I think this book is a great idea, but I'll never buy it. I currently use PHP to generate HTML, and I'd like to move to XML, so it's the perfect topic for me. But books go out of date fast, and there's too many free resources on the web that are constantly being updated.
So, does anyone know of any good links for learning about the use of PHP with XML? I know I could google for some (and I have), I was just wondering if anyone has something that they would recommend.
I can't stand the idea of port blocking by ISPs. Already my ISP (Telus in BC, Canada) blocks port 25 so that I can't use my work's SMTP mail server for sending email and I'm forced to use their smtp server. This causes headaches for me as I have a laptop for home and work that I have to reconfigure each time.
It's criminal that they can charge me for providing an Internet connection, and then limiting it's use like that.
The OS never "needs" upgrading; Apple just provides you with the option. You can install Linux on a Mac and get all the free updates you want for life, but most people don't, because Linux doesn't do what they want it to do. As such, it hardly makes for a valid comparison.
The comparison is valid because it's between a MAC with a fixed OS (because I agree, why do Linux on the Mac), versus an updated OS (Linux) on a cheap PC. The added cost is there with the Mac if you want to stay up to date, which eventually becomes necessary. Things like new hardware (iPod?) and software (too numerous to mention) make these eventually necessary.
You make it sound like Macs aren't Turing-complete or something. Any software that can be developed for a PC can be developed for a Mac, and most likely has (excluding big-name commercial games, but the Mini couldn't play them well anyway). Even an out of date Mac is useful for many things, from aquariums to servers, and (generally) has a much higher resale value than an equivalent PC.
Obviously any software CAN be developed, but the question is WILL it be developed. The list starts with games (not just big ones, but anything online; e.g. I've never seen an online poker program for Mac), but continues with downloading software (KaZaa? anyone), and these are just the ones off the top of my head, I'm sure there's more.
As for out of date Macs being useful, I would only agree with the aquariums, but I don't think it proves your point. I've never heard of anyone using it for a server, whereas the use of old PCs with Linux is almost synonymous with servers in my mind. At my work place we have two 386s, a mail server and a firewall.
News flash: PCs in that size (of which there are very few) don't have more than 2 USB ports either. And many of the better keyboards and monitors (including Apple's) have built-in USB hubs.
My point here is that the usability of this computer is severely hampered without putting more money in for upgrades (and I chose USB as an example). More expensive keyboards, monitors, and adding hubs would be examples of this. One of the selling features would seem to be the low cost of being able to use your current computer components, and not having to upgrade.
Damn, that's harsh. A part broke in your iMac and Apple was gonna charge you ~$1000 to fix it? Sounds like an interesting story. Care to tell it?
You asked for it. I had one of the original iMacs, and I loved it, at first. The lack of upgradeability and software limitations quickly disappointed me. I ended up with a stack of external components (disk drive, CD burner, camera, mp3 player, DVD drive,...) that I swapped in and out of my 3 USB ports (one on the keyboard, 2 on the computer). Technology changes so quickly that the ability to upgrade is a necessity, even if it seems like the Mac mini comes with everything you'll ever need. These upgrades also came with a cost, as I had to pay to upgrade the operating system twice to be able to use these things.
But, I digress. One day, somewhere in my 3rd year of Mac, the Analog video logic board died. A common problem, it turns out, on the early iMacs. This prevents the computer from booting at all. Fixing it requres a new one ($250), and about an hour of calibrating it by a professional, i.e. not me ($150, for time and small parts). Using the %50 rule of upgrades, that $400 was not worth it, when a near top-of-the-line PC would only run me $800. The new PC is upgradeable, and has been upgraded many times, by me. It runs Windows and an updated-yesterday Linux, and does everything I could ever dream of. The iMac was donated to an art project (they do look cool, I'll give them that).
I don't think that most people's estimation of the lowness of the $499 price takes everything into account either.
PCs are easy to upgrade and fix, but I bet the Mini is hard to upgrade. If anything breaks after the warranty runs out you probably have to throw it out (that's what happened to my iMac), as the repair costs would be close to the price of a new one.
The OS may need upgrading from time to time, and Apple doesn't just give these away, whereas a cheap PC with free Linux gets you free upgrades for life.
Then there's the amazing flexibility of PCs, with so many people developing new software and mods all the time, even an out of date PC is useful for many things (just look at the XBox), or at least has some retail value.
Finally, the $499 mini is only suited to the simplest of situations. You want anything more, then you gotta pay more. The first item I would need is a USB hub, as it seems to only come with 2 USB ports.
The biggest problem with the US electoral system, is that there are too many voters. This leads to all kinds of statistical problems that otherwise wouldn't be significant. Combine that with a very close result, and you get uncertain results blurred by statistical noise.
I recommend going to a system described in Starship Troopers: only citizens can vote. Citizens being, of course, only those people who had served in the armed forces for a minimum of 2 years.
This solves everything, as the number of voters would drastically be reduced, but that wouldn't matter anyway as all elections would be landslide Republican wins.
Though I agree with almost everything you said, I just thought I could add something to one of your points
Also, hydrogen is quite difficult to store. Hydrogen is not very energy dense, meaning that it really can not store a lot of energy for the amount of volume that it takes up, even under fairly high compression. Add to this that compressed hydrogen is relatively dangerous and requires expensive tanks, this adds to the cost. Even morseo if the hydrogen is to be used for transportation.
This is not the way to store Hydrogen. A few years ago I worked on a research project developing the storage of Hydrogen in the form of metal hydrides. Basically, the hydrogen is absorbed into a metal, converted into a solid form, and stored at much higher densities than it can be compressed to. Later, some heat is added and the hydrogen desorbs in a matter of minutes.
Though this technology is not really mature yet, neither are fuel cells. In the future, a method such as this would allow the storage of large amounts of hydrogen electricity.
"High technology professionals" are employees who:
Develop information technology systems;
Develop scientific or technological products, materials, devices or processes; or,
Conduct scientific research and experimental development.
And here's the rules that DON'T apply:
Employees are not to work more than five consecutive hours without a 30-minute meal break.
Split shifts must be completed within 12 hours.
Minimum daily pay.
Employees must have 32 consecutive hours free from work each week.
Overtime pay.
Employees are entitled to either a paid holiday or extra pay when they work on a statutory holiday.
"Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the atmosphere. I believe it is the fuel of the future," said Kamaruzzaman.
Being abundant has nothing to do with being the fuel of the future.
Despite what the fuel cell lobby would like you to believe, Hydrogen is not an energy source, as there is no ample supply of usable hydrogen fuel. As in this case, the Hydrogen has to be produced, which consumes energy. This is done using the most abundant energy source in the universe [and the atmosphere;)], the SUN!
Increasingly, bloggers are celebrating the joys of random shuffle by posting lists of Random 25 tracks thrown up by their digital jukeboxes, as a search of Google attests.
Attests? I think not. Try the link, 'cause I don't think they did.
I think conducting electricity is out of the question. Conduction requires electrons or ions or something with charge. As Helium is a noble gas, it reacts with almost nothing and so almost never has a charge.
At these low temperatures, getting an electron to ionize so it can then conduct is impossible, it won't even do it by a random fluke.
If you have trouble thinking of moving holes or vacancies, think of one of those puzzles that is all jumbled and has one square missing. You have to rearrange the puzzle by moving peices into that vacancy, which makes the vacancy move around.
It's more like quantum mechanics takes over at a combination of low temperature AND pressure. It should really read "At very low temperatures and at 1 atmosphere, the behaviour..."
This effect is similar to the changing of the freezing/boiling points of water at different altitudes (and therefore pressures).
I think a lot of the dislike for Matrix can be chalked up to perception. Given the 4 years between original and sequels, and the unmeetable expectations that sequels produce, it's going to have to disappoint a lot of people.
LOTR is more like a three part film, with everyone knowing about the 3rd when the 1st came out. The hardest expectation it had to meet was from fans of the book. (Lucky for Jackson, I don't think many people read anymore.)
It seems to me that the original was the most liked because it had the most scenes inside the matrix where cool things can happen. Reloaded has fewer, and Revolutions even less, leading to their dislike by people who want to see more of said cool things.
Personally, I liked the series as a whole, but the original was, and still is, the best.
Slashdot Mirror
I think this book is a great idea, but I'll never buy it. I currently use PHP to generate HTML, and I'd like to move to XML, so it's the perfect topic for me. But books go out of date fast, and there's too many free resources on the web that are constantly being updated.
So, does anyone know of any good links for learning about the use of PHP with XML? I know I could google for some (and I have), I was just wondering if anyone has something that they would recommend.
Ahhh, Billy. You gotta love that kid. He taught me everything I know.
I can't stand the idea of port blocking by ISPs. Already my ISP (Telus in BC, Canada) blocks port 25 so that I can't use my work's SMTP mail server for sending email and I'm forced to use their smtp server. This causes headaches for me as I have a laptop for home and work that I have to reconfigure each time.
It's criminal that they can charge me for providing an Internet connection, and then limiting it's use like that.
The OS never "needs" upgrading; Apple just provides you with the option. You can install Linux on a Mac and get all the free updates you want for life, but most people don't, because Linux doesn't do what they want it to do. As such, it hardly makes for a valid comparison.
The comparison is valid because it's between a MAC with a fixed OS (because I agree, why do Linux on the Mac), versus an updated OS (Linux) on a cheap PC. The added cost is there with the Mac if you want to stay up to date, which eventually becomes necessary. Things like new hardware (iPod?) and software (too numerous to mention) make these eventually necessary.
You make it sound like Macs aren't Turing-complete or something. Any software that can be developed for a PC can be developed for a Mac, and most likely has (excluding big-name commercial games, but the Mini couldn't play them well anyway). Even an out of date Mac is useful for many things, from aquariums to servers, and (generally) has a much higher resale value than an equivalent PC.
Obviously any software CAN be developed, but the question is WILL it be developed. The list starts with games (not just big ones, but anything online; e.g. I've never seen an online poker program for Mac), but continues with downloading software (KaZaa? anyone), and these are just the ones off the top of my head, I'm sure there's more.
As for out of date Macs being useful, I would only agree with the aquariums, but I don't think it proves your point. I've never heard of anyone using it for a server, whereas the use of old PCs with Linux is almost synonymous with servers in my mind. At my work place we have two 386s, a mail server and a firewall.
News flash: PCs in that size (of which there are very few) don't have more than 2 USB ports either. And many of the better keyboards and monitors (including Apple's) have built-in USB hubs.
My point here is that the usability of this computer is severely hampered without putting more money in for upgrades (and I chose USB as an example). More expensive keyboards, monitors, and adding hubs would be examples of this. One of the selling features would seem to be the low cost of being able to use your current computer components, and not having to upgrade.
Damn, that's harsh. A part broke in your iMac and Apple was gonna charge you ~$1000 to fix it? Sounds like an interesting story. Care to tell it?
You asked for it. I had one of the original iMacs, and I loved it, at first. The lack of upgradeability and software limitations quickly disappointed me. I ended up with a stack of external components (disk drive, CD burner, camera, mp3 player, DVD drive, ...) that I swapped in and out of my 3 USB ports (one on the keyboard, 2 on the computer). Technology changes so quickly that the ability to upgrade is a necessity, even if it seems like the Mac mini comes with everything you'll ever need. These upgrades also came with a cost, as I had to pay to upgrade the operating system twice to be able to use these things.
But, I digress. One day, somewhere in my 3rd year of Mac, the Analog video logic board died. A common problem, it turns out, on the early iMacs. This prevents the computer from booting at all. Fixing it requres a new one ($250), and about an hour of calibrating it by a professional, i.e. not me ($150, for time and small parts). Using the %50 rule of upgrades, that $400 was not worth it, when a near top-of-the-line PC would only run me $800. The new PC is upgradeable, and has been upgraded many times, by me. It runs Windows and an updated-yesterday Linux, and does everything I could ever dream of. The iMac was donated to an art project (they do look cool, I'll give them that).
I don't think that most people's estimation of the lowness of the $499 price takes everything into account either.
PCs are easy to upgrade and fix, but I bet the Mini is hard to upgrade. If anything breaks after the warranty runs out you probably have to throw it out (that's what happened to my iMac), as the repair costs would be close to the price of a new one.
The OS may need upgrading from time to time, and Apple doesn't just give these away, whereas a cheap PC with free Linux gets you free upgrades for life.
Then there's the amazing flexibility of PCs, with so many people developing new software and mods all the time, even an out of date PC is useful for many things (just look at the XBox), or at least has some retail value.
Finally, the $499 mini is only suited to the simplest of situations. You want anything more, then you gotta pay more. The first item I would need is a USB hub, as it seems to only come with 2 USB ports.
You do realize that my comment is satire.
The biggest problem with the US electoral system, is that there are too many voters. This leads to all kinds of statistical problems that otherwise wouldn't be significant. Combine that with a very close result, and you get uncertain results blurred by statistical noise.
I recommend going to a system described in Starship Troopers: only citizens can vote. Citizens being, of course, only those people who had served in the armed forces for a minimum of 2 years.
This solves everything, as the number of voters would drastically be reduced, but that wouldn't matter anyway as all elections would be landslide Republican wins.
Though I agree with almost everything you said, I just thought I could add something to one of your points
This is not the way to store Hydrogen. A few years ago I worked on a research project developing the storage of Hydrogen in the form of metal hydrides. Basically, the hydrogen is absorbed into a metal, converted into a solid form, and stored at much higher densities than it can be compressed to. Later, some heat is added and the hydrogen desorbs in a matter of minutes.
Though this technology is not really mature yet, neither are fuel cells. In the future, a method such as this would allow the storage of large amounts of hydrogen electricity.
Maybe they heard you callling, because the latest MySQL newsletter has just what you're looking for.
connection to power in order to run the money-accepting process
The power required for cooling is MUCH greater than the power required to make change
There's not not much to save there compared to the cost of the special cans
I don't know how much the cans will cost, but the price reduction of mass production can be HUGE. Don't underestimate it.
The cost wouldn't necessarily be higher. Think of the savings in not having to have a chilled machine to sell them.
The can only holds 10.5 ounces of fluid.
For those of us not in the US, Google says
10.5 US fluid ounces = 310.522062 ml
Here in British Columbia, Canada, we are already saddled with even worse regulations. Check out the Employment Standards Exemption for High Tech workers.
Here's an excerpt:
And here's the rules that DON'T apply:
Being abundant has nothing to do with being the fuel of the future.
Despite what the fuel cell lobby would like you to believe, Hydrogen is not an energy source, as there is no ample supply of usable hydrogen fuel. As in this case, the Hydrogen has to be produced, which consumes energy. This is done using the most abundant energy source in the universe [and the atmosphere ;)], the SUN!
Solar is the key.
From the article:
Attests? I think not. Try the link, 'cause I don't think they did.
I think conducting electricity is out of the question. Conduction requires electrons or ions or something with charge. As Helium is a noble gas, it reacts with almost nothing and so almost never has a charge.
At these low temperatures, getting an electron to ionize so it can then conduct is impossible, it won't even do it by a random fluke.
If you have trouble thinking of moving holes or vacancies, think of one of those puzzles that is all jumbled and has one square missing. You have to rearrange the puzzle by moving peices into that vacancy, which makes the vacancy move around.
It's more like quantum mechanics takes over at a combination of low temperature AND pressure. It should really read "At very low temperatures and at 1 atmosphere, the behaviour ..."
This effect is similar to the changing of the freezing/boiling points of water at different altitudes (and therefore pressures).
I think a lot of the dislike for Matrix can be chalked up to perception. Given the 4 years between original and sequels, and the unmeetable expectations that sequels produce, it's going to have to disappoint a lot of people.
LOTR is more like a three part film, with everyone knowing about the 3rd when the 1st came out. The hardest expectation it had to meet was from fans of the book. (Lucky for Jackson, I don't think many people read anymore.)
What do you mean fast? I don't remember any of the zombies from RotLD sprinting!
28 days later definitely takes best horror for me, though the plot kinda reminded me of Oryx and Crake.
It seems to me that the original was the most liked because it had the most scenes inside the matrix where cool things can happen. Reloaded has fewer, and Revolutions even less, leading to their dislike by people who want to see more of said cool things.
Personally, I liked the series as a whole, but the original was, and still is, the best.