This computer is more near R$1.400 (US$540) than US$1.400. And I am taking into accout pieces bought on legitimate stores (that pays the importation tax) at Nort East region, that spends a big deal on transportation.
According to the above mentioned source 25% of Brazil's population are below the poverty line. In reality, it's much more (they are notorious for not keeping track of economical data or even just plain making stuff up).
No, if this is wrong, it is less than 25%. Brazil don't make data up to look good, it make data up because of politics. And there is a very trustable data repository, that is the IBGE. It keeps data updated and accurated most times.
brazil is somewhat on the same level of economy as russia. a big country, and no money whatsoever (at least on the hands of microsoft's target group).
Brazil is very diffeent from Russia. Brazil have a very big income concentration, so, poor people of Brazil are poorer than Russians (this also means that rich people of Brazil are richer than Russians). So, don't expect the people that M$ targets to even have the cash to buy the crapped OS.
Brazilian people also don't see software as a product. So, the Starter Editions would be fastly changed into full editions (some times even on the store), but that is what M$ wants.
Upgrading Debian is much less scary than most systems. Things doesn't break often and when it is broken (doesn't happend on stable), it breaks a few packages.
But it is not the main point. The point is that FOSS world moves faster than closed software's. The problem with the old debian release is more that the old software that is there is almost useless nowadays than that new software have new dependencies.
In fact, the reason because several people still use Win98 is because Windows doesn't come with all the software you are expected to use, but just the OS. People use Win98 with very recent text editors, browsers, etc.
If person A spends $6000 to buy a 600GHz PC with the same WiFi connection and HD storage as person B who spends $500 to buy a 200GHz PC with the same WiFi connection and HD storage, who won?
If both will simulate a reaction to generate a medicin that the first to patent will gain millions, A win.
But it doesn't really matters, because you'll se no computers based on this transistor. Bipolar transistors suck for logic circuits. You'll, otherwise, se several good applications that require fast bipolar transistors apperaing as soon as this is commercial (I don't know them ahead, of corse) and will probably not even listen about them.
Power consuption of circuits with bipolar transistors is huge. You can not plan to make a processor with this. But fast bipolar transistors have several applications, that require a small amount of them, and, so, consume little power.
Even worse, over 100 watts of the power is lost to heat!
Almost all power used by a computer is lost to heat. Processors, memories and the other ICs that go on a comuter outputs very little current. So, you can just say that those processors consume over 100 watts. That they go to heat is implyed.
and at the very least, we *think* they're clean.:)
They aren't. They may not interact with your experiments, since sensible experiments are isolated, but the keyboards are still dusty. I unassembly my keyboard sometimes to wash it, and find dust at several places that would never be reached by such procedure.
We are also aware of certain natural disasters that might be able to wipe out ALL LIFE on this planet pretty much within a day. I won't bother naming any because most educated people should be able to come up with at least 3 good ones, including as least one inevitability.
Please, name them. It would help if you can name events like that that may happen on the next milions of years. I can think about a lot of events that can destroy all the life of a planet, but none that can happen on Earth by the next 1 or 2 bilions of years.
Now everyone's mad because the author of the software is not happy about his product essentially being copied (which is what reverse engineering is).
Reverse engineering is not copying. And, that is funny that if the software was free, all that would never happen.
Just like the GPL sets conditions for anyone using software under that license.
GPL doesn't set conditions for anyone using the software, just for redistribution. And those conditions are "You can not close the software". That is very different from closed licenses and if you take the time to read the license, you'll see that FSF will very pleased to not have to even write GPL.
If I code something, it's mine. I can say how it is distributed and the terms of its use. That is my right. If I want to make it free that is also my right.
You have that right, and if nobody is hurt by that decision, almost no one will bash you. You also must not blame when the people who takes to shortest path (share knowledge) leave you behind.
I agree that blind devotion sometimes hurt FOSS image, as I agree that linus was right to use BK. But those people who belive that all software must be free have a very good point, and are more right than wrong. And, as you said, you have the right to use any software you want, but people also have the right to bash what they thing is a stupid idea.
Yes, Microsoft support sucks. But almost all companies already contracted it, so, it is not adicional cust.
But Linux support costs extra money. And it doesn't go away because you can find good howtos on the net, you still need someone to find the howtos and implement the steps. Free software support is almost always better than Microsoft's, but some companies just can't afford both (I think that if they can't afford the switch, they are probably doomed, but their CIO doesn't need to agree with me).
Not to go crazy on this one, but what is the big deal is requiring your calendar and address book be tied to your email client. I guess somewhere along the line everyone got mixed up and decided this is the way life should be.
It started because there was no good free calendar software. But now it is exactly that, people think that they need to be together (as they think they can only use one kind of messager) and it is very hard to them to change their mind.
Bloody hell. The competent of us do have firewalls, antivirus software, Firefox, and antispyware software.
And it is amazyng how many people don't answer that. There are competent Windows users, but most of who post "My system has not been compromissed by..." aren't those ones. Not that on the linux world it is better, but most of the people who say that aren't really looking for the virii, spywares,...
It is incredible that they would even talk about something like this.
They don't talk about that. If you do your homework, you'll see that this proposal is against FSF philosophy. But they can't stop everyone from making dumb comments, or they woldn't be freedom supporters.
GPL 2 already state that a linked library is considered part of the program if the program needs that library specifically to work. It wouldn't be chocking if this concept is extended to web services. So services that need a GPLed program to work, and can have no substitute, may be GPLed.
But the article is hightly speculative and contrary to the FSF philosophy. The guy is not triyng to prevent GPL circuvention by using sockets. He is trying to prevent fair use, by companies, of his work. In short, he want the GPL to became compatible with his own license that he probably uses to sell his software to companies.
Personally, I'd like to see Microsoft be brave, risk alienating their customers, and do things the right way. The question is, has the bad press about security made Microsoft feel threatened enough to take that risk.
I think the real question is: Can Microsof lose a few users while making a more secure system and still have it's monopolie?
While this isn't criminal, it's morally repugnant.
I don't know on what country do you leve, and probably don't know its laws also. But something like that is generaly criminal, it generaly make people go to jail.
You probably never tested that, but neural networks are incredibly hard to teach and design. One generally need a lot of trials before adjusting every factor well enogh. This prevents the networks from been much complex.
Also, you can emulate every not recursive network by a two layer one. Since two layer networks are easier to train, you will not see many with three or more layers. Recusive networks can be much more powerfull than not recusive ones, but they are even harder to teach.
MIT made a while ago the same calculations you did (I don't remember the URL), and reached a similar result: our computers are yet very slow when compared to our brain. Both assumptions (yours and MIT's) err toward a slow brain when cont neurons as a binary system (we don't know if it is even digital), so we need a lot of progress if we want to simulate our brains.
The good side is that neural networks are easer to implement than our current computers, so, we will maybe see some advances into neural network chips on the future that will be more powerfull than the simulated ones.
And what happened with all that information the survey gathered? They shortened the results into a single line at the article! Also, where did that 88% of users said that windows is better or equal than linux, since there is no shuch question on the survey?
Liberal is a person who seeks freedom. This include smaller taxes and government, more property rights. Extreme liberals are anarchists. The "liberal" word was created (on a political context) by the iluminists, that wanted to get ride of the absolutist powers by the time of the French Revolution.
Conservative is a person that doesn't want changes. That you got right. As you see, liberal and conservatives aren't even oposite words.
You got it right when you said that it is a left x right issue. But left and right aren't also exactly what you think they are. Leftism (and also rightism) aren't deterministic as you said. The fact that today the left is concentrated on socialist ideals don't make that the definition of left, that changes drasticaly over time.
Slashdot Mirror
This computer is more near R$1.400 (US$540) than US$1.400. And I am taking into accout pieces bought on legitimate stores (that pays the importation tax) at Nort East region, that spends a big deal on transportation.
According to the above mentioned source 25% of Brazil's population are below the poverty line. In reality, it's much more (they are notorious for not keeping track of economical data or even just plain making stuff up).
No, if this is wrong, it is less than 25%. Brazil don't make data up to look good, it make data up because of politics. And there is a very trustable data repository, that is the IBGE. It keeps data updated and accurated most times.
brazil is somewhat on the same level of economy as russia. a big country, and no money whatsoever (at least on the hands of microsoft's target group).
Brazil is very diffeent from Russia. Brazil have a very big income concentration, so, poor people of Brazil are poorer than Russians (this also means that rich people of Brazil are richer than Russians). So, don't expect the people that M$ targets to even have the cash to buy the crapped OS.
Brazilian people also don't see software as a product. So, the Starter Editions would be fastly changed into full editions (some times even on the store), but that is what M$ wants.
Upgrading Debian is much less scary than most systems. Things doesn't break often and when it is broken (doesn't happend on stable), it breaks a few packages.
But it is not the main point. The point is that FOSS world moves faster than closed software's. The problem with the old debian release is more that the old software that is there is almost useless nowadays than that new software have new dependencies.
In fact, the reason because several people still use Win98 is because Windows doesn't come with all the software you are expected to use, but just the OS. People use Win98 with very recent text editors, browsers, etc.
That name is quite descriptive, for the right public. People at academia use to describe on the names everything that is different from the usual.
That make some very bad titles, but is very usefull to gather articles fast and to generate unique names.
If person A spends $6000 to buy a 600GHz PC with the same WiFi connection and HD storage as person B who spends $500 to buy a 200GHz PC with the same WiFi connection and HD storage, who won?
If both will simulate a reaction to generate a medicin that the first to patent will gain millions, A win.
But it doesn't really matters, because you'll se no computers based on this transistor. Bipolar transistors suck for logic circuits. You'll, otherwise, se several good applications that require fast bipolar transistors apperaing as soon as this is commercial (I don't know them ahead, of corse) and will probably not even listen about them.
Power consuption of circuits with bipolar transistors is huge. You can not plan to make a processor with this. But fast bipolar transistors have several applications, that require a small amount of them, and, so, consume little power.
Even worse, over 100 watts of the power is lost to heat!
Almost all power used by a computer is lost to heat. Processors, memories and the other ICs that go on a comuter outputs very little current. So, you can just say that those processors consume over 100 watts. That they go to heat is implyed.
and at the very least, we *think* they're clean. :)
They aren't. They may not interact with your experiments, since sensible experiments are isolated, but the keyboards are still dusty. I unassembly my keyboard sometimes to wash it, and find dust at several places that would never be reached by such procedure.
We are also aware of certain natural disasters that might be able to wipe out ALL LIFE on this planet pretty much within a day. I won't bother naming any because most educated people should be able to come up with at least 3 good ones, including as least one inevitability.
Please, name them. It would help if you can name events like that that may happen on the next milions of years. I can think about a lot of events that can destroy all the life of a planet, but none that can happen on Earth by the next 1 or 2 bilions of years.
Now everyone's mad because the author of the software is not happy about his product essentially being copied (which is what reverse engineering is).
Reverse engineering is not copying. And, that is funny that if the software was free, all that would never happen.
Just like the GPL sets conditions for anyone using software under that license.
GPL doesn't set conditions for anyone using the software, just for redistribution. And those conditions are "You can not close the software". That is very different from closed licenses and if you take the time to read the license, you'll see that FSF will very pleased to not have to even write GPL.
If I code something, it's mine. I can say how it is distributed and the terms of its use. That is my right. If I want to make it free that is also my right.
You have that right, and if nobody is hurt by that decision, almost no one will bash you. You also must not blame when the people who takes to shortest path (share knowledge) leave you behind.
I agree that blind devotion sometimes hurt FOSS image, as I agree that linus was right to use BK. But those people who belive that all software must be free have a very good point, and are more right than wrong. And, as you said, you have the right to use any software you want, but people also have the right to bash what they thing is a stupid idea.
Yes, Microsoft support sucks. But almost all companies already contracted it, so, it is not adicional cust.
But Linux support costs extra money. And it doesn't go away because you can find good howtos on the net, you still need someone to find the howtos and implement the steps. Free software support is almost always better than Microsoft's, but some companies just can't afford both (I think that if they can't afford the switch, they are probably doomed, but their CIO doesn't need to agree with me).
Not to go crazy on this one, but what is the big deal is requiring your calendar and address book be tied to your email client. I guess somewhere along the line everyone got mixed up and decided this is the way life should be.
It started because there was no good free calendar software. But now it is exactly that, people think that they need to be together (as they think they can only use one kind of messager) and it is very hard to them to change their mind.
In fact, many /. modderators seem to think "What an intresting post, I never though like that!" and mod them up. Even if it doesn't deserve that.
Bloody hell. The competent of us do have firewalls, antivirus software, Firefox, and antispyware software.
And it is amazyng how many people don't answer that. There are competent Windows users, but most of who post "My system has not been compromissed by ..." aren't those ones. Not that on the linux world it is better, but most of the people who say that aren't really looking for the virii, spywares, ...
It is incredible that they would even talk about something like this.
They don't talk about that. If you do your homework, you'll see that this proposal is against FSF philosophy. But they can't stop everyone from making dumb comments, or they woldn't be freedom supporters.
GPL 2 already state that a linked library is considered part of the program if the program needs that library specifically to work. It wouldn't be chocking if this concept is extended to web services. So services that need a GPLed program to work, and can have no substitute, may be GPLed.
But the article is hightly speculative and contrary to the FSF philosophy. The guy is not triyng to prevent GPL circuvention by using sockets. He is trying to prevent fair use, by companies, of his work. In short, he want the GPL to became compatible with his own license that he probably uses to sell his software to companies.
Or he want to make FUD.
Personally, I'd like to see Microsoft be brave, risk alienating their customers, and do things the right way. The question is, has the bad press about security made Microsoft feel threatened enough to take that risk.
I think the real question is: Can Microsof lose a few users while making a more secure system and still have it's monopolie?
They didn't loose the right to use, but to distribute. I guess you men that, but your statement is confusing.
While this isn't criminal, it's morally repugnant.
I don't know on what country do you leve, and probably don't know its laws also. But something like that is generaly criminal, it generaly make people go to jail.
The relatively simple problem of speech recognition takes a major percentage of a modern CPU's power, and is still 95-98% accurate.
I am not shure that my brain's algoritm is more accurate than that.
You probably never tested that, but neural networks are incredibly hard to teach and design. One generally need a lot of trials before adjusting every factor well enogh. This prevents the networks from been much complex.
Also, you can emulate every not recursive network by a two layer one. Since two layer networks are easier to train, you will not see many with three or more layers. Recusive networks can be much more powerfull than not recusive ones, but they are even harder to teach.
MIT made a while ago the same calculations you did (I don't remember the URL), and reached a similar result: our computers are yet very slow when compared to our brain. Both assumptions (yours and MIT's) err toward a slow brain when cont neurons as a binary system (we don't know if it is even digital), so we need a lot of progress if we want to simulate our brains.
The good side is that neural networks are easer to implement than our current computers, so, we will maybe see some advances into neural network chips on the future that will be more powerfull than the simulated ones.
You will see the difference when your Linux computers don't start to deteriorate and consume all your techinicians time.
And what happened with all that information the survey gathered? They shortened the results into a single line at the article! Also, where did that 88% of users said that windows is better or equal than linux, since there is no shuch question on the survey?
I don't if negative proof exists, but positive proof is a proof of the fact you propose, not of its consequences.
So, proof negative is different than contra-proof. And positive contra-proof is more restritive (and stronger) kind of contra-proof.
They donesn't have the sense you intend also.
Liberal is a person who seeks freedom. This include smaller taxes and government, more property rights. Extreme liberals are anarchists. The "liberal" word was created (on a political context) by the iluminists, that wanted to get ride of the absolutist powers by the time of the French Revolution.
Conservative is a person that doesn't want changes. That you got right. As you see, liberal and conservatives aren't even oposite words.
You got it right when you said that it is a left x right issue. But left and right aren't also exactly what you think they are. Leftism (and also rightism) aren't deterministic as you said. The fact that today the left is concentrated on socialist ideals don't make that the definition of left, that changes drasticaly over time.