The most obvious flaw I can think of is that the newer releases have fewer follow-up releases with which to submit extra patches. This doesn't seem to be mentioned in the article. For instance the 2.6.25 release is the most current. Of course all 'new' submitters to the 2.6.25 release will not have submitted any more patches. All 'new' submitters to the 2.6.24 release will have had the chance to also submit a patch for 2.6.25.
Let's assume that each release has 100 'new' submitters and that the chance they will submit another patch in each following release decreases by 50%.
Release 1 will have 100 new submitters that will never have released another patch.
Release 2 will have 100 new submitters that will never have released another patch, but now 50 of release 1 submitters will have released another patch.
By release 3, 75 R1 submitters will have released another patch, 50 R2 submitters will have also and of course no R3 submitters will have released a second patch.
This makes perfect sense if 'new' submitters start submitting all the time. Anyone that expects someone that 'just' submitted a patch to have submitted a patch to a non-existent future release already is an idiot. This would only make any kind of sense if you included the number of 'new' submitters in each release, not just the ones that were never heard from again. Having the number of future patches and how long it took for them to release another patch would help you understand the numbers even better. For instance, if there were 304 new submitters to 2.6.11 and it took them on average 8 releases to submit another patch then the 304 number for 2.6.25 could be the same and simply the sign of a continually growing developer community. Give those people that first submitted to 2.6.25 another 14 releases to submit more patches and maybe the number of "one-time" submitters would shrink to 63.
That makes me think of something interesting I heard on NPR the other week. Another common reason for justices to recuse themselves if they have a financial interest or if they personally know the parties or lawyers involved. That would probably take care of Microsoft stacking the deck as well. It would only make sense to have the firms that came up with the proposed standard and their associates to be on the committees investigating the standards to answer and address questions and problems, but they should not be able to vote on the approval of the standard.
What's the actual difference in energy costs, though? Not saying you're stupid or selfish for not donating, just interested in the real figures, if you've got any. I throw my system into hibernation most nights, and try to turn off the monitor at least when I go away for a couple hours during the day. What have you found your general savings to be?
A modern dual core processor can use about an extra 100 watts of energy when processing than when idle. This is from using a watt meter on a few computers of mine and checking it out. Shutting down or hibernating will save you 200-300 watts total I'm guessing. Personally I have a couple of services running on my computer all the time so I can't shut it down completely, plus I like being able to just turn on the monitor and start working/gaming/surfing. So if you are going to leave your computer running you can save 1 kilowatt-hour every ten hours just from the extra power pulled to do the processing versus having the CPU usage low. Prices vary, but if your CPU usage totals an extra 20 hours per day then that's an extra 2 kilowatt-hours per day or about 20 cents, totalling up to $75 or more a year in electricity bills. That also increases carbon emissions if your electricity comes from fossil fuels.
Set your filesystem to use 128kb blocks, problem solved:) The ZFS or copy-on-write helps because your old blocks aren't written over, all changes are written to new areas on the disk. Let's use A-Z for 128k blocks and 00-3F for the 2kb pages in them, so you have 3,328mb. Let's say that A00-M3F are used. Now let's say you do random writes to data at A13, B27, E1F and L19. Normally you would erase blocks A, B, E, and L and re-write 4*128kb or 512kb of data. With copy-on-write you simply erase (if not already erased) block N and write to N00, N01, N02, and N03. That's one erase and 8kb written instead of 4 erases and 512kb.
You all know this occurred a whole year ago, right? Compare the pictures in the linked article to the pictures in the article linked to by this slahdot article from May 21, 2007...
Would they even work on Mars? The pressure is less than 1/1000th that of the Earth, or the same pressure as over 30 miles up on Earth. The U-2 spy plane only flew about 13 miles high and the SR-71 only reaches 15 miles. High-altitude weather balloons don't get much over 20 miles up I don't think. While the decreased gravity on Mars might help with the plane idea, would it help with the balloon? Just curious, but wouldn't the decreased gravity adversely affect the buoyancy as much as it would help by making the payload lighter?
Interestingly enough, a big part of the animations in GTA4 are procedurally generated. If game "actors" start demanding more money then voices will start to be procedurally generated sooner rather than later.
Sounds like some computers deserve a payday as well...
He argues that property derives from labor. For example, fruit that falls to the ground belongs to no one. If you come and pick it up, you are performing labor and so it belongs to you.
Sect. 32. But the chief matter of property being now not the fruits of the earth, and the beasts that subsist on it, but the earth itself; as that which takes in and carries with it all the rest; I think it is plain, that property in that too is acquired as the former. As much land as a man tills, plants, improves, cultivates, and can use the product of, so much is his property.
So until someone actually goes to the moon and does something to improve on its natural state, they have no claim to property rights. If someone goes to the moon and creates a base and roads or mines for instance, they would have a good argument in my book for owning that property. Also it makes sense that they could not just go and claim the southern hemisphere for instance, only the area which they could improve.
I don't know why you find it odd, the purpose of the ad is to get people to use their service, not to get people to remember his SSN. If anyone does want to use his SSN, they can write it down, remember it, TiVo it or wait for the commercial to come on again. Of course they want to make it as easy as possible to remember or write down the phone number.
What are you talking about exactly? I'm a developer using Microsoft tools all day long. The only time I've ever had a problem with FireFox is when trying to do Windows Updates. Those appear to require ActiveX controls from Microsoft. I suppose other sites may require ActiveX controls also but not any I go to. The Bookmarks are much easier to manage than IE's Favorites, and Firefox was way ahead in tabbed browsing. I can even use Firefox for MSDN downloads now.
Firefox suddenly had an error reading from our intranet file server and corrupted his project.
What? He was using Firefox to browse a mapped drive and it corrupted a file or something? What work are they doing in their browsers, going to an intranet application you've written internally? I have a hard time seeing how using Firefox as intended (as a browser) would cause a "project" to become corrupted...
The phone IS off, the RF transciever is off, the CPU is off, any DRAM is off and not being refreshed, the display is off, the keypad is off -- the fact that one tiny circuit in the CPU is running a timing loop and will trigger a relay to power the phone up at a preset time does not mean that the phone is on.
Ah, philosophy... What is the meaning of "phone"? If "only a tiny circuit in the" CPU is running, then is the CPU off? If you define 'on' as a state whereby power is being drawn from a source to perform an action then the phone is on... Are you sure that's all that little circuit does?
The amount of time allocated to advertising has greatly increased over the last 20 years, maybe older people can't stand the increase having been in on the "good 'ol days". Also advertising is getting more spastic and flashy. After watching a little drama it can be disturbing for old people to see all those lights and loud noises. I get aggravated myself when I see the same commercial over and over. It's not unusual for me to see the same commercial 4 times in a half hour, twice in the same commercial break. Saturday night I was watching SNL live in HD because my TiVo is still SD. The last half hour I remember 3+ minutes of commercials, one song, 3+ minutes of commercials, a 2 minute skit, 3+ minutes of commercials, another song, 3+ minutes of commercials, and maybe another short skit before the show was over, I don't know because I turned the TV off.
Cell phones should be able to communicate point to point over 100 metres or so. For some reason no phone manufacturer has thought to introduce this feature.
GSM at least is encrypted. The SIM that goes in your phone is registered with the HLR for that company and it includes the key used for encryption. You wouldn't want people to be able to easily eavesdrop on your conversations, would you?
They're not talking about search results though, they're talking about paid advertising before the search results. I think they should be going after the companies buying the search terms that are trademarked though and not google. Going to google is the most efficient way however...
But I agree in part. If you search for the term 'Coke' and 'Pepsi' comes in second in the advertiser list, what does that mean? It means Pepsi is benefiting from the Coke trademark. They are in essence advertising their product using the trademark. Maybe google isn't the one to go after though, maybe it would be Pepsi for paying to advertise their product using the Coke brand name. I see no problem if Google returns Pepsi.com anywhere in the search results (even on top).
Think about it this way. Would it be OK for Adidas to take a full page ad in the newspaper with 'Nike' in big letters and "New Adidas store opening Saturday at 3475 Greenwood Ave."?
Most coffee shops in my area offer free wi-fi to anyone, Starbucks is the exception. Once you have the connection and router purchased, there is no extra cost for more users. A lot of users might slow the connection down, but using bandwidth throttling would be a better solution. You could still be slowed down by one paying customer that was running bittorrent.
I guess I did just read that you can get two hours per day just for buying and using a Starbucks card for your coffee instead of cash, that's not too bad. It's about time the price went down though. It used to be $10 for a single day and $40 for a month, now I think it's cheaper. I wouldn't really know though because I rarely go to Starbucks since I can get absolutely free wi-fi (and better coffee) at my locally owned coffee shop, Friedrich's.
UnixWare is just another flavor of Unix, like SCO OpenServer, IBM AIX, or SUN Solaris. SCO's problem is that they totally realized this, that is why they always maintained they owned the SVRX copyrights. I think they should be locked up for perjury. Now after the court ruled that Novell retained the copyrights, SCO is still trying the same deal by claiming that UnixWare is just the next version of SVRX. It's absurd.
He went back to the analogy of pharmaceuticals: 'I think if you invent drugs, you should be able to charge for them,' he said, adding with a shrug: 'That may seem radical."
Why did I just get an image of Bill Gates on a street corner in the bad part of town with a "Vista Ultimate" box under his trench coat?
It kinda does imply $2/gallon, but it's the OUTPUTs that would keep that from being the case, not the inputs.
If you heat too fast, you make mainly vapors. The sweet spot, about 1000 degrees per second, transfers roughly half the celluloseâ(TM)s energy into hydrocarbons. âoeIf we can get 100 percent yield, we estimate the cost to be about a dollar per gallon,â Huber says. âoeRight now weâ(TM)re at 50 percent. Can we get 100 percent? I donâ(TM)t know. Hopefully weâ(TM)ll bump those numbers up.â
Think of the process like you put x materials in, perform the process, and you get 1 gallon of gasoline at 100% efficiency. At 50% efficiency you can just run the process twice as long and get twice as much output, but still only 1 gallon of gasoline. So given the information they have in the article, they could produce gasoline at $2 per gallon now.
The problem is with the outputs. If you output 100% gasoline, you just pour it into your car and go. If it is a mixture of only 50% gasoline, you have to refine it and remove impurities. That process might be prohibitively costly.
One of my pet peeves about windows is that they layer the tool bars horizontally by default.
Quite easily remedied... Right-click on a blank area of the taskbar and pick properties. Uncheck 'Lock the taskbar' and you can drag it to either side or the top of the screen. All of my computers have it on the right. I normally have quite a few apps open and it is much easier to see what is what and switch between them.
Slashdot Mirror
The most obvious flaw I can think of is that the newer releases have fewer follow-up releases with which to submit extra patches. This doesn't seem to be mentioned in the article. For instance the 2.6.25 release is the most current. Of course all 'new' submitters to the 2.6.25 release will not have submitted any more patches. All 'new' submitters to the 2.6.24 release will have had the chance to also submit a patch for 2.6.25.
Let's assume that each release has 100 'new' submitters and that the chance they will submit another patch in each following release decreases by 50%.
This makes perfect sense if 'new' submitters start submitting all the time. Anyone that expects someone that 'just' submitted a patch to have submitted a patch to a non-existent future release already is an idiot. This would only make any kind of sense if you included the number of 'new' submitters in each release, not just the ones that were never heard from again. Having the number of future patches and how long it took for them to release another patch would help you understand the numbers even better. For instance, if there were 304 new submitters to 2.6.11 and it took them on average 8 releases to submit another patch then the 304 number for 2.6.25 could be the same and simply the sign of a continually growing developer community. Give those people that first submitted to 2.6.25 another 14 releases to submit more patches and maybe the number of "one-time" submitters would shrink to 63.
Can we create a new category for thinly disguised advertisements like this? There's nothing special or newsworthy about this.
That makes me think of something interesting I heard on NPR the other week. Another common reason for justices to recuse themselves if they have a financial interest or if they personally know the parties or lawyers involved. That would probably take care of Microsoft stacking the deck as well. It would only make sense to have the firms that came up with the proposed standard and their associates to be on the committees investigating the standards to answer and address questions and problems, but they should not be able to vote on the approval of the standard.
"Members cannot vote on any directive or standard that was introduced before they joined"
A modern dual core processor can use about an extra 100 watts of energy when processing than when idle. This is from using a watt meter on a few computers of mine and checking it out. Shutting down or hibernating will save you 200-300 watts total I'm guessing. Personally I have a couple of services running on my computer all the time so I can't shut it down completely, plus I like being able to just turn on the monitor and start working/gaming/surfing. So if you are going to leave your computer running you can save 1 kilowatt-hour every ten hours just from the extra power pulled to do the processing versus having the CPU usage low. Prices vary, but if your CPU usage totals an extra 20 hours per day then that's an extra 2 kilowatt-hours per day or about 20 cents, totalling up to $75 or more a year in electricity bills. That also increases carbon emissions if your electricity comes from fossil fuels.
Set your filesystem to use 128kb blocks, problem solved :) The ZFS or copy-on-write helps because your old blocks aren't written over, all changes are written to new areas on the disk. Let's use A-Z for 128k blocks and 00-3F for the 2kb pages in them, so you have 3,328mb. Let's say that A00-M3F are used. Now let's say you do random writes to data at A13, B27, E1F and L19. Normally you would erase blocks A, B, E, and L and re-write 4*128kb or 512kb of data. With copy-on-write you simply erase (if not already erased) block N and write to N00, N01, N02, and N03. That's one erase and 8kb written instead of 4 erases and 512kb.
Thanks, I read the source wrong. That is not nearly as bad then...
You all know this occurred a whole year ago, right? Compare the pictures in the linked article to the pictures in the article linked to by this slahdot article from May 21, 2007...
Would they even work on Mars? The pressure is less than 1/1000th that of the Earth, or the same pressure as over 30 miles up on Earth. The U-2 spy plane only flew about 13 miles high and the SR-71 only reaches 15 miles. High-altitude weather balloons don't get much over 20 miles up I don't think. While the decreased gravity on Mars might help with the plane idea, would it help with the balloon? Just curious, but wouldn't the decreased gravity adversely affect the buoyancy as much as it would help by making the payload lighter?
Sounds like some computers deserve a payday as well...
He argues that property derives from labor. For example, fruit that falls to the ground belongs to no one. If you come and pick it up, you are performing labor and so it belongs to you.
So until someone actually goes to the moon and does something to improve on its natural state, they have no claim to property rights. If someone goes to the moon and creates a base and roads or mines for instance, they would have a good argument in my book for owning that property. Also it makes sense that they could not just go and claim the southern hemisphere for instance, only the area which they could improve.
If you don't like "Star Wars" then you are not a nerd. You may be a geek though.
I don't know why you find it odd, the purpose of the ad is to get people to use their service, not to get people to remember his SSN. If anyone does want to use his SSN, they can write it down, remember it, TiVo it or wait for the commercial to come on again. Of course they want to make it as easy as possible to remember or write down the phone number.
What are you talking about exactly? I'm a developer using Microsoft tools all day long. The only time I've ever had a problem with FireFox is when trying to do Windows Updates. Those appear to require ActiveX controls from Microsoft. I suppose other sites may require ActiveX controls also but not any I go to. The Bookmarks are much easier to manage than IE's Favorites, and Firefox was way ahead in tabbed browsing. I can even use Firefox for MSDN downloads now.
What? He was using Firefox to browse a mapped drive and it corrupted a file or something? What work are they doing in their browsers, going to an intranet application you've written internally? I have a hard time seeing how using Firefox as intended (as a browser) would cause a "project" to become corrupted...
Ah, philosophy... What is the meaning of "phone"? If "only a tiny circuit in the" CPU is running, then is the CPU off? If you define 'on' as a state whereby power is being drawn from a source to perform an action then the phone is on... Are you sure that's all that little circuit does?
And we'll have WPF support...
The amount of time allocated to advertising has greatly increased over the last 20 years, maybe older people can't stand the increase having been in on the "good 'ol days". Also advertising is getting more spastic and flashy. After watching a little drama it can be disturbing for old people to see all those lights and loud noises. I get aggravated myself when I see the same commercial over and over. It's not unusual for me to see the same commercial 4 times in a half hour, twice in the same commercial break. Saturday night I was watching SNL live in HD because my TiVo is still SD. The last half hour I remember 3+ minutes of commercials, one song, 3+ minutes of commercials, a 2 minute skit, 3+ minutes of commercials, another song, 3+ minutes of commercials, and maybe another short skit before the show was over, I don't know because I turned the TV off.
GSM at least is encrypted. The SIM that goes in your phone is registered with the HLR for that company and it includes the key used for encryption. You wouldn't want people to be able to easily eavesdrop on your conversations, would you?
They're not talking about search results though, they're talking about paid advertising before the search results. I think they should be going after the companies buying the search terms that are trademarked though and not google. Going to google is the most efficient way however...
But I agree in part. If you search for the term 'Coke' and 'Pepsi' comes in second in the advertiser list, what does that mean? It means Pepsi is benefiting from the Coke trademark. They are in essence advertising their product using the trademark. Maybe google isn't the one to go after though, maybe it would be Pepsi for paying to advertise their product using the Coke brand name. I see no problem if Google returns Pepsi.com anywhere in the search results (even on top).
Think about it this way. Would it be OK for Adidas to take a full page ad in the newspaper with 'Nike' in big letters and "New Adidas store opening Saturday at 3475 Greenwood Ave."?
Most coffee shops in my area offer free wi-fi to anyone, Starbucks is the exception. Once you have the connection and router purchased, there is no extra cost for more users. A lot of users might slow the connection down, but using bandwidth throttling would be a better solution. You could still be slowed down by one paying customer that was running bittorrent.
I guess I did just read that you can get two hours per day just for buying and using a Starbucks card for your coffee instead of cash, that's not too bad. It's about time the price went down though. It used to be $10 for a single day and $40 for a month, now I think it's cheaper. I wouldn't really know though because I rarely go to Starbucks since I can get absolutely free wi-fi (and better coffee) at my locally owned coffee shop, Friedrich's.
UnixWare is just another flavor of Unix, like SCO OpenServer, IBM AIX, or SUN Solaris. SCO's problem is that they totally realized this, that is why they always maintained they owned the SVRX copyrights. I think they should be locked up for perjury. Now after the court ruled that Novell retained the copyrights, SCO is still trying the same deal by claiming that UnixWare is just the next version of SVRX. It's absurd.
Why did I just get an image of Bill Gates on a street corner in the bad part of town with a "Vista Ultimate" box under his trench coat?
Think of the process like you put x materials in, perform the process, and you get 1 gallon of gasoline at 100% efficiency. At 50% efficiency you can just run the process twice as long and get twice as much output, but still only 1 gallon of gasoline. So given the information they have in the article, they could produce gasoline at $2 per gallon now.
The problem is with the outputs. If you output 100% gasoline, you just pour it into your car and go. If it is a mixture of only 50% gasoline, you have to refine it and remove impurities. That process might be prohibitively costly.
Quite easily remedied... Right-click on a blank area of the taskbar and pick properties. Uncheck 'Lock the taskbar' and you can drag it to either side or the top of the screen. All of my computers have it on the right. I normally have quite a few apps open and it is much easier to see what is what and switch between them.