Agreed; clearly, both environments are going in the wrong direction. IOS needs to become more OS X-like, and OS X needs further development in its natural direction, which is exactly opposite that of where IOS is today.
Someone at Apple has gotten the wrong idea from the fact that IOS, with its many limits, was good enough for a tablet; they've extrapolated that to think it means that limits are a good thing. They aren't. The best tablet will be the most powerful and flexible tablet, and that won't be one with all the limits we presently see. It'll be one that can legitimately replace the desktop for just about anything you can imagine.
Apple is clearly dominating the tablet space right now, but as soon as real operating systems with serious applications hit tablets (which I think is still a little way away due to hardware limitations), Apple's going to be left behind in a flash unless they release OS X for their tablets. I'm a huge iPad user, and I run into its limits each and every day. I look forward to a more powerful alternative, something like OS X on a tablet would be "just the thing."
Then you clearly don't understand Apple as well as you think you do. Tablets, etc. can be limited, but customers are used to tweaking their desktops or laptops. Apple knows this.
No, I think it is you who doesn't understand Apple. Customers were used to using drivers for scanners and etc, Apple took that away (effectively taking away the supported hardware) in Snow Leopard by breaking tons of them -- and never going back to fix them. Customers were used to being able to run the PPC apps they had spent many dollars on... Apple took that away in Lion. Customers have been used to apps (oh, I dunno, like Photoshop?) that were part of a system of apps that worked with their data, and Apple's taking that away within the bounds of the app store... and you think it's unlikely that this policy will spread outside the store? Buddy, Apple does what it wants -- they are *famous* for doing "teh stupidz" -- folders that don't nest under IOS, "wifi sync" that doesn't work under Leopard, a 4-year old native OS, while it does under XP, a ten year old non-native OS, they break the living hell out of IOS apps with just about every "upgrade", forcing developers to put up Yet Another Version of their app to correct for the incompatibilities...
When your reasoning depends upon Apple doing things because customers have expectations, your reasoning is no better than a random guess. Apple makes roadmaps, has "visions", and then aims at them. Up until Leopard and IOS4, they were doing pretty well at hitting the target, though of course everyone wanted more. 10.6 and later, IOS5... these are huge bags of fail from several perspectives, most especially from the one you're using to make your assertion: Apple doesn't aim at keeping customers expectations static.
No. You don't have to trash your Mac. OS X 10.5.8, Leopard, has the following useful characteristics:
1) it allows 64-bit data, so apps written for it can process massive data sets when used with 64-bit capable processors;
2) it comes on optical media, and is both easily installed and duplicated;
3) it is beginning to receive support from the user community (as opposed to Apple) for the bugs Apple left in it; (console messages in error with cron operations, anyone? -- not anymore)
4) it supports a wider range of available drivers than either Snow Leopard or Lion (or presumably, any of their successors);
5) it supports PPC emulation, consequently doesn't obsolete all those years of software, as does Lion;
6) Apple updates for Leopard that don't implement the problems of Snow Leopard and Lion are available as files;
7) Most responsible developers still support Leopard (it's still used by ~30% of the installed base)
8) The more people use Leopard, the healthier the OS X software community will be
9) No sandboxing -- straight up access according to user permissions. Terrific resistance to non-privileged exploits; the usual vulnerabilities if you're gullible enough to install malware and give it access.
10) Available for PPC, so entire spectrum of Macs for many years are usable and available as a market. If it ain't broke... don't stop supporting it.
Speaking as a developer, my company is aiming straight at, and developing under, Leopard; though we do test under Snow Leopard and Lion. It's a shame to have to give up some of the API's we could otherwise use (no one here is interested in implementing features that only work under later OS versions), but clearly it's the right thing to do: unlike Apple, we're not inclined to leave users behind, which is the philosophy that clearly underlies 10.6 and later.
Leopard is kind of like Apple's version of XP, except without the built-in obsolescence of "activation." It'll work natively for many, many years yet and with the advent of VMs, probably decades after that. It is easily "Hackintoshable." And in the meantime, if enough people drag their feet, maybe even Apple can be made to "get the message" that it isn't OS X that needs to move in the direction of IOS... it's IOS that needs to move in the direction of OS X. You know, things like nested folders, apps that can work filesystem-wide, etc.
A "business leader" has their kids in school, under care, etc. They're hardly ever active parents, because they don't have that kind of time, they delegate those responsibilities -- both because they can afford to, and because it makes them better -- a lot better -- at their job. They also tend to arrive as leaders; they're not in "build a company" mode or anything like it.
I built five companies, four of them successes. I'd *never* have pulled it off if I was burdened with kids in the traditional sense. And no, I'd never hire a parent in a role where I needed serious time commitments -- that is, more than 40 hours with constant time off for their kid's sniffles, parent-teacher meetings, ball games, and the rest of the interminable list of tasks and responsibilities any good parent will decide will come first. I have seen this over and over: parents are highly undependable employees -- and they should be, unless they can delegate that attention. But an undependable employee is really, really bad news for a startup -- engineer, secretary, janitor -- you need to be there, pushing the wheel as hard as everyone else, period.
It is politically correct to pretend that these things -- parenting in particular -- should not matter. But in fact, they do. Consequently, they are taken into account at investing, at hiring, at tasking, at promotion, and WRT transfer. Quietly and unaccountably, but with enormous weight.
You tell me you have (a) kid(s) or you or your spouse is pregnant and you're seriously expecting me to believe you're going to put in the energy needed to launch a startup? Sorry, even people who *don't* have that baggage often don't manage to put out enough energy. I'd have to be out of my mind to put money behind such a bad bet.
This. It's not the color that stops people; it's a lack of skills, showing up at the interview with your hat on sideways or backwards, tattoos halfway up your face, your pants hanging down around your ass, and an "urban" accent so thick it could only be cut with a military class laser, complete with regular smatterings of obscenities. White or black or brown, you bring any combination of that shite into an interview and you're going out with the same employment prospects you came in with: none.
When you decide to embrace a subculture that is at odds in many ways at once with the culture you are soliciting a job from, your fail level is magnificent.
Want a job as a serious tech person? Dress normally, have the tats removed (put 'em back when you're successful if you must have em), and speak middle American English (presuming you're seeking a job in the USA.) No gang signs, no BUMPING music in the parking lot, no drug use anywhere NEAR work or in any way that could possibly, even a little bit, foul up your work, and if you must wear a hat, make sure it's either raining or the light level is sufficient to make you squint. The hat's brim goes over your eyes. That's what it's for. No need to thank me.
Determining what the law should mean is an inherently ideological question
No. It's a constitutional question. They take an oath that effect. The problem is that the entire collection of SCOTUS judges we have at present are batshit insane and neither understand the constitution, or take the oath they gave with any degree of seriousness.
Furthermore, GPS is the direct technological equivalent of going straight to the objective of a search: "Where is this person's vehicle?" "...it's right there!"
That makes the active technology -- that is, a running GPS feeding vehicle location info to the authorities -- exactly the same as a constantly updated, successful search for a citizen's effect -- a vehicle -- and often, their person as well.
Therefore, said GPS based search requires a warrant; a warrant requires probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and a specific description of the place to be searched, and the things to be seized.
ultimately the legislative branch has the authority to override regulations, rulings, and even the constitution itself.
...and here we have the ultimate expression of free speech. You can say anything you want, even when it is simultaneously wrongheaded, stupid, misleading, and flat-out incorrect -- all at once.
I congratulate you, sir, on completely failing to understand how your government works, and further, for attempting to spread that failure far and wide.
I was just handwaving; I've seen cooling strategies (in macro) that range from fan driven air to full-immersion oil baths to pumped, pressurized materials that run through heat sinks. At micro, I really don't know what the solution is (otherwise I'd be at the patent office), I'm just surmising that as it is a physical engineering problem that directly stands in the way of technology (and huge amounts of earning potential), someone is quite likely to solve it.
It also seems very unlikely to me that we've reached a dead end on creating 3D integration. A temporary pause while we work the problem is considerably easier to accept. Perhaps digging holes can be replaced with growing them, stress-free. Or something else we've not even thought of yet. Perhaps silicon isn't the material we'll end up using. Perhaps it'll all be optical and we're not even in the ballpark yet. All I know for sure is that so far, betting on leaps in technology has been an excellent bet since the very first transistor arose out of Gordon Teal's lab work. Heck, it was even true of vacuum tubes.
FWIW (anecdote is not data), my experience, based on 5 decades in the music biz, has been exactly the opposite. I have two Behringer mixers, a 32-channel and a 12-channel. The 32-channel serves me as a mixdown layer in conjunction with my 32-channel Mackie mixer and our digital recorder, which means 5-days-a-week duty; the 12-channel is in use every day with my computer system. Both have served me for years with no problems at all. I have a Behringer guitar amp, also works great, though I've not put all that many hours on it as yet as I have, and habitually use, a Fender twin. I have several other items such as multiple units of their DCX2496 electronic crossover, all are built well. The control surface itself has very nice knobs, a good feel, LED ring feedback for settings, and all connectors and I/O seem to be relatively heavy duty (not that they'd really need to be in the application we're talking about here.)
In my experience, people talk down about Behringer pretty much as they do about brands like Ibanez; it's not Fender or Gibson, so it's sneer material; yet when the rubber hits the road, turns out it's nothing less than great gear, it just isn't so blatantly boutique-priced.
Sorry you've had problems; don't think that's likely to actually be representative, though, and I'm comfortable advising in the opposite direction: the Behringer control surface will do just fine for the kind of work the submitter was talking about.
I'm developing features for software defined radio. Higher end radios, for those of you who don't know, tend to have a lot of controls. Bandwidths, IF shift, notch filter(s) with frequency and Q settings, AGC decay, intercept and knee, frequency, band, memories, panadaptor controls, waterfall controls, demodulator type, demodulator settings... it really goes on for quite a while.
Initially, I mapped a whole bunch of functions to keys, but eventually ran out of keys. Sure, there are on-screen controls, but they're not as nice as physical knobs. Essentially similar to the problem the submitter faces, at least in some respects.
So, my solution? First, a Griffin Tech Powermate knob for tuning -- because that's what you do most of with a radio. Big knob, very precise, easy to use. Then, a Behringer BCR2000 B-control rotary control deck. Cost was about $156 from Amazon. This is a MIDI device that can map any of 32 knobs and 24 buttons to arbitrary functions. Coding to the device was relatively simple; implement a MIDI learn function, then map whatever seemed fun to a physical knob or button. The board will remember several scenes, too, so you can set up a bunch of controls all at once. Works great. There's another version of the board with a somewhat similar price but a different complement of controls, works similarly, though I think it's a bit more biased towards audio concepts (faders, specifically.)
There are other physical control solutions that utilize MIDI out there as well, but I have found none as economical as the BCR2000. BTW, I don't have anything to do with Behringer other than as a satisfied customer.
3d integration should become practical when 3d cooling (channels? pipes? something else?) can also be easily integrated into the silicon. Once we can get the heat out, there's no particular reason that 3d can't *really* mean "3d integration", instead of "stack dies." I don't see any reason why this wouldn't come to pass. Even so, at the current geometries, we're approaching true high-performance systems on a chip.
Larger chips provide for more interconnects (more edge space) but at some point, that'll be overkill because the system will be all in there, and only I/O will need to be brought out. We're seeing it (in a kind of feeble way) with some of the microcontrollers, but I rather expect (ok, hope) that this will be how computers are supplied, or at least, one way they are supplied.
what is the problem of having a root user in a machine with only one administrator?
There are two main ones. First, there is a more significant risk that you'll do something that will seriously damage the system. If you're running as a normally privileged user, you can only screw up your own dir; as root, you can screw up anything.
Second, should "something" get into your system, perhaps via your browser, therefore running "as you", it can do anything you can do -- and again, if you are root, that means you can be "had" pretty much without any problem, while if you are running as a normally privileged user, it can only attack things you have the ability to get it, which in terms of the system, isn't much.
If the machine isn't critical and isn't online with other machines that are critical, by all means, you can run as root. But if there are other machines in the network that are critical and you're all online, you're taking an enhanced risk that something will get in there and that puts it that much closer to the other machines.
Also, in the past (dunno if it's still true), some things like screensavers were intentionally crippled so as to not run properly as root, the reasoning being because they load what amount to plugins, and that means unvetted code would get to run as root (the scenario is, you download the screensaver of your favorite eye candy stripping... and it carries malware.) On some systems, knowing that I was only running *my* screensaver that I had written, I altered the screensaver engine to run properly as root -- only when using my screensaver. But those systems weren't online; they were process controllers. That's what my screensaver was, too, a summary readout of what was going on.
"admits that take-up is 'still low' and says only families with teenage children are bothering to upgrade to fiber."
That's what happens when you beat the hell out of your economy and your customers. They lose economic leverage. Nothing to see here but corporate and political greed.
You are very confused about what climate change is and the responses that may, or may not, be needed, and about my politics. But don't let that stop you from engaging in your ad hominem blustering.
We're talking about adjusting to a "threat" that will come at us at the rate of fractions of a centimeter per year. In that course of time, dikes and other coastal facilities receive normal maintainance, and the adjustments required -- if indeed it turns out they *are* required -- will be subsumed into the normal maintainance efforts. You have to realize that coastal installations won't just sit there without attention even if we were somehow able to stabilize the climate right where it is, or where it was a hundred years ago. Waves, storms, rare (speaking in a day to day sense) tides, the pressures and effects of ships going by, aging of materials... all these things mean we have to work on these installations *anyway*; a fraction of a centimeter per year of sea level rise -- if it actually happens to continue at the predicted rate, which has not been established -- won't be any kind of fiscal nightmare.
You're not looking at anything new here. Nothing to get excited about. It only seems that way when the climate change enthusiasts start using trigger words like "refugee" and "flooding"... but it turns out those words are hugely overpowered for what is actually predicted to happen.
As a "scientist and engineer", you should know the difference between a viable theory, where existing data confirms the models, and an attempt at modeling, where the results do not match the data that subsequently comes in, and where the failed models are designed to anticipate events with which we have no previous experience. The latter is not something to base immediate action upon -- it's a call to refine the models until they begin to work.
As a scientist and engineer, you should be familiar with rates. The "coastal flooding" you are worrying about is predicted to happen at a rate of a fraction of a centimeter per year. We'll see it coming, we'll adjust (slooooowly), and everything will be fine. As a scientist and engineer, you should know that coastal installations are constantly experiencing erosion and wear; docks and wharves need constant attention and replacement in the normal course of things because of storms, normal wave action, and the enormous stresses of the daily workloads they experience. So it is perfectly normal to be rebuilding coastal facilities all the time. That fraction of a centimeter per year will be subsumed into the normal maintainance issues -- and that should be obvious to you because of the rates that are being bandied about by these models. And on top of that, you should keep in mind that the models themselves are very dubious, because they don't work globally, yet that is the precise domain in which the problems are anticipated to occur.
Droughts happen all the time; it's a normal part of climate. There's no certainty -- at ALL -- that the pattern will change, or, even if it does, that it won't change in our favor. Shrieking about "climate change" carefully ignores the fact that change can go in more than one direction, both economically and in terms of whether we consider it bad, or not.
Back to rates: "refugees" implies people uprooted from their homes. That's not what a rate of fractions of a centimeter per year cause to happen. It's the tiniest of slow changes; people literally would have generations to see the shoreline coming, and people on the shoreline tend to be the very wealthiest members of society. If they want to move, they'll probably have a family meeting, and great-grandpa will intone "yeah, I remember when that water was three centimeters lower! Took off little Betsy's bathing suit, it did... those were the days..." and the generation XXX member will say "but grandpaw, grandmaw is OLD! That's Disgusting!" and they'll table the whole moving thing for another two...three generations, and then it'll be the same, only it'll be FOUR centimeters.... refugees, indeed. As a scientist and engineer, you should be ashamed of yourself for exhibiting outright hysteria and not thinking the issue through.
I'm not designing them. I'm receiving them. They're already properly formatted text reports from various standard tools. This isn't some unique problem of mine; this is how most tools produce reports in the first place. Should I have to go in and make custom versions of every server tool to solve this problem, or does it seem more reasonable that GMail provide a simple switch that lets me use the filters to ensure I get the correct display? Considering that if I write all those custom reports, it only helps me, and GMail could help everyone who uses reports similar to these, the answer seems pretty obvious to me.
No, I'm not wrong. Those options don't do what I describe, or enable it. The idea isn't to reply with the same address a message was sent to. The idea is to reply with a "specific" address based on contents of the to field. For instance, 99% of the mail I get for one domain *should* go to tech support. But people send it to sales, to info, to me personally, etc. The reply address for all of this stuff should be support@... so that the conversation is archived in the right place and so that I am cued that I have a support issue to deal with, and so that the user sees that the right kind of attention is being paid to them. I don't want to reply with info@... or sales@..., even though that's what the emails were addressed to. I want to reply with support@... because that is, by *far* the most common case.
I handle quite a few domains, so this problem repeats itself with different email addresses. And that in turn means that "always use a specific address as a reply address" isn't the right answer, either. Now, comparing with Eudora, you can filter for any part of the incoming field (or about a zillion other things) and then take a very wide range of actions, pretty much as many as you need to -- and yes, those actions include setting the reply address. GMail, by comparison, simply falls on its face. But Eudora doesn't give me the mobility or device independence I need to deal with email; I'm no longer tied to a desk (and I can't be), yet I have to work these problems constantly. Having GMail constantly default to doing the wrong thing is inconvenient at best, and if I miss manually setting an email, I have fouled up the conversation. But GMail's spam filtering smarts (crowd sourced smarts, really) and webby convenience pretty much dictate that I use the service. And I handle a *lot* of email.
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed; clearly, both environments are going in the wrong direction. IOS needs to become more OS X-like, and OS X needs further development in its natural direction, which is exactly opposite that of where IOS is today.
Someone at Apple has gotten the wrong idea from the fact that IOS, with its many limits, was good enough for a tablet; they've extrapolated that to think it means that limits are a good thing. They aren't. The best tablet will be the most powerful and flexible tablet, and that won't be one with all the limits we presently see. It'll be one that can legitimately replace the desktop for just about anything you can imagine.
Apple is clearly dominating the tablet space right now, but as soon as real operating systems with serious applications hit tablets (which I think is still a little way away due to hardware limitations), Apple's going to be left behind in a flash unless they release OS X for their tablets. I'm a huge iPad user, and I run into its limits each and every day. I look forward to a more powerful alternative, something like OS X on a tablet would be "just the thing."
No, I think it is you who doesn't understand Apple. Customers were used to using drivers for scanners and etc, Apple took that away (effectively taking away the supported hardware) in Snow Leopard by breaking tons of them -- and never going back to fix them. Customers were used to being able to run the PPC apps they had spent many dollars on... Apple took that away in Lion. Customers have been used to apps (oh, I dunno, like Photoshop?) that were part of a system of apps that worked with their data, and Apple's taking that away within the bounds of the app store... and you think it's unlikely that this policy will spread outside the store? Buddy, Apple does what it wants -- they are *famous* for doing "teh stupidz" -- folders that don't nest under IOS, "wifi sync" that doesn't work under Leopard, a 4-year old native OS, while it does under XP, a ten year old non-native OS, they break the living hell out of IOS apps with just about every "upgrade", forcing developers to put up Yet Another Version of their app to correct for the incompatibilities...
When your reasoning depends upon Apple doing things because customers have expectations, your reasoning is no better than a random guess. Apple makes roadmaps, has "visions", and then aims at them. Up until Leopard and IOS4, they were doing pretty well at hitting the target, though of course everyone wanted more. 10.6 and later, IOS5... these are huge bags of fail from several perspectives, most especially from the one you're using to make your assertion: Apple doesn't aim at keeping customers expectations static.
No. You don't have to trash your Mac. OS X 10.5.8, Leopard, has the following useful characteristics:
1) it allows 64-bit data, so apps written for it can process massive data sets when used with 64-bit capable processors;
2) it comes on optical media, and is both easily installed and duplicated;
3) it is beginning to receive support from the user community (as opposed to Apple) for the bugs Apple left in it; (console messages in error with cron operations, anyone? -- not anymore)
4) it supports a wider range of available drivers than either Snow Leopard or Lion (or presumably, any of their successors);
5) it supports PPC emulation, consequently doesn't obsolete all those years of software, as does Lion;
6) Apple updates for Leopard that don't implement the problems of Snow Leopard and Lion are available as files;
7) Most responsible developers still support Leopard (it's still used by ~30% of the installed base)
8) The more people use Leopard, the healthier the OS X software community will be
9) No sandboxing -- straight up access according to user permissions. Terrific resistance to non-privileged exploits; the usual vulnerabilities if you're gullible enough to install malware and give it access.
10) Available for PPC, so entire spectrum of Macs for many years are usable and available as a market. If it ain't broke... don't stop supporting it.
Speaking as a developer, my company is aiming straight at, and developing under, Leopard; though we do test under Snow Leopard and Lion. It's a shame to have to give up some of the API's we could otherwise use (no one here is interested in implementing features that only work under later OS versions), but clearly it's the right thing to do: unlike Apple, we're not inclined to leave users behind, which is the philosophy that clearly underlies 10.6 and later.
Leopard is kind of like Apple's version of XP, except without the built-in obsolescence of "activation." It'll work natively for many, many years yet and with the advent of VMs, probably decades after that. It is easily "Hackintoshable." And in the meantime, if enough people drag their feet, maybe even Apple can be made to "get the message" that it isn't OS X that needs to move in the direction of IOS... it's IOS that needs to move in the direction of OS X. You know, things like nested folders, apps that can work filesystem-wide, etc.
A "business leader" has their kids in school, under care, etc. They're hardly ever active parents, because they don't have that kind of time, they delegate those responsibilities -- both because they can afford to, and because it makes them better -- a lot better -- at their job. They also tend to arrive as leaders; they're not in "build a company" mode or anything like it.
I built five companies, four of them successes. I'd *never* have pulled it off if I was burdened with kids in the traditional sense. And no, I'd never hire a parent in a role where I needed serious time commitments -- that is, more than 40 hours with constant time off for their kid's sniffles, parent-teacher meetings, ball games, and the rest of the interminable list of tasks and responsibilities any good parent will decide will come first. I have seen this over and over: parents are highly undependable employees -- and they should be, unless they can delegate that attention. But an undependable employee is really, really bad news for a startup -- engineer, secretary, janitor -- you need to be there, pushing the wheel as hard as everyone else, period.
It is politically correct to pretend that these things -- parenting in particular -- should not matter. But in fact, they do. Consequently, they are taken into account at investing, at hiring, at tasking, at promotion, and WRT transfer. Quietly and unaccountably, but with enormous weight.
You tell me you have (a) kid(s) or you or your spouse is pregnant and you're seriously expecting me to believe you're going to put in the energy needed to launch a startup? Sorry, even people who *don't* have that baggage often don't manage to put out enough energy. I'd have to be out of my mind to put money behind such a bad bet.
This. It's not the color that stops people; it's a lack of skills, showing up at the interview with your hat on sideways or backwards, tattoos halfway up your face, your pants hanging down around your ass, and an "urban" accent so thick it could only be cut with a military class laser, complete with regular smatterings of obscenities. White or black or brown, you bring any combination of that shite into an interview and you're going out with the same employment prospects you came in with: none.
When you decide to embrace a subculture that is at odds in many ways at once with the culture you are soliciting a job from, your fail level is magnificent.
Want a job as a serious tech person? Dress normally, have the tats removed (put 'em back when you're successful if you must have em), and speak middle American English (presuming you're seeking a job in the USA.) No gang signs, no BUMPING music in the parking lot, no drug use anywhere NEAR work or in any way that could possibly, even a little bit, foul up your work, and if you must wear a hat, make sure it's either raining or the light level is sufficient to make you squint. The hat's brim goes over your eyes. That's what it's for. No need to thank me.
No. It's a constitutional question. They take an oath that effect. The problem is that the entire collection of SCOTUS judges we have at present are batshit insane and neither understand the constitution, or take the oath they gave with any degree of seriousness.
Furthermore, GPS is the direct technological equivalent of going straight to the objective of a search: "Where is this person's vehicle?" "...it's right there!"
That makes the active technology -- that is, a running GPS feeding vehicle location info to the authorities -- exactly the same as a constantly updated, successful search for a citizen's effect -- a vehicle -- and often, their person as well.
Therefore, said GPS based search requires a warrant; a warrant requires probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and a specific description of the place to be searched, and the things to be seized.
No warrant? Un. Fucking. Constitutional.
I congratulate you, sir, on completely failing to understand how your government works, and further, for attempting to spread that failure far and wide.
I was just handwaving; I've seen cooling strategies (in macro) that range from fan driven air to full-immersion oil baths to pumped, pressurized materials that run through heat sinks. At micro, I really don't know what the solution is (otherwise I'd be at the patent office), I'm just surmising that as it is a physical engineering problem that directly stands in the way of technology (and huge amounts of earning potential), someone is quite likely to solve it.
It also seems very unlikely to me that we've reached a dead end on creating 3D integration. A temporary pause while we work the problem is considerably easier to accept. Perhaps digging holes can be replaced with growing them, stress-free. Or something else we've not even thought of yet. Perhaps silicon isn't the material we'll end up using. Perhaps it'll all be optical and we're not even in the ballpark yet. All I know for sure is that so far, betting on leaps in technology has been an excellent bet since the very first transistor arose out of Gordon Teal's lab work. Heck, it was even true of vacuum tubes.
FWIW (anecdote is not data), my experience, based on 5 decades in the music biz, has been exactly the opposite. I have two Behringer mixers, a 32-channel and a 12-channel. The 32-channel serves me as a mixdown layer in conjunction with my 32-channel Mackie mixer and our digital recorder, which means 5-days-a-week duty; the 12-channel is in use every day with my computer system. Both have served me for years with no problems at all. I have a Behringer guitar amp, also works great, though I've not put all that many hours on it as yet as I have, and habitually use, a Fender twin. I have several other items such as multiple units of their DCX2496 electronic crossover, all are built well. The control surface itself has very nice knobs, a good feel, LED ring feedback for settings, and all connectors and I/O seem to be relatively heavy duty (not that they'd really need to be in the application we're talking about here.)
In my experience, people talk down about Behringer pretty much as they do about brands like Ibanez; it's not Fender or Gibson, so it's sneer material; yet when the rubber hits the road, turns out it's nothing less than great gear, it just isn't so blatantly boutique-priced.
Sorry you've had problems; don't think that's likely to actually be representative, though, and I'm comfortable advising in the opposite direction: the Behringer control surface will do just fine for the kind of work the submitter was talking about.
I'm developing features for software defined radio. Higher end radios, for those of you who don't know, tend to have a lot of controls. Bandwidths, IF shift, notch filter(s) with frequency and Q settings, AGC decay, intercept and knee, frequency, band, memories, panadaptor controls, waterfall controls, demodulator type, demodulator settings... it really goes on for quite a while.
Initially, I mapped a whole bunch of functions to keys, but eventually ran out of keys. Sure, there are on-screen controls, but they're not as nice as physical knobs. Essentially similar to the problem the submitter faces, at least in some respects.
So, my solution? First, a Griffin Tech Powermate knob for tuning -- because that's what you do most of with a radio. Big knob, very precise, easy to use. Then, a Behringer BCR2000 B-control rotary control deck. Cost was about $156 from Amazon. This is a MIDI device that can map any of 32 knobs and 24 buttons to arbitrary functions. Coding to the device was relatively simple; implement a MIDI learn function, then map whatever seemed fun to a physical knob or button. The board will remember several scenes, too, so you can set up a bunch of controls all at once. Works great. There's another version of the board with a somewhat similar price but a different complement of controls, works similarly, though I think it's a bit more biased towards audio concepts (faders, specifically.)
There are other physical control solutions that utilize MIDI out there as well, but I have found none as economical as the BCR2000. BTW, I don't have anything to do with Behringer other than as a satisfied customer.
Ah. Sorry, different issue. Perhaps someone else can answer; I have some vague ideas about it, but nothing really worthy.
Alaska has patented that, won't work. Besides, you can see Russia from there. From the bridge. To nowhere.
That's why my assertions were predicated upon cooling.
3d integration should become practical when 3d cooling (channels? pipes? something else?) can also be easily integrated into the silicon. Once we can get the heat out, there's no particular reason that 3d can't *really* mean "3d integration", instead of "stack dies." I don't see any reason why this wouldn't come to pass. Even so, at the current geometries, we're approaching true high-performance systems on a chip.
Larger chips provide for more interconnects (more edge space) but at some point, that'll be overkill because the system will be all in there, and only I/O will need to be brought out. We're seeing it (in a kind of feeble way) with some of the microcontrollers, but I rather expect (ok, hope) that this will be how computers are supplied, or at least, one way they are supplied.
There are two main ones. First, there is a more significant risk that you'll do something that will seriously damage the system. If you're running as a normally privileged user, you can only screw up your own dir; as root, you can screw up anything.
Second, should "something" get into your system, perhaps via your browser, therefore running "as you", it can do anything you can do -- and again, if you are root, that means you can be "had" pretty much without any problem, while if you are running as a normally privileged user, it can only attack things you have the ability to get it, which in terms of the system, isn't much.
If the machine isn't critical and isn't online with other machines that are critical, by all means, you can run as root. But if there are other machines in the network that are critical and you're all online, you're taking an enhanced risk that something will get in there and that puts it that much closer to the other machines.
Also, in the past (dunno if it's still true), some things like screensavers were intentionally crippled so as to not run properly as root, the reasoning being because they load what amount to plugins, and that means unvetted code would get to run as root (the scenario is, you download the screensaver of your favorite eye candy stripping... and it carries malware.) On some systems, knowing that I was only running *my* screensaver that I had written, I altered the screensaver engine to run properly as root -- only when using my screensaver. But those systems weren't online; they were process controllers. That's what my screensaver was, too, a summary readout of what was going on.
Help any?
That's what happens when you beat the hell out of your economy and your customers. They lose economic leverage. Nothing to see here but corporate and political greed.
Can I do that on my portable devices -- iPad, iPod?
You are very confused about what climate change is and the responses that may, or may not, be needed, and about my politics. But don't let that stop you from engaging in your ad hominem blustering.
We're talking about adjusting to a "threat" that will come at us at the rate of fractions of a centimeter per year. In that course of time, dikes and other coastal facilities receive normal maintainance, and the adjustments required -- if indeed it turns out they *are* required -- will be subsumed into the normal maintainance efforts. You have to realize that coastal installations won't just sit there without attention even if we were somehow able to stabilize the climate right where it is, or where it was a hundred years ago. Waves, storms, rare (speaking in a day to day sense) tides, the pressures and effects of ships going by, aging of materials... all these things mean we have to work on these installations *anyway*; a fraction of a centimeter per year of sea level rise -- if it actually happens to continue at the predicted rate, which has not been established -- won't be any kind of fiscal nightmare.
You're not looking at anything new here. Nothing to get excited about. It only seems that way when the climate change enthusiasts start using trigger words like "refugee" and "flooding"... but it turns out those words are hugely overpowered for what is actually predicted to happen.
As a "scientist and engineer", you should know the difference between a viable theory, where existing data confirms the models, and an attempt at modeling, where the results do not match the data that subsequently comes in, and where the failed models are designed to anticipate events with which we have no previous experience. The latter is not something to base immediate action upon -- it's a call to refine the models until they begin to work.
As a scientist and engineer, you should be familiar with rates. The "coastal flooding" you are worrying about is predicted to happen at a rate of a fraction of a centimeter per year. We'll see it coming, we'll adjust (slooooowly), and everything will be fine. As a scientist and engineer, you should know that coastal installations are constantly experiencing erosion and wear; docks and wharves need constant attention and replacement in the normal course of things because of storms, normal wave action, and the enormous stresses of the daily workloads they experience. So it is perfectly normal to be rebuilding coastal facilities all the time. That fraction of a centimeter per year will be subsumed into the normal maintainance issues -- and that should be obvious to you because of the rates that are being bandied about by these models. And on top of that, you should keep in mind that the models themselves are very dubious, because they don't work globally, yet that is the precise domain in which the problems are anticipated to occur.
Droughts happen all the time; it's a normal part of climate. There's no certainty -- at ALL -- that the pattern will change, or, even if it does, that it won't change in our favor. Shrieking about "climate change" carefully ignores the fact that change can go in more than one direction, both economically and in terms of whether we consider it bad, or not.
Back to rates: "refugees" implies people uprooted from their homes. That's not what a rate of fractions of a centimeter per year cause to happen. It's the tiniest of slow changes; people literally would have generations to see the shoreline coming, and people on the shoreline tend to be the very wealthiest members of society. If they want to move, they'll probably have a family meeting, and great-grandpa will intone "yeah, I remember when that water was three centimeters lower! Took off little Betsy's bathing suit, it did... those were the days..." and the generation XXX member will say "but grandpaw, grandmaw is OLD! That's Disgusting!" and they'll table the whole moving thing for another two...three generations, and then it'll be the same, only it'll be FOUR centimeters.... refugees, indeed. As a scientist and engineer, you should be ashamed of yourself for exhibiting outright hysteria and not thinking the issue through.
Right. And so can Eudora. But not GMail.
That might work in some sense, but it's a big job to do this for all those stored conversations, and then what happens to the ordering of the emails?
I'm not designing them. I'm receiving them. They're already properly formatted text reports from various standard tools. This isn't some unique problem of mine; this is how most tools produce reports in the first place. Should I have to go in and make custom versions of every server tool to solve this problem, or does it seem more reasonable that GMail provide a simple switch that lets me use the filters to ensure I get the correct display? Considering that if I write all those custom reports, it only helps me, and GMail could help everyone who uses reports similar to these, the answer seems pretty obvious to me.
No, I'm not wrong. Those options don't do what I describe, or enable it. The idea isn't to reply with the same address a message was sent to. The idea is to reply with a "specific" address based on contents of the to field. For instance, 99% of the mail I get for one domain *should* go to tech support. But people send it to sales, to info, to me personally, etc. The reply address for all of this stuff should be support@... so that the conversation is archived in the right place and so that I am cued that I have a support issue to deal with, and so that the user sees that the right kind of attention is being paid to them. I don't want to reply with info@... or sales@..., even though that's what the emails were addressed to. I want to reply with support@... because that is, by *far* the most common case.
I handle quite a few domains, so this problem repeats itself with different email addresses. And that in turn means that "always use a specific address as a reply address" isn't the right answer, either. Now, comparing with Eudora, you can filter for any part of the incoming field (or about a zillion other things) and then take a very wide range of actions, pretty much as many as you need to -- and yes, those actions include setting the reply address. GMail, by comparison, simply falls on its face. But Eudora doesn't give me the mobility or device independence I need to deal with email; I'm no longer tied to a desk (and I can't be), yet I have to work these problems constantly. Having GMail constantly default to doing the wrong thing is inconvenient at best, and if I miss manually setting an email, I have fouled up the conversation. But GMail's spam filtering smarts (crowd sourced smarts, really) and webby convenience pretty much dictate that I use the service. And I handle a *lot* of email.