I don't know about any other devices on the same USB bus, but you can have two mice and two keyboards plugged into a PC at the same time with no problems, at least under XP. All the inputs work at the same time - I often have multiple input devices plugged into my laptop at the same time for software demos...
Re:No-one seems to have asked this....
on
Quicksilver
·
· Score: 1
Ah, but apparently the other Baroque books won't be set in the 17th century, but earlier still.
No-one seems to have asked this....
on
Quicksilver
·
· Score: 1
But why isn't Cryptonomicon the first book in the Baroque Cycle?
You don't honestly think the ATMs are connected to the same office LAN as the cashier terminals and office PCs?
"Hey, let's bridge our highly secure ATM network with an unencrypted office network!" - yeah, right.
More to the point, I don't think that'd be a factor, anyway. If they've got an ounce of sense they'll be performing all tranactions over an encrypted VPN anyway.
So what if it's closed source? Somewhat pointless to point out that Slashdot caters for Windows users, cos you're likely (judging by your post) not too happy with M$, but also Apple and indeed many other closed source, but equally innovative products frequently get mentioned here.
Secondly, why does your personal opinion that the inventors (and it's not "inventors"-with-quotation-marks unless they stole the code from someone else) are assholes make any difference to why Slashdot should post the article? I'm sure many people mentioned here over the years have been assholes, but the stories are still interesting to *someone*.
And finally, yes, this is groundbreaking, but not because of the code - merely because of the idea. There are already many VoIP apps out there, but this is the first to use P2P concepts for connections, and the quality is obviously down to using very good compression. So go write your own! It's all there...
If you don't like it, don't read the article! Go on, scroll down about 3 inches - there you go! No more Skype story.
About 15 years ago you could get "robots" that were EXACTLY the same as this - all they've done is stuck a few bits of Velcro on the bottom! Great injection moulded case too - very faux-sophisticated.
to do *exactly* what he wanted would require a third party program that, in all likelyhood would cost more money
Well, you obviously haven't read any of the other replies, otherwise you'd know that you can do exactly what he wants using xVNC or Synergy, both of which are free.
Now can you give me a good reason why you should use the extra power verses using vnc
When I'm coding using PHP/ASP or whatever, it's very often useful to be able to see the results at the same time as the code - thus, two monitors. In addition, having each monitor connected to a different machine means you can have two apps running faster in individual machines (such as compiler on one, dev suite on another, or 3D modelling with a render view on a secondary PC - you get the idea). Yes, it does use more power, but it's still very convenient to have twice the desktop space.
those monitors could be used by someone else
That kind of assumes you're in an office...I work from home: there is no-one else to use the other monitor.
Hehe, I don't usually get that frustrated, but sometimes ppl on/. put on the most incredible shows of smart-ass "I know exactly what this is about so I won't bother actually reading it" behaviour that I couldn't help myself...
Personally, I'd go for Synergy - it's the easiest to install and configure and VNC seemed to be a bit buggy.
Yup, it's an excellent app, and free as well! I've been using it for 6 months. There's an alternative commercial one called Desktop Rover by Neslo Software, but it offers similar features, so why not go for the Open Source app?
Since this seems to confuse many people, here goes:
You have 3 PCs all in constant use, all with keyboard and mouse (KM for future ease), and you want to control all 3 from the same KM combo. You could connect all three monitors to one PC and run 2 copies of VNC to view the other two desktops, but that would consume network and CPU resources. So:
1) Leave all 3 monitors connected and move them next to each other.
2) Run Synergy or similar on all 3 PCs, setting the middle PC as the Server.
3) Put the two other PC's KMs somewhere out of the way.
4) Now, your KM for the middle PC will work as normal, except when you reach the side of the desktop with your mouse cursor, it will move off that PC's desktop and onto the desktop of the adjacent PC.
5) Now you have what looks like a PC with 3 monitors connected, except the two side monitors are running on individual PCs, controlled by the master PC's KM. Each PC can do its own thing, but can be controlled as easily as the centre PC.
The "mousing across screens gimmick" is the whole point! He specifically DOES NOT WANT video - he'll be leaving the monitor connected. The point is to simply move the secondary PC's mouse and keyboard out of the way so that he can use the same set of controls across multiple machines. It's way better than a multi-head PC if you've got a few PCs in use because each monitor is feeding from a different PC and the only thing being transmitted across the LAN is the mouse and keystrokes.
The idea is to allow keyboard and mouse control of a machine with its own monitor! They're talking about versions of VNC which pass along control commands but no video. Standard VNC/Windows Terminal Services wouldn't do this cos they only provide a remote view of the workstation.
Picture this: You have two PCs. You also have two sets of mice and keyboards. So, put Synergy/xVNC (or similar) on both machines, pack away the mouse and keyboard for the second PC, and when you move your mouse cursor off the edge of the first PC's desktop, it appears on the edge of the screen of the second PC's desktop. It's purely a replacement for loads of mice/keyboards. But nonetheless a damn sight more useful than VNC in some situations. I use it all day, every day.
You have a good point, but I've had a thought (and a genuine one, not a piss-take):
Do you think the increased frequency of crashes in Windows drivers etc could be:
1) The fact that Linux has a much larger developer base working on many more bugs simultaneously and to no particular launch date, rather than a few hundred Windows developers working to corporate deadlines.
2) The fact that Windows has many more vendors writing buggy drivers for their hardware (that is, Windows supports a wider range of hardware and thsus has many more individuals writing drivers)
Feel free to pooh-pooh my thoughts - any of your own, anyone?
I may be the only person in this position on the planet, but I've been running both XP and 2k Server for 1 year, and neither OS has crashed once...maybe the odd dodgy app, but the OS is stable as hell for me.
Just for the record, I've had Linux crash (X servers, even the odd kernel crash once or twice). Besides, it's all a matter of opinion where Linux is concerned: how much do you count as the OS? Just the kernel? Everything right up to the X server? If you decide the "OS" is only the kernel, then you're probably not going to have a great many OS crashes.
We all know you as the team who are responsible for enforcing copyright law. But presumably some of you must also be consumers of this kind of media.
At what point do you think it is reasonable to put the fine line between enforcing the DMCA and it's cousins, and still allowing fair and reasonable use of media? What's your standpoint on technologies that, for exmple, prevent illegal copying of CDs at the expense of a small percentage of legitimate users who may not be able to play legally purchased CDs on thier PCs?
Self-important Brits?
on
Isn't It Ironic?
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Us "self-important" Brits (yes, all 65 million of us) tend to get slightly pissed off with the condescending way Americans (or some of them) assume that the entire population of the UK have either upper-class or Cockney accents and look down our noses at Americans!
Some of us are in fact well aware that a good deal of Americans (especially sitcom writers) are well-versed in irony, some a lot better than us (have you *seen* our hospital dramas? ER versus Casualty is really no debate).
The thing to be pointed out here is that self-importance on the part of a few Brits AND Americans is what started this "Irony Is Dead" thing in the first place. Sweeping statements never do anyone any good credibility-wise...
This just looks like the kind of alphanumeric pad you get on cellphones, just on a wired USB dongle. You can already get IR remote controls with these built in!
Um...the characters in the first book in the Bridge trilogy returned in the last, as did those from the second book. Although the plots aren't precisely continuous, they are evolutions of the same larger plot arc.
Male or female bike messengers? Or is it just the smell on the saddles? lol
Generally, if you ask around most people seem to agree that the earlier stuff such as Neuromancer is his better work. Personally, I thought that Idoru was more of the same - good writing, but nothing new.
My local bookstore's taking ages to get Pattern Recognition in stock, but apparently William Gibson's back on form. Go try it out - you might like it more than Idoru.
Also, of course, Idoru was the second in a trilogy, and you might have unknowingly had problems following the plot...check this out for more info.
I assumed that the fact that Enoch Root in Cryptonomicon would, logically, have been much older than he in fact was when meeting Randy Waterhouse was one of those "don't ask too many questions" situations...
Perhaps that hints at this interesting theory, too?
Them: Hello, this is Sony tech support Me: Hi, I'm following up on a query last week Them: I'm sorry Sir, we've not got your details. You must be mistaken. Me: Your system must be faulty. I called last week. Them: No Sir, our computers never make mistakes. Me: Yes they do. Do you have my records? Them: No Sir Me: Then your database is faulty! Them: No Sir, our computers are *never* faulty. It's impossible, it's a perfect system. Me: Oh, Christ.
Case in point. It's even worse when the users refuse to believe that it's anything except your fault.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know about any other devices on the same USB bus, but you can have two mice and two keyboards plugged into a PC at the same time with no problems, at least under XP. All the inputs work at the same time - I often have multiple input devices plugged into my laptop at the same time for software demos...
Ah, but apparently the other Baroque books won't be set in the 17th century, but earlier still.
But why isn't Cryptonomicon the first book in the Baroque Cycle?
You don't honestly think the ATMs are connected to the same office LAN as the cashier terminals and office PCs?
"Hey, let's bridge our highly secure ATM network with an unencrypted office network!" - yeah, right.
More to the point, I don't think that'd be a factor, anyway. If they've got an ounce of sense they'll be performing all tranactions over an encrypted VPN anyway.
So what if it's closed source? Somewhat pointless to point out that Slashdot caters for Windows users, cos you're likely (judging by your post) not too happy with M$, but also Apple and indeed many other closed source, but equally innovative products frequently get mentioned here.
Secondly, why does your personal opinion that the inventors (and it's not "inventors"-with-quotation-marks unless they stole the code from someone else) are assholes make any difference to why Slashdot should post the article? I'm sure many people mentioned here over the years have been assholes, but the stories are still interesting to *someone*.
And finally, yes, this is groundbreaking, but not because of the code - merely because of the idea. There are already many VoIP apps out there, but this is the first to use P2P concepts for connections, and the quality is obviously down to using very good compression. So go write your own! It's all there...
If you don't like it, don't read the article! Go on, scroll down about 3 inches - there you go! No more Skype story.
Actually, the latest version of Trillian Pro supports the new MSN Messenger protocols and they're updating the free version very soon, too.
Woo! Hooray for Trillian!
Surely this article should have been written by Spam Holden?
About 15 years ago you could get "robots" that were EXACTLY the same as this - all they've done is stuck a few bits of Velcro on the bottom! Great injection moulded case too - very faux-sophisticated.
I think my childhood toy cost about $10...
Well, you obviously haven't read any of the other replies, otherwise you'd know that you can do exactly what he wants using xVNC or Synergy, both of which are free.
When I'm coding using PHP/ASP or whatever, it's very often useful to be able to see the results at the same time as the code - thus, two monitors. In addition, having each monitor connected to a different machine means you can have two apps running faster in individual machines (such as compiler on one, dev suite on another, or 3D modelling with a render view on a secondary PC - you get the idea). Yes, it does use more power, but it's still very convenient to have twice the desktop space.
That kind of assumes you're in an office...I work from home: there is no-one else to use the other monitor.
Hehe, I don't usually get that frustrated, but sometimes ppl on /. put on the most incredible shows of smart-ass "I know exactly what this is about so I won't bother actually reading it" behaviour that I couldn't help myself...
Personally, I'd go for Synergy - it's the easiest to install and configure and VNC seemed to be a bit buggy.
Yup, it's an excellent app, and free as well! I've been using it for 6 months. There's an alternative commercial one called Desktop Rover by Neslo Software, but it offers similar features, so why not go for the Open Source app?
Since this seems to confuse many people, here goes:
You have 3 PCs all in constant use, all with keyboard and mouse (KM for future ease), and you want to control all 3 from the same KM combo. You could connect all three monitors to one PC and run 2 copies of VNC to view the other two desktops, but that would consume network and CPU resources. So:
1) Leave all 3 monitors connected and move them next to each other.
2) Run Synergy or similar on all 3 PCs, setting the middle PC as the Server.
3) Put the two other PC's KMs somewhere out of the way.
4) Now, your KM for the middle PC will work as normal, except when you reach the side of the desktop with your mouse cursor, it will move off that PC's desktop and onto the desktop of the adjacent PC.
5) Now you have what looks like a PC with 3 monitors connected, except the two side monitors are running on individual PCs, controlled by the master PC's KM. Each PC can do its own thing, but can be controlled as easily as the centre PC.
Bloody hell! Has no-one read the original post?
The "mousing across screens gimmick" is the whole point! He specifically DOES NOT WANT video - he'll be leaving the monitor connected. The point is to simply move the secondary PC's mouse and keyboard out of the way so that he can use the same set of controls across multiple machines. It's way better than a multi-head PC if you've got a few PCs in use because each monitor is feeding from a different PC and the only thing being transmitted across the LAN is the mouse and keystrokes.
The idea is to allow keyboard and mouse control of a machine with its own monitor! They're talking about versions of VNC which pass along control commands but no video. Standard VNC/Windows Terminal Services wouldn't do this cos they only provide a remote view of the workstation.
Picture this: You have two PCs. You also have two sets of mice and keyboards. So, put Synergy/xVNC (or similar) on both machines, pack away the mouse and keyboard for the second PC, and when you move your mouse cursor off the edge of the first PC's desktop, it appears on the edge of the screen of the second PC's desktop. It's purely a replacement for loads of mice/keyboards. But nonetheless a damn sight more useful than VNC in some situations. I use it all day, every day.
You have a good point, but I've had a thought (and a genuine one, not a piss-take):
Do you think the increased frequency of crashes in Windows drivers etc could be:
1) The fact that Linux has a much larger developer base working on many more bugs simultaneously and to no particular launch date, rather than a few hundred Windows developers working to corporate deadlines.
2) The fact that Windows has many more vendors writing buggy drivers for their hardware (that is, Windows supports a wider range of hardware and thsus has many more individuals writing drivers)
Feel free to pooh-pooh my thoughts - any of your own, anyone?
I may be the only person in this position on the planet, but I've been running both XP and 2k Server for 1 year, and neither OS has crashed once...maybe the odd dodgy app, but the OS is stable as hell for me.
Just for the record, I've had Linux crash (X servers, even the odd kernel crash once or twice). Besides, it's all a matter of opinion where Linux is concerned: how much do you count as the OS? Just the kernel? Everything right up to the X server? If you decide the "OS" is only the kernel, then you're probably not going to have a great many OS crashes.
We all know you as the team who are responsible for enforcing copyright law. But presumably some of you must also be consumers of this kind of media.
At what point do you think it is reasonable to put the fine line between enforcing the DMCA and it's cousins, and still allowing fair and reasonable use of media? What's your standpoint on technologies that, for exmple, prevent illegal copying of CDs at the expense of a small percentage of legitimate users who may not be able to play legally purchased CDs on thier PCs?
Not only was he being ironic, you also spelt it wrong yourself.
N-E-I-L Gaiman.
Heheh, that was kinda the point ;-)
lol
Us "self-important" Brits (yes, all 65 million of us) tend to get slightly pissed off with the condescending way Americans (or some of them) assume that the entire population of the UK have either upper-class or Cockney accents and look down our noses at Americans!
Some of us are in fact well aware that a good deal of Americans (especially sitcom writers) are well-versed in irony, some a lot better than us (have you *seen* our hospital dramas? ER versus Casualty is really no debate).
The thing to be pointed out here is that self-importance on the part of a few Brits AND Americans is what started this "Irony Is Dead" thing in the first place. Sweeping statements never do anyone any good credibility-wise...
This just looks like the kind of alphanumeric pad you get on cellphones, just on a wired USB dongle.
You can already get IR remote controls with these built in!
Um...the characters in the first book in the Bridge trilogy returned in the last, as did those from the second book. Although the plots aren't precisely continuous, they are evolutions of the same larger plot arc.
Male or female bike messengers? Or is it just the smell on the saddles? lol
Generally, if you ask around most people seem to agree that the earlier stuff such as Neuromancer is his better work. Personally, I thought that Idoru was more of the same - good writing, but nothing new.
My local bookstore's taking ages to get Pattern Recognition in stock, but apparently William Gibson's back on form. Go try it out - you might like it more than Idoru.
Also, of course, Idoru was the second in a trilogy, and you might have unknowingly had problems following the plot...check this out for more info.
I assumed that the fact that Enoch Root in Cryptonomicon would, logically, have been much older than he in fact was when meeting Randy Waterhouse was one of those "don't ask too many questions" situations...
Perhaps that hints at this interesting theory, too?
Them: Hello, this is Sony tech support
Me: Hi, I'm following up on a query last week
Them: I'm sorry Sir, we've not got your details. You must be mistaken.
Me: Your system must be faulty. I called last week.
Them: No Sir, our computers never make mistakes.
Me: Yes they do. Do you have my records?
Them: No Sir
Me: Then your database is faulty!
Them: No Sir, our computers are *never* faulty. It's impossible, it's a perfect system.
Me: Oh, Christ.
Case in point. It's even worse when the users refuse to believe that it's anything except your fault.