No problems with upgrading apps for security and likewise.
The problem is this: 1. Redhat takes our money to support their desktop OS product 2. Redhat now compels us to upgrade the entire OS at a absurd pace in order to stay supported.
With most other vendors, Step #2 occurs slowly enough to not be an issue. (For eg: 5-10 years for Windows.) By then, many organizations have already planned and implemented OS upgrades of their own accord.
The problem is Redhat's "new and absurd" 12-month support lifespan on their desktop OS products. It really doesn't affect the hobby user running the latest distro on his personal computer. It does impact Corporates who have signed support contracts with Redhat -- this is RH's way of pushing them to buy RH's proprietary Advanced Server product or new Advanced Desktop (?) product. If you check Redhat's financials, you'll see why -- RH Advanced Server is one of the main sources of their revenue.
I don't grudge RH the right to impose conditions on their services - I just hope they offer a smoother transition to existing desktop-distro customers. This will leave a bad taste similar to Microsoft Licensing 6.0.
Once you've upgraded all the packages to their current level, all that's left are the few packages (Base layout, package management interface, etc.) that comprise the "OS". If you require support but RedHat declines it on this basis, simply apply the updates and call them back.
From conversations I've had with our sysadmins, I understand RH won't take that call. i.e. We're forced to upgrade the entire distro on all our servers, at this frenetic pace RH is dictating, just in order to stay supported.
You make good points about upfront investments & testbed servers - we do that. However, testing is quite a complex issue for us (we have to compile-in and test large file support on our DB servers, for eg) -- so ensuring a seamless transition is still hard work.
After all this, we may switch to RH advanced server -- the pressure is working.
If you haven't upgraded your Linux systems in 6-12 months, I'd love for you to send me your IP address(es), because I'd like to send you a few packets pertaining to;
* Double-Free Bug in CVS Server
* ISC DHCPD Buffer Overflow
* Multiple Vulnerabilities in ISC BIND
* Apache/mod_ssl Worm...
You've listed vulnerabilities in applications, not in the OS. No one's denying that buggy applications can (and should) be upgraded straight away. What's being discussed here is why the OS should have such a short lifespan. IMO, even if the kernel needed a bugfix, RH could supply a service pack, just like MS does.
lazy, incompetent, certifications-are-king sysadmins out there who give us a bad name. They're the ones who adopt the theory that applying updates is "too hard",
Yes, there are testbed systems in large companies, but testing a new OS (and more importantly testing your applications work well on the new OS) is hard work and this costs the company time and money that could be applied elsewhere. The OS vendor should make upgrades as convenient as possible, especially for the person paying them support $$$. A 1-year upgrade cycle is way too short. Yes, eventually enough applications will depend on the functionality provided by a new kernel/OS to make sense for the vendor to end-of-life the old kernel/OS -- but this should be in terms of years and not months.
As the article notes: And do we detect just the glimmer of an Advanced Server sales push here? -- RH is trying to push sales on RH Advances server, which is the product where most of its profit comes from!
> Let me be facetious for once and spell out the environmental impact for a human body as this article seemingly does...
You forget one thing - the human body is inherently bio-compatible -- "From dust we are created, to dust we return." -- Our natural excretions (with emphasis on "natural"), our natural byproducts of life, as well as the process of our creation and decomposition, are inherently harmless to the earth.
The process of creation of microchips (or steel, or SUVs, or cement) is *nowhere* near as bio-compatible.
> The silane and other harmful chemicals used never leave the factory harmful. Whatever is leftover and not used is converted to something harmless through a series of chemical reactions expressly designed to make the factory environmentally friendly.
But the net effect is not harmless to the environment. Chemical manufacturing, power generation, building infrastructure -- all this does damage the earth. And we seem to be damaging the earth faster than we are replenishing it. And this (the latter point) is wrong.
Interesting point you've drawn out here... Consider this though: Which names make more immediate sense to the common man (i.e. the category both MS and Linux are aiming to serve):
Media Player, SQL Server, Internet Explorer, Outlook
v/s XMMS, Postgres, Konqueror/Mozilla/Galeon, Evolution
(OK: "Outlook" seems dicey, but the app does open saying "Your Outlook for today..." and shows the tasks, appointments and unread mails that day -- makes more sense than "Evolution")
I mean, does a Linux user have to think of the application's *name* as a "gee-whiz" feature?:) So maybe, Redhat's Bluecurve is a step in the right direction (even though default RH 8.0 on my PIII/128 MB HP is a dog).
Removable Hard-disk System: A consortium of companies developing a removable hard-disk system for consumer use called the Information Versatile Disk for Removable usage (iVDR) plans to unveil a prototype 1.8-in. drive with a serial ATA interface for the first time at the Consumer Electronics Show (CES) next month, an iVDR consortium representative said this week. The iVDR system will be shown outside of Japan for the first time at the event, which will take place in Las Vegas in January.
> > > the admin... is also the primary interface between the machines and the people.
> > In larger installations users usually don't contact sysadmins directly. > > Instead, they call a "helpdesk" person who uses uses tools (mostly > > written by the sysadmins) to fix routine issues. Unresolvable issues > > are escalated upto the sysadmin.
> hired out are a special case. Certainly an ISP is the most obvious example, > and one where the indirection is so great most users don't even realize they're users.
"Hired out"? I wasn't talking about third-party call centers, if that's what you meant. Most internal corporate helpdesks are just that - internal. For instance, my company has two helpdesks - one for internal users, and one for external customers. Larger companies (telcos for instance) may outsource their external helpdesk, but usually keep their internal helpdesk (the one that services their own employees) internal.
> I'd only point out that help desk people are themselves users of the system,
Correct. While the helpdesk staff are generally more clued-in than regular users, they still use tools written or configured primarily by the sysadmins. In a sense, *they* are the sysadmin's internal customers.
>...and generally rank only a smidgeon above subscribers on the "luse-O-meter."
I take it you're not a sysadmin?:-) A really good one doesn't call a user (helpdesk person or otherwise) a "luser". They'll treat them as "customers".
> My point stands.
In your original post, you made valid points about sysadmins needing people skills, etc. I don't dispute that.
My point is simply that in large organizations, the system admin is generally NOT the interface between the machines and the people. The helpdesk is. If the helpdesk keeps escalting user calls to the sysadmins, something is usually very wrong.
...could actually be a combination of these three things: 1. An latop with the display you need (15" UXGA, etc, etc) - $2000?
CPU, Disk and RAM don't matter. 2. A small Compaq Evo e-PC with the computing power you need. - $683.00 onwards
(P4 CPU, DDR, 2 GB RAM - you can upgrade the disk).
The form factor is pretty small: 10"x10"x3.5" + a small power brick 3. A VNC server (eg: TightVNC) on your "server"
and a VNC client on your laptop. Run the client full screen.
You can also use Windows' built in terminal server if you're runing Microsoft.
Plus you'd need some network connectivity (Wifi/Bluetooth/crossover cable) between your client and your server.
This is a client/server setup at a (comparatively) cheap price, small enough for hand luggage (airport security won't hassle you if you checked the "server" in and carried your laptop in hand baggage). Plus you can use your laptop on the flight.
If you hookup a second monitor to your "server"in the field, you can also use x2vnc (Linux) or Win2VNC (windows) to obtain a single dual-head "desktop". These programs allow you to use two screens on your two different computers as if they were connected to the same computer (single mouse and keyboard controls both and "jumps" at the screen border) You can also cut and paste between computers. Even if one is running Windows, and the other is running Linux. It's great - I use it at work in my "dual-head" XP/Linux setup.;-)
> After all, the admin isn't just responsible for the machines, he is also the primary interface > between the machines and the people.
In larger installations users usually don't contact sysadmins directly. Instead, they call a "helpdesk" person who uses uses tools (mostly written by the sysadmins) to fix routine issues. Unresolvable issues are escalated upto the sysadmin.
It's usually like this with ISPs (where the sysadmin mentioned in this article works). Users (i.e. subscribers) calling about technical issues usually speak to a tech-support/helpdesk person; and not a system administator.
Good point. RSS ("RDF Site Summary") - an XML standard for summarizing and pointing to website content - may be part of the solution here. The RSS 1.0 spec defines XML files that contain summary information and pointers to content on websites. Some links:
This is pretty nifty - an NNTP-RSS gateway. It lets your favorite NNTP newsreader works as RSS newsreader. (See screenshot)
[ Note: I'm no expert on RSS/RDF - just an interested reader. Maybe an expert can chip in here:... ] RSS does not provide one crucial thing - information on the internal structure of the content itself. Maybe RDF (Resource Description Framework) does that -- I'm not sure. Anyway, RSS only supplies meta-information pointing to the content. An in-car application could read out "article headers" from RSS information. If the user "selected" a particular "article header", the system would need "content-structure information" (RDF?) to skip unwanted elements like menus and ads, and just read out content like a radio news story. Of course, only some types of content lend themselves to being read out. For instance, Slashdot has a RDF feed (BTW, shouldn't this be an.RSS file?). These point to the Slashdot articles. If I "selected" a story, I'd want a script that extracted the submitted story (and NOT the user comments) and read it out.
The car's existing audio controls could be used to "browse" such "articles". Some cars have buttons mounted on the steering column to let the driver flip through radio stations without taking his hands off the wheel. For this system, two switches - an "up/down" rocker switch for navigating up and down the "Newsfeed > Headline > Article" hierarchy, and a "forward/backward" switch for navigating elements under the same hierarchy could provide the driver all the control he needed without taking his eyes off the road.
It would be good to integrate this system with another system that measured cognitive load on the driver. The recitation would pause, say, when speed exceeded some limit, or (using sonar) neighbouring cars came closer than a minimum distance, or some such combination. Done properly, this system _could_ enhance safety by providing the driver feedback.
I posted the parent comment. I just thought I'd point out the MIT-license workaround proposed by Bruce Perens does not apply to the example above.
This workaround allows free software to use a patented technique only when using the web.
In the example above, free-software users would be forced to make an unintuitive switch to a different, non-patented technique to manage local resources. Microsoft users (or other licensed users) could continue to manage all types of resources seamlessly.
To: www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org Subject: DISAPPROVE of draft policy
I request that W3C disapprove the draft patent policy, because its a compromise that can cause problems later on.
When a patented principle 'gets in' as a web standard, it causes problems when the web experience needs to be seamlessly extended to non-web areas.
Imagine for a moment that Microsoft invented and was granted a patent on a new file management interface. This patented technique was then made a W3C standard for managing web servers.
Now, someone observes that using this same technique for managing information on your local computer makes a lot of sense. But it cannot be implemented by non-Microsoft users (as well as by users of free software), who must switch to a different interface when dealing with their own computer. Completely non-intuitive!
I object to many software patents. I cannot say I object to all of them. I do object to the laxity the USTPO shows in granting certain obvious patents. I understand the W3C wants to avoid potential patent problems, but you have to understand you cannot please all the people all the time. For instance, web browser plugins are patented. What can you do about it?
I suggest you make your own judgement about the "obviousness" of inventions while defining web standards, especially in cases when prior art exists. If need be, move back abroad - to Switzerland - where the patent system is more fair. This way litigation is left to the implementers. And there should be no problems for you - after all, what you are doing is just defining a standard that you think is fair, which is free speech.
> That said, Apple CAN'T ban case mods. They would be VERY stupid > to challenge such an obvious case of prior art in the court system > as it would surely result in their patent being revoked.
I hope the patent office considers case mods prior art and refuses to even grant the patent. After all, thats their job -- due diligence on patents.:-)
In any case, the broad wording of the patent will get it shot down sooner or later. Imagine this: some case modder does a mod that uses principles from Apple's patent (but does not end up looking like an Apple computer). Apple takes the modder to court - not for trademark or copyright infrigement (because there is no visual resemblance), but on the basis of this patent. Modder argues the patent is invalid since it covers pre-existing case mods. Judge strikes down patent down.
I don't know what Apple are thinking. They should really go for a more restrictive language if they have the technology ready. Maybe they don't - maybe this is a wildcard patent - looking forward to a day when OLEDs are cheap, and can be used as a transparent "skin" on a device.
It's not so much what is covered by the patent, as what Apple intends to enforce with it. Until I see what Apple has built...
But that's not how it should be. The patent is granted or denied on the basis of _this_ application - not on demos Apple conjures up or devices it plans to build in future.
All, in all, this is a wholly unreasonable patent application since it's so broad in scope. I think the Case Modding community have good examples of prior art: Neon tubes in a transparent case -- their glow tells me that the computer is running; LEDs mounted on fan blades -- the circle of light shows me the case fans are working.
If these sound frivolous compared to Apple's (yet undisclosed) implementations, consider that under the terms of this (overly broad) patent, Apply _can_ successfully BAN the abovementioned mods.
Why depend on their goodwill, especially when they don't deserve this patent?
The Simputer is intended as a community-shared device (hence it's smartcard), but its sad that you're mostly right. The Simputer's progress has been a bit of a disappointment so far, with only development kits available... I wish it's creators had GPL'd/LGPL'd the hardware right from the beginning (IIRC, the software is GPL'd anyway) and had gotten hardware developers the world over involved in on this... this could have done the same thing for the PDA, as Linux did for Operating systems.
Right now, the hardware seems pretty dated (the Dell Axim you mentioned runs 100Mhz faster for $50 less -- but it doesn't have the smartcard, USB, or modem of the Simputer). However, it's the Simputer's software that could be the breadwinner -- the claim is (haven't tested it myself) seamless integration of smart card access, SSL security, document annotation, voice-to-text, etc. Simputer hardware development kits are available, but are expensive. My understanding is the software should compile/work on another StrongARM platform like the IPaq/Cerfcube/Lart, maybe even the Axim!
> 'free' for half a century. Yes, around one quarter of the time compared to the US.
> gloss over the cruel mistreatment of his countrymen. Who's glossing over what? The Hindu caste system is pure *evil*. Indian society was (and still is) in a dump of it's own making. It is slowly extricating itself (with slips backward, like in the riots) -- no thanks to self-righteous people like you who can only stand and jeer without *ever* lending a hand! "Stand aside", you sniff... "for I am holier than thou".
> What have you 'tried' to alleviate the incredible hardships of... I've given money. But that's between myself and God. If you're the same AC with the "nigger" comment, consider yourself first hypocrite! Consider how flimsy your excuses will seem to God, and how empty your vain pride will be, the day you stand to be judged before Him. Break your pride, and read what Jesus Christ said.
[ From Anonymous Coward ] 'feed your people, n1gger! Provide clean water for them you jerk!'
Yes, at least we do try ! Yes, we should be doing it better, but at least we are doing it. Given your use of the "nigger" word, you don't care anyway. When did you last help these poor people, you hypocrite?
> It has two 1024x768 displays, rotated sideways in software.
Does the site say the display is rotated in software? That's surprising - hardware rotation is available in modern graphics chips.
Using two small screens is cheaper than a single large resolution screen. I think the voyager is grossly overpriced due to its novelty value. Most US$1500 laptops today already can drive a secondary display (thanks to ATI and Nvidia dual-head graphics). If you had access to the LVDS output of the second display (or even just the VGA output), you could tack another LCD screen on for around US$300 + engineering costs.
Re:As long as it doesn't cut into my bandwidth
on
Wi-Fi From The Sky
·
· Score: 1
You've made some pretty good points. It does look like this setup can't interfere with existing Wifi equipment because there is a huge freespace loss to the outbound signal from the balloon (and this signal *cannot* be directional). Also, the subscriber return signal has to be picked up by the balloon. The only way I see it work is if the subscriber had a small directional "dish" pointed in the general direction of the balloon to pickup the signal... after all, we do have a recent example of a 72-mile, 300K 802.11b link. If the return signal cannot be "aimed" with sufficient precision at the balloon, maybe an asymmetrical link:
wifi_from_the_sky_downloads + modem_uploads
...would do the trick (as with some current satellite links today.) Such a directional setup would support a large number of competing wireless ISPs in a region, as long as each ISPs balloon was sufficiently distant from the others (so that the subscriber's directional antenna doesn't pickup the wrong signal).
> > "nature itself makes it plain that we're different (as in "special") from other species" > In what way? Intelligence? We are not the most intelligent animal >... > science has shown that distinction to belong to a creature of the sea, not use. We just happen > to be among the higher
Yes - intelligence. But primarily - morality. Don't you think that percepts like "do not murder" or "do not covet what is someone else's" or "love your neighbour as you would love yourself" are inherently "good", and worthy of being obeyed? You don't exactly decide to obey them after examining the results of sophisticated genetic-algorithm societial simulation -- you just "know" they are "good" - right?
BTW, what "sea-animal" is it that you say is more intelligent than human beings? And how was this determined?
> > "Fetuses feel pain, sleep, play - they *are* sentient." > Interesting, it'd more interesting if we were > talking about fetuses and not embryo but hey > this is slashdot right? Right:). I apologize. You guys were talking about embryos, and I spoke about fetuses by mistake (a fetus is definied here as an unborn baby older than eight weeks). Do you support aborting embryos but not aborting fetuses? Also, what is your position on the partial birth abortion procedure on fetuses (described in my previous post and repeated below for convenience)? _____________________ Fetuses feel pain, sleep, play - they *are* sentient. In fact, some fetuses killed in a Partial Birth Abortion procedure are old enough to survive a premature delivery. Yet, the fetus is pulled out of the mother (with the head kept in the vagina so it's not officially "a baby" yet), and THEN aborted. Of course, they wiggle to resist the surgeon's knife as it's jammed into their neck... just as you or I would. _____________________
In the case of embryos, consider that a Time magazine article ("Inside The Womb", Dec 9, 2002), notes that the embryo at 42 days (or 6 weeks) has nerve endings, a forebrain, midbrain, and hindbrain, heart, hand... the embryo's nervous system starts existing at 23 days! Do you support abortions on this unborn child?
> > "This was Hitler's philosophy. Let that, at least, make you pause for thought." > Simply because hitler believed something that > means I shouldn't? Sorry I don't work on that > basis, give me some kind of actual basis for > your belief that hitler was wrong in this, then > we'll talk.
Firstly, see point on morality above.
Secondly, empirically-speaking, Nazi Germany and Japan were superior to many other nations. Germany was (still is) an industrial giant compared to the Eastern European countries. Japan was (and still is) an industrial giant compared to the countries to it's west. However, my point is that this does NOT matter. To do right, we have to treat all human beings as equals.
The real reason we know that this position is valid (and you were given a conscience that "knew" this too), is because (switching to a less secular argument here) - God desires us to be merciful. And God hates the arrogant - whether it be Nazis exterminating "lower races" and pushing for "living space", or the Japanese carrying out dissections on living Chinese "logs". WWII was but a mild judgement on them, compared to the one that is to come soon on the entire world.
I really cannot elaborate anymore - if your conscience is already so seared that you still don't get why evil is evil, you're lost. I hope this is not the case.
> I don't believe we should kill off those with > genetic defects per say, but rather let them > survive on their own. Eh? What do you mean? Do you turn out your autistic child to live in caves and scrounge for his own food, while feeding your able-bodied kids (in the hope they will do likewise to you in your old age)?
> I believe in the pursuit of knowledge in it's > own sake is essential to the survival of the > species Yes, pursuit of knowledge is certainly good... > this is what we have brains for > (whether you believe some god or nature > provided them) it's to think, Yes... > to reason, Yes... > to learn, Yes... > to experiment. Yes, but NOT on other less-fortunate human beings - whether they be embryos or fully-grown Jews and Chinese!
> > What makes a human special in the first place?" > Nothing.
Laconic, but wrong. I believe in Jesus, but even from a secular perspective (the perspective used in this post) nature itself makes it plain that we're different (as in "special") from other species. If you still disagree, I take it that you're either a vegetarian , or that you don't see anything wrong with hunting humans for food.
> > "If an embryo has no right to live" > This would be a factor in the discussion if > embryo's were sentient living things rather > than sacks of basic unformed cells that have > not become anything.
Fetuses feel pain, sleep, play - they *are* sentient. In fact, some fetuses killed in a Partial Birth Abortion procedure are old enough to survive a premature delivery. Yet, the fetus is pulled out of the mother (with the head kept in the vagina so it's not officially "a baby" yet), and THEN aborted. Of course, they wiggle to resist the surgeon's knife as it's jammed into their neck... just as you or I would. Is this sentient enough for you yet? Plus, as someone else asked, at what point in time does a fetus transform from a "clump of cells" to a "human"? The point of conception is the safest choice.
Something does not have to be sentient to be human. Just because a man is mentally retarded, does not mean he deserves to die. Similary, just because a 15-year old bimbo has better communication skills than her unborn child, does not mean the fetus deserves to die on the say-so of his mum.
> If those who are not genetically > flawed and are capable of surviving > individually or carrying their own weight in a > cooperative structure of survival, work to keep > those cannot in the picture we are working to > thwart natures process for improving our > species. This is bad news and something we > shouldn't be tampering with.
This was Hitler's philosophy. Let that, at least, make you pause for thought.
As long as it doesn't cut into my bandwidth
on
Wi-Fi From The Sky
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
It could be a decent solution to the last mile problem but...
[ From the article: ] The other advantage of Sanswire's setup, says Molen, is that Stratellites will use a wireless connection scheme known as 802.11 or "WiFi."
I'm guessing the "advantage" is that they don't intend paying license fees for the 2.4GHz spectrum:). In that case, 4 or 5 competing Wifi-from-the-sky balloons (remember, each one has upto a 300,000 square mile range) could well make it impossible to setup a personal wireless LAN on the ground.
It's a good idea -- as long as they use their own (rented) portion of the spectrum, and leave the 2.4 GHz commons to us commoners.
Slashdot Mirror
*Grin*
You missed his point though.
We've got good DRP in our company, but it *still* costs money just to reboot (if only in sysadmin time.)
No problems with upgrading apps for security and likewise.
The problem is this:
1. Redhat takes our money to support their desktop OS product
2. Redhat now compels us to upgrade the entire OS at a absurd pace in order to stay supported.
With most other vendors, Step #2 occurs slowly enough to not be an issue. (For eg: 5-10 years for Windows.) By then, many organizations have already planned and implemented OS upgrades of their own accord.
The problem is Redhat's "new and absurd" 12-month support lifespan on their desktop OS products. It really doesn't affect the hobby user running the latest distro on his personal computer. It does impact Corporates who have signed support contracts with Redhat -- this is RH's way of pushing them to buy RH's proprietary Advanced Server product or new Advanced Desktop (?) product. If you check Redhat's financials, you'll see why -- RH Advanced Server is one of the main sources of their revenue.
I don't grudge RH the right to impose conditions on their services - I just hope they offer a smoother transition to existing desktop-distro customers. This will leave a bad taste similar to Microsoft Licensing 6.0.
Once you've upgraded all the packages to their current level, all that's left are the few packages (Base layout, package management interface, etc.) that comprise the "OS". If you require support but RedHat declines it on this basis, simply apply the updates and call them back.
From conversations I've had with our sysadmins, I understand RH won't take that call. i.e. We're forced to upgrade the entire distro on all our servers, at this frenetic pace RH is dictating, just in order to stay supported.
You make good points about upfront investments & testbed servers - we do that. However, testing is quite a complex issue for us (we have to compile-in and test large file support on our DB servers, for eg) -- so ensuring a seamless transition is still hard work.
After all this, we may switch to RH advanced server -- the pressure is working.
If you haven't upgraded your Linux systems in 6-12 months, I'd love for you to send me your IP address(es), because I'd like to send you a few packets pertaining to;
* Double-Free Bug in CVS Server
* ISC DHCPD Buffer Overflow
* Multiple Vulnerabilities in ISC BIND
* Apache/mod_ssl Worm...
You've listed vulnerabilities in applications, not in the OS. No one's denying that buggy applications can (and should) be upgraded straight away. What's being discussed here is why the OS should have such a short lifespan. IMO, even if the kernel needed a bugfix, RH could supply a service pack, just like MS does.
lazy, incompetent, certifications-are-king sysadmins out there who give us a bad name. They're the ones who adopt the theory that applying updates is "too hard",
Yes, there are testbed systems in large companies, but testing a new OS (and more importantly testing your applications work well on the new OS) is hard work and this costs the company time and money that could be applied elsewhere. The OS vendor should make upgrades as convenient as possible, especially for the person paying them support $$$. A 1-year upgrade cycle is way too short. Yes, eventually enough applications will depend on the functionality provided by a new kernel/OS to make sense for the vendor to end-of-life the old kernel/OS -- but this should be in terms of years and not months.
As the article notes:
And do we detect just the glimmer of an Advanced Server sales push here?
-- RH is trying to push sales on RH Advances server, which is the product where most of its profit comes from!
> Let me be facetious for once and spell out the environmental impact for a human body as this article seemingly does...
You forget one thing - the human body is inherently bio-compatible -- "From dust we are created, to dust we return." -- Our natural excretions (with emphasis on "natural"), our natural byproducts of life, as well as the process of our creation and decomposition, are inherently harmless to the earth.
The process of creation of microchips (or steel, or SUVs, or cement) is *nowhere* near as bio-compatible.
> The silane and other harmful chemicals used never leave the factory harmful. Whatever is leftover and not used is converted to something harmless through a series of chemical reactions expressly designed to make the factory environmentally friendly.
But the net effect is not harmless to the environment. Chemical manufacturing, power generation, building infrastructure -- all this does damage the earth. And we seem to be damaging the earth faster than we are replenishing it. And this (the latter point) is wrong.
Interesting point you've drawn out here... Consider this though: Which names make more immediate sense to the common man (i.e. the category both MS and Linux are aiming to serve):
:) So maybe, Redhat's Bluecurve is a step in the right direction (even though default RH 8.0 on my PIII /128 MB HP is a dog).
Media Player, SQL Server, Internet Explorer, Outlook
v/s
XMMS, Postgres, Konqueror/Mozilla/Galeon, Evolution
(OK: "Outlook" seems dicey, but the app does open saying "Your Outlook for today..." and shows the tasks, appointments and unread mails that day -- makes more sense than "Evolution")
I mean, does a Linux user have to think of the application's *name* as a "gee-whiz" feature?
Removable Hard-disk System:
A consortium of companies developing a removable hard-disk system for consumer use called the Information Versatile Disk for Removable usage (iVDR) plans to unveil a prototype 1.8-in. drive with a serial ATA interface for the first time at the Consumer Electronics Show (CES) next month, an iVDR consortium representative said this week. The iVDR system will be shown outside of Japan for the first time at the event, which will take place in Las Vegas in January.
(here)
> > > the admin ... is also the primary interface between the machines and the people.
...and generally rank only a smidgeon above subscribers on the "luse-O-meter."
:-) A really good one doesn't call a user (helpdesk person or otherwise) a "luser". They'll treat them as "customers".
> > In larger installations users usually don't contact sysadmins directly.
> > Instead, they call a "helpdesk" person who uses uses tools (mostly
> > written by the sysadmins) to fix routine issues. Unresolvable issues
> > are escalated upto the sysadmin.
> hired out are a special case. Certainly an ISP is the most obvious example,
> and one where the indirection is so great most users don't even realize they're users.
"Hired out"? I wasn't talking about third-party call centers, if that's what you meant. Most internal corporate helpdesks are just that - internal. For instance, my company has two helpdesks - one for internal users, and one for external customers. Larger companies (telcos for instance) may outsource their external helpdesk, but usually keep their internal helpdesk (the one that services their own employees) internal.
> I'd only point out that help desk people are themselves users of the system,
Correct. While the helpdesk staff are generally more clued-in than regular users, they still use tools written or configured primarily by the sysadmins. In a sense, *they* are the sysadmin's internal customers.
>
I take it you're not a sysadmin?
> My point stands.
In your original post, you made valid points about sysadmins needing people skills, etc. I don't dispute that.
My point is simply that in large organizations, the system admin is generally NOT the interface between the machines and the people. The helpdesk is. If the helpdesk keeps escalting user calls to the sysadmins, something is usually very wrong.
...could actually be a combination of these three things:
1. An latop with the display you need (15" UXGA, etc, etc) - $2000?
CPU, Disk and RAM don't matter.
2. A small Compaq Evo e-PC with the computing power you need. - $683.00 onwards
(P4 CPU, DDR, 2 GB RAM - you can upgrade the disk).
The form factor is pretty small: 10"x10"x3.5" + a small power brick
3. A VNC server (eg: TightVNC) on your "server"
and a VNC client on your laptop. Run the client full screen.
You can also use Windows' built in terminal server if you're runing Microsoft.
Plus you'd need some network connectivity (Wifi/Bluetooth/crossover cable) between your client and your server.
This is a client/server setup at a (comparatively) cheap price, small enough for hand luggage (airport security won't hassle you if you checked the "server" in and carried your laptop in hand baggage). Plus you can use your laptop on the flight.
If you hookup a second monitor to your "server"in the field, you can also use x2vnc (Linux) or Win2VNC (windows) to obtain a single dual-head "desktop". These programs allow you to use two screens on your two different computers as if they were connected to the same computer (single mouse and keyboard controls both and "jumps" at the screen border) You can also cut and paste between computers. Even if one is running Windows, and the other is running Linux. It's great - I use it at work in my "dual-head" XP/Linux setup.;-)
> After all, the admin isn't just responsible for the machines, he is also the primary interface
> between the machines and the people.
In larger installations users usually don't contact sysadmins directly. Instead, they call a "helpdesk" person who uses uses tools (mostly written by the sysadmins) to fix routine issues. Unresolvable issues are escalated upto the sysadmin.
It's usually like this with ISPs (where the sysadmin mentioned in this article works). Users (i.e. subscribers) calling about technical issues usually speak to a tech-support/helpdesk person; and not a system administator.
[ Note: I'm no expert on RSS/RDF - just an interested reader. Maybe an expert can chip in here:... ] RSS does not provide one crucial thing - information on the internal structure of the content itself. Maybe RDF (Resource Description Framework) does that -- I'm not sure. Anyway, RSS only supplies meta-information pointing to the content. An in-car application could read out "article headers" from RSS information. If the user "selected" a particular "article header", the system would need "content-structure information" (RDF?) to skip unwanted elements like menus and ads, and just read out content like a radio news story. Of course, only some types of content lend themselves to being read out. For instance, Slashdot has a RDF feed (BTW, shouldn't this be an
The car's existing audio controls could be used to "browse" such "articles". Some cars have buttons mounted on the steering column to let the driver flip through radio stations without taking his hands off the wheel. For this system, two switches - an "up/down" rocker switch for navigating up and down the "Newsfeed > Headline > Article" hierarchy, and a "forward/backward" switch for navigating elements under the same hierarchy could provide the driver all the control he needed without taking his eyes off the road.
It would be good to integrate this system with another system that measured cognitive load on the driver. The recitation would pause, say, when speed exceeded some limit, or (using sonar) neighbouring cars came closer than a minimum distance, or some such combination. Done properly, this system _could_ enhance safety by providing the driver feedback.
I posted the parent comment. I just thought I'd point out the MIT-license workaround proposed by Bruce Perens does not apply to the example above.
This workaround allows free software to use a patented technique only when using the web.
In the example above, free-software users would be forced to make an unintuitive switch to a different, non-patented technique to manage local resources. Microsoft users (or other licensed users) could continue to manage all types of resources seamlessly.
To: www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org
Subject: DISAPPROVE of draft policy
I request that W3C disapprove the draft patent policy, because
its a compromise that can cause problems later on.
When a patented principle 'gets in' as a web standard, it causes
problems when the web experience needs to be seamlessly
extended to non-web areas.
Imagine for a moment that Microsoft invented and was granted a patent on
a new file management interface. This patented technique was
then made a W3C standard for managing web servers.
Now, someone observes that using this same technique for managing
information on your local computer makes a lot of sense. But it
cannot be implemented by non-Microsoft users (as well as by users of
free software), who must switch to a different interface when dealing
with their own computer. Completely non-intuitive!
I object to many software patents. I cannot say I object to all of them.
I do object to the laxity the USTPO shows in granting certain obvious
patents. I understand the W3C wants to avoid potential patent problems,
but you have to understand you cannot please all the people all the time.
For instance, web browser plugins are patented. What can you do about it?
I suggest you make your own judgement about the "obviousness" of
inventions while defining web standards, especially in cases when
prior art exists. If need be, move back abroad - to Switzerland - where
the patent system is more fair. This way litigation is left to the
implementers. And there should be no problems for you - after all, what
you are doing is just defining a standard that you think is fair,
which is free speech.
50 MBytes/sec -> Firewire
50 MBytes/sec -> USB 2.0
100 MBytes/sec -> Gigabit Ethernet
133 MBytes/sec -> PCI
150 MBytes/sec -> Serial ATA
160 MBytes/sec -> SCSI-160
2100 MBytes/sec -> Athlon CPU-RAM interconnect
...Scales to 600MBytes/sec... Hot swap capability... Power connector... 1 meter cables...
Does anyone see SATA *replacing* USB or Firewire for device data transfer?
Thanks for replying John!
:-)
> That said, Apple CAN'T ban case mods. They would be VERY stupid
> to challenge such an obvious case of prior art in the court system
> as it would surely result in their patent being revoked.
I hope the patent office considers case mods prior art and refuses to even grant the patent. After all, thats their job -- due diligence on patents.
In any case, the broad wording of the patent will get it shot down sooner or later. Imagine this: some case modder does a mod that uses principles from Apple's patent (but does not end up looking like an Apple computer). Apple takes the modder to court - not for trademark or copyright infrigement (because there is no visual resemblance), but on the basis of this patent. Modder argues the patent is invalid since it covers pre-existing case mods. Judge strikes down patent down.
I don't know what Apple are thinking. They should really go for a more restrictive language if they have the technology ready. Maybe they don't - maybe this is a wildcard patent - looking forward to a day when OLEDs are cheap, and can be used as a transparent "skin" on a device.
It'd be nice if there were similar indicators for new mail, or alarms from iCal, connection state, short messages, etc.
The Fujitsu Lifebook has these. Look for the "The LifeBook Application Panel" on this page. This page has Driver information for Linux.
It's not so much what is covered by the patent, as what Apple intends to enforce with it. Until I see what Apple has built...
But that's not how it should be. The patent is granted or denied on the basis of _this_ application - not on demos Apple conjures up or devices it plans to build in future.
All, in all, this is a wholly unreasonable patent application since it's so broad in scope. I think the Case Modding community have good examples of prior art: Neon tubes in a transparent case -- their glow tells me that the computer is running; LEDs mounted on fan blades -- the circle of light shows me the case fans are working.
If these sound frivolous compared to Apple's (yet undisclosed) implementations, consider that under the terms of this (overly broad) patent, Apply _can_ successfully BAN the abovementioned mods.
Why depend on their goodwill, especially when they don't deserve this patent?
The Simputer is intended as a community-shared device (hence it's smartcard), but its sad that you're mostly right. The Simputer's progress has been a bit of a disappointment so far, with only development kits available... I wish it's creators had GPL'd/LGPL'd the hardware right from the beginning (IIRC, the software is GPL'd anyway) and had gotten hardware developers the world over involved in on this... this could have done the same thing for the PDA, as Linux did for Operating systems.
Right now, the hardware seems pretty dated (the Dell Axim you mentioned runs 100Mhz faster for $50 less -- but it doesn't have the smartcard, USB, or modem of the Simputer). However, it's the Simputer's software that could be the breadwinner -- the claim is (haven't tested it myself) seamless integration of smart card access, SSL security, document annotation, voice-to-text, etc. Simputer hardware development kits are available, but are expensive. My understanding is the software should compile/work on another StrongARM platform like the IPaq/Cerfcube/Lart, maybe even the Axim!
> You cant blame the british
No.
> 'free' for half a century.
Yes, around one quarter of the time compared to the US.
> gloss over the cruel mistreatment of his countrymen.
Who's glossing over what? The Hindu caste system is pure *evil*. Indian society was (and still is) in a dump of it's own making. It is slowly extricating itself (with slips backward, like in the riots) -- no thanks to self-righteous people like you who can only stand and jeer without *ever* lending a hand! "Stand aside", you sniff... "for I am holier than thou".
> What have you 'tried' to alleviate the incredible hardships of...
I've given money. But that's between myself and God. If you're the same AC with the "nigger" comment, consider yourself first hypocrite! Consider how flimsy your excuses will seem to God, and how empty your vain pride will be, the day you stand to be judged before Him. Break your pride, and read what Jesus Christ said.
[ From Anonymous Coward ]
'feed your people, n1gger! Provide clean water for them you jerk!'
Yes, at least we do try ! Yes, we should be doing it better, but at least we are doing it. Given your use of the "nigger" word, you don't care anyway. When did you last help these poor people, you hypocrite?
> It has two 1024x768 displays, rotated sideways in software.
Does the site say the display is rotated in software? That's surprising - hardware rotation is available in modern graphics chips.
Using two small screens is cheaper than a single large resolution screen. I think the voyager is grossly overpriced due to its novelty value. Most US$1500 laptops today already can drive a secondary display (thanks to ATI and Nvidia dual-head graphics). If you had access to the LVDS output of the second display (or even just the VGA output), you could tack another LCD screen on for around US$300 + engineering costs.
wifi_from_the_sky_downloads + modem_uploads
...would do the trick (as with some current satellite links today.) Such a directional setup would support a large number of competing wireless ISPs in a region, as long as each ISPs balloon was sufficiently distant from the others (so that the subscriber's directional antenna doesn't pickup the wrong signal).
> > "nature itself makes it plain that we're different (as in "special") from other species" ...
:). I apologize. You guys were talking about embryos, and I spoke about fetuses by mistake (a fetus is definied here as an unborn baby older than eight weeks). Do you support aborting embryos but not aborting fetuses? Also, what is your position on the partial birth abortion procedure on fetuses (described in my previous post and repeated below for convenience)?
> In what way? Intelligence? We are not the most intelligent animal
>
> science has shown that distinction to belong to a creature of the sea, not use. We just happen
> to be among the higher
Yes - intelligence. But primarily - morality. Don't you think that percepts like "do not murder" or "do not covet what is someone else's" or "love your neighbour as you would love yourself" are inherently "good", and worthy of being obeyed? You don't exactly decide to obey them after examining the results of sophisticated genetic-algorithm societial simulation -- you just "know" they are "good" - right?
BTW, what "sea-animal" is it that you say is more intelligent than human beings? And how was this determined?
> > "Fetuses feel pain, sleep, play - they *are* sentient."
> Interesting, it'd more interesting if we were
> talking about fetuses and not embryo but hey
> this is slashdot right?
Right
_____________________
Fetuses feel pain, sleep, play - they *are* sentient. In fact, some fetuses killed in a Partial Birth Abortion procedure are old enough to survive a premature delivery. Yet, the fetus is pulled out of the mother (with the head kept in the vagina so it's not officially "a baby" yet), and THEN aborted. Of course, they wiggle to resist the surgeon's knife as it's jammed into their neck... just as you or I would.
_____________________
In the case of embryos, consider that a Time magazine article ("Inside The Womb", Dec 9, 2002), notes that the embryo at 42 days (or 6 weeks) has nerve endings, a forebrain, midbrain, and hindbrain, heart, hand... the embryo's nervous system starts existing at 23 days! Do you support abortions on this unborn child?
> > "This was Hitler's philosophy. Let that, at least, make you pause for thought."
> Simply because hitler believed something that
> means I shouldn't? Sorry I don't work on that
> basis, give me some kind of actual basis for
> your belief that hitler was wrong in this, then
> we'll talk.
Firstly, see point on morality above.
Secondly, empirically-speaking, Nazi Germany and Japan were superior to many other nations. Germany was (still is) an industrial giant compared to the Eastern European countries. Japan was (and still is) an industrial giant compared to the countries to it's west. However, my point is that this does NOT matter. To do right, we have to treat all human beings as equals.
The real reason we know that this position is valid (and you were given a conscience that "knew" this too), is because (switching to a less secular argument here) - God desires us to be merciful. And God hates the arrogant - whether it be Nazis exterminating "lower races" and pushing for "living space", or the Japanese carrying out dissections on living Chinese "logs". WWII was but a mild judgement on them, compared to the one that is to come soon on the entire world.
I really cannot elaborate anymore - if your conscience is already so seared that you still don't get why evil is evil, you're lost. I hope this is not the case.
> I don't believe we should kill off those with
> genetic defects per say, but rather let them
> survive on their own.
Eh? What do you mean? Do you turn out your autistic child to live in caves and scrounge for his own food, while feeding your able-bodied kids (in the hope they will do likewise to you in your old age)?
> I believe in the pursuit of knowledge in it's
> own sake is essential to the survival of the
> species
Yes, pursuit of knowledge is certainly good...
> this is what we have brains for
> (whether you believe some god or nature
> provided them) it's to think,
Yes...
> to reason,
Yes...
> to learn,
Yes...
> to experiment.
Yes, but NOT on other less-fortunate human beings - whether they be embryos or fully-grown Jews and Chinese!
> > What makes a human special in the first place?"
> Nothing.
Laconic, but wrong. I believe in Jesus, but even from a secular perspective (the perspective used in this post) nature itself makes it plain that we're different (as in "special") from other species. If you still disagree, I take it that you're either a vegetarian , or that you don't see anything wrong with hunting humans for food.
> > "If an embryo has no right to live"
> This would be a factor in the discussion if
> embryo's were sentient living things rather
> than sacks of basic unformed cells that have
> not become anything.
Fetuses feel pain, sleep, play - they *are* sentient. In fact, some fetuses killed in a Partial Birth Abortion procedure are old enough to survive a premature delivery. Yet, the fetus is pulled out of the mother (with the head kept in the vagina so it's not officially "a baby" yet), and THEN aborted. Of course, they wiggle to resist the surgeon's knife as it's jammed into their neck... just as you or I would. Is this sentient enough for you yet?
Plus, as someone else asked, at what point in time does a fetus transform from a "clump of cells" to a "human"? The point of conception is the safest choice.
Something does not have to be sentient to be human. Just because a man is mentally retarded, does not mean he deserves to die. Similary, just because a 15-year old bimbo has better communication skills than her unborn child, does not mean the fetus deserves to die on the say-so of his mum.
> If those who are not genetically
> flawed and are capable of surviving
> individually or carrying their own weight in a
> cooperative structure of survival, work to keep
> those cannot in the picture we are working to
> thwart natures process for improving our
> species. This is bad news and something we
> shouldn't be tampering with.
This was Hitler's philosophy. Let that, at least, make you pause for thought.
It could be a decent solution to the last mile problem but...
:). In that case, 4 or 5 competing Wifi-from-the-sky balloons (remember, each one has upto a 300,000 square mile range) could well make it impossible to setup a personal wireless LAN on the ground.
[ From the article: ]
The other advantage of Sanswire's setup, says Molen, is that Stratellites will use a wireless connection scheme known as 802.11 or "WiFi."
I'm guessing the "advantage" is that they don't intend paying license fees for the 2.4GHz spectrum
It's a good idea -- as long as they use their own (rented) portion of the spectrum, and leave the 2.4 GHz commons to us commoners.