White LEDs are already 3 times as efficient as mercury fluorescent, and fluorescent tubes are 3 times as efficient as incandescent.
From the article, LEDs produce twice as much light as a regular 60 watt bulb. I'm really not sure how to think about all of this. If LEDs produce twice as much light as a regular 60 watt bulb, how does that make LED lights better than compact fluorescent bulbs, which can produce four to five times as much light as an incandescent bulb of the same wattage?
What is missing in this discussion is the actual power used by all these devices.
"This reality is not going to change. In fact it will only get worse as technology coverage is handed to newer, less-qualified observers who simply cannot use a Microsoft Windows computer. With no Microsoft-centric frame of reference, Microsoft cannot look good...."
Think about the "observers" who only know how to use MS Windows, and are presented with the task of writing an article about Linux on the desktop. To paraphrase the article, "With no Linux-centric frame of reference, Linux cannot look good" under those circumstances.
since I'm a teacher, ignorance and stupidity makes me angry.
Then why do you allow your ignorance of what the NYTimes actually prints (vs. what you would like to think it prints) to cloud your judgment? You were quite confident that the NYTimes had never wrote about the schools our brave soldiers are building in Iraq. Is that what you teach your students, to draw the conclusions they want to see, rather than drawing those conclusions based upon the evidence they could find should they take the time to actually look for it?
Don't get me wrong here. I will fully admit that the NYTimes is not the most right-leaning newspaper on this planet. However I have read articles in the NYTimes about school-building in Iraq.
It is truly a shame when a teacher such as yourself succumbs to the politics du jour.
I do not disagree with your comment. However, I do note that portable TVs are an analogy for portable radios, not portable video players.
One reason portable TVs never took off was the reception problems inherent in receiving TV signals. Portable video players do not have those reception problems.
I don't see it myself. Unless the content can be enlarged to tv-size (and there are very large televisions out there;)
Unless the sound from the iPod comes from 5.1 surround sound with subwoofers capable of rattling your fillings, the use of an iPod for music listening will never take off. Most people will want more than simplistic headphone playback for the songs they buy for $0.99.
now, let's examine the war. does the ny times ever report a single positive development? never. not one school being built, nothing.
In reality, the NYTimes has reported about schools being built in Iraq. And they have reported about all the good work that our brave soldiers are doing their to help rebuild the country.
I did not say the NYTimes is a shining example of unbiased reporting. I merely said that those who think Foxnews.com is "fair and balanced" may do so only because they agree with the biases of that "news" site. One could say that about any site. Or one could say the inverse as another poster has pointed out.
btw, have you seen anyone about all that anger you have built up inside you?:-)
I'm sorry, the features sound cool, but a lot of Microsoft tech gadgets have come and gone that sounded cool on the surface but just didn't provide the right interface or were too cumbersome.
Microsoft's software always sounds good before it is actually released. We should check with some people who have already tried to use Microsoft's IPTV offerings.
The product summary clearly indicates that FreeDOS is an option. I wanted to buy one so that I could use my Windows 2000 license instead of Windows XP. HP even offers the Windows 2000 drivers for the notebook.
Unfortunately, HP does not allow you to actually buy such a notebook.
Re:IBM is trying the save a piece of his bizness
on
Keeping the Lights On
·
· Score: 1
Out of my entire comment, you seem to choose two words for critique that are the least relevant to the concept I was trying to convey in the overall message.
Anyway, I don't believe that my out of dateness really invalidates the rest of my post. The most important point is that trying to implement everything correctly is not really a practical way of making a secure system. This has (historically) been OpenBSD's approach, but it suffers from the issues I raised before. Having better access controls makes it easier to make a secure system given that some of your software will have bugs.
In addition to "trying to do things correctly" (and succeeding at it, btw), the OpenBSD team has had an excellent randomization algorithm for TCP/IP sequence numbers for years, has implemented the W^X flag, is now randomizing malloc addresses, has had OS support of cryptology for years, has practiced proactive instead of reactive security, etc, etc, etc. The list is rather long. I'm not an OpenBSD advocate, I don't pretend to be one, I don't want to be one. I just use OpenBSD in my security applications.
Maybe it would be helpful if you spent more time understanding what the OpenBSD team is really doing, instead of describing your incorrect perceptions of what you think they are doing.
Blaming everyone else for his own problems. My advice to him: suck it up - you get out of an education only what you put into it. College-level Engineering isn't high school anymore. You can't sit on your laurels, announce how great your are, and then expect everyone to admire you in awe.
Re:IBM is trying the save a piece of his bizness
on
Keeping the Lights On
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Unisys knows their mainframe business is dying, and is pushing Dell servers with Windows now. They've been trying to migrate some of these mainframe systems to server groups (not exactly clusters, each box has a role) with horrible results.
The root problem in your sentences I've quoted is not the migration from the mainframe, it's the word "Windows". To expect Windows to have anywhere near the reliability and performance of an IBM mainframe is, at best, humorous.
As you go on to say, IBM mainframes are highly optimized computing systems, systems that excel at moving data from the disk to memory to processing as quickly as possible. Windows boxen don't even come close in this regard. And then there is the reliability of Windows vs. IBM mainframe OS's.
For the past 20 years I have been hearing how Windows is going to kill the mainframes, yet IBM's mainframes still seem to be doing rather well. I hear they even run Linux nowadays. Far out (to use the terminology that seems appropriate).
I was looking at a DVR a year or so ago. I looked at TiVo but did not like the phone line coming out of the back of it. So I decided to buy a Panasonic DVR. I don't get all the fancy TiVo features, like it recording shows it thinks I might like, or on screen program guides; but it does record the shows I tell it to record, and there are no pop-ads, monthly charges or service agreements.
From the looks of the news coming out of TiVo lately, my decision to bypass TiVo was a good one.
Slashdot Mirror
From the article, LEDs produce twice as much light as a regular 60 watt bulb. I'm really not sure how to think about all of this. If LEDs produce twice as much light as a regular 60 watt bulb, how does that make LED lights better than compact fluorescent bulbs, which can produce four to five times as much light as an incandescent bulb of the same wattage?
What is missing in this discussion is the actual power used by all these devices.
Think about the "observers" who only know how to use MS Windows, and are presented with the task of writing an article about Linux on the desktop. To paraphrase the article, "With no Linux-centric frame of reference, Linux cannot look good" under those circumstances.
Yes you did, and continue to do so. ;-)
Then why do you allow your ignorance of what the NYTimes actually prints (vs. what you would like to think it prints) to cloud your judgment? You were quite confident that the NYTimes had never wrote about the schools our brave soldiers are building in Iraq. Is that what you teach your students, to draw the conclusions they want to see, rather than drawing those conclusions based upon the evidence they could find should they take the time to actually look for it?
Don't get me wrong here. I will fully admit that the NYTimes is not the most right-leaning newspaper on this planet. However I have read articles in the NYTimes about school-building in Iraq.
It is truly a shame when a teacher such as yourself succumbs to the politics du jour.
One reason portable TVs never took off was the reception problems inherent in receiving TV signals. Portable video players do not have those reception problems.
Unless the sound from the iPod comes from 5.1 surround sound with subwoofers capable of rattling your fillings, the use of an iPod for music listening will never take off. Most people will want more than simplistic headphone playback for the songs they buy for $0.99.
In reality, the NYTimes has reported about schools being built in Iraq. And they have reported about all the good work that our brave soldiers are doing their to help rebuild the country.
I did not say the NYTimes is a shining example of unbiased reporting. I merely said that those who think Foxnews.com is "fair and balanced" may do so only because they agree with the biases of that "news" site. One could say that about any site. Or one could say the inverse as another poster has pointed out.
btw, have you seen anyone about all that anger you have built up inside you? :-)
FoxNews.com posts opinion as fact on its front page as well. You just don't recognize it if you agree with their opinions.
Microsoft needs to get more people interested in Vista, so they have a continual stream of leaks to keep everyone talking about Vista.
Unless that running code happens to be on Mars, and is not quite running as expected. Then those managed artifacts become very useful.
Wasn't the original Eclipse source code donated by IBM as well?
Microsoft's software always sounds good before it is actually released. We should check with some people who have already tried to use Microsoft's IPTV offerings.
The song, Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer could have an entirely new set of lyrics if this technology were widely used.
I enter some keywords into the search field, and wish the results would come back before I am old enough to retire.
Just wait and see.
because, for some odd reason, Microsoft incorrectly thinks Windows is better.
Unfortunately, HP does not allow you to actually buy such a notebook.
Out of my entire comment, you seem to choose two words for critique that are the least relevant to the concept I was trying to convey in the overall message.
Odd that the Windows terminology for the blue screen of death now seems to be the standard term for a computer crashing. Or maybe that's not so odd.
(please don't mod this as funny, I am very serious here.)
In addition to "trying to do things correctly" (and succeeding at it, btw), the OpenBSD team has had an excellent randomization algorithm for TCP/IP sequence numbers for years, has implemented the W^X flag, is now randomizing malloc addresses, has had OS support of cryptology for years, has practiced proactive instead of reactive security, etc, etc, etc. The list is rather long. I'm not an OpenBSD advocate, I don't pretend to be one, I don't want to be one. I just use OpenBSD in my security applications.
Maybe it would be helpful if you spent more time understanding what the OpenBSD team is really doing, instead of describing your incorrect perceptions of what you think they are doing.
For example, I believe that the OpenBSD/OpenSSH teams are beginning to do similar things (e.g. OpenSSH privilege separation),
Privilege separation has been in OpenBSD for years. It is not something that OpenBSD is "beginning to do".
Blaming everyone else for his own problems. My advice to him: suck it up - you get out of an education only what you put into it. College-level Engineering isn't high school anymore. You can't sit on your laurels, announce how great your are, and then expect everyone to admire you in awe.
The root problem in your sentences I've quoted is not the migration from the mainframe, it's the word "Windows". To expect Windows to have anywhere near the reliability and performance of an IBM mainframe is, at best, humorous.
As you go on to say, IBM mainframes are highly optimized computing systems, systems that excel at moving data from the disk to memory to processing as quickly as possible. Windows boxen don't even come close in this regard. And then there is the reliability of Windows vs. IBM mainframe OS's.
For the past 20 years I have been hearing how Windows is going to kill the mainframes, yet IBM's mainframes still seem to be doing rather well. I hear they even run Linux nowadays. Far out (to use the terminology that seems appropriate).
What in the world are they thinking? It's closer to soft-porn than sci-fi.
From the looks of the news coming out of TiVo lately, my decision to bypass TiVo was a good one.