I can't post to Slashdot without registering. I can get NYTimes articles without registering. Also, NYTimes doesn't seem to care; indeed, they set up a system to facilitate it.
It's way easier to click the google cache inevitably posted, and I'm not giving away information for marketing purposes. Since no one had posted it this time, I decided to.
I don't mean to be flamebait, but this style is very confusing for a front page book review.
I like a good laugh more than most, probably, but isn't the idea of one of these reviews to provide information to help the/. crowd decide if they should buy it?
If anyone has read the book and has something to ACTUALLY say about it, reply below!
Indistinguishable as actual channels?
What about instituting a completely on-demand cable system? I don't know about everyone, but I'm not looking for TV to be a mindblowing experience; I can leave the house for those.
It would be nice to be able to watch the programs I want, when I want, though.
Hahaha.
Okay, first of all, investigate sarcasm. I am one of those aformentioned idiot college kids.
Second of all, study impulse. If a case can cusion/protect the laptop such that the "sudden stop" isn't so sudden, the jarring won't be nearly so bad. If that's still too generalized, I could whip you up some equations/examples? Let me know.
Laptop cases CANNOT protect a laptop at all. Most of the pieces that can be damaged are inside the laptop. Weakly connected pieces, the hard drive's read/write head, the precision laser for your DVD/CD ROM drive, the keys on the keyboard, the LCD screen, etc. are all INSIDE your laptop when it falls. A case will not stop the jarring impact after the fall, though it might keep the exterior spiffy...
I beg to differ. Idiot college students are making cases that let you drop eggs off 10 story buildings; you can't design a laptop case that absorbs impact shock?
What was especially shocking, though, was that they didn't even TRY to advertise it. I was shocked, because as a consumer, that was my MAIN concern.
Improving durability of laptops is more important than kicking up clock speed or what have you, at least to the truly mobile user. Especially good would be if that durability could be made cheaper.
Something I've always found strange is that laptop carrying cases don't ever seem to advertise how well they PROTECT the laptop, which should be their primary goal, IMO. After having to go through great lengths to repair a new and expensive laptop after a drop, I'd be very appreciative of a carrying case that had this important end in mind.
I hope the SCO execs already sold all of their stock; this can't be good.
This shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. The more interesting point is what is SCO's next move. I guess it's important to realize that when your selling point is FUD, facts aren't a HUGE hurdle. Just ignore them and put out more FUD.
I think this is the perfect time for a "big player" to file a countersuit (SGI, IBM). It's possible that the PR tide (not on slasdhot, but on "gasp" real media) could now turn.
Get ready for some tinfoil hats
on
The Smart Sensor Web
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
This is precisely the kind of article that lends itself to conspiracy theory. Typically, I'm skeptical of that kind of reaction, but this is getting a little creepy.
The real task is to rely on government (or corporate interests?) to not abuse the power that such an in-depth system can provide. Does anyone trust them to do so?
I'm all for the "oh, neat" factor, but it often seems that the people producing such things aren't cognizant enough of ALL of the ramifications.
I agree with you; my point is that I don't blame the manufacturers, but the standard setters. Even if it's the same companies, it's different "hats". What they do with their packaging doesn't bother me, what they do with the standards does.
Okay, think of it this way. You are a manufacturer. You've made a device that meets every standard for USB 2.0, but does not use the high-speed "feature" (note: this is apparently not necessary to the standard qualification). What would you name it?
I'd argue that it is intentionally misleading to call it USB 1.0 or even 1.1 if what it IS is 2.0, albeit slow.
If the standards body had any fcking sense, they would have defined the spec a little better for those that have an interest in the technologies without looking at the spec.
I couldn't agree more, especially as far as the logo is concerned. If you believe that high-speed is the selling point of the standard, make it an ESSENTIAL part of the standard, and make the logo reflect that accurately.
First of all, your post reminded of the premise from this movie where a con man sells old people "numbered copper engravings of Abraham Lincoln" for something like 49.99, then mails them a penny.
USB 2.0 is a standard, not a component. When I buy a computer that advertises certain components, I better damn well get them.
When I buy a product that advertises a certain standard, I better damn well get it. And I am.
We both know there is a problem. I argue that it's not at all the problem of the person who, upon making a product that meets the standard, advertises that standard. Instead, the standard itself is flawed.
I hope you can see the difference from your analogy. As the article seems to hint, the standard needs to be revised, and probably with something more powerful than the "guidelines" the article suggests.
Generally it's implied when an external hard drive posts the "Hi-Speed" USB logo that the hard drive will perform to something over 11 mbps. Granted, with a mouse it's not too critical, but for hard drives and high resolution cameras it can be a pretty large issue.
But is that the fault of the manufacturer, or the standard setter? This logo is the generic USB 2.0 logo. They've chosen to use that logo, despite the fact that high-speed is only a part of the standard.
You obviously don't HAVE to live on campus, but if you still have to pay and have a room (and a meal plan). IIRC from my applying days, several "upper-tier" universities have a similar policy
From where do you draw this idea? Why do you think governments and rule of law are formed in the first place? It's exactly because most people wouldn't abide in the legalistic way that is commonplace in modern society.
If there was no penalty, how many people do you think would steal? How many people would uphold their end of contracts? Probably only those who couldn't beat up whoever was trying to enforce it.
The theory behind the establishment of the social contract is that EVERYONE gives up the ability to break some "laws", even though they would like to, because it means more that EVERYONE else can't.
The shoddy examples you give just illustrate the difficulty of going against the inertia of a society, ESPECIALLY with laws that are very difficult to enforce. I'd contend that neither of these problems is really prevalent here. Sure, there's some inertia behind the P2P movement, but it's only been a few years. People had been drinking for CENTURIES before prohibition.
Likewise, it doesn't seem too hard, at least at the present, to find those responsible for copyright violation. In other words, this isn't really comparable to Prohibition.
Finally, you say "When a law is passed that makes a large minority criminals, there's something wrong with the law." I'd say there's a good chance, especially in this case, that there's something wrong with the large minority. Okay, I obviously trade files P2P, as do a lot of people, but where do all of you get off taking the moral highground about it?
Slashdot Mirror
I can't post to Slashdot without registering. I can get NYTimes articles without registering. Also, NYTimes doesn't seem to care; indeed, they set up a system to facilitate it. It's way easier to click the google cache inevitably posted, and I'm not giving away information for marketing purposes. Since no one had posted it this time, I decided to.
Read about it here
This looks like a lot of fun, if I was more of a runner.
I like a good laugh more than most, probably, but isn't the idea of one of these reviews to provide information to help the /. crowd decide if they should buy it?
If anyone has read the book and has something to ACTUALLY say about it, reply below!
Indistinguishable as actual channels? What about instituting a completely on-demand cable system? I don't know about everyone, but I'm not looking for TV to be a mindblowing experience; I can leave the house for those. It would be nice to be able to watch the programs I want, when I want, though.
Hahaha. Okay, first of all, investigate sarcasm. I am one of those aformentioned idiot college kids. Second of all, study impulse. If a case can cusion/protect the laptop such that the "sudden stop" isn't so sudden, the jarring won't be nearly so bad. If that's still too generalized, I could whip you up some equations/examples? Let me know.
I beg to differ. Idiot college students are making cases that let you drop eggs off 10 story buildings; you can't design a laptop case that absorbs impact shock?
What was especially shocking, though, was that they didn't even TRY to advertise it. I was shocked, because as a consumer, that was my MAIN concern.
Improving durability of laptops is more important than kicking up clock speed or what have you, at least to the truly mobile user. Especially good would be if that durability could be made cheaper.
Something I've always found strange is that laptop carrying cases don't ever seem to advertise how well they PROTECT the laptop, which should be their primary goal, IMO. After having to go through great lengths to repair a new and expensive laptop after a drop, I'd be very appreciative of a carrying case that had this important end in mind.
This shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. The more interesting point is what is SCO's next move. I guess it's important to realize that when your selling point is FUD, facts aren't a HUGE hurdle. Just ignore them and put out more FUD.
I think this is the perfect time for a "big player" to file a countersuit (SGI, IBM). It's possible that the PR tide (not on slasdhot, but on "gasp" real media) could now turn.
The real task is to rely on government (or corporate interests?) to not abuse the power that such an in-depth system can provide. Does anyone trust them to do so?
I'm all for the "oh, neat" factor, but it often seems that the people producing such things aren't cognizant enough of ALL of the ramifications.
Stories like this appeal to the geeky "need for speed" undoubtedly ramoant at /., but offer little insight into real consumer thought/need.
That said, this is pretty cool; not cool enough for me to switch to Apple, but cool.
I'd be much happier to hear that we could expect spaceflight based on rocket technology in 2004. Whatever happened to that article?
The more salient point is that all confusion can be avoided by having a sensible standard set. It's just a better way to view the problem.
I think you've got "full" and "high" backwards, but otherwise I agree. This is a standards issue.
The point is, the USB 2.0 standard isn't only about high-speed. You're assuming that a non-required feature is included.
I agree with you; my point is that I don't blame the manufacturers, but the standard setters. Even if it's the same companies, it's different "hats". What they do with their packaging doesn't bother me, what they do with the standards does.
I'd argue that it is intentionally misleading to call it USB 1.0 or even 1.1 if what it IS is 2.0, albeit slow.
The problem is with the standard itself.
I couldn't agree more, especially as far as the logo is concerned. If you believe that high-speed is the selling point of the standard, make it an ESSENTIAL part of the standard, and make the logo reflect that accurately.
USB 2.0 is a standard, not a component. When I buy a computer that advertises certain components, I better damn well get them.
When I buy a product that advertises a certain standard, I better damn well get it. And I am.
We both know there is a problem. I argue that it's not at all the problem of the person who, upon making a product that meets the standard, advertises that standard. Instead, the standard itself is flawed.
I hope you can see the difference from your analogy. As the article seems to hint, the standard needs to be revised, and probably with something more powerful than the "guidelines" the article suggests.
Here.
Generally it's implied when an external hard drive posts the "Hi-Speed" USB logo that the hard drive will perform to something over 11 mbps. Granted, with a mouse it's not too critical, but for hard drives and high resolution cameras it can be a pretty large issue.
But is that the fault of the manufacturer, or the standard setter? This logo is the generic USB 2.0 logo. They've chosen to use that logo, despite the fact that high-speed is only a part of the standard.
A good review of USB 2.0 can be seen here , btw.
There's no real false advertising here; just an assumption on the part of consumer.
Should it be necessary that they inform you of the lack of full speed utilization? What if it's faster than USB 1.0 but not FULL speed.
IMO, the only clearcut measure is whether the standard is met, and it seems to be.
Most require? I haven't been to college in a good number of years, but that seems like a big load of crap to me.
At least you called it a big load of crap without doing ANY research to the contrary.
For instance, at Stanford University, freshman are compelled to live on campus.
You obviously don't HAVE to live on campus, but if you still have to pay and have a room (and a meal plan). IIRC from my applying days, several "upper-tier" universities have a similar policy
In other words, nice try but no cigar.
Buying Mathematica just for fun? I assume you're running a pussy farm.
From where do you draw this idea? Why do you think governments and rule of law are formed in the first place? It's exactly because most people wouldn't abide in the legalistic way that is commonplace in modern society.
If there was no penalty, how many people do you think would steal? How many people would uphold their end of contracts? Probably only those who couldn't beat up whoever was trying to enforce it.
The theory behind the establishment of the social contract is that EVERYONE gives up the ability to break some "laws", even though they would like to, because it means more that EVERYONE else can't.
The shoddy examples you give just illustrate the difficulty of going against the inertia of a society, ESPECIALLY with laws that are very difficult to enforce. I'd contend that neither of these problems is really prevalent here. Sure, there's some inertia behind the P2P movement, but it's only been a few years. People had been drinking for CENTURIES before prohibition.
Likewise, it doesn't seem too hard, at least at the present, to find those responsible for copyright violation. In other words, this isn't really comparable to Prohibition.
Finally, you say "When a law is passed that makes a large minority criminals, there's something wrong with the law." I'd say there's a good chance, especially in this case, that there's something wrong with the large minority. Okay, I obviously trade files P2P, as do a lot of people, but where do all of you get off taking the moral highground about it?
Oh God, your naivete is so cheeky. That's what makes nerds the babe magnets that they are.