That's why they said "mass-market commercial compiler." I don't think gcc is a mass-market commercial compiler. There are other non-mass-market or non-commercial compilers out there, I'm sure.
But then, I headed to the website to see that it is 480 Mbit/s.
Damn...I would've been going out to buy the new USB 2.0 PCI cards tomorrow evening
Anyway, a little more on topic, this is pretty cool stuff. I have a scanner, webcam, and occasionally a 100BT network adapter (among some other random things sometimes) plugged into my USB ports, and I can't use more than one at one time without severely affecting the performance of all the others. My Intel webcam goes blank when I'm transferring a large file over the ethernet!
I doubt that anyone cares about my trials with USB 1.1, but this is sorely needed if USB is to have a future. This definitely is giving it a good jolt and allowing it to remain a competetive, popular, easy to use standard with firewire and Serial ATA (I don't know too much about this...is it still in the works? What's the difference between it and, say, firewire?)
What is "difficult" about linux is NOT using it. Using it is wonderfully simple.
What is difficult is ADDING to it. Installs are pretty easy, running it is pretty easy. But Linux has no equivalent of Windows' "Add New Hardware Wizard" or "Device Manager," nor can you go to a website, click on a link to start downloading, and click the "open" button to install a piece of software when it's done.
THAT is what is hard about Linux. As much as you or I may like it, until you can double click a file to install a program, or click on an icon to add any new hardware you may have, Linux will remain out of reach of the average person.
I don't mean this to be a flame (OT, certainly), but you have no iea what you're talking about.
You can't "accelerate" light just like "a rock with gravity." Gravity affects a rock by moving it. Gravity affects light by altering its wavelength. That's all. Gravity, as basically defined by general relativity (which is basically a controversial model of gravity) bends the four dimensional space-time manifold..this is what makes the lgiht appear to "bend" in a gravitational field. It's space that's curved, not a star sucking in light by using a centripetal force.
"Therefore, to accelerate light, the scientist must cause it to have waveform, as sound does."
What does this even mean? I've had quite a few physics courses, including theoretical physics, quantum physics, a course on relativity, and even a course entitled "Philosophical Problems of Space and Time" which pretty deeply explored 20th-century cosmology and world-views, with a heavy heavy focus on relativity and string-type theories and so forth. I have no idea what this means.
Cause light to have a waveform? Light is a wave..it's an EM wave. Sound is a longitudinal wave..it consists of nothing more than a "waveform" of compressed particles of some substance. This is nothing like light.
Once you have this "waveform," whatever that is, how do you manipulate it? How does one manipulate light through some attractive force? Um....bzzt, you can't...Elasticity? The only thing I can think of is actively bending space using mass to "direct" light somehow, but that would not quite accelerate it, even if it were in this mysterious "waveform."
If you're basing all this on your concept of the rudImentary Star Trek episodes, I suggest you actually learn some physics first. I suggest "Inside Relativity" by I believe Mook and Vargish for a basic understanding of relativity. James Cushing has written a truly wonderful book entitled "Philosophical Concepts in Physics" that goes more deeply into the physics of quantum theory as well as other various cosmologies. He also has done a collection of articles..I can't remember the title, but it's subtitled "Reflections on Bell's Theorem" that is extremely enlightening.
I may be totally missing something about your post, and indeed I may be blissfully ignorant of some recent advances in theoretical physics that have spawned even rudimentary episodes of Star Trek, but.....I have _no_ idea what anything you said means.
Are you fried up on some weird shrooms, or do you posess an understanding of particle and wave physics that I cannot comprehend?
Fog that limits visibility to 10 meters? Where do you live?
Come spend a spring in New Orleans or London. We get fog that, literally, limits all visibility to less than 2 meters. That means it's very hard to make out your hand held at arm length. Very scary stuff.
I read that article..or at least a similar one that was in Scientific American.
The problem with that is harnessing that energy to do something useful. Apparently, anything larger than the few molecule thingy they were using would not be subject to the same forces and wouldn't turn. If they tried to hook up some sort of turbine or something to it to generate some type of current, it won't turn.
These aren't limitations of technology..they're mandated by the laws of thermodynamics. By definition, this is impossible. The problem with turning "heat" into energy is that it's not possible. You can turn a heat _differential_ into energy, but you end up losing energy because you have to creat the energy differential in the first place!
What Windows CE did you use to say that it's "bloated as hell"? As far as I can tell from using it, it's rather lean for the incredible range of functionality it has. I doubt if there's any more code in WinCE than there is with the linux + X distribution I saw on the iPaq. It does all sorts of stuff and is far more versatile than PalmOS.
Just because you like the PalmOS for its simplicity doesn't mean everything that's larger and more functional is "bloated as hell." I seriously doubt you've ever used WinCE...if you have, I doubt if you would claim that it's bloated. I love WinCE for what it is, and I think PalmOS is magnificent for what it is.
WinCE is not crap.
Not everything from Microsoft is bloated by default. Get over it.
Heat cannot be used to do work. You will never be able to make a car that runs off of ambient heat energy without a net negative efficiency.
That's a fundamental concept of thermodynamics..one of the proposed "ends" of the universe is called "heat death." That is where all the matter and energy have been converted to heat, which can_not_ be converted to any other form of energy.
Ok, so you read the article. The thing was a joke. The moderators mistook your ignorance for malice. He wasn't serious saying that mymp3 == a cassette. It's called humor.
This could not be farther from the "ultimate test of American hypocrisy." This is a laundromat wanting to prevent porn on their private terminals. It is not the government trying to ban porn on anyone's machine.
These machines belong to the laundromat, and they can do whatever the hell they please with them. It is not a basic human right to be able to do whatever the hell you want with someone else's property. If a company [i.e., SurfNWash] wishes to own computers, good for them. If they grant you permission to use them, that's pretty cool. But you're going to complain when they give a list of legitimate uses and tell you what the DON'T want their machines used for? Wake up.
Free speech is alive and well on the Internet. The government is not arresting porn site webmasters, and it's not about to start. Allow me to repeat: THE OWNER OF A PIECE OF PROPERTY HAS EVERY RIGHT TO DICTATE THE TERMS UPON WHICH SOMEONE ELSE MAY USE IT. The laundromat doesn't _have_ to let people use their computers. They're being nice, and saying "you can use the computers to access the Internet as long as you don't look at pictures of naked women giving horses head." They could also say "you can use my computers to do anything but read the Constitution or look up info about Camus." They own the stuff! If you don't like it, too fucking bad for you, eh? Get your own computer and 'net access.
If I let someone into my home to use my computer, and they go to the KKK homepage, I'm going to fucking tell them to get off it or leave. If that person were you, would you make a big stink about me encroaching on your rights? It's MY property, MY computer, just as it is SurfNWash's property and computers.
THEY HAVE EVERY RIGHT IN THE WORLD TO TOTALLY DICTATE WHAT USES THEY APPROVE. If you don't like them, find another computer!
If the government were trying to make surf filters mandatory on ISP's, or make it illegal to have a public terminal without porn blockers, I will be first in line (probably right beside you) making a big fucking mess about it. They will feel the collective wrath of you, me, and thousands of others.
However, I'm big on the right to property granted to me, and that extends to the laundromat as much as it does to you or me. I'd _expect_ you to hand me terms of use if you were to allow me onto your computer, using your internet connection.
Who said I'm some pro-lifer who advocates blowing up doctors? Didn't you read where I said that killing is wrong, in any context?
I claim to keep no company with the "pro-lifers" who destroy lives and property any more than I keep company with violent skinheads or executioners in China.
I am anti-abortion and anti-death penalty. I am not catholic or christian..in fact I rather despise catholocism for its mangling of the Bible.
I'm not an athiest, and I don't object to either on religious grounds. I just think killing is wrong. Period.
Know what, you narrow-minded, pompous, arrogant ass? Lots of people think the way I do.
It's called Amnesty International (I couldn't find their official stance on abortion, but I believe it violates their declared basic human right of Life).
Do you think if some garage band did a remake of some old song it would be wildly popular? You know how many people have done covers of _every_ song on Garage Days? People want to hear bands they _know_ sing old songs they _know_ form someone else. No one would have ever heard that version of "Last Kiss" if it wasn't Eddie Vedder singing it.
Dammit man!! Read the other posts. There's still an "MS-DOS" icon,a nd you can still type "command" to pop up a DOS window. The ONLY thing that is different is that you can't BOOT into a PURE dos...you can't have WinME DOS running with no actual WinME.
You still have FULL access to the command line from within windows. I'm on WinME right now - the only difference is the lack of "Reboot to MSDOS" and an "Command Line Only" on the F8 menu. Oh yeah, and there's no more/s switch to format..you can't "copy system files."
I have three IP addresses, but I only use one. My ISP doesn't have it set up so you can see other peoples' computers. I still use NAT though, because the gateway box makes a wonderful managed firewall for cheap.
Do what I do. Buy one of those neato cable gateway/router boxes for around $100. Hook it up to a hub and it does DHCP and is totally configurable. That way, the router is the only object on your neighborhood network, and all your computers are on the local network.
Slashdot Mirror
That's why they said "mass-market commercial compiler." I don't think gcc is a mass-market commercial compiler. There are other non-mass-market or non-commercial compilers out there, I'm sure.
They did not say "first open source compiler."
I was floored when i saw the 480 MB/s...Whoa.
But then, I headed to the website to see that it is 480 Mbit/s.
Damn...I would've been going out to buy the new USB 2.0 PCI cards tomorrow evening
Anyway, a little more on topic, this is pretty cool stuff. I have a scanner, webcam, and occasionally a 100BT network adapter (among some other random things sometimes) plugged into my USB ports, and I can't use more than one at one time without severely affecting the performance of all the others. My Intel webcam goes blank when I'm transferring a large file over the ethernet!
I doubt that anyone cares about my trials with USB 1.1, but this is sorely needed if USB is to have a future. This definitely is giving it a good jolt and allowing it to remain a competetive, popular, easy to use standard with firewire and Serial ATA (I don't know too much about this...is it still in the works? What's the difference between it and, say, firewire?)
What is "difficult" about linux is NOT using it. Using it is wonderfully simple.
What is difficult is ADDING to it. Installs are pretty easy, running it is pretty easy. But Linux has no equivalent of Windows' "Add New Hardware Wizard" or "Device Manager," nor can you go to a website, click on a link to start downloading, and click the "open" button to install a piece of software when it's done.
THAT is what is hard about Linux. As much as you or I may like it, until you can double click a file to install a program, or click on an icon to add any new hardware you may have, Linux will remain out of reach of the average person.
I don't mean this to be a flame (OT, certainly), but you have no iea what you're talking about.
You can't "accelerate" light just like "a rock with gravity." Gravity affects a rock by moving it. Gravity affects light by altering its wavelength. That's all. Gravity, as basically defined by general relativity (which is basically a controversial model of gravity) bends the four dimensional space-time manifold..this is what makes the lgiht appear to "bend" in a gravitational field. It's space that's curved, not a star sucking in light by using a centripetal force.
"Therefore, to accelerate light, the scientist must cause it to have waveform, as sound does."
What does this even mean? I've had quite a few physics courses, including theoretical physics, quantum physics, a course on relativity, and even a course entitled "Philosophical Problems of Space and Time" which pretty deeply explored 20th-century cosmology and world-views, with a heavy heavy focus on relativity and string-type theories and so forth. I have no idea what this means.
Cause light to have a waveform? Light is a wave..it's an EM wave. Sound is a longitudinal wave..it consists of nothing more than a "waveform" of compressed particles of some substance. This is nothing like light.
Once you have this "waveform," whatever that is, how do you manipulate it? How does one manipulate light through some attractive force? Um....bzzt, you can't...Elasticity? The only thing I can think of is actively bending space using mass to "direct" light somehow, but that would not quite accelerate it, even if it were in this mysterious "waveform."
If you're basing all this on your concept of the rudImentary Star Trek episodes, I suggest you actually learn some physics first. I suggest "Inside Relativity" by I believe Mook and Vargish for a basic understanding of relativity. James Cushing has written a truly wonderful book entitled "Philosophical Concepts in Physics" that goes more deeply into the physics of quantum theory as well as other various cosmologies. He also has done a collection of articles..I can't remember the title, but it's subtitled "Reflections on Bell's Theorem" that is extremely enlightening.
I may be totally missing something about your post, and indeed I may be blissfully ignorant of some recent advances in theoretical physics that have spawned even rudimentary episodes of Star Trek, but.....I have _no_ idea what anything you said means.
Are you fried up on some weird shrooms, or do you posess an understanding of particle and wave physics that I cannot comprehend?
Oh well..
Fog that limits visibility to 10 meters? Where do you live?
Come spend a spring in New Orleans or London. We get fog that, literally, limits all visibility to less than 2 meters. That means it's very hard to make out your hand held at arm length. Very scary stuff.
I read that article..or at least a similar one that was in Scientific American.
The problem with that is harnessing that energy to do something useful. Apparently, anything larger than the few molecule thingy they were using would not be subject to the same forces and wouldn't turn. If they tried to hook up some sort of turbine or something to it to generate some type of current, it won't turn.
These aren't limitations of technology..they're mandated by the laws of thermodynamics. By definition, this is impossible. The problem with turning "heat" into energy is that it's not possible. You can turn a heat _differential_ into energy, but you end up losing energy because you have to creat the energy differential in the first place!
What Windows CE did you use to say that it's "bloated as hell"? As far as I can tell from using it, it's rather lean for the incredible range of functionality it has. I doubt if there's any more code in WinCE than there is with the linux + X distribution I saw on the iPaq. It does all sorts of stuff and is far more versatile than PalmOS.
Just because you like the PalmOS for its simplicity doesn't mean everything that's larger and more functional is "bloated as hell." I seriously doubt you've ever used WinCE...if you have, I doubt if you would claim that it's bloated. I love WinCE for what it is, and I think PalmOS is magnificent for what it is.
WinCE is not crap.
Not everything from Microsoft is bloated by default. Get over it.
Heat cannot be used to do work. You will never be able to make a car that runs off of ambient heat energy without a net negative efficiency.
That's a fundamental concept of thermodynamics..one of the proposed "ends" of the universe is called "heat death." That is where all the matter and energy have been converted to heat, which can_not_ be converted to any other form of energy.
This is a civil case, not a criminal one. There is no "innocent until proven guilty."
Basically, the jury/judge has to decide who is _more_ right, not decide whether the plaintiffs have proven that some wrongdoing occurred.
Yeltsin?? Yeltsin isn't in power anywhere anymore, man....
Ok, so you read the article. The thing was a joke. The moderators mistook your ignorance for malice. He wasn't serious saying that mymp3 == a cassette. It's called humor.
This could not be farther from the "ultimate test of American hypocrisy." This is a laundromat wanting to prevent porn on their private terminals. It is not the government trying to ban porn on anyone's machine.
These machines belong to the laundromat, and they can do whatever the hell they please with them. It is not a basic human right to be able to do whatever the hell you want with someone else's property. If a company [i.e., SurfNWash] wishes to own computers, good for them. If they grant you permission to use them, that's pretty cool. But you're going to complain when they give a list of legitimate uses and tell you what the DON'T want their machines used for? Wake up.
Free speech is alive and well on the Internet. The government is not arresting porn site webmasters, and it's not about to start. Allow me to repeat: THE OWNER OF A PIECE OF PROPERTY HAS EVERY RIGHT TO DICTATE THE TERMS UPON WHICH SOMEONE ELSE MAY USE IT. The laundromat doesn't _have_ to let people use their computers. They're being nice, and saying "you can use the computers to access the Internet as long as you don't look at pictures of naked women giving horses head." They could also say "you can use my computers to do anything but read the Constitution or look up info about Camus." They own the stuff! If you don't like it, too fucking bad for you, eh? Get your own computer and 'net access.
If I let someone into my home to use my computer, and they go to the KKK homepage, I'm going to fucking tell them to get off it or leave. If that person were you, would you make a big stink about me encroaching on your rights? It's MY property, MY computer, just as it is SurfNWash's property and computers.
THEY HAVE EVERY RIGHT IN THE WORLD TO TOTALLY DICTATE WHAT USES THEY APPROVE. If you don't like them, find another computer!
If the government were trying to make surf filters mandatory on ISP's, or make it illegal to have a public terminal without porn blockers, I will be first in line (probably right beside you) making a big fucking mess about it. They will feel the collective wrath of you, me, and thousands of others.
However, I'm big on the right to property granted to me, and that extends to the laundromat as much as it does to you or me. I'd _expect_ you to hand me terms of use if you were to allow me onto your computer, using your internet connection.
No, I'm sorry, it's really not.
Do some research, "fool." Alcoholics Anonymous was started to help people suffering from alcoholism. Alcoholism is not addiction to alcohol.
Fucking twit, read once in a while before you fucking yell at people. I'm in a bad mood, and you're fucking wrong.
umm..no. the metatags contain all these keywords in text format so you can find them using search engines.
Did you read the article?
Who said I'm some pro-lifer who advocates blowing up doctors? Didn't you read where I said that killing is wrong, in any context?
I claim to keep no company with the "pro-lifers" who destroy lives and property any more than I keep company with violent skinheads or executioners in China.
Killing is bad...what part did you miss?
I am anti-abortion and anti-death penalty. I am not catholic or christian..in fact I rather despise catholocism for its mangling of the Bible.
I'm not an athiest, and I don't object to either on religious grounds. I just think killing is wrong. Period.
Know what, you narrow-minded, pompous, arrogant ass? Lots of people think the way I do.
It's called Amnesty International (I couldn't find their official stance on abortion, but I believe it violates their declared basic human right of Life).
Do you think if some garage band did a remake of some old song it would be wildly popular? You know how many people have done covers of _every_ song on Garage Days? People want to hear bands they _know_ sing old songs they _know_ form someone else. No one would have ever heard that version of "Last Kiss" if it wasn't Eddie Vedder singing it.
Alcohol is not addictive, my friend.
My name is Jon C too..interesting.
Dammit man!! Read the other posts. There's still an "MS-DOS" icon,a nd you can still type "command" to pop up a DOS window. The ONLY thing that is different is that you can't BOOT into a PURE dos...you can't have WinME DOS running with no actual WinME.
/s switch to format..you can't "copy system files."
You still have FULL access to the command line from within windows. I'm on WinME right now - the only difference is the lack of "Reboot to MSDOS" and an "Command Line Only" on the F8 menu. Oh yeah, and there's no more
Depends on the state. :)
Either that, or the show Oz is wrong
I saw it on TV..it has to be true!
I have three IP addresses, but I only use one. My ISP doesn't have it set up so you can see other peoples' computers. I still use NAT though, because the gateway box makes a wonderful managed firewall for cheap.
Do what I do. Buy one of those neato cable gateway/router boxes for around $100. Hook it up to a hub and it does DHCP and is totally configurable. That way, the router is the only object on your neighborhood network, and all your computers are on the local network.
:)
It works great
Note: lots of people who get the death penalty have pleaded guilty, no contest, and have confessed to their crimes.
Another thing. I meant mod up the post above mine, because the poster made a good point.