Instead of just stating triviality, you could actually back up your claim with a link or two explaining how. Not that I give a crap, since I just use Linux, but obviously there are plenty of people oblivious to this triviality.
About 90% of the world's computers runs Windows. Still a majority of small to mid size servers runs Windows. If you don't like the comments people make regarding to Windows still needs floppy and discuss this in an open forum objectively, please move along to the next link. We don't need someone telling us to switch to Linux (we already know how great they are). We are discussing in a condition where running Windows is a REQUIREMENT at present situation. We will address the convertion to Linux when we can get to it.
Your corporate email CAN be read by someone, one way or the other. Your employer is supposed to keep an archive of all of your electronic communication so the lawyers can search through them if they are in a litigation process.
This has nothing to do with which email system you are running. It just have to be done because your government says so.
The law of physics on semi-conductors dictates that the smaller the devices, the easier it is to develop faults on the circuits over the period of time.
Translation? The modern electronics, will surely fail over the years. It's just like leaving a piece of raw, undried meat out in room temperature (here in Texas, where the average high nowadays is about 80 deg F) and it surely will go bad on you.
If "Earth from Space" doesn't work on her computer, and Linux has sufficient marketshare, she'll complain to the Smithsonian, not to her OS. The Smithsonian would be forced to use actual web standards, not made-up proprietary ones.
You are basically saying that as web designers, program developers, and big business-decision makers wanted to change to Linux, people will follow suit. Aunt Tilly will simply switch to the Linux platform because that's where she will find her new online apps from Smithsonian.
I find your another argument "For instance, let's say a large company suddenly decides to go pure-Linux" interesting. You did not address the "why" they would make such drastic decision. Same goes with Smithsonian and the game maker. They are all classic the chicken or the egg comes first argument. You expect users to abide to developer's change, but you did not address as of why it make sense for developers to make such a change, besides the fact that they think Linux is so damn good that it will immediately make sense for them.
The people that you expect to initate the Linux revolution will do so when it makes business sense, both long term and short term. Unfortuantely for you (not for them, they get their job done either way), the sudden switch, as you have assumed in your arguments, makes lousy business argument in the short term. I agree whole-heartedly that Linux has more room to grow in all the computing segment, but the reality right now is that people uses Windows, and that's where the current application is based on. It is simply very difficult to port all of the specialized software packages to Linux because it doesn't make any sense for them spend extra development effort to convert it to Linux (yes it does cost company dollars to convert programs to Linux). Their user base are 99.9999% on Widnows platform.
Like it or not, MS got a good break that might not happen to Linux for a long time, may be never. It is much more realistic for MS-haters to root for Google to unseat MS's dominance, before even talking about converting the world to Linux.
No, your accounting department needs to do their jobs and audit the card every month. Sheesh.
They are, as always.
Like I have said before, it is a risk management issue. Should I become the owner of a company, I would not like to see someone take a vacatio on my company credit card and just quit their job. You think someone who cares about their credit history would do something like that?
or better yet, DON'T give the employee a corporate credit card. In my case I will be submitting purchase order every frick'n day and won't need to do any real engineering work, let along that at least two other departments need to process my purchase and make the payment (and book it, yadi yadi yaya).
Be very honest with you, I would rather be entrusted for a corporate credit card to make necessary purchases than without one. Rather than complaing that someone has to do their job. Because I have to do my job, and get it done right.
Telecommunciation business needs to be regulated. Sure there are lots of industries that needs to be left along to become more competitive, and the market forces innovatin (however difficult it seems at times). Just look at how Google is rising to the top and how Microsoft is losing it competitive edges even on its own turf. Anyone with a common sense would agree, however that their complete downfall is at least quite a few years away, let along the chance of never).
Telecommunication, however, has been using BOTH its mega sizes to increase operating efficiency and generating more profits per customers. It is using its leverages inside the government to make it easier for them to push people around legally, yet they adhere to very little regulations (business conduct wise) and can get away easily with the agencies they are answering to.
This is the very essense of "necessity of monopoly". Given their size and scales of influence they should be recognized of their size and power, and then regulate them because of their monopoly power.
I would normally leaning against government intervening business. Telecomm industires however has become such that it requires stiff regulations, period, to protect cusumer's interest. Without more accountability in their business, we, the individual consumers, lose.
In my job, credit check is important to protect the company interest.
Let me say this before anyone consider me a troll: I do not wholely support credit check across the board for EVERY employee for EVERY company. However in my case it is somewhat necessary since I do have discresion to make purchase for the company.
There are many, including my company, that employees carries a corporate credit card for travel as well as purchases. In some cases we make purchases that could cost more than the yearly saliry of average Amarican workers. In addition since that credit card is issues with your name and SSN attached to it, you can see that it does have a spot on your credit report.
So (now looking at from the company's point for a sec here), how does the company knows that I will not use the card inappropriately? Do I send in a paperwork to have five different signiture on it before I can make the purchase? That kinda defeat the purposes of getting the credit card to speed up the purchasing process while getting the work done. I think, to a certain extent, using someone's recent credit history (12-24 mo.) makes sense to access someone's risks of inappropriately using corporate resource.
True, everyone likes a little extra privacy. However, if my employer just needs a little assurance that I'm okay (not necessarily means that I have to have "excellent" credit scores) and I will not simply use their corporate credit to buy plane tickets to Hawaii with my wife and two kids, I guess I'm all for it to make my job done faster and easier.
For those that are NOT in a position to make any purchases (e.g. programmer that NEVER need to buy computer parts of software packages), I think it makes a lot less sense to do so. But truely in the world of IT and engineering today, more than likely you are responsible to make some purchases or assist on making a purchasing decisions. This is simply a trend in the job market today.
I do not play WoW. I have been playing AOE3. I simply do not play subscription based game because a) it cost continue investment and b) it takes infinite amount of time.
I'd like to have some fun with friends every once awhile. But how a long term commitment on some game seems a bit much. After all, a game is only a small part of a hobby, not like investing in gear for rock climbing, snowboarding, and other neat hobby.
Ok, I need to understand a few things about your Linux experience. But before I do I want to tell you about a friend of mines "windows" experience. He got his brand new computer with Windows installed on it.
It didn't come with Microsoft Office, and he just assumed that it would have that package. He was a bit taken back by the fact that to do Word, Excel, PowerPoint and Access he would have to shell out another $500-$600.
He connected to the Internet and was off in running after a few hours of work, and suddenly he started to think how much Windows sucked. The problem you ask? Well he started to get all these "Windows" on the screen that prevented him from working. He also noticed that his computer was now crawling along, and much slower than it use to be. He has no clue of pop-ups and spyware. He does now. He went to load a "new" game and found that the his "video driver" from ATI was beyond buggy and crashed so much that he needed to reload Windows with a recovery CD. (The only CD provided by the manufacturer). He then realized that recovery meant "loose all your data on your HD). Now all this guy wanted to do was surf the web, use and office package, email and print.
Humm. Sounds like your friend does not know how to use the computer at all to begin with. How does this compare to an average, but proficient user who's trying Linux for the first time?
The truth is, while Linux is arguably the best platform, with the capacity to morph into different distros to suit the needs, who wants to spend that much of time EVERY TIME to get things to work smoothly. Companies and average Joe wants one uniform way to "understand how computer works", in our terms, know the architectures. If most people already get used to the way Windows organize the controls, then perhaps the OS that intend to draw Windows users need to do a better job to make those user to understand logically how things work under the hood.
Before someone lecture me about how average Joe don't care about the kernals and all that (and he doesn't!), let it be understood that a lot of people who uses Windows know where to find the "Control Panel" and figure out how to "tinker" some settings, or remove the programs, or lunch a "manager" to tweak a settings. More proficient users know to search the registers and find what they need (or find the ini files in the program directory). Linux, on the other hand, is strictly a file directory-based platform that even your disk drives can be mapped differently (where you access/mount the physical location and where you actually read the files are different). While many distro includes GUI, some tools don't work very well. The only reliable way of actually making a change is not to start a command prompt and issue a command. You need to open up a text config file and state everything! This might seems trivial to most day-to-day Linux and other main-frame users, but this is not the skill that everyone has right now.
Windows did a nice job separate different tasks under different interfaces: wizard, GUI management interfaces, the mmi interface, ini files, and registers. People know where to look (within what they know). There are less learning curves than Linux to get everything working other than the default options. Most Windows users, except those who are computer illeterrate (or just touch computer first time in their life and they are 40 or older) knows a thing or two about their computer and how to install, run, and uninstall a piece of application. Same cannot be said about Linux. Knowing how to compile is almost required.
I think Linux has a place in the future, but for right now, most people will probably try it and backed away from it. It takes far too much time to just to get things under the hood to work correctly, let along to master it and teach others how to use them. You mention that perhaps Linux may not be a fit for the previous poster. You are correct. Linux may not fit most users. Most users can handle some issues and care to spend a
Innocent until proven guilty is one of staples of US justice system.
That only applys to Criminal Court. In fact, in Civil Court it only takes reasonal suspision to be liable and thus lose the case. Take OJ simpson's case for example. He was found not guilty in criminal court while found guilty in civil court and have to pay to his wife's family.
What's the point of being able to control a cold water valve actuator through the internet? Wiring everything into their internet servers just creates a lot more problems when something goes down.
A cold water valve actuator works very differently from your faucet in your ketchen, both in the mechanics and scale of flows.
Let me begin by pointing out the facts that most, if not all of the new industrial controls are trying to get on the IP based networking already. It is far cheaper to convert all different wiring and protocols (RS-232, RS-485, serial communication in general and Common and proprietery protocols like Modbus, ControlNet, etc.) and have them run over the TCP/IP network than having dedicated networks on all of those devices across a plant, or in this case, across the campus (and possibly multiple "plants."
TCP/IP network is scaleble, and second, it can be secured (with proper isolation and expertise). It is also transparent, i.e. multiple typs of physical wiring/connection scheme can be used. Other industrial protocols (yes, there IS a protocol involved in that actuator valve you mentioned, and so does other devices) often are either proprietary or are "narrow-band" type protocol designed to run across a serial cable.
Running multiple networks on dedicated medium requires more wiring than single TCP/IP network. It also makes it difficult to do upgrade/equipment change-out in the future. When changing out industrial equipments down the road (we're talking about like 10 years later), technology changes, making it unreasonable to put up a wiring that will need to be changed.
In addition, there are usually limitations on the physical length of the wiring on the medium. Most protocols not based of TCP/IP model tends to be limited on the length on its own, requiring a repeater if it needs to travel longer distance (we're only talking about more than 250 ft). TCP/IP network, on the oter hand, has switches and routers in place, they act as the repeaters when needed. TCP/IP can also be run on fiber, expanding the distance a lot farther than traditional copper wires. Across the campus control with direct serial cable might work (RS-485, for those who are famaliar with them), but management cost is a lot higher today using pure serial wiring network than new "virtual" network resides on TCP/IP infrastructure. Signals can be re-routed without signigicant physical re-wiring as well.
Let's also talk a bit about the "why" we need to have the on that actuator valve connected to the network. Modern campus-wide (or plant wide) controls are monitored and done by a centralized control room. They monitor and issue commands to run the equipments to maximize the use of equipments while minize the cost of operation (wages = expansive cost). Actual machine controls(flow control, automatic safety switches) are done by PLC or other embedded devices on site. They are your field operators today! The commands are issues by the central Control Room to those controllers, and they in term control individual devices (pumps, valves, power breakers, you name it). If my descriptions does not convince you how complicated it can be, it is. To have dedicated control networks on those devices, which are not necessarily on the same protocols, especially not at one location, only add cost to the control system. It is better to "out-source" the transmission medium to a more transparant network platform and let the networking people to ensure its constant uptime.
I'm sure I do not have to mention the use of VOIP, audio/video, survalience (security) on the TCP/IP network. We already beat the subject to death.
Theere are inherit limitations on how fast a transistor can be turned on and off, based on its size. There is a thearetical low limit on how small a transistor can be made, since the space between the two silicon is always going to be the same.
So in theory, there is a ceiling on how fast the clock cycle can run. Today we can see us pushing the clock cycle to that ceiling sometime in the future. It is far better to figure out how to use each clock cycle more efficiently, or letting the processor do more in one clock cycle.
Petium 4 is the prime example of pushing up the clock-cycle technology. Today we see Intel trying to copy AMD's approach and make the processor do more at the same speed (dual-core, change architecture, you name it).
IBM may be showing off how to make the processor runs faster, but the reality is that it is more important to develop chips in the new scale of overall performance and efficiency instead of faster clock-cycle is better mentality.
My Mitsubishi HDTV has a set of FireWire jacks on it. It's only plugged in to an old Mac which records and plays back HDTV, but FireWire 400 has plenty of bandwidth to handle HD video and DD5.1 audio. One cable; one small cable. Of course, the digital audio comes back out of the TV and into the preamp over a single coax cable. Sadly, there's pretty much nothing out there with FireWire on it. I had a Motorola cable set top box that had it; same deal, one cable and away you go.
You brought an interesting point. I was stuck with previous poster's comment and totally forget about the Firewire technology and how well they handle instant bandwidth.
I don't know, though how you would daisy-chain them together and still keep the bandwidth in check. Say, starting from your DVD player, fire-wire into a switch, then go from there to the HDTV and speakers while not having to send two sets of the audio signals.
Since I never used one, I don't know how your Motorola cable box works. I'm interested to find out however, how it can handled multiple incoming signals and deliver them to the right place (instead of being a hub, be a try-and-true fire-wire switch). While Firefire really shines in daisy-chained configuration (deliverying data point-to-point only), how well does it fare in the network of centralized structure mix with the daisy-chained output path. When it doesn't have to do much processing it might be fast, but how about when you actually do have to do some basic processing with the data?
Letting governments like China to monitor their people's blog much easier. I'm sure they would buy it in an instant to get rid of dissent opionion faster.
Humm. There are the RJ-45 adaptor solutions of KVM switch, RS-232, and even USB modules. The only thing is that the quality is not going to be perfect, only usable. Most of the solutions are either industrial or Server/Mainframe solutions where dependability is high on priority, not necessary your bandwidth or latency issue.
So say, for example, even if you have a powers socket on a RJ-45/speaker adaptor to drive your speaker, it is still difficult to put put enough resolutions to the signals across even a CAT6 cable to deliver the quality signals you would like to listen to from your speakers. Cat5e won't even make the cut. Previous poster has already mention why.
In addition, Once you have many Cat6 cable, you are back to your original problem: Too many cables to clutter up your cabinet space, only this time you won't even know which cable is for. The only better solutions is to have a "common" bus system, but again there is not a solution exist today that has enough bandwidth to accomodate all kinds of signals and protocols
I agree. I don't think I have EVER checked out a book from the UGL (the library the article is focusing on) talking about, except a few times at the librarian's counter for a required reading materials (copied and bound) for one class. The only places that have useful books are either in the PLC, the main library, and departmental library.
As a side note, there are two other libraries in the adjecent buildings. The Life-Science Libraries are in the Main Building east of the UGL. The Archetecture Library is in the building south of the UGL. There are many other libraries. To lament on the passing of a building's purpose seems a bit dramatic when the UT library system re-organize themselves to better serve students.
eh, passing the cost to the customer? No No No my friend. They raise the price to MAKE MORE MONEY! This lawsuits ensure that then CAN raise the price of their products (like the new FX) and make more money. Obviously they have consider the litigation cost into the "operating cost" of profiting more from the new CPU with fatter margin.
In general the testing process of any industrial automated system requires it to demonstrate a "fail-safe" path. I.e, when the code or computer crash or behave abnormally it will either switch to a backup device or initiate the stop-sequence, and in this case, stop the car slowly so the driver will have enough time to steer the car to the side of the road.
Perhaps one way to ensure a more robust automation design a certification process should be formalized for more advanced vehicles. The process will not only make sure that the fail-safe path works, but also ensure the car manufactures did indeed test out all possible cause of failer and abnormal operation (under most circumstances, expect like someone pro intentionally rig their car to kill themselves).
Or get any other PLCs, and a few control valves, you can do the exact same thing.
It will cost a little bit more, but look on the bright side, you got a certified machine that you can use legitimately in business, less time in maintaince, and most important, it actually will last awhile.
You know, as cool as some of our senior project looks, sometimes it can really be done fairly quickly (I mean take half a weeks time). This got to be one of the top ten things that our professor don't tell use in school!
I think this is a very cool project, but somehow I don't think it'll be out there very long. I'm sure the credit card companies, or some other large corporation will be doing the DMCA smackdown dance soon enough, claiming this software could only be used for criminal purposes and serves no academic purpose.
Back in school, one of the class I took actually did a readout of the mag-strip cards as a part of one project. Although we did not go as deep as this guy did, certainly someone could have done more to the program to translate all this data into some tangible information. I seriously doubt that this part of lesson could be certified if it violates any kind of regulations.
So was essentially every government-sponsored space program since space programs begin. You'll have to do a lot better than that to show ill-intent.
Humm. I guess when a government is consistently considered to be abusing human rights, there are not a whole lot of "peaceful" research is there?
The fact that they spend 1/40th the American military budget...
Just where did you get your number? They don't have an open budget where you can see. In fact, even though China is gearing toward market economy, there are a lot of economic indicator are inaccurate either b/c of government control or simply due to inaccurate data. Perhaps it is too much for some people to believe there are offiicals bloating the actual results or simply hiding the real data from the real world, but the fact is they do. And many Chinese Nationals knows this. Again. People can "dissapear" if they even mention the possibility of this in China. At least right now.
that the vast majority of Long March rockets have launched non-military satellites, or the fact that their main space push has been to launch astronauts?
Chinese government is not going to blindly spending all the money they have to create an arm race. At least they are smart enough to figure that out. Launching Long March rockets improves they rocket science while makes a few bucks. Sending human in space is in itself a preparation for further space advancements. You cannot determine whether it is of peaceful purpose when you send a human in space, let along a non-retiring air force pilot.
I think you do not know enough about China to make an intelligent argument on it. I say this becase there is not really a better way to state your innocience on the foeign politics and culture. To think you can use the same matrix to masure US govenment's intent on another country is completely wrong. And I am seeing lots of native American doing it while claiming how open-minded they are.
so I have to waste my mod point to say this: As a Naturalized American citizen of Chinese, I will tell you that China will unavoidably do military research, at least, in space.
If you don't believe me, just follow the money trail yourself. China's space program is military sponsored and controlled. There are so NASA type civilian space agency. All information regarding to the space program are tightly controlled and are consider a state secret.
While I am proud of the Chinese achievement in space, I think I owe Amarican and others a fair warning that China will have every intention, and if unchecked, eventually suceed in putting powerful weapons in space(I can't same the same on the WMDs, although China does have a few nukes).
It is only fair game for US government to consider space dominance by another country a possible threat scanario. Afterall, now all country are completely friendly with US. DOD's job is to protect the country. They cannot afford to play politically innocent.
Slashdot Mirror
Instead of just stating triviality, you could actually back up your claim with a link or two explaining how. Not that I give a crap, since I just use Linux, but obviously there are plenty of people oblivious to this triviality.
About 90% of the world's computers runs Windows. Still a majority of small to mid size servers runs Windows. If you don't like the comments people make regarding to Windows still needs floppy and discuss this in an open forum objectively, please move along to the next link. We don't need someone telling us to switch to Linux (we already know how great they are). We are discussing in a condition where running Windows is a REQUIREMENT at present situation. We will address the convertion to Linux when we can get to it.
This has nothing to do with which email system you are running. It just have to be done because your government says so.
Translation? The modern electronics, will surely fail over the years. It's just like leaving a piece of raw, undried meat out in room temperature (here in Texas, where the average high nowadays is about 80 deg F) and it surely will go bad on you.
If "Earth from Space" doesn't work on her computer, and Linux has sufficient marketshare, she'll complain to the Smithsonian, not to her OS. The Smithsonian would be forced to use actual web standards, not made-up proprietary ones.
You are basically saying that as web designers, program developers, and big business-decision makers wanted to change to Linux, people will follow suit. Aunt Tilly will simply switch to the Linux platform because that's where she will find her new online apps from Smithsonian.
I find your another argument "For instance, let's say a large company suddenly decides to go pure-Linux" interesting. You did not address the "why" they would make such drastic decision. Same goes with Smithsonian and the game maker. They are all classic the chicken or the egg comes first argument. You expect users to abide to developer's change, but you did not address as of why it make sense for developers to make such a change, besides the fact that they think Linux is so damn good that it will immediately make sense for them.
The people that you expect to initate the Linux revolution will do so when it makes business sense, both long term and short term. Unfortuantely for you (not for them, they get their job done either way), the sudden switch, as you have assumed in your arguments, makes lousy business argument in the short term. I agree whole-heartedly that Linux has more room to grow in all the computing segment, but the reality right now is that people uses Windows, and that's where the current application is based on. It is simply very difficult to port all of the specialized software packages to Linux because it doesn't make any sense for them spend extra development effort to convert it to Linux (yes it does cost company dollars to convert programs to Linux). Their user base are 99.9999% on Widnows platform.
Like it or not, MS got a good break that might not happen to Linux for a long time, may be never. It is much more realistic for MS-haters to root for Google to unseat MS's dominance, before even talking about converting the world to Linux.
They are, as always.
Like I have said before, it is a risk management issue. Should I become the owner of a company, I would not like to see someone take a vacatio on my company credit card and just quit their job. You think someone who cares about their credit history would do something like that?
or better yet, DON'T give the employee a corporate credit card. In my case I will be submitting purchase order every frick'n day and won't need to do any real engineering work, let along that at least two other departments need to process my purchase and make the payment (and book it, yadi yadi yaya).
Be very honest with you, I would rather be entrusted for a corporate credit card to make necessary purchases than without one. Rather than complaing that someone has to do their job. Because I have to do my job, and get it done right.
Telecommunication, however, has been using BOTH its mega sizes to increase operating efficiency and generating more profits per customers. It is using its leverages inside the government to make it easier for them to push people around legally, yet they adhere to very little regulations (business conduct wise) and can get away easily with the agencies they are answering to.
This is the very essense of "necessity of monopoly". Given their size and scales of influence they should be recognized of their size and power, and then regulate them because of their monopoly power.
I would normally leaning against government intervening business. Telecomm industires however has become such that it requires stiff regulations, period, to protect cusumer's interest. Without more accountability in their business, we, the individual consumers, lose.
Let me say this before anyone consider me a troll: I do not wholely support credit check across the board for EVERY employee for EVERY company. However in my case it is somewhat necessary since I do have discresion to make purchase for the company.
There are many, including my company, that employees carries a corporate credit card for travel as well as purchases. In some cases we make purchases that could cost more than the yearly saliry of average Amarican workers. In addition since that credit card is issues with your name and SSN attached to it, you can see that it does have a spot on your credit report.
So (now looking at from the company's point for a sec here), how does the company knows that I will not use the card inappropriately? Do I send in a paperwork to have five different signiture on it before I can make the purchase? That kinda defeat the purposes of getting the credit card to speed up the purchasing process while getting the work done. I think, to a certain extent, using someone's recent credit history (12-24 mo.) makes sense to access someone's risks of inappropriately using corporate resource.
True, everyone likes a little extra privacy. However, if my employer just needs a little assurance that I'm okay (not necessarily means that I have to have "excellent" credit scores) and I will not simply use their corporate credit to buy plane tickets to Hawaii with my wife and two kids, I guess I'm all for it to make my job done faster and easier.
For those that are NOT in a position to make any purchases (e.g. programmer that NEVER need to buy computer parts of software packages), I think it makes a lot less sense to do so. But truely in the world of IT and engineering today, more than likely you are responsible to make some purchases or assist on making a purchasing decisions. This is simply a trend in the job market today.
I'd like to have some fun with friends every once awhile. But how a long term commitment on some game seems a bit much. After all, a game is only a small part of a hobby, not like investing in gear for rock climbing, snowboarding, and other neat hobby.
It didn't come with Microsoft Office, and he just assumed that it would have that package. He was a bit taken back by the fact that to do Word, Excel, PowerPoint and Access he would have to shell out another $500-$600. He connected to the Internet and was off in running after a few hours of work, and suddenly he started to think how much Windows sucked. The problem you ask? Well he started to get all these "Windows" on the screen that prevented him from working. He also noticed that his computer was now crawling along, and much slower than it use to be. He has no clue of pop-ups and spyware. He does now. He went to load a "new" game and found that the his "video driver" from ATI was beyond buggy and crashed so much that he needed to reload Windows with a recovery CD. (The only CD provided by the manufacturer). He then realized that recovery meant "loose all your data on your HD). Now all this guy wanted to do was surf the web, use and office package, email and print.
Humm. Sounds like your friend does not know how to use the computer at all to begin with. How does this compare to an average, but proficient user who's trying Linux for the first time?
The truth is, while Linux is arguably the best platform, with the capacity to morph into different distros to suit the needs, who wants to spend that much of time EVERY TIME to get things to work smoothly. Companies and average Joe wants one uniform way to "understand how computer works", in our terms, know the architectures. If most people already get used to the way Windows organize the controls, then perhaps the OS that intend to draw Windows users need to do a better job to make those user to understand logically how things work under the hood.
Before someone lecture me about how average Joe don't care about the kernals and all that (and he doesn't!), let it be understood that a lot of people who uses Windows know where to find the "Control Panel" and figure out how to "tinker" some settings, or remove the programs, or lunch a "manager" to tweak a settings. More proficient users know to search the registers and find what they need (or find the ini files in the program directory). Linux, on the other hand, is strictly a file directory-based platform that even your disk drives can be mapped differently (where you access/mount the physical location and where you actually read the files are different). While many distro includes GUI, some tools don't work very well. The only reliable way of actually making a change is not to start a command prompt and issue a command. You need to open up a text config file and state everything! This might seems trivial to most day-to-day Linux and other main-frame users, but this is not the skill that everyone has right now.
Windows did a nice job separate different tasks under different interfaces: wizard, GUI management interfaces, the mmi interface, ini files, and registers. People know where to look (within what they know). There are less learning curves than Linux to get everything working other than the default options. Most Windows users, except those who are computer illeterrate (or just touch computer first time in their life and they are 40 or older) knows a thing or two about their computer and how to install, run, and uninstall a piece of application. Same cannot be said about Linux. Knowing how to compile is almost required.
I think Linux has a place in the future, but for right now, most people will probably try it and backed away from it. It takes far too much time to just to get things under the hood to work correctly, let along to master it and teach others how to use them. You mention that perhaps Linux may not be a fit for the previous poster. You are correct. Linux may not fit most users. Most users can handle some issues and care to spend a
That only applys to Criminal Court. In fact, in Civil Court it only takes reasonal suspision to be liable and thus lose the case. Take OJ simpson's case for example. He was found not guilty in criminal court while found guilty in civil court and have to pay to his wife's family.
A cold water valve actuator works very differently from your faucet in your ketchen, both in the mechanics and scale of flows.
Let me begin by pointing out the facts that most, if not all of the new industrial controls are trying to get on the IP based networking already. It is far cheaper to convert all different wiring and protocols (RS-232, RS-485, serial communication in general and Common and proprietery protocols like Modbus, ControlNet, etc.) and have them run over the TCP/IP network than having dedicated networks on all of those devices across a plant, or in this case, across the campus (and possibly multiple "plants."
TCP/IP network is scaleble, and second, it can be secured (with proper isolation and expertise). It is also transparent, i.e. multiple typs of physical wiring/connection scheme can be used. Other industrial protocols (yes, there IS a protocol involved in that actuator valve you mentioned, and so does other devices) often are either proprietary or are "narrow-band" type protocol designed to run across a serial cable. Running multiple networks on dedicated medium requires more wiring than single TCP/IP network. It also makes it difficult to do upgrade/equipment change-out in the future. When changing out industrial equipments down the road (we're talking about like 10 years later), technology changes, making it unreasonable to put up a wiring that will need to be changed.
In addition, there are usually limitations on the physical length of the wiring on the medium. Most protocols not based of TCP/IP model tends to be limited on the length on its own, requiring a repeater if it needs to travel longer distance (we're only talking about more than 250 ft). TCP/IP network, on the oter hand, has switches and routers in place, they act as the repeaters when needed. TCP/IP can also be run on fiber, expanding the distance a lot farther than traditional copper wires. Across the campus control with direct serial cable might work (RS-485, for those who are famaliar with them), but management cost is a lot higher today using pure serial wiring network than new "virtual" network resides on TCP/IP infrastructure. Signals can be re-routed without signigicant physical re-wiring as well.
Let's also talk a bit about the "why" we need to have the on that actuator valve connected to the network. Modern campus-wide (or plant wide) controls are monitored and done by a centralized control room. They monitor and issue commands to run the equipments to maximize the use of equipments while minize the cost of operation (wages = expansive cost). Actual machine controls(flow control, automatic safety switches) are done by PLC or other embedded devices on site. They are your field operators today! The commands are issues by the central Control Room to those controllers, and they in term control individual devices (pumps, valves, power breakers, you name it). If my descriptions does not convince you how complicated it can be, it is. To have dedicated control networks on those devices, which are not necessarily on the same protocols, especially not at one location, only add cost to the control system. It is better to "out-source" the transmission medium to a more transparant network platform and let the networking people to ensure its constant uptime.
I'm sure I do not have to mention the use of VOIP, audio/video, survalience (security) on the TCP/IP network. We already beat the subject to death.
So in theory, there is a ceiling on how fast the clock cycle can run. Today we can see us pushing the clock cycle to that ceiling sometime in the future. It is far better to figure out how to use each clock cycle more efficiently, or letting the processor do more in one clock cycle.
Petium 4 is the prime example of pushing up the clock-cycle technology. Today we see Intel trying to copy AMD's approach and make the processor do more at the same speed (dual-core, change architecture, you name it).
IBM may be showing off how to make the processor runs faster, but the reality is that it is more important to develop chips in the new scale of overall performance and efficiency instead of faster clock-cycle is better mentality.
Dude. This is /. Keep the flamebite politics out of the forum and concentrate on the subject of MS licensing strategy, shall we?
You brought an interesting point. I was stuck with previous poster's comment and totally forget about the Firewire technology and how well they handle instant bandwidth.
I don't know, though how you would daisy-chain them together and still keep the bandwidth in check. Say, starting from your DVD player, fire-wire into a switch, then go from there to the HDTV and speakers while not having to send two sets of the audio signals.
Since I never used one, I don't know how your Motorola cable box works. I'm interested to find out however, how it can handled multiple incoming signals and deliver them to the right place (instead of being a hub, be a try-and-true fire-wire switch). While Firefire really shines in daisy-chained configuration (deliverying data point-to-point only), how well does it fare in the network of centralized structure mix with the daisy-chained output path. When it doesn't have to do much processing it might be fast, but how about when you actually do have to do some basic processing with the data?
Don't be fooled by their sales pitch.
So say, for example, even if you have a powers socket on a RJ-45/speaker adaptor to drive your speaker, it is still difficult to put put enough resolutions to the signals across even a CAT6 cable to deliver the quality signals you would like to listen to from your speakers. Cat5e won't even make the cut. Previous poster has already mention why.
In addition, Once you have many Cat6 cable, you are back to your original problem: Too many cables to clutter up your cabinet space, only this time you won't even know which cable is for. The only better solutions is to have a "common" bus system, but again there is not a solution exist today that has enough bandwidth to accomodate all kinds of signals and protocols
I agree. I don't think I have EVER checked out a book from the UGL (the library the article is focusing on) talking about, except a few times at the librarian's counter for a required reading materials (copied and bound) for one class. The only places that have useful books are either in the PLC, the main library, and departmental library. As a side note, there are two other libraries in the adjecent buildings. The Life-Science Libraries are in the Main Building east of the UGL. The Archetecture Library is in the building south of the UGL. There are many other libraries. To lament on the passing of a building's purpose seems a bit dramatic when the UT library system re-organize themselves to better serve students.
eh, passing the cost to the customer? No No No my friend. They raise the price to MAKE MORE MONEY! This lawsuits ensure that then CAN raise the price of their products (like the new FX) and make more money. Obviously they have consider the litigation cost into the "operating cost" of profiting more from the new CPU with fatter margin.
Perhaps one way to ensure a more robust automation design a certification process should be formalized for more advanced vehicles. The process will not only make sure that the fail-safe path works, but also ensure the car manufactures did indeed test out all possible cause of failer and abnormal operation (under most circumstances, expect like someone pro intentionally rig their car to kill themselves).
It will cost a little bit more, but look on the bright side, you got a certified machine that you can use legitimately in business, less time in maintaince, and most important, it actually will last awhile.
You know, as cool as some of our senior project looks, sometimes it can really be done fairly quickly (I mean take half a weeks time). This got to be one of the top ten things that our professor don't tell use in school!
I'm off the soap box, you can mod me down now.
Too late. He already posted it on /.
Back in school, one of the class I took actually did a readout of the mag-strip cards as a part of one project. Although we did not go as deep as this guy did, certainly someone could have done more to the program to translate all this data into some tangible information. I seriously doubt that this part of lesson could be certified if it violates any kind of regulations.
Isn't Sprint kind of "owned" the Earthlink?
Humm. I guess when a government is consistently considered to be abusing human rights, there are not a whole lot of "peaceful" research is there?
The fact that they spend 1/40th the American military budget...
Just where did you get your number? They don't have an open budget where you can see. In fact, even though China is gearing toward market economy, there are a lot of economic indicator are inaccurate either b/c of government control or simply due to inaccurate data. Perhaps it is too much for some people to believe there are offiicals bloating the actual results or simply hiding the real data from the real world, but the fact is they do. And many Chinese Nationals knows this. Again. People can "dissapear" if they even mention the possibility of this in China. At least right now.
that the vast majority of Long March rockets have launched non-military satellites, or the fact that their main space push has been to launch astronauts?
Chinese government is not going to blindly spending all the money they have to create an arm race. At least they are smart enough to figure that out. Launching Long March rockets improves they rocket science while makes a few bucks. Sending human in space is in itself a preparation for further space advancements. You cannot determine whether it is of peaceful purpose when you send a human in space, let along a non-retiring air force pilot.
I think you do not know enough about China to make an intelligent argument on it. I say this becase there is not really a better way to state your innocience on the foeign politics and culture. To think you can use the same matrix to masure US govenment's intent on another country is completely wrong. And I am seeing lots of native American doing it while claiming how open-minded they are.
If you don't believe me, just follow the money trail yourself. China's space program is military sponsored and controlled. There are so NASA type civilian space agency. All information regarding to the space program are tightly controlled and are consider a state secret.
While I am proud of the Chinese achievement in space, I think I owe Amarican and others a fair warning that China will have every intention, and if unchecked, eventually suceed in putting powerful weapons in space(I can't same the same on the WMDs, although China does have a few nukes).
It is only fair game for US government to consider space dominance by another country a possible threat scanario. Afterall, now all country are completely friendly with US. DOD's job is to protect the country. They cannot afford to play politically innocent.