If I made a really really small PC, could I patent the "Enter" key? How about the "shift " or "control" keys?
I wish some of us/.-ers that hate junk patents would get together to make a mockery of the current system. I bet we've got enough talent here to patent meta-keys (or pressing them, hence the "method"), and word it well enough to sneak through the USPTO. We could all pitch in to cover the fees. Hell, chances are we'd get the patent, then we could get some venture capital from BayStar to go on a legal rampage.
I'm not saying I agree with the patent, but it is for a PDA not a PC.
I know you're just making a point, but here's what popped into my head:
What's the legal definition of PDA? Size? Power? Does that make a Mac Plus or C64 a PDA? Portability? SX64 anyone? What the difference between a PDA and a PC? Size? Shape? Color? So cosmetics make the idea entirely original, and a non-obvious method?
Yeah, Microsoft. Hmm. Stallman's ideas were equally brilliant and changed the computing landscape in a profound way (you can argue good or bad, just like with Microsoft). But Stallman doesn't live in a 68 billion dollar robo-house, so his ideas aren't interesting to the general public.
No clue what you're doing there, but I've got one production box that's about 4 years old. I've never been in dependency hell with it, or any other of my younger Slackware systems. When in doubt, read the build scripts, or just get the latest Slackware package.
It's definitely not hacked-together. It's simple, and therefore easy to maintain (if you've got a clue how a GNU system works).
There's something to be said for having a clean layout to begin with, and not changing it - because it works. Slackware's installer has pretty much been the same since I chose it as my distro about 9 years ago. The expert mode got one little tweak which I love: You pick all the packages beforehand, then the installer goes through each set and installs them without further input.
I did, and that fits into economics as well: Employees with various joint- or muscle-related injuries aren't as productive. But the reason this doesn't matter is because high-volume typing isn't as important as it used to be, which I attempted to establish with the examples of mail-merges and voicemail.
What's up with the rest of the country? I've had a land line and DSL from the same company for years. The bill is itemized, I didn't have to sign a contract, the service is good, and the basic DSL charges actually dropped $10/month this year. Likewise with my mobile phone provider (AT&T WS). I initially had a contract for one year, but got two discounted phones out of it. Had only two problems in 3 years, and have always received completely itemized bills.
People tell me that $40 a month per phone (and coverage all along the east cost of the US) is too much. But on the other hand, I always get good coverage, there are no surprises in my bills.
I hate the statement: "Dvorak superiority is a myth." The ergonomics of the Dvorak keyboard are far superior to Qwerty. Economists are in no position to debate that superiority.
"Far" superior? How? And for what? For business letters? For writing novels? For coding in C? For coding in HTML? How much could I expect to gain from the ergonomics of the Dvorak keyboard? For regular copy I can do 100+ WPM with the QWERTY layout, and about 60 WPM if I'm making it up as I go along. ("Regular copy" meaning typing from a source text or from dictation.)
Why would an Economist not be able to debate the advantages and disadvantages? Would the ability to type faster give some business that big of an advantage? Think of the current environment of business: Auto-correction, form letters and mail merges, e-mail, and voicemail. The only one of these that would see an effect from a faster typist would be e-mail. Typing speed is largely irrelevant to most businesses; the average secretary doesn't really need to type faster than 35 WPM.
Please do explain how switching to Dvorak keyboards would not only soak up the costs of manufacturing them and replacing them, but give businesses that do switch an "far superior" advantage over those that don't.
Re:Blame it on Linksys
on
The 3Com Saga
·
· Score: 1
It used to be that I wouldn't buy anything but a 3COM NIC. They were simply the best.
That used to be my attitude, but I got burned badly by $70 NICs that were unreliable, and failed in astonishing numbers. I then switched to those based on Intel 8255x chipsets. I haven't been disappointed. 3com overpriced, and they got burned in the marketplace.
A mugger's going to judge based on what you're carrying, but also remember that he's going to avoid people that seem threatening. If you're weaving all over the sidewalk staring at the display of your (walkman | iPod | PDA), you basically look clueless, and are therefore a prime target.
Think of this example: Mr. T walked around with a bunch of valuable jewelry around his neck. How often do you think he got mugged? So, rule of thumb... Don't dress to attract attention, hide your electronic shit, and looked ticked off as you quickly move to where you're going.
Windows XP can handle this trivial process with ease....why not FC2?
Disclaimer: I haven't actually tried FC2, and don't plan to.
That said, it isn't a trivial process, and XP didn't handle it with ease. XP had major bugs with its integrated CD writing software, ones that resulted in data loss. I'm guessing it might have even been a driver issue, because I've helped out people that used different burner software but still had odd problems like entries showing up, but actual files that aren't "found" attempting access from the CD. Luckily Windows has a healthy amount of third-party CD burning software, so the users went out and bought Roxio, for example, and solved the problem (sort of - it's still hit-or-miss in terms of producing a disc that read-able on other systems).
What I do know is that CD burning on Linux happens when three pieces are in place: Kernel drivers, CD -R/RW back-end software, and front-end software. As of kernel 2.4, the IDE drivers aren't modern enough to support the proper commands, so a translation layer is required in the form of a kernel module (ide-scsi). A line must be passed to the kernel at boot time so it knows which is the faux SCSI device. If there are real SCSI devices in addition to that (I've got a SCSI system with an IDE burner), it gets a little tricky. Tricky enough that users without pure IDE systems may give up.
The second piece of software, the back-end, was written by a guy named Jörg Schilling. If you happen to be in Berlin and you run across Schilly, make sure you shake his hand and thank him, because he made it possible to burn CDs and DVDs with the neglected, antiquated kernel IDE drivers. The drawback is that it is only able to burn at 8x (Kernel 2.4). However, 'cdrtools' are highly reliable. I've made dozens and dozens of burns with cdrtools and the GCombust front-end, and not one bad burn in the lot.
The third component is, of course, a front-end. Graphical ones such as 'K3B' are the most popular. This is a sticking point for lots of folks: It doesn't matter which you pick, if your system isn't configured properly, none will work, because they all talk to programs in cdrtools (or used to).
Supposedly Kernel 2.6 brought major updates to IDE drivers, and ATAPI support should work properly without the stupid emulation layer. How this effects cdrtools I do not know, because I faced so many incompatibility issues to update my core system to work with 2.6, that I decided to let things mature before I jump on the bandwagon. I know of no major bugs in cdrtools 2.0 that would break CD burning in a manner that you describe. My guess is the problem lies with kernel configuration. If RedHat is using cdrtools as the backend (they'd be insane not to), the 'cdrecord -scanbus' option is a handy tool to have while troubleshooting.
General rant about CD writing software: I hate with a passion shell-integrated front-ends, like XP's (looks like RedHat's is on my list too), because forcing CD writing as an analog to random-writes-with-a-single-filesystem, a la fixed disk writes, is an interface mistake that generates confusion as well as ruined CDs. GCombust isn't pretty, but does have a stripped-down interface with option tabs which divide different tasks into some fairly logical categories. Before I actually burn a disc, I've got my "ducks in a row"; My default options include Rock Ridge + Anon. Rock Ridge + Joliet. Everyone can read my discs. On the other hand, I've had to troubleshoot Windows and MacOS 10 users' discs that either won't read on other platforms, or in the case of some Windows burning software, won't even read on other Windows systems! What's worse is that the Windows/Mac software hides the filesystem options from users, apparently to simplify the interface, so the steps to correct the problem are non-intuitive. MacOS 10 allows the user to build the image before committing it to disk, but the image shows up as media on the desktop, so there's some ambiguity surrounding the issue of whether the C
If people keep using that argument (i.e. memory cards are more expensive than hard disks), then they will be. I'd bet that memory can be produced faster and in greater quantities than hard disks, but the memory prices will remain higher as long as the demand and volume produced remain low.
China is already a thoroughly capitalist country-- that is, a state capitalist country, in which the whole country is basically run for the profit of the state-owned industry.
Is it? Is that the central design coming from Bejing? Or is it just the fact that at the core, it still is a Soviet-style economy, but it's greatly in need of funding to keep things running. And only certain areas of the country are generating enough capital, which in turn goes to line the pockets of government officials, so they look the other way while the influx of capital slowly erodes central control, (brining with it the freedom of discretionary spending).
There are two views of the status of the prisoners at Guantanamo. Either they are POWs or they are unlawful combatants. If they are POWs then it would be illegal to try them for anything other than war crimes, and they may be held until the end of the war (and needless to say the war ain't over). If they are illegal combatants then they have no rights under international law.
Here's the sticking point with that. The war isn't officially over (at least from the US perspective), because it was never officially declared. I wonder how that fits into the scheme of things.
Although this is not banning or censoring, strictly speaking, the Bush administration and the corporate media is not much better than its Chinese equivalents.
There is a world of difference between those two. While we can harp on Bush's cabinet for having an agenda, and lying, the federal government isn't banning editorials or news articles (in the US) that call into question the motives. I don't know how "the Media" fits into this, but the "9/11 Commission" sure as heck got their coverage. China is in effect saying, "these provinces do not exist as sovereign states, and never existed. This despite the fact that it is well documented otherwise. That in itself is just silly, but backed up by the fact that the PRC's government will filter out this information nation-wide, and the fact that they will kill those which make known their opposing views, that's the scary part.
This pure unadulterated hate for Bush is wearing me a little thin. I understand that some of you feel that he's the embodiment of evil. I get it. You don't have to connect every bad thing that happens with Bush. In fact, it's worse than the Clinton-bashing ever was. It's getting to the point where it's pathological. I can just imagine a psychologist administering a Rorschach test to a Bush-hater:
Psychologist: (showing ink blot) And what do you see here?
Testee: I see Bush lying to the American people!
Psychologist: Hmmm. And this?
Testee: It's Bush killing children!
Psychologist: Okay... Next one.
Testee: It's that goddamn Bush lying to the American people while he kills children in exchange for oil!
Can we just tone it down a tad, and make sure that our opinion of Bush is known on November 2nd instead? Yes, I fully realize that this post will attract insults and offtopic/flamebait moderation while the parent will not.
Because the ITU falls under the control of the UN. At the UN, both the US and Europe have much less influence and control. By handing 'control of the Internet' over to the UN, the developed nations would run the risk of less developed nations using their new found control as a bargaining chip against the US/Europe in other matters.
I'd like to see a list of the biggest financial backers of the UN. I'd be willing to bet that the lion's share of funding comes from North American and Western Europe. The ITU's board seems to be split up pretty fairly, but let's face it, nothing happens unless someone pays for it.
So much for the coward characterization. They didn't surrender, they were surprised. They weren't the last to be surprised by Rommel either. I don't see anyone characterizing the Brits as cowards just because they ran from a bluff by the Desert Fox.
Well at least you get to see a unique engineering masterpiece for your money. Think of what you get to see for a $2 toll on the Jersey Turnpike. And what's worse when the trip is over, you're in New Jersey.
"Eiffage was selected to carry out this project combining the techniques of concrete with those of steel.
Constituting the last stretch of the A75 motorway, once opened it will enable Clermont-Ferrand to be reached directly from Béziers, so getting rid of the infamous Millau traffic bottleneck."
Slashdot Mirror
If I made a really really small PC, could I patent the "Enter" key? How about the "shift " or "control" keys?
/.-ers that hate junk patents would get together to make a mockery of the current system. I bet we've got enough talent here to patent meta-keys (or pressing them, hence the "method"), and word it well enough to sneak through the USPTO. We could all pitch in to cover the fees. Hell, chances are we'd get the patent, then we could get some venture capital from BayStar to go on a legal rampage.
I wish some of us
I'm not saying I agree with the patent, but it is for a PDA not a PC.
I know you're just making a point, but here's what popped into my head:
What's the legal definition of PDA? Size? Power? Does that make a Mac Plus or C64 a PDA? Portability? SX64 anyone? What the difference between a PDA and a PC? Size? Shape? Color? So cosmetics make the idea entirely original, and a non-obvious method?
Yeah, Microsoft. Hmm. Stallman's ideas were equally brilliant and changed the computing landscape in a profound way (you can argue good or bad, just like with Microsoft). But Stallman doesn't live in a 68 billion dollar robo-house, so his ideas aren't interesting to the general public.
No clue what you're doing there, but I've got one production box that's about 4 years old. I've never been in dependency hell with it, or any other of my younger Slackware systems. When in doubt, read the build scripts, or just get the latest Slackware package.
It's definitely not hacked-together. It's simple, and therefore easy to maintain (if you've got a clue how a GNU system works).
There's something to be said for having a clean layout to begin with, and not changing it - because it works. Slackware's installer has pretty much been the same since I chose it as my distro about 9 years ago. The expert mode got one little tweak which I love: You pick all the packages beforehand, then the installer goes through each set and installs them without further input.
Give it time, and hopefully it will be properly moderated. If not, then I'll be certain to metamoderate if given the opportunity.
I did, and that fits into economics as well: Employees with various joint- or muscle-related injuries aren't as productive. But the reason this doesn't matter is because high-volume typing isn't as important as it used to be, which I attempted to establish with the examples of mail-merges and voicemail.
I'd be pretty suspicious about how the got in Norway, too.
What's up with the rest of the country? I've had a land line and DSL from the same company for years. The bill is itemized, I didn't have to sign a contract, the service is good, and the basic DSL charges actually dropped $10/month this year. Likewise with my mobile phone provider (AT&T WS). I initially had a contract for one year, but got two discounted phones out of it. Had only two problems in 3 years, and have always received completely itemized bills.
People tell me that $40 a month per phone (and coverage all along the east cost of the US) is too much. But on the other hand, I always get good coverage, there are no surprises in my bills.
I hate the statement: "Dvorak superiority is a myth." The ergonomics of the Dvorak keyboard are far superior to Qwerty. Economists are in no position to debate that superiority.
"Far" superior? How? And for what? For business letters? For writing novels? For coding in C? For coding in HTML? How much could I expect to gain from the ergonomics of the Dvorak keyboard? For regular copy I can do 100+ WPM with the QWERTY layout, and about 60 WPM if I'm making it up as I go along. ("Regular copy" meaning typing from a source text or from dictation.)
Why would an Economist not be able to debate the advantages and disadvantages? Would the ability to type faster give some business that big of an advantage? Think of the current environment of business: Auto-correction, form letters and mail merges, e-mail, and voicemail. The only one of these that would see an effect from a faster typist would be e-mail. Typing speed is largely irrelevant to most businesses; the average secretary doesn't really need to type faster than 35 WPM.
Please do explain how switching to Dvorak keyboards would not only soak up the costs of manufacturing them and replacing them, but give businesses that do switch an "far superior" advantage over those that don't.
It used to be that I wouldn't buy anything but a 3COM NIC. They were simply the best.
That used to be my attitude, but I got burned badly by $70 NICs that were unreliable, and failed in astonishing numbers. I then switched to those based on Intel 8255x chipsets. I haven't been disappointed. 3com overpriced, and they got burned in the marketplace.
A mugger's going to judge based on what you're carrying, but also remember that he's going to avoid people that seem threatening. If you're weaving all over the sidewalk staring at the display of your (walkman | iPod | PDA), you basically look clueless, and are therefore a prime target.
Think of this example: Mr. T walked around with a bunch of valuable jewelry around his neck. How often do you think he got mugged? So, rule of thumb... Don't dress to attract attention, hide your electronic shit, and looked ticked off as you quickly move to where you're going.
Windows XP can handle this trivial process with ease....why not FC2?
Disclaimer: I haven't actually tried FC2, and don't plan to.
That said, it isn't a trivial process, and XP didn't handle it with ease. XP had major bugs with its integrated CD writing software, ones that resulted in data loss. I'm guessing it might have even been a driver issue, because I've helped out people that used different burner software but still had odd problems like entries showing up, but actual files that aren't "found" attempting access from the CD. Luckily Windows has a healthy amount of third-party CD burning software, so the users went out and bought Roxio, for example, and solved the problem (sort of - it's still hit-or-miss in terms of producing a disc that read-able on other systems).
What I do know is that CD burning on Linux happens when three pieces are in place: Kernel drivers, CD -R/RW back-end software, and front-end software. As of kernel 2.4, the IDE drivers aren't modern enough to support the proper commands, so a translation layer is required in the form of a kernel module (ide-scsi). A line must be passed to the kernel at boot time so it knows which is the faux SCSI device. If there are real SCSI devices in addition to that (I've got a SCSI system with an IDE burner), it gets a little tricky. Tricky enough that users without pure IDE systems may give up.
The second piece of software, the back-end, was written by a guy named Jörg Schilling. If you happen to be in Berlin and you run across Schilly, make sure you shake his hand and thank him, because he made it possible to burn CDs and DVDs with the neglected, antiquated kernel IDE drivers. The drawback is that it is only able to burn at 8x (Kernel 2.4). However, 'cdrtools' are highly reliable. I've made dozens and dozens of burns with cdrtools and the GCombust front-end, and not one bad burn in the lot.
The third component is, of course, a front-end. Graphical ones such as 'K3B' are the most popular. This is a sticking point for lots of folks: It doesn't matter which you pick, if your system isn't configured properly, none will work, because they all talk to programs in cdrtools (or used to).
Supposedly Kernel 2.6 brought major updates to IDE drivers, and ATAPI support should work properly without the stupid emulation layer. How this effects cdrtools I do not know, because I faced so many incompatibility issues to update my core system to work with 2.6, that I decided to let things mature before I jump on the bandwagon. I know of no major bugs in cdrtools 2.0 that would break CD burning in a manner that you describe. My guess is the problem lies with kernel configuration. If RedHat is using cdrtools as the backend (they'd be insane not to), the 'cdrecord -scanbus' option is a handy tool to have while troubleshooting.
General rant about CD writing software:
I hate with a passion shell-integrated front-ends, like XP's (looks like RedHat's is on my list too), because forcing CD writing as an analog to random-writes-with-a-single-filesystem, a la fixed disk writes, is an interface mistake that generates confusion as well as ruined CDs. GCombust isn't pretty, but does have a stripped-down interface with option tabs which divide different tasks into some fairly logical categories. Before I actually burn a disc, I've got my "ducks in a row"; My default options include Rock Ridge + Anon. Rock Ridge + Joliet. Everyone can read my discs. On the other hand, I've had to troubleshoot Windows and MacOS 10 users' discs that either won't read on other platforms, or in the case of some Windows burning software, won't even read on other Windows systems! What's worse is that the Windows/Mac software hides the filesystem options from users, apparently to simplify the interface, so the steps to correct the problem are non-intuitive. MacOS 10 allows the user to build the image before committing it to disk, but the image shows up as media on the desktop, so there's some ambiguity surrounding the issue of whether the C
If people keep using that argument (i.e. memory cards are more expensive than hard disks), then they will be. I'd bet that memory can be produced faster and in greater quantities than hard disks, but the memory prices will remain higher as long as the demand and volume produced remain low.
Good stuff. Thanks for the link!
China is already a thoroughly capitalist country-- that is, a state capitalist country, in which the whole country is basically run for the profit of the state-owned industry.
Is it? Is that the central design coming from Bejing? Or is it just the fact that at the core, it still is a Soviet-style economy, but it's greatly in need of funding to keep things running. And only certain areas of the country are generating enough capital, which in turn goes to line the pockets of government officials, so they look the other way while the influx of capital slowly erodes central control, (brining with it the freedom of discretionary spending).
There are two views of the status of the prisoners at Guantanamo. Either they are POWs or they are unlawful combatants. If they are POWs then it would be illegal to try them for anything other than war crimes, and they may be held until the end of the war (and needless to say the war ain't over). If they are illegal combatants then they have no rights under international law.
Here's the sticking point with that. The war isn't officially over (at least from the US perspective), because it was never officially declared. I wonder how that fits into the scheme of things.
Although this is not banning or censoring, strictly speaking, the Bush administration and the corporate media is not much better than its Chinese equivalents.
There is a world of difference between those two. While we can harp on Bush's cabinet for having an agenda, and lying, the federal government isn't banning editorials or news articles (in the US) that call into question the motives. I don't know how "the Media" fits into this, but the "9/11 Commission" sure as heck got their coverage. China is in effect saying, "these provinces do not exist as sovereign states, and never existed. This despite the fact that it is well documented otherwise. That in itself is just silly, but backed up by the fact that the PRC's government will filter out this information nation-wide, and the fact that they will kill those which make known their opposing views, that's the scary part.
This pure unadulterated hate for Bush is wearing me a little thin. I understand that some of you feel that he's the embodiment of evil. I get it. You don't have to connect every bad thing that happens with Bush. In fact, it's worse than the Clinton-bashing ever was. It's getting to the point where it's pathological. I can just imagine a psychologist administering a Rorschach test to a Bush-hater:
Psychologist: (showing ink blot) And what do you see here?
Testee: I see Bush lying to the American people!
Psychologist: Hmmm. And this?
Testee: It's Bush killing children!
Psychologist: Okay... Next one.
Testee: It's that goddamn Bush lying to the American people while he kills children in exchange for oil!
Can we just tone it down a tad, and make sure that our opinion of Bush is known on November 2nd instead? Yes, I fully realize that this post will attract insults and offtopic/flamebait moderation while the parent will not.
Because the ITU falls under the control of the UN. At the UN, both the US and Europe have much less influence and control. By handing 'control of the Internet' over to the UN, the developed nations would run the risk of less developed nations using their new found control as a bargaining chip against the US/Europe in other matters.
I'd like to see a list of the biggest financial backers of the UN. I'd be willing to bet that the lion's share of funding comes from North American and Western Europe. The ITU's board seems to be split up pretty fairly, but let's face it, nothing happens unless someone pays for it.
Really? I guess all the US residents that are strongly opposed to the war in Iraq should just vote out Donald Rumsfeld in November.
I'm not trying to promote a political view here, I'm just making a point.
Yes, because a straight line from one point to the other is shorter than following the contours of the land.
So much for the coward characterization. They didn't surrender, they were surprised. They weren't the last to be surprised by Rommel either. I don't see anyone characterizing the Brits as cowards just because they ran from a bluff by the Desert Fox.
Well at least you get to see a unique engineering masterpiece for your money. Think of what you get to see for a $2 toll on the Jersey Turnpike. And what's worse when the trip is over, you're in New Jersey.
Mod parent up!
From the site:
"Eiffage was selected to carry out this project combining the techniques of concrete with those of steel.
Constituting the last stretch of the A75 motorway, once opened it will enable Clermont-Ferrand to be reached directly from Béziers, so getting rid of the infamous Millau traffic bottleneck."
Because some moderators forget change their personal settings when they have mod points, and dig below 1.