I still think it would be the lesser of two evils if I had to pick this or WindozeRG;-)
Grow up. The day you have your government paying money for open source development is the day that Bill Gates will show up to take that money, and have your taxes pay him for the work he has his people do to that open source software, making sure that it does what he want's it to do, not you.
Clearly government meddling and red tape and additional taxes to support it all isn't needed and for the most part isn't even wanted. The open source community would be greatly hurt by this. I know many people would simply stop contributing, either because they didn't want to play with the bureaucrats and all the red tape, or just because the were disgusted by the new system.
Looking at the pictures, this is the exact same mouse sold as the IOGEAR trackball mouse and the Starlogic 8D trackball mouse. I have one sold with Startlogic's name on the box (nothing painted on it's back); I just went to Circuit City and found they are still on the shelf. (Which surprised me, since I douldn't get any response from Startlogic's e-mail address last Novemner and they don't even seem to have a website). The mouse worked OK at first, and there's even a neat feature that can switch the ball between a scroll ball and a track ball (when you can't or don't want to move the mouse). But after very little use the scroll ball movement became erratic. Someone else posting here reported the same problem with several he bought for his office.
I've never experienced anything more annoying than that center ball, especially when you're scrolling downward.
Mine was packaged as a "Starlogic" brand. 1 Year Warranty. No website for Starlogic, just an e-mail address that never responds. From the photos it's clearly the same mouse, with the only difference being mine doesn't have IOGEAR written on it's back.
Have you figured out how to open the ball? Those two holes on the sides of the retaining ring make it look like that ring should screw off or otherwise easily remove, but I haven't been able to get mine to even try cleaning under there yet.
You're not the only one who is having problems with the erratic ball scroll motion.
Interesting.
I have a scroll mouse from a company called Starlogic. Waranty is useless, I could never even find the company or get a response from their e-mail address, and they had no web site, just an e-mail addreess. The photo you posted a link to shows the exact same mouse as I have, except that the photo shows some name painted on the back of the mouse, (mine is just black there).
Interesting mouse, but the trackball only worked for a few months, then started getting erratic (you move one way, the page moves the wrong way at first). I see this "new" mouse claims a 3 year warranty, but I can't even avail myself of the 1 year warranty I supposedly have. I would suggest not getting a mouse from someone who's business model is to fold up the tent every and now and then and show up selling the same thing under a diferent name later.
I don't see it as an innovation at all, particularly since I'm sitting here using a "Starlogic" optical mouse with a track ball built into the top that lets me scroll horizontal, vertical, or any combination of the two. I got it for 8 bucks last November at Circuit City. I think the company went under, but the devices still exist (beware extremely inflated shipping charges on e-bay).
How long before I get a trackball embedded in my mouse?
They exist. The one I have in my hand now (no, the other hand...) was made by a company calling themself Starlogic, although I think they went out of business even before I bought mine from Circuit City for $8 last November. Google on Starlogic, trackball and mouse and you'll get lots of hits. There's even a couple on e-bay, but be warned, like most stuff on e-bay (I.M.H.O.) this is a scam - the mouse is showing currently at 99 cents, but the bastard will charge you 12 bucks shipping to send it to you if you "win".
...you're surprised that installing a new OS on a 7-8 year old PC is troublesome? I would say that an "average" user would come to this conclusion quite easily.
Yes, I am. Particularly considering that this in a Red Hat release marked i386 - it supposedly doesn't even need a Pentium calss system. But if it can't run on that system, or can't install on it, fine. But that should be identified at boot time, not left for the user to decide.
I'm hardly going to give up my Windows system before I can gain enough comfort with Linux to be able to use it for some basic daily stuff; thus the desire to get it on my older system as a learning tool. I doubt if I'm alone in wanting to do this, if it (XFree86 or KDE in this case) simply will not run on this hardware, the user should be informed at installation, not left to figure out IF it can be done. And just for the record, since I seem to be talking to some one so much wiser than I, why can I run KDE and Knoppix on this system, and why can the Red Hat installer run in GUI mode, if as you say I can't install XFree86 on the same hardware???
And yes, I have installed many versions of Windows, from Windows 1 amd 2 that came free with Word on up. I'm sure I've installed windows well over a hundred times on over 50 different systems. Other than my notebook, I buy my own motherboards and build up the systems I want, so I've installed windows on all these systems, and have installed it for friends and many systems at work as well. Maybe I just am good at it and have too much experience installing it, but I have not had the problems installing Windows that I have had installing Linux, on any system. And if Windows does have a hardware requirement (like XP's screen size) they openly tell you about it, don't leave you to discover it later. Mind you I'm not expecting this system to run fast, but if the installer pretends to install on it, it should at least let me get past the innitial boot. And again, I'm not the only one wanting to do this or not expecting to have to buy new hardware just to start running Linux.
None of this matters as long as the average user can't install Linux and KDE. I consider myself far from an average user, but I'm still having problems getting Linux/XFree86/KDE installed on a system. It runs Knoppix fine (so you would think that other Linux systems should work as well). But I had no luck trying to get the current version of Mandrake to install on a P166/64 meg/S3 video. I also had bad results with Debain. I'm now trying to get Red Hat to work. First I found that I couldn't get Red Hat 9.0 with and GUI to fit on a 1.2 gig hard drive (which seemes to redefine the concept of Bloat). OK, I cleaned off a 6 gig drive (the BIOS is limited to 8.4 gig max on that system). On installing Red Hat I couldn't get XFREE86 to start (this even though the Red Hat installer ran find in a graphical mode, as well as my previous experience with Knoppix). I finally managed to use VI (I hate VI) and edited the XFree86config file to drop the color depth from an aceptable 16 bit to a poor 8 bits. The graphical interface finally started, sort of. The bottom half of the display shows, the top half is black. In the bottom half I have a couple of giant 3 inch buttons( back and next), but nothing else. Linux never comes up far enough to let me log in on another window, and I can't do anything on this ugly, oversized chopped up screen, so I can't even get in to see what the log files are now telling me.
I started using and programming computers in the 60's and have made my living at it. If I can't get Linux installed with all the effort I continue to put into it, I don't think Bill has as much to fear from it as he pretends to.
With a holgraphic keyboard, you get the ability to customize on the fly,
Only if the have dynamic hologram technology that would let them change the image on the fly, which I see no claim that they do. They might be claiming to have some sort of static hologram projector of 1 image (like a keyboatd with keys that can not move), but they are apparently not even showing this, which makes one wonder if they have anything at all.
There are lots of existing touch screen technology out there, several of which do not involve actually touching a screen or anything else, but just breaking a light beam or reflecting the beam in a different way. They seem to be using lasers, but I don't see that that is different than a touch screen technology that used "light beams".
I think their real technology is in getting a patent and perhaps in sueing anyone who might really build some of the holographic controls we've seen on TV and movies for years. And maybe in milking some investors who want to get in on the sueing too.
First, of all, of course you can photograph a hologram. But what part of the NYT article do you think showed a photograph of this "invention"? I saw a picture of a guy pressing a touch screen display on a beige box. There was no holographic image, unless you want to believe that the beige box, it's touch screen and even the wire shown running to it were all holographic creations. And if you have to have a beige box with a display on it to do this magic, that's hardly an invention. Touch screen displays of this type have been around so long that many of the early patents must already be expiring.
You cant photograph a hologram, nor can you see it with only one eye.
Bullshit! Some of the 3D effect that some holograms have is lost when viewed through one eye, but you can certainly see a hologram through one eye and you can certainly photograph one.
Drivers, for example, would not have to take their eyes off the road to make a telephone call; they could punch a phone number into a transparent holographic keyboard projected in front of the windshield.
There's nothing new or patentable for car heads up displays. We've had heads up displays for years, in jet fighters and even some in high end commercially available cars. Maybe if they have a new, good way of sensing hand position that might be worthy of a patent, but there are a lot of different technologies for touch screens too (many of which do not involve touching anything, just the position of your pinkey breaking or otherwise interacting with a light beam), I don't see any of this as innovation, just lame bad patent squatting.
Not only are there other references before EFC or Johnny Mnemonic, but Roddenberry was dead and cold for years before EFC went into production. It's based on a story outline of his, but he had no part in the special effects or most of the rest of it. The idea is so old that we might indeed find some reference to it in Raddenberry's works (I'm not a big fan and don't claim to know) but it certainly wasn't EFC.
How does that work then? Could I go out and patent something, like say, "Faster-than-light spaceship drive" and sit back and wait for someone to develop it, and then get rich?
Even worse, someone can wait until the faster than light spaceship is invented, then use it to travel back in time and then patent it!
No, the patent office does not require working models any longer (not for quite some time). But I think that it could still be a good legal argument when defending against a patent that the patent holder did not really invent anything and that they just tried squatting on an idea (one that is hardly theirs), gave the public nothing of any value for the patent, and so are not entitled to patent protection when an unimplimented bit of sciece fantasy gets patented. I sure hope so, because unless these guys reallu have built The hologram projector 200 I would hate to see them profit on this any more than just bilking investors.
Huh? Their patent appears to explain exactly how to do this (hint: see the "DETAILED DESCRIPTION" section).
Been there, read that. OK, maybe I just don't get it, but you tell me how The holographic image generator 200 actually manages to display a real time changing holographic image and then I'll accept that they have something. I just don't see anything in the patent or on their website that says they can really do this.
It's nice to know that they issue patents for things that rightfully deserve patenting too.
Can you read the patent and figure out how the "The holographic image generator 200" works? I sure can't. Maybe I'm just dense and others can point out the invcention here, but how the hell does their supposed holographic image generator 200 work? If the purpose of a patent is to disclose how a device functions, and in doing so give the inventor a limited time monopoly on the invention in return for information that becomes public knowledge and will eventually become freely useable by all, then I think this patent falls far short of this requirement. I have serious doubts that the company even invented anything at all, it looks more to me like they hope someone else will and that they can then sue them, based on having obtained a patent without actually inventing anything or provide the public any value in return for the patent.
But have they really been able to build one, or are they just patenting the idea with hopes someone else will and they they can sue and get rich? I see nothing on their website (other than very obviously mocked up fake pictures) or in the patent that says they really know how to do this.
Slashdot Mirror
Grow up. The day you have your government paying money for open source development is the day that Bill Gates will show up to take that money, and have your taxes pay him for the work he has his people do to that open source software, making sure that it does what he want's it to do, not you.
IBM should be concerned. If anyone is an expert on Unsubstantiated Allegations it is SCO.
Rather than keep asking, why not just go to circuit City and buy one? I got mine last November. But the track ball operation is getting flakey.
Looking at the pictures, this is the exact same mouse sold as the IOGEAR trackball mouse and the Starlogic 8D trackball mouse. I have one sold with Startlogic's name on the box (nothing painted on it's back); I just went to Circuit City and found they are still on the shelf. (Which surprised me, since I douldn't get any response from Startlogic's e-mail address last Novemner and they don't even seem to have a website). The mouse worked OK at first, and there's even a neat feature that can switch the ball between a scroll ball and a track ball (when you can't or don't want to move the mouse). But after very little use the scroll ball movement became erratic. Someone else posting here reported the same problem with several he bought for his office.
Mine was packaged as a "Starlogic" brand. 1 Year Warranty. No website for Starlogic, just an e-mail address that never responds. From the photos it's clearly the same mouse, with the only difference being mine doesn't have IOGEAR written on it's back.
Have you figured out how to open the ball? Those two holes on the sides of the retaining ring make it look like that ring should screw off or otherwise easily remove, but I haven't been able to get mine to even try cleaning under there yet. You're not the only one who is having problems with the erratic ball scroll motion.
Interesting. I have a scroll mouse from a company called Starlogic. Waranty is useless, I could never even find the company or get a response from their e-mail address, and they had no web site, just an e-mail addreess. The photo you posted a link to shows the exact same mouse as I have, except that the photo shows some name painted on the back of the mouse, (mine is just black there). Interesting mouse, but the trackball only worked for a few months, then started getting erratic (you move one way, the page moves the wrong way at first). I see this "new" mouse claims a 3 year warranty, but I can't even avail myself of the 1 year warranty I supposedly have. I would suggest not getting a mouse from someone who's business model is to fold up the tent every and now and then and show up selling the same thing under a diferent name later.
I don't see it as an innovation at all, particularly since I'm sitting here using a "Starlogic" optical mouse with a track ball built into the top that lets me scroll horizontal, vertical, or any combination of the two. I got it for 8 bucks last November at Circuit City. I think the company went under, but the devices still exist (beware extremely inflated shipping charges on e-bay).
They exist. The one I have in my hand now (no, the other hand...) was made by a company calling themself Starlogic, although I think they went out of business even before I bought mine from Circuit City for $8 last November. Google on Starlogic, trackball and mouse and you'll get lots of hits. There's even a couple on e-bay, but be warned, like most stuff on e-bay (I.M.H.O.) this is a scam - the mouse is showing currently at 99 cents, but the bastard will charge you 12 bucks shipping to send it to you if you "win".
the provided link seems to be broken
Oh..........
Yes, I am. Particularly considering that this in a Red Hat release marked i386 - it supposedly doesn't even need a Pentium calss system. But if it can't run on that system, or can't install on it, fine. But that should be identified at boot time, not left for the user to decide.
I'm hardly going to give up my Windows system before I can gain enough comfort with Linux to be able to use it for some basic daily stuff; thus the desire to get it on my older system as a learning tool. I doubt if I'm alone in wanting to do this, if it (XFree86 or KDE in this case) simply will not run on this hardware, the user should be informed at installation, not left to figure out IF it can be done. And just for the record, since I seem to be talking to some one so much wiser than I, why can I run KDE and Knoppix on this system, and why can the Red Hat installer run in GUI mode, if as you say I can't install XFree86 on the same hardware???
And yes, I have installed many versions of Windows, from Windows 1 amd 2 that came free with Word on up. I'm sure I've installed windows well over a hundred times on over 50 different systems. Other than my notebook, I buy my own motherboards and build up the systems I want, so I've installed windows on all these systems, and have installed it for friends and many systems at work as well. Maybe I just am good at it and have too much experience installing it, but I have not had the problems installing Windows that I have had installing Linux, on any system. And if Windows does have a hardware requirement (like XP's screen size) they openly tell you about it, don't leave you to discover it later. Mind you I'm not expecting this system to run fast, but if the installer pretends to install on it, it should at least let me get past the innitial boot. And again, I'm not the only one wanting to do this or not expecting to have to buy new hardware just to start running Linux.
Hell, I would use it just to help burn calories and loose weight.
I started using and programming computers in the 60's and have made my living at it. If I can't get Linux installed with all the effort I continue to put into it, I don't think Bill has as much to fear from it as he pretends to.
Only if the have dynamic hologram technology that would let them change the image on the fly, which I see no claim that they do. They might be claiming to have some sort of static hologram projector of 1 image (like a keyboatd with keys that can not move), but they are apparently not even showing this, which makes one wonder if they have anything at all.
I think their real technology is in getting a patent and perhaps in sueing anyone who might really build some of the holographic controls we've seen on TV and movies for years. And maybe in milking some investors who want to get in on the sueing too.
First, of all, of course you can photograph a hologram. But what part of the NYT article do you think showed a photograph of this "invention"? I saw a picture of a guy pressing a touch screen display on a beige box. There was no holographic image, unless you want to believe that the beige box, it's touch screen and even the wire shown running to it were all holographic creations. And if you have to have a beige box with a display on it to do this magic, that's hardly an invention. Touch screen displays of this type have been around so long that many of the early patents must already be expiring.
Bullshit! Some of the 3D effect that some holograms have is lost when viewed through one eye, but you can certainly see a hologram through one eye and you can certainly photograph one.
There's nothing new or patentable for car heads up displays. We've had heads up displays for years, in jet fighters and even some in high end commercially available cars. Maybe if they have a new, good way of sensing hand position that might be worthy of a patent, but there are a lot of different technologies for touch screens too (many of which do not involve touching anything, just the position of your pinkey breaking or otherwise interacting with a light beam), I don't see any of this as innovation, just lame bad patent squatting.
Not only are there other references before EFC or Johnny Mnemonic, but Roddenberry was dead and cold for years before EFC went into production. It's based on a story outline of his, but he had no part in the special effects or most of the rest of it. The idea is so old that we might indeed find some reference to it in Raddenberry's works (I'm not a big fan and don't claim to know) but it certainly wasn't EFC.
Even worse, someone can wait until the faster than light spaceship is invented, then use it to travel back in time and then patent it!
No, the patent office does not require working models any longer (not for quite some time). But I think that it could still be a good legal argument when defending against a patent that the patent holder did not really invent anything and that they just tried squatting on an idea (one that is hardly theirs), gave the public nothing of any value for the patent, and so are not entitled to patent protection when an unimplimented bit of sciece fantasy gets patented. I sure hope so, because unless these guys reallu have built The hologram projector 200 I would hate to see them profit on this any more than just bilking investors.
Been there, read that. OK, maybe I just don't get it, but you tell me how The holographic image generator 200 actually manages to display a real time changing holographic image and then I'll accept that they have something. I just don't see anything in the patent or on their website that says they can really do this.
Can you read the patent and figure out how the "The holographic image generator 200" works? I sure can't. Maybe I'm just dense and others can point out the invcention here, but how the hell does their supposed holographic image generator 200 work? If the purpose of a patent is to disclose how a device functions, and in doing so give the inventor a limited time monopoly on the invention in return for information that becomes public knowledge and will eventually become freely useable by all, then I think this patent falls far short of this requirement. I have serious doubts that the company even invented anything at all, it looks more to me like they hope someone else will and that they can then sue them, based on having obtained a patent without actually inventing anything or provide the public any value in return for the patent.
But have they really been able to build one, or are they just patenting the idea with hopes someone else will and they they can sue and get rich? I see nothing on their website (other than very obviously mocked up fake pictures) or in the patent that says they really know how to do this.