Second that. Drilling into new oil sources is a fix for a problem, not a solution. From the summary:
Since it describes those deposits as "the largest fossil fuel deposits in the world," that could be a very good thing (..)
My thoughts on that statement are, at the very least, mixed. I'm one of those few people who aren't bothered much by rising energy prices. Why? Higher energy prices are a strong drive for development of alternative energy sources. Many of which are sustainable, exhaust-free and suitable for small-scale application (read: useful for remote, under-developed areas).
When energy prices go up, it forces people and businesses to think about whether they really need to consume that much. It gives a competitive edge to businesses that do care about their energy consumption. And when high oil prices slow down economy, it makes people re-use things more, buy second-hand, or choose long-lasting quality over cheap crap when they buy things. All good for the environment we all have to share.
So an 'easy', huge new source of fossil fuel = good? Not really, just more CO2 waiting to be thrown in the atmosphere, and solving the real problems may get put on hold.
High oil prices aren't all bad, you know. They tell you that oil is a precious substance that you shouldn't be too careless with.
The below really bothers me. Someone may think that accepting that kind of offer admits no guilt, but in reality, it admits you're guilty. The logic is that if you are truly innocent, you should have no problem in court.
Sounds logical, but doesn't match real life. First, these kids were guilty, of violating the school policy regarding the use of these machines. A policy that was known, and previously agreed to by the kids and/or their parents, in writing or some other equally legal binding method. No matter how stupid that policy was, or how ridiculous the school overreacted after (repeated) violation of said policy.
Now the school provides itself an easy (face-saving?) way out, by offering these students an easy way out that doesn't involve the judicial system. Replaces official charges with 15 hours of community service, as punishment for that policy violation. Still not an optimal response, but sounds a lot more reasonable to me.
Going to court because you're innocent? Doesn't work that way. People go to court for countless reasons, very silly ones included. Both parties involved estimate their chances, estimate cost (time/money/company image/...), and decide whether they think it's important enough, whether they can afford the cost, and whether that cost is worth it. Innocense is one factor, but doesn't matter much once you go to court. Criminals walk away all the time, and some innocent folks get convicted too. What can be shown in court, and how good lawyers you have, matters a lot more.
The problem is not the number of components, it's the fact that it's so fucking difficult to determine a) what you need, b) how things depend on each other, and c) where/how to configure everything.
What tools/programs do yo need for a succesful build from source?
What components do you need, and what components can be left out while still providing desired functionality? What does component X do? Do you need glx, DRI, DRM, or Mesa to get hardware 3D acceleration working?
What files need to be edited to select components that will be built? What is allowed in editing those files, and what not?
It's not that it is impossible to find out about these, but that it's so hard to find the proper documentation (maybe it's in there, but where?).
With a Linux kernel, configuration is straightforward and easy. For whole distro's, it's usually a lot easier to tell what program does what, and how it fits in the whole. What's a user command for? "man command", "info command", "command --help" (or something like that) will tell you quickly.
With X, all these things are much more difficult. That whole modularization project sounds super to me. Modularization is good. Not so much for building and understanding as the articles states, but for better/easier maintenance. Some small fix -> rebuild a small part, done. So basically I hope documentation on all these components will be improved, with 1 basic goal: Choose desired functionality from whatever is currently possible (including other projects), select functionality you want, select components to provide that functionality, make the desired configuration, get the build tools needed, build from source, make packages/install, do end-configuration. Any documentation that makes this procedure more clear and straightforward, is greatly appreciated.
How, then, would you propose to sell "digital media"? If you don't like the per-copy scheme, describe a scheme that will work and allow all people involved to be making the same amount of money they're making now (not an unreasonable stipulation, I think).
How about selling digital media the same way all other goods are sold: buy paying for physical items, work involved, and related services?
I read an interesting paper on the economics of easily-copied items once (don't remember title or author, sorry), that claimed information is a physical limited resource like any other, only the numbers are different. It makes a lot of sense when you think about it.
Example - a CD can be copied instantly and in infinite numbers? Not really: to make a copy, you need to read the CD. That takes time, and makes that CD unavailable to others while you're copying it. Now put it on an FTP site. Free copying for everyone in infinite numbers? Not exactly, that FTP server can't pump out copies faster than bandwidth allows. Any other copies are copies-from-copies, and to each of these, the same restrictions apply as to that single CD you start with.
Same when you're copying some piece of equipment, or reverse engineer an electronic device. While you have the parts of your to-be-modded Xbox spread on the table, that Xbox can't be used to play games on.
With current technology, you know that these limitations seem irrelevant. But they're really just small, not irrelevant. Suppose in a world that doesn't know copyrights, Ms. Britney Spears would treat her next single as a physical item only: records a disk in the studio, and then takes that disk to a recording company, in exchange for say, $250,000. No limitations on what that record company does with it, BUT: that first disk costs $250,000. Period. Now the record company can mass-produce copies. But no matter what, they can't start doing that before they obtain that first disk, which would provide Ms. Spears with $250k income. That first disk would ofcourse become a very valuable physical item, and why not treat it as such? Suppose a technician leaks its contents: with countless copies out there, that first disk becomes worthless. What did that technician do? Destroy $250k worth of property. I'd know what to do if somebody destroyed $250k worth of my property: sue them for the full amount.
Hard to build business models in such a world? No, have people pay for physical items (CD's, DVD's, books, paintings etc). Or have people pay to compensate for your bandwidth costs. For those who don't want to pay: fine, but your server won't provide their download (only authenticated, paying customers). You want to do some software project, but it costs $5000? "Donate here!", and you spend an hour on the project for each $20 that comes in.
What are people paying for in that scenario? For: convenience, physical goods, services. Before you all start yelling: "that wouldn't work, nobody would buy any information anymore!", look around: how is todays world different? People pay when they feel like it, people pay for downloads, people buy CD's, DVD's etc., even while they can get it for free using P2P. Why? To support the artists, for the nice box and printed manual, for the no-fuss, fast, reliable download. In the case of newspapers or magazines, for the filtering, editing, printing and distribution (=services/physical item). In the case of a painting, for the knowledge that it's a unique (or limited number) item, or the work the painter put in. In the case of a new car design, for the work all the engineers, CAD/CAM people and test drivers put in.
Competition between record companies would be about which one succeeds in producing 100,000 copies of the latest Ms. Spears, and distribute them to shops around the world first. Or by having an exlusive contract with Ms. Spears, that another company doesn't have. By offering a different selection of artists in their portfolio than other record companies. Oh wait, that's what r
This is actually one of the few types of DRM that I can actually see as being worthwhile. That is, a type of DRM that emulates the current, physical limitations of property in digital space rather than manufacturing artificial restrictions.
You've got it 180 degrees reversed here: The article states that the audio books are of the downloaded type, and use a Windows-only based player. The popular iPod is a no-go as well.
So there isn't really any "current, physical limitations of property". These audiobooks are in digital format, and (in essence) aren't any kind of scarce resource with physical limitations.
You can't use a player of your choice. The format isn't an open one. You can't program your own player for it, or turn these audiobooks into other formats (assuming the DRM would work). And, from the article: "Vendors such as OverDrive Inc. and OCLC Online Computer Library Center Inc.'s NetLibrary have licensing deals with publishers". So the choice here is limited to what these vendors choose to make available. Oh, and the audio books become unreadable after an arbitrary period of time.
Yes, it may be useful if it makes some audio books available that wouldn't be available otherwise. Yes, it may work fine for you. But other than that, it's ONLY manufactured, artificial restrictions.
Synthetic diamonds were developed by GE in the 50s. Most (if not all) of the diamond in diamond coated drills are produced through this process. The process developed in the 50s only produces what's called "industrial diamonds" and are nowhere near gem quality.
Dude, read up on synthetic diamonds. The state of the art has advanced to a point where it is possible to create synthetic diamonds that exceed natural diamonds in purity/and or size, and cheaper as well, and several people are doing it. What color do you like? Blue, yellow, orange, purple, or green?
It's just that supply of 'the real thing' is artificially limited to keep up prices, and the industry has produced equipment to measure exactly what qualities diamonds have. 'Too perfect'? Then it must be an artificial one. Along with the marketing department shouting "synthetic=inferior".
Women like diamonds less just because they're artificial? From what I understand, that's not so clear yet, and many women don't mind. So ofcourse there's low-grade diamond powder produced for things like industrial grinding, but synthetic diamonds can definitely be gem-quality. Strictly speaking, maybe even better.
Forgive my ignorance after Reading TFA... but this "harder than diamond" material is... made of diamonds! Seems like false advertising, though I get what they did.
From the article: "(..) made the new material by subjecting carbon-60 molecules to immense pressures. The new form of carbon, which is known as aggregated diamond nanorods"
So the new material consists of tiny diamond rods, but is made of carbon-60 molecules (aka 'buckyballs', which has many interesting properties, but like most carbon-based materials, is NOT diamond).
Always amazing how few words are needed to make people misread them.
The non-technical people out there understand version #s only enough to be confused here. They probably think Linux is stagnating. I'm not saying we need to rush ahead to "Linux XP" or something, but wouldn't it be wise to start incrementing something other than the 3rd set of digits?
Simple answer: wherever you read version 2.6.x, read 2.7.x instead. For all intents and purposes, I regard Linux 2.6.x as development branch.
Just look at the the huge number of patches that go into the kernel between 2.6.x releases. And check the size of all those patches combined. Even changelogs are in the MB. range. Compare that with 2.4.x series.
Anybody who claims 2.6.x is a 'stable' kernel series, is a liar. Stable running: yes. I'm used to compiling my own kernels from vanilla 2.6.x sources, and I can't remember ever having had a hard lockup (where the machine is totally frozen). And my use of Linux includes all common things like webbrowsing (JavaScript, Java + flash plugins all used on and off), MP3 music, and internet multipayer, hardware accelerated 3D gaming.
But stable from a development point of view ('mature')? No way. Personally I suspect things are done this way, because the 2.6.x series provide such a powerful foundation, that allmost everything you can cook up, one way or the other can be fitted into existing infrastructure. And putting it into 2.6 releases, exposes it to a lot of users/testers, so that bugs can be shaken out fast.
If you don't like this, then I suggest you either a) don't compile your own kernels, but have a stability-oriented distro like Debian or Slackware-based do it for you, or b) look at *BSD instead.
So true. But another question pops here. From the summary: "purchase or build a computer that meets DoD compliance".
Now, does this mean: 'build a computer that will be used by the DoD', or does it mean: 'build a computer according to DoD specs' (but used by some other party). From the summary, I can't tell which.
As another poster points out, not only the work to be done on it may be secret, but the standards which it should meet, may be as well.
Personally, I think that an extremely 'secure computer' basically involves 2 things:
If a user brings in data (like on a removable HDD) and does some work on the machine, then when that user leaves, not a single trace of whatever work was done by that user, is left on the machine.
That you can be sure that the machine itself provides no means for 3rd parties to intercept or corrupt data. Read: that you can be absolutely sure about both hardware and software configuration of that machine. Read: have strict procedures and (physical) access controls for any hardware or software modifications.
First thing that comes to mind for me then, is combining removable storage with the computer: voila, a laptop. Security then becomes a matter of securing/auditing physical access to that laptop.
But anyway, other posters are right: either he can't do it because he doesn't have those specs, or he has the specs, and then it is simply a matter of following these. So either way, why the hell is he asking/. ?
This is just the reincarnation of the mainframe era.
And what is wrong with mainframes? Putting all the computing power in one place, is about sharing that equipment between all users, making optimal use of the hardware. As opposed to everyone having their own box that comes with everything and the kitchen sink, but sits around doing nothing 98% of the time. Talk about waste...
I'm not even going to enertain the idea of having MY data stored on another (microsoft/sun/etc)server, and paying for the rights to access/modify it.
Agreed... but I can think of many compute-intensive tasks, where the privacy implications aren't that important: scientific research, running simulations, design/engineering, etc. Besides: if that 3rd party (on purpose) leaks or abuses confidential data that you trust with them, then you know who to sue for damages. And think of what running any software/OS with an automatic update mechanism enabled, means here. Kind of the same: to a certain degree, you simply trust that 3rd party.
There is a reason it's called the PC,and not a dumb terminal.
In my view PC's haven't gotten all that much smarter in the past decades, seeing how ordinary users struggle with them every day. And not faster either, only very efficient at wasting CPU cycles on eyecandy and countless software layers. Don't get me wrong here: you can do lots of wonderful things with PC's today that weren't possible 10 or 20 years ago, and I wouldn't want to swap mine with a vintage machine for doing everyday work. But just FYI: for example a meager 3.5 MHz. Sinclair ZX Spectrum boots up in what, 1 second? Doesn't need updates, doesn't have virusses, and even if it's the first time you've ever used a computer, you can learn how to program and run a "Hello World!" thingie on it in under 5 minutes. Back in the 80's, kids (myself included) used to do this with machines that were on display in shops. Now try those things with your brandnew 3+ Ghz. machine.
Back to that mainframe issue: I can see lots of people who would love an appliance-like PC, with software on it remotely managed. Think: by your local ISP, by a user group of your choosing (like a Linux distro), you name it. With your private data stored in any location of your choosing, locally or on some other remote system.
Just putting computing power remotely as well, doesn't make much sense to me for most scenario's. The speed at which computing power becomes cheap for the masses, makes that a niche market for selected applications. As always: pick the right tool for the job.
Compare spam with phone-based direct marketing, or pushing (unasked for) flyers in a (snail-) mailbox, and think of the economics:
As much as many people hate it, there's always a percentage that buys advertised items. And with their wallet, this small percentage supports the other camp. You may hate this method of doing business, but there's the other side too: products sold, bring income and jobs for people making these products. For the small percentage of buyers, some products/services may be very much appreciated, or give them things they can't easily obtain otherwise. We'll leave legalities out for now. Some things may be appreciated because they're illegal, but there may be other things that are illegal, while many feel they shouldn't be.
And ofcourse in marketing, there's the saying "there's a new sucker born every day".
Given the fact that some percentage of people seems to want this type of marketing, do you think it will ever die out, or is there only hope of controlling it to acceptable/managable levels?
Set up say, 1000 domino blocks in a row. Then tip the first one over. Given constant size, weight, spacing of individual blocks, and a horizontal surface, you will observe blocks falling down at a constant rate/speed ('c'). Given that constant rate/speed, tipping over the first block will cause all blocks to fall down, tipping over the last block some time later. Time delay calculates as distance divided by 'c'.
Now, create 'extreme conditions', where the first domino block is down, the last one is still standing, and halfway down the row, blocks are falling, but not quite down on the floor. Then, observe the 'wave front' of falling domino blocks. It will appear to move faster than the previously determined 'c'. How come?
Look more closely: as each block falls down, there's a fixed delay before it hits the next block. But what happens under our 'extreme conditions'? At the exact time a previous block would have hit the next one (under normal circumstances), that next block is already falling down! The time it takes for the 1000 blocks to fall down, is less than what normally would be expected.
Did this 'c' constant get violated? Nope, it still took the same amount of time for each block to fall down. Was the maximum 'c' speed exceeded? Nope. After tipping the first block, it still took the same amount of time before this 'information' was passed on to the next block. With a set of 1000 blocks all standing, the time needed for an initial 'disturbance' to be passed on to the last block, is still limited by 'c'.
So these 'extreme conditions' are like pre-tipping each block, and let you observe something that appeared to move faster than 'c'.
Nice for the lab folks, but other than that, sensationalist journalism. Wake me up when trans-atlantic ping times (sending actual packets with random data) dive below the time dictated by the speed of light.
...no damage from button mashing fests either, I have ruined mice from games that require a lot clicking, but maybe I just click too hard?
A small word of advice:
Worry not what evil you may do to input devices. Only worry about what evil input devices may do to you.
If you've got a badly designed mouse or game controller that causes you RSI, then you have a problem. If OTOH a mouse or game controller crumbles under your constant abuse, who cares? Cheap plastic & electronics, easily replaced.
Nonsense. That's only the case if the CO2 produced, gets absorbed by other (new) trees/plants that take their place. For example a dead tree decomposing on the forest floor, this will be ok. And even a slightly smaller number of trees left might do the job, since heightened levels of CO2 in the atmosphere make it easier for plants to absorb CO2 (for example farmers working under glass may use waste CO2 to make their crops grow faster).
But take forest fires that leave square miles black (and take dozens of years to re-grow sizeable trees), or the speed at which tropical rainforests are cut/burned down, then "tree burning is carbon neutral" is a ridiculous claim.
The key word here is "sustainable". If you take out trees from a forest in a way that you could keep on doing forever, then you're right. If you burn flat a 100 square miles to make room for cows, then you're not.
(..) that native 64-bit libraries don't live in/usr/lib, instead living in/usr/lib64. This is a mess, and in a few years the excuse that it's there for compatibility won't matter. It's not cool to pay more attention to backwards compatibility than to native code, and it's always something one regrets later.
How do you mean, a mess? To quote from the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard v2.3: "There may be one or more variants of the/lib directory on systems which support more than one binary format requiring separate libraries."
So for example a/lib64 or/usr/lib64 isn't there to indicate that libraries are native 64 bit, nor for backwards compatibility. Only for allowing different sets of libraries side-by-side on the same system, if needed. In that case, you can have a mix of binaries linked against different library sets, that live happily together.
Don't want or need that? A simple symlink, or hard-linking one directory to another, should do the trick.
.. and it's always something one regrets later.
Once all binaries are linked to a single library set only, changing "lib64" back into "lib" is trivial. So what's your problem here?
Simple answer. The U.S. should have used everything it had to swiftly and massively crush Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan, using every civilian airliner and ship it could find to get the forces there as quickly as it could.
While that might have been effective, or reduce the chance for more Al Qaeda-style attacks like those in London recently, I would rate this point of view under "the same majority of people who just don't get the point". The same majority of people who voted GWB into office again, and got the US into this dreadful Iraq situation.
My point: these terrorists AREN'T the real problem. The real problem is what motivates them.
Sure there are always some nutcases who go out and kill random people. But this whole Al Qaeda thing is a lot bigger, and doesn't come out of thin air. The real question is: what motivates these young muslims to stand up, get trained, and blow themselves up in the middle of unsuspecting bystanders? What makes them so angry? What makes them hate westerners, christians or whatever, so much that if you take a couple of them out, ten others step in their place?
These terrorists like Al Qaeda are not the problem, they are a symptom. The real problem is what makes them tick. Just guessing here, but I'm thinking of things like:
US foreign politics: giving 'friendly' dictators a hand, helping to overthrow other regimes, oil, etc. Things like Guantanamo Bay fuel this fire for decades to come
the Israeli-Palestinian problem
poverty, unfair world trade
and many more reasons like this
IMHO the best way to attack terrorists, is to attack these underlying problems. Suppose a US-led effort would create durable peace between the Israeli's and Palestinians. Now that would help a lot more to stop young muslims from bombing US citizens. Not a be-all, end-all, quick fix, but something that needs time to work (decades). Changing your (political) ways, patience, and a bit of 'turn the other cheek' might work well here.
After 9/11, the biggest question should have been: "Why?" Instead, I think the US today is still dealing with: "Who?" Ofcourse I do realize that if you're a politician, this would be impossible to sell to a New Yorker who just watched the Twin Towers come down. And patience isn't in people's vocabulary. And the US will continue to put their own (oil) interests first. But I think few Americans realize, just how costly these politics are, all things considered. And much of that cost will be paid over many years to come, by people throughout the world (US included).
And just FYI, to add to that: Before you pick up one of these boxes, I hope you realise it's got exactly one ethernet port (according to description & pictures).
The article summary sez: "Serve files, music, web pages, printers, backups, kernel images, webcams/motion detection, firewalls/routers, wireless access point... or whatever." (emphasis mine)
That means the summary is mistaken, since firewall/router type applications are only practical with 2 ethernet ports attached. And I see no expansion slot to plug in a second NIC. Okay, if you're really brave, you might try an USB-to-ethernet adapter, but that isn't something I'd go for.
...a lot of countries are going to get nervous about potential invasion. If you thought things were bad with us taking your oil, wait till we come calling for your precious precious hydrogen.
On the contrary: we've got plenty of H2O here. We welcome you to take the H2 away from us, as long as you let us keep the remaining oxygen.
No wait... you can have the full H2O as well (some fish and heavy metals included).
Still using a 14" CRT set to 800x600, so the one thing not to waste is screen real estate. Nicely positioning half-overlapping windows makes no sense here. Maximised windows, and a fast+easy way to switch between them, does. I happen to like a Windows-style taskbar for that purpose, but that's just personal preference.
Now when I have a window maximised, I can see some uses for translucent UI elements: how about a window that stretches until the -real- bottom of the screen, and a half-transparent taskbar on top of that? Or make the 'always-present' scrollbar on the right side of a window translucent, and use the full screen width for content display? Or use a translucent window for an always-on-top app that you may run from time to time. So basically, a way of maximising the amount of info displayed on a given screen area.
But a more interesting question: are the added GUI complexity (+bugs) and system requirements a good trade-off considering that small gain in usability? My guess:
90% of users: no
another 9% of users: probably not, maybe later
remaining 1% of users: yes, perhaps
Oh wait, Longhorn does this by default and builds the whole GUI around the concept? (note questionmark, I haven't tried/seen any Longhorn stuff myself). Great! Makes as much sense to me as that 'integrate browser with desktop'-debacle.
And then there's the pounding on security issues lately. Priority #1 now? When I see MS pouring all that coding effort primarily into eye candy, I expect Longhorn to have a hard time gaining acceptance once it's released.
"The proper decision would balance these three (and other factors) in defining a portfolio of computing assets that can cost-effectively handle both baseline and peak computing loads."
You're probably right, but oh what a beautiful line of marketing-speak... If you happen to work in management or sales somewhere, write this baby down!
In other words: even if (possibly) inferior, a product may be considered more valuable if customers have to put up with paying more, inputting serial numbers, downloading cracks, and so on?
Sentimental value, or value attached because people don't want to waste the extra time/effort/money they invested earlier? Extra value attached simply because products are 'protected' with serial numbers, or come with a higher price on the label, regardless of actual qualities? Something like: "I don't care what it is, but just because I found it in a safe, it must be good/worth a lot".
Hmm... I think you may be onto something. If I had mod points, I would appreciate a "weird, but insightful" option here.
Slashdot Mirror
Since it describes those deposits as "the largest fossil fuel deposits in the world," that could be a very good thing (..)
My thoughts on that statement are, at the very least, mixed. I'm one of those few people who aren't bothered much by rising energy prices. Why? Higher energy prices are a strong drive for development of alternative energy sources. Many of which are sustainable, exhaust-free and suitable for small-scale application (read: useful for remote, under-developed areas).
When energy prices go up, it forces people and businesses to think about whether they really need to consume that much. It gives a competitive edge to businesses that do care about their energy consumption. And when high oil prices slow down economy, it makes people re-use things more, buy second-hand, or choose long-lasting quality over cheap crap when they buy things. All good for the environment we all have to share.
So an 'easy', huge new source of fossil fuel = good? Not really, just more CO2 waiting to be thrown in the atmosphere, and solving the real problems may get put on hold.
High oil prices aren't all bad, you know. They tell you that oil is a precious substance that you shouldn't be too careless with.Sounds logical, but doesn't match real life. First, these kids were guilty, of violating the school policy regarding the use of these machines. A policy that was known, and previously agreed to by the kids and/or their parents, in writing or some other equally legal binding method. No matter how stupid that policy was, or how ridiculous the school overreacted after (repeated) violation of said policy.
Now the school provides itself an easy (face-saving?) way out, by offering these students an easy way out that doesn't involve the judicial system. Replaces official charges with 15 hours of community service, as punishment for that policy violation. Still not an optimal response, but sounds a lot more reasonable to me.
Going to court because you're innocent? Doesn't work that way. People go to court for countless reasons, very silly ones included. Both parties involved estimate their chances, estimate cost (time/money/company image/...), and decide whether they think it's important enough, whether they can afford the cost, and whether that cost is worth it. Innocense is one factor, but doesn't matter much once you go to court. Criminals walk away all the time, and some innocent folks get convicted too. What can be shown in court, and how good lawyers you have, matters a lot more.
--sig on vacation till sept.3rdIt's not that it is impossible to find out about these, but that it's so hard to find the proper documentation (maybe it's in there, but where?).
With a Linux kernel, configuration is straightforward and easy. For whole distro's, it's usually a lot easier to tell what program does what, and how it fits in the whole. What's a user command for? "man command", "info command", "command --help" (or something like that) will tell you quickly.
With X, all these things are much more difficult. That whole modularization project sounds super to me. Modularization is good. Not so much for building and understanding as the articles states, but for better/easier maintenance. Some small fix -> rebuild a small part, done. So basically I hope documentation on all these components will be improved, with 1 basic goal: Choose desired functionality from whatever is currently possible (including other projects), select functionality you want, select components to provide that functionality, make the desired configuration, get the build tools needed, build from source, make packages/install, do end-configuration. Any documentation that makes this procedure more clear and straightforward, is greatly appreciated.
-- 404: sig not found.How about selling digital media the same way all other goods are sold: buy paying for physical items, work involved, and related services?
I read an interesting paper on the economics of easily-copied items once (don't remember title or author, sorry), that claimed information is a physical limited resource like any other, only the numbers are different. It makes a lot of sense when you think about it.
Example - a CD can be copied instantly and in infinite numbers? Not really: to make a copy, you need to read the CD. That takes time, and makes that CD unavailable to others while you're copying it. Now put it on an FTP site. Free copying for everyone in infinite numbers? Not exactly, that FTP server can't pump out copies faster than bandwidth allows. Any other copies are copies-from-copies, and to each of these, the same restrictions apply as to that single CD you start with.
Same when you're copying some piece of equipment, or reverse engineer an electronic device. While you have the parts of your to-be-modded Xbox spread on the table, that Xbox can't be used to play games on.
With current technology, you know that these limitations seem irrelevant. But they're really just small, not irrelevant. Suppose in a world that doesn't know copyrights, Ms. Britney Spears would treat her next single as a physical item only: records a disk in the studio, and then takes that disk to a recording company, in exchange for say, $250,000. No limitations on what that record company does with it, BUT: that first disk costs $250,000. Period. Now the record company can mass-produce copies. But no matter what, they can't start doing that before they obtain that first disk, which would provide Ms. Spears with $250k income. That first disk would ofcourse become a very valuable physical item, and why not treat it as such? Suppose a technician leaks its contents: with countless copies out there, that first disk becomes worthless. What did that technician do? Destroy $250k worth of property. I'd know what to do if somebody destroyed $250k worth of my property: sue them for the full amount.
Hard to build business models in such a world? No, have people pay for physical items (CD's, DVD's, books, paintings etc). Or have people pay to compensate for your bandwidth costs. For those who don't want to pay: fine, but your server won't provide their download (only authenticated, paying customers). You want to do some software project, but it costs $5000? "Donate here!", and you spend an hour on the project for each $20 that comes in.
What are people paying for in that scenario? For: convenience, physical goods, services. Before you all start yelling: "that wouldn't work, nobody would buy any information anymore!", look around: how is todays world different? People pay when they feel like it, people pay for downloads, people buy CD's, DVD's etc., even while they can get it for free using P2P. Why? To support the artists, for the nice box and printed manual, for the no-fuss, fast, reliable download. In the case of newspapers or magazines, for the filtering, editing, printing and distribution (=services/physical item). In the case of a painting, for the knowledge that it's a unique (or limited number) item, or the work the painter put in. In the case of a new car design, for the work all the engineers, CAD/CAM people and test drivers put in.
Competition between record companies would be about which one succeeds in producing 100,000 copies of the latest Ms. Spears, and distribute them to shops around the world first. Or by having an exlusive contract with Ms. Spears, that another company doesn't have. By offering a different selection of artists in their portfolio than other record companies. Oh wait, that's what r
You've got it 180 degrees reversed here: The article states that the audio books are of the downloaded type, and use a Windows-only based player. The popular iPod is a no-go as well.
So there isn't really any "current, physical limitations of property". These audiobooks are in digital format, and (in essence) aren't any kind of scarce resource with physical limitations.
You can't use a player of your choice. The format isn't an open one. You can't program your own player for it, or turn these audiobooks into other formats (assuming the DRM would work). And, from the article: "Vendors such as OverDrive Inc. and OCLC Online Computer Library Center Inc.'s NetLibrary have licensing deals with publishers". So the choice here is limited to what these vendors choose to make available. Oh, and the audio books become unreadable after an arbitrary period of time.
Yes, it may be useful if it makes some audio books available that wouldn't be available otherwise. Yes, it may work fine for you. But other than that, it's ONLY manufactured, artificial restrictions.Dude, read up on synthetic diamonds. The state of the art has advanced to a point where it is possible to create synthetic diamonds that exceed natural diamonds in purity/and or size, and cheaper as well, and several people are doing it. What color do you like? Blue, yellow, orange, purple, or green?
It's just that supply of 'the real thing' is artificially limited to keep up prices, and the industry has produced equipment to measure exactly what qualities diamonds have. 'Too perfect'? Then it must be an artificial one. Along with the marketing department shouting "synthetic=inferior".
Women like diamonds less just because they're artificial? From what I understand, that's not so clear yet, and many women don't mind. So ofcourse there's low-grade diamond powder produced for things like industrial grinding, but synthetic diamonds can definitely be gem-quality. Strictly speaking, maybe even better.From the article: "(..) made the new material by subjecting carbon-60 molecules to immense pressures. The new form of carbon, which is known as aggregated diamond nanorods"
So the new material consists of tiny diamond rods, but is made of carbon-60 molecules (aka 'buckyballs', which has many interesting properties, but like most carbon-based materials, is NOT diamond).
Always amazing how few words are needed to make people misread them.The non-technical people out there understand version #s only enough to be confused here. They probably think Linux is stagnating. I'm not saying we need to rush ahead to "Linux XP" or something, but wouldn't it be wise to start incrementing something other than the 3rd set of digits?
Simple answer: wherever you read version 2.6.x, read 2.7.x instead. For all intents and purposes, I regard Linux 2.6.x as development branch.
Just look at the the huge number of patches that go into the kernel between 2.6.x releases. And check the size of all those patches combined. Even changelogs are in the MB. range. Compare that with 2.4.x series.
Anybody who claims 2.6.x is a 'stable' kernel series, is a liar. Stable running: yes. I'm used to compiling my own kernels from vanilla 2.6.x sources, and I can't remember ever having had a hard lockup (where the machine is totally frozen). And my use of Linux includes all common things like webbrowsing (JavaScript, Java + flash plugins all used on and off), MP3 music, and internet multipayer, hardware accelerated 3D gaming.
But stable from a development point of view ('mature')? No way. Personally I suspect things are done this way, because the 2.6.x series provide such a powerful foundation, that allmost everything you can cook up, one way or the other can be fitted into existing infrastructure. And putting it into 2.6 releases, exposes it to a lot of users/testers, so that bugs can be shaken out fast.
If you don't like this, then I suggest you either a) don't compile your own kernels, but have a stability-oriented distro like Debian or Slackware-based do it for you, or b) look at *BSD instead.Now, does this mean: 'build a computer that will be used by the DoD', or does it mean: 'build a computer according to DoD specs' (but used by some other party). From the summary, I can't tell which.
As another poster points out, not only the work to be done on it may be secret, but the standards which it should meet, may be as well.
Personally, I think that an extremely 'secure computer' basically involves 2 things:
First thing that comes to mind for me then, is combining removable storage with the computer: voila, a laptop. Security then becomes a matter of securing/auditing physical access to that laptop.
But anyway, other posters are right: either he can't do it because he doesn't have those specs, or he has the specs, and then it is simply a matter of following these. So either way, why the hell is he askingAnd what is wrong with mainframes? Putting all the computing power in one place, is about sharing that equipment between all users, making optimal use of the hardware. As opposed to everyone having their own box that comes with everything and the kitchen sink, but sits around doing nothing 98% of the time. Talk about waste...
I'm not even going to enertain the idea of having MY data stored on another (microsoft/sun/etc)server, and paying for the rights to access/modify it.
Agreed... but I can think of many compute-intensive tasks, where the privacy implications aren't that important: scientific research, running simulations, design/engineering, etc. Besides: if that 3rd party (on purpose) leaks or abuses confidential data that you trust with them, then you know who to sue for damages. And think of what running any software/OS with an automatic update mechanism enabled, means here. Kind of the same: to a certain degree, you simply trust that 3rd party.
There is a reason it's called the PC,and not a dumb terminal.
In my view PC's haven't gotten all that much smarter in the past decades, seeing how ordinary users struggle with them every day. And not faster either, only very efficient at wasting CPU cycles on eyecandy and countless software layers. Don't get me wrong here: you can do lots of wonderful things with PC's today that weren't possible 10 or 20 years ago, and I wouldn't want to swap mine with a vintage machine for doing everyday work. But just FYI: for example a meager 3.5 MHz. Sinclair ZX Spectrum boots up in what, 1 second? Doesn't need updates, doesn't have virusses, and even if it's the first time you've ever used a computer, you can learn how to program and run a "Hello World!" thingie on it in under 5 minutes. Back in the 80's, kids (myself included) used to do this with machines that were on display in shops. Now try those things with your brandnew 3+ Ghz. machine.
Back to that mainframe issue: I can see lots of people who would love an appliance-like PC, with software on it remotely managed. Think: by your local ISP, by a user group of your choosing (like a Linux distro), you name it. With your private data stored in any location of your choosing, locally or on some other remote system.
Just putting computing power remotely as well, doesn't make much sense to me for most scenario's. The speed at which computing power becomes cheap for the masses, makes that a niche market for selected applications. As always: pick the right tool for the job.As much as many people hate it, there's always a percentage that buys advertised items. And with their wallet, this small percentage supports the other camp. You may hate this method of doing business, but there's the other side too: products sold, bring income and jobs for people making these products. For the small percentage of buyers, some products/services may be very much appreciated, or give them things they can't easily obtain otherwise. We'll leave legalities out for now. Some things may be appreciated because they're illegal, but there may be other things that are illegal, while many feel they shouldn't be.
And ofcourse in marketing, there's the saying "there's a new sucker born every day".
Given the fact that some percentage of people seems to want this type of marketing, do you think it will ever die out, or is there only hope of controlling it to acceptable/managable levels?Now, create 'extreme conditions', where the first domino block is down, the last one is still standing, and halfway down the row, blocks are falling, but not quite down on the floor. Then, observe the 'wave front' of falling domino blocks. It will appear to move faster than the previously determined 'c'. How come?
Look more closely: as each block falls down, there's a fixed delay before it hits the next block. But what happens under our 'extreme conditions'? At the exact time a previous block would have hit the next one (under normal circumstances), that next block is already falling down! The time it takes for the 1000 blocks to fall down, is less than what normally would be expected.
Did this 'c' constant get violated? Nope, it still took the same amount of time for each block to fall down. Was the maximum 'c' speed exceeded? Nope. After tipping the first block, it still took the same amount of time before this 'information' was passed on to the next block. With a set of 1000 blocks all standing, the time needed for an initial 'disturbance' to be passed on to the last block, is still limited by 'c'.
So these 'extreme conditions' are like pre-tipping each block, and let you observe something that appeared to move faster than 'c'.
Nice for the lab folks, but other than that, sensationalist journalism. Wake me up when trans-atlantic ping times (sending actual packets with random data) dive below the time dictated by the speed of light.A small word of advice:
Worry not what evil you may do to input devices. Only worry about what evil input devices may do to you.
If you've got a badly designed mouse or game controller that causes you RSI, then you have a problem. If OTOH a mouse or game controller crumbles under your constant abuse, who cares? Cheap plastic & electronics, easily replaced.Nonsense. That's only the case if the CO2 produced, gets absorbed by other (new) trees/plants that take their place. For example a dead tree decomposing on the forest floor, this will be ok. And even a slightly smaller number of trees left might do the job, since heightened levels of CO2 in the atmosphere make it easier for plants to absorb CO2 (for example farmers working under glass may use waste CO2 to make their crops grow faster).
But take forest fires that leave square miles black (and take dozens of years to re-grow sizeable trees), or the speed at which tropical rainforests are cut/burned down, then "tree burning is carbon neutral" is a ridiculous claim.
The key word here is "sustainable". If you take out trees from a forest in a way that you could keep on doing forever, then you're right. If you burn flat a 100 square miles to make room for cows, then you're not.(..) that native 64-bit libraries don't live in /usr/lib, instead living in /usr/lib64. This is a mess, and in a few years the excuse that it's there for compatibility won't matter. It's not cool to pay more attention to backwards compatibility than to native code, and it's always something one regrets later.
How do you mean, a mess? To quote from the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard v2.3: "There may be one or more variants of the /lib directory on systems which support more than one binary format requiring separate libraries."
So for example a /lib64 or /usr/lib64 isn't there to indicate that libraries are native 64 bit, nor for backwards compatibility. Only for allowing different sets of libraries side-by-side on the same system, if needed. In that case, you can have a mix of binaries linked against different library sets, that live happily together.
Don't want or need that? A simple symlink, or hard-linking one directory to another, should do the trick.
.. and it's always something one regrets later.
Once all binaries are linked to a single library set only, changing "lib64" back into "lib" is trivial. So what's your problem here?Okay...
We know what those chips cost, so how much is the fish then?
While that might have been effective, or reduce the chance for more Al Qaeda-style attacks like those in London recently, I would rate this point of view under "the same majority of people who just don't get the point". The same majority of people who voted GWB into office again, and got the US into this dreadful Iraq situation.
My point: these terrorists AREN'T the real problem. The real problem is what motivates them.
Sure there are always some nutcases who go out and kill random people. But this whole Al Qaeda thing is a lot bigger, and doesn't come out of thin air. The real question is: what motivates these young muslims to stand up, get trained, and blow themselves up in the middle of unsuspecting bystanders? What makes them so angry? What makes them hate westerners, christians or whatever, so much that if you take a couple of them out, ten others step in their place?
These terrorists like Al Qaeda are not the problem, they are a symptom. The real problem is what makes them tick. Just guessing here, but I'm thinking of things like:
IMHO the best way to attack terrorists, is to attack these underlying problems. Suppose a US-led effort would create durable peace between the Israeli's and Palestinians. Now that would help a lot more to stop young muslims from bombing US citizens. Not a be-all, end-all, quick fix, but something that needs time to work (decades). Changing your (political) ways, patience, and a bit of 'turn the other cheek' might work well here.
After 9/11, the biggest question should have been: "Why?" Instead, I think the US today is still dealing with: "Who?" Ofcourse I do realize that if you're a politician, this would be impossible to sell to a New Yorker who just watched the Twin Towers come down. And patience isn't in people's vocabulary. And the US will continue to put their own (oil) interests first. But I think few Americans realize, just how costly these politics are, all things considered. And much of that cost will be paid over many years to come, by people throughout the world (US included).The article summary sez: "Serve files, music, web pages, printers, backups, kernel images, webcams/motion detection, firewalls/routers, wireless access point... or whatever." (emphasis mine)
That means the summary is mistaken, since firewall/router type applications are only practical with 2 ethernet ports attached. And I see no expansion slot to plug in a second NIC. Okay, if you're really brave, you might try an USB-to-ethernet adapter, but that isn't something I'd go for.server is already slow, I imagine the meter is spinning like a top right now...
It's not as bad as you think, he's just using his white-hot CPU for heating, cooking and lighting now.On the contrary: we've got plenty of H2O here. We welcome you to take the H2 away from us, as long as you let us keep the remaining oxygen.
No wait... you can have the full H2O as well (some fish and heavy metals included).You mean you didn't unpack your new PC from its shipping box yet?
Still using a 14" CRT set to 800x600, so the one thing not to waste is screen real estate. Nicely positioning half-overlapping windows makes no sense here. Maximised windows, and a fast+easy way to switch between them, does. I happen to like a Windows-style taskbar for that purpose, but that's just personal preference.
Now when I have a window maximised, I can see some uses for translucent UI elements: how about a window that stretches until the -real- bottom of the screen, and a half-transparent taskbar on top of that? Or make the 'always-present' scrollbar on the right side of a window translucent, and use the full screen width for content display? Or use a translucent window for an always-on-top app that you may run from time to time. So basically, a way of maximising the amount of info displayed on a given screen area.
But a more interesting question: are the added GUI complexity (+bugs) and system requirements a good trade-off considering that small gain in usability? My guess:
90% of users: no
another 9% of users: probably not, maybe later
remaining 1% of users: yes, perhaps
Oh wait, Longhorn does this by default and builds the whole GUI around the concept? (note questionmark, I haven't tried/seen any Longhorn stuff myself). Great! Makes as much sense to me as that 'integrate browser with desktop'-debacle.
And then there's the pounding on security issues lately. Priority #1 now? When I see MS pouring all that coding effort primarily into eye candy, I expect Longhorn to have a hard time gaining acceptance once it's released.A blog server compromise cannot possibly lead to worse content.
Good point:"The proper decision would balance these three (and other factors) in defining a portfolio of computing assets that can cost-effectively handle both baseline and peak computing loads."
You're probably right, but oh what a beautiful line of marketing-speak... If you happen to work in management or sales somewhere, write this baby down!In other words: even if (possibly) inferior, a product may be considered more valuable if customers have to put up with paying more, inputting serial numbers, downloading cracks, and so on?
Sentimental value, or value attached because people don't want to waste the extra time/effort/money they invested earlier? Extra value attached simply because products are 'protected' with serial numbers, or come with a higher price on the label, regardless of actual qualities? Something like: "I don't care what it is, but just because I found it in a safe, it must be good/worth a lot".
Hmm... I think you may be onto something. If I had mod points, I would appreciate a "weird, but insightful" option here.