Hmm, good point. But, can we really fairly compare applications and OSs? I mean, Apache is more common that IIS for webservers, sure, but Apache is usually run on *nix (not windows, although It can be), which is less ubiquitous than Windows. IIS must run on windows (or, really, sort of is part of windows, I suppose), which is much more ubiquitous than *nix.
I get your point, and I do appreciate the reply. I'm just not sure that totally kills the "myth" for me. There are many other factors involved (such as relative experience/knowledge required to run Apache vs. IIS).
I agree with everything you wrote except this sentence:
And the whole "Macs don't suffer viruses because there's so few" myth was dead and buried long ago.
This seems like a perfectly reasonable claim to me. So, how did this get demonstrated to be a "myth"? Who killed it, how, and when? I'm not trolling; I'm really curious.
So, can you tell me if books and magazines in Sweden are "backwards", like in Japan (where you read from the "back" of books to the "front", i.e. start a book with the binding to the right instead of left, and tuern pages from left to right, instead of the other way around as in most Western countries)?
If not, either the reviewer got it backwards, or this device is backwards in the "page" mode:
Finally, we have the "My Book" system, which is basically a way of presenting information in a book style format. If you wish to go to the next page, all you have to do is slide your finger sideways across the screen in the direction of the page you want to look at. The main menu of the mydevice has 2 "pages" to it, so if you are on the first page and want to go to the second one, you have to slide your finger from left to right across the screen.
Shouldn't that be "right to left" to be like turning a page, unless this thing is made for the Japan market or something?
(3890511 was my local MCI dial-in access line which, oddly enough, would let me dial out-of-area BBSs without incurring any fee should I happen to dial a 'correct' random 6-digit number followed by area code + number. Those were the days, but they were more Zmodem than Kermit -- thanks for the good times, EagleTerm!)
How ironic that YOU, of all people, should talk about missing the point.
You need to look up the definition of irony because this is not it.
Nobody is talking about how we got here, but, bear in mind, we got here with a lot of luck in our isolation, and a lot of help form established countries. In fact, if it weren't for other countries helping us in the Rev. war, we wouldn't even BE here. So don't give me any bullshit that "we did it all on our own" because we didn't.
Bullshit again. You have no possible way to know what would or would not have happened with differing levels of outside support. I'd argue that we'd have made it with no one, though I wouldn't be such a pompous bulshitter as to claim I know that for sure. Moreover, if we got some help, maybe we were clever or persistent enough to make it happen. We still did it.
BACK to the point, however, that doesn't change the fact that we CURRENTLY are bitchslapping other countries with idiotic tarriffs because stupid people can't run their businesses effectively. Steel is a perfect example. Whine all they like, the steel giants are in about as much disarray as they can possibly be without becoming a totally anarchist system. The solution to this grossly mismanaged mess? Why, impose penalties on imported steel so that those folks from other countries who actually have a handle on things and run their businesses the way we ran ours 100 years ago can't reasonably expect to sell in our country. Yea, great. The moral of this story, kids, is that as long as you scratch the politicians' backs, they'll keep those pesky up and comers who are doing a better job of things off yours.
The real moral of this story is that you're clueless on this one. Note that the tarriffs in question were imposed on a "total of 20 countries accused of selling cold-rolled steel products below the fair market value or the cost of production." Note that dumping, as this is called, is illegal for any product, and a tarriff is a perfectly reasonable way to respond. No one cries about the anti-dumping rules and tarriffs imposed on imported semiconductors, which has been going on just as long. There's something else at work here, and that something is US mfg'ers wanting to use the cheapest steel they can find (dumped or not). Maybe good, maybe bad, but your take is wholly off-base.
Whether you want to admit it or not, it's true.
Riight. Because you say so. Back it up or STFU.
Same goes for mediocre IT jobs, farming, and lots of heavy industry. We can't do it at the same price and quality as others, so we lobby to keep the others from doing it at all.
We do? Like for instance who when and how?
Our predecessors did work awfully damn hard to pull us up to where we are now (often at the expense of our own workers, mind you...), but large sectors of modern business is just flinging shit at the people trying to knock us off our perch rather than continuing to climb. We will eventually pay for that, of course. You'd do well to not defend that sort of idiotic mentality and actually STRIVE to be better instead.
You're not making any sense. Give me some facts instead of all these bullshit empty metaphors and I'll address them one-by-one with facts of my own. I anxiously await your vain attempt.
It all works together. While charity is certainly a good thing (moral judgement), robbing people, even if it goes to a perfectly efficient charitable cause, is still theft. Theft is wrong, especially when perpetuated by a government that is supposed to protect against just such things.
You know, I like you. You remind me of me:). Seriously, your idealism is perfect, but it's a tad shallow. To show you how, let's take this apart: theft is what society decides it is. It's not a simple, absolute definition as you imply. Say, for instance, I use money I stole from you to buy an apple. Then I'm found out. There's no way to get a refund for the apple. But society might have some restitution rules on the books that say I have to give you the apple, since I bought it with money stolen from you. Sounds fair, but by your definition it's theft. Defining theft requires a defnition of ownership and other related concepts. Most of these definitions are not absolute -- they must be adjusted for the specific circumstances involved.
So, if society decides that it's a good idea for everyone to pony up x% for some common purpose or emergency fund, you have to go along with it or leave the society. It's not theft when they force you to pitch in because you chose to stay. When you remain a part of a society you implicitly agree to it's rules and common goals (at least for the time being, until you can work to change them if possible). And that's why forced welfare contributions are not theft. I hate it as much as you do, to be honest, and I think there's merit in reducing it dramatically, but not elminating it altogether. If you think elminiation of all such programs is a worthy goal, I suggest that you haven't thought it through well enough or continue to ignore the lessons of history. But I still admire your idealism:)
Further, the fact that social programs are so inefficient, makes the crime all that much more so. Now, not only do I get robbed twice a month, the money isn't even used in a responsible manner.
As I explained, you're not being robbed. You can leave and avoid paying. But yes, a lot (most) is wasted. That sucks. Careful not to swing the pendulum back the other way with too much force, or throw the baby out with the bathwater, or whatever. You get the idea.
As for the issue of bigger governments preventing tyranny, well, it's sort of a circular problem. Government has to get big (in the sense of intruding on every part of life, not in the sense that it has to be a big country, e.g. Cuba...small country, big government) in order to become tyrannical.
Right! It's key that the laws agressively prevent this.
However, you are suggesting that government has to be the one to watch government.
Who else could possibly have the ability to stick their noses in all the places necessary, or have the authority to do anything about it?
While the U.S. has found a probably somewhat decent way to do this (compared to other governments), it's still not effective much at all. It would be equivalent to saying you found a viable way to swim across the Pacific because you decided to wear a life jacket. With or without the lifejacket, and while the lifejacket is certainly an improvement to the condition of no lifejacket, you still aren't going to make it.
That's a pretty unfair analogy since, not only is the US "making it", it's kicking the whole world's ass in the process and no competing system is even coming close. The only real competitors to the US are countries that try (at least on some levels) to emulate the US system (Japan, Europe to a lesser degree, etc.)
It's also a little like asking the fox to gaurd the henhouse.
This can work if there are several foxes, each more interested in preventing another fox from getting a chicken dinner than he is in eating himself. Laws and
Is that Outlook 2003 or some other version? Another poster says Outlook 2003 does it, and I'm sure Outlook 2000 does NOT. I can get Outlook 2000 to do what you show, but not what the article describes and shows in the images there.
If your image shows what Outlook 2003 can do (and I think so, since it doesn't look quite like my 2000 view), then no Outlook can do what I want, as shown and described in the article.
You didn't RTFA, did you? I don't think outlook "group by" is the same thing that the article describle, or at least I can't get it to look like what the article images show. I suspect the apple labels are different from this too, but I can't confirm here. I can and did check outlook, it doesn't seem to do these label speratorsm, and even outlook help describes "group views" differently than what I'm thinking of:
A group is a set of items with something in common, such as e-mail messages from the same sender or tasks with the same due date. Group items to see related items together, similar to an outline. For example, group items by priority to separate high-priority items from low-priority items. You can expand or collapse the group headings to display or hide the items they contain.
You can only group items that are in a view based on a table or a timeline view type. When you group items by a field that can contain more than one entry, such as the Categories field, items may appear more than once in the table or timeline. For example, if you group by the field, Categories, and an item has two categories, such as Business and Ideas, the item is listed under both the Business group heading and the Ideas group heading. Though you see the item more than once, it exists as only one item. Any changes you make to one instance of the item are stored with all instances of the item.
The feature in the article shows horizontal dividing lines between sections in list/table views which change as you re-sort. So a view by date would look something like:
Monday 3/4, 2 messages, one unread
message 1
message 2 Tuesday 3/5, 1 message, 0 unread
message 1
etc.
If you click to re-sort by another field, such as date or sender, you get a re-sorted list with new divider labels to break up the list.
Oh no you don't -- cc:Mail, its evil older brother is way worse.
But I R'd TFA and this client looks pretty cool in some respects. Sounds simple, but the list seperators seem quite cool to me (and obvious in hindsight).
You're a little confused in your humor attempt, but it was a nice try:). The cpu core is open source, but the actual silicon implementation was done by Flextronics. Other implementations may exist, but the one spec'd out is by Flextronics. And Flextronics is selling these chips they implemented. If you were thinking "open source hardware" as in "free hardware", you were confused -- no one is going to give you chips for free.
It may be cheaper than comparable chips in which licensing fees and royalties are paid to an IP owner, but it still costs money to fab, so this is certainly not free as in beer.
Moreover, I'm not really interested in buying parts from Flextronics, rather I'm looking for more details on the implementation they did.
Some kinds of hardware, yes (though I've never heard that Woz story and it sounds a bit unlikely, especially since I know of a few occasions where the Woz got really upset over people trying to sell mac clones), but not VLSI circuits (Very Large Scale Integrated circuits, like this SoC/System On a Chip with a quarter of a million gates or so, which I'd bet this is, at least) in synthesizeable source, with verification and cosim environments. '
As far as I know, no such thing has ever been released officially as open source. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Yes, but a lot of the "old" stuff has been available (even if the legality is not as 100% sure as open source) -- it's easy to get old things for free -- but you still have to implement and verify them, and that's usually where the rub is. This isn't somebody's idea of PCI -- it made it to fab and, assuming the chip works, has met 99.9% of the testing and verification that any ASIC vendor or custom house would do.
This, I think, is unique in that it is notthat old or outdated. We do several vaguely similar designs every year in my relatively small ASIC design center (12 engineers), and the total cost is a nice chunk of change. Of course, we usually "give" the IP to customers (but they pay for it). Then again, we did have most of these cores available 2-4 years ago, so your point may be more valid than I was hoping at first.
It's possible that some customers will do development with this core (or other open stuff) before choosing a vendor, and thus want to stick with it (knowing they can use it with anyone is a nice plus), but then again they might still favor the in-house stuff that (1) is proven in our process and (2) I'm familiar with.
Hmm, thanks for the lead -- I just talked myself out of the the idea that this is really significant:). It may well have no effect and open-chip-design may remain insignificant, or maybe create a new niche of ultra-low end. But even the ultra-low end has to get fabbed somewhere, and fab lock-in to IP is fairly strong (why not use what's there if it's proven and the people at the fab supporting you are familiar with it?).
Seems they are available, not just "chances are", if the other poster is correct,and I have no reason to doubt him. I'll check later when the site is revived. Anyway, this is extra cool. If verification and cosim environments are also available (with suitably rigrous regression tests and mfg test hooks), and I assume there must be since these went to fab (though they maybe owned by Flextronics in some way?), then I would expect to eventually (soon?) have a customer looking to use these instead of buying our expensive versions, or maybe we'll start to offer them with limited support. Or maybe I'll start a business supporting and implementing them myself . . . er, not just yet.;)
BTW, The JTAG TAP controller is an IP core as much as anything, and is usually offered in paramterized form (so you can enter variables to decide options and then compile to get your "semi-custom" core), and is comprises about 2-8k gates depending on the number of features implemented, and not including the individual BSRs (Boundary Scan Registers) at every IO.
Maybe even bigger if you include all possibilities of 1149.1, but I've never seen all that used, and as far as I know size is not a defining characteristic of cores. So no, JTAG is not as big as PCI (~10kgates for master + target), but a core nonetheless, IMHO.
Anyway, I was most interested in the PCI (would prefer PCI-X or PCI-Express), ethernet, UART, and SDRAM controller (DDR would be sweet).
I'm a little confused about the IBM reference, since if you're using UMC as a fab, you don't get to use IBM cores unless you also use IBM as an ASIC vendor on some level. Unless that has changed in the last 4 years, which I guess is possible.
I didn't know open source had made it to real hardware; thanks slashdot.
Judging from the specs included at the linked site, this core compares favorably with CPU cores from ARM, NEC and others who make big bucks selling (and supporting) these cores for system integration. This is interesting, and it's maybe even more interesting that I haven't noted it in any trade journals (did I miss it, or has this thing been going on under the industry radar?)
However, it seems like the CPU core itself is open-source, while a lot of the bonus features on the SoC (System On a Chip) example cited are IP from Flextronics (the the company that did the physical design for this open-source CPU core, which was manufactured by UMC). I can't tell for sure because the site is slashdotted already. The links on PCI, JTAG etc. would presumably tell if all these IP macros (besides the CPU) are open source also -- does anyone know for sure?
Either way, the specs on the sample chip are interesting: SoC with OR1200 CPU implemented by Flextronics Semiconductor: 32-bit general-purpose microcontroller, UMC 0.18um fab process, maximum clock frequency of 160MHz. This SoC contains (1 each I assume): OR1200 processor, Memory Controller (FLASH, SDRAM, SRAM, DPRAM), PCI 2.2 32-bit interface 33/66MHz, Ethernet MAC 10/100. UART16550, GPIO, JTAG/Debug Interface.
BTW, 160MHz is pretty darn good, until you see that 160MHz is not really "MAX" as in "max (worst-case) operating conditions" as one usually specs these things. Usually, when a spec says "maximum clock frequency", it means that you can safely run the part at these speeds under the entire range of allowed operating conditions (temperature and voltage). It's rather meaningless to tell the fastest it canpossibly go (which would be 0Kelvin, with a voltage almost high enough to fry the cip), so wpecs tend to tell you the max safe speed.
That would be the highest temperature (usually ~70C, but it's really based on the junction temp, which is calculated from ambient temp, airflow, and package thermal characteristics -- higher than 25C in any case, since that's usually called "typical"), lowest voltage (usually nominal minus 5% or 10%; so for 3.3V system, worst case voltage would be 3.3-0.33=2.97V, for 1.8V core it would be 1.62V), and slowest process from the fab (whther this is the case or not is unspecified in the list). Instead, lower down the page I see:
Max system clock 160MHz was obtained at 25C ambient temperature, 3.3V IO and 1.8V core
I could take a wild guess and say the thing would run at least 125MHz (respectable for the tech at hand), so calling it 160MHz (but not at worst-case conditions) is a little odd, or at least non-standard. If it were a "normal" industry player quoting me a part's clock rate that way, I'd become very, very suspicious of them for the rest of the negotioations.
It's still way cool, and if those IP cores are all available open source also, I'm really excited. But, I still have a lot of unanswered questions that I expected to see at least a brief mention of:
Is a hardware/software co-simulation environment available?
If so,what simulators and languages are supported?
What support model(s) are available for design teams considering this core?
What is the die size for the SoC made by Flextronics?
How much is Flextronics selling these SoC's for, or are the ASIC (customer-specific)?
I guess I could do as the article suggests and call or email Flextronics:
Test boards are available to Flextronics Semiconductor ASIC customers. For more information about the test boards, the SOC technical details and business engagement please contact Flextronics Semiconductor.
... but I don't think they'd appreciate those sorts of inquiries from an employee of a competitor:)
I won't argue that some of the stuff you mentioned are benefits of internet access. However, I fail to see how lack of a benefit is sufficient cause to call something a "big problem".
I mean, I can think of benefits to everyone having his or her own airplane. And many people do own one or more(!), but so many more do not. So, when are we going to start solving this "aircraft divide" crisis?
In fact, with personal aircraft and unlimited fuel provided by US funding, that farmer could just fly anywhere he wants to check the real news from the outside, or raise a stink with activists anywhere in the world.
I'm being facetious, of course, but the point is that just because something provides a benefit doesn't mean that is is a basic right or that the better-off must chip in to make sure the less-well-off have it too.
Really? So I don't mail a check to my water or power companies every month? Huh. I sure thought I did.
Access to online bill payment, cheap CDs & books, and B2B comprise a "big problem"?
You do know all of these things happened before the interenet, right?
Seriously, show me one utility company that only accepts payment via the internet and I'll reconsider, but for now I have to stick to my original claim: the "digital divide" is not a "big problem."
So why should we treat [nations that are underdeveloped, and therefore pollute less] the same way like nations that have been polluting for centuries at a much larger scale, and continue to do so?
Huh? If Burkina Faso doesn't cause significant pollution, why would they (or you) have a problem with holding them to the same rules as everyone else. What are you arguing here?
In any case, the countries with cushy exemptions in Kyoto I'm talking about are China and India. I suppose you're going to tell me that neither pollutes, or that China is not projected to exceed US emissions in a few years? But oh no, they're not as well off as the US, so they should be exempt from the rules, right? Bah.
Anyway, all countries should be held to the same environmental standards for the same reason that African Americans should not be paid reparations for the historical enslavement of their ancestors -- it's fair. You can't hold an entire population accountable for what some ancestors might have done, else you end up in an infinite regress of trying to correct every wrong every done throughout history. If we did this, we couldn't even stop at giving the US to Native Americans, we'd have to find a few living Sumerians and just give everything to them. Do you see yet why is silly to try to punish a nation today for mistakes that are hundreds of years old?
Or, if you don't see the problem there, note that by vilifying an entire population for long past acts, you end up with a pissed-off populace that's tired of paying the price for thier great-great-great-grandpappy's "badness", which opens the door to Hitler-esque demagogues who can take advantage of the situation and rally insane nationalism to the great detriment of all, as we have seen before. See it yet?
Or look at it this way: it's easier to do it right to begin with than fight inertia and retrofit the right way later on.
One of those has got to help jar the rocks out of your head and help you see past your hatred of the US long enough to understand why some people think your arguments are not just wrong, but stupid and annoying.
Sigh. That still doesn't make it right now, does it?
Yes it does. That was my point.
Iraq never directly attacked the US,
So? Direct attack may be where you draw your line and decide defend yourself, but it's not mine, nor is is America's, as you can see. Fact is the nutcake regime there helped those who attached the US. That's just as bad as a direct attack (worse, in many ways).
so until the US comes with some damn hard evidence that Iraq was framing strikes against US territory, they'll stay the agressors in this.
Bullshit. All it takes is for us to convince ourselves that they either helped or knew about and failed to hinder those fuckers that flew planes into the WTC, which we've done to my satisfaction (and most others' as well).
In case you haven't noticed, whether you like it or not, the developed nations of the world aren't the only nations in the world.
How is this sarcastic remark relevant?
And, on the drug note: how much do you think it really costs to R&D a drug, on average? The most reasonable estimate I've seen is $400M USD before tax deductions. I've seen as low as $150M USD after tax, to as high as $800M USD before tax. All seems to depend on who you ask, so which total did you arbitrarily choose?
None; it's not relevant to my point. My point is the drugs cost something to develop. The post to which I replied said "Western ideas of "intellectual property" are forced upon African and Asian countries, meaning they cannot produce medications for their own people, but have to buy medication from Western corporations at artificially-inflated prices." This doesn't say the drugs are too expensive, as you imply and as might be the case, it seems to be saying that our whole notion of IP us unfair, and we should be giving out the fruits of our work for free. I disagree. Moreover, if they don't like the price, they should invent their own. Stop mucking with natural selection. We need it.
Now, call me skeptical, if you will, but why are the pharmas so antsy about letting people get at the truth? They release fantastic studies showing R&D costs topping more than 3/4 of a billion dollars, but only through groups that receive more than 2/3 of their funding through pharmas (Tufts Center, in particular). Groups with a vested interest in getting the ability to use / produce generics drop extremely low numbers, and, oddly enough, independant studies put the numbers in between the two.
Thanks, but I have to ask: who cares?
of course, forgetting the fact that nobody can come to an agreement on R&D costs, you conveniently discount the fact that with their currently sky-high pricing, these drug companies are making astronomical profits and the fact that R&D on a drug is a one-time cost, but they want long-term lockdown on their drugs or the ability to simply disallow generics altogether. Interesting.
Don't like the current patent laws and time periods? Work to change them, but meanwhile leave alone those who are playing by the rules and making money. Profit != evil, you know.
And, as I've pointed out before to people with a superiority complex (such as yourself), you can't just step on the "losers'" faces all the time and not expect to pay for it eventually.
Show my where I said stepping on their face is OK, or deminstrate how NOT letting them have control the internet is anything like face-stepping and I'll respond to your asinine comment.
Only someone so truly ignorant of history and so ridiculously arrogant as a politician would be so stupid as to continually snub the "losers" in the world, believing themselves totally untouchable.
This is a fallacy of the excluded middle. Not letting them control the internet is NOT "snubbing".
How do you think terrorists come into being anyway?
Religion. Duh.
You step on the little guys face and he'll fight back as best he can (though, granted, the current breed of terrorist everyone is so pre-occupied with will go around blowing shit up regardless of what you do).
Current "losers" have as much a right to speak their mind as anyone else.
So let 'em speak. No one said they shouldn't speak, just that the winners need not listen when they cry for control of something they think they're missing out on.
Nobody says the rest of the world has to listen to them, but that doesn't mean you should just tape their mouth shut.
And no one suggested that. Pay attention or STFU please.
Slashdot Mirror
Hmm, good point. But, can we really fairly compare applications and OSs? I mean, Apache is more common that IIS for webservers, sure, but Apache is usually run on *nix (not windows, although It can be), which is less ubiquitous than Windows. IIS must run on windows (or, really, sort of is part of windows, I suppose), which is much more ubiquitous than *nix.
I get your point, and I do appreciate the reply. I'm just not sure that totally kills the "myth" for me. There are many other factors involved (such as relative experience/knowledge required to run Apache vs. IIS).
It's a Troll post because (1) it's on apple.slashdot.org and (2) it may be interpreted as anti-mac sentiment.
FYI, for future reference, failing to bash MS with sufficient vigor on apple.slashdot.org is also considered trolling.
Hope that helps!
I really wish people would just stop paying attention to this sort of thing.
;)
:)
You mean, like you just did by making a comment about it?
Personally, I really wish people would would stop paying attention to posts by pixelgeek. Like I just did
I agree with everything you wrote except this sentence:
And the whole "Macs don't suffer viruses because there's so few" myth was dead and buried long ago.
This seems like a perfectly reasonable claim to me. So, how did this get demonstrated to be a "myth"? Who killed it, how, and when? I'm not trolling; I'm really curious.
It was a joke.
Humorless fuckwit.
So, can you tell me if books and magazines in Sweden are "backwards", like in Japan (where you read from the "back" of books to the "front", i.e. start a book with the binding to the right instead of left, and tuern pages from left to right, instead of the other way around as in most Western countries)?
If not, either the reviewer got it backwards, or this device is backwards in the "page" mode:
Finally, we have the "My Book" system, which is basically a way of presenting information in a book style format. If you wish to go to the next page, all you have to do is slide your finger sideways across the screen in the direction of the page you want to look at. The main menu of the mydevice has 2 "pages" to it, so if you are on the first page and want to go to the second one, you have to slide your finger from left to right across the screen.
Shouldn't that be "right to left" to be like turning a page, unless this thing is made for the Japan market or something?
google for microsoft html patent and you'll see:
News:
Microsoft Wins HTML App Patent - Slashdot - 30 minutes ago
Microsoft wins HTML application patent - CNET News.com - 40 minutes ago
And that earlier CNET story has more info.
+++
ATH0
ATS0=11
ATDT 3890511
(3890511 was my local MCI dial-in access line which, oddly enough, would let me dial out-of-area BBSs without incurring any fee should I happen to dial a 'correct' random 6-digit number followed by area code + number. Those were the days, but they were more Zmodem than Kermit -- thanks for the good times, EagleTerm!)
OT, but you reminded me of this, and I must share:
What did Kermit The Frog say when Jim Henson died?
wait for it . . .
Nothing.
How ironic that YOU, of all people, should talk about missing the point.
You need to look up the definition of irony because this is not it.
Nobody is talking about how we got here, but, bear in mind, we got here with a lot of luck in our isolation, and a lot of help form established countries. In fact, if it weren't for other countries helping us in the Rev. war, we wouldn't even BE here. So don't give me any bullshit that "we did it all on our own" because we didn't.
Bullshit again. You have no possible way to know what would or would not have happened with differing levels of outside support. I'd argue that we'd have made it with no one, though I wouldn't be such a pompous bulshitter as to claim I know that for sure. Moreover, if we got some help, maybe we were clever or persistent enough to make it happen. We still did it.
BACK to the point, however, that doesn't change the fact that we CURRENTLY are bitchslapping other countries with idiotic tarriffs because stupid people can't run their businesses effectively. Steel is a perfect example. Whine all they like, the steel giants are in about as much disarray as they can possibly be without becoming a totally anarchist system. The solution to this grossly mismanaged mess? Why, impose penalties on imported steel so that those folks from other countries who actually have a handle on things and run their businesses the way we ran ours 100 years ago can't reasonably expect to sell in our country. Yea, great. The moral of this story, kids, is that as long as you scratch the politicians' backs, they'll keep those pesky up and comers who are doing a better job of things off yours.
The real moral of this story is that you're clueless on this one. Note that the tarriffs in question were imposed on a "total of 20 countries accused of selling cold-rolled steel products below the fair market value or the cost of production." Note that dumping, as this is called, is illegal for any product, and a tarriff is a perfectly reasonable way to respond. No one cries about the anti-dumping rules and tarriffs imposed on imported semiconductors, which has been going on just as long. There's something else at work here, and that something is US mfg'ers wanting to use the cheapest steel they can find (dumped or not). Maybe good, maybe bad, but your take is wholly off-base.
Whether you want to admit it or not, it's true.
Riight. Because you say so. Back it up or STFU.
Same goes for mediocre IT jobs, farming, and lots of heavy industry. We can't do it at the same price and quality as others, so we lobby to keep the others from doing it at all.
We do? Like for instance who when and how?
Our predecessors did work awfully damn hard to pull us up to where we are now (often at the expense of our own workers, mind you...), but large sectors of modern business is just flinging shit at the people trying to knock us off our perch rather than continuing to climb. We will eventually pay for that, of course. You'd do well to not defend that sort of idiotic mentality and actually STRIVE to be better instead.
You're not making any sense. Give me some facts instead of all these bullshit empty metaphors and I'll address them one-by-one with facts of my own. I anxiously await your vain attempt.
It all works together. While charity is certainly a good thing (moral judgement), robbing people, even if it goes to a perfectly efficient charitable cause, is still theft. Theft is wrong, especially when perpetuated by a government that is supposed to protect against just such things.
:). Seriously, your idealism is perfect, but it's a tad shallow. To show you how, let's take this apart: theft is what society decides it is. It's not a simple, absolute definition as you imply. Say, for instance, I use money I stole from you to buy an apple. Then I'm found out. There's no way to get a refund for the apple. But society might have some restitution rules on the books that say I have to give you the apple, since I bought it with money stolen from you. Sounds fair, but by your definition it's theft. Defining theft requires a defnition of ownership and other related concepts. Most of these definitions are not absolute -- they must be adjusted for the specific circumstances involved.
:)
You know, I like you. You remind me of me
So, if society decides that it's a good idea for everyone to pony up x% for some common purpose or emergency fund, you have to go along with it or leave the society. It's not theft when they force you to pitch in because you chose to stay. When you remain a part of a society you implicitly agree to it's rules and common goals (at least for the time being, until you can work to change them if possible). And that's why forced welfare contributions are not theft. I hate it as much as you do, to be honest, and I think there's merit in reducing it dramatically, but not elminating it altogether. If you think elminiation of all such programs is a worthy goal, I suggest that you haven't thought it through well enough or continue to ignore the lessons of history. But I still admire your idealism
Further, the fact that social programs are so inefficient, makes the crime all that much more so. Now, not only do I get robbed twice a month, the money isn't even used in a responsible manner.
As I explained, you're not being robbed. You can leave and avoid paying. But yes, a lot (most) is wasted. That sucks. Careful not to swing the pendulum back the other way with too much force, or throw the baby out with the bathwater, or whatever. You get the idea.
As for the issue of bigger governments preventing tyranny, well, it's sort of a circular problem. Government has to get big (in the sense of intruding on every part of life, not in the sense that it has to be a big country, e.g. Cuba...small country, big government) in order to become tyrannical.
Right! It's key that the laws agressively prevent this.
However, you are suggesting that government has to be the one to watch government.
Who else could possibly have the ability to stick their noses in all the places necessary, or have the authority to do anything about it?
While the U.S. has found a probably somewhat decent way to do this (compared to other governments), it's still not effective much at all. It would be equivalent to saying you found a viable way to swim across the Pacific because you decided to wear a life jacket. With or without the lifejacket, and while the lifejacket is certainly an improvement to the condition of no lifejacket, you still aren't going to make it.
That's a pretty unfair analogy since, not only is the US "making it", it's kicking the whole world's ass in the process and no competing system is even coming close. The only real competitors to the US are countries that try (at least on some levels) to emulate the US system (Japan, Europe to a lesser degree, etc.)
It's also a little like asking the fox to gaurd the henhouse.
This can work if there are several foxes, each more interested in preventing another fox from getting a chicken dinner than he is in eating himself. Laws and
Is that Outlook 2003 or some other version? Another poster says Outlook 2003 does it, and I'm sure Outlook 2000 does NOT. I can get Outlook 2000 to do what you show, but not what the article describes and shows in the images there.
If your image shows what Outlook 2003 can do (and I think so, since it doesn't look quite like my 2000 view), then no Outlook can do what I want, as shown and described in the article.
I sure did, and I should have known better. Seems like the answer to "how do I do $TASK in $MS_PRODUCT" always involves the word "upgrade". ;)
Er, no. Next suggestion.
You didn't RTFA, did you? I don't think outlook "group by" is the same thing that the article describle, or at least I can't get it to look like what the article images show. I suspect the apple labels are different from this too, but I can't confirm here. I can and did check outlook, it doesn't seem to do these label speratorsm, and even outlook help describes "group views" differently than what I'm thinking of:
A group is a set of items with something in common, such as e-mail messages from the same sender or tasks with the same due date. Group items to see related items together, similar to an outline. For example, group items by priority to separate high-priority items from low-priority items. You can expand or collapse the group headings to display or hide the items they contain.
You can only group items that are in a view based on a table or a timeline view type. When you group items by a field that can contain more than one entry, such as the Categories field, items may appear more than once in the table or timeline. For example, if you group by the field, Categories, and an item has two categories, such as Business and Ideas, the item is listed under both the Business group heading and the Ideas group heading. Though you see the item more than once, it exists as only one item. Any changes you make to one instance of the item are stored with all instances of the item.
The feature in the article shows horizontal dividing lines between sections in list/table views which change as you re-sort. So a view by date would look something like:
Monday 3/4, 2 messages, one unread
message 1
message 2
Tuesday 3/5, 1 message, 0 unread
message 1
etc.
If you click to re-sort by another field, such as date or sender, you get a re-sorted list with new divider labels to break up the list.
Tell me how to do that in Outlook please.
Oh no you don't -- cc:Mail, its evil older brother is way worse.
But I R'd TFA and this client looks pretty cool in some respects. Sounds simple, but the list seperators seem quite cool to me (and obvious in hindsight).
The visualizations seem useful and new as well.
I'd try it out. When is a client including these features going to be released?
You're a little confused in your humor attempt, but it was a nice try :). The cpu core is open source, but the actual silicon implementation was done by Flextronics. Other implementations may exist, but the one spec'd out is by Flextronics. And Flextronics is selling these chips they implemented. If you were thinking "open source hardware" as in "free hardware", you were confused -- no one is going to give you chips for free.
It may be cheaper than comparable chips in which licensing fees and royalties are paid to an IP owner, but it still costs money to fab, so this is certainly not free as in beer.
Moreover, I'm not really interested in buying parts from Flextronics, rather I'm looking for more details on the implementation they did.
Some kinds of hardware, yes (though I've never heard that Woz story and it sounds a bit unlikely, especially since I know of a few occasions where the Woz got really upset over people trying to sell mac clones), but not VLSI circuits (Very Large Scale Integrated circuits, like this SoC/System On a Chip with a quarter of a million gates or so, which I'd bet this is, at least) in synthesizeable source, with verification and cosim environments. '
As far as I know, no such thing has ever been released officially as open source. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Yes, but a lot of the "old" stuff has been available (even if the legality is not as 100% sure as open source) -- it's easy to get old things for free -- but you still have to implement and verify them, and that's usually where the rub is. This isn't somebody's idea of PCI -- it made it to fab and, assuming the chip works, has met 99.9% of the testing and verification that any ASIC vendor or custom house would do.
:). It may well have no effect and open-chip-design may remain insignificant, or maybe create a new niche of ultra-low end. But even the ultra-low end has to get fabbed somewhere, and fab lock-in to IP is fairly strong (why not use what's there if it's proven and the people at the fab supporting you are familiar with it?).
This, I think, is unique in that it is not that old or outdated. We do several vaguely similar designs every year in my relatively small ASIC design center (12 engineers), and the total cost is a nice chunk of change. Of course, we usually "give" the IP to customers (but they pay for it). Then again, we did have most of these cores available 2-4 years ago, so your point may be more valid than I was hoping at first.
It's possible that some customers will do development with this core (or other open stuff) before choosing a vendor, and thus want to stick with it (knowing they can use it with anyone is a nice plus), but then again they might still favor the in-house stuff that (1) is proven in our process and (2) I'm familiar with.
Hmm, thanks for the lead -- I just talked myself out of the the idea that this is really significant
Seems they are available, not just "chances are", if the other poster is correct,and I have no reason to doubt him. I'll check later when the site is revived. Anyway, this is extra cool. If verification and cosim environments are also available (with suitably rigrous regression tests and mfg test hooks), and I assume there must be since these went to fab (though they maybe owned by Flextronics in some way?), then I would expect to eventually (soon?) have a customer looking to use these instead of buying our expensive versions, or maybe we'll start to offer them with limited support. Or maybe I'll start a business supporting and implementing them myself . . . er, not just yet. ;)
BTW, The JTAG TAP controller is an IP core as much as anything, and is usually offered in paramterized form (so you can enter variables to decide options and then compile to get your "semi-custom" core), and is comprises about 2-8k gates depending on the number of features implemented, and not including the individual BSRs (Boundary Scan Registers) at every IO.
Maybe even bigger if you include all possibilities of 1149.1, but I've never seen all that used, and as far as I know size is not a defining characteristic of cores. So no, JTAG is not as big as PCI (~10kgates for master + target), but a core nonetheless, IMHO.
Anyway, I was most interested in the PCI (would prefer PCI-X or PCI-Express), ethernet, UART, and SDRAM controller (DDR would be sweet).
I'm a little confused about the IBM reference, since if you're using UMC as a fab, you don't get to use IBM cores unless you also use IBM as an ASIC vendor on some level. Unless that has changed in the last 4 years, which I guess is possible.
Judging from the specs included at the linked site, this core compares favorably with CPU cores from ARM, NEC and others who make big bucks selling (and supporting) these cores for system integration. This is interesting, and it's maybe even more interesting that I haven't noted it in any trade journals (did I miss it, or has this thing been going on under the industry radar?)
However, it seems like the CPU core itself is open-source, while a lot of the bonus features on the SoC (System On a Chip) example cited are IP from Flextronics (the the company that did the physical design for this open-source CPU core, which was manufactured by UMC). I can't tell for sure because the site is slashdotted already. The links on PCI, JTAG etc. would presumably tell if all these IP macros (besides the CPU) are open source also -- does anyone know for sure?
Either way, the specs on the sample chip are interesting: SoC with OR1200 CPU implemented by Flextronics Semiconductor: 32-bit general-purpose microcontroller, UMC 0.18um fab process, maximum clock frequency of 160MHz. This SoC contains (1 each I assume): OR1200 processor, Memory Controller (FLASH, SDRAM, SRAM, DPRAM), PCI 2.2 32-bit interface 33/66MHz, Ethernet MAC 10/100. UART16550, GPIO, JTAG/Debug Interface.
BTW, 160MHz is pretty darn good, until you see that 160MHz is not really "MAX" as in "max (worst-case) operating conditions" as one usually specs these things. Usually, when a spec says "maximum clock frequency", it means that you can safely run the part at these speeds under the entire range of allowed operating conditions (temperature and voltage). It's rather meaningless to tell the fastest it canpossibly go (which would be 0Kelvin, with a voltage almost high enough to fry the cip), so wpecs tend to tell you the max safe speed.
That would be the highest temperature (usually ~70C, but it's really based on the junction temp, which is calculated from ambient temp, airflow, and package thermal characteristics -- higher than 25C in any case, since that's usually called "typical"), lowest voltage (usually nominal minus 5% or 10%; so for 3.3V system, worst case voltage would be 3.3-0.33=2.97V, for 1.8V core it would be 1.62V), and slowest process from the fab (whther this is the case or not is unspecified in the list). Instead, lower down the page I see:
Max system clock 160MHz was obtained at 25C ambient temperature, 3.3V IO and 1.8V core
I could take a wild guess and say the thing would run at least 125MHz (respectable for the tech at hand), so calling it 160MHz (but not at worst-case conditions) is a little odd, or at least non-standard. If it were a "normal" industry player quoting me a part's clock rate that way, I'd become very, very suspicious of them for the rest of the negotioations.
It's still way cool, and if those IP cores are all available open source also, I'm really excited. But, I still have a lot of unanswered questions that I expected to see at least a brief mention of:
- Is a hardware/software co-simulation environment available?
- If so,what simulators and languages are supported?
- What support model(s) are available for design teams considering this core?
- What is the die size for the SoC made by Flextronics?
- How much is Flextronics selling these SoC's for, or are the ASIC (customer-specific)?
I guess I could do as the article suggests and call or email Flextronics:Test boards are available to Flextronics Semiconductor ASIC customers. For more information about the test boards, the SOC technical details and business engagement please contact Flextronics Semiconductor.
I won't argue that some of the stuff you mentioned are benefits of internet access. However, I fail to see how lack of a benefit is sufficient cause to call something a "big problem".
I mean, I can think of benefits to everyone having his or her own airplane. And many people do own one or more(!), but so many more do not. So, when are we going to start solving this "aircraft divide" crisis?
In fact, with personal aircraft and unlimited fuel provided by US funding, that farmer could just fly anywhere he wants to check the real news from the outside, or raise a stink with activists anywhere in the world.
I'm being facetious, of course, but the point is that just because something provides a benefit doesn't mean that is is a basic right or that the better-off must chip in to make sure the less-well-off have it too.
Really? So I don't mail a check to my water or power companies every month? Huh. I sure thought I did.
Access to online bill payment, cheap CDs & books, and B2B comprise a "big problem"?
You do know all of these things happened before the interenet, right?
Seriously, show me one utility company that only accepts payment via the internet and I'll reconsider, but for now I have to stick to my original claim: the "digital divide" is not a "big problem."
So why should we treat [nations that are underdeveloped, and therefore pollute less] the same way like nations that have been polluting for centuries at a much larger scale, and continue to do so?
Huh? If Burkina Faso doesn't cause significant pollution, why would they (or you) have a problem with holding them to the same rules as everyone else. What are you arguing here?
In any case, the countries with cushy exemptions in Kyoto I'm talking about are China and India. I suppose you're going to tell me that neither pollutes, or that China is not projected to exceed US emissions in a few years? But oh no, they're not as well off as the US, so they should be exempt from the rules, right? Bah.
Anyway, all countries should be held to the same environmental standards for the same reason that African Americans should not be paid reparations for the historical enslavement of their ancestors -- it's fair. You can't hold an entire population accountable for what some ancestors might have done, else you end up in an infinite regress of trying to correct every wrong every done throughout history. If we did this, we couldn't even stop at giving the US to Native Americans, we'd have to find a few living Sumerians and just give everything to them. Do you see yet why is silly to try to punish a nation today for mistakes that are hundreds of years old?
Or, if you don't see the problem there, note that by vilifying an entire population for long past acts, you end up with a pissed-off populace that's tired of paying the price for thier great-great-great-grandpappy's "badness", which opens the door to Hitler-esque demagogues who can take advantage of the situation and rally insane nationalism to the great detriment of all, as we have seen before. See it yet?
Or look at it this way: it's easier to do it right to begin with than fight inertia and retrofit the right way later on.
One of those has got to help jar the rocks out of your head and help you see past your hatred of the US long enough to understand why some people think your arguments are not just wrong, but stupid and annoying.
Sigh. That still doesn't make it right now, does it?
Yes it does. That was my point.
Iraq never directly attacked the US,
So? Direct attack may be where you draw your line and decide defend yourself, but it's not mine, nor is is America's, as you can see. Fact is the nutcake regime there helped those who attached the US. That's just as bad as a direct attack (worse, in many ways).
so until the US comes with some damn hard evidence that Iraq was framing strikes against US territory, they'll stay the agressors in this.
Bullshit. All it takes is for us to convince ourselves that they either helped or knew about and failed to hinder those fuckers that flew planes into the WTC, which we've done to my satisfaction (and most others' as well).
In case you haven't noticed, whether you like it or not, the developed nations of the world aren't the only nations in the world.
How is this sarcastic remark relevant?
And, on the drug note: how much do you think it really costs to R&D a drug, on average? The most reasonable estimate I've seen is $400M USD before tax deductions. I've seen as low as $150M USD after tax, to as high as $800M USD before tax. All seems to depend on who you ask, so which total did you arbitrarily choose?
None; it's not relevant to my point. My point is the drugs cost something to develop. The post to which I replied said "Western ideas of "intellectual property" are forced upon African and Asian countries, meaning they cannot produce medications for their own people, but have to buy medication from Western corporations at artificially-inflated prices." This doesn't say the drugs are too expensive, as you imply and as might be the case, it seems to be saying that our whole notion of IP us unfair, and we should be giving out the fruits of our work for free. I disagree. Moreover, if they don't like the price, they should invent their own. Stop mucking with natural selection. We need it.
Now, call me skeptical, if you will, but why are the pharmas so antsy about letting people get at the truth? They release fantastic studies showing R&D costs topping more than 3/4 of a billion dollars, but only through groups that receive more than 2/3 of their funding through pharmas (Tufts Center, in particular). Groups with a vested interest in getting the ability to use / produce generics drop extremely low numbers, and, oddly enough, independant studies put the numbers in between the two.
Thanks, but I have to ask: who cares?
of course, forgetting the fact that nobody can come to an agreement on R&D costs, you conveniently discount the fact that with their currently sky-high pricing, these drug companies are making astronomical profits and the fact that R&D on a drug is a one-time cost, but they want long-term lockdown on their drugs or the ability to simply disallow generics altogether. Interesting.
Don't like the current patent laws and time periods? Work to change them, but meanwhile leave alone those who are playing by the rules and making money. Profit != evil, you know.
And, as I've pointed out before to people with a superiority complex (such as yourself), you can't just step on the "losers'" faces all the time and not expect to pay for it eventually.
Show my where I said stepping on their face is OK, or deminstrate how NOT letting them have control the internet is anything like face-stepping and I'll respond to your asinine comment.
Only someone so truly ignorant of history and so ridiculously arrogant as a politician would be so stupid as to continually snub the "losers" in the world, believing themselves totally untouchable.
This is a fallacy of the excluded middle. Not letting them control the internet is NOT "snubbing".
How do you think terrorists come into being anyway?
Religion. Duh.
You step on the little guys face and he'll fight back as best he can (though, granted, the current breed of terrorist everyone is so pre-occupied with will go around blowing shit up regardless of what you do). Current "losers" have as much a right to speak their mind as anyone else.
So let 'em speak. No one said they shouldn't speak, just that the winners need not listen when they cry for control of something they think they're missing out on.
Nobody says the rest of the world has to listen to them, but that doesn't mean you should just tape their mouth shut.
And no one suggested that. Pay attention or STFU please.