Well, they "support" it. Heaven knows how bugs get prioritized at MS, but suffice to say they haven't fixed all the bugs that I've encountered in the last 11 years:)
The problems predated WebOS, which was really just a last-ditch hail-Mary. The problem is that the original Palm system held everything in RAM... there was no separate storage. Applications were always in memory, and all of their data sat there, too. This gave them a tremendous advantage compared to Windows CE, which was a more traditional architecture that depended on extremely expensive (in 1996) flash RAM and needed more components.
Later versions of the devices added things like external storage, but the OS was not easily extended to this more traditional use... it was always kludgy to use storage on a Palm. Sony did a better job than Palm, but it was still a hack. When they finally got around to solving the OS problems with an emulation layer on ARM, it was 2002 and the world had left them behind. If they hadn't picked up Handspring to get the Treo, I doubt they would have lasted much longer.
The user interface also struggled to keep up with the new functions as the device became more powerful... it looked like an organizer first-and-foremost right up until the end when they punted it for WebOS.
Don't get me wrong - I was a Palm fan and my wife was using her Tungsten until this year when her work got her an iPhone... but their devices got progressively kludgier and harder to use with time. The quaint, simple user interface that meshed so well with the original 1996 hardware was a huge turn-off in 2004 when we bought the Tungsten. Nothing is more tedious than uninstalling ePocrates on a Palm, I can assure you...:)
I think Palm's death was very similar to Amiga's death.
Both had... interesting... marketing, but that's not what I'm talking about.
Both Palm and Amiga used some very clever hardware and software tricks to do something that no one else could do at the time. Unfortunately, their solution was very hardware-dependent and could not be moved to the more advanced technology that their competitors started to use without completely killing backward compatibility or running a resource-chomping compatibility layer (chomping both hardware resources and engineering resources) that their competitors did not have to deal with. By the time each learned to just cut the cord, or by the time the state-of-the-art progressed to the point where simple emulation worked well, it was too late - the moment where they had a special capability passed.
Huh? Hubble is 11,110kg, 4.2m wide, and 13.2m long. Atlas V can do 29,400kg and has done 18,814kg. It regularly launches with a 5.4m fairing. For reference, the space shuttle could do 24,400kg to LEO.
I don't know exactly how MS's certs work, but doesn't this mean that they can tell exactly which cert did the signing of the malware? That might be an interesting piece of information, even if it just leads to a dead end.
Yeah, sorry I wasn't more clear. pkg_add still fits into the ports framework, though - so really you can use the two simultaneously and things generally work... most of the time. I've taken to just using ports unless I'm in a huge hurry. You can technically use apt-get to bulid from source as well (-b flag).
I use Solaris at work, but as a workstation and not as an admin so while I have a "feel" for it, I can't directly compare them. I would say they are very similar but do have semantic differences... de-facto file locations, behavior of temp directories, etc. I feel that they are more similar than Linux is to either FreeBSD or Solaris.
I looked into both (at the time) OpenSolaris and FreeBSD and decided that FreeBSD's better hardware support was worth the tradeoff in lagging ZFS versions. And not that I anticipated it, but it turns out that the FreeBSD Linux emulation environment was also useful (for running a CrashPlan server).
I don't know about "heavy"... I have it running on a 6-year-old HP xw4400. Sure it's a nice old machine with a 64-bit processor (required for stability) and ECC RAM (required to get the real data integrity benefits of ZFS), but you can get a HP Microserver new for under $400 that has both of those things.
I have to second this... Debian was always my preference but I tried FreeBSD to get ZFS. For dependencies, ports does some things... differently than APT, but they are similar enough that it won't completely shock your system.
And just like Debian, it is easy to start with an extremely minimal system and only add what you need, so stability and boot speeds are excellent.
I think that Debian is still faster at certain things, though that is subjective.
What makes you think these people can afford to pay for insurance, let alone the higher rates that obesity would require?
For Medicaid folks, you could make their coverage contingent on enrollment in nutrition programs or some other anti-obesity initiative.
Unless you suggest that the government institute a mandatory adult reeducation program or drastically increase taxes, the problem still persists.
I think it is perfectly reasonable to require people on the dole to attend a training program as a requirement to get the free stuff.
An adult should be capable of determining whether or not that 800-calorie daiquiri should be a part of their diet and the alcohol in it prevents this decision from being made by adolescents.
Fair enough. So why isn't Bloomberg just requiring an ID to buy the giant drink?
the choices are do nothing and suffer the economic costs (both privately through reduced worker productivity and publicly with increased financial burden on the health systems), provide extrinsic motivation through increased taxation or some other penalty, or put supply-side restrictions on unhealthy foods in a similar manner that has succeeded in curbing pseudoephedrine kitchen meth labs.
I agree that something needs to be done about obesity - I just don't think that the Bloomberg approach will work. The nice thing about having it done in just one city is that this will give economists/epidemiologists/statisticians/sociologists a field day and we'll see how it works out. My personal preference would be to let the private sector make being fat expensive, which the new health care law specifically prohibits. Combine this with educating people who are on the dole (and continuing other public education efforts), and making nutritious food more available to those same people. Hell, consider limiting the types of groceries that food stamps will pay for (that is what Florida is doing). I think there are a lot of things we can try before we resort to treating sugar like a controlled substance.
You know, many religious people are quite sane and do not believe that religious beliefs should be imposed on others or involved politics.
Indeed. Religion would appear to be a part of a normal human psyche... and I say that as someone who has yet to be persuaded that there is a need to invoke a supernatural deity to explain the natural world.
Isn't that closer to agnostic? I know there are different degrees of atheist, but usually I hear the term associated with people who firmly believe that there is no God - whereas agnostics don't dismiss the possibility of a God but fail to see any evidence.
Science is by definition made up of falsifiable statements. You can use scientific methodology in the other fields, but unless you have something that is falsifiable, you don't have science. Religion usually doesn't deal with the natural world - or rather, when it tries to in the scientific era it usually doesn't usually last long... like the skeptic that found the toilet water leaking from the "weeping" statue in India.
I wouldn't put a blanket statement that all religious people don't understand science though
My mother-in-law is a very religious Pentecostal, and also a molecular biologist. The mind has an amazing way of connecting dots in a way that isn't rational. Add a dissonant fact and the brain will just route around it.
Wow. Did you miss the 2008 elections? Remember when the Democrats controlled both houses of congress and the white house? We've been see-sawing between Democrats and Republicans since the 1940s. One data point is not a trend. So yeah, you will defeat them in one election, and then lose to them in another election.
my enemies are Liberal/Progressives
Right, but they make up about 1/3 of the populace. You're going to have to learn to work with them.
This will be borne out this November.
You mean when 1/3 of the voters vote party line Democrat and 1/3 of the voters go party line Republican and the remaining 1/3 of moderate independents decide between two substantially identical candidates, providing one with a narrow plurality of the vote? Yeah, that will prove a lot.
I have zero confidence that these Justices wouldn't cave if threatened as well.
Cave to what? Obama does not have the ability to get such a bill passed.
LMAO!! Tell that to the Progressives/Democrats! They've been calling people who believe in the Constitution and the Rule of Law everything from Nazis, to racists, homophobes, ignorant rednecks, anti-women, violent radicals, religious extremists, and everything else under the sun.
Exactly - you are both behaving the same way. The only major difference between the two camps is the color that they root for on election night.
Do some Googling on Kimberlin.
Yes, both of you have your demons. If I were having this argument with a party-line Democrat, they'd be throwing names around like Robert Bennett and the Koch brothers. Arguing about who is more evil is not constructive.
And there you go again, assuming most people agree with your views when that is not the case.
You are right of course. Most people (2/3) drink the party Kool Aid and don't really matter because their vote is a fixed point. The only question is whether or not you can convince them to come out and vote. I was speaking for the 1/3 of us who don't hang our hats on a particular party. We are the ones who will decide the election and we are the ones you need to be trying to convince.
Oh, so you'd take the government-control of your diet thing to gain 20 years? Suit yourself! Hope you don't like pork, because the beef lobby really came through there on the governmental dietary restriction guidelines.
People often tell you what you can and cannot do. You cannot go around injuring others, depriving them of property, behaving poorly in public, presenting a danger or nuisance to others.
So in general, depriving people of their right to life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness.
Now they want to make sure you're not going to be a financial drain on what little health "safety net" is available.
I understand the rationale, but that's a big jump. So a group of people are choosing - of their own free will - to give out charity. Then they use this charity as an excuse to control people's behavior.
What would you propose to do about this?
I have a couple of ideas that do not impinge on a person's natural rights. For one, allow health insurance companies to charge more for people who are obese. Perhaps in exchange you can make them offer weight loss programs at no charge. Another idea is if you want to try to change people, try to educate them. There is a strong correlation between obesity and economic status. Perhaps direct some of the health-care charity money towards education programs and food availability programs for these people?
I agree that obesity is a problem and I agree that we as a society need to address it. Making large portions illegal from some stores is not the way to accomplish this. If I owned a 7-11, I'd sell you a giant cup for 0.05 and then sell drinks 2-for-1 and let the customer pour them into the big cup after purchase. It's ridiculous. Meanwhile, the same customer can go next door to the bar and order up an 800-calorie daiquiri that has alcohol to boot.
Here's the thing. Not everyone is going to agree with you, and they aren't going away either. Since you claim to support democracy, the only way you can "defeat" people who don't agree with you is to convince them that your arguments have merit. Putting them on the defensive is a horrible strategy, and will only result in them circling their wagons.
I thought Don Quixote was a pretty good comparison. Your giants are a Nazi Bloomberg and a supreme-court circumventing Obama. The rest of us see a rich guy who happens to be mayor of NYC and a fairly middle-of-the-road President. To most of us, comparing Bloomberg's limiting the serving size of soda to anything commonly associated with the Nazis is so ridiculous that it becomes hard to listen to what you have to say, no matter how well-thought out. Similarly, I'd love to hear how you think that Obama plans on passing anything resembling the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill that FDR couldn't get through a friendly congress.
Anyway, running around attacking what most people regard as figments of your imagination is not the way to win said people over.
The part of the country that is into NASCAR would not appreciate being called a Yankee... entirely different connotation down there - something about the invention of "total war" occurring on their land.
NASCAR started with liquor running during Prohibition, so speed was more important than handling. Given that, I can kind of excuse the initial use of an oval track. But once the speeds got too high, they started restricting the cars and so the oval track was sort of an anachronism... very hard for me to get into oval track racing. That said, I'm sure it is fun as hell to drive a car around an oval track (I've only done an autocross course, which is terrifying in a good way).
Slashdot Mirror
A model is no more a sex object than a store mannequin is a sex toy.
Are you serious? That is so detached from reality, I'm not really sure where to start. Maybe you are quoting some feminist ideal?
Microsoft has supported XP for seemingly forever.
Well, they "support" it. Heaven knows how bugs get prioritized at MS, but suffice to say they haven't fixed all the bugs that I've encountered in the last 11 years :)
The problems predated WebOS, which was really just a last-ditch hail-Mary. The problem is that the original Palm system held everything in RAM... there was no separate storage. Applications were always in memory, and all of their data sat there, too. This gave them a tremendous advantage compared to Windows CE, which was a more traditional architecture that depended on extremely expensive (in 1996) flash RAM and needed more components.
Later versions of the devices added things like external storage, but the OS was not easily extended to this more traditional use... it was always kludgy to use storage on a Palm. Sony did a better job than Palm, but it was still a hack. When they finally got around to solving the OS problems with an emulation layer on ARM, it was 2002 and the world had left them behind. If they hadn't picked up Handspring to get the Treo, I doubt they would have lasted much longer.
The user interface also struggled to keep up with the new functions as the device became more powerful... it looked like an organizer first-and-foremost right up until the end when they punted it for WebOS.
Don't get me wrong - I was a Palm fan and my wife was using her Tungsten until this year when her work got her an iPhone... but their devices got progressively kludgier and harder to use with time. The quaint, simple user interface that meshed so well with the original 1996 hardware was a huge turn-off in 2004 when we bought the Tungsten. Nothing is more tedious than uninstalling ePocrates on a Palm, I can assure you... :)
I think Palm's death was very similar to Amiga's death.
Both had... interesting... marketing, but that's not what I'm talking about.
Both Palm and Amiga used some very clever hardware and software tricks to do something that no one else could do at the time. Unfortunately, their solution was very hardware-dependent and could not be moved to the more advanced technology that their competitors started to use without completely killing backward compatibility or running a resource-chomping compatibility layer (chomping both hardware resources and engineering resources) that their competitors did not have to deal with. By the time each learned to just cut the cord, or by the time the state-of-the-art progressed to the point where simple emulation worked well, it was too late - the moment where they had a special capability passed.
On the plus side, tinfoil is already made with hydro power - so your hat is good to go.
Don't forget duct tape and the Jeep!
That doesn't sound like enough to have a good blue-water navy.
Huh? Hubble is 11,110kg, 4.2m wide, and 13.2m long. Atlas V can do 29,400kg and has done 18,814kg. It regularly launches with a 5.4m fairing. For reference, the space shuttle could do 24,400kg to LEO.
I don't know exactly how MS's certs work, but doesn't this mean that they can tell exactly which cert did the signing of the malware? That might be an interesting piece of information, even if it just leads to a dead end.
Yeah, sorry I wasn't more clear. pkg_add still fits into the ports framework, though - so really you can use the two simultaneously and things generally work... most of the time. I've taken to just using ports unless I'm in a huge hurry. You can technically use apt-get to bulid from source as well (-b flag).
I meant in terms of healthcare. We are going in the opposite direction. We should offer non-smoking discounts, healthy lifestyle discounts, etc.
I use Solaris at work, but as a workstation and not as an admin so while I have a "feel" for it, I can't directly compare them. I would say they are very similar but do have semantic differences... de-facto file locations, behavior of temp directories, etc. I feel that they are more similar than Linux is to either FreeBSD or Solaris.
I looked into both (at the time) OpenSolaris and FreeBSD and decided that FreeBSD's better hardware support was worth the tradeoff in lagging ZFS versions. And not that I anticipated it, but it turns out that the FreeBSD Linux emulation environment was also useful (for running a CrashPlan server).
This article uses the kernel module, not the userland FUSE stuff.
I don't know about "heavy"... I have it running on a 6-year-old HP xw4400. Sure it's a nice old machine with a 64-bit processor (required for stability) and ECC RAM (required to get the real data integrity benefits of ZFS), but you can get a HP Microserver new for under $400 that has both of those things.
I have to second this... Debian was always my preference but I tried FreeBSD to get ZFS. For dependencies, ports does some things... differently than APT, but they are similar enough that it won't completely shock your system.
And just like Debian, it is easy to start with an extremely minimal system and only add what you need, so stability and boot speeds are excellent.
I think that Debian is still faster at certain things, though that is subjective.
What makes you think these people can afford to pay for insurance, let alone the higher rates that obesity would require?
For Medicaid folks, you could make their coverage contingent on enrollment in nutrition programs or some other anti-obesity initiative.
Unless you suggest that the government institute a mandatory adult reeducation program or drastically increase taxes, the problem still persists.
I think it is perfectly reasonable to require people on the dole to attend a training program as a requirement to get the free stuff.
An adult should be capable of determining whether or not that 800-calorie daiquiri should be a part of their diet and the alcohol in it prevents this decision from being made by adolescents.
Fair enough. So why isn't Bloomberg just requiring an ID to buy the giant drink?
the choices are do nothing and suffer the economic costs (both privately through reduced worker productivity and publicly with increased financial burden on the health systems), provide extrinsic motivation through increased taxation or some other penalty, or put supply-side restrictions on unhealthy foods in a similar manner that has succeeded in curbing pseudoephedrine kitchen meth labs.
I agree that something needs to be done about obesity - I just don't think that the Bloomberg approach will work. The nice thing about having it done in just one city is that this will give economists/epidemiologists/statisticians/sociologists a field day and we'll see how it works out. My personal preference would be to let the private sector make being fat expensive, which the new health care law specifically prohibits. Combine this with educating people who are on the dole (and continuing other public education efforts), and making nutritious food more available to those same people. Hell, consider limiting the types of groceries that food stamps will pay for (that is what Florida is doing). I think there are a lot of things we can try before we resort to treating sugar like a controlled substance.
You know, many religious people are quite sane and do not believe that religious beliefs should be imposed on others or involved politics.
Indeed. Religion would appear to be a part of a normal human psyche... and I say that as someone who has yet to be persuaded that there is a need to invoke a supernatural deity to explain the natural world.
Isn't that closer to agnostic? I know there are different degrees of atheist, but usually I hear the term associated with people who firmly believe that there is no God - whereas agnostics don't dismiss the possibility of a God but fail to see any evidence.
Science is by definition made up of falsifiable statements. You can use scientific methodology in the other fields, but unless you have something that is falsifiable, you don't have science. Religion usually doesn't deal with the natural world - or rather, when it tries to in the scientific era it usually doesn't usually last long... like the skeptic that found the toilet water leaking from the "weeping" statue in India.
I wouldn't put a blanket statement that all religious people don't understand science though
My mother-in-law is a very religious Pentecostal, and also a molecular biologist. The mind has an amazing way of connecting dots in a way that isn't rational. Add a dissonant fact and the brain will just route around it.
I'm actually encouraged that the percentage has held steady since 1982 - we've had a lot of intensely religious immigration since then.
I guess you missed the 2010 elections?
Wow. Did you miss the 2008 elections? Remember when the Democrats controlled both houses of congress and the white house? We've been see-sawing between Democrats and Republicans since the 1940s. One data point is not a trend. So yeah, you will defeat them in one election, and then lose to them in another election.
my enemies are Liberal/Progressives
Right, but they make up about 1/3 of the populace. You're going to have to learn to work with them.
This will be borne out this November.
You mean when 1/3 of the voters vote party line Democrat and 1/3 of the voters go party line Republican and the remaining 1/3 of moderate independents decide between two substantially identical candidates, providing one with a narrow plurality of the vote? Yeah, that will prove a lot.
I have zero confidence that these Justices wouldn't cave if threatened as well.
Cave to what? Obama does not have the ability to get such a bill passed.
LMAO!! Tell that to the Progressives/Democrats! They've been calling people who believe in the Constitution and the Rule of Law everything from Nazis, to racists, homophobes, ignorant rednecks, anti-women, violent radicals, religious extremists, and everything else under the sun.
Exactly - you are both behaving the same way. The only major difference between the two camps is the color that they root for on election night.
Do some Googling on Kimberlin.
Yes, both of you have your demons. If I were having this argument with a party-line Democrat, they'd be throwing names around like Robert Bennett and the Koch brothers. Arguing about who is more evil is not constructive.
And there you go again, assuming most people agree with your views when that is not the case.
You are right of course. Most people (2/3) drink the party Kool Aid and don't really matter because their vote is a fixed point. The only question is whether or not you can convince them to come out and vote. I was speaking for the 1/3 of us who don't hang our hats on a particular party. We are the ones who will decide the election and we are the ones you need to be trying to convince.
Oh, so you'd take the government-control of your diet thing to gain 20 years? Suit yourself! Hope you don't like pork, because the beef lobby really came through there on the governmental dietary restriction guidelines.
People often tell you what you can and cannot do. You cannot go around injuring others, depriving them of property, behaving poorly in public, presenting a danger or nuisance to others.
So in general, depriving people of their right to life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness.
Now they want to make sure you're not going to be a financial drain on what little health "safety net" is available.
I understand the rationale, but that's a big jump. So a group of people are choosing - of their own free will - to give out charity. Then they use this charity as an excuse to control people's behavior.
What would you propose to do about this?
I have a couple of ideas that do not impinge on a person's natural rights. For one, allow health insurance companies to charge more for people who are obese. Perhaps in exchange you can make them offer weight loss programs at no charge. Another idea is if you want to try to change people, try to educate them. There is a strong correlation between obesity and economic status. Perhaps direct some of the health-care charity money towards education programs and food availability programs for these people?
I agree that obesity is a problem and I agree that we as a society need to address it. Making large portions illegal from some stores is not the way to accomplish this. If I owned a 7-11, I'd sell you a giant cup for 0.05 and then sell drinks 2-for-1 and let the customer pour them into the big cup after purchase. It's ridiculous. Meanwhile, the same customer can go next door to the bar and order up an 800-calorie daiquiri that has alcohol to boot.
Here's the thing. Not everyone is going to agree with you, and they aren't going away either. Since you claim to support democracy, the only way you can "defeat" people who don't agree with you is to convince them that your arguments have merit. Putting them on the defensive is a horrible strategy, and will only result in them circling their wagons.
I thought Don Quixote was a pretty good comparison. Your giants are a Nazi Bloomberg and a supreme-court circumventing Obama. The rest of us see a rich guy who happens to be mayor of NYC and a fairly middle-of-the-road President. To most of us, comparing Bloomberg's limiting the serving size of soda to anything commonly associated with the Nazis is so ridiculous that it becomes hard to listen to what you have to say, no matter how well-thought out. Similarly, I'd love to hear how you think that Obama plans on passing anything resembling the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill that FDR couldn't get through a friendly congress.
Anyway, running around attacking what most people regard as figments of your imagination is not the way to win said people over.
The part of the country that is into NASCAR would not appreciate being called a Yankee... entirely different connotation down there - something about the invention of "total war" occurring on their land.
NASCAR started with liquor running during Prohibition, so speed was more important than handling. Given that, I can kind of excuse the initial use of an oval track. But once the speeds got too high, they started restricting the cars and so the oval track was sort of an anachronism... very hard for me to get into oval track racing. That said, I'm sure it is fun as hell to drive a car around an oval track (I've only done an autocross course, which is terrifying in a good way).