A computer is NOT an appliance. A computer is a complex programmable machine.
I think you've confused an easy to use computer with a single task appliance. People wants a computer that simply WORKS.
The typical user may say "I double click in Excel and it loads, I turn on my brand new computer and the OS is pre-installed and ready to use. The software available is user friendly, and works intuitively. I don't care about or know what Gnome and KDE are and could care a rat's ass about scripting and all that geeky stuff."
So Linux doesn't target that audience, bug deal. I remember back in the day, when I used linux because it was something that I could use, know about its internals, and it was cheaper than Xenix (free!). I didn't care about destroying Microsoft, and I still don't care now. We should strive for user-friendly and "boot from the install CD, and everything just works." Ubuntu seems to understand this, and I think this is why it's becoming the most popular distro.
Now all we need to do is stop bitching about the "users to lazy to learn about computers" and work on making linux better for those other than ourselves.
So you're saying that if you wanted to sue CBS because you thought CSI was too graphic, you should be able to file a motion, and CSI would have to submit a TV show and the judge would look at a show and decide if it was okay?
Sounds fine to me. Actually, you would send it to the FCC and yes it will get reviewed. Remember the super bowl fiasco?
Of course, this is apples v. oranges. A game is something that can be purchased and "regulated" at the point of sale. A television broadcast uses the public's airways and is open to viewing by anybody. Before you give the standard "Change the channel" bullshit, this attitude is not prudent since all the broadcast networks tend toward the lowest common denominator of what they can get away with. Eventially there will be no channel to change to for "family" programming.
Cable can show what they want due to more spectrum available and the influence that revenue from subscribers have on the channel line up.
I think the article made a bad assumption that poor memory equals low IQ. I consider Albert Einstein to be fairly intelligent, yet he was known to have bad memory. Poor memory recall does not equate to poor reasoning ability. Thank God for that.
Anyway, I've seen studies equating High Blood Pressure to poor memory function. Since obesity is a contributing factor to high blood pressure, it seems logical for the obese group to have poor memory recall.
I am for open source drivers. After all, I bought a video card I would like to use that piece of hardware anyway I see fit (not necessarily with Windows or Linux).
But I can't place all the blame on ATI or NVidia for the state of drivers. Some blame lies with the Kernel Developers.
Before you start sending me hate mail, hear me out...
The kernel developers went with ideology rather than reliability when it came to the driver API. They purposely manipulate their API and hope that this will give ATI and NVidia some incentive to open source their drivers. Apparently, the only thing that is being accomplished is the poor end user experience.
Make a stable API that the binary only drivers can link to and remove any excuse these companies have for their poor support of Linux. This way we can have a better user experience in Linux.
I know:
"But this flies in the face of what we want which is OSS... If you don't like it, make your own kernel... You have angered the kernel gods!"
So excuse me for asking the kernel developers to be the "bigger man" and do whatever it takes to help the linux users...
I am experiencing "vendor lock in" since I am stuck with the ATI Radeon 7500 mobility chip that came with my laptop. I can't change out the GPU, but I can change the OS. Why force me to use windows?
In reality, I run Linux on my laptop and have "acceptable" performance mainly because I use windows to play games. But what if I wanted to play games in linux?
I feel that as long as ATI and NVidia refuse to open source their drivers and the kernel developers refuse to "stabilize" their API, the end users will remain stuck in the cross fire and articles complaining about video drivers will continue to exist. BTW, when a non-linux user read articles like above, he/she reads "stay away from linux, windows is hardware friendly"...
Isn't it to Semantecs best interest to generate demand for their product by creating uncertainty when it comes to OS security. They did this to linux too...
Granted Microsoft may be using new code, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's more insecure than the current network stack.
Let's see what the non-beta software looks like, and see what a independent lab reports.
Please don't comment about professional workstations, they have nothing to do with your consumer grade shareware applications or games.
I believe that there are more professional workstations using intel products than that of the G5. I would even venture a guess that there are more workstations running SPARC than either x86 or POWER, because of the age of the SPARC and scientists don't always upgrade their computers. At least that is what I have observed.
I haven't used an Apple product for quite a while. Our lab has been using intel based motherboards due to the cost savings and performance when compared to Apple's offerings.
A very small number of the physicists (here) still used the Mac Pros, but its mainly because they can port their Unix based code to console OS X and have a nice GUI. Their programs may take advantage of the Altivec specs, but I don't think it's a feature they can't do without. I will say that one of the physicists in question has no desire to change, simply because what he has works and not because of any deficiencies of the Intel platform.
We tend to use FPGAs to perform accelerated calculations, so the existance of Altivec within a CPU is a non-issue. FPGAs are far more flexible. By that I mean while it can be used to accelerate vector calculations, I tend to use them for General I/O that interface with our lab/flight components. This flexibility gives us more bang for the buck, and VHDL experience can be used in both computational domains (Math & I/O).
On the x86 side of things, I've been interested in the Opteron line from AMD, since there is a FPGA available that will operate within the other CPU slot. Does anybody know if such a thing exist for Xeon line? Since I am mostly in the I/O arena, I uses PCI based FPGA boards.
Quad G5 is designed for such usage and those people using them does not come to slashdot to comment.
Well we never get moderated to more than 1 or 2...
While you may have played with a few VAIO's, I actually own a VAIO laptop for 4 years. I have not experienced any of the deficiencies that you have cited. I work with fellow VAIO users who have the latest notebooks, and they are happy with their purchase.
Out of the 4 years (so far!), I only had two problems.
1. Hardrive died on the 2nd year and was easily replaced.
2. My cat clawed off the keyboard and turned the laptop into an expensive paperweight. A call to Sony and 72 hours & $80 dollars later, I am back in business with a new keyboard. (I will go on record that I did scream, but the cat remained unharmed).
Because of my experience with #2 above, I am now a loyal customer of Sony.
But don't let the facts get in the way of you trying to show your coolness by being an Apple fanboy.
Wow! A caustic and distorted view made with no proof and with obvious signs that poster doesn't have a clue about what he is posting gets a "5, Insightful"... Oh yea this is slashdot.
While its true that NASA is saddled with a manned space program, NASA is more than manned space exploration. NASA has unmanned space exploration. NASA has Earth science programs. NASA has astronmical observatories. NASA has gamma-ray (and other spectra) science programs. Yes NASA has administrative overhead, and yes being a governmental entity makes it a target for earmarks (aka pork).
We would not have any science available to us if it was strictly non-governmental in nature. I think people who think otherwise are niave fools. The private sector has a profit motive. So any science in the private sector would most likely be determined by how profitable it is. You would have corporate censoring of science (its bad enough we have politcal censoring) if scientific observations supported a hypothesis that contradicted the corporate mission.
So on the subject of NASA, I think its a necessary agency and any moves that will free money from the manned program so it can be spent on its science program is a good thing.
Oh yea, name a strictly civilian (Non-governmental) program that placed a human in orbit, and no I don't count launching a pilot to the 63 mile mark for a extremely short time. Seriously, I haven't heard of one and would like more info;)
As for using Russian spacecraft... I think it is very important that the United States develop its own space craft to ensure that we have a self-reliant method of maintaining our presence in space.
The great CBC sure did a lousy job reporting this information to you. It was the "Equal Time Rule" that was rescinded. That Federal law required broadcasters to donate an equal amount of time to any political opposition candidates. If one candidate bought an hour of advertizing the broadcaster had to provide an hour to his opponent.
I'm sorry to inform you that you were close... but what he was refering to what was called the "Fairness Doctrine".
The summary of the article is "The Fairness Doctrine is a former policy of the United States's Federal Communications Commission. It required broadcast licensees to present controversial issues of public importance, and to present such issues in an honest, equal and balanced manner."
The only reason I knew the name was because I remembered it being done. It was done so that Rush Limbaugh's show could exist.
BTW before accusing anyone of doing a lousy job, at least get your facts right (Just pokin fun).
Nobody wants to escort (babysit) a contractor. That was probably not in their job title and it's not thier fault that regulations require someone to escort you.
Personally, I am glad to see some internal controls in access to foreign workers but I digress...
I doub't that your experience with this employee is a reflection of the crew involved with the space shuttle. My experience has been the opposite.
The problem with your analogy is that the fatality of the space shuttle was caused by a mechanical failure. Most mechanical failures on the space shuttle will have fatal results.
For a car, most mechanical failures are pretty benign and at most result in the car being inoperable on the side of the road. This makes all your fatality stats pretty worthless, since no fatality means no statistic. Now if you had the number of major mechanical breakdowns for automobiles, that may be a better metric. Just judging by the number of recalls in the press, the space program looks absolutely reliable.
While according to you, most automobile fatalities are from driver errors (drunk driving, reckless driving, etc), none of the shuttle fatalities were caused by any actions of its crew.
Being under active propulsion versus orbital momentum is immaterial since the vehicle is under constant stress within a hostile environment. Besides the riskiest time for the shuttle is liftoff and re-entry and both are under power (Well, re-entry is mostly physics once de-orbit has been established).
While using a car as an analogy seems logical, it is really a useless metric only to perpetuate bullshit.
The problem with your analogy is that the fatility of the space shuttle was caused by a mechanical failure. Most mechanical failures on the space shuttle will have fatal results.
For a car, the vast majority of mechanical failures are pretty benign and at most result in the car being inoperable on the side of the road.
They also explained that the Blu-Ray player was delayed to coincide with the release of their new line of Bravia flat-screen TVs.
Geez... Isn't the gloom and doom stuff getting old?
Repeat after me... It's only a game console... It's only an evolutionary step from DVD technology... It is not oxygen, we can wait and see what happens...
While your statement may be technically true, it misses the mark.
The purpose of encryption is to protect data during its transport not by making it impossible to read, instead its to make it where that when said data is decrypted enough time has passed to make the contents worthless.
Stallman & Co's ideological desires aside, most people see "Free {Product X}" (e.g., "free software") as meaning free-of-charge rather than free-of-legal-restrictions, while "Free {Activity X}" (e.g., "free speech") is more likely to be seen in the latter sense.
The irony being that if we truly wanted "Free" software we would use BSD instead of GPL. Since the GPL, has its own set of legal restrictions.
Personally I like the idea of general use libraries being BSD, and free applications being GPL. This way the developer has the most freedom to do what he/she wants with their creation, while promoting code re-use.
I see nothing wrong with a graphing library being released as BSD since it is primitive in nature, and the developer should not be forced to use GPL if he/she don't want to.
On the other hand, It is best that Community developed software is released as GPL. This prevents someone making a comercial product without giving back to the communitity that developed 99% of the application. (IE: Compare Gentleware's Psioden vs. ArgoUML)
When I was in college, I had better things to do (work) then to participate in a programming competition.
The only thing that you can deduce from the outcomes of a programming competition is who, out of people who do not have something better to do, can program the best.
It troubles me that we glorify ad-hoc software development by making the nationality of contestants some sort of benchmark for some lame "news" story designed to place American professionals in an unflattering light. Of course, corporations (who advertise on the "news" sites) will point to stories like this one as justification for raising the cap on the number of H1B work visas.
In multi-band radios, the equipment can typically be operated slightly beyond the intended band edge due to the filters not having an infinitely steep roll-off.... It doesn't matter whether or not the manufacturer allowed for other operating bands with hardware configuration diodes or resistors. Also... these configuration resistors are generally (but not always) interpreted by software, since operating in multiple bands usually also requires slight protocol variations. Therefore, if the software is open, you can just eliminate the part where the configuration is read.
You missed the point. Any hardware can be made to operate in multiple regions and have its operation parameters cost effectively decided during assembly. I am not talking about making a radio operate outside its intent or taking advantage of a filter defenciency. I take a black box view of peripherals by seperating the firmware executed by a device (either by a microcontroller, DSP, FPGA, etc.) from software being executed within the host computer.
Multi-Band radios aside, it doesn't really matter as long as the hardware can operate within design parameters for each operating mode desired.
I interpreted Theo's comments to imply that they want the radio firmware to be open down to the hardware level. Pushing binary blobs into flash and publishing an API into a buggy hardware driver does not do what he wants.
From what I read from the article, Theo would like documentation for the hardware. Therefore, pushing the binary blobs into flash and publishing an API sounds like what he wants.
Sure the firmware may be buggy, but it will be buggy for ALL operating systems. This would give the manufacturer incentive to correct the firmware, as well as make testing easier since they no longer have to worry about driver implementation.
Slashdot Mirror
Shouldn't it Llithgow instead of Shatner?
Am I the only one who remembers "Twilight Zone: The Movie" ?
I think you've confused an easy to use computer with a single task appliance. People wants a computer that simply WORKS.
The typical user may say "I double click in Excel and it loads, I turn on my brand new computer and the OS is pre-installed and ready to use. The software available is user friendly, and works intuitively. I don't care about or know what Gnome and KDE are and could care a rat's ass about scripting and all that geeky stuff."
So Linux doesn't target that audience, bug deal. I remember back in the day, when I used linux because it was something that I could use, know about its internals, and it was cheaper than Xenix (free!). I didn't care about destroying Microsoft, and I still don't care now. We should strive for user-friendly and "boot from the install CD, and everything just works." Ubuntu seems to understand this, and I think this is why it's becoming the most popular distro.
Now all we need to do is stop bitching about the "users to lazy to learn about computers" and work on making linux better for those other than ourselves.
Too bad Sears Roebuck didn't have the same idea a century ago
The irony being that IBM implemented most of these things with Sears when they created "Prodigy Online."
Boy am I old or what?
So you're saying that if you wanted to sue CBS because you thought CSI was too graphic, you should be able to file a motion, and CSI would have to submit a TV show and the judge would look at a show and decide if it was okay?
Sounds fine to me. Actually, you would send it to the FCC and yes it will get reviewed. Remember the super bowl fiasco?
Of course, this is apples v. oranges. A game is something that can be purchased and "regulated" at the point of sale. A television broadcast uses the public's airways and is open to viewing by anybody. Before you give the standard "Change the channel" bullshit, this attitude is not prudent since all the broadcast networks tend toward the lowest common denominator of what they can get away with. Eventially there will be no channel to change to for "family" programming.
Cable can show what they want due to more spectrum available and the influence that revenue from subscribers have on the channel line up.
I think the article made a bad assumption that poor memory equals low IQ. I consider Albert Einstein to be fairly intelligent, yet he was known to have bad memory. Poor memory recall does not equate to poor reasoning ability. Thank God for that.
Anyway, I've seen studies equating High Blood Pressure to poor memory function. Since obesity is a contributing factor to high blood pressure, it seems logical for the obese group to have poor memory recall.
you stupid fucking cock
Wow, you must be suffering from penis envy.
I can't help that my kung-fu is stronger than yours, and God blessed me with the tools to satisfy women.
Evidently you couldn't handle the truth..
I am for open source drivers. After all, I bought a video card I would like to use that piece of hardware anyway I see fit (not necessarily with Windows or Linux).
But I can't place all the blame on ATI or NVidia for the state of drivers. Some blame lies with the Kernel Developers.
Before you start sending me hate mail, hear me out...
The kernel developers went with ideology rather than reliability when it came to the driver API. They purposely manipulate their API and hope that this will give ATI and NVidia some incentive to open source their drivers. Apparently, the only thing that is being accomplished is the poor end user experience.
Make a stable API that the binary only drivers can link to and remove any excuse these companies have for their poor support of Linux. This way we can have a better user experience in Linux.
I know:
"But this flies in the face of what we want which is OSS... If you don't like it, make your own kernel... You have angered the kernel gods!"
So excuse me for asking the kernel developers to be the "bigger man" and do whatever it takes to help the linux users...
I am experiencing "vendor lock in" since I am stuck with the ATI Radeon 7500 mobility chip that came with my laptop. I can't change out the GPU, but I can change the OS. Why force me to use windows?
In reality, I run Linux on my laptop and have "acceptable" performance mainly because I use windows to play games. But what if I wanted to play games in linux?
I feel that as long as ATI and NVidia refuse to open source their drivers and the kernel developers refuse to "stabilize" their API, the end users will remain stuck in the cross fire and articles complaining about video drivers will continue to exist. BTW, when a non-linux user read articles like above, he/she reads "stay away from linux, windows is hardware friendly"...
Well, I'm unpopular enough....
Isn't it to Semantecs best interest to generate demand for their product by creating uncertainty when it comes to OS security. They did this to linux too...
Granted Microsoft may be using new code, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's more insecure than the current network stack.
Let's see what the non-beta software looks like, and see what a independent lab reports.
Bill
Please don't comment about professional workstations, they have nothing to do with your consumer grade shareware applications or games.
I believe that there are more professional workstations using intel products than that of the G5. I would even venture a guess that there are more workstations running SPARC than either x86 or POWER, because of the age of the SPARC and scientists don't always upgrade their computers. At least that is what I have observed.
I haven't used an Apple product for quite a while. Our lab has been using intel based motherboards due to the cost savings and performance when compared to Apple's offerings.
A very small number of the physicists (here) still used the Mac Pros, but its mainly because they can port their Unix based code to console OS X and have a nice GUI. Their programs may take advantage of the Altivec specs, but I don't think it's a feature they can't do without. I will say that one of the physicists in question has no desire to change, simply because what he has works and not because of any deficiencies of the Intel platform.
We tend to use FPGAs to perform accelerated calculations, so the existance of Altivec within a CPU is a non-issue. FPGAs are far more flexible. By that I mean while it can be used to accelerate vector calculations, I tend to use them for General I/O that interface with our lab/flight components. This flexibility gives us more bang for the buck, and VHDL experience can be used in both computational domains (Math & I/O).
On the x86 side of things, I've been interested in the Opteron line from AMD, since there is a FPGA available that will operate within the other CPU slot. Does anybody know if such a thing exist for Xeon line? Since I am mostly in the I/O arena, I uses PCI based FPGA boards.
Quad G5 is designed for such usage and those people using them does not come to slashdot to comment.
Well we never get moderated to more than 1 or 2...
You forgot about priority inversions, and deadlocks.
There are sources of fuel, other than Middle Eastern Crude. In fact, we have natural gas too.
I call bullshit!
While you may have played with a few VAIO's, I actually own a VAIO laptop for 4 years. I have not experienced any of the deficiencies that you have cited. I work with fellow VAIO users who have the latest notebooks, and they are happy with their purchase.
Out of the 4 years (so far!), I only had two problems.
1. Hardrive died on the 2nd year and was easily replaced.
2. My cat clawed off the keyboard and turned the laptop into an expensive paperweight. A call to Sony and 72 hours & $80 dollars later, I am back in business with a new keyboard. (I will go on record that I did scream, but the cat remained unharmed).
Because of my experience with #2 above, I am now a loyal customer of Sony.
But don't let the facts get in the way of you trying to show your coolness by being an Apple fanboy.
Bill
While, in your opinion, rocket science may not advance. The demands that we require of the rocket vehicles themselves has.
I hope your not serious.... You are?
The suppliers of the vehicles are the ultimate controllers of who gets into space.
As an American, I believe it is in the United States best interests to have a US made vehicle.
Wow! A caustic and distorted view made with no proof and with obvious signs that poster doesn't have a clue about what he is posting gets a "5, Insightful"... Oh yea this is slashdot.
While its true that NASA is saddled with a manned space program, NASA is more than manned space exploration. NASA has unmanned space exploration. NASA has Earth science programs. NASA has astronmical observatories. NASA has gamma-ray (and other spectra) science programs. Yes NASA has administrative overhead, and yes being a governmental entity makes it a target for earmarks (aka pork).
We would not have any science available to us if it was strictly non-governmental in nature. I think people who think otherwise are niave fools. The private sector has a profit motive. So any science in the private sector would most likely be determined by how profitable it is. You would have corporate censoring of science (its bad enough we have politcal censoring) if scientific observations supported a hypothesis that contradicted the corporate mission.
So on the subject of NASA, I think its a necessary agency and any moves that will free money from the manned program so it can be spent on its science program is a good thing.
Oh yea, name a strictly civilian (Non-governmental) program that placed a human in orbit, and no I don't count launching a pilot to the 63 mile mark for a extremely short time. Seriously, I haven't heard of one and would like more info ;)
As for using Russian spacecraft... I think it is very important that the United States develop its own space craft to ensure that we have a self-reliant method of maintaining our presence in space.
The great CBC sure did a lousy job reporting this information to you. It was the "Equal Time Rule" that was rescinded. That Federal law required broadcasters to donate an equal amount of time to any political opposition candidates. If one candidate bought an hour of advertizing the broadcaster had to provide an hour to his opponent.
I'm sorry to inform you that you were close... but what he was refering to what was called the "Fairness Doctrine".
Wikipedia has a good article on it : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine
The summary of the article is "The Fairness Doctrine is a former policy of the United States's Federal Communications Commission. It required broadcast licensees to present controversial issues of public importance, and to present such issues in an honest, equal and balanced manner."
The only reason I knew the name was because I remembered it being done. It was done so that Rush Limbaugh's show could exist.
BTW before accusing anyone of doing a lousy job, at least get your facts right (Just pokin fun).
Regards,
Bill
The bill did in fact exist - It was called the Fairness Doctrine
Look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine
I remember being pissed off when they revoked this rule, it was done so Rush Limbaugh's show could exist.
Personally, I am glad to see some internal controls in access to foreign workers but I digress...
I doub't that your experience with this employee is a reflection of the crew involved with the space shuttle. My experience has been the opposite.
The problem with your analogy is that the fatality of the space shuttle was caused by a mechanical failure. Most mechanical failures on the space shuttle will have fatal results.
For a car, most mechanical failures are pretty benign and at most result in the car being inoperable on the side of the road. This makes all your fatality stats pretty worthless, since no fatality means no statistic. Now if you had the number of major mechanical breakdowns for automobiles, that may be a better metric. Just judging by the number of recalls in the press, the space program looks absolutely reliable.
While according to you, most automobile fatalities are from driver errors (drunk driving, reckless driving, etc), none of the shuttle fatalities were caused by any actions of its crew.
Being under active propulsion versus orbital momentum is immaterial since the vehicle is under constant stress within a hostile environment. Besides the riskiest time for the shuttle is liftoff and re-entry and both are under power (Well, re-entry is mostly physics once de-orbit has been established).
While using a car as an analogy seems logical, it is really a useless metric only to perpetuate bullshit.
For a car, the vast majority of mechanical failures are pretty benign and at most result in the car being inoperable on the side of the road.
They also explained that the Blu-Ray player was delayed to coincide with the release of their new line of Bravia flat-screen TVs.
Geez... Isn't the gloom and doom stuff getting old?
Repeat after me... It's only a game console... It's only an evolutionary step from DVD technology... It is not oxygen, we can wait and see what happens...
While your statement may be technically true, it misses the mark.
The purpose of encryption is to protect data during its transport not by making it impossible to read, instead its to make it where that when said data is decrypted enough time has passed to make the contents worthless.
The irony being that if we truly wanted "Free" software we would use BSD instead of GPL. Since the GPL, has its own set of legal restrictions.
Personally I like the idea of general use libraries being BSD, and free applications being GPL. This way the developer has the most freedom to do what he/she wants with their creation, while promoting code re-use.
I see nothing wrong with a graphing library being released as BSD since it is primitive in nature, and the developer should not be forced to use GPL if he/she don't want to.
On the other hand, It is best that Community developed software is released as GPL. This prevents someone making a comercial product without giving back to the communitity that developed 99% of the application. (IE: Compare Gentleware's Psioden vs. ArgoUML)
When I was in college, I had better things to do (work) then to participate in a programming competition.
The only thing that you can deduce from the outcomes of a programming competition is who, out of people who do not have something better to do, can program the best.
It troubles me that we glorify ad-hoc software development by making the nationality of contestants some sort of benchmark for some lame "news" story designed to place American professionals in an unflattering light. Of course, corporations (who advertise on the "news" sites) will point to stories like this one as justification for raising the cap on the number of H1B work visas.
You missed the point. Any hardware can be made to operate in multiple regions and have its operation parameters cost effectively decided during assembly. I am not talking about making a radio operate outside its intent or taking advantage of a filter defenciency. I take a black box view of peripherals by seperating the firmware executed by a device (either by a microcontroller, DSP, FPGA, etc.) from software being executed within the host computer.
Multi-Band radios aside, it doesn't really matter as long as the hardware can operate within design parameters for each operating mode desired.
I interpreted Theo's comments to imply that they want the radio firmware to be open down to the hardware level. Pushing binary blobs into flash and publishing an API into a buggy hardware driver does not do what he wants.
From what I read from the article, Theo would like documentation for the hardware. Therefore, pushing the binary blobs into flash and publishing an API sounds like what he wants.
Sure the firmware may be buggy, but it will be buggy for ALL operating systems. This would give the manufacturer incentive to correct the firmware, as well as make testing easier since they no longer have to worry about driver implementation.