Whoa.. I was running it there for a few minutes until I saw this.. then I compiled 2.4.14 right away and rebooted, there don't seem to be any problems yet.
This all makes me wonder, though, about 2.4. I mean it seems like there have been relatively many "big" problems with 2.4 throughout its life. 2.4.10 had the SMP thing, 2.4.15 has this, and there have been other problems big enough to pretty much make a version unusable.
I don't seem to remember as much of this happening with 2.2, I mean obviously every major new version of the kernel will be rough around the edges for the first few releases, but 2.2 seemed not to have as many of these big problems. So, what's going on, are kernels getting worse or am I just smocking crack?
Of course, the Somalians' access to information is worthless when compared to to Yanks' "safety." Sigh.. let's just abandon all our principles (i.e. free speech, freedom itself) to save them. That's the way to go, for sure!
Just wanted to say, I really hope Slack doesn't go down the tubes. It's been a great, stable distro for me for many years. I've been using it pretty much right from the get-go, and I've had surprisingly few issues with it.
I currently run Slack 8.0, which I'm finding to be a truly great distro. *Very* few problems with it, everything runs quite smoothly, even on my fairly whacked hardware (dual athlons, 3 net cards, GF3, etc.)
I don't really bitch out other distros, I ran RedHat for a while (the 5.x series) and I've tried SuSe and Debian too. My problem with those distros was that they just somehow seemed "fragile" compared to Slack, and the init schemes seemed very complex and non-intuitive to change. For example I installed RedHat 7.1 on my laptop recently (an old Dell Latitude CPi) just to check it out. I had many problems with gdm; sometimes it would run, sometimes it wouldn't. Sometimes it would start up again after I logged out; sometimes it wouldn't. If I took out my PCMCIA modem or ethernet card I'd be bugged on bootup.
I know RedHat and others have a lot going for them, but I gotta say I still really enjoy the simplicity of Slack. Just my two cents.
Canucks, like myself, can call 1-888-2DONATE to give blood, anywhere across Canada. They will tell you where the closest clinic is and make an appointment for you. Blood supplies can be moved around easily, so no matter where you are in Canada, help out!
(1) Fair enough.
(2) Neither, and I still believe that there are many "decent" schools in Canada.
(3) Yep, Taber happened. Fair enough. But I still believe that Canadian society is generally much less violent than American society. We don't have as many stories of Billy picking up daddy's gun while daddy's sleeping and shooting the shit out of himself or others, either. Also, the "right to bear arms" was really a point in the constitution to protect state's rights by making state militias possible. It wasn't really intended for personal protection. Also, the argument that you need a gun because everybody else has one is, IMO, pretty wack. If gun control isn't necessary (as is often argued) and everybody can handle a weapon responsibly, then why should I be scared that everybody has guns? And, if I am scared that everybody has guns, why would I wish to contribute to that problem and add to the fear of others? Even if I do have a gun, its effectiveness in protecting me is related to my ability to use it appropriately. I don't just mean being able to aim.. I mean knowing when to use it as well. Pulling a gun will undoubtedly add to the tension in any situation, and if somebody pulls a gun on you, and you whip yours out, it only makes then more likely to pull the trigger.
WTF do you mean the Canadian-built arm "actually" worked? You think only Yanks can build robotics or something? I'll give you a few clues as to the nature of Canada and Canadians:
(1) We do not all live in igloos. I live in a house, like many throughout the world, that has central heating, running water, electricity and cable internet (for $40 Canuck bux a month, beat that).
(2) We have education, and it works. And we don't have to pay outrageously for it. I've heard numerous atrocious statistics about education in America, that 70% of high school graduates can't write a simple business letter and so on. Tuition here maxes around $5k/yr (Canuck bux) for post-secondary and earlier education is *free* and generally good (I got a full IB diploma in a *public* school where many teachers had master's degrees).
(3) Most of the time, our students don't shoot each other, either, because we have a little thing here called "gun control" and we aren't all wack about the right to carry lethal, (and in some states) concealed weapons.
So you can see that Canada is in fact a fairly modern state, where people can *afford* a good education and where they can survive to get it. So it is only quite natural that we can build a robotic arm that "actually" works, thank you very much.
And, I know this is gonna be modded flamebait. Fine. But shame on you slashdot for actually posting flamebait on the main page.. I mean people are entitled to their beliefs, racist or otherwise, but posting controversial, racist statements on the main page will only encourage that behaviour.. something I doubt slashdot wishes to do.
I've taken two "introductory" programming courses, one in C++, the other in Java. I found the Java course really got down to a lot more abstract programming concepts. In the C++ course we were always bogged down with limitations of the language and had to use classes written by the instructor to work on certain concepts (which is of course entirely stupid because nobody else in industry has ever heard of those classes). In the Java course we weren't using any non-standard classes and generally just got a lot more done. 'nuff said.
I read through these comments and get the impression that slowly a conclusion is being reached: PPC-type hardware is good for some things, x86 hardware is good for others. Nothing really new there, is there? For running Linux, it seems from this little (and far from in-depth) benchmarking session that PCs are a bit better, especially given costs. You can probably get a 1.2GHz Athlon box for the cost of a 533MHz G4, and it'll be better for Linux, so if you run Linux, why not?
MacOS X, stuff like Maya, Final Cut Pro, etc. etc. quite obviously runs better on PPCs, barring some strange circumstances. I imagine that with enough "brute force" (RAM, dual processors, etc.) one could get a PC to run this stuff faster than a Mac.. but what's the point? You might as well just keep it simple and buy a Mac that'll run it pretty well outta the box.
I agree though, that cost is an important consideration. With 760MP around the corner, if it ever does surface in quantities making it available, dual Athlons might give dual G4s a bit of a whippin', especially considering AMDs prices as of late. In general I find you can buy a PC with a much faster proc, more RAM, etc. for the same cost as a Mac from the Apple store.
Still, even a 1.2GHz Athlon would probably choke on OS X, and the G4 will at most hiccup...
Lotsa people have been saying it - Slack on SPARC. Few have been saying why it might be a good way to go, though.
Slack, IMO, is much more like Solaris or SunOS than RedHat or Debian. Being Linux though, it would probably maintain any performance advantages typically found over Solaris.
It's also very, very clean and maintains very simple configuration methods. The Slack scripts are simply the most elegant I've seen (and I've used 5 or 6 distros) and are really easy to work with. No more hunting through the seemingly endless collection of dialog boxes in LinuxConf for what you want to change.
Finally, since there's also an Alpha and an x86 version, you can have boxes with different architectures that are configured and used in almost exactly the same way, which is a plus that any distro that maintains versions across several platforms has.
I use Shaw@Home in Calgary, AB (Canada). Speeds really vary, usually when I'm downloading pretty big (> 80MB) stuff I get between 2Mbps and 3Mbps. But a lot of the time, downloading smaller things (like looking at screenshots) I get closer to 30KBps (kilobytes, not bits). But I know it varies tremendously by area in Calgary too. In some of the more affluent areas of the city, especially those where the majority of households have children, cable can be a lot slower, although people I know who've used it in those areas say Shaw keeps up by adding more and more servers to the higher demand areas.
We have DSL in Calgary, too, of course, but personally I think it's a pretty bad deal. Cable is $40/month (Canuck bucks too:) and all the DSL deals in Calgary for the same price have a theoretical down limit of 1mbps, and a lot of them seem to have bandwidth limitations as well, although my friends tell me they're very generous and you'd almost certainly never use it all up (it's somethin on the order of 50GB/month, you'd have to download like two isos/day).
Calgary has some of the cheapest Internet access in the world, though. I mean you can get a 256kbps DSL line for $20/month, which is nice if you're not a hardcore gamer but just like some fast surfin'. 56K can be had for free, of course, but non-free (and less annoying) 56K can be had for $5/month, no kidding. It's probably because Calgary's such a new city (130 years old, but almost all of the residential areas have been built in the last 50 years) and the communication infrastructure is consequently very good.
Anyway, perhaps this is redundant, I took a quick skim through the posts and hadn't seen anything about Calgary, so I thought I'd letcha know...
Here in Canada, the general impression I get is that Comp. Eng. degrees are much more applied, and yeah, do involve hardware more. Some people like that more, some do not. I find "applied" math courses detestable, but that's just me:)
Many people make the argument that a more theoretical background is more robust, if you've got a neuron or two to rub together. If you can figure out how to use all the theoretical stuff you're taught, you can use it anywhere. Whereas if you just learn how to do one thing, you have to be able to extrapolate the theory to apply it elsewhere. It depends how you think, I suppose. Can you extrapolate the theory behind things? Is that easier from simply being taught the theory for you? I think those are the most important questions when deciding between Comp. Sci. and Comp. Eng.
NEway, back to *Canadian* universities. Here the Engineering programs are renowned for trying to royally screw students in their first year, in a sort of "weeding out" process. The Comp. Sci. programs do it too, but to a lesser extent. If that doesn't sound appealing to you, you might wanna move more toward Comp. Sci. There's nothing stopping you from doing a graduate degree in Comp. Eng. after, either.
Could somebody well-versed in Japanese please put up some kind of translation, into something that the fish can handle (i.e. french, german, english) so us mere mortals can look at this stuff too? Lotsa ppl would appreciate it...
As a 17-year-old high-school senior, I think I might share a lot of things with you. I've noticed that at my school, most students pursue computer courses and go on to pursue careers in the industry because of the financial prospects. I've also found that most of these people are Winblows users, and swear by stuff like MS visual C++ (due to the use of that compiler at my school, I don't take programming). Most of the Linux/free software users I've encountered, however, work in the area because they love it, because they want to make it better, and because they want to be part of the community. What I'm wondering is do you fit into either of these two scenarios, and if so, which? If not, why are you interested in computers, and what got you interested in the first place?
Ok, so yeah, because we grab people of the street and slap 'em in the slammer fer smokin' some pot, or shootin' some heroine, there are places fer more lawyers, more judges, etc.
Does anybody *really* see the need for more lawyers as a benefit? Anybody?
Also, how many more innocent citizens are called to jury duty because of the war on drugs? Prolly a fair number, most of whom would probably be happier leading their self-involved, materialistic lives.
Finally, suppose some currently illegal drugs (such as pot) were legalised. Suppose you could walk into a local shop and buy a few grams.. imaging the taxes the gov't could raise with that. Using that money, good drug-abuse programs could be started, more drug-abuse facilities built, etc. Better prevention measures could be taken, the list goes on...
For example, in Holland, we were (in gr. 9) given an informative booklet about e, or xtc, or whatever you like to call it. It wasn't patronising at all - it simply talked about the way e works, how it can be dangerous, where you can have your pills checked to make sure they're ok (in Holland they have facilities at most clubs that will check your pills for a small fee).
To me, this seems much better than simply saying "say no to drugs" to kids and showing them pictures of stoned/high/whatever people lying on the street. It's less patronising, more humanistic, and overall more reasonable. I don't think anybody takes it seriously when they hear "say no to drugs" - it's a joke.
So, legalise pot, e, and some of the other `lighter' drugs (perhaps 'shrooms?) Then the gov't would be able to tax the hell outta them, have quality-control measures, implement good drug-abuse programs, etc. I think the taxes would work because, given a choice between a dealer in a dark street and a legitimate place to buy stuff, where would you go? Illegal dealing could also be siginificantly reduced.
As it stands right now, people use drugs despite the "war," but don't have very many good places to turn when they want help. I think the gov't should just accept that people use drugs and try to make something good of it...
I was really thinking "New Zealand must be a great place" - the whole multi-region DVD thing, the government that _cares_ about the poor, the (until recent) lack of encryption bullshit.
But nope, New Zealand has now also joined the ranks of those countries that I deem "officially fucked up" with this sorta shit. First was Australia with their backwards filtering legislation.. and then Britain with something similar (might be in the other order, whatever). Now New Zealand. The whole commonwealth is crumblin'.
What's next? I live in Canada, so it's prolly us:-] Seriously tho, can somebody *please* tell me why countries insist on introducing legislation they can't hope to enforce widely (ala Aussi filtering) but can just be used as "technicality" clauses.
If you don't know what a technicality clause is, it's what they use when they don't have a warrant but they want to arrest you. For example, it's illegal to drink and drive (anything, at least in Canada). So if the cops here thought I were guilty of something, but didn't have a warrant, they could pull me over, and upon seeing that I was drinking iced tea (for example) arrest me for drinking and driving.
So, getting back to the point, does anybody else think that all this stuff is essentially that? I mean I find it very hard to believe that any government organisation, no matter how large or well-funded/well-equiped/etc. could use backdoors and _effectively_ search through its entire population's stuff.
So yeah, I dunno, I prolly sound like a conspiracy theorist in training, but it's 4am so gimme a break.
Seriously though, I think it'd be good to know how those numbers were arrived at. It *is* 'fuzzy' math in that sense.. I generally agree with the arguments presented by many/.-ers who have posted here, and the numbers *do* back up a lot of things that I've thought over the years.
Still, the first thing you learn in any statistics class is that you can 'prove' anything you like, if you screw around with enough numbers. How is a victim of a violent crime defined? Exactly how violent does it have to be? Is a hold-up at a convenience store with a knife 'violent,' or does somebody have to be hurt? If they have to be hurt, how badly.. etc. Maybe the reason there's only 30 - 50 victims per 1000 is because a crime, in order to be considered violent in this context has to involve firearms. Or something. We don't know, and that makes the whole thing more or less useless.
I find this increasingly often with Slashdot, that there are arguments here with which I agree, but nobody bothers to provide evidence to support their arguments, so two disagreeing people get into flame fights over who's right, when maybe one could convince another if they had some evidence. Or.. at least maybe they could *understand* each other instead of flaming. Oh well.. and maybe this is redundant, I'd just like to post out that any stats prof will tell you that you can 'prove' anything, and any history prof will tell you never to rely solely on stats.. and I think that's reasonable.
I just wanted to say.. I think 'flamebait' is a bit harsh here dudes.. the guy's got a point. In light of Intel's recent shots-in-foot with the P4 and the ongoing RAMBUS saga, a good solid product line (ala PII + BX, back in the good ol' days) would be welcomed...
... that I really enjoyed your previous GIS episodes, and this one too. I was planning on listening to them religiously through the summer but you guys decided to drop it!
Seriously tho, you guys do a great job, say just what I wanna hear, and provide something decent to which I can relax after a day of mayhem in my high school. I can come home, slam down the latest episode, and start working right away as soon as I hear CowbodyNeal's first belch.
If you want my advice - which you probably don't, because, as so many other/.-ers are so eager to point out, I'm 'only' a 'dumb' high school student - you need to keep this show goin', and you should provide *at least* a 64kbps MP3 dudes. You know lame and bladeenc are free right?
I dunno, I think my feelings toward GIS can be most efficiently and succinctly summed as in the following sentence: "GIS is a form of entertainment like no other known to man."
You/. DJs rool! Keep it up, to keep freaks like me goin' in hick high schools like mine...
Oh yeah, I'm really *not* bitter 'bout the age thing, it's just that I've had lots of flames after announcing my chronologically-challenged status in discussions.
Many readers have pointed out that no matter what type of energy the car is actually using, it almost always originates with fossil fuels. Since most electrical infrastructure in the world uses fossil fuels to generate electricity, any electric vehicle would in effect still be using fossil fuels.
Still, there are certain efficiency advantages to this approach. Burning a whole bunch of coal/oil/[choose fossil fuel product] at a time to create electricity is more efficient than every person individually burning their own fossil fuels. I don't know whether the loss of energy due to the processes of transmission, charging batteries, and using electricity in motors would make electric cars more or less efficient, in the big picture, than gasoline cars, but it's worth checking out.
Then there's hydrogen fuel cells. The most common way of getting (almost) pure hydrogen is to use electrolysis with water. Again, the electricity to do this would usually come from a fossil fuel-burning power plant, and the loss of energy in using electrolysis might mean that fuel cells, too, aren't much better than gasoline cars.
I do seem to remember a story here on/. a while ago about a type of green algae, that would release hydrogen when shone on with light. Could this be a source of sufficient hydrogen for using fuel cell cars?
I completely agree. I find that usually with these things most people overlook the group they're affecting. Several examples, beginning with this one:
As many people have already said, nobody is going to be unable to use ICQ because of this. But.. because a lot of children do want to use it, they're going to have to lie about their age. Was that ever considered? Is it better to have laws that make companies introduce stupid policies like this, which in turn encourage children to lie, than to assume 'kids' can take care of themselves?
Then take the current 'war on drugs.' Can the authorities possibly win? No. But.. the fact that they're fighting means that the drug trade has gone underground, and become more violent, less safe, etc. If the feds would lay off a bit, addicts would be able to get drugs more safely, and be able to get cleaner drugs, as well as help to get them off. But of course it's better to oppose something illegal, simply because it's illegal, rather than to make things safer for those involved.
This really annoys me, every time it comes up, and ICQ is just another case. I myself am a 'child,' or at least I was recently. I'm 16. I absolutely *hate* it when people patronize me and essentially tell me that I'm too young, too innocent, or whatever, to do something.
Don't bitch that because I don't pay taxes I don't get a say in what goes on.. don't bitch that because I don't vote I don't have rights. I'm affected by what goes on.. and that should be reason enough for me to have a say.
Children under 13 were never consulted before this went into effect. Nobody said 'look, sickos might be able to get info about you if you use ICQ and we're thinking of banning people under 13 from the service.. what do you think?' How does the government know what's best for children under 13? How does AOL or ICQ know?
I think that most of the concern here is in the materials that go into the box.. though I do think you have bit of a point. While a bigger box may occupy a larger amount of space, most of that space is empty inside. However, even though the extra materials used to make a box even 2" larger than normal in any dimension *are* minimal, it adds up when multiplied by the millions of pieces of software sold every year.
I think it should also be pointed out, though, that most boxes are made of paper and are recyclable. Most people don't recycle their boxes, (and whether or not they should is another issue entirely) so larger boxes will probably mean more paper in the landfills.
Of course, IdiotBoy here brings up another issue. Shipping. Sure, bigger boxes don't weigh a lot more and aren't really going to add to shipping costs and fuel consumption in that manner, but you'll fit fewer boxes in a truck/plane/train/boat/etc. if they're bigger, and hence you'll need more shipping.
Slashdot Mirror
Whoa.. I was running it there for a few minutes until I saw this.. then I compiled 2.4.14 right away and rebooted, there don't seem to be any problems yet.
This all makes me wonder, though, about 2.4. I mean it seems like there have been relatively many "big" problems with 2.4 throughout its life. 2.4.10 had the SMP thing, 2.4.15 has this, and there have been other problems big enough to pretty much make a version unusable.
I don't seem to remember as much of this happening with 2.2, I mean obviously every major new version of the kernel will be rough around the edges for the first few releases, but 2.2 seemed not to have as many of these big problems. So, what's going on, are kernels getting worse or am I just smocking crack?
Of course, the Somalians' access to information is worthless when compared to to Yanks' "safety." Sigh.. let's just abandon all our principles (i.e. free speech, freedom itself) to save them. That's the way to go, for sure!
If you didn't think that was sarcasm, it was.
Go Waterloo! UoW is where it's at.. u guys down there kick some ass!
Just wanted to say, I really hope Slack doesn't go down the tubes. It's been a great, stable distro for me for many years. I've been using it pretty much right from the get-go, and I've had surprisingly few issues with it.
I currently run Slack 8.0, which I'm finding to be a truly great distro. *Very* few problems with it, everything runs quite smoothly, even on my fairly whacked hardware (dual athlons, 3 net cards, GF3, etc.)
I don't really bitch out other distros, I ran RedHat for a while (the 5.x series) and I've tried SuSe and Debian too. My problem with those distros was that they just somehow seemed "fragile" compared to Slack, and the init schemes seemed very complex and non-intuitive to change. For example I installed RedHat 7.1 on my laptop recently (an old Dell Latitude CPi) just to check it out. I had many problems with gdm; sometimes it would run, sometimes it wouldn't. Sometimes it would start up again after I logged out; sometimes it wouldn't. If I took out my PCMCIA modem or ethernet card I'd be bugged on bootup.
I know RedHat and others have a lot going for them, but I gotta say I still really enjoy the simplicity of Slack. Just my two cents.
Canucks, like myself, can call 1-888-2DONATE to give blood, anywhere across Canada. They will tell you where the closest clinic is and make an appointment for you. Blood supplies can be moved around easily, so no matter where you are in Canada, help out!
Let me reply to your replies:
(1) Fair enough.
(2) Neither, and I still believe that there are many "decent" schools in Canada.
(3) Yep, Taber happened. Fair enough. But I still believe that Canadian society is generally much less violent than American society. We don't have as many stories of Billy picking up daddy's gun while daddy's sleeping and shooting the shit out of himself or others, either. Also, the "right to bear arms" was really a point in the constitution to protect state's rights by making state militias possible. It wasn't really intended for personal protection. Also, the argument that you need a gun because everybody else has one is, IMO, pretty wack. If gun control isn't necessary (as is often argued) and everybody can handle a weapon responsibly, then why should I be scared that everybody has guns? And, if I am scared that everybody has guns, why would I wish to contribute to that problem and add to the fear of others? Even if I do have a gun, its effectiveness in protecting me is related to my ability to use it appropriately. I don't just mean being able to aim.. I mean knowing when to use it as well. Pulling a gun will undoubtedly add to the tension in any situation, and if somebody pulls a gun on you, and you whip yours out, it only makes then more likely to pull the trigger.
Just a few thoughts...
WTF do you mean the Canadian-built arm "actually" worked? You think only Yanks can build robotics or something? I'll give you a few clues as to the nature of Canada and Canadians:
(1) We do not all live in igloos. I live in a house, like many throughout the world, that has central heating, running water, electricity and cable internet (for $40 Canuck bux a month, beat that).
(2) We have education, and it works. And we don't have to pay outrageously for it. I've heard numerous atrocious statistics about education in America, that 70% of high school graduates can't write a simple business letter and so on. Tuition here maxes around $5k/yr (Canuck bux) for post-secondary and earlier education is *free* and generally good (I got a full IB diploma in a *public* school where many teachers had master's degrees).
(3) Most of the time, our students don't shoot each other, either, because we have a little thing here called "gun control" and we aren't all wack about the right to carry lethal, (and in some states) concealed weapons.
So you can see that Canada is in fact a fairly modern state, where people can *afford* a good education and where they can survive to get it. So it is only quite natural that we can build a robotic arm that "actually" works, thank you very much.
And, I know this is gonna be modded flamebait. Fine. But shame on you slashdot for actually posting flamebait on the main page.. I mean people are entitled to their beliefs, racist or otherwise, but posting controversial, racist statements on the main page will only encourage that behaviour.. something I doubt slashdot wishes to do.
I've taken two "introductory" programming courses, one in C++, the other in Java. I found the Java course really got down to a lot more abstract programming concepts. In the C++ course we were always bogged down with limitations of the language and had to use classes written by the instructor to work on certain concepts (which is of course entirely stupid because nobody else in industry has ever heard of those classes). In the Java course we weren't using any non-standard classes and generally just got a lot more done. 'nuff said.
I read through these comments and get the impression that slowly a conclusion is being reached: PPC-type hardware is good for some things, x86 hardware is good for others. Nothing really new there, is there? For running Linux, it seems from this little (and far from in-depth) benchmarking session that PCs are a bit better, especially given costs. You can probably get a 1.2GHz Athlon box for the cost of a 533MHz G4, and it'll be better for Linux, so if you run Linux, why not?
MacOS X, stuff like Maya, Final Cut Pro, etc. etc. quite obviously runs better on PPCs, barring some strange circumstances. I imagine that with enough "brute force" (RAM, dual processors, etc.) one could get a PC to run this stuff faster than a Mac.. but what's the point? You might as well just keep it simple and buy a Mac that'll run it pretty well outta the box.
I agree though, that cost is an important consideration. With 760MP around the corner, if it ever does surface in quantities making it available, dual Athlons might give dual G4s a bit of a whippin', especially considering AMDs prices as of late. In general I find you can buy a PC with a much faster proc, more RAM, etc. for the same cost as a Mac from the Apple store.
Still, even a 1.2GHz Athlon would probably choke on OS X, and the G4 will at most hiccup...
Lotsa people have been saying it - Slack on SPARC. Few have been saying why it might be a good way to go, though.
Slack, IMO, is much more like Solaris or SunOS than RedHat or Debian. Being Linux though, it would probably maintain any performance advantages typically found over Solaris.
It's also very, very clean and maintains very simple configuration methods. The Slack scripts are simply the most elegant I've seen (and I've used 5 or 6 distros) and are really easy to work with. No more hunting through the seemingly endless collection of dialog boxes in LinuxConf for what you want to change.
Finally, since there's also an Alpha and an x86 version, you can have boxes with different architectures that are configured and used in almost exactly the same way, which is a plus that any distro that maintains versions across several platforms has.
this is not a linux only site!!!!!
I use Shaw@Home in Calgary, AB (Canada). Speeds really vary, usually when I'm downloading pretty big (> 80MB) stuff I get between 2Mbps and 3Mbps. But a lot of the time, downloading smaller things (like looking at screenshots) I get closer to 30KBps (kilobytes, not bits). But I know it varies tremendously by area in Calgary too. In some of the more affluent areas of the city, especially those where the majority of households have children, cable can be a lot slower, although people I know who've used it in those areas say Shaw keeps up by adding more and more servers to the higher demand areas.
:) and all the DSL deals in Calgary for the same price have a theoretical down limit of 1mbps, and a lot of them seem to have bandwidth limitations as well, although my friends tell me they're very generous and you'd almost certainly never use it all up (it's somethin on the order of 50GB/month, you'd have to download like two isos/day).
We have DSL in Calgary, too, of course, but personally I think it's a pretty bad deal. Cable is $40/month (Canuck bucks too
Calgary has some of the cheapest Internet access in the world, though. I mean you can get a 256kbps DSL line for $20/month, which is nice if you're not a hardcore gamer but just like some fast surfin'. 56K can be had for free, of course, but non-free (and less annoying) 56K can be had for $5/month, no kidding. It's probably because Calgary's such a new city (130 years old, but almost all of the residential areas have been built in the last 50 years) and the communication infrastructure is consequently very good.
Anyway, perhaps this is redundant, I took a quick skim through the posts and hadn't seen anything about Calgary, so I thought I'd letcha know...
Here in Canada, the general impression I get is that Comp. Eng. degrees are much more applied, and yeah, do involve hardware more. Some people like that more, some do not. I find "applied" math courses detestable, but that's just me :)
Many people make the argument that a more theoretical background is more robust, if you've got a neuron or two to rub together. If you can figure out how to use all the theoretical stuff you're taught, you can use it anywhere. Whereas if you just learn how to do one thing, you have to be able to extrapolate the theory to apply it elsewhere. It depends how you think, I suppose. Can you extrapolate the theory behind things? Is that easier from simply being taught the theory for you? I think those are the most important questions when deciding between Comp. Sci. and Comp. Eng.
NEway, back to *Canadian* universities. Here the Engineering programs are renowned for trying to royally screw students in their first year, in a sort of "weeding out" process. The Comp. Sci. programs do it too, but to a lesser extent. If that doesn't sound appealing to you, you might wanna move more toward Comp. Sci. There's nothing stopping you from doing a graduate degree in Comp. Eng. after, either.
Maybe this is all redundant.. if it is, sorry!
Could somebody well-versed in Japanese please put up some kind of translation, into something that the fish can handle (i.e. french, german, english) so us mere mortals can look at this stuff too? Lotsa ppl would appreciate it...
As a 17-year-old high-school senior, I think I might share a lot of things with you. I've noticed that at my school, most students pursue computer courses and go on to pursue careers in the industry because of the financial prospects. I've also found that most of these people are Winblows users, and swear by stuff like MS visual C++ (due to the use of that compiler at my school, I don't take programming). Most of the Linux/free software users I've encountered, however, work in the area because they love it, because they want to make it better, and because they want to be part of the community. What I'm wondering is do you fit into either of these two scenarios, and if so, which? If not, why are you interested in computers, and what got you interested in the first place?
Ok, so yeah, because we grab people of the street and slap 'em in the slammer fer smokin' some pot, or shootin' some heroine, there are places fer more lawyers, more judges, etc.
Does anybody *really* see the need for more lawyers as a benefit? Anybody?
Also, how many more innocent citizens are called to jury duty because of the war on drugs? Prolly a fair number, most of whom would probably be happier leading their self-involved, materialistic lives.
Finally, suppose some currently illegal drugs (such as pot) were legalised. Suppose you could walk into a local shop and buy a few grams.. imaging the taxes the gov't could raise with that. Using that money, good drug-abuse programs could be started, more drug-abuse facilities built, etc. Better prevention measures could be taken, the list goes on...
For example, in Holland, we were (in gr. 9) given an informative booklet about e, or xtc, or whatever you like to call it. It wasn't patronising at all - it simply talked about the way e works, how it can be dangerous, where you can have your pills checked to make sure they're ok (in Holland they have facilities at most clubs that will check your pills for a small fee).
To me, this seems much better than simply saying "say no to drugs" to kids and showing them pictures of stoned/high/whatever people lying on the street. It's less patronising, more humanistic, and overall more reasonable. I don't think anybody takes it seriously when they hear "say no to drugs" - it's a joke.
So, legalise pot, e, and some of the other `lighter' drugs (perhaps 'shrooms?) Then the gov't would be able to tax the hell outta them, have quality-control measures, implement good drug-abuse programs, etc. I think the taxes would work because, given a choice between a dealer in a dark street and a legitimate place to buy stuff, where would you go? Illegal dealing could also be siginificantly reduced.
As it stands right now, people use drugs despite the "war," but don't have very many good places to turn when they want help. I think the gov't should just accept that people use drugs and try to make something good of it...
I was really thinking "New Zealand must be a great place" - the whole multi-region DVD thing, the government that _cares_ about the poor, the (until recent) lack of encryption bullshit.
:-] Seriously tho, can somebody *please* tell me why countries insist on introducing legislation they can't hope to enforce widely (ala Aussi filtering) but can just be used as "technicality" clauses.
But nope, New Zealand has now also joined the ranks of those countries that I deem "officially fucked up" with this sorta shit. First was Australia with their backwards filtering legislation.. and then Britain with something similar (might be in the other order, whatever). Now New Zealand. The whole commonwealth is crumblin'.
What's next? I live in Canada, so it's prolly us
If you don't know what a technicality clause is, it's what they use when they don't have a warrant but they want to arrest you. For example, it's illegal to drink and drive (anything, at least in Canada). So if the cops here thought I were guilty of something, but didn't have a warrant, they could pull me over, and upon seeing that I was drinking iced tea (for example) arrest me for drinking and driving.
So, getting back to the point, does anybody else think that all this stuff is essentially that? I mean I find it very hard to believe that any government organisation, no matter how large or well-funded/well-equiped/etc. could use backdoors and _effectively_ search through its entire population's stuff.
So yeah, I dunno, I prolly sound like a conspiracy theorist in training, but it's 4am so gimme a break.
Seriously though, I think it'd be good to know how those numbers were arrived at. It *is* 'fuzzy' math in that sense.. I generally agree with the arguments presented by many /.-ers who have posted here, and the numbers *do* back up a lot of things that I've thought over the years.
Still, the first thing you learn in any statistics class is that you can 'prove' anything you like, if you screw around with enough numbers. How is a victim of a violent crime defined? Exactly how violent does it have to be? Is a hold-up at a convenience store with a knife 'violent,' or does somebody have to be hurt? If they have to be hurt, how badly.. etc. Maybe the reason there's only 30 - 50 victims per 1000 is because a crime, in order to be considered violent in this context has to involve firearms. Or something. We don't know, and that makes the whole thing more or less useless.
I find this increasingly often with Slashdot, that there are arguments here with which I agree, but nobody bothers to provide evidence to support their arguments, so two disagreeing people get into flame fights over who's right, when maybe one could convince another if they had some evidence. Or.. at least maybe they could *understand* each other instead of flaming. Oh well.. and maybe this is redundant, I'd just like to post out that any stats prof will tell you that you can 'prove' anything, and any history prof will tell you never to rely solely on stats.. and I think that's reasonable.
I just wanted to say.. I think 'flamebait' is a bit harsh here dudes.. the guy's got a point. In light of Intel's recent shots-in-foot with the P4 and the ongoing RAMBUS saga, a good solid product line (ala PII + BX, back in the good ol' days) would be welcomed...
Yeah.. of course I wouldn't know 'bout MP3s. High school students *never* use MP3s. It's all those mid-life guys that the RIAA are after... :-]
... that I really enjoyed your previous GIS episodes, and this one too. I was planning on listening to them religiously through the summer but you guys decided to drop it!
/.-ers are so eager to point out, I'm 'only' a 'dumb' high school student - you need to keep this show goin', and you should provide *at least* a 64kbps MP3 dudes. You know lame and bladeenc are free right?
/. DJs rool! Keep it up, to keep freaks like me goin' in hick high schools like mine...
Seriously tho, you guys do a great job, say just what I wanna hear, and provide something decent to which I can relax after a day of mayhem in my high school. I can come home, slam down the latest episode, and start working right away as soon as I hear CowbodyNeal's first belch.
If you want my advice - which you probably don't, because, as so many other
I dunno, I think my feelings toward GIS can be most efficiently and succinctly summed as in the following sentence: "GIS is a form of entertainment like no other known to man."
You
Oh yeah, I'm really *not* bitter 'bout the age thing, it's just that I've had lots of flames after announcing my chronologically-challenged status in discussions.
Many readers have pointed out that no matter what type of energy the car is actually using, it almost always originates with fossil fuels. Since most electrical infrastructure in the world uses fossil fuels to generate electricity, any electric vehicle would in effect still be using fossil fuels.
/. a while ago about a type of green algae, that would release hydrogen when shone on with light. Could this be a source of sufficient hydrogen for using fuel cell cars?
Still, there are certain efficiency advantages to this approach. Burning a whole bunch of coal/oil/[choose fossil fuel product] at a time to create electricity is more efficient than every person individually burning their own fossil fuels. I don't know whether the loss of energy due to the processes of transmission, charging batteries, and using electricity in motors would make electric cars more or less efficient, in the big picture, than gasoline cars, but it's worth checking out.
Then there's hydrogen fuel cells. The most common way of getting (almost) pure hydrogen is to use electrolysis with water. Again, the electricity to do this would usually come from a fossil fuel-burning power plant, and the loss of energy in using electrolysis might mean that fuel cells, too, aren't much better than gasoline cars.
I do seem to remember a story here on
"teeny-boppers who love Britteny Spears"
Nice touch spelling it wrong.. make sure you aren't identified as said teeny-bopper yerself huh?
I completely agree. I find that usually with these things most people overlook the group they're affecting. Several examples, beginning with this one:
As many people have already said, nobody is going to be unable to use ICQ because of this. But.. because a lot of children do want to use it, they're going to have to lie about their age. Was that ever considered? Is it better to have laws that make companies introduce stupid policies like this, which in turn encourage children to lie, than to assume 'kids' can take care of themselves?
Then take the current 'war on drugs.' Can the authorities possibly win? No. But.. the fact that they're fighting means that the drug trade has gone underground, and become more violent, less safe, etc. If the feds would lay off a bit, addicts would be able to get drugs more safely, and be able to get cleaner drugs, as well as help to get them off. But of course it's better to oppose something illegal, simply because it's illegal, rather than to make things safer for those involved.
This really annoys me, every time it comes up, and ICQ is just another case. I myself am a 'child,' or at least I was recently. I'm 16. I absolutely *hate* it when people patronize me and essentially tell me that I'm too young, too innocent, or whatever, to do something.
Don't bitch that because I don't pay taxes I don't get a say in what goes on.. don't bitch that because I don't vote I don't have rights. I'm affected by what goes on.. and that should be reason enough for me to have a say.
Children under 13 were never consulted before this went into effect. Nobody said 'look, sickos might be able to get info about you if you use ICQ and we're thinking of banning people under 13 from the service.. what do you think?' How does the government know what's best for children under 13? How does AOL or ICQ know?
I think that most of the concern here is in the materials that go into the box.. though I do think you have bit of a point. While a bigger box may occupy a larger amount of space, most of that space is empty inside. However, even though the extra materials used to make a box even 2" larger than normal in any dimension *are* minimal, it adds up when multiplied by the millions of pieces of software sold every year.
I think it should also be pointed out, though, that most boxes are made of paper and are recyclable. Most people don't recycle their boxes, (and whether or not they should is another issue entirely) so larger boxes will probably mean more paper in the landfills.
Of course, IdiotBoy here brings up another issue. Shipping. Sure, bigger boxes don't weigh a lot more and aren't really going to add to shipping costs and fuel consumption in that manner, but you'll fit fewer boxes in a truck/plane/train/boat/etc. if they're bigger, and hence you'll need more shipping.
Just a few thoughts...