Hey, dipshit troll, it was Edison's DC lines that needed a power plant every 40 miles.
Also, let's not forget that of the over 1000 patents Tesla has been awarded, most of them... roughly 75%... are still classified secret. This is quite the nursery for conspiracy.
Tesla didn't do that and that's why history is the way it is.
Nope. It has nothing to do with practicality as we know it. History is the way it is regarding Tesla due to Edison's obsession with money and fame. Tesla had the brilliant ideas and brilliant inventions... but no one could figure out how to regulate (i.e. charge for) wireless power. Tesla's inventions were superior to Edison's similar work, and Edison knew this... but Edison's wired power was simple to meter. This and this alone is why we use wired power... because no one could fathom having free, wireless electricity.
(gonna need a new portable computer to go with anyway)
dude... are you stuck in 2003? Think about how small computers are now... think about Moore's Law... can the notion "portable computer" get any more redundant? They've been hiding them in greeting cards for some time. I guess one needs to be specific, though... had you just said "new computer" maybe someone would have thought you meant a data center... and would have criticized you for wanting to drag that around with you.
Your missing a bit of the line which makes it much more clear
I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic
The oath isn't to protect the government it is to protect the constitution... who exactly do you think the domestic enemies of the constitution are?
Just for the record, how many of our enemies have actually attacked or endangered the Constitution? Do we really need... however many... just to protect a document? Couldn't we just put a few guards around it, and have most of the miltary instead take their oaths to defend and protect... citizens and their property?
Wireless and woods don't mix. Obviously, the only technological and economically viable solution is to cut down the trees, sell the lumber, and use a single AP with a nice powerful omnidirectional antenna.
But seriously, its quite astounding that no one seems to be working on this very real problem, wireless and woods (or wireless with obstructions). I guess the neato factor of wireless, that it works at all, is blinding everyone to the fact that it doesn't work when something is in the way. Someone really needs to fix that.
ah... I wasn't aware AMD sold off every fab... more fallout from Intel's dirty tricks... fuckers... competition drives technology, and Intel set technology back a bit by doing what they did. This is where Intel fans should be told to STFU: Its one thing to like a product because it is the best available, but its an entirely different situation, in reality, because the best available should be much better by now, and would have had it not been for shady underhanded business practices stiffling competition. (Why bother pushing the envelope when its easier just to kill the competion and not advance?)
Its a common mistake, and one I often make... thinking that the desktop is what drives processor technology... hearing the echo's of fanbois makes me chuckle ("x86 was better than the G4 Macs!"). If Intel could compete with PPC, then IBM would be using Intel, end of story. No one seems to notice, or place any importance, on the fact that Intel's R&D hit the same frequency wall that IBM PPC's did: I don't see any consumer-level 10Ghz Intel processors available, which one might have predicted we'd have by now looking at the pace of processor development by the late 1990's... Intel got a little more squeeze a little earlier than IBM in that area, even if proc frequency between the two types didn't quite match up when evaluating equivalently powered chips... but they both hit the wall eventually. I really wish we'd get a nice slashdot treatment on the WTF with available consumer GHz limits.
It wasn't a question of IBM "falling behind." IBM is still cutting the bleeding edge as Intel, even today. The PowerPC's in Mac's were different from the PPC's IBM supplies for their own hw and xboxes... one major difference, Mac's PPCs had Altevec. But the issue was IBM wasn't pushing the envelope on the Mac PPC's fast enough for Apple's tastes, not exactly falling behind... IBM didn't have their heart in it because Apple was such a small customer for them... only a small percentage of the chips IBM produced were for the Macintosh. Apple had no negotiating power with IBM to get them to step up their R&D in the Altevec PPCs. Intel saw Apple as a tasty meal and promised them everything they wanted, and except for GPU, pretty much made good on the promises. All of this notwithstanding, PPC's are great technology, and they are still around and will still be around for some time... just not on the desktop (often I make the mistake of thinking the desktop is all there is... of course there are plenty of spaces IBM has taken PPC to that Intel couldn't touch.)
The trouble with Atom is its really not powerful enough for anything but what GP said... netbooks, web, light word processing. Yes, its very low power, but AMD is in its ball park power-wise, and AMD completely spanks the Atom in processing power. I realize Atom has a huge following, and so does Intel in general, due to their chip fabs being the best, even if they couldn't produce a viable GPU to save their lives. Trouble is the Atom is actually equivalent in processing power to a PowerPC G4... so for Apple to sell a NEW computer with an Atom, it would be like it was 2003 again.
IMHO, when AMD studdered on the question of supply, Apple should have just bought them outright.
how is this news? what I don't get... there have been acoustic tape measure apps on AppStore for a couple years now (just search AppStore for tape measure).... and none of them require more than one phone. I have expect to see a slashdot summary soon announcing the new development of the combustion engine.
I am quite surprised, with bullets flying over the border into El Paso and killing people, with the murder of a federal agent... that the US hasn't done just that. It should be a one-two punch, though... federally legalize medical cannibis (why is it taking so long when 80% of *voters* (and its much greater numbers if you count non-voters) want it legally regulated), and at the same time put bounties on the heads of any identified member... send in gun-loving Texas residents and nihilistic racist skin heads... and 6 months later, send in... idk... about a dozen Delta's and SEALs to exterminate the cells one by one while their focusing on what to do about Texans and skinheads. Don't even tell Mexico... they won't even know we were there.
especially when you need to customize what you're installing
ok, I was being faux-elitist and snotty for the sake of a laugh... and excuse my ignorance... but what customizations could a binary installer offer that a source installer could not? Once you are working with source, you ought to have much more control over your installation than using *someone else's* binary compilation.
I moved over to FreeBSD.....It's a good operating system, but package management is a pain. If only if someone could port APT over to FreeBSD... sigh.
Totally.
apt-get install sumpackage is so much more comprehensible and understandable, and totally not a pain, whereas,
pkg_add sumpackage is out of control, a total pain, and whomever came up with such a nonsensical and grotesque idea is a really disturbed individual.
I keep telling people... read the book first. If you watch the movie first, you'll forever incorrectly believe the movie was better than the book. The movie is apt, but the book is the true source. And even the sequel is better than the movie.
Printing and distribution. And if the book is printed to begin with, the ebook is done (made from the digital materials used to produce the print version). Printing encompasses design, typesetting, proofing, prepress, pressing and binding. That's a lot of activitiy and labor, but I didn't say that it alone was 70%, and I'd guess it was closer to 35-40%. The rest is distribution - packing, shipping, transportation, delivery, stocking, display - logistics. Publishers appear to be claiming they are spending money producing an eBook, when that product is a side-effect in the ordinary process of producing the physical book. Many mid-sized publishers have recognized this, and for at least a few years have been offerring digital versions for free with purchase of the print version.
Compare eBooks to debit cards. Banks used to offer incentives to merchants and even pay them to accept debit card purchases from their customers. Once debit cards have become accepted, banks are now attempting, and having some success, at charging for the same thing they were paying for not too long ago. eBooks are following a similar trend. eBooks used to be, technically, a waste product of printed books. If a publisher is printing real books, any talk of the costs of eBooks, other than bandwidth (which is not zero but still negligable compared to the actual printing/distribution), is a fairy tale. eBooks are literally free to *whomever pays for a book to be printed* - who can even then turn around and charge the author, if they wanted, for the eBook. Most publishers —"publishing" is starting to lose meaning, so publishers except for those rare publishers that do not produce physical books — are selling a story about all the hardship and cost of an eBook when it in reality doesn't exist. The eBook is a digital shadow of a printed book... they all have it. Publishers are trying to say there are real costs to a phenomenon that occurs independently of the market for eBooks... even if no one ever wanted an eBook publishers would still be forced to make them.
Now, I'm not saying the value of an eBook is nothing... that it indeed took an author, editor, proofreader, typesetting and design... the labor that went into producing the eBook is surely real. What I'm telling you is it is already paid for if they printed anything... even if it never made it to the shelves... and the story they're selling you is either that they had to do it twice or it cost them twice as much. The costs they're trying to introduce would be like banks charging you for, say, transfering $200 from your bank account in NY to your bank in LA, the cost of physically moving a $1 bill 200 times from NY to LA via armoured security, even though it actually takes a clerk a few keystrokes and not an expensive, obscenely fuel-inefficient truck and a million miles of driving by a well-trained and compensated security team.
On a typical hardcover, the publisher sets a suggested retail price. Let’s say it is $26. The bookseller will generally pay the publisher $13. Out of that gross revenue, the publisher pays about $3.25 to print, store and ship the book, including unsold copies returned to the publisher by booksellers.
Book prices haven't really been fluctuating much, and the costs of printing, if anything, have temporarily increased. In the last 20 years, the industry has been steadily shrinking, losing its long held post as the largest in the world. In the last 8 years, the industry has enjoyed or suffered (depending who you ask) a massive reduction in competition. While at the same time technology has been increasing efficiency and producing savings — in reducing workforce pre/post-press — it is still the press itself that is the only real profitable asset, one which has seen an increase in cost to produce while at the same time there's not as much call for them (I'm watching ebay for when old Heidelbergs get really cheap...:p ); So the press is still the thing that makes the money, and while tech has been at work here as well, the mechanism for how it makes money is still basically the same, i.e. reproduction. And while logistics makes distribution more efficient as well, the cost of fuel has increased somewhat (heh). The publishers are lying about the printing costs and their motivation for doing this is clear: keeping the prices of ebooks as close as possible to the prices of physical books makes ebooks insanely profitable. Remember last year, when ebooks were 6% of the total number of sales of books, yet represented about half the profits for any book sold? [citation needed]
I'd like to get my hands on Monterey... for reference, it'd be nice to have an AIX that ran on a vm in i386/x86_64. But with it being very expensive, and less than 40 licenses ever sold, I wonder if it even exists anywhere anymore. I haven't checked usenet, but I see no torrents for it at tpb. IBM ought to release it as OSS on x86... with a fork, it could compete with Linux, as difficult or unrealistic as that sounds today, it would have crushed Linux back in 2001.
Slashdot Mirror
There is no conspiracy, it was just a bad idea.
Hey, dipshit troll, it was Edison's DC lines that needed a power plant every 40 miles.
Also, let's not forget that of the over 1000 patents Tesla has been awarded, most of them... roughly 75%... are still classified secret. This is quite the nursery for conspiracy.
iOS most certainly does not ship on more devices.
Let's see... Android ships on... (1) smartphones (2) tablets (3) netbooks = 3 devices
and... iOS ships on (1) iPhone (2) iPad (3) iPod Touch (4) AppleTV = 4 devices
Appears that iOS ships on one more device than Android.
Tesla didn't do that and that's why history is the way it is.
Nope. It has nothing to do with practicality as we know it. History is the way it is regarding Tesla due to Edison's obsession with money and fame. Tesla had the brilliant ideas and brilliant inventions... but no one could figure out how to regulate (i.e. charge for) wireless power. Tesla's inventions were superior to Edison's similar work, and Edison knew this... but Edison's wired power was simple to meter. This and this alone is why we use wired power... because no one could fathom having free, wireless electricity.
Apple's prohibited programs fulfilling some of those requirements from being sold in the AppStore.
Yes, it is well known, and well documented, and actually part of the developer agreement. Apple pans any software that tries to do what Apple's own software already does compentantly.
If you try to submit software that is superior to Apple's solutions, generally, Apple just buys you.
FTFY
What they need is a monorail.
Check headers, GP is probably using neutrino-drift to post from 2003.
I know your joking, but the technologies required to implement this already exist.
Of course... maybe not contact lenses, but lenses nonetheless (aka goggles). These were invented by thirsty monks thousands of years ago.
(gonna need a new portable computer to go with anyway)
dude... are you stuck in 2003? Think about how small computers are now... think about Moore's Law... can the notion "portable computer" get any more redundant? They've been hiding them in greeting cards for some time. I guess one needs to be specific, though... had you just said "new computer" maybe someone would have thought you meant a data center... and would have criticized you for wanting to drag that around with you.
Your missing a bit of the line which makes it much more clear
The oath isn't to protect the government it is to protect the constitution... who exactly do you think the domestic enemies of the constitution are?
Just for the record, how many of our enemies have actually attacked or endangered the Constitution? Do we really need... however many... just to protect a document? Couldn't we just put a few guards around it, and have most of the miltary instead take their oaths to defend and protect... citizens and their property?
Wireless and woods don't mix. Obviously, the only technological and economically viable solution is to cut down the trees, sell the lumber, and use a single AP with a nice powerful omnidirectional antenna.
But seriously, its quite astounding that no one seems to be working on this very real problem, wireless and woods (or wireless with obstructions). I guess the neato factor of wireless, that it works at all, is blinding everyone to the fact that it doesn't work when something is in the way. Someone really needs to fix that.
ah... I wasn't aware AMD sold off every fab... more fallout from Intel's dirty tricks... fuckers... competition drives technology, and Intel set technology back a bit by doing what they did. This is where Intel fans should be told to STFU: Its one thing to like a product because it is the best available, but its an entirely different situation, in reality, because the best available should be much better by now, and would have had it not been for shady underhanded business practices stiffling competition. (Why bother pushing the envelope when its easier just to kill the competion and not advance?)
Its a common mistake, and one I often make... thinking that the desktop is what drives processor technology... hearing the echo's of fanbois makes me chuckle ("x86 was better than the G4 Macs!"). If Intel could compete with PPC, then IBM would be using Intel, end of story. No one seems to notice, or place any importance, on the fact that Intel's R&D hit the same frequency wall that IBM PPC's did: I don't see any consumer-level 10Ghz Intel processors available, which one might have predicted we'd have by now looking at the pace of processor development by the late 1990's... Intel got a little more squeeze a little earlier than IBM in that area, even if proc frequency between the two types didn't quite match up when evaluating equivalently powered chips... but they both hit the wall eventually. I really wish we'd get a nice slashdot treatment on the WTF with available consumer GHz limits.
It wasn't a question of IBM "falling behind." IBM is still cutting the bleeding edge as Intel, even today. The PowerPC's in Mac's were different from the PPC's IBM supplies for their own hw and xboxes... one major difference, Mac's PPCs had Altevec. But the issue was IBM wasn't pushing the envelope on the Mac PPC's fast enough for Apple's tastes, not exactly falling behind... IBM didn't have their heart in it because Apple was such a small customer for them... only a small percentage of the chips IBM produced were for the Macintosh. Apple had no negotiating power with IBM to get them to step up their R&D in the Altevec PPCs. Intel saw Apple as a tasty meal and promised them everything they wanted, and except for GPU, pretty much made good on the promises. All of this notwithstanding, PPC's are great technology, and they are still around and will still be around for some time... just not on the desktop (often I make the mistake of thinking the desktop is all there is... of course there are plenty of spaces IBM has taken PPC to that Intel couldn't touch.)
I honestly don't know why this hasn't happened... Intel must be dumping mountains of cash on Apple to make this idea look unattractive.
The trouble with Atom is its really not powerful enough for anything but what GP said... netbooks, web, light word processing. Yes, its very low power, but AMD is in its ball park power-wise, and AMD completely spanks the Atom in processing power. I realize Atom has a huge following, and so does Intel in general, due to their chip fabs being the best, even if they couldn't produce a viable GPU to save their lives. Trouble is the Atom is actually equivalent in processing power to a PowerPC G4 ... so for Apple to sell a NEW computer with an Atom, it would be like it was 2003 again.
IMHO, when AMD studdered on the question of supply, Apple should have just bought them outright.
how is this news? what I don't get... there have been acoustic tape measure apps on AppStore for a couple years now (just search AppStore for tape measure).... and none of them require more than one phone. I have expect to see a slashdot summary soon announcing the new development of the combustion engine.
can sit through an entire case and not hear a thing. Law clerks write the decisions.
they need to actually be physically exterminated.
I am quite surprised, with bullets flying over the border into El Paso and killing people, with the murder of a federal agent... that the US hasn't done just that. It should be a one-two punch, though... federally legalize medical cannibis (why is it taking so long when 80% of *voters* (and its much greater numbers if you count non-voters) want it legally regulated), and at the same time put bounties on the heads of any identified member... send in gun-loving Texas residents and nihilistic racist skin heads... and 6 months later, send in ... idk... about a dozen Delta's and SEALs to exterminate the cells one by one while their focusing on what to do about Texans and skinheads. Don't even tell Mexico... they won't even know we were there.
Sounds like someone wants their work to do all their work for them.
especially when you need to customize what you're installing
ok, I was being faux-elitist and snotty for the sake of a laugh... and excuse my ignorance... but what customizations could a binary installer offer that a source installer could not? Once you are working with source, you ought to have much more control over your installation than using *someone else's* binary compilation.
Interesting!
I moved over to FreeBSD .....It's a good operating system, but package management is a pain. If only if someone could port APT over to FreeBSD... sigh.
Totally.
apt-get install sumpackage
is so much more comprehensible and understandable, and totally not a pain, whereas,
pkg_add sumpackage
is out of control, a total pain, and whomever came up with such a nonsensical and grotesque idea is a really disturbed individual.
I keep telling people... read the book first. If you watch the movie first, you'll forever incorrectly believe the movie was better than the book. The movie is apt, but the book is the true source. And even the sequel is better than the movie.
Printing and distribution. And if the book is printed to begin with, the ebook is done (made from the digital materials used to produce the print version). Printing encompasses design, typesetting, proofing, prepress, pressing and binding. That's a lot of activitiy and labor, but I didn't say that it alone was 70%, and I'd guess it was closer to 35-40%. The rest is distribution - packing, shipping, transportation, delivery, stocking, display - logistics. Publishers appear to be claiming they are spending money producing an eBook, when that product is a side-effect in the ordinary process of producing the physical book. Many mid-sized publishers have recognized this, and for at least a few years have been offerring digital versions for free with purchase of the print version.
Compare eBooks to debit cards. Banks used to offer incentives to merchants and even pay them to accept debit card purchases from their customers. Once debit cards have become accepted, banks are now attempting, and having some success, at charging for the same thing they were paying for not too long ago. eBooks are following a similar trend. eBooks used to be, technically, a waste product of printed books. If a publisher is printing real books, any talk of the costs of eBooks, other than bandwidth (which is not zero but still negligable compared to the actual printing/distribution), is a fairy tale. eBooks are literally free to *whomever pays for a book to be printed* - who can even then turn around and charge the author, if they wanted, for the eBook. Most publishers —"publishing" is starting to lose meaning, so publishers except for those rare publishers that do not produce physical books — are selling a story about all the hardship and cost of an eBook when it in reality doesn't exist. The eBook is a digital shadow of a printed book... they all have it. Publishers are trying to say there are real costs to a phenomenon that occurs independently of the market for eBooks... even if no one ever wanted an eBook publishers would still be forced to make them.
Now, I'm not saying the value of an eBook is nothing... that it indeed took an author, editor, proofreader, typesetting and design... the labor that went into producing the eBook is surely real. What I'm telling you is it is already paid for if they printed anything... even if it never made it to the shelves... and the story they're selling you is either that they had to do it twice or it cost them twice as much. The costs they're trying to introduce would be like banks charging you for, say, transfering $200 from your bank account in NY to your bank in LA, the cost of physically moving a $1 bill 200 times from NY to LA via armoured security, even though it actually takes a clerk a few keystrokes and not an expensive, obscenely fuel-inefficient truck and a million miles of driving by a well-trained and compensated security team.
On a typical hardcover, the publisher sets a suggested retail price. Let’s say it is $26. The bookseller will generally pay the publisher $13. Out of that gross revenue, the publisher pays about $3.25 to print, store and ship the book, including unsold copies returned to the publisher by booksellers.
Book prices haven't really been fluctuating much, and the costs of printing, if anything, have temporarily increased. In the last 20 years, the industry has been steadily shrinking, losing its long held post as the largest in the world. In the last 8 years, the industry has enjoyed or suffered (depending who you ask) a massive reduction in competition. While at the same time technology has been increasing efficiency and producing savings — in reducing workforce pre/post-press — it is still the press itself that is the only real profitable asset, one which has seen an increase in cost to produce while at the same time there's not as much call for them (I'm watching ebay for when old Heidelbergs get really cheap... :p ); So the press is still the thing that makes the money, and while tech has been at work here as well, the mechanism for how it makes money is still basically the same, i.e. reproduction. And while logistics makes distribution more efficient as well, the cost of fuel has increased somewhat (heh). The publishers are lying about the printing costs and their motivation for doing this is clear: keeping the prices of ebooks as close as possible to the prices of physical books makes ebooks insanely profitable. Remember last year, when ebooks were 6% of the total number of sales of books, yet represented about half the profits for any book sold? [citation needed]
I'd like to get my hands on Monterey... for reference, it'd be nice to have an AIX that ran on a vm in i386/x86_64. But with it being very expensive, and less than 40 licenses ever sold, I wonder if it even exists anywhere anymore. I haven't checked usenet, but I see no torrents for it at tpb. IBM ought to release it as OSS on x86... with a fork, it could compete with Linux, as difficult or unrealistic as that sounds today, it would have crushed Linux back in 2001.