Do I think two monitors per computer is typical in a workplace? No I don't. The point of the article is that dropping costs in IT is causing more technology to be implemented. Along those lines, our organization last year had no users with multiple monitors. This year, we will be pushing out 5 new workstations with new dual monitors attached. In one year we will have gone from 0% to about 2%.
Will this cause a revolution in computer spending? Not likely. But our budgets will likely remain constant even though prices on individual equipment will drop.
X-10 hardware and X10.com are not the same thing. The former is hardware based on a protocol that was invented in the early 70s. The latter is a company that just happens to make technology based on the protocol.
Close. The company named X-10 created the home automation protocol back in the seventies. The patent for it expired a little while ago & that allowed other manufacturers to use the same communication protocol.
X-10 Pro is the same stuff from the same company. The only difference is the label. The Radio Shack, Magnavox, & RCA equipment are just relabeled X-10 products.
You haven't seen any pop under ads from them in a while because they didn't pay their bills. They filed for bankruptcy a while ago to keep from paying those bills.
In my option, they are just a bunch of drunk, slimy Scots on a downward spiral.
How do I know this? Because I used to work for the company a number of years ago.
So you are the Seattle Troll! I didn't know you posted on Slashdot too. What kind of a connection are you getting under that bridge? And by the way, what's the story about the volkswagen?
Just in case you don't know what the parent post is talking about:
Sorry guys, but it is much easier for me to imagine the US as a bastion of gallons, feet, & active-x. Perhaps you can work on upcoming generations by throwing away all the foot long rulers & AOL cds.
Coasting downhill with engines off, both vehicles will put out zero pollution so miles taveled is not a valid comparison.
Well, ok. You got me there.
...except per unit of fuel which is the only valid comparison for pollution output.
So please let me understand your point. You are saying that pollution per unit of fuel burned is the only valid way to compare the pollution output of different vehicles?
Ok, lets say car A gets 20 miles to the gallon & produces 1 unit of pollution per burned gallon. That would mean that car A would produce 5 units of pollution after traveling 100 miles.
Then we have car B. Car B gets 50 miles to the gallon & produces 2 units of pollution per gallon burned. After 100 miles, car B will have produced 4 units of pollution.
In your mind, which car produces more pollution? After traveling 100 miles, car A would have burned 5 gallons & produced 5 units of pollution. Car B would have burned 2 gallons & produced 4 units of pollution.
Most people purchase autos to travel a certain number of miles, not burn a certain amount of fuel. (Excluding some SUV owners, of course.) As for myself, I would consider pollution units per mile traveled as a perfectly reasonable method of determining the pollution output of a vehicle. Though it is not the only one. Which produces more pollution? A bass boat with a little gasoline engine or a supertanker? You can compare their outputs based on time operated, distance traveled, or tonnage moved.
The intention of my original post was to agree with your post. A small, 2 stroke engine is a very dirty way to get any job done. Perhaps I could have made my point a little more clear.
"Besides adding to the cost, cable companies say, selling channels individually might make it difficult for lesser-watched, niche channels to survive."
This is bad how?
If all / most of the channels that you are currently watching considered a niche market by the cable company.
Kenwood makes two 400+3 DVD changers, model numbers DV-5900M & DV-5050M; you can daisy chain up to 3 of them for access to 1209 DVDs for a list price between $2850 & $4200.
My digital cable box doesn't have an upstream link? Care to explain how I can order pay per view, watch video on demand, and various other two way activities via my remote control?
A flashlight would be cool, though. It would require minimal extra lighting.
That is a great idea. Something you can use in the meanwhile is a LED flashlight attached to your keys. I have one & it works great. It cost me around $6 US.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but these aren't communicating to you digitally.
:)
One of them gave me the finger the other day. I would call that a digit.
Do I think two monitors per computer is typical in a workplace? No I don't. The point of the article is that dropping costs in IT is causing more technology to be implemented. Along those lines, our organization last year had no users with multiple monitors. This year, we will be pushing out 5 new workstations with new dual monitors attached. In one year we will have gone from 0% to about 2%.
Will this cause a revolution in computer spending? Not likely. But our budgets will likely remain constant even though prices on individual equipment will drop.
Are you going to buy an extra PBX because they are cheaper? Ridiculous!
:)
I found it very humorous that I read your post on my brand new, 'extra' monitor.
X-10 hardware and X10.com are not the same thing. The former is hardware based on a protocol that was invented in the early 70s. The latter is a company that just happens to make technology based on the protocol.
Close. The company named X-10 created the home automation protocol back in the seventies. The patent for it expired a little while ago & that allowed other manufacturers to use the same communication protocol.
X-10 Pro is the same stuff from the same company. The only difference is the label. The Radio Shack, Magnavox, & RCA equipment are just relabeled X-10 products.
You haven't seen any pop under ads from them in a while because they didn't pay their bills. They filed for bankruptcy a while ago to keep from paying those bills.
In my option, they are just a bunch of drunk, slimy Scots on a downward spiral.
How do I know this? Because I used to work for the company a number of years ago.
I'm pretty glad to be out of there.
Apparently 'brownshirts' is not quite explicit enough to invoke Godwin's Law [wikipedia.org].
/.
OTOH, I don't think even Godwin's Law can stop a discussion on
You might like to know that issue is covered in the link you cited:
Miller's Paradox:
As a network evolves, the number of Nazi comparisons not forestalled by citation to Godwin's Law converges to zero.
So you are the Seattle Troll! I didn't know you posted on Slashdot too. What kind of a connection are you getting under that bridge? And by the way, what's the story about the volkswagen?
Just in case you don't know what the parent post is talking about:
Seattle Troll
in short, i think this review sucks, and i'm going to picket the movie as offensive to robots. so there.
I'm right with you there.
What do you say the two of us go join these guys?
Robots Attack!
How about here [businesslights.com]?
You Rock! Thanks, you're my new best friend.
I believe Gmail came directly out of somone's "free time" - I'll try to find the article...
:)
Why don't you Google it?
NASA's whole budget request for 2004 was 15.5 billion.
:)
At that rate, it'd take them oh, say 40 years to save up 500+ billion.
Something does not compute.
Did anybody check & see if Paypal screwed it out of them?
....Just like the metric system.
Sorry guys, but it is much easier for me to imagine the US as a bastion of gallons, feet, & active-x. Perhaps you can work on upcoming generations by throwing away all the foot long rulers & AOL cds.
Nawww he looked like the one who got hit by a truck and won a big settlement.
no, he looked like the guy that made the "Jump to Conclusions" game.
Umm..... That was the same guy.
I saw that show a little while ago. I kept thinking the same thing over & over. Why didn't he just get a Phatnoise? Much easier interface IMHO.
When your job is outsourced to India we will see what way you come up with to both feed yourself and pay the rent.
As for myself, I am looking at something like this:
Link
I figure with this getup, I will be one of the last people to be placed against the wall when the revolution comes.
Coasting downhill with engines off, both vehicles will put out zero pollution so miles taveled is not a valid comparison.
...except per unit of fuel which is the only valid comparison for pollution output.
Well, ok. You got me there.
So please let me understand your point. You are saying that pollution per unit of fuel burned is the only valid way to compare the pollution output of different vehicles?
Ok, lets say car A gets 20 miles to the gallon & produces 1 unit of pollution per burned gallon. That would mean that car A would produce 5 units of pollution after traveling 100 miles.
Then we have car B. Car B gets 50 miles to the gallon & produces 2 units of pollution per gallon burned. After 100 miles, car B will have produced 4 units of pollution.
In your mind, which car produces more pollution? After traveling 100 miles, car A would have burned 5 gallons & produced 5 units of pollution. Car B would have burned 2 gallons & produced 4 units of pollution.
Most people purchase autos to travel a certain number of miles, not burn a certain amount of fuel. (Excluding some SUV owners, of course.) As for myself, I would consider pollution units per mile traveled as a perfectly reasonable method of determining the pollution output of a vehicle. Though it is not the only one. Which produces more pollution? A bass boat with a little gasoline engine or a supertanker? You can compare their outputs based on time operated, distance traveled, or tonnage moved.
The intention of my original post was to agree with your post. A small, 2 stroke engine is a very dirty way to get any job done. Perhaps I could have made my point a little more clear.
My car, at several thousand pounds heavier, puts out a tiny fraction of this thing's pollution per unit of fuel burned.
Your car puts out less pollution using whatever unit you measure. Miles traveled, hours operated, gallons burned, rods per hogshead; Whatever.
seriously, wouldn't time be better spent on other, more worthwhile projects than building a computer in a box?
8 7052
:)
You mean something like skipping class in college & playing Smash TV, like this guy did?
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=101891&cid=86
I'm sure this guy will go back to curing cancer after he gets all the drivers installed.
It's a joke, relax.
"Besides adding to the cost, cable companies say, selling channels individually might make it difficult for lesser-watched, niche channels to survive."
This is bad how?
If all / most of the channels that you are currently watching considered a niche market by the cable company.
Kenwood makes two 400+3 DVD changers, model numbers DV-5900M & DV-5050M; you can daisy chain up to 3 of them for access to 1209 DVDs for a list price between $2850 & $4200.
My digital cable box doesn't have an upstream link? Care to explain how I can order pay per view, watch video on demand, and various other two way activities via my remote control?
Simple, RFC1149.
link
Great Post.
A flashlight would be cool, though. It would require minimal extra lighting.
That is a great idea. Something you can use in the meanwhile is a LED flashlight attached to your keys. I have one & it works great. It cost me around $6 US.
I recommend lots of fresh air and sunlight. Try taking off those boba fett undies too.
Not at the same time, please.
Are their moms divorced/widowed?
:)
Do you want to pay the credit card bill when it comes in the mail?
I swear if the guy stubbed his toe he'd post that up front too.
:)
Twice.