I have several thousand technical documents ranging from hundreds of pages to a dozen pages. I have been carrying them around with me on a 500GB portable USB hard drive, connecting that to my laptop or a public computer. I got 801 of them on my DX before it filled up, so now I am in the process of triaging all my PDFs to get the most important ones on the DX.
I have no problems at all reading them, even the mathematics-intensive ones.
Something I thought of after I bought the DX: hey, now I can easily have with me the PDFs of all (a couple hundred) of the journal and conference papers I have published. One obvious use is for employment interviews (I'm just saying) without having to tote my laptop -- the show-and-tell experience is totally different and cool.
Well worth the price for my purposes.
Why the hell should I be using on-the-fly whole disk encryption?
My machine's physical security is high, so it's unlikely I'll have it stolen. In the unlikely event that it is stolen, I've got bigger problems.
So it seems to me that whole-disk encryption is a waste of processor power, killing partition access CPU utilization for a security element that will go entirely unused and will ensure if my machine has a hardware failure I won't be able to access my own files from another PC.
Uh, because your employer requires on-the-fly whole disk encryption? Mine has a security guard at all doors who checks every outgoing laptop to be sure no one takes one out without encryption.
1 second later I am typing in Word. That, and email, are pretty much all I use it for, but I use it for that all the time. I bet there are still some journalists out there using the Radio Shack 100 (or whatever it was called) with a 1 or 2 line display, booting in 1 second, running on 2 AA's forever. When I can get a netbook that boots in a second or 2, running linux I presume, than I'll buy one. Don't try to tell me about standby (uses battery power) or hibernate (still takes a long time to resume).
I'm educated and experienced enough to easily build my own NAS (and a large variety other things), but I have far more valuable ways to use that time (my research). So I bought two of the 4-750GB versions with 1GB of RAM. They are very compact, attractive, and are overall satisfactory to me.
From my real name appearing in this post, you will see that I always use my complete real name for every online activity. I have nothing to hide from my employer or anyone else and I am not ashamed or embarrased by anything I do online.
I've gotten as much as 1.5 Mbits/S download using Verizon's CDPD network with my PDA. That's a personal best (it was near Dulles airport), the data rate can vary dramatically depending on where you are. But I'd say on average I get about 500Kbits/S where I go nationwide. That's at least 10X AT&T's EDGE data rate.
True enough...I really use EVDO's data rates and have to put up with Verizon Wireless in return. Since I am in EVDO coverage at least 100x more time than in wi-fi coverage, I have had to make a deal with the devil. But of course, buying iPods (which I do) and iPhones (which I won't) is making a deal with the devil also (non-replaceable batteries, etc., you know the drill).
By the time AT&T improves their network speed to that of Verizon's (requiring a gigantic investment), Apple will be selling version 17 of the iPhone (assuming that most buyers of versions 1-16 don't care about useful internet speed). It's already been widely publicized why "negotiations broke down," it was Apple's hubris and greed.
So you're all set, fine -- but all those other people who see the TV commercials and don't know any better about EDGE are the majority of iPhone buyers.
If the iPhone were available on Verizon's network, I'd be at the store with credit card in hand on day one. A lot of iPhone buyers are going to be really surprised when they try to browse the web on AT&T's pokey network.
There is a long list of add-in products for Outlook (e.g., at slipstick) that are invaluable for me. And there are important (to me) applications that know how to work with Outlook but not other email clients. So despite all its warts, Outlook is here to stay on my PC's.
You'll be amazed at what cognitive psychologists have learned about what humans' thought processes are regarding risks. Google, Wikipedia, the usual sources.
Google and MS not in "computer science industry"
on
Microsoft or Google?
·
· Score: 1
Note that "influential computer scientists" seems to have been gratuitously added by the Slashdot poster. At least Gosling does fit that description, so maybe the poster should have said "influential computer scientist."
Given the semantics of "quicker" being interrupt response time and the like, my experience is the same as yours: real-time OS's are generally quicker than non-real-time OSs -- I cannot think of a counter-example. Moreover, almost all real-time OSs go to some considerable effort to make "quicker" also be more predictable than interrupt and service call latencies of non-real-time OSs, by which they usually mean least upper bounded (they often thoughtlessly omit the "least" and leave themselves open to upper bounds like the end of the universe). Unfortunately, the usual real-time focus on interrupt response times (i.e., starting tasks fast) suggests there is an implication that this will cause the tasks to complete on time. This implication exists only in the most simple static small scale applications and systems. In general, starting a real-time task quickly (even in zero time) does not imply that the task will complete on time or even at all (I hope it's obvious why that is true).
That's not the point, much less the whole point, of RTOSs. You appear to be confusing RTOSs with microkernels and other minimal kernels. And quite the contrary, real-time UNIXs (for example) have more, not less, overhead in the sense that full preemptability (required for minimizing interrupt response times) requires locks which historically have added about 10% extra overhead from the standpoint of throughput.
I'm going to save a lot of screen space here by referring you to my web site http://www.real-time.org./ Then maybe YOU won't need to take a couple (real-time) computer classes before you post here again.
I asked the manager at my local Verizon Wireless store and he said using any EVDO phone as a modem on their network violates the terms of my service agreement. Looking on howardforum and phonescoop I find opinions and claims all over the map about whether or not this is allowed and if not, what the consequences could be. Anyway I'm glad my Thinkpad and XV6600 have built-in EVDO. To me, it's worth the costs of the feature and the service. I'd gladly pay for an optional EVDO capability in the 770 or Pepper Pad; until then, they are not for me.
Unfortunately folks like Verizon have a nasty habit of not allowing their EVDO phones to function as modems via Bluetooth. The EVDO modem could be an option for people who do have that service; I suppose it might be nice to offer EDGE as an alternative option. I'm glad to see Lenovo, HP, etc. offering laptops with built-in EVDO. You probably just made up the $100 figure; I wonder what it really costs.
Slashdot Mirror
I have several thousand technical documents ranging from hundreds of pages to a dozen pages. I have been carrying them around with me on a 500GB portable USB hard drive, connecting that to my laptop or a public computer. I got 801 of them on my DX before it filled up, so now I am in the process of triaging all my PDFs to get the most important ones on the DX. I have no problems at all reading them, even the mathematics-intensive ones. Something I thought of after I bought the DX: hey, now I can easily have with me the PDFs of all (a couple hundred) of the journal and conference papers I have published. One obvious use is for employment interviews (I'm just saying) without having to tote my laptop -- the show-and-tell experience is totally different and cool. Well worth the price for my purposes.
it desperately asks for an answer
So, begs the answer surely?
No that is not what it means, however counter-intuitive it may seem. Look it up.
I'd gladly pay -- I'm not sure how much, but up to say $10/mo. for unlimited downloads, or $0.10 each, is a no-brainer for me.
Mostly because people are carrying around laptops.
Why the hell should I be using on-the-fly whole disk encryption?
My machine's physical security is high, so it's unlikely I'll have it stolen. In the unlikely event that it is stolen, I've got bigger problems.
So it seems to me that whole-disk encryption is a waste of processor power, killing partition access CPU utilization for a security element that will go entirely unused and will ensure if my machine has a hardware failure I won't be able to access my own files from another PC.
Uh, because your employer requires on-the-fly whole disk encryption? Mine has a security guard at all doors who checks every outgoing laptop to be sure no one takes one out without encryption.
1 second later I am typing in Word. That, and email, are pretty much all I use it for, but I use it for that all the time. I bet there are still some journalists out there using the Radio Shack 100 (or whatever it was called) with a 1 or 2 line display, booting in 1 second, running on 2 AA's forever. When I can get a netbook that boots in a second or 2, running linux I presume, than I'll buy one. Don't try to tell me about standby (uses battery power) or hibernate (still takes a long time to resume).
As I would expect on /.
I'm educated and experienced enough to easily build my own NAS (and a large variety other things), but I have far more valuable ways to use that time (my research). So I bought two of the 4-750GB versions with 1GB of RAM. They are very compact, attractive, and are overall satisfactory to me.
From my real name appearing in this post, you will see that I always use my complete real name for every online activity. I have nothing to hide from my employer or anyone else and I am not ashamed or embarrased by anything I do online.
I've gotten as much as 1.5 Mbits/S download using Verizon's CDPD network with my PDA. That's a personal best (it was near Dulles airport), the data rate can vary dramatically depending on where you are. But I'd say on average I get about 500Kbits/S where I go nationwide. That's at least 10X AT&T's EDGE data rate.
True enough...I really use EVDO's data rates and have to put up with Verizon Wireless in return. Since I am in EVDO coverage at least 100x more time than in wi-fi coverage, I have had to make a deal with the devil. But of course, buying iPods (which I do) and iPhones (which I won't) is making a deal with the devil also (non-replaceable batteries, etc., you know the drill).
By the time AT&T improves their network speed to that of Verizon's (requiring a gigantic investment), Apple will be selling version 17 of the iPhone (assuming that most buyers of versions 1-16 don't care about useful internet speed). It's already been widely publicized why "negotiations broke down," it was Apple's hubris and greed.
So you're all set, fine -- but all those other people who see the TV commercials and don't know any better about EDGE are the majority of iPhone buyers.
IMHO Apple (and all the iPhone buyers) will live to regret the day they decided not to do what it took to go with Verizon instead of AT&T.
If the iPhone were available on Verizon's network, I'd be at the store with credit card in hand on day one. A lot of iPhone buyers are going to be really surprised when they try to browse the web on AT&T's pokey network.
There is a long list of add-in products for Outlook (e.g., at slipstick) that are invaluable for me. And there are important (to me) applications that know how to work with Outlook but not other email clients. So despite all its warts, Outlook is here to stay on my PC's.
As used in the field of "real-time computing/systems," satisfying time constraints is a correctness criterion, not simply a performance metric.
You'll be amazed at what cognitive psychologists have learned about what humans' thought processes are regarding risks. Google, Wikipedia, the usual sources.
Whatever the "computer science industry" means...
Note that "influential computer scientists" seems to have been gratuitously added by the Slashdot poster. At least Gosling does fit that description, so maybe the poster should have said "influential computer scientist."
Given the semantics of "quicker" being interrupt response time and the like, my experience is the same as yours: real-time OS's are generally quicker than non-real-time OSs -- I cannot think of a counter-example. Moreover, almost all real-time OSs go to some considerable effort to make "quicker" also be more predictable than interrupt and service call latencies of non-real-time OSs, by which they usually mean least upper bounded (they often thoughtlessly omit the "least" and leave themselves open to upper bounds like the end of the universe). Unfortunately, the usual real-time focus on interrupt response times (i.e., starting tasks fast) suggests there is an implication that this will cause the tasks to complete on time. This implication exists only in the most simple static small scale applications and systems. In general, starting a real-time task quickly (even in zero time) does not imply that the task will complete on time or even at all (I hope it's obvious why that is true).
That's not the point, much less the whole point, of RTOSs. You appear to be confusing RTOSs with microkernels and other minimal kernels. And quite the contrary, real-time UNIXs (for example) have more, not less, overhead in the sense that full preemptability (required for minimizing interrupt response times) requires locks which historically have added about 10% extra overhead from the standpoint of throughput. I'm going to save a lot of screen space here by referring you to my web site http://www.real-time.org./ Then maybe YOU won't need to take a couple (real-time) computer classes before you post here again.
I manage my books and CD's with Readerware and a portable scanner with a USB interface. Very cool.
I asked the manager at my local Verizon Wireless store and he said using any EVDO phone as a modem on their network violates the terms of my service agreement. Looking on howardforum and phonescoop I find opinions and claims all over the map about whether or not this is allowed and if not, what the consequences could be. Anyway I'm glad my Thinkpad and XV6600 have built-in EVDO. To me, it's worth the costs of the feature and the service. I'd gladly pay for an optional EVDO capability in the 770 or Pepper Pad; until then, they are not for me.
Unfortunately folks like Verizon have a nasty habit of not allowing their EVDO phones to function as modems via Bluetooth. The EVDO modem could be an option for people who do have that service; I suppose it might be nice to offer EDGE as an alternative option. I'm glad to see Lenovo, HP, etc. offering laptops with built-in EVDO. You probably just made up the $100 figure; I wonder what it really costs.