I actually had the E4200. Nice looking, and worked better than it's predecessor. For a while my Linksys devices would just degrade very quickly, first with constant reboots needed to keep throughput working, then eventually throughput just dropped down to about 1 Mbps. It was ridiculous.
Anyway, on any dual-band router, including the E4200, you can name your bands separately.
Yes, I already did that. My problem is not the router - its the lack of devices that support the 5GHz band. Right now, I only have 1 802.11n device - a USB network card that replaced the miniPCI a/b/g card in my laptop. However, the USB device only supports the 2.4GHz band. So it gets to run on 802.11n with its own AP, while everyone else shares the 802.11g network. I would have much preferred to use it in the 5GHz band, but as I noted in my earlier posts, finding a card to do so is not very easy. (miniPCI-e is very easy to find support for dual-band; but all single band are 2.4GHz.)
Not disagreeing, just saying it's a harder issue to tackle. There are too many 2.4GHz only devices out there, and it'll take time to convert things over. Just like it'll take time for devices to upgrade to using 802.11n instead of 802.11g (which is still extremely popular).
When I upgraded my router (to a Linksys 4200) I got one that is dual band; and really wanted to be able to use the 802.11n in the 5GHz range - only to be very disappointed in what I could find; to the 802.11n and 802.11g both share the 2.4GHz range in my house - where I have devices such as the Wii, NexusOne, iPodTouch and laptops - vintage 2003 to 2011 - using the network.
Most people will be in the same boat - they don't replace devices that often. It'll probably be another 5-7 years before 802.11n 5GHz will the norm, and by then there'll probably be another standard trying to move into the space.
US carriers have stupid "receiver pays" billing policies? Belgium can't fix an American problem.
It's worse than that - both sender and receiver pay. That is why I went into my AT&T account on-line and just flat out disabled texting.
If it was sender pays, I might have kept it on, and may have even eventually used it.
It's bad enough to charge for sending, let alone also charging for receiving given that the SMS/Text messages are entirely carried within the extra unused bytes of the already existing Control Messages on the network. It's pure profit - well, nearly so (e.g. 99% profit at worse).
The solution is for everyone to move to 5 GHz (802.11a/n/ac). It's happening, slowly. The biggest help for this was probably with Samsung and Apple adding the 5 GHz band to their phones this year. Eventually 2.4 GHz will be a relic, I hope.
The biggest problem is getting devices that support 5GHz 802.11n; they almost always support 2.4GHz 802.11n, but only the dual band devices support both 2.4GHz and 5GHz ranges; the single band device are almost 100% 2.4GHz devices.
Glad to hear Samsung and Apple are adding the 5GHz support, but it'll still be a long time before it'll really be useful again.
BTW, I know this mostly from trying to find a device for my old laptop. I finally settled on a 2.4GHz-only USB device as I couldn't find a dual-band for it. It's primarily moving towards dual-band support, but slowly.
Besides, its only the back-flow of contributed changes that would make the GPL apply to their original code, and perhaps not even that
would be sufficient. Does a contributed two line patch drag the entire original proprietary source into the GPL?
Not quite - if the proprietary module links into the Linux subsystems, as seems extremely likely, then the whole module likely becomes a derivative work, the exact details become very important in that case. The nVidia drivers walk this line, which is why you don't see them integrated into with any Linux distro - doing so would tilt the balance towards the derivative work interpretation and is likely to elicit a cease-and-desist letter.
A number of distros have the nVidia drivers integrated - Ubuntu for one. But that's a different issue then what you are talking about.
The nVidia driver uses a special wrapper module around their binary blob to escape the GPL issue on their binary blob. Since the wrapper is GPL it complies with the Linux GPL driver requirements; but since they wrote it and can add a license to the driver in addition to the GPL then they can load their binary blob without fear of it having to become GPL as well.
And in the whole matter, Linus is silent, and seems not to care much as he'd rather get the driver support than make a fuss over it. It's the GPL stalwarts that generally make the fuss. As to who is right, I'm not going to comment.
We know how the pyramids were constructed. We know where the blocks came from, have a pretty good idea of how they moved the blocks to the site and how they raised the blocks.
We really don't know how they were built. There have been a few guesses, but nothing definitive.
However, that was but one example. Others being the curvature of the columns in the various Roman and Greek constructions such that they would appear from the ground to be uniformly the same whilst still providing the structure support required.
Those are just a few of the things that have been observed. There are many, many others.
There are still many feats of the Ancient world that we still cannot figure out (e.g. construction of the pyramids).
Actually, we could easily build the Pyramids today. There's no problem in figuring that out, we could even improve it. The trick is not the result, but figuring out what processes they used, since they didn't tend to leave records around that give us a complete picture, we're just trying to fill in the picture.
True, we could build them today using modern tools. But how they did it then and what tools they used is still a complete mystery. There have been a number of guesses, but nothing that has been decided or lives up to what was done.
And yet, IQ scores continue to climb every year. The average person in 1880 would score 70 today. The brightest Greek mind would likely sound like an idiot today if you tried to talk to him. He wouldn't know anything about DNA, quantum mechanics, evolution, economics, astronomy, virology, microbiology, ad nauseum.
You obviously have not studied the greeks. At the time of Aristotle they had quite a bit of information that we are only just figuring out. There are still many feats of the Ancient world that we still cannot figure out (e.g. construction of the pyramids).
As to the IQ scores, it is hard to compare them even over a 10 years period due to assumptions of what should be in the tests administered. The tests do not translate well across cultural or temporal boundaries.
Surface sales are "modest" according to Ballmer. Given that, a month out from Vista's release, Vista was dubbed the best selling OS of all time, I'm guessing that's marketing speak for "suuuuuuccckkkkksssss". But even that's more information than what's come out about Windows 8 sales.
The Vista sales had all kinds of double counting in them. For instance, the first sale of Vista plus the sale of the Vista upgrades (if you got the wrong one the first time); or for instance the fact that you bought a Vista license even though you "downgraded" to XP which is what you really wanted. If properly counted, Vista sales were some of the worse for Microsoft, and Win7 which did better than Vista still didn't compete with WinXP sales for a long time. (It was hard to do worse than Vista.)
Now they're simply keeping their mouth shut on Win8 sales because it's tanking like WinPhone 7 - giving Vista a run for its money in terms of sales, despite much more investment in R&D and advertising.
There are only a few reasons why execs leave, especially a company they have invested as much of themselves into as Sinosky did Microsoft. Gates left because of the Anti-trust stuff - it just didn't make business sense to keep him in the positions he was in.
There doesn't seem to be a good reason for Sinofsky to go. So, like you said - it speaks ill of Microsoft's future as someone like him would hopefully see the writing on the wall so long as he wasn't drinking too much of the corporate kool-aid. So most likely, he saw the writing on the wall, wanted to do something about it, but kept getting headed off by others (e.g. Ballmer, Gates, Elop) getting in the way; and decided to leave instead of going through all the headaches and stress that would otherwise be caused. It also enables him to dump his stocks easier after about a year.
While I agree with your point, I do dissent in one aspect:
FOSS (Free and Open Source Software) or as the illiterate OP said "whatever you want to call it"
I am hardly illiterate about the Open Source community, my main point in stating it that was was recognizing that there are different groups - some simply call it Open Source, others Free and Open Source Software (FOSS), and still others Free, Libre, Open Source Software (F/LOSS). Each does so for its own reason. The GP called it Open Source; you called it FOSS - and honestly, while I certainly understand what each is trying to signify - namely how much freedom - it's not really important what it is called; rather the principles behind them all are important.
{partial sarcasm}Well that is the problem with Open Source software when the creator stops being involved in the product the product in essence dies and goes on the waste side, as there is a loss of interest in the product. While commercial apps have teams of people and if it makes money it will continue on with the loss of it leader and it can even move from company to company{/partial sarcasm}
Sarcasm aside, Not necessarily.
With Open Source (FOSS, FLOSS - whatever you want to call it) if the creator stops being involved, the community behind it can pick it up. If there isn't enough community interest, then it falls by the wayside, but then it was either too early or not interesting enough.
With Commercial, if the business has a problem (e.g. the CEO gets indicted) and goes under, or is in serious question; then there is no one else to turn to. Your saving grace would be if someone bought it out and continued the product, but there's no guarantee that will happen and most companies won't want to toss the financial resources to buy the company if they don't think the product is worth it - e.g. there's a cheaper alternative.
For Hans and ReiserFS, RFS4 got continued by the community, but its still problematic and will now never make it to the mainline kernel.
For McAfee, well, there's a sufficiently large corportate entity that nothing will happen - it'll go on, and if necessary change its name to avoid bad associated publicity due to any trial or bad outcome for Mr. McAfee.
I looked at some older TPC results, and see the previous Itanium delivering 4/7 the speed of the T5440, one of Sun's oldest threads-not-clock-speed boxes. Compared to IBM Power 7, Itanium delivered 4/10, so the doubling should being it up to 80% of the IBM.
Not to be sneezed at! Nevertheless, not competitive with Power, Fujitsu (Sun) M series or even the new Sun T4 boxes.
One question that begs: were those TPC tests done on Itanium optimized well enough for Itanium? Or was there another bottleneck other than the processor?
One of the early on issues with Itanium was that it was hard for the optimizers to get right. I think they solved that, but I don't know when.
And of course it is hard to make apples-to-apples comparisons between architectures unless you have a reference system where the only thing you change is the processor, and verify that the code running on top of it is equally optimized for it and the hardware in the reference system. There are many factors - something as simple as a bad network card could throw off the results if you had to converse over the network. I'm not familiar with TPC tests, but I would assume they would be including processor, memory, network, and storage - not simply processor given that they are trying to test the transactional performance of a system, which has little to do with the processor itself and more to do with the networ, storage, and application being tested.
i don't think my tablet will ever replace my netbook android is nice but it still cant replace a full os. if you like kubuntu you should give bidhi linux a spin the e17 wm is epic and nobody seems to care it stomps everything else flat. does composting without the need of any opengl. and not the lame softwhere opengl ubuntu uses that eats up the cpu.
Well, I don't think e17 would work for my dad. KDE is fine - it's similar enough to what he was use to that he made the transition without a problem. But Enlightenment would be pushing it - he barely uses a computer - email, documents, skype, and a couple others things is about as much as he can handle.
For me, I use to use Enlighmentment - about a decade ago. Then I moved to KDE and haven't really looked back. Of course, most of my systems don't use software opengl, and I find Qt a delight to program with.
they went to Microsoft and said we want to put xp on those and they told them to go to hell you know was not the latest greatest hardware that was back when they where using a 900mhz celeron. so they put linux on them and despite being non windows they where selling like mad. then of course the atom released sales rose more and Microsoft walked back in the picture waving lots of bribe money saying you should only sell these with windows.
And a crippled version of Windows (at first) as well, with a price increase over what they had before.
My cousin bought a netbook, and replaced it with an iPad. He gave the netbook to my dad who used it for a while; it was okay - but my cousin had upgraded it from Windows 7 Starter to Windows 7 Professional (or Ultimate, can't remember). Something happened (I think the hard drive died, IIRC) and I had to reinstall the system - only I didn't have Win7; so we put Kubuntu on it. It's worked great since - even better than when it had Windows 7 on it.
My leaky/biased memory says these machines were a speed disappointment. Is this doubling going to make them faster or slower than an x86?
--dave
The big issue, IIRC, is that Itanium was dead slow in its x86 emulation in the first few rounds. Intel's ideas as initially to emulate the x86 chips in software so that the Itanium wouldn't lose their x86 market and they could switch everyone over. They later went back and remove the software emulation and put an x86 die on to do the work in order to make it faster.
In native mode, I've never heard a complaint about Itanium and speed - only its x86 support mode.
Depends. If you're civilization that's millions of years old that has encountered little, if any, resistance out of the countless conquered planets, you might actually become a bit overconfident and neglect to patch things on a timely basis.
More like they'd be mired in the red tape than overconfident...
For what it's worth, ID4 does establish (in the second act, I believe?) that our technology is replicated from the alien designs. From a storytelling perspective, it's not much of a stretch, then, to make a "virus". Something that simply moves along byte by byte making copies of itself wouldn't be that difficult a thing to figure out, if you had access to one of their computers on the ground (Which they do, in Area 51) and it's further not much of a stretch to imagine that their admins might have left access a little *too* open.
Sure, he's shown using his PowerBook running MacOS, but it's probably just a terminal window of sorts into the guts of the alien computer, because the PowerBook is designed for a human, and the alien systems are not.
Most movie portrayals of computing are pretty far fetched, but this is one I'm actually willing to forgive. It doesn't seem implausible in the least to me that someone faced with impending annihilation would figure out how to do this. Hell, I bet the guys at Area 51 might have even had a compiler for the damn thing, they have had it for a few decades.
But you think they'd have closed that security hole in 50 years time. It's not like they were Microsoft....
Microsoft sponsored POSSCON and had a keynote speaker. The organizers were a bit embarrassed by how the crowd (and even other speakers) treated him (and Microsoft) given how much money Microsoft had provided - even providing a very nice lunch. They didn't sponsor the following year, for which we were thankful.
Now the keynote speaker himself should have been quite embarassed too as he kept on talking about how Microsoft was all about standards and helping people, etc; how they're integrated open source, and more. Only, he was new to Microsoft (only hired in a fews prior, IIRC) and seemed to have been only shown as much of Microsoft as needed to make the statements he was making - or reiterating points from someone else. His presentation was pretty much a joke.
While POSSCON doesn't get a bigger crowed like the other conferences do, or even a lot of the bigger names (outside of their speakers); I would expect that the other conferences would likely treat Microsoft the same (for better or for worse) just because of their reputation within the community. The community (as seen here on Slashdot too) is very cynacle of Microsoft, and for good reason.
...well, at least where I am presently working the problem is management. Supposedly we're hiring a few software engineers, only they are low-balling the offers to anyone they do consider, and won't consider anyone over about 42 (the 'software manager' refuses to have anyone work for him within 5 years of his own age, or so I am told). This means that most of the guys that have the experience we need, to get the job done on time and done right are being rejected by idiotic management - possibly (likely) doing something illegal - and our projects and customers are suffering for it.
Their idea is to get students out of college and train them. Only, we don't have the time or resources to train anyone. We don't have anyone that can be a mentor to younger workers either, and the required skill set to stay afloat is rather high. (We really need people with at least 5 yrs of experience plus college at the bottom end, and 10-15 years plus college at the upper end).
So, I wouldn't so much say that there is a shelf life as there is a perceived benefit by management to younger works - from taxing them with grueling overtime, to paying them less since they don't have as much experience.
What would a "God" really be? Someone with vastly higher intelligence, using technology that you can't comprehend. Everything they did would seem magical, mystical, miraculous. Since you couldn't even comprehend their world, all you would be able to do is make up myths and legends and tall tales to explain their "Godliness".
A God would not need technology to do that.
True, a race using a higher technology than another race would appear to have god-like powers, but only until the technology was unveiled to the other race.
Slashdot Mirror
I actually had the E4200. Nice looking, and worked better than it's predecessor. For a while my Linksys devices would just degrade very quickly, first with constant reboots needed to keep throughput working, then eventually throughput just dropped down to about 1 Mbps. It was ridiculous.
Anyway, on any dual-band router, including the E4200, you can name your bands separately.
Yes, I already did that. My problem is not the router - its the lack of devices that support the 5GHz band. Right now, I only have 1 802.11n device - a USB network card that replaced the miniPCI a/b/g card in my laptop. However, the USB device only supports the 2.4GHz band. So it gets to run on 802.11n with its own AP, while everyone else shares the 802.11g network. I would have much preferred to use it in the 5GHz band, but as I noted in my earlier posts, finding a card to do so is not very easy. (miniPCI-e is very easy to find support for dual-band; but all single band are 2.4GHz.)
Not disagreeing, just saying it's a harder issue to tackle. There are too many 2.4GHz only devices out there, and it'll take time to convert things over. Just like it'll take time for devices to upgrade to using 802.11n instead of 802.11g (which is still extremely popular).
When I upgraded my router (to a Linksys 4200) I got one that is dual band; and really wanted to be able to use the 802.11n in the 5GHz range - only to be very disappointed in what I could find; to the 802.11n and 802.11g both share the 2.4GHz range in my house - where I have devices such as the Wii, NexusOne, iPodTouch and laptops - vintage 2003 to 2011 - using the network.
Most people will be in the same boat - they don't replace devices that often. It'll probably be another 5-7 years before 802.11n 5GHz will the norm, and by then there'll probably be another standard trying to move into the space.
So what was that year of revisions, compromises, and goalpost-moving?
To get all the democrats to sign on.
US carriers have stupid "receiver pays" billing policies? Belgium can't fix an American problem.
It's worse than that - both sender and receiver pay. That is why I went into my AT&T account on-line and just flat out disabled texting.
If it was sender pays, I might have kept it on, and may have even eventually used it.
It's bad enough to charge for sending, let alone also charging for receiving given that the SMS/Text messages are entirely carried within the extra unused bytes of the already existing Control Messages on the network. It's pure profit - well, nearly so (e.g. 99% profit at worse).
The solution is for everyone to move to 5 GHz (802.11a/n/ac). It's happening, slowly. The biggest help for this was probably with Samsung and Apple adding the 5 GHz band to their phones this year. Eventually 2.4 GHz will be a relic, I hope.
The biggest problem is getting devices that support 5GHz 802.11n; they almost always support 2.4GHz 802.11n, but only the dual band devices support both 2.4GHz and 5GHz ranges; the single band device are almost 100% 2.4GHz devices.
Glad to hear Samsung and Apple are adding the 5GHz support, but it'll still be a long time before it'll really be useful again.
BTW, I know this mostly from trying to find a device for my old laptop. I finally settled on a 2.4GHz-only USB device as I couldn't find a dual-band for it. It's primarily moving towards dual-band support, but slowly.
Besides, its only the back-flow of contributed changes that would make the GPL apply to their original code, and perhaps not even that would be sufficient. Does a contributed two line patch drag the entire original proprietary source into the GPL?
Not quite - if the proprietary module links into the Linux subsystems, as seems extremely likely, then the whole module likely becomes a derivative work, the exact details become very important in that case. The nVidia drivers walk this line, which is why you don't see them integrated into with any Linux distro - doing so would tilt the balance towards the derivative work interpretation and is likely to elicit a cease-and-desist letter.
A number of distros have the nVidia drivers integrated - Ubuntu for one. But that's a different issue then what you are talking about.
The nVidia driver uses a special wrapper module around their binary blob to escape the GPL issue on their binary blob. Since the wrapper is GPL it complies with the Linux GPL driver requirements; but since they wrote it and can add a license to the driver in addition to the GPL then they can load their binary blob without fear of it having to become GPL as well.
And in the whole matter, Linus is silent, and seems not to care much as he'd rather get the driver support than make a fuss over it. It's the GPL stalwarts that generally make the fuss. As to who is right, I'm not going to comment.
Not entirely on speculation. The device claims to run the GPL'ed linux kernel. Therefore the module they link to the kernel must also be GPL.
Not necessarily. The nVidia drivers run in a GPL'd Linux Kernel, but it most certainly is not GPL'd itself. They could very well do the same thing.
We know how the pyramids were constructed. We know where the blocks came from, have a pretty good idea of how they moved the blocks to the site and how they raised the blocks.
We really don't know how they were built. There have been a few guesses, but nothing definitive.
However, that was but one example. Others being the curvature of the columns in the various Roman and Greek constructions such that they would appear from the ground to be uniformly the same whilst still providing the structure support required.
Those are just a few of the things that have been observed. There are many, many others.
There are still many feats of the Ancient world that we still cannot figure out (e.g. construction of the pyramids).
Actually, we could easily build the Pyramids today. There's no problem in figuring that out, we could even improve it. The trick is not the result, but figuring out what processes they used, since they didn't tend to leave records around that give us a complete picture, we're just trying to fill in the picture.
True, we could build them today using modern tools. But how they did it then and what tools they used is still a complete mystery. There have been a number of guesses, but nothing that has been decided or lives up to what was done.
And yet, IQ scores continue to climb every year. The average person in 1880 would score 70 today. The brightest Greek mind would likely sound like an idiot today if you tried to talk to him. He wouldn't know anything about DNA, quantum mechanics, evolution, economics, astronomy, virology, microbiology, ad nauseum.
You obviously have not studied the greeks. At the time of Aristotle they had quite a bit of information that we are only just figuring out. There are still many feats of the Ancient world that we still cannot figure out (e.g. construction of the pyramids).
As to the IQ scores, it is hard to compare them even over a 10 years period due to assumptions of what should be in the tests administered. The tests do not translate well across cultural or temporal boundaries.
Surface sales are "modest" according to Ballmer. Given that, a month out from Vista's release, Vista was dubbed the best selling OS of all time, I'm guessing that's marketing speak for "suuuuuuccckkkkksssss". But even that's more information than what's come out about Windows 8 sales.
The Vista sales had all kinds of double counting in them. For instance, the first sale of Vista plus the sale of the Vista upgrades (if you got the wrong one the first time); or for instance the fact that you bought a Vista license even though you "downgraded" to XP which is what you really wanted. If properly counted, Vista sales were some of the worse for Microsoft, and Win7 which did better than Vista still didn't compete with WinXP sales for a long time. (It was hard to do worse than Vista.)
Now they're simply keeping their mouth shut on Win8 sales because it's tanking like WinPhone 7 - giving Vista a run for its money in terms of sales, despite much more investment in R&D and advertising.
Very well put.
There are only a few reasons why execs leave, especially a company they have invested as much of themselves into as Sinosky did Microsoft. Gates left because of the Anti-trust stuff - it just didn't make business sense to keep him in the positions he was in.
There doesn't seem to be a good reason for Sinofsky to go. So, like you said - it speaks ill of Microsoft's future as someone like him would hopefully see the writing on the wall so long as he wasn't drinking too much of the corporate kool-aid. So most likely, he saw the writing on the wall, wanted to do something about it, but kept getting headed off by others (e.g. Ballmer, Gates, Elop) getting in the way; and decided to leave instead of going through all the headaches and stress that would otherwise be caused. It also enables him to dump his stocks easier after about a year.
FOSS (Free and Open Source Software) or as the illiterate OP said "whatever you want to call it"
I am hardly illiterate about the Open Source community, my main point in stating it that was was recognizing that there are different groups - some simply call it Open Source, others Free and Open Source Software (FOSS), and still others Free, Libre, Open Source Software (F/LOSS). Each does so for its own reason. The GP called it Open Source; you called it FOSS - and honestly, while I certainly understand what each is trying to signify - namely how much freedom - it's not really important what it is called; rather the principles behind them all are important.
First it was the Novell acquisition, then the Microsoft licensing... when will it end?
Probably with Win8.
{partial sarcasm}Well that is the problem with Open Source software when the creator stops being involved in the product the product in essence dies and goes on the waste side, as there is a loss of interest in the product. While commercial apps have teams of people and if it makes money it will continue on with the loss of it leader and it can even move from company to company{/partial sarcasm}
Sarcasm aside, Not necessarily.
With Open Source (FOSS, FLOSS - whatever you want to call it) if the creator stops being involved, the community behind it can pick it up. If there isn't enough community interest, then it falls by the wayside, but then it was either too early or not interesting enough.
With Commercial, if the business has a problem (e.g. the CEO gets indicted) and goes under, or is in serious question; then there is no one else to turn to. Your saving grace would be if someone bought it out and continued the product, but there's no guarantee that will happen and most companies won't want to toss the financial resources to buy the company if they don't think the product is worth it - e.g. there's a cheaper alternative.
For Hans and ReiserFS, RFS4 got continued by the community, but its still problematic and will now never make it to the mainline kernel. For McAfee, well, there's a sufficiently large corportate entity that nothing will happen - it'll go on, and if necessary change its name to avoid bad associated publicity due to any trial or bad outcome for Mr. McAfee.
I looked at some older TPC results, and see the previous Itanium delivering 4/7 the speed of the T5440, one of Sun's oldest threads-not-clock-speed boxes. Compared to IBM Power 7, Itanium delivered 4/10, so the doubling should being it up to 80% of the IBM.
Not to be sneezed at! Nevertheless, not competitive with Power, Fujitsu (Sun) M series or even the new Sun T4 boxes.
One question that begs: were those TPC tests done on Itanium optimized well enough for Itanium? Or was there another bottleneck other than the processor?
One of the early on issues with Itanium was that it was hard for the optimizers to get right. I think they solved that, but I don't know when.
And of course it is hard to make apples-to-apples comparisons between architectures unless you have a reference system where the only thing you change is the processor, and verify that the code running on top of it is equally optimized for it and the hardware in the reference system. There are many factors - something as simple as a bad network card could throw off the results if you had to converse over the network. I'm not familiar with TPC tests, but I would assume they would be including processor, memory, network, and storage - not simply processor given that they are trying to test the transactional performance of a system, which has little to do with the processor itself and more to do with the networ, storage, and application being tested.
i don't think my tablet will ever replace my netbook android is nice but it still cant replace a full os. if you like kubuntu you should give bidhi linux a spin the e17 wm is epic and nobody seems to care it stomps everything else flat. does composting without the need of any opengl. and not the lame softwhere opengl ubuntu uses that eats up the cpu.
Well, I don't think e17 would work for my dad. KDE is fine - it's similar enough to what he was use to that he made the transition without a problem. But Enlightenment would be pushing it - he barely uses a computer - email, documents, skype, and a couple others things is about as much as he can handle.
For me, I use to use Enlighmentment - about a decade ago. Then I moved to KDE and haven't really looked back. Of course, most of my systems don't use software opengl, and I find Qt a delight to program with.
they went to Microsoft and said we want to put xp on those and they told them to go to hell you know was not the latest greatest hardware that was back when they where using a 900mhz celeron. so they put linux on them and despite being non windows they where selling like mad. then of course the atom released sales rose more and Microsoft walked back in the picture waving lots of bribe money saying you should only sell these with windows.
And a crippled version of Windows (at first) as well, with a price increase over what they had before.
My cousin bought a netbook, and replaced it with an iPad. He gave the netbook to my dad who used it for a while; it was okay - but my cousin had upgraded it from Windows 7 Starter to Windows 7 Professional (or Ultimate, can't remember). Something happened (I think the hard drive died, IIRC) and I had to reinstall the system - only I didn't have Win7; so we put Kubuntu on it. It's worked great since - even better than when it had Windows 7 on it.
My leaky/biased memory says these machines were a speed disappointment. Is this doubling going to make them faster or slower than an x86?
--dave
The big issue, IIRC, is that Itanium was dead slow in its x86 emulation in the first few rounds. Intel's ideas as initially to emulate the x86 chips in software so that the Itanium wouldn't lose their x86 market and they could switch everyone over. They later went back and remove the software emulation and put an x86 die on to do the work in order to make it faster.
In native mode, I've never heard a complaint about Itanium and speed - only its x86 support mode.
Depends. If you're civilization that's millions of years old that has encountered little, if any, resistance out of the countless conquered planets, you might actually become a bit overconfident and neglect to patch things on a timely basis.
More like they'd be mired in the red tape than overconfident...
For what it's worth, ID4 does establish (in the second act, I believe?) that our technology is replicated from the alien designs. From a storytelling perspective, it's not much of a stretch, then, to make a "virus". Something that simply moves along byte by byte making copies of itself wouldn't be that difficult a thing to figure out, if you had access to one of their computers on the ground (Which they do, in Area 51) and it's further not much of a stretch to imagine that their admins might have left access a little *too* open.
Sure, he's shown using his PowerBook running MacOS, but it's probably just a terminal window of sorts into the guts of the alien computer, because the PowerBook is designed for a human, and the alien systems are not.
Most movie portrayals of computing are pretty far fetched, but this is one I'm actually willing to forgive. It doesn't seem implausible in the least to me that someone faced with impending annihilation would figure out how to do this. Hell, I bet the guys at Area 51 might have even had a compiler for the damn thing, they have had it for a few decades.
But you think they'd have closed that security hole in 50 years time. It's not like they were Microsoft....
Agent BIND, it is imperative that you contact MX immediately. It would seem that the DNSSEC has been found dead.
Did someone use to many AAAA records on him? Or will we have to wait for the CNAME resolution to find out?
Hopefully we'll get our answer before the MPAA assaults the NAME CACHE to once again lock down the world with their RIAA allies...those fiends.
Microsoft sponsored POSSCON and had a keynote speaker. The organizers were a bit embarrassed by how the crowd (and even other speakers) treated him (and Microsoft) given how much money Microsoft had provided - even providing a very nice lunch. They didn't sponsor the following year, for which we were thankful.
Now the keynote speaker himself should have been quite embarassed too as he kept on talking about how Microsoft was all about standards and helping people, etc; how they're integrated open source, and more. Only, he was new to Microsoft (only hired in a fews prior, IIRC) and seemed to have been only shown as much of Microsoft as needed to make the statements he was making - or reiterating points from someone else. His presentation was pretty much a joke.
While POSSCON doesn't get a bigger crowed like the other conferences do, or even a lot of the bigger names (outside of their speakers); I would expect that the other conferences would likely treat Microsoft the same (for better or for worse) just because of their reputation within the community. The community (as seen here on Slashdot too) is very cynacle of Microsoft, and for good reason.
...well, at least where I am presently working the problem is management. Supposedly we're hiring a few software engineers, only they are low-balling the offers to anyone they do consider, and won't consider anyone over about 42 (the 'software manager' refuses to have anyone work for him within 5 years of his own age, or so I am told). This means that most of the guys that have the experience we need, to get the job done on time and done right are being rejected by idiotic management - possibly (likely) doing something illegal - and our projects and customers are suffering for it.
Their idea is to get students out of college and train them. Only, we don't have the time or resources to train anyone. We don't have anyone that can be a mentor to younger workers either, and the required skill set to stay afloat is rather high. (We really need people with at least 5 yrs of experience plus college at the bottom end, and 10-15 years plus college at the upper end).
So, I wouldn't so much say that there is a shelf life as there is a perceived benefit by management to younger works - from taxing them with grueling overtime, to paying them less since they don't have as much experience.
What would a "God" really be? Someone with vastly higher intelligence, using technology that you can't comprehend. Everything they did would seem magical, mystical, miraculous. Since you couldn't even comprehend their world, all you would be able to do is make up myths and legends and tall tales to explain their "Godliness".
A God would not need technology to do that.
True, a race using a higher technology than another race would appear to have god-like powers, but only until the technology was unveiled to the other race.