, not voltage. I did oversimplify the situation. The heat from the current induced must be enough to cause physical damage to the tube elements.
And yes, solid-state devices are infinitely more suceptable to EMP because of voltage spikes. ESD to a MOSFET is much like overvoltage on a capacitor. It can arc through and destroy the dielectric.
At anyrate, you are correct, tubes are less suceptable to induced voltages such as EMP than solid state devices. However, they are not immune, was my original point.
Also, any nuclear attack aimed at creating an EMP would be close enough to do catastrophic damage. The weapon would be detonated only a couple miles overhead. It would be strong enough to burn people and destroy antennas. They won't light off nukes to "maybe destroy most solid state devices." They would go for max damage. Which really would entail a surface detonation anyhow.
Wrong, they are just as vulnerable to an Electro-Magnetic Pulse as anything else. Induce excess voltage into the the plate and you have too much current, which means too much heat, and POP!
I think you underestimate the amount of EM energy generated by a nuclear weapon. Couple this by the fact that the tubes are almost always attached to an antenna, (although inderectly.) And you get a prime target to have EMP damage.
However, most modern, critical radio systems are protected from EMP by detection circuits in either the impedence matching network, or shortly before. Any overpower condition will ground out the antenna, before the power is shot back through the transmitter.
Why they bother with this, I don't know. You may be saving the equipment but your still pretty screwed... Your antenna just got nuked. What the hell good is your transmitter now?
There are some very undesireable things about semiconductors. They are low power devices. They don't work well at high frequencies. Couple these faults together and you let out the magic smoke on higher frequency applications (mostly Sat-Comms).
There are work arounds for the low power problem. In my job, (US Navy Electronics Technician) I've worked on an LF transmitter that could crank out over 150KW. It was all solid-state. The workaround to not cook silicon? It used about a freaking million amplifier circuit cards. I think it might have been more efficetive to just use 4 PA tubes but whatever.
Now the problem is high frequency and high power together. Consider the semiconductor. Two (slightly) different materials with a depletion region in the center. Well that's basically like a capacitor. Capacitors tend to pass higher frequency signals. If the signal is getting passed, it is not getting amplified. This problem is called inter-electrode capacitance. Tubes suffer from the same downfall. They dont just resemble capacitors, they are capacitors to a degree.
The tube world has to use some pretty crazy devices to amplify signals at high frequencies. These methods cannot transfer to the solid state world. For more information google for "klystron", and "travelling wave tube".
But because the issue of inter-electrode capacitance cannot be easily solved with workarounds. The only way to have a high frequency, high power amp, is with a tube. With higher quality semiconductors, this will no longer be true.
Individual systems on Navy vessels run many diferent operating systems. Many systems run NT or Win2k, others run Unixes, and most are firmware driven. So to ask what OS a freakin' aircraft carrier (read: floating city) runs, is just as vauge as asking what OS IBM uses.
-ET2
The buisness model is that a big company is paying someone to develop a piece of Free/OpenSource Software even though it is not one they own. It is one they use and thus have a vested interest of it. This helps debunk the weak but widely popular argument that if all companies used and created Free/OpenSouce Software, the poor bluecollar programmers would be without a job. This is not true. Other companies who do not directly hire developers will fund the project if they find it useful i.e. DARPA funding OpenBSD.
Perhaps buisness model was not the best phrase but the english language sucks and my vocabulary is not very.... good.
You're trying to tell me that buisnessmen, with their buisness management degrees, in charge of big buisnesses, finally are figuring out the buisness model that is the opensource concept.
Seriously I'm acctually shocked to see this in the press presented in such a clear and logical manner. Usually when the press refers to any Free/Opensource project they place a little blurb about how anyone can make contributions to the code. Almost never do they drop names of companies/governments who do. I guess this just goes to show after a while people can unlearn the proprietary method of software development.
Phase 2- get them to realise the idea of Free Software. Let them know it should be their right to change, develop, and distribute code.
This is the part where some asshole will chime in with "But does it run Linux?"
Honestly though, this dumb question really has an underlying insight with the reason I run older hardware and everyone runs hardware that has geneology in legacy systems. It might not be the most efficient way to do things but it sure is the easiest and safest.
Take the obvious example cars. 100 and some odd years ago someone found a good way of putting a car together. Everyone took that concept and decided to build upon it. We could have started all over again, but that would have no guarentee of them being any good.
It may be better to build cars in the shape of a doughnut out of space age polymers. But I'll never know because I won't be the one driving them when the first batch of them explodes and kills everyone inside. I'll wait 5 years until they become tested legacy technology cars.
I was just wondering, did you guys wake up one morning and just decide to be evil? Or did you have to work at it for a while? Or did it just happen by accident?
I was going to start my own Evil Corporation(TM) and I was trying to gauge the level of effort required. Also, you didn't happen to aquire the IP rights on Evil(TM) as well, did you? If so, what are your licencing fees for that one? I don't want to get sued over here.
But they have opened their software to a degree. Darwin will run on x86. And the license is OSI approved. (Not FSF approved but to me the clause preventing its approval is minor.)
They don't open their hardware specs because that would spell doom to them. Remember the short Mac-clone era. It nearly killed them. And if I recall, it was Steve Jobs that they brought back to save them. But I degress.
The point is, although many people may not agree with all of Apple's buisness moves. They have never openly bullied the market like Microsoft. Comparing the two as similar is pretty harsh.
I told you on the last Tivo story, "Imagine a beowolf cluster of these."
You all kicked my ass but see... He listened.
What the hell are you talking about? Everything you wrote was a full sentence. But at no time did you ever acctually say anything. Did you have a point in your own head? Some people are now acutally dumber after reading your post.
I think you miss the whole point of the powerPC architecture. The fact of the matter is powerPCs were designed to be extremely scaleable. They are all over the place in systems you would never know. The best example I can think of is the electronic control unit in many cars. It just happens that the powerPCs you hear about the most are Motorola's G4s, IBM's Power970, etc. The whole concept of the powerPC is to have a powerful unified processor "backbone" for anything from a blender to a rackmount server.
I think sarcasm is becoming lost in its true intended form. Granted one cannot hear a physical tone of voice in text. But I think my statements were just outlandish enough so no one could ever take them seriously. Silly me.
Man, I remember when computing was easy and they only had "Hey, I Think Being A Little Evil Can Make Us Money 5.2(TM)"
I guess it just shows, version numbers don't sell. Year numbers don't sell. But cool letters equal cash!
Heavy sales of this product indicate mass paranoia. If this thing sells well. Invest in tin-foil hat and body suit tailoring company.... Perfect.
Thanks, that does put it into perspective quite well.
You cannot equate the actions/opinions of a person, group of people, corporation, or government with the actions/opinions of a country as an aggregate. I don't think Lee Felsenstein tried to destroy Laos and most people in it. Therefore, you have no evidence his opinion on Laos has changed.
You confuse GPL and LGPL glibc is LGPL and thus can have proprietary programs linked against it.
Well my brain hurts like hell after reading more into this subject, going over the GPL/LGPL line by line.... After reading the LGPL I now see how linking can create a derivative work. In that being compiled against the library the result now shares common code... I agree with this now.
However I am now failing to see how a program could simply "use" a library. If someone could enlighten me I would appreciate it.