Er, I wonder what is this "waste situation" you are talking about? Do you mean the feature of nuclear power which allows you to account for and properly dispose of ALL waste products? Because if you wanted nuclear to be as clean as coal power, we could just grind up all the waste and blow it into the atmosphere, problem solved.
The LCDs *are* brighter, but that doesn't make them better. The manufacturers cannot get the blacks to be any more black, so they make the whites more white to increase the contrast ratio. As you correctly point out, many LCDs need their brightness set well below max, because generally to avoid eye strain you wouldn't want your display to be more than three times brighter than ambient.
It's because XFree86 wants to "own" a virtual terminal, and Linux will send all the user input to one vt as well. You can start a number of X servers, for example one on vt7 and one on vt8, but only one of those terminals can have the keyboard input. And in a regular Linux box, if you hook up a bunch of keyboards, all that input is STILL going to get mixed and routed to whichever vt currently owns the keyboard input.
It seems in some ways that the/dev/input setup in more recent Linux was a step backwards, towards a single user per computer.
Anyway the backstreet ruby patch or something like it is needed to make the X server and the kernel able to distance themselves from the idea of a single vt getting all the user input.
I'd mod you up if that was possible;) Anyway I'll keep the conversation here on Slashdot.
I must admit that although I continue to receive ACM Queue issues, my opinion of Queue was largely formed by Volume 1, Issue 1. They say you never get a second chance at a first impression. Queue's first impression was pretty bad.
The authors are from the usual suspects: IBM, Microsoft, and Sun. I realize these are huge organizations with large staffs and bottomless research budgets, but these three organizations are massively over-represented in the mainstream publications. They also have a habit of shilling for their employers, which gets old after a few decades. If I wanted to read about why Microsoft thinks.NET web services are the next big thing, I could just as easily pick up InfoWorld or read C|Net.
Speaking of shilling, let's take a look at vol. 1, issue 1, article 1, sentence 1. Web services are emerging as the dominant application on the Internet. How did that one squeak by the editorial board? The assertion is demonstrably false, as e-mail, news, and entertainment combine to form almost all internet use, even in business. Voice-over-IP is picking up steam, and RSS has recently added to the functionality of web journalism, but web services remain in the primordial ooze. They certainly aren't the "dominant application" and probably will never be.
The subtle advertising continues. For example, MapPoint.Net provides maps and location services is an example and This document can be used by program development tools, such as Microsoft's Visual Studio.NET is another. Yeah, we know Visual Studio.NET is a development tool, thanks for working that in. That sort of thing tips the author's hand as a corporate promoter, even if he doesn't conciously realize it.
Another example I see in the Queue and in virtually all other mainstream publications is the tendency of corporate researchers to refer to existing, perfectly servicable software as "legacy systems." The subtle derision is meant to gently remind the user that anything he already owns should be thought of in the past tense, and anything the software industry is now offering should be considered superior. My Bridge market data feed from Reuters is a legacy system, but an XML/.Net/WSDL/HTTP service consisting of a subset of Bridge's functionality heralds the dawn of an era of happiness and light. And this sort of thing slides past the Queue's editorial board in every issue.
I'll try to keep an open mind when I next get Queue, but presently every time I see it my advertising-defense system goes to Defcon Zero. I hope you can be more stern with your contributors in the future, to help trim out their sponsored bias.
The ACM Queue is an interesting publication. Every month they turn it over to a vendor to promote their latest scheme. It's a brilliant advertising vehicle, where the magazine *is* the advertisement.
For example, an article in the May issue on the benefits of TCP offload engines written by iReady, makers of TCP offload engines. In the same issue, an article on why text mining is replacing information retrieval, from a company who would like to sell you text mining software. And that's just me flipping through the first issue I could find laying about my home.
I think everything between the covers of the ACM Queue should be ignored.
Obviously, you are a moron. But, I'll respond anyway. If the system already does everything I want it to do in precisely the manner I prefer to do it, why should I be expected to "improve" upon it?
Linux and operating systems like Linux make the trivial and the impossible equally possible. For example, good luck using a Mac to record a digital HDTV broadcast to Xvid with a mu-law soundtrack and subtitles in Farsi, storing it to a network file server attached via IP-over-1394. On Linux this will be a huge pain in the ass, just like everything else, but at least you can do it.
For the people who think a Linux box makes a shitty PVR, I respond that a Tivo makes a terrible DVD player and a really bad Unreal Tournament server.
Could be a lot of IE5/Mac users switching to something decent like Camino or Safari.
Re:No boom, you will just scorch the paint
on
Port-A-Nuke
·
· Score: 1
Er, yeah they are portable. The item in question in the nuclear "cask", used for road or rail transport of nuclear waste or spent fuel. These are the containers which can survive direct strikes by speeding freight trains and other tortures. They are, by their very purpose, portable.
Well, I'm not seriously saying it would be cut by a factor of 50,000, but even if it was cut by a factor of 100 or 10 or even 2 that would be a huge improvement. It's already impossibly expensive to produce nuclear fuel, so you can afford to be meticulous about mining the uranium ore without customers really noticing.
The same applies to nuclear waste. The sheer amount of nuclear waste is so tiny, and the amount of "spent" fuel that can be reused as fuel is so huge, that you can afford meticulous disposal of the actual waste. Compare to coal, where the 4 billion ton input winds up as 4 billion tons of soot, ash, and CO2 in your lungs.
You can reprocess nuclear fuel to recover a large fraction of it, by mass. You can't reprocess burnt coal.
Re:Nuclear energy works!
on
China Goes Nuclear
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Talk about disingenuous. Coal power needs a contiuous feed of billions of tons of coal. Nuclear power needs tiny batches of fuel periodically.
In 2000 64,000 tons of Uranium were consumed, while 3,600,000,000 tons of coal were produced. Even if Uranium and coal posed the same danger to miners, there'd be about one-fifty-thousandth the deaths.
Sure, but code reviews (especially of the latest patches, instead of whole tracts of fresh code) can easily catch errors for which no test exists, or for which no simple test is possible.
Just as an example off the top of my head, it's common to write
if (condition = immediate)...
which in some languages could be caught by the compiler, but not always. The author of that line can read it over and over but something in his brain will replace the mistaken '=' with '=='. The code reviewer has no such preconceptions and will (might) see it immediately.
One good example of open review is the Mozilla project, where all commits must be reviewed by at least two people, at least one of whom must be the owner of the relevant subtree of the project. (sorry if this is not quite right, i'm going from memory here). As a result the quality of the code making it into the Mozilla tree is pretty high, with minimum "paper bag" errors.
This isn't going to happen, or if it does, this won't be the reason. Anyone with an ISDN PRI can spoof Caller ID, and it has always been that way. This service simply gives that ability to people who don't care for ISDN.
Hahaha gimme a break. The Property and Environment Research Center of that great metropolis, Bozeman, Montana?
The production of steel from recycled stock requires only 24% of the energy required to produce it from iron ore. Aluminum recycling takes only 5% of the energy required to produce aluminum from bauxite. Plastic should be recycled because, when dumped, it leaches chemicals into the environment.
The fact that a bunch of backwoods libertarians think recycling is a loss is because classic property-rights libertarians are, for whatever reason, totally incapable of valuing externalities such as pollution and future production.
Check out the two collissions for SHA-0. They look different but if you actually calculate the Hamming distance of the two messages it's only 74 bits. That's bad! It means that instead of finding out that "First post!" collides with "kajhdfkjh" they found that "First post!" collides with "F1rst ps0t" which is an important result.
I don't really know, AMD management tends to discuss server share. Here's a c|net article claiming 15.8% in the fourth quarter of 2003. Just from the Google results It seems to wander between 10% and 20%. Still, I think AMD would be really pleased with 20% of new shipments.
Nice work, genius. The linked CPU is a 3.2GHz, 32-bit Xeon with a 533MHz FSB and 512KB L2 cache. The reviewed CPU is a 3.6GHz, 64-bit CPU with an 800MHz FSB and 1024KB L2 cache.
I ran the newegg benchmark. The result: you can buy an Athlon64, but you can't buy a Xeon EMT 3.6GHz. AMD is teh win!
Seriously, Anandtech should just never compare widely available hardware with totally unavailable hardware. And what's with using a 512KB cache, second-rank Athlon64 to compare with Intel's flagship worstation processor? How 'bout the 1MB-equipped Athlon64 FX, or more appropriately an Opteron 150 (in stock at online retailers for $600-$650).
The same goes for all the other related comments below: when you buy a powerbook, you don't have to insist on Linux compatibility, because all the hardware works with the Unix that's installed out of the box, MacOS X. I realize some people insist on having Linux or another free kernel running their laptop, but MacOS X really is perfectly servicable.
Having recently bought (another) 12" PowerBook, and having shopped around quite a bit, I'm compelled to disagree. Every buyer has different requirements, but I just could NOT find any other laptop with the features I wanted. Namely, a 12" unit with a DVD burner, 802.11g, powered firewire ports, ethernet, modem, and DVI. You'd think that's pretty basic, but for whatever reason only Apple makes that laptop. IBM, for some horrible reason, doesn't think you need a a good graphics adapter: their 12" X40 uses Intel Extreme Graphics 2. Dell's 12" Latitude also uses this horrible Intel graphics hack. Wretch! The PowerBook has proper GeForce FX 5200 graphics, and a DVI port. Did I mention the DVI port yet?
IBM also won't give you a DVD burner, and you don't get an optical drive of any kind unless you are lugging around the Ultra(Heavy)Base docking station. Dell's 12" has only external optical drives, unpowered FireWire ports, and again no DVI port.
Also good luck getting Linux to run right with the Intel Pro(tected source code) Wireless LAN and the Intel Extreme(ly proprietary) Graphics adapter.
So I have to say, after shopping the competition, the Apple laptops are unique.
Slashdot Mirror
Er, I wonder what is this "waste situation" you are talking about? Do you mean the feature of nuclear power which allows you to account for and properly dispose of ALL waste products? Because if you wanted nuclear to be as clean as coal power, we could just grind up all the waste and blow it into the atmosphere, problem solved.
The LCDs *are* brighter, but that doesn't make them better. The manufacturers cannot get the blacks to be any more black, so they make the whites more white to increase the contrast ratio. As you correctly point out, many LCDs need their brightness set well below max, because generally to avoid eye strain you wouldn't want your display to be more than three times brighter than ambient.
It seems in some ways that the /dev/input setup in more recent Linux was a step backwards, towards a single user per computer.
Anyway the backstreet ruby patch or something like it is needed to make the X server and the kernel able to distance themselves from the idea of a single vt getting all the user input.
I'd mod you up if that was possible ;) Anyway I'll keep the conversation here on Slashdot.
I must admit that although I continue to receive ACM Queue issues, my opinion of Queue was largely formed by Volume 1, Issue 1. They say you never get a second chance at a first impression. Queue's first impression was pretty bad.
The authors are from the usual suspects: IBM, Microsoft, and Sun. I realize these are huge organizations with large staffs and bottomless research budgets, but these three organizations are massively over-represented in the mainstream publications. They also have a habit of shilling for their employers, which gets old after a few decades. If I wanted to read about why Microsoft thinks .NET web services are the next big thing, I could just as easily pick up InfoWorld or read C|Net.
Speaking of shilling, let's take a look at vol. 1, issue 1, article 1, sentence 1. Web services are emerging as the dominant application on the Internet. How did that one squeak by the editorial board? The assertion is demonstrably false, as e-mail, news, and entertainment combine to form almost all internet use, even in business. Voice-over-IP is picking up steam, and RSS has recently added to the functionality of web journalism, but web services remain in the primordial ooze. They certainly aren't the "dominant application" and probably will never be.
The subtle advertising continues. For example, MapPoint.Net provides maps and location services is an example and This document can be used by program development tools, such as Microsoft's Visual Studio .NET is another. Yeah, we know Visual Studio .NET is a development tool, thanks for working that in. That sort of thing tips the author's hand as a corporate promoter, even if he doesn't conciously realize it.
Another example I see in the Queue and in virtually all other mainstream publications is the tendency of corporate researchers to refer to existing, perfectly servicable software as "legacy systems." The subtle derision is meant to gently remind the user that anything he already owns should be thought of in the past tense, and anything the software industry is now offering should be considered superior. My Bridge market data feed from Reuters is a legacy system, but an XML/.Net/WSDL/HTTP service consisting of a subset of Bridge's functionality heralds the dawn of an era of happiness and light. And this sort of thing slides past the Queue's editorial board in every issue.
I'll try to keep an open mind when I next get Queue, but presently every time I see it my advertising-defense system goes to Defcon Zero. I hope you can be more stern with your contributors in the future, to help trim out their sponsored bias.
The ACM Queue is an interesting publication. Every month they turn it over to a vendor to promote their latest scheme. It's a brilliant advertising vehicle, where the magazine *is* the advertisement. For example, an article in the May issue on the benefits of TCP offload engines written by iReady, makers of TCP offload engines. In the same issue, an article on why text mining is replacing information retrieval, from a company who would like to sell you text mining software. And that's just me flipping through the first issue I could find laying about my home. I think everything between the covers of the ACM Queue should be ignored.
Obviously, you are a moron. But, I'll respond anyway. If the system already does everything I want it to do in precisely the manner I prefer to do it, why should I be expected to "improve" upon it?
Linux and operating systems like Linux make the trivial and the impossible equally possible. For example, good luck using a Mac to record a digital HDTV broadcast to Xvid with a mu-law soundtrack and subtitles in Farsi, storing it to a network file server attached via IP-over-1394. On Linux this will be a huge pain in the ass, just like everything else, but at least you can do it. For the people who think a Linux box makes a shitty PVR, I respond that a Tivo makes a terrible DVD player and a really bad Unreal Tournament server.
Could be a lot of IE5/Mac users switching to something decent like Camino or Safari.
Er, yeah they are portable. The item in question in the nuclear "cask", used for road or rail transport of nuclear waste or spent fuel. These are the containers which can survive direct strikes by speeding freight trains and other tortures. They are, by their very purpose, portable.
The same applies to nuclear waste. The sheer amount of nuclear waste is so tiny, and the amount of "spent" fuel that can be reused as fuel is so huge, that you can afford meticulous disposal of the actual waste. Compare to coal, where the 4 billion ton input winds up as 4 billion tons of soot, ash, and CO2 in your lungs.
You can reprocess nuclear fuel to recover a large fraction of it, by mass. You can't reprocess burnt coal.
In 2000 64,000 tons of Uranium were consumed, while 3,600,000,000 tons of coal were produced. Even if Uranium and coal posed the same danger to miners, there'd be about one-fifty-thousandth the deaths.
Just as an example off the top of my head, it's common to write
which in some languages could be caught by the compiler, but not always. The author of that line can read it over and over but something in his brain will replace the mistaken '=' with '=='. The code reviewer has no such preconceptions and will (might) see it immediately.One good example of open review is the Mozilla project, where all commits must be reviewed by at least two people, at least one of whom must be the owner of the relevant subtree of the project. (sorry if this is not quite right, i'm going from memory here). As a result the quality of the code making it into the Mozilla tree is pretty high, with minimum "paper bag" errors.
This isn't going to happen, or if it does, this won't be the reason. Anyone with an ISDN PRI can spoof Caller ID, and it has always been that way. This service simply gives that ability to people who don't care for ISDN.
In related news, illiterate slashdot editors post incomprehensible nonsense run-on sentence as story.
Or how about an IMAP provider which also offers webmail?
The production of steel from recycled stock requires only 24% of the energy required to produce it from iron ore. Aluminum recycling takes only 5% of the energy required to produce aluminum from bauxite. Plastic should be recycled because, when dumped, it leaches chemicals into the environment.
The fact that a bunch of backwoods libertarians think recycling is a loss is because classic property-rights libertarians are, for whatever reason, totally incapable of valuing externalities such as pollution and future production.
If the payload is ASCII text and only the low 7 bits are ever interpreted, you could flip the 8th bit all you want and nobody will ever notice.
Check out the two collissions for SHA-0. They look different but if you actually calculate the Hamming distance of the two messages it's only 74 bits. That's bad! It means that instead of finding out that "First post!" collides with "kajhdfkjh" they found that "First post!" collides with "F1rst ps0t" which is an important result.
I don't really know, AMD management tends to discuss server share. Here's a c|net article claiming 15.8% in the fourth quarter of 2003. Just from the Google results It seems to wander between 10% and 20%. Still, I think AMD would be really pleased with 20% of new shipments.
Nice work, genius. The linked CPU is a 3.2GHz, 32-bit Xeon with a 533MHz FSB and 512KB L2 cache. The reviewed CPU is a 3.6GHz, 64-bit CPU with an 800MHz FSB and 1024KB L2 cache.
If AMD had a 20% market share, their investors would break out the champaign. AMD's target for server market share is 10% by the end of 2004.
Seriously, Anandtech should just never compare widely available hardware with totally unavailable hardware. And what's with using a 512KB cache, second-rank Athlon64 to compare with Intel's flagship worstation processor? How 'bout the 1MB-equipped Athlon64 FX, or more appropriately an Opteron 150 (in stock at online retailers for $600-$650).
The same goes for all the other related comments below: when you buy a powerbook, you don't have to insist on Linux compatibility, because all the hardware works with the Unix that's installed out of the box, MacOS X. I realize some people insist on having Linux or another free kernel running their laptop, but MacOS X really is perfectly servicable.
IBM also won't give you a DVD burner, and you don't get an optical drive of any kind unless you are lugging around the Ultra(Heavy)Base docking station. Dell's 12" has only external optical drives, unpowered FireWire ports, and again no DVI port.
Also good luck getting Linux to run right with the Intel Pro(tected source code) Wireless LAN and the Intel Extreme(ly proprietary) Graphics adapter.
So I have to say, after shopping the competition, the Apple laptops are unique.