Yes, I just bought a KT-7 RAID. Too bad it doesn't have drivers for Linux. When the BIOS is set to stripe the disks, Linux only sees one of the drives (that is, I've got 2 45GB hard drives, and I only have 45 GB available--with RAID 0 (striping), the two drives *should* appear as one drive, but be twice as big).
Sorry, but the KT-7 RAID won't work if you're looking to RAID your drives under Linux. That is, until Highpoint releases Linux drivers for their RAID chipset.
That's elfs, not elves. Tolkien was very keen on this point. His editor for the Hobbit apparently hacked up his original submission, changing, among other things, elfen|elfs to elven|elves. He used the old English spelling of these words for a reason: modern interpretations of elves are different than the old English interpretation of elfs. For example, elves are often portrayed as slender but short. The old English interpretation of elfs are tall and slender.
He was very deliberate about this, and a great many other linguistic items throughout the book. Sorry if this sounds pedantic, but Tolkien would have wanted it that way;-)
Do you understand how quiet 34dB is? Perhaps you have forgotten that sound doubles in intensity for every 6dB (it has an exponential relationship with perceived volume).
Realize that the average background noise in a residential home *without* computers is about 50dB. That means 34dB is well below the noise floor in the average home.
Remember that your computer has fans. Fans produce noise. If you can produce only 34dB from your computer then you're doing pretty well.
Hmm. The SR-71 uses ramjets. The SR-71 was delivered (i.e. operational) in 1966. So, in fact, we've had operational ramjet engines for about 35 years now. Actually, it's a turbojet/ramjet--it operates as a turbojet at subsonic speeds, and as a ramjet at supersonic speeds.
Scramjets are another issue altogether. They are closely related to ramjets, but the only alleged operational scramjet is on the Aurora, the successor to the SR-71. Of course, that is *pure* speculation, as the Aurora has not been officially confirmed.
Please recall that there *is* atmosphere as high as low-earth orbit. It's not very dense, but it is atmosphere. If NASA plans to use this for space launches, one might assume that there would be enough atmosphere low-earth orbit altitudes to sustain combustion for scramjets. Or, alternatively, they vehicle could build enough momentum to carry it into orbit after the atmosphere is too weak to support combustion.
Well, a little searching indicates it is, indeed, in excess of Mach 3 that a scramjet becomes functional. It is, in fact, Mach 4.7.
Anyone know the benefits of a scramjet over a ramjet? I'm guessing a scramjet must be able to function in a much lighter atmosphere (read: "space", i.e. low-Earth orbit) or something.
From everyone's posts so far, it seems like there are some misconceptions about scramjets.
People keep asking why they didn't separate the booster from the scramjet so they can gather as much information from the scramjet as possible. Others are asking why they didn't separate, then let the scramjet operate to gather information.
Well, folks, a scramjet has to get to sufficient speed before it will even work. I am no supersonic aeronautical engineer, but my failing memory (too much LDS in college;-) tells me it's something in excess of Mach 3.
Well, in that case, if there's a failure with the booster rocket, there's absolutely nothing you can gather from the experiment. You can't fire the bloody scramjet engine. Separating the booster from the scramjet wouldn't do any good.
Furthermore, we've all seen the damage caused when a 747 hits the water at ~250mph. It breaks apart in a spectacular fashion. It takes years for experts to piece together the reckage to determine what happens. Now, imagine what happens when an object hits the water at 700+mph. It would be pretty damn difficult to get any valuable information from it. Furthermore, the risks to public safety would be incredibly high if NASA let this thing go.
In the end, that's the reason they blew it up. No information can be gathered about the scramjet, and it poses a risk to public safety.
Whoa! Are you making the accusation that Netscape used code from the Mosaic project? Care to substantiate that any? As I recall, when Netscape was founded, they were *very* careful not to use a single line of code from the Mosaic project.
Wasn't that the same time we made MJ illegal? Isn't the rampang gang violence still here? Let's make drugs legal again to get rid of their criminal elements.
Is this really flamebait? Should it have been mod'ed down? Or is this a dissenting opinion? I don't really see anything personal in this. Maybe the comment about his expectations that Eric Corley will lose and face time in prison. But, come on, slashdot moderators. I, for one, like to read dissenting opinions. It keeps me up to date on what the "opposition" is thinking. I hate it when the moderators take an honest opinion and mod it down.
I think you've got some terms confused here. There's no legal category called "no-profit". There's non-profit and not-for-profit.
Non-profit enjoys greater tax benefits - contributions to non-profit corporations are tax deductable. However, as I understand it, the accounting regulations make this a very difficult status to achieve for a small company. This status is usually reserved for churches, universities, and the like.
Not-for-profit is basically just like any old corporation, except that the company can't make a profit at the end of the year. They often get around this by paying their staff large bonuses or spending the "profits" on capital goods (assuming a good year). The accounting regulations are much more relaxed when compared to non-profits, but gifts to the corporation are not tax deductable. This is what many charities are classified as, and what would probably be most likely for an open-source "no-profit" company.
Now, IANAA (an accountant), and I might have the two definitions backwards. But, in any case, the general argument remains. Why are more open source efforts not "not-for-profit"? You got me. Maybe people want a corporation that actually makes money. Maybe people are interested in selling the corporation to a big conglomerate (i.e. Slashdot...). I don't know.
Are you suggesting that Microsoft has ported IE to the PS2? Wow! That *would* be news. Microsoft developing software for a direct competitor? Hmm, somehow I don't think that will happen (OK, so MS did this very thing with Apple...but that was to prevent them from looking like a monopoly).
I imagine what they mean is that Sony is working with Netscape, the company, to use the Gecko rendering engine on the PS2. Netscape provides software engineers that are familiar with Gecko (Mozilla couldn't offer software engineers as easily, being an open-source movement). I could be *way* off base with this, though.
Yet the total power delivered to these repeaters is so small that the costs to cool the superconductor would make this a completely idiotic investment.
Are you smoking crack? This won't do one bit of good for a 25GB transatlantic cable. Fiber optics are already nearly lossless at large distances. The only problem with fiber optics is that we cannot modulate significant amounts of power over a fiber optic cable.
This is going to be used to transmit power. Right now, in the US, when power is transmitted from the Hoover Dam to cities several states away, power losses can be well above 50%. A fiber optic cable over the same distance would have losses on the order of a fraction of one percent.
This won't be a replacement for the cabling between your house and the transformer in your neighborhood. The costs of supercooling the wire would be too great. This is going to be used to transmit power from the power source to the power station. BIG wires. Big current. High voltages.
So, if you're a comm company, you don't have to worry about this. This won't affect you one bit. In fact, none of the wiring for power in neighborhoods will be uprooted, either. Only the big high voltage, high current cable (actually, if your cable can take higher voltages, you'll gladly trade a higher voltage, lower current cable, as losses are related to current, not voltage). This will be far less than 1% of all power lines (probably smaller than.01%, but I have absolutely no evidence to back that up).
Agreed! I am one of those that hunches over the keyboard 12-16 hours a day. I always used to have back pain, especially through my shoulders and just inside my right shoulder blade. I joined a Masters swim team about 5 months ago, and haven't had *any* backpain since. Not even once.
Why was this moderated as funny? Insightful, maybe. But not funny.
Xmt was very nice. In the mid 90s, I built and delivered a series of Motif applications that used Xmt. It was very nice. Hell, I even contributed some bug fixes. But, alas, Motif is showing its age. And Xmt, while being very nice, can't make up for the rest of the problems brought by Motif.
Following David Flanagan's lead, I've been a Java programmer for 4+ years now. And, remembering the "good old days" when I could configure the entire GUI with Xmt using Xdefaults, I now encapsulate the GUI inside an external XML file. The GUI is completely separated from the business logic, allowing for automated testing. Internationalization involves simple changes to my GUI XML file. I can theme my applications by merely changing the GUI XML file. I tip my hat to David for leading me in this direction.
But, seriously, this message wasn't (imho) intended to be funny. It was right on the mark. Interesting and insightful.
Looks like Steve is continuing a tradition that he started way back in 1978. By making state-of-the-art hardware standard on computers, he's creating economies of scale for the hardware, and thus driving down prices. Here's a few for you:
1978: color graphics computers - Apple ][
1979: 5 1/4" floppy drive - Apple ][
1984: 3 1/2" floppy - Macintosh
1985: laser printer - LaserWriter
1986: SCSI - Macintosh Plus
1988: optical hard drive - NeXT Cube
1998: USB - iMac
2000: Gigabit Ethernet - PowerMac G4
2000: Wireless Ethernet - AirPort
2001: LCD monitors
Now, before you get your knickers in a bunch, realize that I am not suggesting that Jobs and company invented these things (except for the tech behind the 5 1/4" floppy--Wozniak is a genious). I'm merely suggesting that by placing these items in mainstream computers (OK, NeXT was never mainstream, but Steve sure thought he could make it so), Steve helped drive down the unit costs of these items until they were common place in computing (he failed with the optical disk). Or, alternatively, Steve had the forsight to buy in to these technologies at a point in the price curve about 1 year (or more) ahead of the competition.
As for LCDs costing too much? Just watch--LCD panels will be cheaper than CRTs in 5 years.
You do realize that what MS is doing is not illegal, right? I mean, unless they are determined to be using predatory pricing for their product, it's not illegal for a company that has a monopoly in one area to introduce a new product in another area as a loss leader. And, $299 for a product where most competitors are =$199 is not predatory pricing.
This is not "like microsoft begining to sell its own computer". It *is* microsoft beginning to sell its own computer. However, there's nothing illegal with this. In order for it to be illegal, MS must have predatory pricing, or must wield its first monopoly in such a manner as to extend its monopoly into a new arena. The DoJ had a case concerning Windows (MS' existing monopoly) and IE (MS's predatory pricing and use of Windows to extend its monopoly to browsers). It wouldn't stand a chance on this one. At least, not yet.
After MS had run DR-DOS out of town, MS raised the wholesale price of MS-DOS from $6 to $24 within 6 months.
As for your economies of scale thing, I think you need to take a look at MS' pre-tax profit margins over the past 15 years. You'll see that their pre-tax profit margins have gone up, not down. This would mean that their unit costs are dropping or their prices are raising (or some combination of the two). You are absolutely right about the prices of business software over the past 6 years--prices have come down. However, that would indicate that Microsoft's unit costs have dropped even further!
If you don't believe that Microsoft is selling the XBox as a loss leader, you're fooling yourself. Microsoft has already admitted they will be selling the hardware at a small loss. Their licensing fees are *much* more reasonable than Sony's, so they aren't intending to make it up with software. This indicates they are doing it to gain market share, after which the ratio of unit prices to unit costs will rise so that MS makes a profit.
Now, IMHO, none of this is really bad per se. It's the work of a free economy. However, such behaviour must be kept in check in order to prevent monopolies. In that case, the original poster is quite right to be afraid of a potential monopoly for MS in this arena.
Damn, boy. You need to figure out what you did wrong. I installed Mandrake 7.2, as well. And:
I have uudecode (no talk, though)
I have gdb and apache (did you install the developer packages?)
I haven't had any problems compiling anything except stuff which required the latest versions of KDE & Gnome (the stuff that came out after Mandrake v7.2 was released).
xchat and xemacs work wonderfully. Xemacs has the same icons I've seen since the mid 90's.
Did you select a bare-bones installation or something? I think you've got a bad installation.
Yeah. And the business model behind PBS is lame because they have to ask for handouts. The same is true with NPR.
Just because you "ask for handouts" doesn't mean your business model is unsound. It simply means you prefer to give your stuff away. As I understand it, Mandrake is a rather successful company. They may not be making 40% profit margins, with 30,000 employees worldwide, and its two founders as two of the three richest people in the world. But that doesn't mean their business model is unsound. It simply means they have different goals.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, I just bought a KT-7 RAID. Too bad it doesn't have drivers for Linux. When the BIOS is set to stripe the disks, Linux only sees one of the drives (that is, I've got 2 45GB hard drives, and I only have 45 GB available--with RAID 0 (striping), the two drives *should* appear as one drive, but be twice as big).
Sorry, but the KT-7 RAID won't work if you're looking to RAID your drives under Linux. That is, until Highpoint releases Linux drivers for their RAID chipset.
That's elfs, not elves. Tolkien was very keen on this point. His editor for the Hobbit apparently hacked up his original submission, changing, among other things, elfen|elfs to elven|elves. He used the old English spelling of these words for a reason: modern interpretations of elves are different than the old English interpretation of elfs. For example, elves are often portrayed as slender but short. The old English interpretation of elfs are tall and slender.
;-)
He was very deliberate about this, and a great many other linguistic items throughout the book. Sorry if this sounds pedantic, but Tolkien would have wanted it that way
Yet another Ask Slashdot submitter that can't use Google. Here, try this.
Realize that the average background noise in a residential home *without* computers is about 50dB. That means 34dB is well below the noise floor in the average home.
Remember that your computer has fans. Fans produce noise. If you can produce only 34dB from your computer then you're doing pretty well.
Hmm. The SR-71 uses ramjets. The SR-71 was delivered (i.e. operational) in 1966. So, in fact, we've had operational ramjet engines for about 35 years now. Actually, it's a turbojet/ramjet--it operates as a turbojet at subsonic speeds, and as a ramjet at supersonic speeds.
Scramjets are another issue altogether. They are closely related to ramjets, but the only alleged operational scramjet is on the Aurora, the successor to the SR-71. Of course, that is *pure* speculation, as the Aurora has not been officially confirmed.
Please recall that there *is* atmosphere as high as low-earth orbit. It's not very dense, but it is atmosphere. If NASA plans to use this for space launches, one might assume that there would be enough atmosphere low-earth orbit altitudes to sustain combustion for scramjets. Or, alternatively, they vehicle could build enough momentum to carry it into orbit after the atmosphere is too weak to support combustion.
Well, a little searching indicates it is, indeed, in excess of Mach 3 that a scramjet becomes functional. It is, in fact, Mach 4.7.
Anyone know the benefits of a scramjet over a ramjet? I'm guessing a scramjet must be able to function in a much lighter atmosphere (read: "space", i.e. low-Earth orbit) or something.
From everyone's posts so far, it seems like there are some misconceptions about scramjets.
;-) tells me it's something in excess of Mach 3.
People keep asking why they didn't separate the booster from the scramjet so they can gather as much information from the scramjet as possible. Others are asking why they didn't separate, then let the scramjet operate to gather information.
Well, folks, a scramjet has to get to sufficient speed before it will even work. I am no supersonic aeronautical engineer, but my failing memory (too much LDS in college
Well, in that case, if there's a failure with the booster rocket, there's absolutely nothing you can gather from the experiment. You can't fire the bloody scramjet engine. Separating the booster from the scramjet wouldn't do any good.
Furthermore, we've all seen the damage caused when a 747 hits the water at ~250mph. It breaks apart in a spectacular fashion. It takes years for experts to piece together the reckage to determine what happens. Now, imagine what happens when an object hits the water at 700+mph. It would be pretty damn difficult to get any valuable information from it. Furthermore, the risks to public safety would be incredibly high if NASA let this thing go.
In the end, that's the reason they blew it up. No information can be gathered about the scramjet, and it poses a risk to public safety.
Whoa! Are you making the accusation that Netscape used code from the Mosaic project? Care to substantiate that any? As I recall, when Netscape was founded, they were *very* careful not to use a single line of code from the Mosaic project.
Wasn't that the same time we made MJ illegal? Isn't the rampang gang violence still here? Let's make drugs legal again to get rid of their criminal elements.
Is this really flamebait? Should it have been mod'ed down? Or is this a dissenting opinion? I don't really see anything personal in this. Maybe the comment about his expectations that Eric Corley will lose and face time in prison. But, come on, slashdot moderators. I, for one, like to read dissenting opinions. It keeps me up to date on what the "opposition" is thinking. I hate it when the moderators take an honest opinion and mod it down.
LOL. I aim to please :-P
I think you've got some terms confused here. There's no legal category called "no-profit". There's non-profit and not-for-profit.
Non-profit enjoys greater tax benefits - contributions to non-profit corporations are tax deductable. However, as I understand it, the accounting regulations make this a very difficult status to achieve for a small company. This status is usually reserved for churches, universities, and the like.
Not-for-profit is basically just like any old corporation, except that the company can't make a profit at the end of the year. They often get around this by paying their staff large bonuses or spending the "profits" on capital goods (assuming a good year). The accounting regulations are much more relaxed when compared to non-profits, but gifts to the corporation are not tax deductable. This is what many charities are classified as, and what would probably be most likely for an open-source "no-profit" company.
Now, IANAA (an accountant), and I might have the two definitions backwards. But, in any case, the general argument remains. Why are more open source efforts not "not-for-profit"? You got me. Maybe people want a corporation that actually makes money. Maybe people are interested in selling the corporation to a big conglomerate (i.e. Slashdot...). I don't know.
Are you suggesting that Microsoft has ported IE to the PS2? Wow! That *would* be news. Microsoft developing software for a direct competitor? Hmm, somehow I don't think that will happen (OK, so MS did this very thing with Apple...but that was to prevent them from looking like a monopoly).
I imagine what they mean is that Sony is working with Netscape, the company, to use the Gecko rendering engine on the PS2. Netscape provides software engineers that are familiar with Gecko (Mozilla couldn't offer software engineers as easily, being an open-source movement). I could be *way* off base with this, though.
Did this happen while Steve Jobs was at Apple? I didn't think so.
Yet the total power delivered to these repeaters is so small that the costs to cool the superconductor would make this a completely idiotic investment.
Are you smoking crack? This won't do one bit of good for a 25GB transatlantic cable. Fiber optics are already nearly lossless at large distances. The only problem with fiber optics is that we cannot modulate significant amounts of power over a fiber optic cable.
.01%, but I have absolutely no evidence to back that up).
This is going to be used to transmit power. Right now, in the US, when power is transmitted from the Hoover Dam to cities several states away, power losses can be well above 50%. A fiber optic cable over the same distance would have losses on the order of a fraction of one percent.
This won't be a replacement for the cabling between your house and the transformer in your neighborhood. The costs of supercooling the wire would be too great. This is going to be used to transmit power from the power source to the power station. BIG wires. Big current. High voltages.
So, if you're a comm company, you don't have to worry about this. This won't affect you one bit. In fact, none of the wiring for power in neighborhoods will be uprooted, either. Only the big high voltage, high current cable (actually, if your cable can take higher voltages, you'll gladly trade a higher voltage, lower current cable, as losses are related to current, not voltage). This will be far less than 1% of all power lines (probably smaller than
Agreed! I am one of those that hunches over the keyboard 12-16 hours a day. I always used to have back pain, especially through my shoulders and just inside my right shoulder blade. I joined a Masters swim team about 5 months ago, and haven't had *any* backpain since. Not even once.
Why was this moderated as funny? Insightful, maybe. But not funny.
Xmt was very nice. In the mid 90s, I built and delivered a series of Motif applications that used Xmt. It was very nice. Hell, I even contributed some bug fixes. But, alas, Motif is showing its age. And Xmt, while being very nice, can't make up for the rest of the problems brought by Motif.
Following David Flanagan's lead, I've been a Java programmer for 4+ years now. And, remembering the "good old days" when I could configure the entire GUI with Xmt using Xdefaults, I now encapsulate the GUI inside an external XML file. The GUI is completely separated from the business logic, allowing for automated testing. Internationalization involves simple changes to my GUI XML file. I can theme my applications by merely changing the GUI XML file. I tip my hat to David for leading me in this direction.
But, seriously, this message wasn't (imho) intended to be funny. It was right on the mark. Interesting and insightful.
Looks like Steve is continuing a tradition that he started way back in 1978. By making state-of-the-art hardware standard on computers, he's creating economies of scale for the hardware, and thus driving down prices. Here's a few for you:
1978: color graphics computers - Apple ][
1979: 5 1/4" floppy drive - Apple ][
1984: 3 1/2" floppy - Macintosh
1985: laser printer - LaserWriter
1986: SCSI - Macintosh Plus
1988: optical hard drive - NeXT Cube
1998: USB - iMac
2000: Gigabit Ethernet - PowerMac G4
2000: Wireless Ethernet - AirPort
2001: LCD monitors
Now, before you get your knickers in a bunch, realize that I am not suggesting that Jobs and company invented these things (except for the tech behind the 5 1/4" floppy--Wozniak is a genious). I'm merely suggesting that by placing these items in mainstream computers (OK, NeXT was never mainstream, but Steve sure thought he could make it so), Steve helped drive down the unit costs of these items until they were common place in computing (he failed with the optical disk). Or, alternatively, Steve had the forsight to buy in to these technologies at a point in the price curve about 1 year (or more) ahead of the competition.
As for LCDs costing too much? Just watch--LCD panels will be cheaper than CRTs in 5 years.
You do realize that what MS is doing is not illegal, right? I mean, unless they are determined to be using predatory pricing for their product, it's not illegal for a company that has a monopoly in one area to introduce a new product in another area as a loss leader. And, $299 for a product where most competitors are =$199 is not predatory pricing.
This is not "like microsoft begining to sell its own computer". It *is* microsoft beginning to sell its own computer. However, there's nothing illegal with this. In order for it to be illegal, MS must have predatory pricing, or must wield its first monopoly in such a manner as to extend its monopoly into a new arena. The DoJ had a case concerning Windows (MS' existing monopoly) and IE (MS's predatory pricing and use of Windows to extend its monopoly to browsers). It wouldn't stand a chance on this one. At least, not yet.
After MS had run DR-DOS out of town, MS raised the wholesale price of MS-DOS from $6 to $24 within 6 months.
As for your economies of scale thing, I think you need to take a look at MS' pre-tax profit margins over the past 15 years. You'll see that their pre-tax profit margins have gone up, not down. This would mean that their unit costs are dropping or their prices are raising (or some combination of the two). You are absolutely right about the prices of business software over the past 6 years--prices have come down. However, that would indicate that Microsoft's unit costs have dropped even further!
If you don't believe that Microsoft is selling the XBox as a loss leader, you're fooling yourself. Microsoft has already admitted they will be selling the hardware at a small loss. Their licensing fees are *much* more reasonable than Sony's, so they aren't intending to make it up with software. This indicates they are doing it to gain market share, after which the ratio of unit prices to unit costs will rise so that MS makes a profit.
Now, IMHO, none of this is really bad per se. It's the work of a free economy. However, such behaviour must be kept in check in order to prevent monopolies. In that case, the original poster is quite right to be afraid of a potential monopoly for MS in this arena.
Did you select a bare-bones installation or something? I think you've got a bad installation.
Yeah. And the business model behind PBS is lame because they have to ask for handouts. The same is true with NPR.
Just because you "ask for handouts" doesn't mean your business model is unsound. It simply means you prefer to give your stuff away. As I understand it, Mandrake is a rather successful company. They may not be making 40% profit margins, with 30,000 employees worldwide, and its two founders as two of the three richest people in the world. But that doesn't mean their business model is unsound. It simply means they have different goals.