Is this like and adult open source version of lego mindstorm? I remember loving that as a kid, never really figured out how to make it do anything, though....
They weren't even released until 1998. You either weren't a kid, or I have good reason to feel old.
I saw a demo of something functionally equivalent to Lego mindstorms in 1992, in summer school in Palo Alto. The 1998 launch date for mindstorms suggests that it wasn't the mindstorms brand, but *someone* had something similar back then (and presumably earlier).
Of course, being as this was in Palo Alto, it may have been some Stanford students testing a prototype on their potential target audience.
CentOS also has a much larger set of available binary software packages than redhat.
Of course, you can use those packages with either redhat or CentOS. So while CentOS benefits from all of redhat's core OS work, Redhat benefits from all of CentOS's package maintenance work.
Without a doubt, each project benefits the other directly.
Javascript is an ugly, inconsistent (in and of itself as a language let alone the browser differences) beast, and I don't know of too many people who enjoy dealing with it
Some fairly prominent figures in the web development world disagree. See: Doug Crockford's "JavaScript: The World's Most Misunderstood Programming Language"
It's worth noting that really, no operation is 100% safe. Especially when it comes to the brain. Even something as simple as brain biopsy is avoided whenever possible.
I believe an autopsy is considered safe.
From what I've heard, few, if any of those who have an autopsy performed on them come out alive.
Ajax is one single function: XMLHttpRequest, a extension to the browser DOM invented by MS. In other words its a propierty hack on the browser API, nothing more.
It's worth noting that really, no operation is 100% safe. Especially when it comes to the brain. Even something as simple as brain biopsy is avoided whenever possible. Cutting the brain will remain extremely dangerous for decades to come.
And that's just installation. Then you've got all the other potential issues with shoving an electrode in your brain.
High Performance Web Sites was published on 11 September 2007, by O'Reilly Media, under the ISBNs 0596529309 and 978-0596529307
There's no need to list both the ISBN 10 and the ISBN 13. ISBN 13 is a superset of ISBN10. Notice that both numbers contain the exact same 9 data digits: 0596529309 9780596529307
The only difference is the 978 "bookland" region has been prepended, and the check digit has been recalculated (using the EAN/UPC algorithm, instead of ISBN's old algo). You can just give the ISBN 10, or just the ISBN 13. You can trivially calculate one from the other. All software that deals with ISBNs should do this for you. e.g., if you search either the ISBN13 or ISBN10 on amazon, you'll end up at the exact same page.
Wire up a switch to the fuse and put the switch next to the big blue button
Unfortunately, this also makes it easy for a thief to disable the system after they've stolen your vehicle.
And of course, it's completely useless in the event that you've locked your keys in the car.
Usually, by the time you actually need onstar, it's too late to switch it back on, and you really don't want it to be possible to switch it off at that point, either.
I am wondering if the electronics that are used to operate the Onstar system can be disabled without the car being rendered useless? (as in pull the fuse) Perhaps aftermarket companies will sell Onstar "Tinfoil Hats" to cover up the transceiver antennas on the Onstar systems to give the consumer a choice in if they want to use the system or not.
Of course, if you can disable the engine-kill feature... Then so can a thief, rendering the system ineffective.
And of course, you don't want onstar, until you're in an emergency situation -- e.g. you've locked your keys in the car or your car's been stolen. But of course, it's too late to remove your "Tinfoil Hat" then...
It'd really make more sense to make onstar hardware installation optional, rather than wasting resources installing it in every car, and having a subset of buyers "disable" it after the fact.
A place I used to work is now trying to develop something like this: visualizations where you can tell trouble is brewing in a glance
If you just install any of the standard RRDTool frontends out there, e.g. cacti, or my personal favorite, munin (far easier to install/extend/use than cacti), and check them regularly, it's not hard to tell when something's wrong. Traffic and usage patterns are pretty consistent from week to week on the boxes I've administered. After a month of checking graphs in munin daily, I could instantly tell when a CPU, network, memory, or process count graph was out of whack.
After a few more months, not only could I tell at a glance that something was wrong, but I could use the information in them to figure out *what* was wrong.
You'd be hard pressed to try to come up with a combined visualization that was actually *more* useful (i.e., equally data-rich) to a trained eye.
I was looking for a new position about a month ago. A coworkers had moved to a higher paying position with a web consulting shop down in San Diego, and got me in contact with management there. They pay all their developers salary + overtime, and they seem to tend to hire people with as little as ~2 years of LAMP development experience.
Being a web consulting shop, they're always on tight deadlines, so they push their employees pretty hard. But at least they get payed for it.
All I want is the URL so I can play it with mplayer. I have no intention of putting Flash on my machine. Is that so danged difficult??
Actually it would be much, much easier to design a system that just exposed the URL for a standard video file. The user/browser could then either download it, or have a plugin that buffers and displays it inside the browser. This eliminates all kinds of problems both for the web developers and the user.
That creates a new one, however: what video plugin do you use? And which codecs does it support? There are dozens of video codecs out there, all in frequent use. If youtube just hosted the raw video files that users uploaded, a fresh-out-of-the-box windows system would only be able to view 10% of them -- you have to go out of your way to get MPEG2, MPEG4, XVID and DIVX codecs.
If you're youtube, you want your site to work out of the box. If you make your users download a new plugin, most of your potential users won't bother.
(Un)Fortunately for the youtubes of the world, there's one video playing plugin that over 95% of all users on all platforms have installed: flash.
Sure, windows boxes have windows media. And macs have iTunes/quicktime. Both have browser plugin components. And there are sites out there that tried to use these, instead of flash -- anyone remember iFilm, atomfilms, etc.? Remember how they only actually successfully played your video half the time, citing plugin issues the other half of the time? And of course... neither of these work under linux.
Posting links to the raw videos isn't as usable either. There's no guarantee that your users will have a video player with the right codec. Clicking a link and loading your video player is also an extra step. People like being able to click a link and have the video load right there in their player.
Sure, this flash embedding stuff sucks, but as far as getting youtube to work out of the box, on 95% of web browsing platforms goes, it's the only option. I mean, shit, youtube works on the nintendo Wii. Had they chosen *any* video plugin, other than flash, that wouldn't be the case.
IRC, (and that's a big if) - just recently, a network covering the superbowl refused to carry a pro-life ad because of its "controversial" nature.
Think about that for a moment. They'll advertise contraceptives and STD medications on tv on a regular basis, (Toddler voice: Daddy, what's an S-T-D?), yet refuse to accept money for pro-life advertising
Before issuing judgment... Exactly how controversial was the ad? Did it images pictures of aborted fetuses or something?
I can conceive of advertisements for either side that would be too controversial to air, and would support the choice not to air them.
It's also worth noting that you can be pro-life and still use (and/or approve of the use of) contraceptives and STD medications. The advertising of these products does not necessarily imply a stance on the issue of abortion.
"(Metaplace will launch with this 2D isometric graphics view as standard)"
It's not even an immersive 3D world.
There's more to online worlds than 3D. This is emphasized by the fact that Areae has the founder of skotos, the net's leading producer of text MUDs that focus on storytelling, and Richard Bartle, the inventor of the text MUD on their board of advisors
Either way, he expects to deliver the API-s, the sample isometric world viewer... and then expects their "users" to code everything, from the hot 3D versions, to the cellphone clients.
Second Life pretty much did the same thing. I think it's fair to say that it worked out fairly well for them.
Koster, in his own words, can't program a damn thing, and in my opinion, the way he imagines this working is waaaaay out there.
Good thing he's got some solid advisors to keep him grounded, then.
Christopher Allen
Founder & President of Skotos Tech, producer and editor of many games, and social software expert. He blogs over at Life with Alacrity.
Dr. Richard Bartle
Co-creator of the original MUD, author of 'Designing Virtual Worlds', and professor of computer game design at the University of Essex....and a few others
I want to be able to rent property in Second Life (or some other virtual world) and have it "link" to my own server, so that when your avatar enters my house, you (transparently) continue playing on my server, using my bandwidth, CPU and my rules.
That's exactly what Electric Communities did, back in the late nineties. They had a product not unlike second life, in which avatars interacted with customizable, scriptable 3D objects (and each other). However, every client was also a server. You could host your own areas locally, and people could trivially transition from private area to private area via portal-like devices.
Several things kept the product from getting far, including the fact that the machine of the day was a Pentium running at 166 mhz with 64 meg of ram (and 3D cards had yet to be mainstreamed). MMOs were just getting started at the time, and the internet wasn't quite as mainstream as it is now, meaning the potential audience was far smaller than the audience secondlife has.
At any rate, it can be done, and it has been done.
I'm sure I'm wasting my time responding to such an obvious troll, but just incase anyone else happens to be mislead by your comment:
Consumers expect certain characteristics from cars that just aren't possible with 30 square feet of solar panels. Namely, we expect cars to accelerate from 0 to 60 in about 10 seconds, 20 seconds at worst, that they be able to maintain 60 mph for at least 300 miles on a single "charge", and that they be able to carry loads of 1/4 to 1/2 ton at minimum (two to four adults).
To do all this, we use powerful engines -- the engine in a small car produces (at peak) around 100 kilowatts of power -- with massive energy reserves -- a 10 gallon tank of gasoline contains something on the order of 360 killowatt hours of energy.
Now, by way of comparison, the sun's rays project an average of 1 kilowatt on a square meter of the earth's surface. Modern solar panels can only capture 20 - 40% of that -- 200 to 400 watts. You could fit at best a couple of square meters of solar panels on the roof of your car, providing you with far less than even 5% of the peak power of the engine in the cheapest Honda. Even with a hypothetical 100% efficiency solar cell, you're still dealing with far less power.
It's simply physically impossible to build a purely solar powered car that would be legal to drive on the interstate. Accelerating hundreds/thousands of pounds of passengers and metal from 0 mph to 60 mph in 5-15 seconds takes far more energy than you can capture from the sun with a few square meters of collectors.
Bah, you can get 30 GB of blu-ray/HD-DVD for $15. It'd only cost $8,200 to fill a 16 TB iPod with full-quality movies at that price.
As storage grows, so does the bit rate and fidelity of file formats, and the way we use storage itself. I don't know about you, but back in 1994, I had maybe 20 meg of low-bitrate WAV files on my 250 megabyte harddrive. 10 years later, I had 20 gigabytes of MP3 files on my 250 gigabyte harddrive. In another 10 years, I fully expect to have 20 terrabytes of audio/video on my 250 terrabyte drive.
Slashdot Mirror
I saw a demo of something functionally equivalent to Lego mindstorms in 1992, in summer school in Palo Alto. The 1998 launch date for mindstorms suggests that it wasn't the mindstorms brand, but *someone* had something similar back then (and presumably earlier).
Of course, being as this was in Palo Alto, it may have been some Stanford students testing a prototype on their potential target audience.
CentOS also has a much larger set of available binary software packages than redhat.
Of course, you can use those packages with either redhat or CentOS. So while CentOS benefits from all of redhat's core OS work, Redhat benefits from all of CentOS's package maintenance work.
Without a doubt, each project benefits the other directly.
Some fairly prominent figures in the web development world disagree.
See: Doug Crockford's "JavaScript:
The World's Most Misunderstood Programming Language"
See also this video presentation.
From what I've heard, few, if any of those who have an autopsy performed on them come out alive.
"proprietary hack"? Not for long:
http://www.w3.org/TR/XMLHttpRequest/
It's worth noting that really, no operation is 100% safe. Especially when it comes to the brain. Even something as simple as brain biopsy is avoided whenever possible. Cutting the brain will remain extremely dangerous for decades to come.
And that's just installation. Then you've got all the other potential issues with shoving an electrode in your brain.
Is "morning log review" a euphemism?
Just checking.
Their catalog software almost certainly can.
There's no need to list both the ISBN 10 and the ISBN 13. ISBN 13 is a superset of ISBN10. Notice that both numbers contain the exact same 9 data digits:
0596529309
9780596529307
The only difference is the 978 "bookland" region has been prepended, and the check digit has been recalculated (using the EAN/UPC algorithm, instead of ISBN's old algo). You can just give the ISBN 10, or just the ISBN 13. You can trivially calculate one from the other. All software that deals with ISBNs should do this for you. e.g., if you search either the ISBN13 or ISBN10 on amazon, you'll end up at the exact same page.
Unfortunately, this also makes it easy for a thief to disable the system after they've stolen your vehicle.
And of course, it's completely useless in the event that you've locked your keys in the car.
Usually, by the time you actually need onstar, it's too late to switch it back on, and you really don't want it to be possible to switch it off at that point, either.
Of course, if you can disable the engine-kill feature... Then so can a thief, rendering the system ineffective.
And of course, you don't want onstar, until you're in an emergency situation -- e.g. you've locked your keys in the car or your car's been stolen. But of course, it's too late to remove your "Tinfoil Hat" then...
It'd really make more sense to make onstar hardware installation optional, rather than wasting resources installing it in every car, and having a subset of buyers "disable" it after the fact.
If you just install any of the standard RRDTool frontends out there, e.g. cacti, or my personal favorite, munin (far easier to install/extend/use than cacti), and check them regularly, it's not hard to tell when something's wrong. Traffic and usage patterns are pretty consistent from week to week on the boxes I've administered. After a month of checking graphs in munin daily, I could instantly tell when a CPU, network, memory, or process count graph was out of whack.
After a few more months, not only could I tell at a glance that something was wrong, but I could use the information in them to figure out *what* was wrong.
You'd be hard pressed to try to come up with a combined visualization that was actually *more* useful (i.e., equally data-rich) to a trained eye.
I was looking for a new position about a month ago. A coworkers had moved to a higher paying position with a web consulting shop down in San Diego, and got me in contact with management there. They pay all their developers salary + overtime, and they seem to tend to hire people with as little as ~2 years of LAMP development experience.
Being a web consulting shop, they're always on tight deadlines, so they push their employees pretty hard. But at least they get payed for it.
That should have been:
That creates a new one, however: what video plugin do you use? And which codecs does it support? There are dozens of video codecs out there, all in frequent use. If youtube just hosted the raw video files that users uploaded, a fresh-out-of-the-box windows system would only be able to view 10% of them -- you have to go out of your way to get MPEG2, MPEG4, XVID and DIVX codecs.
If you're youtube, you want your site to work out of the box. If you make your users download a new plugin, most of your potential users won't bother.
(Un)Fortunately for the youtubes of the world, there's one video playing plugin that over 95% of all users on all platforms have installed: flash.
Sure, windows boxes have windows media. And macs have iTunes/quicktime. Both have browser plugin components. And there are sites out there that tried to use these, instead of flash -- anyone remember iFilm, atomfilms, etc.? Remember how they only actually successfully played your video half the time, citing plugin issues the other half of the time? And of course... neither of these work under linux.
Posting links to the raw videos isn't as usable either. There's no guarantee that your users will have a video player with the right codec. Clicking a link and loading your video player is also an extra step. People like being able to click a link and have the video load right there in their player.
Sure, this flash embedding stuff sucks, but as far as getting youtube to work out of the box, on 95% of web browsing platforms goes, it's the only option. I mean, shit, youtube works on the nintendo Wii. Had they chosen *any* video plugin, other than flash, that wouldn't be the case.
Before issuing judgment... Exactly how controversial was the ad? Did it images pictures of aborted fetuses or something?
I can conceive of advertisements for either side that would be too controversial to air, and would support the choice not to air them.
It's also worth noting that you can be pro-life and still use (and/or approve of the use of) contraceptives and STD medications. The advertising of these products does not necessarily imply a stance on the issue of abortion.
There's more to online worlds than 3D. This is emphasized by the fact that Areae has the founder of skotos, the net's leading producer of text MUDs that focus on storytelling, and Richard Bartle, the inventor of the text MUD on their board of advisors
Second Life pretty much did the same thing. I think it's fair to say that it worked out fairly well for them.
Good thing he's got some solid advisors to keep him grounded, then.
That's exactly what Electric Communities did, back in the late nineties. They had a product not unlike second life, in which avatars interacted with customizable, scriptable 3D objects (and each other). However, every client was also a server. You could host your own areas locally, and people could trivially transition from private area to private area via portal-like devices.
Several things kept the product from getting far, including the fact that the machine of the day was a Pentium running at 166 mhz with 64 meg of ram (and 3D cards had yet to be mainstreamed). MMOs were just getting started at the time, and the internet wasn't quite as mainstream as it is now, meaning the potential audience was far smaller than the audience secondlife has.
At any rate, it can be done, and it has been done.
Part of that project still lives on:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_(programming_language)
That really only works if you can count on your targets connecting directly to servers, and not using proxies/TOR.
Also, if the source IP in question happens to be, say, a NAT address that serves 100 terminals in a public library, then you don't have much to go on.
I'm sure I'm wasting my time responding to such an obvious troll, but just incase anyone else happens to be mislead by your comment:
Consumers expect certain characteristics from cars that just aren't possible with 30 square feet of solar panels. Namely, we expect cars to accelerate from 0 to 60 in about 10 seconds, 20 seconds at worst, that they be able to maintain 60 mph for at least 300 miles on a single "charge", and that they be able to carry loads of 1/4 to 1/2 ton at minimum (two to four adults).
To do all this, we use powerful engines -- the engine in a small car produces (at peak) around 100 kilowatts of power -- with massive energy reserves -- a 10 gallon tank of gasoline contains something on the order of 360 killowatt hours of energy.
Now, by way of comparison, the sun's rays project an average of 1 kilowatt on a square meter of the earth's surface. Modern solar panels can only capture 20 - 40% of that -- 200 to 400 watts. You could fit at best a couple of square meters of solar panels on the roof of your car, providing you with far less than even 5% of the peak power of the engine in the cheapest Honda. Even with a hypothetical 100% efficiency solar cell, you're still dealing with far less power.
It's simply physically impossible to build a purely solar powered car that would be legal to drive on the interstate. Accelerating hundreds/thousands of pounds of passengers and metal from 0 mph to 60 mph in 5-15 seconds takes far more energy than you can capture from the sun with a few square meters of collectors.
And hell, if you hit the HD-DVD bargain bin at wal-mart in 5 years, you could probably load your 16 TB iPod up with B-movies for $2k...
Bah, you can get 30 GB of blu-ray/HD-DVD for $15. It'd only cost $8,200 to fill a 16 TB iPod with full-quality movies at that price.
As storage grows, so does the bit rate and fidelity of file formats, and the way we use storage itself. I don't know about you, but back in 1994, I had maybe 20 meg of low-bitrate WAV files on my 250 megabyte harddrive. 10 years later, I had 20 gigabytes of MP3 files on my 250 gigabyte harddrive. In another 10 years, I fully expect to have 20 terrabytes of audio/video on my 250 terrabyte drive.