Bluetooth specs allow for overlapping piconets, and a member of a piconet (Bluetooth spec's terminology for an ad-hoc Bluetooth network)can also be a member of another piconet. This is called a scatternet and gives you a lot of room to grow. 8 is the maximum number of ACTIVE members in the piconet, some nodes might be parked (up to 255); and it only makes sense that you can have up to 8 active members since the capacity is about 721k anyway.
Please read this good article about Bluetooth to learn more about the technology, I'm sure it will make lots of things clear. --
No, you will be able to set up Bluetooth devices to be "parked" in piconets, the term for small ad-hoc networks formed by Bluetooth devices. You will also have the capability to change security settings so your Bluetooth device will not interact with all devices within the range.
Bluetooth output will initially be 0dbm or 20dbm, which respectively correspond to ranges of 10 and 100m. With a 10m range and power in the range of milliwatts, I doubt Bluetooth will interfere with anything else that uses the ISM band. There is quite a lot of speculation on how Bluetooth will interfere with IEEE 802.11; but nobody knows that yet; since there is no Bluetooth hardware around to test.
Oh, and please make sure to bookmark my Bluetooth site so you can visit it when I'm finally ready to launch it..
OK, color Palm is cool. I don't believe the battery claims, but I may actually might want to buy one. What I need is the Springboard slot though, and/or Bluetooth when available. When will Handspring follow? Did they announce any color products?
Umm, I would like to contribute with a shameless plug: BluetoothCentral will be up real soon now-it's been in my.sig for a while, but I will definitely finish the site this week, so anyone who would like to learn more about Bluetooth can check it out next week. Please bookmark it; and meanwhile you can visit the URL for a couple of useful Bluetooth links. --
This is not very different from what you can accomplish with a subnotebook like Sony PictureBook or the bunch of competitors that are not available outside Japan. (Dynamism sells them, go to the site to drool over what Japan has to offer.) PictureBook has a built-in webcam, if you're in Europe there are PCMCIA form-factor GSM phones available from several vendors (i.e. Option FirstFone). Ditto for GPS receivers. With the exception of the 8-hour battery, all are available with the current PC technology, and the resulting device would still be very compact, considering that you want a DVD player which imposes a size limitation.
So why all the hype about the PC being dead? Perhaps all we need is cheaper Sony PictureBooks. --
Give me a break. The Mig-21 design originated in the late 1950s-early 1960s; has been used in Vietnam and Middle East wars, and has been beaten badly in all cases. A Mig-21 is in no way comparable to an F-16A/B, let alone later F-16C/D's.
Shenyang F-7 is a different beast than the Mig-21 though, and later models have improved different wing structures, powerplant and avionics; but they are still no match for F-16s since they don't have BVR(beyond visual range) missile capabilities; like the F-16s have recently gained with AIM-120 AMRAAM.
I think it just suffices to say the Mig-21 was replaced in early 1970s with the Mig-23 in Soviet service; which in turn was replaced by the Mig-29 in early 1980s. Which means the Mig-21 is now two generations back.
Still, the Chinese can produce weaponry at incredibly cheap costs; and they have millions of people who they will easily sacrifice for the People's good. The Germans definitely had the technological edge in WWII in the Russian front, but ultimately Russian "human-wave" tactics got them. Nobody knows if a modern fleet of 160 F-16s have any chance against, say, 2,500 ancient Migs.
Give me a break. The Mig-21 design originated in the late 1950s-early 1960s; has been used in Vietnam and Middle East wars, and has been beaten badly in all cases. A Mig-21 is in no way comparable to an F-16A/B, let alone later F-16C/D's.
Shenyang F-7 is a different beast than the Mig-21 though, and later models have improved different wing structures, powerplant and avionics; but they are still no match for F-16s since they don't have BVR(beyond visual range) missile capabilities; like the F-16s have recently gained with AIM-120 AMRAAM.
I think it just suffices to say the Mig-21 was replaced in early 1970s with the Mig-23 in Soviet service; which in turn was replaced by the Mig-29 in early 1980s. Which means the Mig-21 is now two generations back.
Still, the Chinese can produce weaponry at incredibly cheap costs; and they have millions of people who they will easily sacrifice for the People's good. The Germans definitely had the technological edge in WWII in the Russian front, but ultimately Russian "human-wave" tactics got them. Nobody knows if a modern fleet of F-16s have any chance against, say, 2,500 ancient Migs.
The Taiwanese have a significant aircraft production capability-they designed and flew the Ching-Kuo indigenuous fighter successfully; and they produce their own missiles, too. On the other hand; Chinese Air Force is equipped with mostly outdated equipment; which is only changing recently with the addition of Su-27s to the inventory. Still, the majority of Chinese Air Force is Shenyang F-7s (Mig-21 variant) and F-6s (Mig-19 variant). Where little is known about the capabilities of the sepcimens in Chinese service; export versions of these fighters have not proven to be good performers.
The Taiwanese definitely have the better technology in their armed forces. In their previous aerial clashes; ROCAF's kill rates were phenomenal. I would tend to say that the situation is much like Israel and the Arab nations: Israel has kicked, and will indefinitely continue to kick, the asses of any combination of Arab air forces imaginable. Similarly Taiwan has proven to have an advantage in the skies; it is unfortunately a different matter on sea and land.
The name of the book is "High St@kes, No Prisoners" by Charles H. Ferguson. I recommend everyone involved in a startup to go and read it. It is one of the best books I've read recently, and lots of the information and lessons there are relevant for anybody starting a company. --
>Can you have more than 2 cards on a network w/o >an AP?
You can have up to 60 nodes. I have 4 on my home network and 11 at work; without an access point.
>And are the Aviator cards compatible with >AirPort?
Aviator 2.4 cards work at 2Mb/s; whereas the AirPort is 11Mb/s; but they're both IEEE 802.11 and yes, they should work together in theory. Some IEEE 802.11 cards use frequency hopping spread spectrum (FHSS) as opposed to direct sequence spread spectrum (DSSS); and I guess Aviator 2.4 is one of the former. I have used Aviator 2.4 cards with Lucent WaveLAN IEEE cards; and since AirPort uses the WaveLAN circuitry; I suppose they must work.
Beware: WebGear has an older line of products called the Aviator-they are not IEEE 802.11 compatible. The IEEE 802.11 product is called Aviator 2.4, referring to the frequency band. I've seen some people jump on the Aviator cards on Ebay or elsewhere on several occasions; only to find out they are old, lame proprietary technologies.
I have sold a similar problem (a bunch of Suns on a different floor) by buying an old 486 from a nearby college surplus store for something like $15; and I installed Linux along with an ISA Ethernet and the Aviator on it.
In my case, a 486 SX-25 with 8MB of RAM works flawlessly as an Ethernet-to-wireless bridge. I recommend you get a cheap, old 486 powerful enough to run Linux, do a minimal Linux installation, and either set up kernel bridging or use masquerading to connect your Win98 box to your VAXen or what you have at your home. I have mine on a small UPS; and it just runs away from sight in the depths of a cabinet. The whole thing should cost about $30 with the exception of the Aviator card. --
Bluetooth bandwidth is about 741 Kb/s; not very close to high-end DSL; but very adequate. I agree Bluetooth is the future; and will be something that we can't live without; when it finally reaches the market. It will be big especially in Palm form-factor PDAs and cell phones.
2.4GHz is the ISM (industrial-scientific-medical) frequency band that doesn't require licencing by the FCC; and is allocated for similar use in most countries, except perhaps in France; where the military seems to be obsessed with using the most obscure frequencies possible. --
Bluetooth products are about to show up pretty soon, and I agree it will be a hugely successful technology for things like you listed. Since the eventual target price for Bluetooth is $5/node; if they manage to meet that price target in two or three years, we might have $10 Bluetooth LAN cards that work for very short range (~50ft) at a rate acceptable for basic tasks (741 Kb/s).
Do you think Bluetooth might be successful in this role? It is definitely not something Bluetooth is designed for; but it will be so inexpensive that inevitably this will be an application. --
Check out my post about the Aviator WebGear 2.4, which is IEEE 802.11 compatible (2Mb/s). At $139.99 for a 2-card kit (at CompUSA), it is a very good value. Works with Linux like a charm, problem-free (on both laptops on desktops with the included ISA PCMCIA adapters).
Once you go wireless, there really is no going back. --
I've been using Aviator Webgear 2.4GHz IEEE 802.11 cards for a while. You can buy a 2-pack for only $139.99 at the nearest CompUSA; and the kit includes 2 ISA adapters as well as the two PCMCIA cards. They work great with Linux, too. I recommend Aviator 2.4 cards to everyone instead of proprietary stuff like Diamond HomeFree; which do not work with Linux at all(well not really, but the drivers work in a non-FCC approved way and can't talk to Windows drivers)
Now that we have affordable IEEE 802.11 cards that work with Linux, I guess the next step is to have IEEE 802.11 access point capability for Linux. I guess having an access point is the easiest way to bridge seamlessly between an Ethernet and wireless; I did not have the time to deal with finding an alternative solution; so my wireless LAN is just another segment with its own non-routable class C; and I use masquerading at the gateway. I've been checking out the Absolute Value site for a while, but they seem to be concentrating on cards with the Intersil chipset.
Let's assume that the government actually decrypted the contents of Mitnick's data. The announcement of this success would give out too much about the government's crypto capabilities, so it's definitely not in the best interest of US national security. In other words, the fact that this encryption can be broken by the government could well be a more valuable secret than the contents of Mitnick's hard drives.
I tend to believe that the government had not really bothered to break the encryption. But then, even if they could, they would most certainly keep it a secret. --
Oops, I screwed up in the first posting. Here is a corrected one:
I agree such a test would be interesting. Just a quick correction, though: AltiVec is also SIMD, the Flynn classification which is used as a generic term in the literature.(Flynn's seminal paper is where the terms SIMD, MIMD etc. were coined first) AltiVec and SSE, MMX, 3DNow!, MIPSV, VIS etc. are SIMD implementations.
Also, Motorola has a bunch of very nice C libraries and modified compilers which take advantage of the new instructions, and I'm sure some other SIMD extensions have similar C libraries; so it's not exclusively accessible from assembly language. What's probably needed is some very smart compilers to choose when to use the SIMD extensions. --
I agree such a test would be interesting. Just a quick correction, though: AltiVec is also SIMD, the Flynn classification which is used as a generic term in the literature.( AltiVec and SSE, MMX, 3DNow!, MIPSV, VIS and whatnot are SIMD implementations --
It's good to see someone had modified the kernel to support the "Disk-on-a-chip", but where's the modified kernel source code then? Where are the patches? I believe a lot of us can have a use for it, there are nice boards on the market using these things, which emulate a hard disk completely, AFAIK.
It's kinda tough to go to those kickass clubs, beaches and piers when you don't have the 35-40 hrs work weeks like the spoiled Euro-geeks do. That's probably why we prefer high speed Internet access here in the US. --
Drawbacks (for some) are that to run servlets you need to be running Apache JServ, Sun's JavaWebServer (bad idea), or Netscape Commerce server. I don't think there are any others, but if somebody knows different, please enlighten me.
There are servlet engines for almost all popular Web servers on the market. Examples are:
JRun, which runs on IIS, Netscape, Apache , WebSTAR, and O'Reilly's WebSite.
ServletExec, which runs on almost all Mac Web servers, IIS, PWS, Apache and Netscape.
Plus, another thing - when a colleague was looking at Java for database and web stuff, what put him off was every other step was "pay pay pay". e.g. database connectivity, which you can get free for Perl, Python, PHP etc. He's now doing his stuff on Perl.
Anything that has to do with Java database connectivity comes free with the JDK, except the JDBC drivers, which are to be provided by the RDBMS vendor. My company has paid zilch for Java connectivity to our Oracle servers. Your friend was probably using MS SQL Server, but then, he deserves everything bad.
Finally an article on the server-side successes of Java. IMHO, Java servlets are the best thing that has happened to Java since its inception, but for reasons completely unknown to me, Java-bashing has taken its place next to Microsoft bashing as an official Slashdot sport. Perhaps the reason is the early failure of Java when Sun touted it as the single platform that will replace everything. Anybody else remember the Java ring and the Java OS?
Dear fellow Java-basher Slashdotters: I know most of you have very little free time on your hands, but please set aside a couple of days to take a look at this exciting server side technology, Java servlets. It is truly write-once, run anywhere; it's a widely accepted industry standard, almost all popular databases and application servers support it, and Java is a very good OO language after all. Take a look at some nice servlet tutorials or better, O'Reilly's servlets book, download the awesome Tomcat or Apache JServ to run with your Apache Web server, get the latest JDK from Blackdown or even better, IBM's JDK, add Jikes for good measure, and explore the beautiful world of Java servlets. Sun's site completely relies on Java servlets, Yahoo uses servlets for some portions of the site, a host of smaller Web sites and e-commerce companies completely rely on servlets and/or JSP (which is based on servlet technology), (epinions.com, mercata.com come to my mind; there are lots of others)
Whatever server-side programming technology you're using, you will like servlets. Most likely you will want to forget about CGI.pm, sell your books about Netscape's proprietary server-side JavaScript on Ebay, erase memories of hours of fiddling with ISAPI/NSAPI extensions, shred your printouts of ASP error message explanations from the Microsoft knowledge base, and lament about the time you spent posting aimlessly on every bulletin board about those pesky, undocumented Oracle functions of PHP. You will easily have time for all these when you start to use servlets.
Tu-144 was not a hastily assembled "Concordski" by any stretch of imagination, and reflected considerable Soviet experties on building experimental high-speed strategic bombers and huge fighter aircraft in the sixties, like the Sukhoi S-100 and Tupolev Tu-128. Accidents can happen in aviation at any time. Tu-144 went on to fly in Aeroflot service in the 1970s.
The fact that Tu-144 was a sound design has been recently verified by NASA's use of the Tu-144 as a testbed for 21st century US supersonic transport aircraft. The link is here. The Tu-144LL is flying today for NASA service, and $350 millions of taxpayer money is used for this project. --
Those clever German designs simply did not exist, though. The Germans themselves had lots of trouble trying to develop long range bombers with adequate protection, Heinkel He-177 and Focke-Wulf Fw-200 Condor were just two of their relatively unsuccessful events to come up with a German equivalent of the B-17, B-24 or Lancaster. Therefore it only makes sense that they chose to copy the American B-29, with its remote controlled gun turrets and pressurized cockpit, had many innovations for its time.
Slashdot Mirror
Bluetooth specs allow for overlapping piconets, and a member of a piconet (Bluetooth spec's terminology for an ad-hoc Bluetooth network)can also be a member of another piconet. This is called a scatternet and gives you a lot of room to grow. 8 is the maximum number of ACTIVE members in the piconet, some nodes might be parked (up to 255); and it only makes sense that you can have up to 8 active members since the capacity is about 721k anyway.
Please read this good article about Bluetooth to learn more about the technology, I'm sure it will make lots of things clear.
--
BluetoothCentral.com
A site for everything Bluetooth. Coming soon.
No, you will be able to set up Bluetooth devices to be "parked" in piconets, the term for small ad-hoc networks formed by Bluetooth devices. You will also have the capability to change security settings so your Bluetooth device will not interact with all devices within the range.
Bluetooth output will initially be 0dbm or 20dbm, which respectively correspond to ranges of 10 and 100m. With a 10m range and power in the range of milliwatts, I doubt Bluetooth will interfere with anything else that uses the ISM band. There is quite a lot of speculation on how Bluetooth will interfere with IEEE 802.11; but nobody knows that yet; since there is no Bluetooth hardware around to test.
Oh, and please make sure to bookmark my Bluetooth site so you can visit it when I'm finally ready to launch it..
--
BluetoothCentral.com
A site for everything Bluetooth. Coming soon.
OK, color Palm is cool. I don't believe the battery claims, but I may actually might want to buy one. What I need is the Springboard slot though, and/or Bluetooth when available. When will Handspring follow? Did they announce any color products?
--
BluetoothCentral.com
A site for everything Bluetooth. Coming soon.
Umm, I would like to contribute with a shameless plug: BluetoothCentral will be up real soon now-it's been in my .sig for a while, but I will definitely finish the site this week, so anyone who would like to learn more about Bluetooth can check it out next week. Please bookmark it; and meanwhile you can visit the URL for a couple of useful Bluetooth links.
--
BluetoothCentral.com
A site for everything Bluetooth. Coming soon.
This is not very different from what you can accomplish with a subnotebook like Sony PictureBook or the bunch of competitors that are not available outside Japan. (Dynamism sells them, go to the site to drool over what Japan has to offer.) PictureBook has a built-in webcam, if you're in Europe there are PCMCIA form-factor GSM phones available from several vendors (i.e. Option FirstFone). Ditto for GPS receivers. With the exception of the 8-hour battery, all are available with the current PC technology, and the resulting device would still be very compact, considering that you want a DVD player which imposes a size limitation.
So why all the hype about the PC being dead? Perhaps all we need is cheaper Sony PictureBooks.
--
BluetoothCentral.com
A site for everything Bluetooth. Coming soon.
Give me a break. The Mig-21 design originated in the late 1950s-early 1960s; has been used in Vietnam and Middle East wars, and has been beaten badly in all cases. A Mig-21 is in no way comparable to an F-16A/B, let alone later F-16C/D's.
Shenyang F-7 is a different beast than the Mig-21 though, and later models have improved different wing structures, powerplant and avionics; but they are still no match for F-16s since they don't have BVR(beyond visual range) missile capabilities; like the F-16s have recently gained with AIM-120 AMRAAM.
I think it just suffices to say the Mig-21 was replaced in early 1970s with the Mig-23 in Soviet service; which in turn was replaced by the Mig-29 in early 1980s. Which means the Mig-21 is now two generations back.
Still, the Chinese can produce weaponry at incredibly cheap costs; and they have millions of people who they will easily sacrifice for the People's good. The Germans definitely had the technological edge in WWII in the Russian front, but ultimately Russian "human-wave" tactics got them. Nobody knows if a modern fleet of 160 F-16s have any chance against, say, 2,500 ancient Migs.
--
BluetoothCentral.com
A site for everything Bluetooth. Coming soon.
Give me a break. The Mig-21 design originated in the late 1950s-early 1960s; has been used in Vietnam and Middle East wars, and has been beaten badly in all cases. A Mig-21 is in no way comparable to an F-16A/B, let alone later F-16C/D's.
Shenyang F-7 is a different beast than the Mig-21 though, and later models have improved different wing structures, powerplant and avionics; but they are still no match for F-16s since they don't have BVR(beyond visual range) missile capabilities; like the F-16s have recently gained with AIM-120 AMRAAM.
I think it just suffices to say the Mig-21 was replaced in early 1970s with the Mig-23 in Soviet service; which in turn was replaced by the Mig-29 in early 1980s. Which means the Mig-21 is now two generations back.
Still, the Chinese can produce weaponry at incredibly cheap costs; and they have millions of people who they will easily sacrifice for the People's good. The Germans definitely had the technological edge in WWII in the Russian front, but ultimately Russian "human-wave" tactics got them. Nobody knows if a modern fleet of F-16s have any chance against, say, 2,500 ancient Migs.
--
BluetoothCentral.com
A site for everything Bluetooth. Coming soon.
The Taiwanese have a significant aircraft production capability-they designed and flew the Ching-Kuo indigenuous fighter successfully; and they produce their own missiles, too. On the other hand; Chinese Air Force is equipped with mostly outdated equipment; which is only changing recently with the addition of Su-27s to the inventory. Still, the majority of Chinese Air Force is Shenyang F-7s (Mig-21 variant) and F-6s (Mig-19 variant). Where little is known about the capabilities of the sepcimens in Chinese service; export versions of these fighters have not proven to be good performers.
The Taiwanese definitely have the better technology in their armed forces. In their previous aerial clashes; ROCAF's kill rates were phenomenal. I would tend to say that the situation is much like Israel and the Arab nations: Israel has kicked, and will indefinitely continue to kick, the asses of any combination of Arab air forces imaginable. Similarly Taiwan has proven to have an advantage in the skies; it is unfortunately a different matter on sea and land.
--
BluetoothCentral.com
A site for everything Bluetooth. Coming soon.
The name of the book is "High St@kes, No Prisoners" by Charles H. Ferguson. I recommend everyone involved in a startup to go and read it. It is one of the best books I've read recently, and lots of the information and lessons there are relevant for anybody starting a company.
--
BluetoothCentral.com
A site for everything Bluetooth. Coming soon.
>Can you have more than 2 cards on a network w/o >an AP?
You can have up to 60 nodes. I have 4 on my home network and 11 at work; without an access point.
>And are the Aviator cards compatible with >AirPort?
Aviator 2.4 cards work at 2Mb/s; whereas the AirPort is 11Mb/s; but they're both IEEE 802.11 and yes, they should work together in theory. Some IEEE 802.11 cards use frequency hopping spread spectrum (FHSS) as opposed to direct sequence spread spectrum (DSSS); and I guess Aviator 2.4 is one of the former. I have used Aviator 2.4 cards with Lucent WaveLAN IEEE cards; and since AirPort uses the WaveLAN circuitry; I suppose they must work.
Beware: WebGear has an older line of products called the Aviator-they are not IEEE 802.11 compatible. The IEEE 802.11 product is called Aviator 2.4, referring to the frequency band. I've seen some people jump on the Aviator cards on Ebay or elsewhere on several occasions; only to find out they are old, lame proprietary technologies.
--
BluetoothCentral.com
A site for everything Bluetooth. Coming soon.
I have sold a similar problem (a bunch of Suns on a different floor) by buying an old 486 from a nearby college surplus store for something like $15; and I installed Linux along with an ISA Ethernet and the Aviator on it.
In my case, a 486 SX-25 with 8MB of RAM works flawlessly as an Ethernet-to-wireless bridge. I recommend you get a cheap, old 486 powerful enough to run Linux, do a minimal Linux installation, and either set up kernel bridging or use masquerading to connect your Win98 box to your VAXen or what you have at your home. I have mine on a small UPS; and it just runs away from sight in the depths of a cabinet. The whole thing should cost about $30 with the exception of the Aviator card.
--
BluetoothCentral.com
A site for everything Bluetooth. Coming soon.
Bluetooth bandwidth is about 741 Kb/s; not very close to high-end DSL; but very adequate. I agree Bluetooth is the future; and will be something that we can't live without; when it finally reaches the market. It will be big especially in Palm form-factor PDAs and cell phones.
2.4GHz is the ISM (industrial-scientific-medical) frequency band that doesn't require licencing by the FCC; and is allocated for similar use in most countries, except perhaps in France; where the military seems to be obsessed with using the most obscure frequencies possible.
--
BluetoothCentral.com
A site for everything Bluetooth. Coming soon.
Bluetooth products are about to show up pretty soon, and I agree it will be a hugely successful technology for things like you listed. Since the eventual target price for Bluetooth is $5/node; if they manage to meet that price target in two or three years, we might have $10 Bluetooth LAN cards that work for very short range (~50ft) at a rate acceptable for basic tasks (741 Kb/s).
Do you think Bluetooth might be successful in this role? It is definitely not something Bluetooth is designed for; but it will be so inexpensive that inevitably this will be an application.
--
BluetoothCentral.com
A site for everything Bluetooth. Coming soon.
Check out my post about the Aviator WebGear 2.4, which is IEEE 802.11 compatible (2Mb/s). At $139.99 for a 2-card kit (at CompUSA), it is a very good value. Works with Linux like a charm, problem-free (on both laptops on desktops with the included ISA PCMCIA adapters).
Once you go wireless, there really is no going back.
--
BluetoothCentral.com
A site for everything Bluetooth. Coming soon.
I've been using Aviator Webgear 2.4GHz IEEE 802.11 cards for a while. You can buy a 2-pack for only $139.99 at the nearest CompUSA; and the kit includes 2 ISA adapters as well as the two PCMCIA cards. They work great with Linux, too. I recommend Aviator 2.4 cards to everyone instead of proprietary stuff like Diamond HomeFree; which do not work with Linux at all(well not really, but the drivers work in a non-FCC approved way and can't talk to Windows drivers)
Now that we have affordable IEEE 802.11 cards that work with Linux, I guess the next step is to have IEEE 802.11 access point capability for Linux. I guess having an access point is the easiest way to bridge seamlessly between an Ethernet and wireless; I did not have the time to deal with finding an alternative solution; so my wireless LAN is just another segment with its own non-routable class C; and I use masquerading at the gateway. I've been checking out the Absolute Value site for a while, but they seem to be concentrating on cards with the Intersil chipset.
--
BluetoothCentral.com
A site for everything Bluetooth. Coming soon.
Let's assume that the government actually decrypted the contents of Mitnick's data. The announcement of this success would give out too much about the government's crypto capabilities, so it's definitely not in the best interest of US national security. In other words, the fact that this encryption can be broken by the government could well be a more valuable secret than the contents of Mitnick's hard drives.
I tend to believe that the government had not really bothered to break the encryption. But then, even if they could, they would most certainly keep it a secret.
--
BluetoothCentral.com
A site for everything Bluetooth. Coming soon.
Oops, I screwed up in the first posting. Here is a corrected one:
I agree such a test would be interesting. Just a quick correction, though: AltiVec is also SIMD, the Flynn classification which is used as a generic term in the literature.(Flynn's seminal paper is where the terms SIMD, MIMD etc. were coined first) AltiVec and SSE, MMX, 3DNow!, MIPSV, VIS etc. are SIMD implementations.
Also, Motorola has a bunch of very nice C libraries and modified compilers which take advantage of the new instructions, and I'm sure some other SIMD extensions have similar C libraries; so it's not exclusively accessible from assembly language. What's probably needed is some very smart compilers to choose when to use the SIMD extensions.
--
BluetoothCentral.com
A site for everything Bluetooth. Coming in January 2000.
I agree such a test would be interesting. Just a quick correction, though: AltiVec is also SIMD, the Flynn classification which is used as a generic term in the literature.( AltiVec and SSE, MMX, 3DNow!, MIPSV, VIS and whatnot are SIMD implementations
--
BluetoothCentral.com
A site for everything Bluetooth. Coming in January 2000.
It's good to see someone had modified the kernel to support the "Disk-on-a-chip", but where's the modified kernel source code then? Where are the patches? I believe a lot of us can have a use for it, there are nice boards on the market using these things, which emulate a hard disk completely, AFAIK.
--
BluetoothCentral.com
A site for everything Bluetooth. Coming in January 2000.
It's kinda tough to go to those kickass clubs, beaches and piers when you don't have the 35-40 hrs work weeks like the spoiled Euro-geeks do. That's probably why we prefer high speed Internet access here in the US.
--
BluetoothCentral.com
A site for everything Bluetooth. Coming in January 2000.
There are servlet engines for almost all popular Web servers on the market. Examples are:
--
BluetoothCentral.com
A site for everything Bluetooth. Coming in January 2000.
Plus, another thing - when a colleague was looking at Java for database and web stuff, what put him off was every other step was "pay pay pay". e.g. database connectivity, which you can get free for Perl, Python, PHP etc. He's now doing his stuff on Perl.
Anything that has to do with Java database connectivity comes free with the JDK, except the JDBC drivers, which are to be provided by the RDBMS vendor. My company has paid zilch for Java connectivity to our Oracle servers. Your friend was probably using MS SQL Server, but then, he deserves everything bad.
--
BluetoothCentral.com
A site for everything Bluetooth. Coming in January 2000.
Finally an article on the server-side successes of Java. IMHO, Java servlets are the best thing that has happened to Java since its inception, but for reasons completely unknown to me, Java-bashing has taken its place next to Microsoft bashing as an official Slashdot sport. Perhaps the reason is the early failure of Java when Sun touted it as the single platform that will replace everything. Anybody else remember the Java ring and the Java OS?
Dear fellow Java-basher Slashdotters: I know most of you have very little free time on your hands, but please set aside a couple of days to take a look at this exciting server side technology, Java servlets. It is truly write-once, run anywhere; it's a widely accepted industry standard, almost all popular databases and application servers support it, and Java is a very good OO language after all. Take a look at some nice servlet tutorials or better, O'Reilly's servlets book, download the awesome Tomcat or Apache JServ to run with your Apache Web server, get the latest JDK from Blackdown or even better, IBM's JDK, add Jikes for good measure, and explore the beautiful world of Java servlets. Sun's site completely relies on Java servlets, Yahoo uses servlets for some portions of the site, a host of smaller Web sites and e-commerce companies completely rely on servlets and/or JSP (which is based on servlet technology), (epinions.com, mercata.com come to my mind; there are lots of others)
Whatever server-side programming technology you're using, you will like servlets. Most likely you will want to forget about CGI.pm, sell your books about Netscape's proprietary server-side JavaScript on Ebay, erase memories of hours of fiddling with ISAPI/NSAPI extensions, shred your printouts of ASP error message explanations from the Microsoft knowledge base, and lament about the time you spent posting aimlessly on every bulletin board about those pesky, undocumented Oracle functions of PHP. You will easily have time for all these when you start to use servlets.
--
BluetoothCentral.com
A site for everything Bluetooth. Coming in January 2000.
Tu-144 was not a hastily assembled "Concordski" by any stretch of imagination, and reflected considerable Soviet experties on building experimental high-speed strategic bombers and huge fighter aircraft in the sixties, like the Sukhoi S-100 and Tupolev Tu-128. Accidents can happen in aviation at any time. Tu-144 went on to fly in Aeroflot service in the 1970s.
The fact that Tu-144 was a sound design has been recently verified by NASA's use of the Tu-144 as a testbed for 21st century US supersonic transport aircraft. The link is here. The Tu-144LL is flying today for NASA service, and $350 millions of taxpayer money is used for this project.
--
BluetoothCentral.com
A site for everything Bluetooth. Coming in January 2000.
Those clever German designs simply did not exist, though. The Germans themselves had lots of trouble trying to develop long range bombers with adequate protection, Heinkel He-177 and Focke-Wulf Fw-200 Condor were just two of their relatively unsuccessful events to come up with a German equivalent of the B-17, B-24 or Lancaster. Therefore it only makes sense that they chose to copy the American B-29, with its remote controlled gun turrets and pressurized cockpit, had many innovations for its time.
--
BluetoothCentral.com
A site for everything Bluetooth. Coming in January 2000.