> I always cringe when I read something that sounds like it has been taken from a red top tabloid - "slashed".
Ditto. And a quick google finds the 2005/6 total budget was £2.8 billion, so 68 million is about 2.5% (assuming billion=1000 million). *Perhaps* significant (especially to those who will loose a grant), but certainly not "slashed". But, hey, this is Slashdot:-(
> As far as I remember the Space Shuttle not only has redundant computer systems, but also redundant software,
I do not know about the shuttle but the EH101 helicopter auto-stabilization systems have an impressive array of redundancy: - 8 processors, any *one* of which can provide stabilization - 4 x86 and 4 68k family processors to avoid CPU bugs that could kill all of one family at the same time - only older, proven versions of those processors are used - x86 software written in the UK, 68k software written in Italy by totally different teams/companies - all 8 processors monitor each others results, and vote on which outputs to provide to the control surfaces,
A common point of failure is the algorithm design, but perhaps they can be proven mathematically.
> if he did believe I was watching TV then I could go to court and face prison.
IANAL, but: looks like you got lucky, but, as often clarified here on/. the UK TV license is *not* a license to watch TV: it is a license to own the TV *equipment*. In law it does not matter whether you watch broadcast signals on it, or just hook it up to you computer.
(I guess the original reason was to make prosecution easier: they do not have to catch/prove you actaully watching the TV)
> Sites like Digg, Fark, Slashdot are quick to jump on anything...
I have come to expect this from Digg, but I always considered Slashdot to be a little more conservative (in a good way !!). Neither site is perfect, but I consider Digg quicker to get stories out, but lots of garbage in there and a lower comment standard. Slashdot I come to for a more considered approach, and, on average, many more insightful, and/or funnier, comments.
> Austrialia will do little to curb overall output
I do not think it is supposed to: it is just a sop from the country that has the highest greenhouse gas emissions in the world *per head* and has refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol.
> There are two big problems with CFLs. One is that they do not work with dimmers. We have a number of lamps which are controlled by dimmers. These are especially valuable in connection with watching movies.
I have a light setup in my lounge that is optimised for when I watch TV: it is positioned to not be in my line of sight, not reflect on the screen, and is a low wattage CFL. No dimmer required !
> A worse problem is that CFLs lifetime is much less than a normal bulb in situations where the lights are turned on an off often.
By coincidence I bought a standard CFL from my local DIY shed yesterday, and it is rated to last 650,000 switches on and off.
> They also take a while, (about 30 sec. to a minute) to reach full brightness...
Not the modern ones: the one I bought yesterday flashes once and that is it: full power, not flicker.
Actual report: - 439,000 requests (i.e. a bit less dramatic) - link to TFA states telephone *and* email addresses (i.e. a bit less dramatic) - TFA says telephone, email and postal addresses (i.e. a bit less dramatic, again)
> but my point was not intended as a criticism of the original post...
Sorry: I misunderstood your first post. Yes, I think you make a very good point. But the BBC do seem responsive to comments submitted to them on their website (I would guess that at least half the time I get an email reply from either the journalist or the editor.) In the future I will be commenting to the BBC on the points you mention (just as I always point out that "PC viruses" do not affect (generally) Macs, Linux, *BSD etc and that they should mention Microsoft somewhere in the article !!!)
I could not decide which thread to post on, but here is an explanation of how the BBC story changed from "will" to "could" from the BBC journalist: Taken in good Faith
> Er, no, the BBC is not reporting that. From TFA (emphasis added):
Unfortunately the BBC have changed the article since I read it: without changing the date/time stamp or acknowledging the update !!
From my archived copy that I read 24 hours ago and based my submission on:
"The backers of the One Laptop Per Child project plan to release the machine on general sale next year. But customers will have to buy two laptops at once - with the second going to the developing world."
And the quotes from Nicholas Negroponte have been added since I read it. And the title has been changed from "Public can purchase $100 laptop" to "$100 laptop could sell to public".
So my summary was correct when I wrote it, but yours is correct now !!
(be aware that the BBC have changed the article since I submitted the news: see my other post)
> Re:Summary is rather hyperbolic > Nor is the BBC saying anything about Linux or open source as far as I can see.
This is true: the BBC never said that: re-reading my summary I can see that you could read it as meaning they did. I should have more clearly seperated fact (as in what the BBC reported) from my opinion !!
But I respectfully disagree that it is hyperbolic: the fact is that the OLPC *does* use LinuxBIOS and is *designed* to run Linux: even the wireless driver is fully Open !! And it *is* very cheap.
> Towards the end of that program they reported that some readers had complained about pro-MS bias in previous editions.
That would include me: I always complain when the BBC write about PC malware and fail to mention that they only affect Windows machines.
> But don't teach them C. Teach them a language that focuses on how to structure programs without bogging them down with memory management, pointers, etc, etc.
> But they innovated in one critical way. When the Unix wars were in full swing, they came up with a remarkable new business model that utterly crushed all competition
But I guess Slashdot readers are looking for *technical* innovation, which MS seem to lack. I would leave it to a business Forum to discuss whether they innovated a new *business* model. I suspect not (grab a chance, run with it, screw the opposition by whatever means necessary).
> told a reporter that the system's new lockdown features are so capable and thorough that he was comfortable with his own seven-year-old son using Vista without antivirus software installed.
Big deal: my kids (8 and 10) use a PC with vanilla Windows 98 installed, no firewall, no anti-virus. It runs their CD-ROM programs fine. And a few other games etc.
Never had a single piece of malware. It's easy: just do not connect it to the internet:-)
> tend to produce lots of false positives, because they can't make as many assumptions as a programmer who knows what's going on
What is it they say about assumption being the mother of all f**k ups ? !!
What you say is true, but, assumptions *do* create problems during maintenence. People do cut and paste code around, change code logic etc. OK, they should check properly what they do, but it does not always happen and if you bulletproof your code then you can reduce the risk. Of course there is an overhead in code size/performance:-(
Not quite answering your question but I read a great tip somewhere on the interweb once: as most PCs now have so much RAM you can get a big speed improvement by mapping your swap file into some spare RAM space.
I pretty much agree with all you wrote, and would like to add the observation that most of the above can be achieved using the FVWM window manager. However the configuration would be non-trivial, including probably adding some scripts, but I think it would be do-able. It may not help if you do not use a UNIX-type OS, but it would allow you to experiment.
(So far, out of your list, I have only got as far as forcing most applications to open full-screen, and open on a predetermind Virtual Desktop.)
Slashdot Mirror
> I always cringe when I read something that sounds like it has been taken from a red top tabloid - "slashed".
:-(
Ditto. And a quick google finds the 2005/6 total budget was £2.8 billion, so 68 million is about 2.5% (assuming billion=1000 million). *Perhaps* significant (especially to those who will loose a grant), but certainly not "slashed". But, hey, this is Slashdot
> As far as I remember the Space Shuttle not only has redundant computer systems, but also redundant software,
I do not know about the shuttle but the EH101 helicopter auto-stabilization systems have an impressive array of redundancy:
- 8 processors, any *one* of which can provide stabilization
- 4 x86 and 4 68k family processors to avoid CPU bugs that could kill all of one family at the same time
- only older, proven versions of those processors are used
- x86 software written in the UK, 68k software written in Italy by totally different teams/companies
- all 8 processors monitor each others results, and vote on which outputs to provide to the control surfaces,
A common point of failure is the algorithm design, but perhaps they can be proven mathematically.
> if he did believe I was watching TV then I could go to court and face prison.
/. the UK TV license is *not* a license to watch TV: it is a license to own the TV *equipment*. In law it does not matter whether you watch broadcast signals on it, or just hook it up to you computer.
IANAL, but: looks like you got lucky, but, as often clarified here on
(I guess the original reason was to make prosecution easier: they do not have to catch/prove you actaully watching the TV)
> Are you surprised?
Yes, and no.
> Sites like Digg, Fark, Slashdot are quick to jump on anything...
I have come to expect this from Digg, but I always considered Slashdot to be a little more conservative (in a good way !!). Neither site is perfect, but I consider Digg quicker to get stories out, but lots of garbage in there and a lower comment standard. Slashdot I come to for a more considered approach, and, on average, many more insightful, and/or funnier, comments.
> Austrialia will do little to curb overall output
I do not think it is supposed to: it is just a sop from the country that has the highest greenhouse gas emissions in the world *per head* and has refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol.
> There are two big problems with CFLs. One is that they do not work with dimmers. We have a number of lamps which are controlled by dimmers. These are especially valuable in connection with watching movies.
I have a light setup in my lounge that is optimised for when I watch TV: it is positioned to not be in my line of sight, not reflect on the screen, and is a low wattage CFL. No dimmer required !
> A worse problem is that CFLs lifetime is much less than a normal bulb in situations where the lights are turned on an off often.
By coincidence I bought a standard CFL from my local DIY shed yesterday, and it is rated to last 650,000 switches on and off.
> They also take a while, (about 30 sec. to a minute) to reach full brightness...
Not the modern ones: the one I bought yesterday flashes once and that is it: full power, not flicker.
> There were 439,000 *requests*.
Slashdot title: 439,000 phones tapped (dramatic)
Actual report:
- 439,000 requests (i.e. a bit less dramatic)
- link to TFA states telephone *and* email addresses (i.e. a bit less dramatic)
- TFA says telephone, email and postal addresses (i.e. a bit less dramatic, again)
> Linux is free.
True, but the article is talking about vouchers for *support* for a particular Linux distro.
P.S. no disrespect intended to the author, but how the hell did the comment get modded to +5 Insightful ?
> This seems to be flogging a dead horse
I do not think so !!
> but my point was not intended as a criticism of the original post...
Sorry: I misunderstood your first post. Yes, I think you make a very good point. But the BBC do seem responsive to comments submitted to them on their website (I would guess that at least half the time I get an email reply from either the journalist or the editor.) In the future I will be commenting to the BBC on the points you mention (just as I always point out that "PC viruses" do not affect (generally) Macs, Linux, *BSD etc and that they should mention Microsoft somewhere in the article !!!)
I could not decide which thread to post on, but here is an explanation of how the BBC story changed from "will" to "could" from the BBC journalist: Taken in good Faith
Story on rumour quoshing:
8 5426,00.htm
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/0,1000000091,392
> Er, no, the BBC is not reporting that. From TFA (emphasis added):
Unfortunately the BBC have changed the article since I read it: without changing the date/time stamp or acknowledging the update !!
From my archived copy that I read 24 hours ago and based my submission on:
"The backers of the One Laptop Per Child project plan to release the machine on general sale next year.
But customers will have to buy two laptops at once - with the second going to the developing world."
And the quotes from Nicholas Negroponte have been added since I read it.
And the title has been changed from "Public can purchase $100 laptop" to "$100 laptop could sell to public".
So my summary was correct when I wrote it, but yours is correct now !!
(be aware that the BBC have changed the article since I submitted the news: see my other post)
> Re:Summary is rather hyperbolic
> Nor is the BBC saying anything about Linux or open source as far as I can see.
This is true: the BBC never said that: re-reading my summary I can see that you could read it as meaning they did. I should have more clearly seperated fact (as in what the BBC reported) from my opinion !!
But I respectfully disagree that it is hyperbolic: the fact is that the OLPC *does* use LinuxBIOS and is *designed* to run Linux: even the wireless driver is fully Open !! And it *is* very cheap.
> Towards the end of that program they reported that some readers had complained about pro-MS bias in previous editions.
That would include me: I always complain when the BBC write about PC malware and fail to mention that they only affect Windows machines.
That was my first thought too: so I Googled: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Sense_a bout_Science links them originally to pro-GM PR, but also to other far-left / anti-environmentalism groups and individuals.
:-)
But I have no idea how reliable Sourcewatch is
> But don't teach them C. Teach them a language that focuses on how to structure programs without bogging them down with memory management, pointers, etc, etc.
My thoughts exactly: think of the children.
> Given that the former is much, much more likely, how about an article entitled 'Vista Designed to Make Corporate Deployment Easy' ?
:-)
You must be new to Slashdot
So NASA try to hype up sexy, new, "intelligent" technology, and how it got the pictures soooo fast. And what do they illustrate it with ? An old Landsat photo, taken at the latest in 1994 http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/volc_images/southeas t_asia/indonesia/talang.html
:-)
Well, made me laugh
> But they innovated in one critical way. When the Unix wars were in full swing, they came up with a remarkable new business model that utterly crushed all competition
But I guess Slashdot readers are looking for *technical* innovation, which MS seem to lack. I would leave it to a business Forum to discuss whether they innovated a new *business* model. I suspect not (grab a chance, run with it, screw the opposition by whatever means necessary).
> told a reporter that the system's new lockdown features are so capable and thorough that he was comfortable with his own seven-year-old son using Vista without antivirus software installed.
:-)
Big deal: my kids (8 and 10) use a PC with vanilla Windows 98 installed, no firewall, no anti-virus. It runs their CD-ROM programs fine. And a few other games etc.
Never had a single piece of malware. It's easy: just do not connect it to the internet
I first read it as: (Chinese Ban Internet) Rumors
but when I RTFM I see it is actually: Chinese Ban (Internet Rumors)
When I read this article this morning (before reading Slashdot) the last paragraph in the first section read something along the lines of:
"Allerca first started taking orders for their *genetically modified* cats back in 2004."
I complained along the lines that GM != breeding, and now I read the article again and it says:
"Allerca first started taking orders for *hypoallergenic* cats back in 2004."
So plus points to the BBC News.
> tend to produce lots of false positives, because they can't make as many assumptions as a programmer who knows what's going on
:-(
What is it they say about assumption being the mother of all f**k ups ? !!
What you say is true, but, assumptions *do* create problems during maintenence. People do cut and paste code around, change code logic etc. OK, they should check properly what they do, but it does not always happen and if you bulletproof your code then you can reduce the risk. Of course there is an overhead in code size/performance
Not quite answering your question but I read a great tip somewhere on the interweb once: as most PCs now have so much RAM you can get a big speed improvement by mapping your swap file into some spare RAM space.
I pretty much agree with all you wrote, and would like to add the observation that most of the above can be achieved using the FVWM window manager. However the configuration would be non-trivial, including probably adding some scripts, but I think it would be do-able. It may not help if you do not use a UNIX-type OS, but it would allow you to experiment.
(So far, out of your list, I have only got as far as forcing most applications to open full-screen, and open on a predetermind Virtual Desktop.)
> With XGL, Quartz3D, AeroGlass, and Looking Glass, we are most assuredly moving twoards fully-3d computer enviroments.
Maybe I am missing something but none of these provide a 3D environment; they all just *simulate* 3D effects on your 2D screen.