So, aside from verbal attacks and assumptions of my ability to read, and apparently, the ability to reason, what you seem to have proven is the same about yourself; ie, that you cannot or may not have read the prior post and that you may or may not have reasoned out the meaning of it.
If someone is being monitored, what they do or do not do is hindered by the monitoring. The social acceptance of this monitoring results in a gradual increase of its scope.
This in turn subdues what people believe and are able to do in terms of freedom of choice, speech, and action.
If someone is convicted of a crime, I believe they should be monitored. But if someone is suspected of a crime, the actions of those monitoring and the act of monitoring itself DOES have a restrictive effect.
You say that I am an idiot and that I speak without facts. That I do not know the facts and that I am essentially ranting. That I am spouting, essentially, shallow and poorly thought out messages of little meaning or significance.
In which case, I ask of you: Why take the time to reply when your own time and experience is so much more valuable?
You take what I say and draw conclusions which have no relevance to my original post. For instance, what does my post have to do with your right to watch over your children? If you want to watch over your children, go for it. If anything, parents don't do that enough in this nation. The only concern in this regard is when parents turn that responsibiliy over to companies or third parties.
When you risk your life to save another person's life or to fight for someone else's rights, you are doing a great thing. You are making a worthwhile sacrifice.
I can't speak of much more than that because I don't understand the Military viewpoint. I'm a civilian.
And as a civilian, I am free to express myself, even if others believe that I am wrong, disagree, or would rather that I just shut up.
Whether or not I have done one thing or another does not and should not make the difference between my being able to speak my mind or have to go silent.
Your sacrifice overseas is greatly appreciated. I am sorry you feel as angry as you do.
The only concern would be security. A photographer too dependant on their wifi link may soon find themselves wishing they had those spare cards with them afterall.
Attempts to attack the camera itself via wifi from say, a laptop?
Attempts to capture whole sessions between the camera and it's laptop for later decrypting and having access to the photographer's pictures?
Pretending to be the camera's recieving FTP server(assuming you get past WEP and can dynamically change your MAC address to match)?
I'm wondering why Nikon didn't add the security options or maybe it's going to appear in their next firmware release. SSH tunnelling support, maybe? SFTP?
The camera is majorly cool, but if my salary/income depended on it, I would want to know that WIFI won't be responsible for my camera taking a hit or my footage being stolen.
Not saying the above are high possibilities, but being a bit paranoid about some possibilities doesn't hurt. I've had my Wifi drop connection on me enough times to know that it still isn't a sure thing.
Here's the thing... why didn't he just leave his computer authorized and left it as it was? As far as the computer knows, it's still a US computer with a US location. Let it keep being happy with the music it had.
The thing is... never re-install your system without first making a full backup. And by backup, I mean a disk image, not just moving some files over.
I think iTunes is great, but all this means is that at worst, I'll just need a forwarding address in the states should I ever move out.
These days, you can have forwarding addresses as well as forwarding phone numbers. ^_^; So if you wanted... you could live like a Canadian with all that clean air and nice weather, but keep one foot and one ear to the ground in the states. Eh?
There is a certain sadness in this whole thread of argument. People are holding up the governing document, the Constitution, its various amendments, and derived laws saying that our rights are inalienable. That they are given to us. By what? That legal document which is the very basis of the governing body?
Your rights are what you are allowed to do by the powers that be. In America, that would be the federal and state governments. The constitution defined to the government what rights they are not allowed to take away from you because otherwise, they would take away all rights.
Think about that for a minute.
You may also notice that our rights are defined as something that we as a people must defend with eternal vigilance. That means that we are constantly in a battle for our very rights. With whom? The government. It is a tug-o-war of freedom and governance. We want protection and governance to some degree, but we also want the freedom fo autonomy. To maintain that balance, we must constantly struggle to keep our rights even as we seek to restrict them.
So you want to keep those rights as open as possible. You do not want to say it is okay to start checking off rights because they don't apply to you since you have God given rights and they are forever inalienable. You won't have much in the way of rights when you are being pinned down and you are being read your miranda rights. Ever wonder why even though they say you have the right to remain silent that they still continue to question you?
Constant battle between government and the citizenry. Of governance and freedoms.
Restrictions and rules meant to bring about order can also, when left unchecked, bring about a military state where all rights are suspended.
Say... the recent "time of war" event. In a time of war, different rules are in play. People are willing to give up more rights in the name of protection and safety. Kind of like paying protection money to the local thugs. You give up your rights under the threat of harm.
In the case of our nation, the threat is external. But we gave up our rights all the same. It is easy to give up one's rights. It is immeasurably more difficult to reclaim them.
The argument that a current levels of restrictions is causing harm to society doesn't cut it to get your rights back.
The trick with law and the constitution is not trying to understand it the way everyone does. The trick is to understand it the way the court system does. Once you see that, you will understand why the concern over personal privacy and personal rights is a big deal.
The courts are bound. Not because they don't care, but because they are bound by the rules and laws. Because the law itself is what they must judge you by. And if by a fluke, a law greatly limiting your freedoms is deemed constitutional, then it will limit the rights of all people in this nation.
At that point, that definition you have of inalienable rights would have shrunk. Just a bit.
You think it is okay to have the police go after one group of people because you feel threatened by them. So in doing so, you are willing to contribute to the tide of people who want to abolish their rights.
So in a sense, you are okay with it not because it is personal to you, it isn't. You are okay with it because it ISN'T personal. Because by doing this, you don't think it hurts you.
See it from a flip side.
You have kids and because of columbine, kids are considered threats so the state decides that monitoring all children all the time is the right thing to do. People who don't have children and fear them think this is a great idea. You, however, have children and to you, this IS personal and would hurt you and your children. But other people don't see that because by monitoring you and your children, they believe they are safer for it.
I'm as against the idea of children being sexually molested and raped as the next person. But bringing about a police state isn't the solution and neither is invading the privacy of people.
Having said all of that, I would say that if someone has committed the crime of sexually molesting and assaulting a child, they should pay for their crime. They should recieve treatment and should be monitored for a period(parole) to ensure they do not relapse, after which, they should get little check-up visits from the state. But if they prove themselves to be productive and non-harmful citizens, why shouldn't they have their privacy and why shouldn't they have their right to live a normal life again without people finding out about their past and harassing them and chasing them out of town over and over again?
People who say that is is personal sometimes don't really understand what it means. Especially in this case.
If your child was sexually molested by someone, then it's personal. If your child was killed or murdered, then it's personal. If you or your own were responsible for those acts, then it's personal.
If you have children and nothing has happened and you are just concerned, then it is NOT personal.
You saying it is okay for the state to strip away the rights of citizens; however, makes it personal to everyone. Because if you can take away the rights of someone who committed a crime and has already paid for it, why not strip away the privacy rights of someone who has a medical history? I'm sure their employer feels it is the in personal best interest of his company to know if someone will be expensive to keep on as an employee. I'm sure medical insurance companies would love to know.. since someone like that is not worthwhile to insure.
If I sound like I'm ranting a bit, maybe it's because I'm offended by the idea of: "Kudos to any company that helps keep predators at bay."
That reeks of the kind of thinking behind, "The ends justify the means" and "achieving goals by any means necessary". It is the kind of thinking which leads to a KGB state where people end up stabbing their neighbors in the back.
It is also the kind of thinking which quickly leads to racism. If statistics show "predators" to fall more in one ethnic group, is it then okay to strip away the rights of that group of people? Or perhaps it's just men who need to have their rights taken away since the majority of rapes and sexual assaults are committed by men. Or maybe it's just anyone who is aggressive in nature or anyone who is rude to someone else?
Someone else posted that it's a slippery slope that one slides down. I say it is a sheer cliff face. You don't know what you've done until you've crossed the edge and suddenly you find yourself bereft of your freedoms.
Here's another thought: Your child is still young now, but what about when your child grows older and falls into any one of the categories which you think should be monitored? How personal would it be then? Would you be okay with that? Or would it suddenly not be?
... blood from a stone, friend. But still... let's beat that carcass just a bit longer.
Real-Time replication across mulitple servers:
That would be a SAN switch with multiple systems booting off of SAN disks.
OR, that would be Oracle RAQ.
ASP/HTML static page serving/etc...
Seriously, it's all in the configuration and how you are coding your system. If you try to run everything on one box, then yes, your results will be hosed because of the various contentions at work. Put the work on the correct boxes.
Can't get the cheap systems because they don't have muscle
Well, obviously, the cheaper the systems, the less their processing power. Hence, the need for more systems. However, what might also be slowing you down is an improperly tuned system. If you tune for a large enterprise server and then run that on a wimpy office server, you will get hosed results. Tune appropriately.
Everything else...
The question is this: What is your project? What are you trying to do and do you understand how each of those components work? You mention.Net and SQL and Web pages. Sounds like you have a public facing database application being served off of the web.
In that case, your beefiest machine should be your SQL/database server. By beefy, I mean processors, memory and disks. If these are the systems you want to have replication, go with ORACLE RAQ. It isn't cheap, but short of that, your other bet is to maintain multible database servers with concurrent data writes... expensive and slow.
Next would be your application servers. These should be powerful, but second only to your database servers. They should be a temporary place for work to be done.
NEVER run your application server on the same machine as your database server.
The last on your list are your front end webservers. Light systems here. Some 2xprocessor 1GHZ/2GHZ systems would be fine here.
Basically, know what your program at hand is and how best to deal with it. There is no generic "simple answer". And if it is simple, it is often not cheap.
If your client's budget is $20K-$30K, and they want more performance, then they need to either re-evaluate the solutions they are willing to go to or they need to re-evaluate what their goals are. They won't do it with Windows, that's for sure.
Sounds like the need for new printing methods.
on
Picking Up the Pieces
·
· Score: 1
The problem lies in the shredding process itself, I think.
A shredder which shreds in a symmetrical way, but is misaligned with the content of the page will create "locking patterns" much like a puzzle piece. This is what the technology seems to key on.
The solution to this "problem" would be one of the following:
Micro shredding which reduces the individual output pieces to 1mm^2. At this size, it becomes increasingly difficult to correctly piece together information correctly as well as more time consuming to do so.
Printing over the original print with a cheap ink material before performing a cross shredding. This will make it difficult to determine, in a scan, what is information and what is blacked out material.
Cross shredding with division into seperate bins.
Cross shredding with the shredded output going through a toner blower.
Mixing shreded output with cafeteria liquid garbage.
Personally, I think office garbage, especially the shredded type,should be mixed with cafeteria garbage. Nothing breaks down and messes up printouts like coffee and fruit juices.;) Plus it makes it very difficult to scan reliably.
People will build new technology to deal with this firm's process. In which case, the firm will need to adapt or go out of business...
Seems a quick google search is all it takes... and few do it... -_-;;
Sound based repellers don't work. Period. End of story. Combine that with the fact that CelPhones' earpieces and speakers produce sound in the 20hz-22000hz range... this is being generous as most are more like 50hz-18000hz. Most, if not all of which is audible to humans. At the point where the volume is turned down below what you can hear, it ain't there.
Citronella doesn't really repel insects.
Deet does, but is cancerous. (100% deet is still sold in California, btw.)
Carbon dioxide will lure Mosquitoes... potentially away from you. Hence the dry ice in the corner of the backyard trick works.
Skin So Soft, from what I can see online doesn't repel and the brand which they later produced which they claim does contains citronella... so it most likely doesn't.
Seriously, a ringtone which repels bugs? If you're willing to pay for that, I've got a special soundfile which you can play which will repel con artsists: I'm broke. I've got no money.
Okay, you have a firewall and a virus scanner. But all of this is for naught if you yourself push the button or your software pushes the button. In either case, your system gets hosed and you have hours of work ahead of you to fix things.
Most virii are currently Windows based. The gut feeling would be to avoid that platform and choose something more resistant like Linux or MacOSX.
If you can't step away from Windows, then step away from the applications on Windows which can make your life suck: Outlook/Outlook Express, MS Office, Auto-downloaders, Auto-executors, etc.
If you have the good sense to avoid opening those files, but your software doesn't, then you are still screwed. you need to configure your OS to not be so impulsive. Tell it to save off those attachments and place them somewhere safe for scanning. Don't let it automatically process images/etc.
Finally, if you can't avoid Windows or the applications which can lead to computer ruin, then at least make good backups and such...
I use WinXPpro, Mac OSX, GNU/Linux 2.4.20(Debian) and have yet to have a virii incursion. Though that is probably due to the use of Pine, Mail, and OpenOffice.:)
In the case of the poster, he/she happens to be using a platform the virus can't use. Ie, a Mac.
I've got three systems at home: Mac X, WinXP, and Linux. Not one of my systems have been hit by virii. The trick? Not using MS email/web/document products.
The point is that the file needs to get onto your system and the way to do that is to either look at it yourself or your software does. If your software is sane and so are you, then you will avoid the problems of virii entirely.
Security features are meant to defeat people of problematic views. Outright bad computer user habits compromise the security features of your system.
My only guess is that you ARE lucky since there are MAC virii out there.
In my case, it is using better judgement in selecting and installing software.
That's just the problem in this particular issue: We don't know whether the turning on/off of functions was to Dell's or Apple's benefit. That they were done for the benefit of Apple is an assumption in and of itself.
Granted, given the recent benchmark "debates" regarding graphics cards and such, it would be easy to make that assumption.
The question really should be whether the tests were relevant at all.
My point was that they appeared to be as fair as is possible by using the same compiler between the two systems and such. This does a much better job of setting a baseline than say using the best compiler from each camp which results in comparing compilers and not processors.
No, I'm one of those people who has the four button+2 axis scroll mice and am considering one of those "scroll" devices for the Mac.
Seriously, though, I should have been more specific.
Anything before Windows 2000 has been flakey with the possible exception of Windows NT 3.51 which I've had good experiences with.
Windows ME and Windows XP home edition are both flakey. I use XP Pro for my windows box and have had it running smoothly on mostly default configs for 6 months before needed to reboot it due to excessive heat buildup(AC failure).
By "Hard to use interface", I was referring to the fact that the configuration options one wants is usually either buried under obscure menus or not available at all except through direct modification of a Registry element with regedit.
This also includes the problems with installing and uninstalling software on the system without leaving bits and chunks of the old application or driver on the system. With XP. this is improved on somewhat, but one still runs into problems.
I don't name specific 3rd party programs since that isn't really MS's fault, just bad interface design on the part of the 3rd party.
Btw, I just love how the default knee-jerk reaction to criticism of Windows or Mac is to call one another names respective to the stereotypes of that platform.
Btw, if you want to see Windows 2000 become unstable, try recording two video streams simultaneously on the same hard drive. When the fragmentation becomes severe enough, the OS will destabilize without a timely disk defragmentation.
This is not the case with either Mac OS X or Linux(pick any distro).
But if Windows can rid itself of those stability issues and figure out a way to make their System Settings/Configuration/Registry easier to understand and less arcane, then I'd say they'd be gold. (With the exception of virii and security holes which should be near the top of the todo list)
But I run Windows XP Pro, Linux, and now Mac OS X. I use all three with equal adeptness and ease. But then again, it's my career. *shrugs*
I think the point is that Apple has been getting it's rear end handed to them repeatedly in the performance market. Ie, Apple computers are not known in the x86 world for being workhorses.
Apple has already been leveraging the easy to use aspect of the OS. But the point is this:
Windows(the target audience) has been used to the crashes and hard to use interface. They tend to dislike it, but given the amount of hardware and software invested already, why switch? There has to be an exceedingly compelling reason to give up what can be a $5000-$15,000 workflow for a completely different system.
You would want a system which was better in every aspect.
If you had thousands invested in a setup and the only benefit for switching is "ease of use", then there is no compelling reason since the average person will think: "Screw that! I'll save my money and deal with the harder to use software".
I have to say, this puts things in an interesting light.
Does a company, in trying to be fair as it seems in this case, get penalized for choosing the best optimization and not testing with the worst optimizations(as per their views)?
In looking at other sites like Tom's Hardware and Anantech, I think the answer is simple: Show all of the results, both the good and the bad. That way, it removes the spectre of doubt in peoples' minds that fairness wasn't present during testing.
Personally, I don't have the funds to get a G5 based system. It just isn't in the budget. But then again, the only reason I would buy a G5 system over an x86(Opteron or P4) would be to run Mac OSX.:)
I'm guessing that tests will be conducted by various groups over the next few days to either validate or invalidate the tests. Sounds alike like that whole MS/cost analysis/web server speed fiasco all over again.
Despite the tests, for Mac users who wish to stick with Mac OS X, the G5s are as fast as they come.
I should mention that I have used Linux from the first distro of Slackware through Redhat, Mandrake, and now Suse. I perform my own kernel upgrades and system upgrades. I install and maintain Solaris systems at work.
I have used Microsoft products since MSDOS 3.0 through till XP Pro. I have had to deal with all the problematic and blood pressure raising incarnations of Windows both at work and at home.
My experience with Apple products has been with my iBook and distant memories of an old Apple IIe. Both of which are happy troublefree ones.
The lesser of evils..
on
Jaguar is Over
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Being a recent convert to the Mac/Apple fold, I find I have both concerns about these upgrade cycles and at the same time, I feel they are justified.
Let's take a look and see what we are comparing so we aren't comparing Apples and well.. you know.
In my mind, there are really only three platforms out there: Apple, Windows, and *nix(Linux,BSD,Solaris,etc).
Let's look at the "cost" of upgrades for each of these, shall we?
With Apple, it seems you pay $129 for each major revision change. People who were using 10.0-10.1 were charged to go to 10.2 and now it seems that 10.2 users(myself included) will be charged to go to 10.3.
My experience with my iBook running 10.2.6 has been about as damn near perfect as I have ever experienced on any platform with a user interface to match. Sure I paid top dollar for a laptop which won't beat my fellow co-workers' 1-2Ghz laptops anytime soon, but I also won't be cursing at my laptop for wiping out my data either. That has got to be worth something.
With Linux, we get free kernel and OS upgrades. However, each time I went through the upgrade process, I had to literally double check every software package and perform countless recompiles to get things right again. On average, with every major kernel release I have had to spend the better part of an afternoon performing "installation" exercises. With every minor release, I have had to recompile the kernel. I didn't pay cash on the barrel for the upgrade, but I paid for it in time.
With Windows, it has always been a struggle. People say *nix is unfriendly. I say it is Windows which is unfriendliest of all. You have to pay about $149 for an upgrade to the OS or in my case, $349 for the "full" version of the software. To top it off, if I have any aspirations of a marginally stable system, I have to perform a clean install and not just an upgrade on top of my existing system. This results in at least a full day of work on my part in re-installing the OS and all of the applications on the system. I pay in time and money.
Now. With that in mind, I'm looking at the prospect of paying $129 for the 10.3 version of Mac OSX:Panther for my iBook which will run better with other systems and be even friendlier.
Extensions of your argument of "if they screw up the electronics, then they should be banned", would be if they can potentially screw up pace-makers like microwaves can, then they should be banned from facilities which may have people who use pace-makers.
This would include, but not limited to: Hospitals, music halls, malls, restraunts, parks, bathrooms, some peoples' homes and neighborhoods, and most anywhere on the street.
Just about any place where someone with a pace-maker might be.
The problem isn't the celphone. The celphone is operating within its specs which are more current than the specs of the airplane with which it is interfering. Banning the celphones does not negate the risk, only mitigates it.
A laptop, a walkman, a walkie-talkie, or even just an electronic toy could cause a problem. The issue is not that celphones are the problem. The issue is that the planes are no longer up to spec with regards to the types of broadcasts and EM emitting devices which are present today.
Banning phones with regards to the planes just means you remove one source of interference. You haven't made the plane itself any safer.
Think about this for a minute: Space craft aren't designed with the idea of avoiding places or removing things which might interfere with its normal operation. They are designed with the intent of operating normally despite the background noise and random radiation it might encounter.
I wouldn't buy a computer if the label read: Keep away from microwave, celphone, or other broadcasting device as it may cause operational problems. I'd laugh and buy something else which has been designed to operate robustly.
Now think about the plane we all ride on. Why the heck isn't robustness being considered as an option? If a celphone can cause problems, what about solar flares? What about someone pointing a new broadcast antenna up skyward? What about a stray microwave transmission from a dish?
Banning celphones isn't a solution. It isn't even a bandaid. It is the result of sticking one's head either up one's rear end or down a hole. In either case, it isn't seeing the light and what needs to get done.
On a side note, I agree with you on your point about lowering costs of skyphones. I'm all for that.
To anyone that desperately wants to live, would you prefer to place your life at the mercy of an airplane whose electronics can get messed with if someone forgets to turn off their phone or if they left one on in the cargo bay or would you rather the airliners go and fix the shielding issue on their existing planes?
It isn't an issue of you doing the right thing. You should be.
It IS an issue of whether the Airliners are doing the right thing. Those that insist on operating unsafe aircraft in our current technological age are not doing the right thing.
The phones emit a level of radiation which is, according to the FCC, an acceptable level and given the class of the device, must tolerate emissions other electrical equipment emits.
The question I have is whether or not the airplane equipment is properly shielded and whether the FAA approved aircraft are equipped with FCC approved equipment.
If a celphone emitting single digit watts of power can cause havoc on an airplane, it doesn't seem to take much to take out an airplane in terms of electrical sophistication.
Or to create diversions for hijackers.
The question I pose is:
Why are the airliners choosing to hide their heads in the sand and blame celphones when their planes are the ones which are vulnerable due to improperly shielded wires and computer hardware. Are they keeping all of their equipment updated and up to specs? Or are they performing the "Fight Club" calculation of the cost of replacement vs the cost of lawsuits from relatives of the deceased?
(a)The percentage of failures * (b)The number of cars currently out there * (c)The cost of lawsuits per incident. A * B * C. If that is less than the cost of a recall, they don't issue one.
Maybe it's time we started helping the airliners think about human safety and their responsibility instead of shovelling off the blame to their customers.
Hmm.. too bad your post's score isn't high enough. It's actually kinda informative.
I wouldn't try to connect to the net via 802.11b from a train. Not unless they have wifi access on the train, as they do on some planes these days.
I see the ease of use and cool factor with Bluetooth. Connect things which go together without wires. That is fine. In your example, Bluetooth does a geat job of replacing a data cable between your phone and your laptop. For my purposes, my phone has no bluetooth support. I use a cable to connect my laptop to my phone for network access.
But that isn't an 802.11b vs Bluetooth issue.
From a laptop point of view, I use an ibook and have seen no instablities whatsoever. However, getting Bluetooth to interoperate between differing OS's and systems(Mac->Windows->Linux) IS a problem. Granted, this isn't Bluetooth's fault, but that of the companies writing drivers for the technology.
I use a PDA to transfer vcards via irda. For the most part, there are many more irda users than there are bluetooth users out there. I'm sure this will change. Faster, I hope, as irda is ungodly slow.
You sound like you are a happy user of Bluetooth. Given time(read: when phones supported by my celphone carrier offer Bluetooth capabilities) I'll be a happy user of it as well.
For the time being, it doesn't offer me anything which 802.11b doesn't already offer me or a $10 cable doesn't already provide for.
My planet is made up of various OS's. I tend to like them all to play nice together.
Seriously, what does bluetooth have to offer which 802.11 doesn't offer already?
I'm typing this via my laptop connected to my home network via 802.11b which in turn is hooked up to the DSL to the internet. The wireless card is powered by my laptop. I get 11mpbs on this thing and have an effective range, with degraded performance, of up to 100' from my gateway.
In contrast, with Bluetooth, I get what? 768kbps connection in what is termed a PAN(Personal Area Network). The range is limited to distances comparable to patch cable. Basically, it buys you the ability to remove the wires between your headset, your phone, and your PDA/Printer/laptop/etc.
But if any of it wanders too far away, then you will lose your connection. Ie, don't try to print to the printer from another room.
The argument seems to be that the IP stack of 802.11b is overkill. That 802.11b consumes more power. Sure. I believe it. I've seen USB dongles for 802.11b which are about the same size as the USB dongles for Bluetooth.
The relationship between bluetooth and 802.11(b/g/x/a/etc) is like the relationship between gift certificates and debit cards.
They both are tied to another system, but the gift certificate can only be used with a select few stores and have a limited life whereas the debit cards can be used just about anywhere and are honoured for a longer period of time.
Manufacturers would be wise to embed 802.11 into their systems. Why wouldn't you want greater range and communication speeds? Why limit your product to a short lifespan and guaranteed obsolence compared to your competitors?
Short sightedness.
Sure, I can pick up a bluetooth enabled phone, pda, and headset and do the local wireless thing. But damned if I want to surf the net at a local cafe, airport, or bookstore. What do they use? 802.11.
If I had a 802.11 enabled phone, pda, and headset, I could use that same hardware anywhere there is a wifi hotspot.
I understand there are different design intentions and goals. But the question which should be asked is not whether the device lives up to those goals, but whether the very goals themselves are sound.
If Bluetooth's only real advantage is simplicity and lower power consumption, then it is sunk because 802.11's implementation can be embedded in a one-chip design and the power consumption is dropping. Another 6 months and the edge which bluetooth has will be lost.
Then what will be the point of Bluetooth except as another standard to which to choose from? A standard with shorter range and lower throughput.
802.11 is stable and widely adopted. Bluetooth has yet to see wide acceptance with stable support from desktop/laptop systems.
In my mind, the very "benefits" of bluetooth makes it weak.
Lower power consumption also means weaker broadcast. If you happened to be in a electricalloy noisey environment, how well would bluetooth hold up?
Lower bandwidth means longer wait times while I transfer information from one device to another. This in turn negates the power savings of the device.
...
But I then again, I'm ranting. Bluetooth may become more widely adopted and people will use it with ease between pda and their accesories.
But then again, I'm writing this from a 802.11b connected network. It took 20 minutes to setup on my first try and has not had a single problem with it since setup. No crashed OS's and no stalled connections. This between three brands of 802.11b products in the same network between three different operating systems.
Safari runs on the Mac only, so while it may be growing fast, unless it is ported to another OS platform, it's growth will be stunted.
On that note, Safari is built on the engine which Konquerer uses, no? (Or was it Mozila's engine?)
Personally, I don't think the wars are over or ever will be. In my mind, Mozilla, IE, Netscape, Konquerer, Nautilus, Opera, and now Safari are all players in the Web arena. That doesn't look like a clear victory was achieved, but rather that a whole storm of development is in the works all around.
Been looking at the apple's itunes store and the more I look, the more I think it is a good idea compared to buying whole CD's and getting screwed out of the good sounding track or with something like MS where they will give you music that doesn't play at the best quality possible or won't play after you stop paying.
Another way of looking at it:
With Apple, I may pay $1 per song, but at the end of the day/month/year, that song still cost me only $1.
With MS, I will pay $120/year. However, depending on how much I download, at the end of the year/etc, I would have paid more than $1 per song. To boot, I may not even have the right to play or keep the song if I stop paying.
With choices like that, Apple's is the way to go by a far margin.
Slashdot Mirror
So, aside from verbal attacks and assumptions of my ability to read, and apparently, the ability to reason, what you seem to have proven is the same about yourself; ie, that you cannot or may not have read the prior post and that you may or may not have reasoned out the meaning of it.
If someone is being monitored, what they do or do not do is hindered by the monitoring. The social acceptance of this monitoring results in a gradual increase of its scope.
This in turn subdues what people believe and are able to do in terms of freedom of choice, speech, and action.
If someone is convicted of a crime, I believe they should be monitored. But if someone is suspected of a crime, the actions of those monitoring and the act of monitoring itself DOES have a restrictive effect.
You say that I am an idiot and that I speak without facts. That I do not know the facts and that I am essentially ranting. That I am spouting, essentially, shallow and poorly thought out messages of little meaning or significance.
In which case, I ask of you: Why take the time to reply when your own time and experience is so much more valuable?
You take what I say and draw conclusions which have no relevance to my original post. For instance, what does my post have to do with your right to watch over your children? If you want to watch over your children, go for it. If anything, parents don't do that enough in this nation. The only concern in this regard is when parents turn that responsibiliy over to companies or third parties.
When you risk your life to save another person's life or to fight for someone else's rights, you are doing a great thing. You are making a worthwhile sacrifice.
I can't speak of much more than that because I don't understand the Military viewpoint. I'm a civilian.
And as a civilian, I am free to express myself, even if others believe that I am wrong, disagree, or would rather that I just shut up.
Whether or not I have done one thing or another does not and should not make the difference between my being able to speak my mind or have to go silent.
Your sacrifice overseas is greatly appreciated. I am sorry you feel as angry as you do.
The only concern would be security. A photographer too dependant on their wifi link may soon find themselves wishing they had those spare cards with them afterall.
But what prevents the following?
I'm wondering why Nikon didn't add the security options or maybe it's going to appear in their next firmware release. SSH tunnelling support, maybe? SFTP?
The camera is majorly cool, but if my salary/income depended on it, I would want to know that WIFI won't be responsible for my camera taking a hit or my footage being stolen.
Not saying the above are high possibilities, but being a bit paranoid about some possibilities doesn't hurt. I've had my Wifi drop connection on me enough times to know that it still isn't a sure thing.
Here's the thing... why didn't he just leave his computer authorized and left it as it was? As far as the computer knows, it's still a US computer with a US location. Let it keep being happy with the music it had.
The thing is... never re-install your system without first making a full backup. And by backup, I mean a disk image, not just moving some files over.
I think iTunes is great, but all this means is that at worst, I'll just need a forwarding address in the states should I ever move out.
These days, you can have forwarding addresses as well as forwarding phone numbers. ^_^; So if you wanted... you could live like a Canadian with all that clean air and nice weather, but keep one foot and one ear to the ground in the states. Eh?
There is a certain sadness in this whole thread of argument. People are holding up the governing document, the Constitution, its various amendments, and derived laws saying that our rights are inalienable. That they are given to us. By what? That legal document which is the very basis of the governing body?
Your rights are what you are allowed to do by the powers that be. In America, that would be the federal and state governments. The constitution defined to the government what rights they are not allowed to take away from you because otherwise, they would take away all rights.
Think about that for a minute.
You may also notice that our rights are defined as something that we as a people must defend with eternal vigilance. That means that we are constantly in a battle for our very rights. With whom? The government. It is a tug-o-war of freedom and governance. We want protection and governance to some degree, but we also want the freedom fo autonomy. To maintain that balance, we must constantly struggle to keep our rights even as we seek to restrict them.
So you want to keep those rights as open as possible. You do not want to say it is okay to start checking off rights because they don't apply to you since you have God given rights and they are forever inalienable. You won't have much in the way of rights when you are being pinned down and you are being read your miranda rights. Ever wonder why even though they say you have the right to remain silent that they still continue to question you?
Constant battle between government and the citizenry. Of governance and freedoms.
Restrictions and rules meant to bring about order can also, when left unchecked, bring about a military state where all rights are suspended.
Say... the recent "time of war" event. In a time of war, different rules are in play. People are willing to give up more rights in the name of protection and safety. Kind of like paying protection money to the local thugs. You give up your rights under the threat of harm.
In the case of our nation, the threat is external. But we gave up our rights all the same. It is easy to give up one's rights. It is immeasurably more difficult to reclaim them.
The argument that a current levels of restrictions is causing harm to society doesn't cut it to get your rights back.
The trick with law and the constitution is not trying to understand it the way everyone does. The trick is to understand it the way the court system does. Once you see that, you will understand why the concern over personal privacy and personal rights is a big deal.
The courts are bound. Not because they don't care, but because they are bound by the rules and laws. Because the law itself is what they must judge you by. And if by a fluke, a law greatly limiting your freedoms is deemed constitutional, then it will limit the rights of all people in this nation.
At that point, that definition you have of inalienable rights would have shrunk. Just a bit.
You think it is okay to have the police go after one group of people because you feel threatened by them. So in doing so, you are willing to contribute to the tide of people who want to abolish their rights.
So in a sense, you are okay with it not because it is personal to you, it isn't. You are okay with it because it ISN'T personal. Because by doing this, you don't think it hurts you.
See it from a flip side.
You have kids and because of columbine, kids are considered threats so the state decides that monitoring all children all the time is the right thing to do. People who don't have children and fear them think this is a great idea. You, however, have children and to you, this IS personal and would hurt you and your children. But other people don't see that because by monitoring you and your children, they believe they are safer for it.
I'm as against the idea of children being sexually molested and raped as the next person. But bringing about a police state isn't the solution and neither is invading the privacy of people.
Having said all of that, I would say that if someone has committed the crime of sexually molesting and assaulting a child, they should pay for their crime. They should recieve treatment and should be monitored for a period(parole) to ensure they do not relapse, after which, they should get little check-up visits from the state. But if they prove themselves to be productive and non-harmful citizens, why shouldn't they have their privacy and why shouldn't they have their right to live a normal life again without people finding out about their past and harassing them and chasing them out of town over and over again?
People who say that is is personal sometimes don't really understand what it means. Especially in this case.
If your child was sexually molested by someone, then it's personal. If your child was killed or murdered, then it's personal. If you or your own were responsible for those acts, then it's personal.
If you have children and nothing has happened and you are just concerned, then it is NOT personal.
You saying it is okay for the state to strip away the rights of citizens; however, makes it personal to everyone. Because if you can take away the rights of someone who committed a crime and has already paid for it, why not strip away the privacy rights of someone who has a medical history? I'm sure their employer feels it is the in personal best interest of his company to know if someone will be expensive to keep on as an employee. I'm sure medical insurance companies would love to know.. since someone like that is not worthwhile to insure.
If I sound like I'm ranting a bit, maybe it's because I'm offended by the idea of: "Kudos to any company that helps keep predators at bay."
That reeks of the kind of thinking behind, "The ends justify the means" and "achieving goals by any means necessary". It is the kind of thinking which leads to a KGB state where people end up stabbing their neighbors in the back.
It is also the kind of thinking which quickly leads to racism. If statistics show "predators" to fall more in one ethnic group, is it then okay to strip away the rights of that group of people? Or perhaps it's just men who need to have their rights taken away since the majority of rapes and sexual assaults are committed by men. Or maybe it's just anyone who is aggressive in nature or anyone who is rude to someone else?
Someone else posted that it's a slippery slope that one slides down. I say it is a sheer cliff face. You don't know what you've done until you've crossed the edge and suddenly you find yourself bereft of your freedoms.
Here's another thought: Your child is still young now, but what about when your child grows older and falls into any one of the categories which you think should be monitored? How personal would it be then? Would you be okay with that? Or would it suddenly not be?
... blood from a stone, friend. But still... let's beat that carcass just a bit longer.
Real-Time replication across mulitple servers:
That would be a SAN switch with multiple systems booting off of SAN disks.
OR, that would be Oracle RAQ.
ASP/HTML static page serving/etc...
Seriously, it's all in the configuration and how you are coding your system. If you try to run everything on one box, then yes, your results will be hosed because of the various contentions at work. Put the work on the correct boxes.
Can't get the cheap systems because they don't have muscle
Well, obviously, the cheaper the systems, the less their processing power. Hence, the need for more systems. However, what might also be slowing you down is an improperly tuned system. If you tune for a large enterprise server and then run that on a wimpy office server, you will get hosed results. Tune appropriately.
Everything else...
The question is this: What is your project? What are you trying to do and do you understand how each of those components work? You mention .Net and SQL and Web pages. Sounds like you have a public facing database application being served off of the web.
In that case, your beefiest machine should be your SQL/database server. By beefy, I mean processors, memory and disks. If these are the systems you want to have replication, go with ORACLE RAQ. It isn't cheap, but short of that, your other bet is to maintain multible database servers with concurrent data writes... expensive and slow.
Next would be your application servers. These should be powerful, but second only to your database servers. They should be a temporary place for work to be done.
NEVER run your application server on the same machine as your database server.
The last on your list are your front end webservers. Light systems here. Some 2xprocessor 1GHZ/2GHZ systems would be fine here.
Basically, know what your program at hand is and how best to deal with it. There is no generic "simple answer". And if it is simple, it is often not cheap.
If your client's budget is $20K-$30K, and they want more performance, then they need to either re-evaluate the solutions they are willing to go to or they need to re-evaluate what their goals are. They won't do it with Windows, that's for sure.
The problem lies in the shredding process itself, I think.
A shredder which shreds in a symmetrical way, but is misaligned with the content of the page will create "locking patterns" much like a puzzle piece. This is what the technology seems to key on.
The solution to this "problem" would be one of the following:
Personally, I think office garbage, especially the shredded type,should be mixed with cafeteria garbage. Nothing breaks down and messes up printouts like coffee and fruit juices. ;) Plus it makes it very difficult to scan reliably.
People will build new technology to deal with this firm's process. In which case, the firm will need to adapt or go out of business...
Seems a quick google search is all it takes... and few do it... -_-;;
Sound based repellers don't work. Period. End of story. Combine that with the fact that CelPhones' earpieces and speakers produce sound in the 20hz-22000hz range... this is being generous as most are more like 50hz-18000hz. Most, if not all of which is audible to humans. At the point where the volume is turned down below what you can hear, it ain't there.
Citronella doesn't really repel insects.
Deet does, but is cancerous. (100% deet is still sold in California, btw.)
Carbon dioxide will lure Mosquitoes... potentially away from you. Hence the dry ice in the corner of the backyard trick works.
Skin So Soft, from what I can see online doesn't repel and the brand which they later produced which they claim does contains citronella... so it most likely doesn't.
Seriously, a ringtone which repels bugs? If you're willing to pay for that, I've got a special soundfile which you can play which will repel con artsists: I'm broke. I've got no money.
Okay, you have a firewall and a virus scanner. But all of this is for naught if you yourself push the button or your software pushes the button. In either case, your system gets hosed and you have hours of work ahead of you to fix things.
Most virii are currently Windows based. The gut feeling would be to avoid that platform and choose something more resistant like Linux or MacOSX.
If you can't step away from Windows, then step away from the applications on Windows which can make your life suck: Outlook/Outlook Express, MS Office, Auto-downloaders, Auto-executors, etc.
If you have the good sense to avoid opening those files, but your software doesn't, then you are still screwed. you need to configure your OS to not be so impulsive. Tell it to save off those attachments and place them somewhere safe for scanning. Don't let it automatically process images/etc.
Finally, if you can't avoid Windows or the applications which can lead to computer ruin, then at least make good backups and such...
I use WinXPpro, Mac OSX, GNU/Linux 2.4.20(Debian) and have yet to have a virii incursion. Though that is probably due to the use of Pine, Mail, and OpenOffice. :)
Thumbs up to OpenSource/FSF and the community.
Common sense approach to systems is important.
In the case of the poster, he/she happens to be using a platform the virus can't use. Ie, a Mac.
I've got three systems at home: Mac X, WinXP, and Linux. Not one of my systems have been hit by virii. The trick? Not using MS email/web/document products.
The point is that the file needs to get onto your system and the way to do that is to either look at it yourself or your software does. If your software is sane and so are you, then you will avoid the problems of virii entirely.
Security features are meant to defeat people of problematic views. Outright bad computer user habits compromise the security features of your system.
My only guess is that you ARE lucky since there are MAC virii out there.
In my case, it is using better judgement in selecting and installing software.
That's just the problem in this particular issue: We don't know whether the turning on/off of functions was to Dell's or Apple's benefit. That they were done for the benefit of Apple is an assumption in and of itself.
Granted, given the recent benchmark "debates" regarding graphics cards and such, it would be easy to make that assumption.
The question really should be whether the tests were relevant at all.
My point was that they appeared to be as fair as is possible by using the same compiler between the two systems and such. This does a much better job of setting a baseline than say using the best compiler from each camp which results in comparing compilers and not processors.
Oooh... ouch. :)
No, I'm one of those people who has the four button+2 axis scroll mice and am considering one of those "scroll" devices for the Mac.
Seriously, though, I should have been more specific.
Anything before Windows 2000 has been flakey with the possible exception of Windows NT 3.51 which I've had good experiences with.
Windows ME and Windows XP home edition are both flakey. I use XP Pro for my windows box and have had it running smoothly on mostly default configs for 6 months before needed to reboot it due to excessive heat buildup(AC failure).
By "Hard to use interface", I was referring to the fact that the configuration options one wants is usually either buried under obscure menus or not available at all except through direct modification of a Registry element with regedit.
This also includes the problems with installing and uninstalling software on the system without leaving bits and chunks of the old application or driver on the system. With XP. this is improved on somewhat, but one still runs into problems.
I don't name specific 3rd party programs since that isn't really MS's fault, just bad interface design on the part of the 3rd party.
Btw, I just love how the default knee-jerk reaction to criticism of Windows or Mac is to call one another names respective to the stereotypes of that platform.
Btw, if you want to see Windows 2000 become unstable, try recording two video streams simultaneously on the same hard drive. When the fragmentation becomes severe enough, the OS will destabilize without a timely disk defragmentation.
This is not the case with either Mac OS X or Linux(pick any distro).
But if Windows can rid itself of those stability issues and figure out a way to make their System Settings/Configuration/Registry easier to understand and less arcane, then I'd say they'd be gold. (With the exception of virii and security holes which should be near the top of the todo list)
But I run Windows XP Pro, Linux, and now Mac OS X. I use all three with equal adeptness and ease. But then again, it's my career. *shrugs*
I think the point is that Apple has been getting it's rear end handed to them repeatedly in the performance market. Ie, Apple computers are not known in the x86 world for being workhorses.
Apple has already been leveraging the easy to use aspect of the OS. But the point is this:
Windows(the target audience) has been used to the crashes and hard to use interface. They tend to dislike it, but given the amount of hardware and software invested already, why switch? There has to be an exceedingly compelling reason to give up what can be a $5000-$15,000 workflow for a completely different system.
You would want a system which was better in every aspect.
If you had thousands invested in a setup and the only benefit for switching is "ease of use", then there is no compelling reason since the average person will think: "Screw that! I'll save my money and deal with the harder to use software".
I have to say, this puts things in an interesting light.
Does a company, in trying to be fair as it seems in this case, get penalized for choosing the best optimization and not testing with the worst optimizations(as per their views)?
In looking at other sites like Tom's Hardware and Anantech, I think the answer is simple: Show all of the results, both the good and the bad. That way, it removes the spectre of doubt in peoples' minds that fairness wasn't present during testing.
Personally, I don't have the funds to get a G5 based system. It just isn't in the budget. But then again, the only reason I would buy a G5 system over an x86(Opteron or P4) would be to run Mac OSX. :)
I'm guessing that tests will be conducted by various groups over the next few days to either validate or invalidate the tests. Sounds alike like that whole MS/cost analysis/web server speed fiasco all over again.
Despite the tests, for Mac users who wish to stick with Mac OS X, the G5s are as fast as they come.
Side Note:
I should mention that I have used Linux from the first distro of Slackware through Redhat, Mandrake, and now Suse. I perform my own kernel upgrades and system upgrades. I install and maintain Solaris systems at work.
I have used Microsoft products since MSDOS 3.0 through till XP Pro. I have had to deal with all the problematic and blood pressure raising incarnations of Windows both at work and at home.
My experience with Apple products has been with my iBook and distant memories of an old Apple IIe. Both of which are happy troublefree ones.
Being a recent convert to the Mac/Apple fold, I find I have both concerns about these upgrade cycles and at the same time, I feel they are justified.
Let's take a look and see what we are comparing so we aren't comparing Apples and well.. you know.
In my mind, there are really only three platforms out there: Apple, Windows, and *nix(Linux,BSD,Solaris,etc).
Let's look at the "cost" of upgrades for each of these, shall we?
With Apple, it seems you pay $129 for each major revision change. People who were using 10.0-10.1 were charged to go to 10.2 and now it seems that 10.2 users(myself included) will be charged to go to 10.3.
My experience with my iBook running 10.2.6 has been about as damn near perfect as I have ever experienced on any platform with a user interface to match. Sure I paid top dollar for a laptop which won't beat my fellow co-workers' 1-2Ghz laptops anytime soon, but I also won't be cursing at my laptop for wiping out my data either. That has got to be worth something.
With Linux, we get free kernel and OS upgrades. However, each time I went through the upgrade process, I had to literally double check every software package and perform countless recompiles to get things right again. On average, with every major kernel release I have had to spend the better part of an afternoon performing "installation" exercises. With every minor release, I have had to recompile the kernel. I didn't pay cash on the barrel for the upgrade, but I paid for it in time.
With Windows, it has always been a struggle. People say *nix is unfriendly. I say it is Windows which is unfriendliest of all. You have to pay about $149 for an upgrade to the OS or in my case, $349 for the "full" version of the software. To top it off, if I have any aspirations of a marginally stable system, I have to perform a clean install and not just an upgrade on top of my existing system. This results in at least a full day of work on my part in re-installing the OS and all of the applications on the system. I pay in time and money.
Now. With that in mind, I'm looking at the prospect of paying $129 for the 10.3 version of Mac OSX:Panther for my iBook which will run better with other systems and be even friendlier.
I think I can live with that.
Extensions of your argument of "if they screw up the electronics, then they should be banned", would be if they can potentially screw up pace-makers like microwaves can, then they should be banned from facilities which may have people who use pace-makers.
This would include, but not limited to: Hospitals, music halls, malls, restraunts, parks, bathrooms, some peoples' homes and neighborhoods, and most anywhere on the street.
Just about any place where someone with a pace-maker might be.
The problem isn't the celphone. The celphone is operating within its specs which are more current than the specs of the airplane with which it is interfering. Banning the celphones does not negate the risk, only mitigates it.
A laptop, a walkman, a walkie-talkie, or even just an electronic toy could cause a problem. The issue is not that celphones are the problem. The issue is that the planes are no longer up to spec with regards to the types of broadcasts and EM emitting devices which are present today.
Banning phones with regards to the planes just means you remove one source of interference. You haven't made the plane itself any safer.
Think about this for a minute: Space craft aren't designed with the idea of avoiding places or removing things which might interfere with its normal operation. They are designed with the intent of operating normally despite the background noise and random radiation it might encounter.
I wouldn't buy a computer if the label read: Keep away from microwave, celphone, or other broadcasting device as it may cause operational problems. I'd laugh and buy something else which has been designed to operate robustly.
Now think about the plane we all ride on. Why the heck isn't robustness being considered as an option? If a celphone can cause problems, what about solar flares? What about someone pointing a new broadcast antenna up skyward? What about a stray microwave transmission from a dish?
Banning celphones isn't a solution. It isn't even a bandaid. It is the result of sticking one's head either up one's rear end or down a hole. In either case, it isn't seeing the light and what needs to get done.
On a side note, I agree with you on your point about lowering costs of skyphones. I'm all for that.
To anyone that desperately wants to live, would you prefer to place your life at the mercy of an airplane whose electronics can get messed with if someone forgets to turn off their phone or if they left one on in the cargo bay or would you rather the airliners go and fix the shielding issue on their existing planes?
It isn't an issue of you doing the right thing. You should be.
It IS an issue of whether the Airliners are doing the right thing. Those that insist on operating unsafe aircraft in our current technological age are not doing the right thing.
This has always been something that's bugged me.
The phones emit a level of radiation which is, according to the FCC, an acceptable level and given the class of the device, must tolerate emissions other electrical equipment emits.
The question I have is whether or not the airplane equipment is properly shielded and whether the FAA approved aircraft are equipped with FCC approved equipment.
If a celphone emitting single digit watts of power can cause havoc on an airplane, it doesn't seem to take much to take out an airplane in terms of electrical sophistication.
Or to create diversions for hijackers.
The question I pose is:
Why are the airliners choosing to hide their heads in the sand and blame celphones when their planes are the ones which are vulnerable due to improperly shielded wires and computer hardware. Are they keeping all of their equipment updated and up to specs? Or are they performing the "Fight Club" calculation of the cost of replacement vs the cost of lawsuits from relatives of the deceased?
(a)The percentage of failures * (b)The number of cars currently out there * (c)The cost of lawsuits per incident. A * B * C. If that is less than the cost of a recall, they don't issue one.
Maybe it's time we started helping the airliners think about human safety and their responsibility instead of shovelling off the blame to their customers.
Hmm.. too bad your post's score isn't high enough. It's actually kinda informative.
I wouldn't try to connect to the net via 802.11b from a train. Not unless they have wifi access on the train, as they do on some planes these days.
I see the ease of use and cool factor with Bluetooth. Connect things which go together without wires. That is fine. In your example, Bluetooth does a geat job of replacing a data cable between your phone and your laptop. For my purposes, my phone has no bluetooth support. I use a cable to connect my laptop to my phone for network access.
But that isn't an 802.11b vs Bluetooth issue.
From a laptop point of view, I use an ibook and have seen no instablities whatsoever. However, getting Bluetooth to interoperate between differing OS's and systems(Mac->Windows->Linux) IS a problem. Granted, this isn't Bluetooth's fault, but that of the companies writing drivers for the technology.
I use a PDA to transfer vcards via irda. For the most part, there are many more irda users than there are bluetooth users out there. I'm sure this will change. Faster, I hope, as irda is ungodly slow.
You sound like you are a happy user of Bluetooth. Given time(read: when phones supported by my celphone carrier offer Bluetooth capabilities) I'll be a happy user of it as well.
For the time being, it doesn't offer me anything which 802.11b doesn't already offer me or a $10 cable doesn't already provide for.
My planet is made up of various OS's. I tend to like them all to play nice together.
Seriously, what does bluetooth have to offer which 802.11 doesn't offer already?
I'm typing this via my laptop connected to my home network via 802.11b which in turn is hooked up to the DSL to the internet. The wireless card is powered by my laptop. I get 11mpbs on this thing and have an effective range, with degraded performance, of up to 100' from my gateway.
In contrast, with Bluetooth, I get what? 768kbps connection in what is termed a PAN(Personal Area Network). The range is limited to distances comparable to patch cable. Basically, it buys you the ability to remove the wires between your headset, your phone, and your PDA/Printer/laptop/etc.
But if any of it wanders too far away, then you will lose your connection. Ie, don't try to print to the printer from another room.
The argument seems to be that the IP stack of 802.11b is overkill. That 802.11b consumes more power. Sure. I believe it. I've seen USB dongles for 802.11b which are about the same size as the USB dongles for Bluetooth.
The relationship between bluetooth and 802.11(b/g/x/a/etc) is like the relationship between gift certificates and debit cards.
They both are tied to another system, but the gift certificate can only be used with a select few stores and have a limited life whereas the debit cards can be used just about anywhere and are honoured for a longer period of time.
Manufacturers would be wise to embed 802.11 into their systems. Why wouldn't you want greater range and communication speeds? Why limit your product to a short lifespan and guaranteed obsolence compared to your competitors?
Short sightedness.
Sure, I can pick up a bluetooth enabled phone, pda, and headset and do the local wireless thing. But damned if I want to surf the net at a local cafe, airport, or bookstore. What do they use? 802.11.
If I had a 802.11 enabled phone, pda, and headset, I could use that same hardware anywhere there is a wifi hotspot.
I understand there are different design intentions and goals. But the question which should be asked is not whether the device lives up to those goals, but whether the very goals themselves are sound.
If Bluetooth's only real advantage is simplicity and lower power consumption, then it is sunk because 802.11's implementation can be embedded in a one-chip design and the power consumption is dropping. Another 6 months and the edge which bluetooth has will be lost.
Then what will be the point of Bluetooth except as another standard to which to choose from? A standard with shorter range and lower throughput.
802.11 is stable and widely adopted. Bluetooth has yet to see wide acceptance with stable support from desktop/laptop systems.
In my mind, the very "benefits" of bluetooth makes it weak.
Lower power consumption also means weaker broadcast. If you happened to be in a electricalloy noisey environment, how well would bluetooth hold up?
Lower bandwidth means longer wait times while I transfer information from one device to another. This in turn negates the power savings of the device.
...
But I then again, I'm ranting. Bluetooth may become more widely adopted and people will use it with ease between pda and their accesories.
But then again, I'm writing this from a 802.11b connected network. It took 20 minutes to setup on my first try and has not had a single problem with it since setup. No crashed OS's and no stalled connections. This between three brands of 802.11b products in the same network between three different operating systems.
I forgot to mention some of the portable web players like Blazer and Avantgo. Though they really aren't in the same market.
Safari runs on the Mac only, so while it may be growing fast, unless it is ported to another OS platform, it's growth will be stunted.
On that note, Safari is built on the engine which Konquerer uses, no? (Or was it Mozila's engine?)
Personally, I don't think the wars are over or ever will be. In my mind, Mozilla, IE, Netscape, Konquerer, Nautilus, Opera, and now Safari are all players in the Web arena. That doesn't look like a clear victory was achieved, but rather that a whole storm of development is in the works all around.
I hear ya.
Been looking at the apple's itunes store and the more I look, the more I think it is a good idea compared to buying whole CD's and getting screwed out of the good sounding track or with something like MS where they will give you music that doesn't play at the best quality possible or won't play after you stop paying.
Another way of looking at it:
With Apple, I may pay $1 per song, but at the end of the day/month/year, that song still cost me only $1.
With MS, I will pay $120/year. However, depending on how much I download, at the end of the year/etc, I would have paid more than $1 per song. To boot, I may not even have the right to play or keep the song if I stop paying.
With choices like that, Apple's is the way to go by a far margin.