"big ugly, hard to maintain or read macros that generate arbitrary machine code. No matter how good you are, you won't know what code is being generated without extensive analysis."
Why can't you just look at the preprocessor output? This isn't that big of a deal. Or use an IDE like Understand, which will expand macros for you.
>Motley Fool staffers are just now realizing that Google is slowly running out of gas.
That's not exactly what's happening. The article that you referenced is representative of one MF staffer, and it is posted a rebuttal to a different bullish post. From the article:
"While Google is my favorite search engine, its valuation gives me the heebie-jeebies. Since Rick was kind enough to respond to my original article, I thought it was only fair to respond to his, albeit belatedly. Of course, I still think Google is quite overvalued, but Rick does make a persuasive case for the company to be worth every penny."
But I think you'd rather complain that I didn't give you properly documented references. But I guess your lack of prior research is somehow my fault.
You've made claims that I've challenged as an automotive engineer. Just back up your claims with some data or an article reference?
I think the real problem is that you've got a bad taste in your mouth based on your WRX experience. I've heard of other WRX owners complaining about sensitive ABS activations as well. This is a shame, as it has resulted in unhappy owners. It has also unfortunately resulted in your making false statements about the design intent of ABS.
>ABS attempts to hold the wheel where friction is maximized
No, it does not. If that was the case, it would "maximize friction" on gravel surfaces. However, I've never heard of any ABS that is capable of beating locked brakes on gravel. It purposefully reduces braking power in order to increase stability. That is it's purpose.
You've already (correctly) stated the reason for a locked wheel beating ABS on a plowable surface -- it is because of a build up of material in front of the tire. This phenomenon increases available friction. We agree on this point. (And, by the way, you've quoted me out of context. In the same sentence that you quoted from, I indicated only for non-plowable surfaces.)
The system can not tell precisely when it is on a plowable surface, but there are attempts in some systems to at least recognize a rough road and take deeper slip cycles to take advantage of this phenomenon on plowable surfaces. A locked wheel on gravel will still not allow you to steer, even though it may reduce your stopping distance.
And you are being an arrogant ass. I'm talking about ABS and its design considerations and effects.
"Huh? Where did I mention anything about tire physics? I talked about locked wheels on gravel (not related to anything on pavement, where you are apparently limiting all your comments to). That's all I mentioned about tire physics. Or are you assuming that I misunderstand the physics because my conclusion isn't the same as yours?"
You don't have to mention tire physics specifically to make it clear that you don't understand it. Statements such as:
"I don't see why so many people see ABS as a panacea. It was designed to increase braking distance, and I would like to see any manufacturing literature that claims it reduces braking distance if you don't believe me."
ABS attempts to hold the wheel where friction is maximized -- which is also *maximizing* braking power (on homogeneous non-plowable surfaces). ABS can not determine what is a plowable surface, and as such you are correct that a wedge of material in front of a locked wheel will get you a shorter stopping distance, while sacrificing vehicle directional control.
"It was hard to make a situation (aside from cars essentially designed to have ABS be the ABD like the Viper and it's horrible brakes) where the first ABS would out-perform a trained driver. Now, the programs are better and are able to beat people a lot of the time."
Are you aware that the Viper started production *without* ABS? And now we are to believe that the 'programs' are better now and are 'able to beat people a lot of the time' -- even though you indicated earlier:
"Not to mention that [ABS] is almost always beat by a human under any circumstances (if the human is sufficiently trained)."
There's a reason why ABS is required, by law, on all passenger cars sold in Germany. It certainly isn't because it was 'designed to increase stopping distance'.
"Compare that to a trained driver in a familiar vehicle that can tell from sound and other factors what the slip percentage is (well, guess reasonably accurately, though with race tires and such, there is little audible feedback)."
This is not the comparison. Your original post referenced "ABS apologists", as well as going on to claim that its design intent was "to increase stopping distance", which is untrue. Now you're comparing a "trained driver in a familiar vehicle that can tell from sound and other factors" -- and this is not what the driver is concentrating on in an emergency.
"Also, you do know that ABS with a fuse pulled is certainly not equal to no ABS? Vehicles like the Viper mentioned above are in desperate need of an ABD. The ABS was used instead. It cost a little more, but people don't know what an automatic brake differential is, but ABS is common."
The Viper, which didn't add ABS until somewhere around 2000 or 2001, does indeed include EBD, or Electronic Brake force Distribution. It will dump pressure from the rear axle brakes to prevent rear wheel lock. This function is available without ABS if you'd like, it does not require disconnecting a fuse, but it does require disabling ABS.
"And, I've seen numerous tests, some with ABS winning, some with ABS losing, and the one thing in common is that the tests were set up by someone with an idea of what they wanted for the results."
I don't see why so many people see ABS as a panacea. It was designed to increase braking distance, and I would like to see any manufacturing literature that claims it reduces braking distance if you don't believe me. Show me something Ford or Toyota put out officially stating their ABS will stop you faster than without. I'll not hold my breath, I've looked and asked around and no one has found anything yet.
First, All ABS systems are supplied to the OEMs by many suppliers (two of which are listed above -- also see TRW, Nissin, Aisin, Sumitomo, Delphi...). So it is likely you will not find statements by the OEMs, who typically do not design or develop such systems. The suppliers listed above do, and sell their latest tech to the OEMs.
Second, you misunderstand some basic tire physics, as do many other posters. Google for the "mu-slip curve" to find out why ABS will shorten stopping distance for most drivers -- the system tries to maintain a slip that delivers the most friction. For most tires this slip is a velocity around 10-12% lower than the true vehicle speed.
For continued reading, look for information on "Kamm's Circle", which shows the relationship between lateral and longitudinal friction.
It would be interesting to take the most experienced driver you could find, and place this driver into a vehicle that he has never driven, without ABS. Take a second identical vehicle (but equipped with ABS) and an inexperienced driver who has also never driven the vehicle. Have both vehicles perform the same maneuvers.
Straight line stopping performance: I'm betting on the inexperienced driver with ABS. As I mentioned above, the ABS system will prevent locking, but automatically keep the wheel operating at peak friction.
Hard braking in a turn: The inexperienced driver will stop sooner *and* maintain his or her intended path. The non-ABS vehicle will unfortunately start to understeer as soon as the driver unintentionally brings the front wheels to lock.
Have you ever actually used Yahoo Finance to do any in-depth analysis? The depth of information you can dig up from their site is astounding.
While you've obviously spent the time to point out to everyone four things you like about Yahoo! Finance -- what did you *like* about Google's finance page?
I took one look at it and immediately thought that relating TIMES of news releases to the stock's price history was awesome!
If Google Maps or Gmail are any indication, Yahoo! Finance is in for a shake-up.
How about the fancy widget that allows you to drag over the stock's price history and watch the animated chart stretch to show any period of time?? Sweet!
We're using BizFlow at work. BizFlow from the client side requires IE and some sort of "agent" that runs when you go to the BizFlow "site".
From there, we (the users) can initiate a number of processes. An engineering "Test Order", for example, will require management/supervisor approval, finally requiring that an engineer submit a "Test Report", which also goes through an approval process, and so forth. If someone is on vacation, it gets re-routed to the responsible person. If an engineer bounces the request because he doesn't have the parts, the request goes back to someone else, etc.
These types of systems eliminate walking paperwork around the office for various signatures -- trying to find someone, playing phone tag, etc.
Does it seem strange to anyone else that Linus reads and follows the Gnome usability list as a KDE user, and then posts to said list encouraging a switch to KDE?
These two events seem odd enough to not be 'real' events at all.
Good response, and I will try again with my buddy's iPod. I *did* try holding down the center button, and I did not get this behavior.
It's funny though, how defensive everyone gets about this device. One user, in this thread, calls it "a way of life".
1. No ogg support. My entire CD collection is encoded in ogg. (see my journal for history of this and my using the GJukebox software) iPod users all say: "You don't need it anyway." (Ironic. OGG is the open format! Most Mac guys are usually pro OSS... But, the theme so far is, if the iPod doesn't support it, you don't need it.)
2. "Gee, I sure wish I could use it like a Jukebox." Turns out you can create an on-the-go playlist, albeit this feature was added at a later date, as indicated rudely by several people.
3. "Spoken by a person who knows nothing about an iPod." Did I claim to? I've played with it, can't see spending $300 on it, that's it. Without #1 or #2, it's no good to me. #2 seems to be solved.
4. Lots of features, great this, great that. I'm sure it is. But that's not the reason why Apple has sold LOTS of iPods. I don't buy it. Reese Witherspoon isn't spotted jogging with her iPod because she's into all of the advanced features. Wired doesn't have a sidebar called "What's on your iPod" because millions of people are using advanced features. It's marketing, plain and simple. Oakley revisited.
Also: I love the slew of AC comments -- and the way they're automatically filtered out, based on my settings, unless I specifically want to read them.
I will check out "Playlist on the Go" the first chance I get.
You might have missed the point of the iPod. Remember that computers are great at handling large amounts of tiny pieces of information, and great at performing rule-based actions. Managing your MP3 player manually is like editing your web site using a text editor. Sure, you have 100% control. Sure, your HTML looks exactly like you want it to. But it just doesn't scale. Have more than N pages, you need a content management system. iTunes is your content management system for music. Stop micromanaging, give up control, gain command.
You're carrying around a tiny computer with your entire music collection stored on it, but you need to rely on a second computer to manage it? This makes no sense to me. Where's the command, back at home?
I should be able to use a tiny computer containing my entire music collection like a jukebox. As I'm driving down the road with 20GB of compressed audio, my passenger should be able to scroll through my collection and queue whatever songs they want to hear, and they'll play in that sequence.
I played with a friend's iPod mini for a while, and could not figure out how to do this! I'm told that you need to set up a playlist on the desktop in advance? Dumb.
The iPod is a result of amazing marketing. People ask for it by name, and have no idea what it will or won't do for them. Without the ability to queue songs, like a jukebox, the huge capacity makes no sense to me.
...is that there are so many fcking nay-sayers. This is typicical of the Slashdot crowd:
>Obviously, Google has far more money than >they really know what to do with.
>If it causes problems for emergency bands >and other legitimate operators, your mom's >Internet connection seems of little importance. >There are other ways to supply broadband.
>I thought Google pledged to not do anything >'evil'.
>Don't go there...if you look at the history of >Slashdot they're anti-Ham radio for the most >part. Their reasoning is why stop progress for >something that only 600,000 people in the country >do. You know, the needs of the many outway the >needs of the few.
>It's unfortunate that a company that wants to do >no evil is investing in activity that will earn >it the emnity of most every amateur radio >operator in the country...</i>
And, very likely, the same nay-saying crowd posted their comments through a broadband connection!!
When did nerds become so damned pessimistic about new technology? With any new technology, there are technical challenges.
Calling Google "evil" or Slashdot "anti-ham" is as about as fcking childish as it gets.
Growing up in a rural area and now living in the city, I can tell you that there are MANY areas of the country without *gasp* cable TV!! Upper Michigan, for example, is largely "unwired" for cable or DSL! So what then? Erect hundreds of towers to broadcast wireless internet? This is a better solution than using the pre-existing powerlines that run into nearly every household?
Support for PalmOS based units is ROCK SOLID on Linux, especially the USB based units. And it has been for years.
This is a typical response from this userbase, and it is a stretch, at best. (ESPECIALLY USB UNITS, FOR YEARS?)
The original poster is having difficulty getting it to work, as do HUNDREDS of other people. It's amazing how you point out that it's rock solid, but then recommend a Google search to find "everything you need to get it going." Look at the number of responses to this article!
Under Windows, all you need to do is install the included Palm Desktop, plug in the cradle, and push HotSync.
I am now using the 2.6 kernel with JPilot, and it is working fine, AFTER I HAD TO RECREATE all of the original categories (Personal, Business, etc.) My custom categories synced fine.
Users may decide to wander over to KPilot, which is very buggy, and what I believe is the reason I have duplicate e-mail addresses in almost every address book entry now. (can't be certain if it's KPilot or JPilot)
Two I'm monitoring with regards to KPilot:
Bug 72053 -- categories aren't created in addressbook
Bug 86879 -- calendar doesn't sync
This is not what I would call rock solid. I love Linux, but it is not without tinkering to get hardware to talk to it. I enjoy getting free software to work, and if needed modifying it to fit my needs. (Or even patching it with others' modifications)
My recommendation to the poster is NOT to use KPilot at this time -- however I've found JPilot works well after you get it going, barring my initial problems getting it started. It also has support for KeyRing, which is another OSS Palm app that I use.
They did. I remember the cover vividly -- the guy wearing sunglasses with the camera as a lens.
They were stimulating nerves in the eye with tiny electrodes, although they had to ask the patient where in his field of vision he saw the phosphene as they stimulated him. From this they created a "mapping" of sorts.
This sort of research was frowned upon on the US, and so it had to be carried out overseas. Check out the article -- more info than the linked BBC one.
The last thing II used Windows for was MS-Money. I hate Windows and MS business practices, but I did love MS-Money (and I still love Excel).
I moved to GNUCash and I've been pretty happy. Took a little getting used to, but now that scheduled transactions is there, it's got most of what I want.
I was thinking the same as you about Quicken under Windows emulation... May not be the best idea, and if you make this jump, don't be surprised if you DO find a bug that takes months to get resolved.
Keep regular backups. I've lost MS-Money files before, and I don't think GNUCash is immune. I've got a script that automatically GPGs the file and uploads it to my ISPs webspace. GNUCash automatically keeps running backups for you.
Maybe because... an MP3 player doesn't NEED a freaking OS?
SOMETHING has to deal with the display, audio hardware, memory management, user input, power management, accessing a file system, tuner hardware...
This is how the iPod lets you play games and keep a calendar. My Rio has a programmable equalizer and allows presets for the tuner.
There is some sort of low-level OS (and it may be proprietary) in there that manages all of the above. If you think it's just one long program you're confused.
Why in the hell would a "handful" of large projects use a system that sucks?
KDE, Mozilla, Gnome -- these developers are all morons, using the worst system available? What in the hell are you guys smoking?
After you're done answering the above questions, please state a few reasons why you feel Bugzilla is the worst system around. What do the other systems do better? How could Bugzilla be improved?
Contrary to your opinions, I think Bugzilla is a absolutely fantastic issue tracking system. It has dramatically improved productivity and communication in our global organization. Our product is an embedded controller in the auto industry, not OSS. We're also tracking several other projects, including some desktop apps, with the same installation.
As a mechanical engineer with very limited Linux exposure (see my Journal), I installed Bugzilla one year ago. It took me under five hours, including modifications (to fields only!) to make it centered around our product and not desktop software. I haven't touched the box since then. It just works, period. Our software engineers and vehicle test engineers love it. Management has been very impressed with it. Mention that it's free and they can't believe it.
Well I can think of lots of uses for more computing power.
1 Intergrated IPod like stereo system.
2 A wifi network connection that would allow you to get the latest weather radar and traffic status.
3 Improved navigation systems that would connect with desktop trip planing software.
1. Many newer cars are available with head units that will decode MP3s stored in data format directly from the CD, including support for folders on the disc. (Dodge Magnum, Chevy Equinox, others)
2. Unfortunately we don't use RDS to it's full potential here in the states, but Europeans have enjoyed traffic updates and so forth for quite a while. Here in Detroit we've got a few stations that broadcast artist info, but I've not seen any traffic info yet.
3. Who knows about the last one -- if a standard were developed it wouldn't be too difficult. Chrysler is offering Bluetooth support in many of it's new models including the Grand Cherokee, Liberty, Pacifica, 300, etc. My point here is that a link to external devices is not out of the question right now at your local dealership.
These are some good ideas, and I don't think my responses cover them 100%, but close... None will require a 3GHz processor as the parent suggests.
This area happens to be within the scope of my research, and I think it would be next to impossible to go overboard with the hardware.
If your research is somehow connected to the auto industry, it sounds like you need to visit Detroit.
I can think of several applications where having a "full-powered" computer in a car would be useful, not least of which is if you are on an automotive network (which doesn't really exist yet) and the environment requires high-grade encryption or other measures to provide the appropriate security. If the automotive network is P2P, lots of resources might be needed to make it work well.
Almost every vehicle produced today uses some sort of network to allow all of the modules to communicate together. The most common is CAN. Please list three more applications where this type of computing power would be useful.
Overkill? If anything, the PPC 603e is way undershooting what I think could/should be appropriate for automotive computing. Why not a 3GHz Pentium?
What types of computing tasks do you think are necessary inside an automobile, and what types of processors do you think are employed today? The ABS controller that I work on utilizes a 33MHz Motorola (proprietary) micro. The code that runs it is highly optimized, and every byte of RAM is scrutinized.
...but why not provide more than what's needed...
A ten-cent change will be discussed for literally hours on high volume platforms, because that $0.10 * 250,000 cars/year = $25,000. You're talking about hardware that will cost significantly more than what's employed today. And the benefit? None.
2) with the risk of being irrelevant (how many people are going to want to use your OtherOpenOffice fork?).
Is there a large group of people using Konqueror or Opera? They might be fantastic browsers, but I will tend to use what's got the strongest developer base hoping that it's got the best stability.
I'm not bitching (or at least not trying to), I'm just looking for some insight into the motivation to work on solving the same problem that other people have already solved. Maybe it's the challenge of writing your own browser from scratch... Maybe you simply want to see if you can write a "leaner" browser.
In large projects such as KDE, code reuse would seem to be a more efficient option.
I'm speaking from the standpoint of the auto industry -- where all of our code is reused as much as possible simply because it's stable and has been verified. Changes to the core code leading to "bugs" are not an option in the ABS world.
Speaking from within the industry, I can assure you that when automotive manufacturers can, we keep our manufacturing processes secret, and when we can't, we patent the living hell out of them. Just because you can take the car apart doesn't mean you can duplicate it.
I'm with you.
I work in 'the industry' as well, in vehicle testing. While I work for a supplier, we constantly benchmark competitive systems to see what they're doing.
My point was, in OSS, you can easily see what everyone else is doing, but yet there is still a lot of "reinventing" is going on (i.e. Mozilla, Konqueror, Opera, etc.)...
Your argument breaks down (like all silly comparisons between automobiles and software) when you realize that you can take apart the car and see how it works, thereby obtaining the "source code". There is no analog for "closed source" in cars.
Bull.
EVERYTHING, from the specification that [insert automaker here] has created for [insert component here] to the manufacturing process to produce them, is confidential and proprietary.
Just because you're staring at a component doesn't mean that you have any CLUE how to MANUFACTURE IT.
Software logic is another story that's been discussed many times here on Slashdot. All modules use 'closed source' logic and most of the time proprietary hardware (including custom micros).
Slashdot Mirror
"big ugly, hard to maintain or read macros that generate arbitrary machine code. No matter how good you are, you won't know what code is being generated without extensive analysis." Why can't you just look at the preprocessor output? This isn't that big of a deal. Or use an IDE like Understand, which will expand macros for you.
That's not exactly what's happening. The article that you referenced is representative of one MF staffer, and it is posted a rebuttal to a different bullish post. From the article:
You've made claims that I've challenged as an automotive engineer. Just back up your claims with some data or an article reference?
I think the real problem is that you've got a bad taste in your mouth based on your WRX experience. I've heard of other WRX owners complaining about sensitive ABS activations as well. This is a shame, as it has resulted in unhappy owners. It has also unfortunately resulted in your making false statements about the design intent of ABS.
You've already (correctly) stated the reason for a locked wheel beating ABS on a plowable surface -- it is because of a build up of material in front of the tire. This phenomenon increases available friction. We agree on this point. (And, by the way, you've quoted me out of context. In the same sentence that you quoted from, I indicated only for non-plowable surfaces.)
The system can not tell precisely when it is on a plowable surface, but there are attempts in some systems to at least recognize a rough road and take deeper slip cycles to take advantage of this phenomenon on plowable surfaces. A locked wheel on gravel will still not allow you to steer, even though it may reduce your stopping distance.
Name-calling is not improving your credibility.
You don't have to mention tire physics specifically to make it clear that you don't understand it. Statements such as:
ABS attempts to hold the wheel where friction is maximized -- which is also *maximizing* braking power (on homogeneous non-plowable surfaces). ABS can not determine what is a plowable surface, and as such you are correct that a wedge of material in front of a locked wheel will get you a shorter stopping distance, while sacrificing vehicle directional control.
Are you aware that the Viper started production *without* ABS? And now we are to believe that the 'programs' are better now and are 'able to beat people a lot of the time' -- even though you indicated earlier:
There's a reason why ABS is required, by law, on all passenger cars sold in Germany. It certainly isn't because it was 'designed to increase stopping distance'.This is not the comparison. Your original post referenced "ABS apologists", as well as going on to claim that its design intent was "to increase stopping distance", which is untrue. Now you're comparing a "trained driver in a familiar vehicle that can tell from sound and other factors" -- and this is not what the driver is concentrating on in an emergency.
The Viper, which didn't add ABS until somewhere around 2000 or 2001, does indeed include EBD, or Electronic Brake force Distribution. It will dump pressure from the rear axle brakes to prevent rear wheel lock. This function is available without ABS if you'd like, it does not require disconnecting a fuse, but it does require disabling ABS.
I'd love to see a *one* of the 'numerous' tests.
Did you look for statements from Conti or Bosch?
First, All ABS systems are supplied to the OEMs by many suppliers (two of which are listed above -- also see TRW, Nissin, Aisin, Sumitomo, Delphi...). So it is likely you will not find statements by the OEMs, who typically do not design or develop such systems. The suppliers listed above do, and sell their latest tech to the OEMs.
Second, you misunderstand some basic tire physics, as do many other posters. Google for the "mu-slip curve" to find out why ABS will shorten stopping distance for most drivers -- the system tries to maintain a slip that delivers the most friction. For most tires this slip is a velocity around 10-12% lower than the true vehicle speed.
For continued reading, look for information on "Kamm's Circle", which shows the relationship between lateral and longitudinal friction.
It would be interesting to take the most experienced driver you could find, and place this driver into a vehicle that he has never driven, without ABS. Take a second identical vehicle (but equipped with ABS) and an inexperienced driver who has also never driven the vehicle. Have both vehicles perform the same maneuvers.
Straight line stopping performance: I'm betting on the inexperienced driver with ABS. As I mentioned above, the ABS system will prevent locking, but automatically keep the wheel operating at peak friction.
Hard braking in a turn: The inexperienced driver will stop sooner *and* maintain his or her intended path. The non-ABS vehicle will unfortunately start to understeer as soon as the driver unintentionally brings the front wheels to lock.
While you've obviously spent the time to point out to everyone four things you like about Yahoo! Finance -- what did you *like* about Google's finance page?
I took one look at it and immediately thought that relating TIMES of news releases to the stock's price history was awesome!
If Google Maps or Gmail are any indication, Yahoo! Finance is in for a shake-up.
How about the fancy widget that allows you to drag over the stock's price history and watch the animated chart stretch to show any period of time?? Sweet!
Google creates cool toys for us to play with.
From there, we (the users) can initiate a number of processes. An engineering "Test Order", for example, will require management/supervisor approval, finally requiring that an engineer submit a "Test Report", which also goes through an approval process, and so forth. If someone is on vacation, it gets re-routed to the responsible person. If an engineer bounces the request because he doesn't have the parts, the request goes back to someone else, etc.
These types of systems eliminate walking paperwork around the office for various signatures -- trying to find someone, playing phone tag, etc.
These two events seem odd enough to not be 'real' events at all.
Good response, and I will try again with my buddy's iPod. I *did* try holding down the center button, and I did not get this behavior.
... But, the theme so far is, if the iPod doesn't support it, you don't need it.)
It's funny though, how defensive everyone gets about this device. One user, in this thread, calls it "a way of life".
1. No ogg support. My entire CD collection is encoded in ogg. (see my journal for history of this and my using the GJukebox software) iPod users all say: "You don't need it anyway." (Ironic. OGG is the open format! Most Mac guys are usually pro OSS
2. "Gee, I sure wish I could use it like a Jukebox." Turns out you can create an on-the-go playlist, albeit this feature was added at a later date, as indicated rudely by several people.
3. "Spoken by a person who knows nothing about an iPod." Did I claim to? I've played with it, can't see spending $300 on it, that's it. Without #1 or #2, it's no good to me. #2 seems to be solved.
4. Lots of features, great this, great that. I'm sure it is. But that's not the reason why Apple has sold LOTS of iPods. I don't buy it. Reese Witherspoon isn't spotted jogging with her iPod because she's into all of the advanced features. Wired doesn't have a sidebar called "What's on your iPod" because millions of people are using advanced features. It's marketing, plain and simple. Oakley revisited.
Also: I love the slew of AC comments -- and the way they're automatically filtered out, based on my settings, unless I specifically want to read them.
I will check out "Playlist on the Go" the first chance I get.
You're carrying around a tiny computer with your entire music collection stored on it, but you need to rely on a second computer to manage it? This makes no sense to me. Where's the command, back at home?
I should be able to use a tiny computer containing my entire music collection like a jukebox. As I'm driving down the road with 20GB of compressed audio, my passenger should be able to scroll through my collection and queue whatever songs they want to hear, and they'll play in that sequence.
I played with a friend's iPod mini for a while, and could not figure out how to do this! I'm told that you need to set up a playlist on the desktop in advance? Dumb.
The iPod is a result of amazing marketing. People ask for it by name, and have no idea what it will or won't do for them. Without the ability to queue songs, like a jukebox, the huge capacity makes no sense to me.
Thanks for taking the time to check and post my credentials as AC.
And, very likely, the same nay-saying crowd posted their comments through a broadband connection!!
When did nerds become so damned pessimistic about new technology? With any new technology, there are technical challenges.
Calling Google "evil" or Slashdot "anti-ham" is as about as fcking childish as it gets.
Growing up in a rural area and now living in the city, I can tell you that there are MANY areas of the country without *gasp* cable TV!! Upper Michigan, for example, is largely "unwired" for cable or DSL! So what then? Erect hundreds of towers to broadcast wireless internet? This is a better solution than using the pre-existing powerlines that run into nearly every household?
A disappointing discussion, at best.
I am also a licensed ham radio operator.
Something like five URLS in the story and not a single link directly to the semifinalists?
This is a typical response from this userbase, and it is a stretch, at best. (ESPECIALLY USB UNITS, FOR YEARS?)
The original poster is having difficulty getting it to work, as do HUNDREDS of other people. It's amazing how you point out that it's rock solid, but then recommend a Google search to find "everything you need to get it going." Look at the number of responses to this article!
Under Windows, all you need to do is install the included Palm Desktop, plug in the cradle, and push HotSync.
I am now using the 2.6 kernel with JPilot, and it is working fine, AFTER I HAD TO RECREATE all of the original categories (Personal, Business, etc.) My custom categories synced fine.
Users may decide to wander over to KPilot, which is very buggy, and what I believe is the reason I have duplicate e-mail addresses in almost every address book entry now. (can't be certain if it's KPilot or JPilot) Two I'm monitoring with regards to KPilot: Bug 72053 -- categories aren't created in addressbook Bug 86879 -- calendar doesn't sync
This is not what I would call rock solid. I love Linux, but it is not without tinkering to get hardware to talk to it. I enjoy getting free software to work, and if needed modifying it to fit my needs. (Or even patching it with others' modifications)
My recommendation to the poster is NOT to use KPilot at this time -- however I've found JPilot works well after you get it going, barring my initial problems getting it started. It also has support for KeyRing, which is another OSS Palm app that I use.
They were stimulating nerves in the eye with tiny electrodes, although they had to ask the patient where in his field of vision he saw the phosphene as they stimulated him. From this they created a "mapping" of sorts.
This sort of research was frowned upon on the US, and so it had to be carried out overseas. Check out the article -- more info than the linked BBC one.
Good point.
The last thing II used Windows for was MS-Money. I hate Windows and MS business practices, but I did love MS-Money (and I still love Excel).
I moved to GNUCash and I've been pretty happy. Took a little getting used to, but now that scheduled transactions is there, it's got most of what I want.
I was thinking the same as you about Quicken under Windows emulation... May not be the best idea, and if you make this jump, don't be surprised if you DO find a bug that takes months to get resolved.
Keep regular backups. I've lost MS-Money files before, and I don't think GNUCash is immune. I've got a script that automatically GPGs the file and uploads it to my ISPs webspace. GNUCash automatically keeps running backups for you.
The average Slashdotter doens't care about an OPEN music compression algorithm that has distinct advantages over MP3?
Try a search of this site.
few manufacturers want to spend the money on something that probably won't pay itself back
OGG IS FREE. When you mention "spend the money on something" you're speaking of the implementation?
Do you remember the CompuServe .GIF lawsuits? OGG exists in part as a free alternative to something that requires licensing.
SOMETHING has to deal with the display, audio hardware, memory management, user input, power management, accessing a file system, tuner hardware...
This is how the iPod lets you play games and keep a calendar. My Rio has a programmable equalizer and allows presets for the tuner.
There is some sort of low-level OS (and it may be proprietary) in there that manages all of the above. If you think it's just one long program you're confused.
KDE, Mozilla, Gnome -- these developers are all morons, using the worst system available? What in the hell are you guys smoking?
After you're done answering the above questions, please state a few reasons why you feel Bugzilla is the worst system around. What do the other systems do better? How could Bugzilla be improved?
Contrary to your opinions, I think Bugzilla is a absolutely fantastic issue tracking system. It has dramatically improved productivity and communication in our global organization. Our product is an embedded controller in the auto industry, not OSS. We're also tracking several other projects, including some desktop apps, with the same installation.
As a mechanical engineer with very limited Linux exposure (see my Journal), I installed Bugzilla one year ago. It took me under five hours, including modifications (to fields only!) to make it centered around our product and not desktop software. I haven't touched the box since then. It just works, period. Our software engineers and vehicle test engineers love it. Management has been very impressed with it. Mention that it's free and they can't believe it.
What most people do with home brew water cooling is take the heater core out of a car.
The fins are generally finer and denser, and the core itself is a much more managable size.
Yes... There are several smaller "radiators" in vehicles if anyone else wants to try this.
The heater core is an excellent alternative, as is an engine oil cooler (usually quite small), or a power steering cooler.
The above products can be purchased as aftermarket and would look pretty nice...
1. Many newer cars are available with head units that will decode MP3s stored in data format directly from the CD, including support for folders on the disc. (Dodge Magnum, Chevy Equinox, others)
2. Unfortunately we don't use RDS to it's full potential here in the states, but Europeans have enjoyed traffic updates and so forth for quite a while. Here in Detroit we've got a few stations that broadcast artist info, but I've not seen any traffic info yet.
3. Who knows about the last one -- if a standard were developed it wouldn't be too difficult. Chrysler is offering Bluetooth support in many of it's new models including the Grand Cherokee, Liberty, Pacifica, 300, etc. My point here is that a link to external devices is not out of the question right now at your local dealership.
These are some good ideas, and I don't think my responses cover them 100%, but close... None will require a 3GHz processor as the parent suggests.
This area happens to be within the scope of my research, and I think it would be next to impossible to go overboard with the hardware.
If your research is somehow connected to the auto industry, it sounds like you need to visit Detroit.
I can think of several applications where having a "full-powered" computer in a car would be useful, not least of which is if you are on an automotive network (which doesn't really exist yet) and the environment requires high-grade encryption or other measures to provide the appropriate security. If the automotive network is P2P, lots of resources might be needed to make it work well.
Almost every vehicle produced today uses some sort of network to allow all of the modules to communicate together. The most common is CAN. Please list three more applications where this type of computing power would be useful.
Overkill? If anything, the PPC 603e is way undershooting what I think could/should be appropriate for automotive computing. Why not a 3GHz Pentium?
What types of computing tasks do you think are necessary inside an automobile, and what types of processors do you think are employed today? The ABS controller that I work on utilizes a 33MHz Motorola (proprietary) micro. The code that runs it is highly optimized, and every byte of RAM is scrutinized.
A ten-cent change will be discussed for literally hours on high volume platforms, because that $0.10 * 250,000 cars/year = $25,000. You're talking about hardware that will cost significantly more than what's employed today. And the benefit? None.
I guess this is what I'm after:
2) with the risk of being irrelevant (how many people are going to want to use your OtherOpenOffice fork?).
Is there a large group of people using Konqueror or Opera? They might be fantastic browsers, but I will tend to use what's got the strongest developer base hoping that it's got the best stability.
I'm not bitching (or at least not trying to), I'm just looking for some insight into the motivation to work on solving the same problem that other people have already solved. Maybe it's the challenge of writing your own browser from scratch... Maybe you simply want to see if you can write a "leaner" browser.
In large projects such as KDE, code reuse would seem to be a more efficient option.
I'm speaking from the standpoint of the auto industry -- where all of our code is reused as much as possible simply because it's stable and has been verified. Changes to the core code leading to "bugs" are not an option in the ABS world.
Speaking from within the industry, I can assure you that when automotive manufacturers can, we keep our manufacturing processes secret, and when we can't, we patent the living hell out of them. Just because you can take the car apart doesn't mean you can duplicate it.
I'm with you.
I work in 'the industry' as well, in vehicle testing. While I work for a supplier, we constantly benchmark competitive systems to see what they're doing.
My point was, in OSS, you can easily see what everyone else is doing, but yet there is still a lot of "reinventing" is going on (i.e. Mozilla, Konqueror, Opera, etc.)...
Bull.
EVERYTHING, from the specification that [insert automaker here] has created for [insert component here] to the manufacturing process to produce them, is confidential and proprietary.
Just because you're staring at a component doesn't mean that you have any CLUE how to MANUFACTURE IT.
Software logic is another story that's been discussed many times here on Slashdot. All modules use 'closed source' logic and most of the time proprietary hardware (including custom micros).
'Rocket scientist' my ass.