I sometimes joke that looking at some parts of the app is like counting the rings in a tree: you can gauge when certain features arrived by the dimensions & style of the dialog.
Kind of like the "Add Fonts" dialog in Windows? I think they've forgotten about it since 3.1. When I had Vista installed, I didn't check - did they update it?
I think hibernation implies that the computer can be completely turned off (i.e., the power source can be disconnected, because the contents of RAM have been written to the hard disk). I think most laptops just go into a deep sleep, perhaps S3 suspend-to-RAM, where a small amount of power is still necessary to maintain the contents of RAM. I use S3 on my desktop, put if you pull the power plug in S3, you'll have to start up normally (or abnormally, since you probably shouldn't do that).
I doubt it. I looked online and found several companies selling generic cartridges claiming to fit both the 5L and the 1100 (as well as every other model that those two cartridge models fit). I get the feeling that HP produced the two models of cartridges to have the option of pricing them separately, as the 1100 was a higher-end model than the 5L. Also note that the 1100 cartridge would fit into the 5L without trouble.
In any case, even if the formulation is different, it's had no noticeable effect yet, and I've printed several hundred pages over the course of a few months.
I took home one of the notorious top-loading HP LaserJets from work this summer - it "didn't work", and had been sitting in a back office for years. Bought a repair kit for $20, and now it works like a charm.
Even more interesting, I had a bunch of toner cartridges for the LaserJet 5L, but this printer was an 1100, and while the cartridges looked identical, the 5L ones simply wouldn't fit into the 1100. After a while, I noticed a small plastic nub inside the printer that seemed to serve no other purpose than blocking a specific area on the 5L cartridge from going into the printer. I took a saw (yes, a saw) to it, and now the 5L cartridges fit (and the printer still works perfectly).
I think most of his article is spot on, with the exception of this:
A locking feature, which prevents the buttons from being pushed accidentally in a purse or pocket, is nice. But it should be optional. And one button press should suffice to unlock it; two in sequence is just annoying.
The two-key sequence is the whole point - if only one key unlocks the phone, it could easily be accidentally pressed.
Sure, people and processors aren't equally expendable, but I don't share your assumption that we're generating new medical tools and techniques as fast as possible given the current level of risk-taking. Further, I'm not willing to assume without question that the current level of risk-taking in the current areas that risks are taken is necessarily the right tradeoff.
I make no such assumption (in fact, I specifically state in my final sentence that "there's always room for improvement in the system"). All I've said is that it's awfully silly for Grove to compare the tech industry to the pharmaceutical industry when the risks inherent in the research and development processes are completely different. He may as well have asked why the aviation industry isn't getting new models of planes to market as fast as Intel is getting new chips to market.
In this case, my basic assumption is that it is obvious that people and processors are not equally expendable. Thus, development processes that work in the tech industry but often result in poor or error-prone products are not very useful in an industry where poor or error-prone products can result in the sickness or death of a person. As the parent noted, Mr. Grove indicates that the difference in speed of development between the two industries is due to a lack of will, instead of differences in what is considered an acceptable level of failure. As numerous other posters have noted, if every time a tech toy like the iPhone crashed or a chip had a design flaw someone died, you can bet technology wouldn't be advancing at a breakneck pace.
For the majority of people in this thread, these statements are fairly obvious, and they are also mentioned by the parent, which is why I didn't spell them out. If it's not obvious to you while people and processors are not equally expendable, that's fine, but I think it'll be hard for us to have a meaningful conversation (at least about this subject).
That said, there's always room for improvement in the system - changing regulatory rules, modifying patent law, reducing frivolous lawsuits - but all Grove's statements express is exasperation coupled with a failure to adequately account for the differences between the two industries.
Exactly. That comment of his is either seriously ignorant, or genuinely exasperated. Either way, it's way off the mark. Just the fact that he's comparing getting a consumer product to market with getting a drug to market shows that he shouldn't be taken seriously. Not only are the stakes higher, but the processes are totally different.
I figured someone would post exactly this comment. I sort of had an urge to mod you down as a killjoy, but you are partially right. I know from experience how much more you learn by building things from scratch than using some sort of kit.
But the benefit this sort of kit can have is to lower the barrier to entry for more people. Maybe this kit will get people excited and show them the potential of what's possible to build; then, if they go on, they can learn the details. People have to start somewhere. Or is LEGO itself too simplistic for you? Sure, some kids rebuild junk cars for fun, but others don't have the time, space, or resources to do that. LEGO is a great way to get kids interested in mechanics; most of them might just end up building pirate ships, but there are always a few that take it further.
I don't think environmentalism is the important issue here. I'm more interested in what impact the economic development of the moon will have on international relations.
Whose moon is it? Of course we have treaties, but when a company starts mining up there, you can bet the profits aren't going to be distributed very widely. Besides the ethical implications of this, how are other states going to react to an American or Chinese company mining a resource that used to be considered off-limits and belonging to all, until it was convenient for that to no longer be the case? Is this just a case of first come, first serve capitalism? There are more things at stake here than just environmentalism.
Funny you should mention Lian Li cases... I happen to have one (a slightly older model of this one), and I think it's great, mainly from the standpoint of material quality, but also aesthetically. Cases have come a long way in the past few years, though - usually you don't need to worry about cutting yourself badly while trying to remove components. However, I think the best designed chassis I ever had the pleasure of owning was for a Power Mac 7500 with the Outrigger style case.
Yeah, I've been thinking about a new machine for my parents for a while now, though this isn't much of an upgrade from what they currently have (though I'm sure it runs faster.) Then I saw this:
Even at the low end, however, image is everything. The gPC is built using tiny components, but put inside a full-size case because research indicates that Wal-Mart shoppers are so unsophisticated they equate physical size with capability.
I think it's silly, because I'd rather have desk space, but I have to admit my first thought was, "That's what SHE said!"
Even if you were to clone it, you would still have the issue of fractured userbases, as well as inertia - people will stick to whatever they are already on. To me, this seems to be very similar to the differences between messaging clients. Where I grew up, AIM was the only protocol anyone ever used; but people in different places use other protocols (from what I understand MSN is much more popular in Europe, etc.). Then along came clients with the ability to speak any of the protocols.
I think the solution to myriad social networking sites is not more social networking sites, but rather a standard communication and search protocol that they all can share, at least for basic information. This could allow Facebook users to connect to MySpace users, send messages, etc. Each site could retain its peculiar features, but basic communication could be established.
Hm. You post a link to a site named "Rumormonger," where the article's writer clearly states "Truth be told, I'm a little skeptical of our tipster's tale on one count." Way to be sensational there. Also, no, "Facebook" does not consider it a "perk" to allow their employees to do the things you mention - the employees themselves consider it a perk. You make it sound like it's company policy and listed in the brochures.
What is about 8000 times more likely is that some idiot left their Facebook account logged in, and someone else came along and changed their profile picture as a joke. As for the rest of the privacy concerns you mention, sure, it's likely some employees are abusing their privileges, but that's not at all unique to Facebook.
Nah, I was just making a joke. What I thought was funny about it was that we were learning on computers... and yet we still used these ancient hardback books that were bound at the top and were written at a time when DOS didn't necessarily imply MS. And it was up to the teacher to time our quizzes, etc.
Not that any software we would have used would have helped me, since I switched to the Dvorak layout a year ago. No books this time though: just a simple online tutorial, and a decent amount of time where I didn't have to type anything important.
We make people applying for citizenship take a test that quite a few American adults would probably fail. I don't see what's wrong with asking for a minimal level of knowledge before allowing people to vote. We don't allow people to drive by default (at least not in my state) - they have to take a test (that probably isn't hard enough, judging by the way people drive around here) to indicate they understand the system. When the standard is one of basic understanding of the process that you are involving yourself in, what's the problem?
My story is indirectly relevant. Back in undergrad, I was writing a research paper and had checked out a stack of books from the main library - probably about half a dozen. When I was done with them, I returned them. A few weeks later, I got a letter stating that I had never returned one of them, and that they were going to charge me a standard fee of $205. Now I knew that I had returned this book; I distinctly remembered doing it, and all the other ones had been returned, but since I had just dropped them all in the return bin and didn't have a receipt, I had no way to prove anything. I talked to a circulation person, and they conducted a "search," which took a few more weeks; eventually they told me they were going to not charge me the fee as a one-time act of mercy, even though they hadn't found the book. (Incidentally, I later found the book on the shelf where I had checked it out. I guess someone just didn't properly check it in).
Ever since that time, I always got return receipts for books - except once. It was a Sunday, and I was leaving town and had to turn in a book. So, I filmed myself returning the book - clearly caught the book cover, title, author, etc., and myself, and the book going into the return chute. Also had a friend state the date and time, etc. Sure, it might not have held up in a court, but it would've given the circulation people something to think about if they claimed that I hadn't returned it.
Typing training packages? When we were taught to type, we had these things called "books," that we put next to the computer. In fact, I'm pretty sure the book we used was published when the Selectric was new.
now, most people who use them, consider them closed boxes, and take them to a tech (mechanic) to fix when it breaks. sure the excuse is they're more complex under the hood, but the real reason is nobody wants to be bothered with how it works, they just want it to work.
Actually, while they may be more complex from an engineering perspective, they're certainly easier to do user maintenance on than in the past. No setting IRQs with jumpers; no more master/slave configuration on hard drives; probably the only thing that's more complicated is the eight million choices you have for RAM.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm pretty sure this project already exists, and is called just fucking google it.
Kind of like the "Add Fonts" dialog in Windows? I think they've forgotten about it since 3.1. When I had Vista installed, I didn't check - did they update it?
I think hibernation implies that the computer can be completely turned off (i.e., the power source can be disconnected, because the contents of RAM have been written to the hard disk). I think most laptops just go into a deep sleep, perhaps S3 suspend-to-RAM, where a small amount of power is still necessary to maintain the contents of RAM. I use S3 on my desktop, put if you pull the power plug in S3, you'll have to start up normally (or abnormally, since you probably shouldn't do that).
I doubt it. I looked online and found several companies selling generic cartridges claiming to fit both the 5L and the 1100 (as well as every other model that those two cartridge models fit). I get the feeling that HP produced the two models of cartridges to have the option of pricing them separately, as the 1100 was a higher-end model than the 5L. Also note that the 1100 cartridge would fit into the 5L without trouble.
In any case, even if the formulation is different, it's had no noticeable effect yet, and I've printed several hundred pages over the course of a few months.
How I temporarily fixed the flickering screen of my Thinkpad.
Yes, that is indeed a pen cap you see sticking out of the laptop. It worked long enough for me to finish the paper.
I took home one of the notorious top-loading HP LaserJets from work this summer - it "didn't work", and had been sitting in a back office for years. Bought a repair kit for $20, and now it works like a charm.
Even more interesting, I had a bunch of toner cartridges for the LaserJet 5L, but this printer was an 1100, and while the cartridges looked identical, the 5L ones simply wouldn't fit into the 1100. After a while, I noticed a small plastic nub inside the printer that seemed to serve no other purpose than blocking a specific area on the 5L cartridge from going into the printer. I took a saw (yes, a saw) to it, and now the 5L cartridges fit (and the printer still works perfectly).
I think most of his article is spot on, with the exception of this:
The two-key sequence is the whole point - if only one key unlocks the phone, it could easily be accidentally pressed.
I make no such assumption (in fact, I specifically state in my final sentence that "there's always room for improvement in the system"). All I've said is that it's awfully silly for Grove to compare the tech industry to the pharmaceutical industry when the risks inherent in the research and development processes are completely different. He may as well have asked why the aviation industry isn't getting new models of planes to market as fast as Intel is getting new chips to market.
In this case, my basic assumption is that it is obvious that people and processors are not equally expendable. Thus, development processes that work in the tech industry but often result in poor or error-prone products are not very useful in an industry where poor or error-prone products can result in the sickness or death of a person. As the parent noted, Mr. Grove indicates that the difference in speed of development between the two industries is due to a lack of will, instead of differences in what is considered an acceptable level of failure. As numerous other posters have noted, if every time a tech toy like the iPhone crashed or a chip had a design flaw someone died, you can bet technology wouldn't be advancing at a breakneck pace.
For the majority of people in this thread, these statements are fairly obvious, and they are also mentioned by the parent, which is why I didn't spell them out. If it's not obvious to you while people and processors are not equally expendable, that's fine, but I think it'll be hard for us to have a meaningful conversation (at least about this subject).
That said, there's always room for improvement in the system - changing regulatory rules, modifying patent law, reducing frivolous lawsuits - but all Grove's statements express is exasperation coupled with a failure to adequately account for the differences between the two industries.
Exactly. That comment of his is either seriously ignorant, or genuinely exasperated. Either way, it's way off the mark. Just the fact that he's comparing getting a consumer product to market with getting a drug to market shows that he shouldn't be taken seriously. Not only are the stakes higher, but the processes are totally different.
I figured someone would post exactly this comment. I sort of had an urge to mod you down as a killjoy, but you are partially right. I know from experience how much more you learn by building things from scratch than using some sort of kit.
But the benefit this sort of kit can have is to lower the barrier to entry for more people. Maybe this kit will get people excited and show them the potential of what's possible to build; then, if they go on, they can learn the details. People have to start somewhere. Or is LEGO itself too simplistic for you? Sure, some kids rebuild junk cars for fun, but others don't have the time, space, or resources to do that. LEGO is a great way to get kids interested in mechanics; most of them might just end up building pirate ships, but there are always a few that take it further.
Just for the record, he's actually a fifth-year Ph.D. candidate, according to his personal page. Though I'm sure he's flattered.
I don't think environmentalism is the important issue here. I'm more interested in what impact the economic development of the moon will have on international relations.
Whose moon is it? Of course we have treaties, but when a company starts mining up there, you can bet the profits aren't going to be distributed very widely. Besides the ethical implications of this, how are other states going to react to an American or Chinese company mining a resource that used to be considered off-limits and belonging to all, until it was convenient for that to no longer be the case? Is this just a case of first come, first serve capitalism? There are more things at stake here than just environmentalism.
Funny you should mention Lian Li cases... I happen to have one (a slightly older model of this one), and I think it's great, mainly from the standpoint of material quality, but also aesthetically. Cases have come a long way in the past few years, though - usually you don't need to worry about cutting yourself badly while trying to remove components. However, I think the best designed chassis I ever had the pleasure of owning was for a Power Mac 7500 with the Outrigger style case.
Yeah, I've been thinking about a new machine for my parents for a while now, though this isn't much of an upgrade from what they currently have (though I'm sure it runs faster.) Then I saw this:
I think it's silly, because I'd rather have desk space, but I have to admit my first thought was, "That's what SHE said!"
Even if you were to clone it, you would still have the issue of fractured userbases, as well as inertia - people will stick to whatever they are already on. To me, this seems to be very similar to the differences between messaging clients. Where I grew up, AIM was the only protocol anyone ever used; but people in different places use other protocols (from what I understand MSN is much more popular in Europe, etc.). Then along came clients with the ability to speak any of the protocols.
I think the solution to myriad social networking sites is not more social networking sites, but rather a standard communication and search protocol that they all can share, at least for basic information. This could allow Facebook users to connect to MySpace users, send messages, etc. Each site could retain its peculiar features, but basic communication could be established.
Hm. You post a link to a site named "Rumormonger," where the article's writer clearly states "Truth be told, I'm a little skeptical of our tipster's tale on one count." Way to be sensational there. Also, no, "Facebook" does not consider it a "perk" to allow their employees to do the things you mention - the employees themselves consider it a perk. You make it sound like it's company policy and listed in the brochures.
What is about 8000 times more likely is that some idiot left their Facebook account logged in, and someone else came along and changed their profile picture as a joke. As for the rest of the privacy concerns you mention, sure, it's likely some employees are abusing their privileges, but that's not at all unique to Facebook.
Nah, I was just making a joke. What I thought was funny about it was that we were learning on computers... and yet we still used these ancient hardback books that were bound at the top and were written at a time when DOS didn't necessarily imply MS. And it was up to the teacher to time our quizzes, etc.
Not that any software we would have used would have helped me, since I switched to the Dvorak layout a year ago. No books this time though: just a simple online tutorial, and a decent amount of time where I didn't have to type anything important.
It's not even necessarily about lying. The mere selection of facts that are included in a given article can be political, even if only subconciously.
We make people applying for citizenship take a test that quite a few American adults would probably fail. I don't see what's wrong with asking for a minimal level of knowledge before allowing people to vote. We don't allow people to drive by default (at least not in my state) - they have to take a test (that probably isn't hard enough, judging by the way people drive around here) to indicate they understand the system. When the standard is one of basic understanding of the process that you are involving yourself in, what's the problem?
My story is indirectly relevant. Back in undergrad, I was writing a research paper and had checked out a stack of books from the main library - probably about half a dozen. When I was done with them, I returned them. A few weeks later, I got a letter stating that I had never returned one of them, and that they were going to charge me a standard fee of $205. Now I knew that I had returned this book; I distinctly remembered doing it, and all the other ones had been returned, but since I had just dropped them all in the return bin and didn't have a receipt, I had no way to prove anything. I talked to a circulation person, and they conducted a "search," which took a few more weeks; eventually they told me they were going to not charge me the fee as a one-time act of mercy, even though they hadn't found the book. (Incidentally, I later found the book on the shelf where I had checked it out. I guess someone just didn't properly check it in).
Ever since that time, I always got return receipts for books - except once. It was a Sunday, and I was leaving town and had to turn in a book. So, I filmed myself returning the book - clearly caught the book cover, title, author, etc., and myself, and the book going into the return chute. Also had a friend state the date and time, etc. Sure, it might not have held up in a court, but it would've given the circulation people something to think about if they claimed that I hadn't returned it.
Typing training packages? When we were taught to type, we had these things called "books," that we put next to the computer. In fact, I'm pretty sure the book we used was published when the Selectric was new.
Isn't it also based on the videos you have previously viewed? Now we all know what you've been watching...
Actually, while they may be more complex from an engineering perspective, they're certainly easier to do user maintenance on than in the past. No setting IRQs with jumpers; no more master/slave configuration on hard drives; probably the only thing that's more complicated is the eight million choices you have for RAM.
Yeah, the porn industry certainly is broad-minded, now that I think about it...