Okay, so the 18W number is "thermal design power"... sigh, another bloody spec.
Is this a typical spec that is used for comparison? I ask because I've been an electrical engineer for 15 years and, up until now, have done fine with "typical power consumption" (which is supposedly 3 W for this chip, compared to 7 W for the Intel Atom Z530) and "maximum power consumption", which is what you have to design the power supply around, lest the supply rails brown out.
Sigh... like they say: "A datasheet writer can get twice the performance out of a chip that an engineer can."
The Thermal Design Power is the spec for the cooling system -- so relax, it's the Mechanical Engineer's problem, we don't do thermo.
I find this repulsive because AT&T services are something that should be considered a life necessity. Since AT&T is the only business that provides these services, consumers have no choice where to get this required need to sustain their lives.
What we really need is another option than AT&T, so that when we are given the contract to sign, we can just say "no" and go to a competitor with a less stringent contract.
That will be the day, friends, when the first competitor to AT&T arrives and gives us an option.
Oh, wait...
You'll know you've found the "competitor with a less stringent contract" by the unicorns playing in their front yard.
Sure you can. Just write that into a binding contract that both parties agree to.
Um, that's kinda the point nonewmsgs was making. Can you make such a contract that is actually binding? Just because a contract has been understood and agreed to by all parties does not make it binding.
The binding isn't even tight enough to keep from being loosened and re-tied by one of the parties.
The people make up both government AND corporations, and we have the power to do with them what we please. We did, and should continue to, play them against each other to make our lives better.
This is Milo Minderbinder's "we all own shares in the syndicate" philosophy from Catch-22, a parable about Capitalism. The American and German governments were at war with each other, but both contracted with and for the "syndicate". So if you were asked to bomb your own country's assets, it was because the syndicate contracted for it. And since everyone owned shares in the syndicate, it was to his own benefit to bomb his country's own stuff.
In the book, as in real life, while everyone does own some share of the "syndicate", the vast majority of the shares are in the hands of the few. Like the guys in the planes contracted to be shot down by their own "side", it's not the large shareholders that will be asked to make the sacrifice for the good of everyone.
You keep tolerating paying electricity bills. I have no moral qualms about hacking my meter, so I'll keep doing that. Everybody wins.
It's different in a very important way: I never signed or agreed to the "unwritten contract". I know of no laws in my country/locality forbidding my activities. And finally, failure to view advertisements is not generally considered socially unacceptable.
Remember, you yourself say you ". . . feel that [you] have an unwritten contract with content providers . .." I don't share that feeling. And what are morals guided by? Social standards, including Laws, philosophy (including religion), and one's personal feelings/reason/experience (conscience). So difference between us is our "felt" sense of right and wrong. You feel that you are doing right, and I just feel that I'm not doing any particular wrong. If you want others to follow your moral code you can try rhetoric (as we're doing here) to change either an individual or society; you can try to lead by providing an example to others; or you can attempt to change the law.
To address your specific example, I agreed (in writing in my case) to pay the electric company for the energy I consume. The law backs this up, and furthermore, society considers tampering with meters to be a type of theft. These do not apply to the advertising case, so we're just two guys who feel differently about the morality involved.
If the ads are so intrusive that they're intolerable, I'll go elsewhere. Effectively, I "can't afford" that content.
I reckon using an ad blocker is *directly* equivalent to circumventing a micropayment mechanism.
I guess that's good, if your theory is correct that eyeballs on ads keeps content free. You keep tolerating the ads. I have no moral qualms about ignoring, avoiding or dodging them, so I'll just keep doing that. Everybody wins.
Humans make their living FROM the environment, not FOR it. We aren't as a species gardeners of nature, we like the rest of species, are part of nature which means we don't have the luxury of being 'environmentalists'. Personally, if I can gain by polluting more than the pollution itself harms me personally, I not only will, but I must. It's part of the duty I feel to try hard.
When the environment can't support humans at their current lifestyle then less humans will live ( mostly ) less well. ( or more humans will live very much less well ). If humans don't like that, they will kill each other until they come to some sort of arrangement. It's inevitable. The best you can do is be the one who in the end is living the best and not being killed.
This line of reasoning takes "rational self-interest" right into "Apres moi, le deluge" territory. One problem that comes up when using that approach is that often times a bunch of other folks gets together because they're sick of your attempts to out-pollute them (or stealing their chickens, or eating their children). In fact, it happens now: people who act too egregiously get tossed in jail, where your previously nice lifestyle takes a real dive.
Even a rational approach doesn't have to preclude cooperation. if it did, the rationalists would be wasting their time learning language when they could be spending it more profitably pooping in my yard.
I'm sorry, but if it's OK for the police to ignore a law requiring women to wear dresses, then I don't see the problem with police ignoring the DMCA if they disagree with it. You can't have it both ways. If police have to enforce laws they don't agree with, then they need to enforce them ALL, including ridiculous ones.
Your apology notwithstanding, vigorous enforcement of ridiculous laws is probably the best way to get them changed. Probably wouldn't work for something like the DMCA, since average people wouldn't understand the ridiculousness.
Because there is a HUGE difference between liquefying people and copying someone's game.
The actual comparison would be liquefying people vs. arresting someone for console hacking. It was the perpetrators of the holocaust who were tried at Nuremberg, not its victims.
I think Mussolini said "Fascism", actually. Or rather, the quote: "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power" is the one you're thinking of that is often attributed to Mussolini. I haven't found any definitive source, and much of what Mussolini published was actually ghost-written anyway. Note, that's the 1930s Italian definition of "Fascism".
If you have some snide comments to make, they would be better directed at the elected officials that created their posts, not the grunts on the ground.
What if they threw a war on drugs/copying/circumvention/etc, and no one came?
But then I have natural wit and charm, a willingness to admit I slacked off at university, plus I did computer science.
Now don't take this the wrong way, but I'll bet that the amount of wit and charm actually required for your job -- while not infinitesimal -- is much lower than that which got you the job. Since I assume that you got and kept the job, the hiring decision worked out OK. But just maybe we set ourselves up for trouble when we hire based largely on the interview process. We all want to hire people we like, but in doing so we often neglect to even attempt to measure the applicant's aptitude for the job, assuming the we're much better at "peering into their souls" than we really are.
Sometimes, it works out OK. Perhaps it's also working out OK in Ms. Thompson's case.
The older generation didn't have to take bullshit like this. There were no trouble getting a job back then, especially not for college graduates. Things have gone quite a bit downhill since then.
Every generation has had trouble finding good jobs. There are always notable exceptions when a particular field is hot, and of course the economy goes up and down. And I'll grant you that it's not your fault how the economy is doing 22 years after you were born. But it's too bad you can't tell my grandparents that they had it easy in the Great Depression. You'd get off their lawns in hurry, and with nothing to console you but your shelf of participation trophies.
Like a lot of people, I graduated into a bad economy. Fortunately my GPA was a little better than a 2.7, so grad school was an option.
Yes, college is considerably more expensive these days, even after inflation. There used to be much more direct and indirect federal support. I sure hope your generation registers to vote and then remembers to vote for its own best interests. Your parents' generation got way too hung up on whatever "values" were being preached at the time, and got skinned alive in the bargain. Probably won't help you, but maybe you can change something for your kids.
Not to be an old grumpy man, but RS has missed out on the electronics maker revolution of the past decade. They could have been on the ball, like NewEgg, for the PC modding market but failed to adapt to the market. The RS of today is but a poor imitation of the RS of the '70s and '80s. Full of crap, obsoleted models and cheap junk./Now get off my lawn.
If you're close enough to a MicroCenter, they're more like what a Radio Shack should have become. And they actually have a better selection of electronics tools than RS. They only lack a wall full of discretes and ICs, but so does Radio Shack now.
Absolutely. We've still got hardware that comes with a Windows driver disk with a day-glo sticker on it saying "install me first" and a piece of hardware with a little cap on its USB port secured by another day-glo sticker telling you to find that CD before plugging in the device. Case in point, I got two identical web cams, one for my Mom, one for me. She thought it'd be nice if she could see her granddaughter in-between my occasional trips upstairs^B^B^B^B^B^B^B^Bback home. Mine plugs into Ubuntu machine and works out of the box. Hers requires a call to the neighborhood computer guy to insert the disk, run the setup, and get the hardware installed configured. Kinda backwards, seeing as Windows is for average people and Linux is for geeks, right?
And let's not forget that with windows driver installs, you have to make sure not to click (or forget to unclick) the various crapware that comes with the driver. Because sometimes that crapware does more than just waste some disk space and poop out stupid icons on the desktop.
But back to the overall topic. One could do worse than to visit Amazon or Newegg or another retailer that has detailed user reviews and check out printers (or other hardware) to find out if anyone else has had good results with Linux. Alternatively, perhaps a stand-alone label printer with its own keyboard and LCD would also work -- some are pretty sophisticated in terms of fonts available, barcodes and file storage.
At least to Merriam-Webster, both are acceptable. "Chord" can mean "Cord" as in the anatomical structure. It's an alteration dating to the 15th Century. The Oxford Etymology Dictionary says it was altered from Cord to more closely resemble its Latin root.
And you paid for a device which was tethered to its master, which happened not to be you.
Amazon better be praying to lose this case. If they win, they clearly and publicly establish their right to take back any e-book (or e-whatever) at any time by refunding the purchase price. This would make the resolving of cases like the 1984 one considerably more convenient for them. However, even some previously unconcerned customers become a little more reluctant to use their "virtual books", especially for something that might be important to have access to or have replay/reread value. So Kindle becomes primarily used for disposable (and cheap) items like newspapers, magazines and potboilers.
On the other hand, if Amazon loses, previously hesitant customers become much more comfortable with the idea of using Amazon's proprietary, hardware-locked service. Sounds better for them to take a dive on this one.
Why was the parent modded "funny"? He has a good point. You can debate and/or sue over whether Amazon should have (or legally could) remove your copy of "1984" from your Kindle. Whether or not you have notes that reference that book is beside the point. Granted, your notes may be of greatly reduced value if they contain phrases like "This is a really good paragraph", but still, I doubt you can go after Amazon for that.
Sure his notes weren't worth that much monetarily, so actual damages might not add up to much. That's why he's suing for punitive damages. To punish. If the only penalty for theft is you must return the property, you might as well play the percentages and steal all you can. Likewise for any crime where you benefit at a cost to the victim. I've used the following example before (and probably will again):
1. Sell counterfeit garden gnomes for 20x their collectible value
2. Get caught 9 out of 10 times. Refund the purchase price.
Slashdot Mirror
By looking at comments from US people, apparently bears roaming on streets and huge snowstorms so that you cant even walk outside :)
Only in Buffalo.
Okay, so the 18W number is "thermal design power"... sigh, another bloody spec.
Is this a typical spec that is used for comparison? I ask because I've been an electrical engineer for 15 years and, up until now, have done fine with "typical power consumption" (which is supposedly 3 W for this chip, compared to 7 W for the Intel Atom Z530) and "maximum power consumption", which is what you have to design the power supply around, lest the supply rails brown out.
Sigh... like they say: "A datasheet writer can get twice the performance out of a chip that an engineer can."
The Thermal Design Power is the spec for the cooling system -- so relax, it's the Mechanical Engineer's problem, we don't do thermo.
I find this repulsive because AT&T services are something that should be considered a life necessity. Since AT&T is the only business that provides these services, consumers have no choice where to get this required need to sustain their lives.
What we really need is another option than AT&T, so that when we are given the contract to sign, we can just say "no" and go to a competitor with a less stringent contract.
That will be the day, friends, when the first competitor to AT&T arrives and gives us an option.
Oh, wait...
You'll know you've found the "competitor with a less stringent contract" by the unicorns playing in their front yard.
Sure you can. Just write that into a binding contract that both parties agree to.
Um, that's kinda the point nonewmsgs was making. Can you make such a contract that is actually binding? Just because a contract has been understood and agreed to by all parties does not make it binding.
The binding isn't even tight enough to keep from being loosened and re-tied by one of the parties.
The people make up both government AND corporations, and we have the power to do with them what we please. We did, and should continue to, play them against each other to make our lives better.
This is Milo Minderbinder's "we all own shares in the syndicate" philosophy from Catch-22, a parable about Capitalism. The American and German governments were at war with each other, but both contracted with and for the "syndicate". So if you were asked to bomb your own country's assets, it was because the syndicate contracted for it. And since everyone owned shares in the syndicate, it was to his own benefit to bomb his country's own stuff.
In the book, as in real life, while everyone does own some share of the "syndicate", the vast majority of the shares are in the hands of the few. Like the guys in the planes contracted to be shot down by their own "side", it's not the large shareholders that will be asked to make the sacrifice for the good of everyone.
How is this different from:
You keep tolerating paying electricity bills. I have no moral qualms about hacking my meter, so I'll keep doing that. Everybody wins.
It's different in a very important way: I never signed or agreed to the "unwritten contract". I know of no laws in my country/locality forbidding my activities. And finally, failure to view advertisements is not generally considered socially unacceptable.
Remember, you yourself say you ". . . feel that [you] have an unwritten contract with content providers . . ." I don't share that feeling. And what are morals guided by? Social standards, including Laws, philosophy (including religion), and one's personal feelings/reason/experience (conscience). So difference between us is our "felt" sense of right and wrong. You feel that you are doing right, and I just feel that I'm not doing any particular wrong. If you want others to follow your moral code you can try rhetoric (as we're doing here) to change either an individual or society; you can try to lead by providing an example to others; or you can attempt to change the law.
To address your specific example, I agreed (in writing in my case) to pay the electric company for the energy I consume. The law backs this up, and furthermore, society considers tampering with meters to be a type of theft. These do not apply to the advertising case, so we're just two guys who feel differently about the morality involved.
If the ads are so intrusive that they're intolerable, I'll go elsewhere. Effectively, I "can't afford" that content.
I reckon using an ad blocker is *directly* equivalent to circumventing a micropayment mechanism.
I guess that's good, if your theory is correct that eyeballs on ads keeps content free. You keep tolerating the ads. I have no moral qualms about ignoring, avoiding or dodging them, so I'll just keep doing that. Everybody wins.
That is also often the reason why articles are sometimes split up to, say, five pages.
And also the reason I quit reading after the first page. Am I just too lazy to click through all those pages or find some way around it? Yes, I am.
Humans make their living FROM the environment, not FOR it. We aren't as a species gardeners of nature, we like the rest of species, are part of nature which means we don't have the luxury of being 'environmentalists'. Personally, if I can gain by polluting more than the pollution itself harms me personally, I not only will, but I must. It's part of the duty I feel to try hard.
When the environment can't support humans at their current lifestyle then less humans will live ( mostly ) less well. ( or more humans will live very much less well ). If humans don't like that, they will kill each other until they come to some sort of arrangement. It's inevitable. The best you can do is be the one who in the end is living the best and not being killed.
This line of reasoning takes "rational self-interest" right into "Apres moi, le deluge" territory. One problem that comes up when using that approach is that often times a bunch of other folks gets together because they're sick of your attempts to out-pollute them (or stealing their chickens, or eating their children). In fact, it happens now: people who act too egregiously get tossed in jail, where your previously nice lifestyle takes a real dive.
Even a rational approach doesn't have to preclude cooperation. if it did, the rationalists would be wasting their time learning language when they could be spending it more profitably pooping in my yard.
I'm sorry, but if it's OK for the police to ignore a law requiring women to wear dresses, then I don't see the problem with police ignoring the DMCA if they disagree with it. You can't have it both ways. If police have to enforce laws they don't agree with, then they need to enforce them ALL, including ridiculous ones.
Your apology notwithstanding, vigorous enforcement of ridiculous laws is probably the best way to get them changed. Probably wouldn't work for something like the DMCA, since average people wouldn't understand the ridiculousness.
Violating the English language should be even more seriouser.
Truly, the seriousest!
Would you rather have police interpreting the laws as they see fit and only enforcing the ones they agree with?
If the law is unfair, unjust, or just plain disproportionate, then yes, I'd prefer to see the enforcers refuse to do the law's bidding.
Because there is a HUGE difference between liquefying people and copying someone's game.
The actual comparison would be liquefying people vs. arresting someone for console hacking. It was the perpetrators of the holocaust who were tried at Nuremberg, not its victims.
I think Mussolini said "Fascism", actually. Or rather, the quote: "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power" is the one you're thinking of that is often attributed to Mussolini. I haven't found any definitive source, and much of what Mussolini published was actually ghost-written anyway. Note, that's the 1930s Italian definition of "Fascism".
And hundreds, if not thousands, of violent crime offenders go without jail time every week. I love a functining legal system.
But isn't violating a "business model" a seriouser threat to our homeland security?
If you have some snide comments to make, they would be better directed at the elected officials that created their posts, not the grunts on the ground.
What if they threw a war on drugs/copying/circumvention/etc, and no one came?
But then I have natural wit and charm, a willingness to admit I slacked off at university, plus I did computer science.
Now don't take this the wrong way, but I'll bet that the amount of wit and charm actually required for your job -- while not infinitesimal -- is much lower than that which got you the job. Since I assume that you got and kept the job, the hiring decision worked out OK. But just maybe we set ourselves up for trouble when we hire based largely on the interview process. We all want to hire people we like, but in doing so we often neglect to even attempt to measure the applicant's aptitude for the job, assuming the we're much better at "peering into their souls" than we really are.
Sometimes, it works out OK. Perhaps it's also working out OK in Ms. Thompson's case.
The older generation didn't have to take bullshit like this. There were no trouble getting a job back then, especially not for college graduates. Things have gone quite a bit downhill since then.
Every generation has had trouble finding good jobs. There are always notable exceptions when a particular field is hot, and of course the economy goes up and down. And I'll grant you that it's not your fault how the economy is doing 22 years after you were born. But it's too bad you can't tell my grandparents that they had it easy in the Great Depression. You'd get off their lawns in hurry, and with nothing to console you but your shelf of participation trophies.
Like a lot of people, I graduated into a bad economy. Fortunately my GPA was a little better than a 2.7, so grad school was an option.
Yes, college is considerably more expensive these days, even after inflation. There used to be much more direct and indirect federal support. I sure hope your generation registers to vote and then remembers to vote for its own best interests. Your parents' generation got way too hung up on whatever "values" were being preached at the time, and got skinned alive in the bargain. Probably won't help you, but maybe you can change something for your kids.
Not to be an old grumpy man, but RS has missed out on the electronics maker revolution of the past decade. They could have been on the ball, like NewEgg, for the PC modding market but failed to adapt to the market. The RS of today is but a poor imitation of the RS of the '70s and '80s. Full of crap, obsoleted models and cheap junk. /Now get off my lawn.
If you're close enough to a MicroCenter, they're more like what a Radio Shack should have become. And they actually have a better selection of electronics tools than RS. They only lack a wall full of discretes and ICs, but so does Radio Shack now.
The selection is the same? Really? When was the last time you bought an op-amp at Wal-mart?
Try buying one at Radio Shack:
"A what?"
"Nevermind, I'll find it myself."
"Do you want to upgrade your phone with that?"
Installing a driver is, quite often, "a problem".
Absolutely. We've still got hardware that comes with a Windows driver disk with a day-glo sticker on it saying "install me first" and a piece of hardware with a little cap on its USB port secured by another day-glo sticker telling you to find that CD before plugging in the device. Case in point, I got two identical web cams, one for my Mom, one for me. She thought it'd be nice if she could see her granddaughter in-between my occasional trips upstairs^B^B^B^B^B^B^B^Bback home. Mine plugs into Ubuntu machine and works out of the box. Hers requires a call to the neighborhood computer guy to insert the disk, run the setup, and get the hardware installed configured. Kinda backwards, seeing as Windows is for average people and Linux is for geeks, right?
And let's not forget that with windows driver installs, you have to make sure not to click (or forget to unclick) the various crapware that comes with the driver. Because sometimes that crapware does more than just waste some disk space and poop out stupid icons on the desktop.
But back to the overall topic. One could do worse than to visit Amazon or Newegg or another retailer that has detailed user reviews and check out printers (or other hardware) to find out if anyone else has had good results with Linux. Alternatively, perhaps a stand-alone label printer with its own keyboard and LCD would also work -- some are pretty sophisticated in terms of fonts available, barcodes and file storage.
30 years ago, it was passing notes in class. Now it's texting.
I wanted a flying car and a robot butler, instead kids can pass notes around the world.
I see both spellings.
At least to Merriam-Webster, both are acceptable. "Chord" can mean "Cord" as in the anatomical structure. It's an alteration dating to the 15th Century. The Oxford Etymology Dictionary says it was altered from Cord to more closely resemble its Latin root.
And you paid for a device which was tethered to its master, which happened not to be you.
Amazon better be praying to lose this case. If they win, they clearly and publicly establish their right to take back any e-book (or e-whatever) at any time by refunding the purchase price. This would make the resolving of cases like the 1984 one considerably more convenient for them. However, even some previously unconcerned customers become a little more reluctant to use their "virtual books", especially for something that might be important to have access to or have replay/reread value. So Kindle becomes primarily used for disposable (and cheap) items like newspapers, magazines and potboilers.
On the other hand, if Amazon loses, previously hesitant customers become much more comfortable with the idea of using Amazon's proprietary, hardware-locked service. Sounds better for them to take a dive on this one.
Why was the parent modded "funny"? He has a good point. You can debate and/or sue over whether Amazon should have (or legally could) remove your copy of "1984" from your Kindle. Whether or not you have notes that reference that book is beside the point. Granted, your notes may be of greatly reduced value if they contain phrases like "This is a really good paragraph", but still, I doubt you can go after Amazon for that.
Sure his notes weren't worth that much monetarily, so actual damages might not add up to much. That's why he's suing for punitive damages. To punish. If the only penalty for theft is you must return the property, you might as well play the percentages and steal all you can. Likewise for any crime where you benefit at a cost to the victim. I've used the following example before (and probably will again):
1. Sell counterfeit garden gnomes for 20x their collectible value
2. Get caught 9 out of 10 times. Refund the purchase price.
3. Profit