Hmm, 450km/h, 959 persons, every 10minutes a train. This amounts to a throughput of 5754 persons/h.
For a single lane Autobahn: 130km/h, distance between two cars, 170m. This amounts to 765 cars per hour. A typical car carries up to 4 persons. 3060 persons/h.
A typical Autobahn has at least 2 lanes, several have 3. This makes roughly 6kP/h or 9kP/h. So one could say a Autobahn with 3 lanes has twice the troughput than the Transrapid.
But, this is the theoretical limit. The numbers for the Transrapid is devised from the implementation with two trains on the tracks. Double the number of trains you get the the same throughput.
> As in all things, it's not the lack of skills. Skills can be learned.
Write a poem, paint a picture, write a song, prove a theorem, run a business, discover a new cure, a new gene, or particle and run a business. Do any two of those things above simultaiously and above the level of mediocrity and we speak again.
The point is, you want to run a successful business? You can hardly do it without investing a certain amount of time depending on your talent. And lets face it, not all of us have the ability (even if we had the opportunity) to win a Nobel price, or build a new Microsoft Corp. and much less to do both.
Skill is to a great deal a matter of talent. Talent is not a matter of desire or drive. (Well, at least not above a certain age.)
You can make up talent with dedication, but the time you have to spend on your lacking talent is lost for your talent. That is why we form groups like companies in the first place.
> I've not started my own company yet (though I've made two abortive attempts).
Why did you aborted it? Lack of desire? Lack of drive?
> Perhaps Wi-Fi / 802.11 is solving the real need for broadband data mobility.
Depends on your definition on mobility. Try 802.11 while moving (relatively to your partner) and see how it performs. What about handover between two 802.11 nodes (especially in different sub-networks)? You'll need at least Mobile-IP.
PAN, WLAN, 3G have their niches. Of course, public WLAN spots are beginning to occupy a great share of the market, which 3G was targeted for.
Note, that it is also partly stated in the article:
Ericsson's Hellstrom called it [3G and 802.11] a "complementary" technology. Bell Labs fellow Qi Bi said, "Incorporating Wi-Fi into the third-generation system is an important part of the system design. 3G can provide ubiquitous coverage and Wi-Fi can cover the hot spots."
Um, I guess the answer is the same one as for these questions.
Why are you trying to port Linux to you game console? Why are you bringing your coffee machine into the internet? Why are you going back in time to fetch some whales?
No... I guess the second one has a different answer: Because it's convenient to be able to check the status everywhere on the world.
Anyway, these people seam to be musicians and did it by clustering people (my assumption from the abundant information on these pages). What do musicians usually do? Nothing productive anyway, like web-designers/duck
In Mein Kampf released in 1926 everything was published in very detail. Actually, he describes how to Of course, I can't imagine that someone actually reads 700pages from such an inept author.
Furthermore, some people managed to escape the concentration camps reaching Sweden and Switzerland told from these astrocities. Espionage planes took pictures of these camps, so goverment officials were well aware of the situation.
But this ignorance is what made the "Third Reich" possible and should be no excuse, neither for the Germans nor Americans.
Microsoft is a large software house and has various different sources of income. They are using Visual Studio in house. Furthermore they are profiting from binding developers to the Windows platform. I can imagine, they could even distribute it for free.
The distribution of Qt/X11 under the GPL leads to a greater acceptance of Qt, while preserving the most lucrative market.
How can they earn money licensing it under the LGPL? Any commercial product could use Qt without paying a single penny.
> The problem with OpenGL is it doesn't keep up with the features of new cards the way DirectX does.
You know that there are extensions to OpenGL? That OpenGL is so old is merely a sign of its extensability. The problem is the most current are vendor extensions, and as the part vendor indicates, it is very specific to a vendor.
Concerning this problem, DirectX is a little bit better, but not purely devoid. DirectX 8.0 is very NVidia-specific. DirectX 8.1 is developed with ATI in mind. (Or was it the other way around).
OpenGL 2.0 will hopefully overcome the current deficiencies.
Have a view at an earlier post on Slashdot on that matter.
Question: Does "copy-protection" work? No. Every CD that can be played can be copied. (Unless there exists "trusted" hardware, where from pickup up to the D/A the data is encrypted)
So, what is the result. I still can download music from the Internet. It just becomes potentially even more uncomfortable to buy a CD and play it in my X year old Harman/Kardon CD-player, which just happens to expect a valid CD (speak, not intentionally corrupted).
How will this affect my purchasing behaviour?
The label avex/trax (Japan) already sells only "copy-protected" CDs. Not that this made buy more CDs from them. But since I'm not a good statistical test group, I can be wrong and it will improve the music business.
I've read the Bluetooth specification and the only thing that could be interpreted to your "keying" is that a two devices can be paired up. Both must share a common secret (a PIN-code) to enable communication between those two. But any two devices can (with human intervention) be paired up. They could conceal the PIN to the user, but why should they? Another possibilty is to hard code the Bluetooth device address from the Reciever in the sender. But again, why should they do so? This would only increase the work and costs as they had to flash different programs on the controllers for the benefit of a disgruntled user.
Could you provide a link to back up your statement? I can't imagine that the Bluetooth SIG would approve this, as it would be detrimental to the goal of Bluetooth.
That's the idea of bluetooth. A wireless kind of USB.
Assuming you have a correct Bluetooth stack. Most companies provide one with their adaptors. Windows XP will include one with the next SP. Linux has the BlueZ-Stack (integrated), Axis Stack and another one I can't remember.
It is not custom. Otherwise it would not be a Bluetooth adaptor. It would be just a device using the ISM-band.
This one and the Microsoft devices have a Bluetooth adaptor of their own, because most people don't have one. Not because they need their own.
It's just a matter of marketing. No technical reasons.
I guess they had to make a choice: Either the disaproval of those few people who have already a bluetooth adaptor and have to pay for the unwanted extra. Or the disaproval of the people who buy the device and discover that they have to buy another device to make it work.
Or maybe they just thought that there may be people with integrated Bluetooth. Or maybe they didn't think at all.
c) The company which Nintendo paid for its service can't charge as much as they charged before.
Of course, there is a double standard in play here. Where do you apply the same standards for companies as you apply for consumers? Taxes? Voting rights?
Actually, the reason for this regulation is, that companies do buy from all over Europe. (Dell's situated in Ireland and selling from there to all over Europe.)
Consumers can't, the price tag for transport is too high for such small shippings.
Ah, that's why the young people are so cautious, fearing the abrupt end of their long productive life, while the old ones, facing the imminent death, are the adventurous ones.
To be more serious: Young people are more adventurous, they're less aware that they can die. Death is an "Others People Problem". When people get older, they become more aware that life is quite fragile and suddenly have an eye on their health.
The absence from a death by ageing could make people even more adventurous. The abundance of a thing usually makes one less aware of its value.
Imagine a possible biography of an practicably immortal and compare it to a typical one from today.
Are the world class managers actually MBAs? Does a MBA make you to some "liege lord"? This is the assumption most aspiring MBA seem to have.
Let's have a look at some world class companies. The management board of Daimler-Chrysler: 1x Engineering and Economics 1x Engineering and MBA 2x Economics 2x MBA 2x Law 4x Engineering
John Palmisano, President of IBM, is has graduated with a Bachelor in social and behavioural sciences. Louis V. Gerstner, Jr., Chairman of the Board, has a bachelor in engineering and a MBA.
The first non-engineer CEO at Sony was Nobuyuki Idei, in 1995. He graduated with a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science and Economics. The president of Sony from 1989 to 1995 was Norio Ôga, graduate of Tôkyô National University of Fine Arts and Music.
The prime requisit of the best managers are very good social skills and a good judgement. A good knowledge of economics is plus, without doubt, but a good knowledge of the matter at hand, too.
Of course, this doesn't negate your quite correct observation, that there are several managers, which jump of the sinking ship, with their "golden parachute".
It makes me wonder, how many of those managers are MBAs.
>Out understanding of those concepts is different That is certainly a point we can agree upon.
> That is something they have to decide for themselves. So far they have chosen not to.
Is it? I'm not quite sure I understand you correctly. It is their right to choose to become a suppressive state, actively torturing and killing people and is it not their right to choose to restrict the freedom of speech of a certain group aiming for that goal?
> I believe so. Article 19 [...] > It is about ethics, not morals.
I agree, with you that there are some ethical principles which are globally agreed upon. But the problem is to what extent those principles apply and which principles have priority is not agreed upon. This is my major point.
As you can see by the numbering and hopefully according to your moral codex, too, freedom of opinion and expression does not take precedence over "the right to life, liberty [and security]". (My brackets, the security part is not my idea. It is just there to complete the cite.)
You might not see those fundamental rights threatened by the free expression of the Nazis, but this to decide is up to the people concerned.
To a young, white U.S.-american with a good education (the guesstimated average slashdot user), the threat of another Nazi regime in Germany is quite meager and not worth the effort.
To a surviver of the holocaust, living in Germany, this is surely a different matter.
Whether this legislation has actually the desired effect is a different matter and not a question of ethics. Neither you nor them can claim to have the definit answer to that question, so it is their right to make the possible mistake.
There is no global absolute ethics. Ethics is a set of moral rules. There are only some agreed upon moral rules. But mostly it is always weighting one rule against other.
Speaking of grave matters like life: In Germany, there is no death penalty. In the US, there is. In Germany and the US, a woman can abort. In Ireland, not.
To get back to the topic. Would it be right to let those people state their opinions, even risking a 4th Reich? As hypothetical as this situation is, to my eyes, this is more likely than expecting that this restriction on free speech is leading to a regime in Germany.
Is free speech one of the prime ethical requirement? Why should it then be restricted by slander, death threats, or child protection?
You think it is different? Ask a german Jew what he thinks about people saying that either the Holocaust didn't happened and or even saying it was just and how he compares this to slander or even death threat.
It is easy to make this decision, when it is a theoretical matter. But confronted with a real threat, one might decide another way.
It is always weighting the rights of one person against another.
And on these matters, I've to admit, the Nazis don't have my sympathy. It is not like the right of free speech is irrecovably revoked from those persons. It is just that they aren't allowed to voice their opinion on this certain matter publicly. I am well aware, that the same argumentation can be applied by the Chinese. But one should also be aware that the Germans can choose the form of the form of their society, the Chinese not.
Slashdot Mirror
It depends.
Hmm, 450km/h, 959 persons, every 10minutes a train.
This amounts to a throughput of 5754 persons/h.
For a single lane Autobahn: 130km/h, distance between two cars, 170m. This amounts to 765 cars per hour. A typical car carries up to 4 persons.
3060 persons/h.
A typical Autobahn has at least 2 lanes, several have 3.
This makes roughly 6kP/h or 9kP/h. So one could say a Autobahn with 3 lanes has twice the troughput than the Transrapid.
But, this is the theoretical limit. The numbers for the Transrapid is devised from the implementation with two trains on the tracks.
Double the number of trains you get the the same throughput.
Sure, but run them simultaiously.
:)
I guess, writing in english and thinking simultaneously is out of question for me
> As in all things, it's not the lack of skills. Skills can be learned.
Write a poem, paint a picture, write a song, prove a theorem, run a business, discover a new cure, a new gene, or particle and run a business. Do any two of those things above simultaiously and above the level of mediocrity and we speak again.
The point is, you want to run a successful business? You can hardly do it without investing a certain amount of time depending on your talent.
And lets face it, not all of us have the ability (even if we had the opportunity) to win a Nobel price, or build a new Microsoft Corp. and much less to do both.
Skill is to a great deal a matter of talent. Talent is not a matter of desire or drive. (Well, at least not above a certain age.)
You can make up talent with dedication, but the time you have to spend on your lacking talent is lost for your talent. That is why we form groups like companies in the first place.
> I've not started my own company yet (though I've made two abortive attempts).
Why did you aborted it? Lack of desire? Lack of drive?
>I wonder why HTML forms are still so primitive, they've been around for years now and no-one's bothered to add more exotic widgets
XForms might be what you are looking for. Previously coverages on Slashdot: Release Candidate and Approval.
Still no widgets, as widgets are possible interpretations of the form, nonetheless...
Depends on your definition on mobility.
Try 802.11 while moving (relatively to your partner) and see how it performs.
What about handover between two 802.11 nodes (especially in different sub-networks)?
You'll need at least Mobile-IP.
AFAIK, the current trend seems to be less exclusive.
PAN, WLAN, 3G have their niches.
Of course, public WLAN spots are beginning to occupy a great share of the market, which 3G was targeted for.
Note, that it is also partly stated in the article:
Um, I guess the answer is the same one as for these questions.
/duck
Why are you trying to port Linux to you game console?
Why are you bringing your coffee machine into the internet?
Why are you going back in time to fetch some whales?
No... I guess the second one has a different answer:
Because it's convenient to be able to check the status everywhere on the world.
Anyway, these people seam to be musicians and did it by clustering people (my assumption from the abundant information on these pages).
What do musicians usually do?
Nothing productive anyway, like web-designers
Freude schÃner GÃtterfunke
Tochter aus Elysium.
How many lines to go?
In Mein Kampf released in 1926 everything was published in very detail. Actually, he describes how to
Of course, I can't imagine that someone actually reads 700pages from such an inept author.
Furthermore, some people managed to escape the concentration camps reaching Sweden and Switzerland told from these astrocities.
Espionage planes took pictures of these camps, so goverment officials were well aware of the situation.
But this ignorance is what made the "Third Reich" possible and should be no excuse, neither for the Germans nor Americans.
Then he is expensive. Everyone else here would've settled with a NV30 (myself included)
OTOH, what would ATI spend for a sample?
I must stop this, I'm beginning to think like an MBA.
So, did these "reports" sound to you like a press release, too?
That's why in Europe there are not 900MHz phones.
In Europe the eqiuvalent is 868-870MHz..
Don't blame the tools.
High level languages and abstractions aren't the problem, neither are pointers in low level languages. It's the people, who can't use them.
Abstraction does mean that you should not have to care about the underlying mechanisms, not that you should not understand them.
Microsoft is a large software house and has various different sources of income. They are using Visual Studio in house. Furthermore they are profiting from binding developers to the Windows platform.
I can imagine, they could even distribute it for free.
The distribution of Qt/X11 under the GPL leads to a greater acceptance of Qt, while preserving the most lucrative market.
How can they earn money licensing it under the LGPL? Any commercial product could use Qt without paying a single penny.
> The problem with OpenGL is it doesn't keep up with the features of new cards the way DirectX does.
You know that there are extensions to OpenGL? That OpenGL is so old is merely a sign of its extensability.
The problem is the most current are vendor extensions, and as the part vendor indicates, it is very specific to a vendor.
Concerning this problem, DirectX is a little bit better, but not purely devoid. DirectX 8.0 is very NVidia-specific. DirectX 8.1 is developed with ATI in mind. (Or was it the other way around).
OpenGL 2.0 will hopefully overcome the current deficiencies.
Have a view at an earlier post on Slashdot on that matter.
Question: Does "copy-protection" work?
No. Every CD that can be played can be copied.
(Unless there exists "trusted" hardware, where from pickup up to the D/A the data is encrypted)
So, what is the result. I still can download music from the Internet. It just becomes potentially even more uncomfortable to buy a CD and play it in my X year old Harman/Kardon CD-player, which just happens to expect a valid CD (speak, not intentionally corrupted).
How will this affect my purchasing behaviour?
The label avex/trax (Japan) already sells only "copy-protected" CDs. Not that this made buy more CDs from them. But since I'm not a good statistical test group, I can be wrong and it will improve the music business.
Do you know, that every true Democratic system bears the possibility of its own destruction?
The fact, that the US system didn't produce dictators and Europe did several cannot be reduced to it's election system.
The difference of the US and Europe lies more in social, economic and historical problems.
Various quarrels between European nations, pride, bad economy, comes to mind.
The reduction know of the result on the voting system is uninformed, to say the least.
I've read the Bluetooth specification and the only thing that could be interpreted to your "keying" is that a two devices can be paired up.
Both must share a common secret (a PIN-code) to enable communication between those two.
But any two devices can (with human intervention) be paired up.
They could conceal the PIN to the user, but why should they?
Another possibilty is to hard code the Bluetooth device address from the Reciever in the sender. But again, why should they do so?
This would only increase the work and costs as they had to flash different programs on the controllers for the benefit of a disgruntled user.
Could you provide a link to back up your statement?
I can't imagine that the Bluetooth SIG would approve this, as it would be detrimental to the goal of Bluetooth.
That's the idea of bluetooth. A wireless kind of USB.
Assuming you have a correct Bluetooth stack.
Most companies provide one with their adaptors.
Windows XP will include one with the next SP. Linux has the BlueZ-Stack (integrated), Axis Stack and another one I can't remember.
It is not custom. Otherwise it would not be a Bluetooth adaptor. It would be just a device using the ISM-band.
This one and the Microsoft devices have a Bluetooth adaptor of their own, because most people don't have one. Not because they need their own.
It's just a matter of marketing. No technical reasons.
I guess they had to make a choice:
Either the disaproval of those few people who have already a bluetooth adaptor and have to pay for the unwanted extra.
Or the disaproval of the people who buy the device and discover that they have to buy another device to make it work.
Or maybe they just thought that there may be people with integrated Bluetooth. Or maybe they didn't think at all.
c) The company which Nintendo paid for its service can't charge as much as they charged before.
Of course, there is a double standard in play here.
Where do you apply the same standards for companies as you apply for consumers? Taxes? Voting rights?
Actually, the reason for this regulation is, that companies do buy from all over Europe. (Dell's situated in Ireland and selling from there to all over Europe.)
Consumers can't, the price tag for transport is too high for such small shippings.
Is this a hint, that I should stop posting?
Ah, that's why the young people are so cautious, fearing the abrupt end of their long productive life, while the old ones, facing the imminent death, are the adventurous ones.
To be more serious:
Young people are more adventurous, they're less aware that they can die. Death is an "Others People Problem". When people get older, they become more aware that life is quite fragile and suddenly have an eye on their health.
The absence from a death by ageing could make people even more adventurous. The abundance of a thing usually makes one less aware of its value.
Imagine a possible biography of an practicably immortal and compare it to a typical one from today.
Are the world class managers actually MBAs? Does a MBA make you to some "liege lord"? This is the assumption most aspiring MBA seem to have.
Let's have a look at some world class companies.
The management board of Daimler-Chrysler:
1x Engineering and Economics
1x Engineering and MBA
2x Economics
2x MBA
2x Law
4x Engineering
John Palmisano, President of IBM, is has graduated with a Bachelor in social and behavioural sciences.
Louis V. Gerstner, Jr., Chairman of the Board, has a bachelor in engineering and a MBA.
The first non-engineer CEO at Sony was Nobuyuki Idei, in 1995. He graduated with a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science and Economics.
The president of Sony from 1989 to 1995 was Norio Ôga, graduate of Tôkyô National University of Fine Arts and Music.
The prime requisit of the best managers are very good social skills and a good judgement. A good knowledge of economics is plus, without doubt, but a good knowledge of the matter at hand, too.
Of course, this doesn't negate your quite correct observation, that there are several managers, which jump of the sinking ship, with their "golden parachute".
It makes me wonder, how many of those managers are MBAs.
>Out understanding of those concepts is different
That is certainly a point we can agree upon.
> That is something they have to decide for themselves. So far they have chosen not to.
Is it? I'm not quite sure I understand you correctly.
It is their right to choose to become a suppressive state, actively torturing and killing people and is it not their right to choose to restrict the freedom of speech of a certain group aiming for that goal?
> I believe so. Article 19 [...]
> It is about ethics, not morals.
I agree, with you that there are some ethical principles which are globally agreed upon.
But the problem is to what extent those principles apply and which principles have priority is not agreed upon. This is my major point.
As you can see by the numbering and hopefully according to your moral codex, too, freedom of opinion and expression does not take precedence over "the right to life, liberty [and security]". (My brackets, the security part is not my idea. It is just there to complete the cite.)
You might not see those fundamental rights threatened by the free expression of the Nazis, but this to decide is up to the people concerned.
To a young, white U.S.-american with a good education (the guesstimated average slashdot user), the threat of another Nazi regime in Germany is quite meager and not worth the effort.
To a surviver of the holocaust, living in Germany, this is surely a different matter.
Whether this legislation has actually the desired effect is a different matter and not a question of ethics.
Neither you nor them can claim to have the definit answer to that question, so it is their right to make the possible mistake.
There is no global absolute ethics. Ethics is a set of moral rules.
There are only some agreed upon moral rules. But mostly it is always weighting one rule against other.
Speaking of grave matters like life:
In Germany, there is no death penalty. In the US, there is.
In Germany and the US, a woman can abort. In Ireland, not.
To get back to the topic.
Would it be right to let those people state their opinions, even risking a 4th Reich?
As hypothetical as this situation is, to my eyes, this is more likely than expecting that this restriction on free speech is leading to a regime in Germany.
Is free speech one of the prime ethical requirement?
Why should it then be restricted by slander, death threats, or child protection?
You think it is different? Ask a german Jew what he thinks about people saying that either the Holocaust didn't happened and or even saying it was just and how he compares this to slander or even death threat.
It is easy to make this decision, when it is a theoretical matter. But confronted with a real threat, one might decide another way.
It is always weighting the rights of one person against another.
And on these matters, I've to admit, the Nazis don't have my sympathy.
It is not like the right of free speech is irrecovably revoked from those persons. It is just that they aren't allowed to voice their opinion on this certain matter publicly.
I am well aware, that the same argumentation can be applied by the Chinese. But one should also be aware that the Germans can choose the form of the form of their society, the Chinese not.