Worse than Google groups. Here's what they say about themselves:
About TalkAbout Network
The Talk About Network is a family of websites allowing for open communication around the world and in your neck of the woods. We allow members to have conversations (topics) that can last minutes, days, months or years. We allow these to be archived and fully searchable and readable by visitors so they can benefit from the knowledge of past and future visitors.
First thing you notice is the 1/3 of the screen devoted to advertising.
Next you have to find the newsgroup you want. They've decided to reorganize the Usenet heirarchy to suit their own categories, so finding alt.folklore.urban, for example, is an exercise in frustration. Under their "Arts" header, they've got "archaeology", which actually points to alt.archaeology. Looking for sci.archaeology? Try "Science", then "Social Sciences". It's there, along with sci.cryonics, sci.crypt, and sci.crypt.research. (The actual URL will have the newsgroup name embedded in there somewhere.)
You have to register to post replies. I haven't done so - I don't intend to give them my email id. But judging by the posts I've seen in the one newsgroup overrun by newbies from talkaboutnetwork.com (and Google groups), the software discourages quoting and references, and encourages short line lengths.
Talkaboutnetworks is just another company trying to turn Usenet into their own little cash cow and making a mess of things in the process.
Nothing definitive, but this article* indicates that he's been seen as recently as January. Personally I'm certain that if "Dear Leader" had vanished, the speculation in the international media would be rampant.
*It's possible that "Let's Trim Our Hair According to Socialist Lifestyle" doesn't sound dorky in Korean. But I doubt it.
When AT&T was split up, a portion of Bell Labs, Bellcore, was split off and jointly owned by the RBOCs. Bellcore became Telcordia.
True. Bellcore was responsible, among other things, for administering the North American Numbering Plan. That meant they were the ones handing out area codes for example. I don't know how this has developed in the last seven or eight years, though.
Bell Labs(TM) was owned by AT&T until 1996, at which time it was spun off as Lucent.
Correction: part of Lucent. The main element of Lucent was AT&T Network Systems, formerly known as Western Electric - AT&T's manufacturing arm. The rationale for the spinoff in 1996 was in large part the realization that the captive manufacturing company was never going to sell much to AT&T's competitors, of which there were many. The plan did work, for a while.
Isn't the information already free? Go to the NWS website. Everything is all there -- I visit it all the time.
I was wondering the same thing, since the NWS/NOAA site is my primary weather source. The only thing that makes sense, other than your idea, is that the argument is not over the forecasts, but the detailed data the forecasts are built from. Surely Accuweather and similar outfits have their own modeling/forecasting software - I've often heard TV weatherfolk refer to multiple computer models of the same weather situation. Ok, that might really be the same model with some slight variations in inputs. But I think my point stands.
Katherine Kurtz was at a convention that had financial troubles. She donated a character for auction. (That is, the person that won the auction could be a bit character in a future Deryni work.) The bidding ended up going sky-high with a team of two winning the bidding war.
Saw the same sort of thing once. Tom Dietz was working on his third or fourth book, The Gryphon King, and made the same kind of offer that Kurtz did. Hardly anyone at the auction had much in the way of funds, so when one fellow whipped out the crisp new $100 bill he'd gotten out of his paycheck the day before, everyone else quit. If you happen to have access to the book, look for the leader of the band Just Thrid - that's him. Oh, Tom was my neighbor at the time. My two roommates and I have cameo appearances as Large, Medium, and Small.
All of the services (internet, phone, cell phone) in use by the majority of people require network support. A ham can communicate with none.
I'll confirm that (although, to satisfy the other response, let's say "infrastructure" instead of "network"). I work in telco network disaster recovery. As an organization, we've got just about every form of voice comm you've ever heard of. To talk to the world away from our recovery location, the final fallback is a high-frequency radio on the SHARES network.http://www.ncs.gov/n3/shares/shares.htm If the fibers are cut, the cell towers are down, and the satellite's over the horizon, that radio is still going to work.
Yes, the government can force people to sell land for public use but till recently that has meant state parks, military bases, and such - not private development.
If you want to support these projects, why not just donate it directly to them? Surely Lulu has to take the cost of physical production out of your money before giving proceeds to the project. Wouldn't it be cheaper to download it, burn your own, and give your $10 - $25 straight to the development effort?
You're right, as far as you take it. If your main concerns are 1)minimize your costs and 2)maximize your $ contribution to the Open Source community, then you shouldn't buy the Lulu packages. Download, burn, and donate.
But don't forget that what Lulu is selling, really, is convenience. There may well be some folks who would rather send some $ to Lulu (and feel good about supporting open source in the process) than go through the download-and-burn process. And don't discount the convenience of having well-printed documentation! If all you have at home is a little inkjet printer with its expensive cartridges, printing a few hundred pages of docs is neither easy nor cheap.
The open question is whether the market for these packages will percieve Lulu as offering enough value to balance the cost. Looks like they don't, for you. I'll have to look closer to decide for myself. But if the folks at Lulu have things set up right, then pretty much everyone benefits.
I wonder why they didn't package the Mozilla suite? Maybe they're waiting until Mozilla, Firefox, and Thunderbird are all at 1.x or better.
Fraunhofer Institut for computer architecture and software technology ( ROOFRIDGE ) placed a quantum computer simulator on-line accessible by Webbrowser . The simulated machine can with up to 31 Qubits so mentioned work and is help to develop new algorithms and circuits for quantum computers.
Technical details of the hard and software describe the scientists in a detailed essay on the Website. Behind the simulation by Myrinet a coupled Linux cluster with altogether 56 GByte puts main memories.
Quantum computers are able to solve computing problems very fast at those conventional computers the teeth break off themselves -- for example the factorizing of very large numbers. They can do that, because they work with Qubits so mentioned instead of with bits. A Qubit takes both binary conditions at the same time; an arithmetic operation at a register from Qubits affects therefore all values at the same time. Each selection of the result destroys however the simultaneousness (or superposition) and reduces it to only one value.
Therefore hardware is, which can manipulate the sensitive Qubits, it however on the other hand as well as possible before the destructive external world influences protects for material quantum computers necessarily on the one hand. On the other hand completely new algorithms are necessary, with which the final result contains to a certain extent all solutions. One of it is the factorizing algorithm of Shor .
Re:not gonna happen, the lobbies are too powerful
on
Do-It-Yourself VOIP Telco
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Hm. This is new information for me. I thought a vox T-1 was muxed at the packet level. Now you're telling me that it's muxed in some other way?
Yup. The term you're looking for is "Time Domain Multiplexing" - TDM. Each channel gets a time slice of the circuit, just under 1/24th of the total. There's a bit of overhead. This 1/24th, or 64k is allocated *whether that channel is in use or not*. And while it's in use, the "user" gets all 64k of it. Even if the mouthpiece of the phone is disconnected and nobody's talking the other way - no use on the 'line' whatsoever - the call is still using the 64k channel.
Cell or packet switching is a different animal altogether. A given channel may have a certain bandwidth guaranteed, and may be able to use well over that guaranteed amount, depending on the technology and lots of other stuff. Your average cell/packet circuit is only firing cells about 10% of the time.
The TDM part of a data circuit puts a hard limit the overall bandwidth. If you've got a T1 connection to your ISP, you can't send/receive more than 1.544Mbps, even if the ISP's router can switch hundreds of Mbps and they have an OC12 to their next peer. And if the site you're communicating with depends on an even lower bandwidth connection - such as when a dial-up user hits your ftp server - then *their* circuit is the limiting factor.
Re:not gonna happen, the lobbies are too powerful
on
Do-It-Yourself VOIP Telco
·
· Score: 4, Informative
The telephone network has been packet-switched for decades. Do you own or work for a small business? You don't have phone lines. You have a T-1.
Sounds like you're confusing digital with packet-switched. A T1 is a 1.544Mbps digital circuit, often chopped up into 24 64kbps voice-grade circuits. That T1 that serves your local business is a dedicated circuit from your location to your telco office. Even if you're using that T1 for Frame Relay, or ATM, or TCP/IP, it's still a dedicated circuit from the point it leaves your premise to the point it hits the packet-switching equipment on the other end.
Plain Old Telephone Service (known as POTS in the industry) gets digitized after it leaves your handset and before it gets far into the local telco central office. For a business system, the digitization could be in the PBX. For a home, it might be in a box on the corner of the neighborhood. The usual conversion is to a 64kbps data stream. No compression, no packetization. When you make a call, it rides on a 64kbps channel all the way until it gets to the final digital-analog jump-off point. If you're calling cross-country, you are the sole user of that 64k channel for the entire time you're on the call. A given T1 will carry 24 of them simultaneously, a T3 will carry 672.
One of the biggest advantages of packetized voice (be it VoIP, VoATM, VoFrame Relay or whatever) is that using compression, silence supression and a couple of other tricks, an acceptable voice channel can use as little as 8kbps. You get much more efficient use of the bandwidth. But the general Public Switched Telephone Network doesn't do this - it's circuit switching all the way.
If they spent 500M on this, and they sell for 450T, and they have a 10% profit margin (unlikely, but it's a round number) then they'd need to sell +10,000 of these boxes to make a profit.
$450,000 is the base charge. The cost of line cards goes on top of that. For Cisco's 12000 line, single-port OC192 line cards are list priced between $150k and $325k, depending on the optics. 4-port OC48s are about the same.
For the CSR-1, the top-end cards are 1-port OC768, 4-port OC192, and 16-port OC48. I would guess they'll charge two to four times the price of the 12000 cards, so we're now talking $300-1300k. $500k for the card does not seem unlikely. If you're a carrier, you'll want two for redundancy. Toss in another $200-300k for 10GigE cards, plus odds and ends like extra memory and service contracts, and that $450k figure is over $2.5 million and climbing. Even if you're a big customer and get a 40% discount, it's over $1.5M.
Cisco's margins are quite big enough to accommodate 40% discounts, make no mistake. My guess is the CRS development will pay for itself with sales of 3-4000 of these routers.
The CRS-1 is a huge mucking beast. Seven feet tall, 23" wide, 36" deep. Fully loaded, it weighs over 1500 lbs. Then there's power. Using 120v AC, it would take over 130 amps to run the sucker. Then you need over three tons of air conditioner to cool it.
In case you'd care to know - all quantum mechanics really says (in this respect) is that because of the dual wave-particle nature of matter, it is impossible to measure things on an arbitrarily small scale using only particle interactions; this clearly doesn't mean that there is nothing going on there.
This is a common misunderstanding of quantum uncertainty. Heisenberg's Uncertainty relation says that the product of (uncertainty of position) * (uncertainty of momentum) is greater than or equal to Planck's constant divided by 4pi. There's nothing in it about "particle interactions". It's a fundamental statement about how the universe works. The question is not whether there's "nothing going on there" (clearly, there is), but there is an absolute limit about what can be known about what's going on.
By publishing on-line, Wolfram does something courageous as well - rather than simply submitting his work to academia and using their vetting procedure, he's opening up his work for criticism from a much, much wider body of critics.
This is much like saying that it's better to put your Linux kernel contribution up on slashdot rather than submitting it to a specific open source venue. The point of peer review is to have knowledgeable people examine your work.
One of my favorite college professors once referred to class discussion as "pooling our ignorance". That's exactly what we have here (with exceptions, granted).
Thanks to whoever posted the link to W. Edwin Clark's collection of ANKOS reviews - many of the reviewers there should know what they're talking about, and that's who you need to hear from if, like me, you are interested in the book but don't have the time and/or expertise to say if it's worthwhile.
The experiments in question aren't supposed to explain how or why the universe exists. They're designed to increase our understanding of what it was like at earlier and earlier points in its development, and to improve our understanding of the fundamental nature of matter and energy.
The problem is not that "The laws of physics break in a singularity". It's that understanding the Planck era (first 10E-40 seconds, I think) requires reconciling quantum theories with general relativity.
And scientists don't make claims they can't back up. Not about their science, not if they're going to be taken seriously (i.e. keep doing science). The last notable time it happened was a couple of guys named Pons and Fleischman. Their careers did not benefit.
Describing a very sophisticated set of experiments is difficult. The people involved don't say "we can't explain why, but trust me we are right." They may point out that understanding a *real* explanation requires the equivalent of a graduate education. For public consumption, they have to give dumbed-down versions to reporters, even very smart science reporters. It's the dumbing-down process that leads to saying things like "re-create the Big Bang", because most people have no clue what it means to 'set up conditions similar to those of the universe at 10E-32 seconds.'
Being "tired of scientist [sic] making claims that they just can't back up" looks an awful lot like confusing science and science reporting, or science and policy.
Could someone explain why LCD TVs cost so much more than LCD monitors? The tuner should be *cheaper* than a video card, if anything, yet you have examples like Samsung's LTM-1555 TV for $800 at http://www.bestbuy.com versus Samsung's 152N monitor for $330.
Slashdot Mirror
Worse than Google groups. Here's what they say about themselves:
First thing you notice is the 1/3 of the screen devoted to advertising.
Next you have to find the newsgroup you want. They've decided to reorganize the Usenet heirarchy to suit their own categories, so finding alt.folklore.urban, for example, is an exercise in frustration. Under their "Arts" header, they've got "archaeology", which actually points to alt.archaeology. Looking for sci.archaeology? Try "Science", then "Social Sciences". It's there, along with sci.cryonics, sci.crypt, and sci.crypt.research. (The actual URL will have the newsgroup name embedded in there somewhere.)
You have to register to post replies. I haven't done so - I don't intend to give them my email id. But judging by the posts I've seen in the one newsgroup overrun by newbies from talkaboutnetwork.com (and Google groups), the software discourages quoting and references, and encourages short line lengths.
Talkaboutnetworks is just another company trying to turn Usenet into their own little cash cow and making a mess of things in the process.
Nothing definitive, but this article* indicates that he's been seen as recently as January. Personally I'm certain that if "Dear Leader" had vanished, the speculation in the international media would be rampant.
*It's possible that "Let's Trim Our Hair According to Socialist Lifestyle" doesn't sound dorky in Korean. But I doubt it.
When AT&T was split up, a portion of Bell Labs, Bellcore, was split off and jointly owned by the RBOCs. Bellcore became Telcordia.
True. Bellcore was responsible, among other things, for administering the North American Numbering Plan. That meant they were the ones handing out area codes for example. I don't know how this has developed in the last seven or eight years, though.
Bell Labs(TM) was owned by AT&T until 1996, at which time it was spun off as Lucent.
Correction: part of Lucent. The main element of Lucent was AT&T Network Systems, formerly known as Western Electric - AT&T's manufacturing arm. The rationale for the spinoff in 1996 was in large part the realization that the captive manufacturing company was never going to sell much to AT&T's competitors, of which there were many. The plan did work, for a while.
I was wondering the same thing, since the NWS/NOAA site is my primary weather source. The only thing that makes sense, other than your idea, is that the argument is not over the forecasts, but the detailed data the forecasts are built from. Surely Accuweather and similar outfits have their own modeling/forecasting software - I've often heard TV weatherfolk refer to multiple computer models of the same weather situation. Ok, that might really be the same model with some slight variations in inputs. But I think my point stands.
Saw the same sort of thing once. Tom Dietz was working on his third or fourth book, The Gryphon King, and made the same kind of offer that Kurtz did. Hardly anyone at the auction had much in the way of funds, so when one fellow whipped out the crisp new $100 bill he'd gotten out of his paycheck the day before, everyone else quit. If you happen to have access to the book, look for the leader of the band Just Thrid - that's him. Oh, Tom was my neighbor at the time. My two roommates and I have cameo appearances as Large, Medium, and Small.
Thank you, Dr. Pangloss! This is indeed the best of all possible worlds!
I'll confirm that (although, to satisfy the other response, let's say "infrastructure" instead of "network"). I work in telco network disaster recovery. As an organization, we've got just about every form of voice comm you've ever heard of. To talk to the world away from our recovery location, the final fallback is a high-frequency radio on the SHARES network.http://www.ncs.gov/n3/shares/shares.htm
If the fibers are cut, the cell towers are down, and the satellite's over the horizon, that radio is still going to work.
Yes, private development, particularly in Texas. George W. Bush's personal fortune was largely made off the land taken for Texas Stadium. See http://www.mollyivins.com/showMisc.asp?FileName=97 0509_f1.htm for some historical detail from 1997.
You're right, as far as you take it. If your main concerns are 1)minimize your costs and 2)maximize your $ contribution to the Open Source community, then you shouldn't buy the Lulu packages. Download, burn, and donate.
But don't forget that what Lulu is selling, really, is convenience. There may well be some folks who would rather send some $ to Lulu (and feel good about supporting open source in the process) than go through the download-and-burn process. And don't discount the convenience of having well-printed documentation! If all you have at home is a little inkjet printer with its expensive cartridges, printing a few hundred pages of docs is neither easy nor cheap.
The open question is whether the market for these packages will percieve Lulu as offering enough value to balance the cost. Looks like they don't, for you. I'll have to look closer to decide for myself. But if the folks at Lulu have things set up right, then pretty much everyone benefits.
I wonder why they didn't package the Mozilla suite? Maybe they're waiting until Mozilla, Firefox, and Thunderbird are all at 1.x or better.
I will RTFA, I will RTFA, I will RTFA...
/. blurb?
But TFA is in USA Today. Who'd think there was any more information than the
Simulated quantum computer in the InterNet
Fraunhofer Institut for computer architecture and software technology ( ROOFRIDGE ) placed a quantum computer simulator on-line accessible by Webbrowser . The simulated machine can with up to 31 Qubits so mentioned work and is help to develop new algorithms and circuits for quantum computers.
Technical details of the hard and software describe the scientists in a detailed essay on the Website. Behind the simulation by Myrinet a coupled Linux cluster with altogether 56 GByte puts main memories.
Quantum computers are able to solve computing problems very fast at those conventional computers the teeth break off themselves -- for example the factorizing of very large numbers. They can do that, because they work with Qubits so mentioned instead of with bits. A Qubit takes both binary conditions at the same time; an arithmetic operation at a register from Qubits affects therefore all values at the same time. Each selection of the result destroys however the simultaneousness (or superposition) and reduces it to only one value.
Therefore hardware is, which can manipulate the sensitive Qubits, it however on the other hand as well as possible before the destructive external world influences protects for material quantum computers necessarily on the one hand. On the other hand completely new algorithms are necessary, with which the final result contains to a certain extent all solutions. One of it is the factorizing algorithm of Shor .
Hm. This is new information for me. I thought a vox T-1 was muxed at the packet level. Now you're telling me that it's muxed in some other way?
Yup. The term you're looking for is "Time Domain Multiplexing" - TDM. Each channel gets a time slice of the circuit, just under 1/24th of the total. There's a bit of overhead. This 1/24th, or 64k is allocated *whether that channel is in use or not*. And while it's in use, the "user" gets all 64k of it. Even if the mouthpiece of the phone is disconnected and nobody's talking the other way - no use on the 'line' whatsoever - the call is still using the 64k channel.
Cell or packet switching is a different animal altogether. A given channel may have a certain bandwidth guaranteed, and may be able to use well over that guaranteed amount, depending on the technology and lots of other stuff. Your average cell/packet circuit is only firing cells about 10% of the time.
The TDM part of a data circuit puts a hard limit the overall bandwidth. If you've got a T1 connection to your ISP, you can't send/receive more than 1.544Mbps, even if the ISP's router can switch hundreds of Mbps and they have an OC12 to their next peer. And if the site you're communicating with depends on an even lower bandwidth connection - such as when a dial-up user hits your ftp server - then *their* circuit is the limiting factor.
The telephone network has been packet-switched for decades. Do you own or work for a small business? You don't have phone lines. You have a T-1.
Sounds like you're confusing digital with packet-switched. A T1 is a 1.544Mbps digital circuit, often chopped up into 24 64kbps voice-grade circuits. That T1 that serves your local business is a dedicated circuit from your location to your telco office. Even if you're using that T1 for Frame Relay, or ATM, or TCP/IP, it's still a dedicated circuit from the point it leaves your premise to the point it hits the packet-switching equipment on the other end.
Plain Old Telephone Service (known as POTS in the industry) gets digitized after it leaves your handset and before it gets far into the local telco central office. For a business system, the digitization could be in the PBX. For a home, it might be in a box on the corner of the neighborhood. The usual conversion is to a 64kbps data stream. No compression, no packetization. When you make a call, it rides on a 64kbps channel all the way until it gets to the final digital-analog jump-off point. If you're calling cross-country, you are the sole user of that 64k channel for the entire time you're on the call. A given T1 will carry 24 of them simultaneously, a T3 will carry 672.
One of the biggest advantages of packetized voice (be it VoIP, VoATM, VoFrame Relay or whatever) is that using compression, silence supression and a couple of other tricks, an acceptable voice channel can use as little as 8kbps. You get much more efficient use of the bandwidth. But the general Public Switched Telephone Network doesn't do this - it's circuit switching all the way.
$450,000 is the base charge. The cost of line cards goes on top of that. For Cisco's 12000 line, single-port OC192 line cards are list priced between $150k and $325k, depending on the optics. 4-port OC48s are about the same.
For the CSR-1, the top-end cards are 1-port OC768, 4-port OC192, and 16-port OC48. I would guess they'll charge two to four times the price of the 12000 cards, so we're now talking $300-1300k. $500k for the card does not seem unlikely. If you're a carrier, you'll want two for redundancy. Toss in another $200-300k for 10GigE cards, plus odds and ends like extra memory and service contracts, and that $450k figure is over $2.5 million and climbing. Even if you're a big customer and get a 40% discount, it's over $1.5M.
Cisco's margins are quite big enough to accommodate 40% discounts, make no mistake. My guess is the CRS development will pay for itself with sales of 3-4000 of these routers.
The CRS-1 is a huge mucking beast. Seven feet tall, 23" wide, 36" deep. Fully loaded, it weighs over 1500 lbs. Then there's power. Using 120v AC, it would take over 130 amps to run the sucker. Then you need over three tons of air conditioner to cool it.
Nah, I think I'll keep the 4-port Linksys.
Check here if you want better info.
The experiments in question aren't supposed to explain how or why the universe exists. They're designed to increase our understanding of what it was like at earlier and earlier points in its development, and to improve our understanding of the fundamental nature of matter and energy.
The problem is not that "The laws of physics break in a singularity". It's that understanding the Planck era (first 10E-40 seconds, I think) requires reconciling quantum theories with general relativity.
And scientists don't make claims they can't back up. Not about their science, not if they're going to be taken seriously (i.e. keep doing science). The last notable time it happened was a couple of guys named Pons and Fleischman. Their careers did not benefit.
Describing a very sophisticated set of experiments is difficult. The people involved don't say "we can't explain why, but trust me we are right." They may point out that understanding a *real* explanation requires the equivalent of a graduate education. For public consumption, they have to give dumbed-down versions to reporters, even very smart science reporters. It's the dumbing-down process that leads to saying things like "re-create the Big Bang", because most people have no clue what it means to 'set up conditions similar to those of the universe at 10E-32 seconds.'
Being "tired of scientist [sic] making claims that they just can't back up" looks an awful lot like confusing science and science reporting, or science and policy.
Could someone explain why LCD TVs cost so much more than LCD monitors? The tuner should be *cheaper* than a video card, if anything, yet you have examples like Samsung's LTM-1555 TV for $800 at http://www.bestbuy.com versus Samsung's 152N monitor for $330.