I see lots of posts that are reminding us how thin clients are nothing new. Indeed having thin clients and centralized processing is nothing new... and sometimes it seems that the pendulum swings back and forth between "imagine how cool it would be if each user had this much power on their desktop" and "imagine how amazing it would be if all this computing power could be centralized and used efficiently."
I think the point to take out of all this is that we should use the right tool for the job. There are lots of good desktop PCs, and lots of good thin client solutions (or being worked on). For any given task, you have to decide what's right. What is easier to manage, a centralized server or a bunch of desktops? (depends on how many users you have, what software you're running, etc.) What's more powerful, having good desktop PCs or a central server? (depends on your software needs) What's more cost effective? (again... it depends!)
Obviously hard-core coders and video game designers are going to need their own dedicated machines for testing (and crashing!)... whereas alot of managers, secretaries, and data entry personal would do fine with thin clients.
Maybe this is totally obvious to slashdotters... but it's something that perhaps the higher-ups in companies should come to realize. There is no perfect solution... you have to crunch the numbers for any particular corporate environment.
Once you learn a lot less than that about Windows, you stop clicking "yes" on "Do you want your machine to be 0wn3d by the Russian spam mafia?" popups, which makes the previous point moot too.
You're absolutely right, and too many linux users forget that. They constantly mention that you just have to "learn to use linux properly and then it will be okay." However, for the the same amount of education, these same users could be made productive and secure on Windows too. However, the point is that there are lots of reasons to switch to linux, so it may be worth that extra education, because they will get so much more out of it (more than just avoiding viruses and spyware... they'll save money and have a more powerful system).
Also once you learn that computers are no more than a tool to an end, you stop thinking that a powerful and flexible _OS_ is the alpha and the omega. The applications is where it's at. The OS only exists to load those.
I have to disagree to a certain extent. Having a powerful and flexible OS is significant. Being productive is more than just using applications. On linux, it is trivial to set up a powerful automated backup solution, or write a script to rename a bunch of files, or even generate needed files. When I do web-page design, I spend as much time at the command line as in my favorite WYSIWYG editor... because there are some things that are just more efficient that way. In linux, the ability to automate tasks is unlimited... and this translates into productivity. The same is not true of windows. In today's day and age, the power and flexibility of the OS is still very much an important issue.
The real choice, in the real world, is never about the OS itself. It's more like "what apps can you run on Windows vs what apps can you run on Linux?"
You're right about that. The main concern for an end-user (hence obstacle for switching to linux) is software. I certainly hope that more (and better) applications start appearing on linux. You're also right that it isn't necessarily an either/or situation. For instance, whenever I'm on a windows box, I have an ssh session to a linux box open. For some things, it's better to use the windows software, but for other things the linux software is much better. I switch back and forth between the two as needed.
However, if, for example, WINE worked perfectly, then I'd never touch a windows box again. The power, flexibility (and price) of linux would make running a Windows OS pointless. So although the primary considering when selecting an OS is "what software do I want to run?"... if all software were platform-independant, most people would be better off with linux.
As the other reply to your post indicates, the Free-Software Foundation doesn't think programmers should have to work for free. Richard Stallman has indicated that no one should be forced to program! Programmers can and should be paid. Selling software is not the problem, it's the fact that the end user (who may have paid for the software or may have received it at no monetary cost) is not free to modify and distribute the program. Having the source code is necessary to exercise these freedoms. The Free/Libre Software movement is all about assuring these freedoms exist, not killing commercial interest in software. You can pay someone to write open source software for you, in which case the programmer gets fed, and your freedoms are maintained.
In all seriousness, they will profit only if the interest they collect is sufficient. Remember that they have to pay for web-space, bandwidth, and that all these monetary transactions have costs associated with them, also. In fact, I doubt holding a few hundred dollars for a week or so generates enough interest to offset the two transactions required to move the money around.
Sounds to me like fundable.org will have to set up a "please fund fundable.org" fund.
This type of (financial) commitment to linux will do great things to silence (corporate) critics of FLOSS who say that there is no "structure and support" for linux. That's alot of money, and a solid commitment behind Ubuntu now. I'm glad that there are linux distros out there that are putting such an emphasis on having a product that is long-term, stable, and that will be patched/supported for a long time.
From my experience with Ubuntu (installed it with a friend on a brand-new powerbook), it is easy to use and works well. I really hope that the momentum Ubuntu is generating will continue... it is quickly becoming the best option for converting new users over to linux.
This is actually a pretty good idea. The storage is large enough for most uses, it's obviously portable, and it's a solution that they can carry with them after they leave a given institution. There's also a hack that lets GMail act like an extra drive on windows machines, which makes it easy for the user: Gmail virtual drive.
This is a pretty good idea... which is why I hope that Apple isn't too proud to copy it. I'm sure that the Apple/iPod/iTMS combo would provide a much more slick, and efficient implementation of this kind of system. They would probably even implement features showing you what was currently most popular on campus, letting you "be hip" with a minimum of effort (and this would also make the servers more efficient, since most people would download already cached content).
I'm less excited about a Dell+Napster interface. But that's just me! (and I'm not even a Mac zealot!)
True enough. As with all security measures (lock, alarm system, etc.), it can be overcome by someone who is smart, and especially someone who is expecting the security measure to be there. I would think that alot of stolen laptops are re-formatted and re-sold within a day (without ever being connected to the net), and thus this utility is useless against those particular thieves. However, there are some thieves who may start using the laptop immediately, and may connect it to the net to do so (or maybe a WiFi connection will even occur without them knowing?). So this will at least help against some thievery. No security measure is perfect. The point of security is not to make anything impossible, but just to make it more difficult.
I highly doubt that most laptop-thieves (who are probably thieves of opportunity, not elite criminals or computer hackers) will think to worry about this utility being installed.
Not sure what the costs involved are... but I doubt that this will be of much interest to the typical personal laptop owner. However, I can see this being bought up in bulk by companies as a sort of "insurance." In fact, their insurance rates would probably go down if all company laptops were equipped with this software. I think it makes sense for a business to try to protect their laptops this way. Employees are going to be less careful with a company laptop, as compared to their own personal laptop, and it might be important for the company to get the laptop back.
I think companies would be even more interested if there was a "kill-laptop" feature. So if the owner of the laptop goes to the IT department and says "my laptop was stolen!" (or lost), then they activate a flag so that when the laptop makes its secret connection, it receives a signal to erase itself, thereby protecting valuable company data. For many companies, protecting the data on the laptop might be more valuable than the laptop itself.
On the flip side, I would think that most people who steal laptops are going to wipe them or snoop around in them for awhile before connecting to the net and surf for porn. So this should hardly be viewed as a perfect solution for catching thieves (although WiFi certainly helps).
It sounds like in your case the local network was not up to the challenge. My local cable-internet is quite reliable (at least for the last year... it wasn't always!). The connection is fast and doesn't go down, so my VoIP phone has never given me any trouble. The connection is as clear as my old standard phone.
VoIP is not always the right solution... but in many cases the quality is sufficient, and the cost savings significant.
I think you might be over-stating the quality difference of VoIP. My VoIP phone is nearly indistinguishable from a normal landline, and I'm sure if I had a business-class internet connection, it would be even better.
You're absolutely right that reputation, and hence ease of phone conversations is important to small businesses. However, one should also consider the fact that VoIP gives a small business the ability to do things they would never consider otherwise. For instance, you could expand into markets in other regions, and not be worried about the innumerable number of long-distance phone calls that this would entail (calling other vendors, distributors, etc. that are not local). So I feel like VoIP may give the opportunity for a small business to "act" like a bigger business, making long-distance phone calls without worries. Depending on the business, this could be a major cost savings.
I think it's a viable option, and more importantly (as TFA sorta points out) as the technology gets better, the advantages of VoIP will mount (whereas the cost should remain low)...
Of course, IANASBO (I Am Not A Small Business Owner), so I might be off-base here.
I think the company in question, ClickDefense must not be doing very well, and is using this as a last-resort money-grab to stay alive (wild speculation, I know!). Why do I say this? Well, it seems like corporate suicide for a company to admit that their product doesn't work at all. They are a company that sells click-fraud detection tools, so that other companies can prevent click-fraud and thereby increase their return-on-investment for all those advertising dollars.
But if their product works properly, then they should be properly protected, and they wouldn't need to complain to Google that they are getting ripped off. They would just use this technology on themselves, and figure out a way to prevent this fraud (and then sell the technique to others of course). Part of this 'technique' might just be to accurately determine which advertising-supplier has the lowest fraud-rates, etc. But by telling google that they are getting frauded, they are basically admiting their system doesn't work.
Of course, they will claim that they are using their technology to detect the fraud occuring on google's ads... this is, after all, the very point of their product, right? Then other people will buy their product. But 'going public' in this way doesn't make sense. If google cleans up their act in a public and verifiable way, then ClickDefense's product becomes irrelevant. Basically companies won't buy their product/services, because they will be happy knowing that Google is taking care of the situation. They don't need to pay ClickDefense for special knowledge about click-fraud: ClickDefense appears to be making this information public!
If this is a publicity stunt, I think it is a bad one. Frankly it makes ClickDefense's product and services appear rather pointless. I question the long-term viability of this company!
Besides that, realize that the developers get much, much better at maximizing the hardware over time
You're right, of course. However I think this is less the case today than it was in the good-old-SNES days. Back in the day, a SNES video game was coded exclusively for the SNES, and as a result later titles were heavily optimized. Nowadays the programmers are designing, building and compiling all the games on high-end PCs, and then near the end they will compile using the hardware-specific compiler (and undoubtedly do alot of bug fixing and optimizing for the hardware). Since many titles are released on multiple platforms, the code will not necessarily be as heavily optimized as it used to be. With time developers will learn to take better advantage of hardware, but I'm not convinced that code is really being optimized as much as it used to. If you compare early and later SNES games, there is a big difference. But if you compare early and later Xbox games (or PS2 games), the difference is not as great.
You're right--the programmers should be taking full advantage of the hardware... and for many games that will happen.
However, I can think of at least one reason why alot of games will only use a single processor: the games are intended to be multi-platform. If a game will be released for PC, Xbox, and PS3, then there is no way the programmers are going to have time to re-optimize their code three times for three different architectures. They will use generic programming approaches, and let the compilers do their work. This means that the code will not be perfect... it will run and probably only use a single processor.
So titles that are only released on a single platform may use the hardware more efficiently, but nowadays a great many popular titles end up being released on different platforms (sometimes with time delays mind you), and this will mean inefficient hardware usage in some cases.
There are other reasons why programmers might not be able to fully optimize their code, like deadlines. As TFA mentions, these hardware platforms are rather new and it will take time for programmers to learn to exploit them properly. It would have been easier to give the programmers a variant on current hardware.
Everything the parent says is true... The situation is annoying to be sure. That having been said, I don't think the "analog hole" is such a miserable hack. I have a digital set-top box, and use the S-video output into my MythTV's capture card. The resulting video is of very high quality (better than conventional analog cable and obviously much better than over-the-air). The cable companies are going to make it hard for us to get access to the raw digital signal... but a high-quality analog signal will be essentially indistinguishable. At the end of the line, your TV has to take whatever signal and turn it into something it can display. I would say that for most modern TVs you are not going to notice the difference. If you spent alot of money on an HDTV, then yes you'll have to play by the rules set by the broadcasters to get your HD signal (until computer capture cards and innovative work-arounds catch up, that is)...
It's an excellent question. In case the other post didn't fully answer your question, check out this how-to guide.
Using an IR-blaster to change the channels on your set-top box may seem like a bit of a strange hack, but I'm doing it and it works great. I no longer bother watching "live TV"... I just program it to record shows, it changes the channels as needed, and I watch everything time-shifted. Works like a charm.
Does the Boeing V-22 Osprey fit the bill? It uses helicopter-like rotors for VTOL, but then these switch to be forward-facing to provide it with conventional airplane capabilities. Although its hover capabilities are pretty good, it won`t replace the harrier-style entirely. The harrier-VTOL concept makes the VTOL part very inefficient, because the use of that vehicle requires it to be high-speed in other circumstances (harrier is twice as fast as the
Osprey). It`s all engineering trade-offs.
Many of you already know this, but one of the great things about linux LiveCDs is the ability to work on an otherwise screwed-up computer, and salvage it (or the data on it, etc.). A LiveCD is absolutely great for fixing a Windows or linux PC that has gotten messed up. For instance, you can create backup images of disks using partimage and restore them with a LiveCD (in particular, the SystemRescueDisk is good for that).
A Knoppix LiveDVD is more geared towards booting a PC and being productive (with OpenOffice, Blender 3D, etc.)... however it's a great thing to have lying around because you can diagnose and repair a system, do a full virus scan (as pointed out in TFA), while having internet access, being able to open relevant wordprocessor documents, etc. etc. A LiveDVD like this could also help in extracting files from a corrupt filesystem (you can open and work with the files immediately, if that becomes necessary).
To anyone in the/. crowd that has not played with LiveCDs yet (or linux at all) you should seriously consider burning a copy and seeing what all the fuss is about.
Excellent comments. However, it is very much a catch-22. I, for one, don't really have any wireless devices or plans to buy any soon. However, if wireless were available throughout my city, then this would change my decisions considerably. Suddenly, a wireless device is worth the money. I would probably buy a laptop and use wireless constantly (whereas for now I'm content using landline internet at various places).
My point is that, unfortunately, this is one of those things that requires time for people to take full advantage of. I'm not saying that a city should dump millions of dollars into infrastructure that people are not using, but certainly they should be realistic in their plans to promote the service, and wait for people to take advantage of it.
For instance, a much more modest (and sane?) proposal would be to fund wireless "hot-spots" in various places... you could even let people ask to have zones set up for wi-fi... and the city would spend the money to activate an area if a certain number of people had all requested it. As this caught on, more and more people would want access in their area, and eventually the infrastructure would be used to its fullest.
You're right.. and isn't that the problem? It seems like this vulnerability could be coded into a distribution. Someone illegally distributing Windows CDs can modify the copy so that it (unknown to the user) runs the crack, gets seemingly-legit codes, and uses these to "prove" that it is a genuine copy to the silly purchaser of the illegal product. So basically this undermines the whole point of the Windows Genuine Advantage. The user buys a CD of Windows, and even the windows website agrees that it is a genuine copy... but in fact the user was duped and bought a pirated copy. This lets the "bad guys" make money off of consumers... moreover it means that the "Windows Genuine" seal means nothing... worse, it provides people with a false sense of authentication.
(or maybe there's something I don't understand about the whole process?)
I agree with the "preventing errors before they happen" concept. Basically the application should warn you that a value is erroneous at the first opportunity. You shouldn't have to wait until you're trying to save a document for the error to screw you. You shouldn't even have to wait until clicking "OK" for an error box to show up saying a value is out of bounds... basically helpful tooltips should appear as you are typing, warning you if your input doesn't makes sense or is out of bounds or whatever.
Applications can also be built to "look" for certain kinds of common problems and take action. For instance, an application can keep watch of memory or disk space, so instead of just getting a "disk full" error or whatever, the user is warned enough ahead of time that he can deal with the problem... rather than losing the work he's done.
As a matter of fact, the formula for viagra is well-known. Even the synthetic pathway is not a secret. Pharmaceutical patents are never a patent on the drug itself, only a patent on a particular process to make the drug. Until the patent runs out, other companies cannot use the same process (although if they can find another way to make it, they can release the same product under a different name).
I don't think setting up the internet site, managing an online accounting system, web-costs, and all the rest of that tech stuff is the limiting factor.
Most restaurants do not have delivery services because of the huge costs of having a fleet of delivery vehicles. It isn't cost effective, since to respond to demand properly you need quite a few vehicles (and somewhere to park them), a dispatching service, pay for fuel, drivers, licensing, etc. Does it make sense for every restaurant to own a few cars? No. Does it make sense for some company to be set up to take care of these details? Yes. By centralizing all the vehicle costs, it can be managed more effectively. Plus, different types of take-out foods reach their peak consumption at different times (pizza late at night vs. sushi at dinner time)... so having only one fleet of vehicles saves alot of money.
The fact that you only need to set up one website is a bonus. Plus, most consumers prefer a single internet site. Rather than having to search through 20 differnt sites for something you like, you can just "one stop shop" and find what you want. You can even order food that comes from different restaurants and it will be delivered at the same time (with an additional charge, no doubt).
"Ruby glass" or "cranberry glass" is actually glass with colloidal (small particles) of gold dispersed in it. It looks very red.
The color (spectral characteristics more generally) of a substance are of course related to the constituent atoms, however for something like bulk metal the band structure is what gives rise to its properties. The band structure of a conductor (metal) makes it look shiny and lustrous. If you make the metal small enough, then the band structure's quantization becomes more apparent, which greatly modifies its spectral properties. This quantum localization is the basis for quantum dots and explains why they have such broad absorption and narrow emission spectra. Similarly, colloidal gold looks very red.
If the color of all objects were based solely on the atoms involved, then how could various dyes and paints (which are usually just made of carbon, oxygen, and nitrogen) be different colors? It's the bonding structure (molecular structure or crystal structure) that gives rise to such properties.
Basically, a material's color depends on interactions between light and that material's valence (most loosely-bound, outermost) electrons. So as soon as you bond atoms together into molecules, solid crystals (metals) or very small crystals (nanoparticles), you're changing the energy-states of those valence electrons, hence changing color. The exact spacing of those energy levels is quite different in a nano-sized object. When you have a gold nanoparticle that only contains 100-200 gold atoms, you can't treat it like "bulk" gold any longer.
With regard to reactivity, people sometimes overstate the reactivity of gold nanoparticles. Gold nanoparticles are still fairly inert. However, nanoparticles in general are much more reactive than their bulk analogues. The reason is that the surface of a material is usually less stable than the interior, because the atoms at the surface have "dangling bonds" (unfullfilled valency). A given mass of nanoparticles will have a very high surface area (compared to the same mass of bulk material). The 'edges' of nanoparticles are regions of even higher instability and very high surface energy. These act as excellent catalysis sites, which explains why colloidal metals can be used as catalysts in numerous chemical reactions.
This is why nanotechnology is so "cool"... by being very small, the properties are suddenly very much different from the bulk material, even though the atoms involved (and even the crystal packing) are exactly the same.
Slashdot Mirror
I see lots of posts that are reminding us how thin clients are nothing new. Indeed having thin clients and centralized processing is nothing new... and sometimes it seems that the pendulum swings back and forth between "imagine how cool it would be if each user had this much power on their desktop" and "imagine how amazing it would be if all this computing power could be centralized and used efficiently."
I think the point to take out of all this is that we should use the right tool for the job. There are lots of good desktop PCs, and lots of good thin client solutions (or being worked on). For any given task, you have to decide what's right. What is easier to manage, a centralized server or a bunch of desktops? (depends on how many users you have, what software you're running, etc.) What's more powerful, having good desktop PCs or a central server? (depends on your software needs) What's more cost effective? (again... it depends!)
Obviously hard-core coders and video game designers are going to need their own dedicated machines for testing (and crashing!)... whereas alot of managers, secretaries, and data entry personal would do fine with thin clients.
Maybe this is totally obvious to slashdotters... but it's something that perhaps the higher-ups in companies should come to realize. There is no perfect solution... you have to crunch the numbers for any particular corporate environment.
You make many valid points...
Once you learn a lot less than that about Windows, you stop clicking "yes" on "Do you want your machine to be 0wn3d by the Russian spam mafia?" popups, which makes the previous point moot too.
You're absolutely right, and too many linux users forget that. They constantly mention that you just have to "learn to use linux properly and then it will be okay." However, for the the same amount of education, these same users could be made productive and secure on Windows too. However, the point is that there are lots of reasons to switch to linux, so it may be worth that extra education, because they will get so much more out of it (more than just avoiding viruses and spyware... they'll save money and have a more powerful system).
Also once you learn that computers are no more than a tool to an end, you stop thinking that a powerful and flexible _OS_ is the alpha and the omega. The applications is where it's at. The OS only exists to load those.
I have to disagree to a certain extent. Having a powerful and flexible OS is significant. Being productive is more than just using applications. On linux, it is trivial to set up a powerful automated backup solution, or write a script to rename a bunch of files, or even generate needed files. When I do web-page design, I spend as much time at the command line as in my favorite WYSIWYG editor... because there are some things that are just more efficient that way. In linux, the ability to automate tasks is unlimited... and this translates into productivity. The same is not true of windows. In today's day and age, the power and flexibility of the OS is still very much an important issue.
The real choice, in the real world, is never about the OS itself. It's more like "what apps can you run on Windows vs what apps can you run on Linux?"
You're right about that. The main concern for an end-user (hence obstacle for switching to linux) is software. I certainly hope that more (and better) applications start appearing on linux. You're also right that it isn't necessarily an either/or situation. For instance, whenever I'm on a windows box, I have an ssh session to a linux box open. For some things, it's better to use the windows software, but for other things the linux software is much better. I switch back and forth between the two as needed.
However, if, for example, WINE worked perfectly, then I'd never touch a windows box again. The power, flexibility (and price) of linux would make running a Windows OS pointless. So although the primary considering when selecting an OS is "what software do I want to run?"... if all software were platform-independant, most people would be better off with linux.
As the other reply to your post indicates, the Free-Software Foundation doesn't think programmers should have to work for free. Richard Stallman has indicated that no one should be forced to program! Programmers can and should be paid. Selling software is not the problem, it's the fact that the end user (who may have paid for the software or may have received it at no monetary cost) is not free to modify and distribute the program. Having the source code is necessary to exercise these freedoms. The Free/Libre Software movement is all about assuring these freedoms exist, not killing commercial interest in software. You can pay someone to write open source software for you, in which case the programmer gets fed, and your freedoms are maintained.
3. Profit!!!
In all seriousness, they will profit only if the interest they collect is sufficient. Remember that they have to pay for web-space, bandwidth, and that all these monetary transactions have costs associated with them, also. In fact, I doubt holding a few hundred dollars for a week or so generates enough interest to offset the two transactions required to move the money around.
Sounds to me like fundable.org will have to set up a "please fund fundable.org" fund.
This type of (financial) commitment to linux will do great things to silence (corporate) critics of FLOSS who say that there is no "structure and support" for linux. That's alot of money, and a solid commitment behind Ubuntu now. I'm glad that there are linux distros out there that are putting such an emphasis on having a product that is long-term, stable, and that will be patched/supported for a long time.
From my experience with Ubuntu (installed it with a friend on a brand-new powerbook), it is easy to use and works well. I really hope that the momentum Ubuntu is generating will continue... it is quickly becoming the best option for converting new users over to linux.
This is actually a pretty good idea. The storage is large enough for most uses, it's obviously portable, and it's a solution that they can carry with them after they leave a given institution. There's also a hack that lets GMail act like an extra drive on windows machines, which makes it easy for the user: Gmail virtual drive.
This is a pretty good idea... which is why I hope that Apple isn't too proud to copy it. I'm sure that the Apple/iPod/iTMS combo would provide a much more slick, and efficient implementation of this kind of system. They would probably even implement features showing you what was currently most popular on campus, letting you "be hip" with a minimum of effort (and this would also make the servers more efficient, since most people would download already cached content).
I'm less excited about a Dell+Napster interface. But that's just me! (and I'm not even a Mac zealot!)
True enough. As with all security measures (lock, alarm system, etc.), it can be overcome by someone who is smart, and especially someone who is expecting the security measure to be there. I would think that alot of stolen laptops are re-formatted and re-sold within a day (without ever being connected to the net), and thus this utility is useless against those particular thieves. However, there are some thieves who may start using the laptop immediately, and may connect it to the net to do so (or maybe a WiFi connection will even occur without them knowing?). So this will at least help against some thievery. No security measure is perfect. The point of security is not to make anything impossible, but just to make it more difficult.
I highly doubt that most laptop-thieves (who are probably thieves of opportunity, not elite criminals or computer hackers) will think to worry about this utility being installed.
Not sure what the costs involved are... but I doubt that this will be of much interest to the typical personal laptop owner. However, I can see this being bought up in bulk by companies as a sort of "insurance." In fact, their insurance rates would probably go down if all company laptops were equipped with this software. I think it makes sense for a business to try to protect their laptops this way. Employees are going to be less careful with a company laptop, as compared to their own personal laptop, and it might be important for the company to get the laptop back.
I think companies would be even more interested if there was a "kill-laptop" feature. So if the owner of the laptop goes to the IT department and says "my laptop was stolen!" (or lost), then they activate a flag so that when the laptop makes its secret connection, it receives a signal to erase itself, thereby protecting valuable company data. For many companies, protecting the data on the laptop might be more valuable than the laptop itself.
On the flip side, I would think that most people who steal laptops are going to wipe them or snoop around in them for awhile before connecting to the net and surf for porn. So this should hardly be viewed as a perfect solution for catching thieves (although WiFi certainly helps).
It sounds like in your case the local network was not up to the challenge. My local cable-internet is quite reliable (at least for the last year... it wasn't always!). The connection is fast and doesn't go down, so my VoIP phone has never given me any trouble. The connection is as clear as my old standard phone.
VoIP is not always the right solution... but in many cases the quality is sufficient, and the cost savings significant.
I think you might be over-stating the quality difference of VoIP. My VoIP phone is nearly indistinguishable from a normal landline, and I'm sure if I had a business-class internet connection, it would be even better.
You're absolutely right that reputation, and hence ease of phone conversations is important to small businesses. However, one should also consider the fact that VoIP gives a small business the ability to do things they would never consider otherwise. For instance, you could expand into markets in other regions, and not be worried about the innumerable number of long-distance phone calls that this would entail (calling other vendors, distributors, etc. that are not local). So I feel like VoIP may give the opportunity for a small business to "act" like a bigger business, making long-distance phone calls without worries. Depending on the business, this could be a major cost savings.
I think it's a viable option, and more importantly (as TFA sorta points out) as the technology gets better, the advantages of VoIP will mount (whereas the cost should remain low)...
Of course, IANASBO (I Am Not A Small Business Owner), so I might be off-base here.
I think the company in question, ClickDefense must not be doing very well, and is using this as a last-resort money-grab to stay alive (wild speculation, I know!). Why do I say this? Well, it seems like corporate suicide for a company to admit that their product doesn't work at all. They are a company that sells click-fraud detection tools, so that other companies can prevent click-fraud and thereby increase their return-on-investment for all those advertising dollars.
But if their product works properly, then they should be properly protected, and they wouldn't need to complain to Google that they are getting ripped off. They would just use this technology on themselves, and figure out a way to prevent this fraud (and then sell the technique to others of course). Part of this 'technique' might just be to accurately determine which advertising-supplier has the lowest fraud-rates, etc. But by telling google that they are getting frauded, they are basically admiting their system doesn't work.
Of course, they will claim that they are using their technology to detect the fraud occuring on google's ads... this is, after all, the very point of their product, right? Then other people will buy their product. But 'going public' in this way doesn't make sense. If google cleans up their act in a public and verifiable way, then ClickDefense's product becomes irrelevant. Basically companies won't buy their product/services, because they will be happy knowing that Google is taking care of the situation. They don't need to pay ClickDefense for special knowledge about click-fraud: ClickDefense appears to be making this information public!
If this is a publicity stunt, I think it is a bad one. Frankly it makes ClickDefense's product and services appear rather pointless. I question the long-term viability of this company!
Besides that, realize that the developers get much, much better at maximizing the hardware over time
You're right, of course. However I think this is less the case today than it was in the good-old-SNES days. Back in the day, a SNES video game was coded exclusively for the SNES, and as a result later titles were heavily optimized. Nowadays the programmers are designing, building and compiling all the games on high-end PCs, and then near the end they will compile using the hardware-specific compiler (and undoubtedly do alot of bug fixing and optimizing for the hardware). Since many titles are released on multiple platforms, the code will not necessarily be as heavily optimized as it used to be. With time developers will learn to take better advantage of hardware, but I'm not convinced that code is really being optimized as much as it used to. If you compare early and later SNES games, there is a big difference. But if you compare early and later Xbox games (or PS2 games), the difference is not as great.
You're right--the programmers should be taking full advantage of the hardware... and for many games that will happen.
However, I can think of at least one reason why alot of games will only use a single processor: the games are intended to be multi-platform. If a game will be released for PC, Xbox, and PS3, then there is no way the programmers are going to have time to re-optimize their code three times for three different architectures. They will use generic programming approaches, and let the compilers do their work. This means that the code will not be perfect... it will run and probably only use a single processor.
So titles that are only released on a single platform may use the hardware more efficiently, but nowadays a great many popular titles end up being released on different platforms (sometimes with time delays mind you), and this will mean inefficient hardware usage in some cases.
There are other reasons why programmers might not be able to fully optimize their code, like deadlines. As TFA mentions, these hardware platforms are rather new and it will take time for programmers to learn to exploit them properly. It would have been easier to give the programmers a variant on current hardware.
Everything the parent says is true... The situation is annoying to be sure. That having been said, I don't think the "analog hole" is such a miserable hack. I have a digital set-top box, and use the S-video output into my MythTV's capture card. The resulting video is of very high quality (better than conventional analog cable and obviously much better than over-the-air). The cable companies are going to make it hard for us to get access to the raw digital signal... but a high-quality analog signal will be essentially indistinguishable. At the end of the line, your TV has to take whatever signal and turn it into something it can display. I would say that for most modern TVs you are not going to notice the difference. If you spent alot of money on an HDTV, then yes you'll have to play by the rules set by the broadcasters to get your HD signal (until computer capture cards and innovative work-arounds catch up, that is)...
It's an excellent question. In case the other post didn't fully answer your question, check out this how-to guide.
Using an IR-blaster to change the channels on your set-top box may seem like a bit of a strange hack, but I'm doing it and it works great. I no longer bother watching "live TV"... I just program it to record shows, it changes the channels as needed, and I watch everything time-shifted. Works like a charm.
Did you intentionally write sarchasm instead of sarcasm?
Does the Boeing V-22 Osprey fit the bill? It uses helicopter-like rotors for VTOL, but then these switch to be forward-facing to provide it with conventional airplane capabilities. Although its hover capabilities are pretty good, it won`t replace the harrier-style entirely. The harrier-VTOL concept makes the VTOL part very inefficient, because the use of that vehicle requires it to be high-speed in other circumstances (harrier is twice as fast as the Osprey). It`s all engineering trade-offs.
Many of you already know this, but one of the great things about linux LiveCDs is the ability to work on an otherwise screwed-up computer, and salvage it (or the data on it, etc.). A LiveCD is absolutely great for fixing a Windows or linux PC that has gotten messed up. For instance, you can create backup images of disks using partimage and restore them with a LiveCD (in particular, the SystemRescueDisk is good for that).
/. crowd that has not played with LiveCDs yet (or linux at all) you should seriously consider burning a copy and seeing what all the fuss is about.
A Knoppix LiveDVD is more geared towards booting a PC and being productive (with OpenOffice, Blender 3D, etc.)... however it's a great thing to have lying around because you can diagnose and repair a system, do a full virus scan (as pointed out in TFA), while having internet access, being able to open relevant wordprocessor documents, etc. etc. A LiveDVD like this could also help in extracting files from a corrupt filesystem (you can open and work with the files immediately, if that becomes necessary).
To anyone in the
Excellent comments. However, it is very much a catch-22. I, for one, don't really have any wireless devices or plans to buy any soon. However, if wireless were available throughout my city, then this would change my decisions considerably. Suddenly, a wireless device is worth the money. I would probably buy a laptop and use wireless constantly (whereas for now I'm content using landline internet at various places).
My point is that, unfortunately, this is one of those things that requires time for people to take full advantage of. I'm not saying that a city should dump millions of dollars into infrastructure that people are not using, but certainly they should be realistic in their plans to promote the service, and wait for people to take advantage of it.
For instance, a much more modest (and sane?) proposal would be to fund wireless "hot-spots" in various places... you could even let people ask to have zones set up for wi-fi... and the city would spend the money to activate an area if a certain number of people had all requested it. As this caught on, more and more people would want access in their area, and eventually the infrastructure would be used to its fullest.
You're right.. and isn't that the problem? It seems like this vulnerability could be coded into a distribution. Someone illegally distributing Windows CDs can modify the copy so that it (unknown to the user) runs the crack, gets seemingly-legit codes, and uses these to "prove" that it is a genuine copy to the silly purchaser of the illegal product. So basically this undermines the whole point of the Windows Genuine Advantage. The user buys a CD of Windows, and even the windows website agrees that it is a genuine copy... but in fact the user was duped and bought a pirated copy. This lets the "bad guys" make money off of consumers... moreover it means that the "Windows Genuine" seal means nothing... worse, it provides people with a false sense of authentication.
(or maybe there's something I don't understand about the whole process?)
I agree with the "preventing errors before they happen" concept. Basically the application should warn you that a value is erroneous at the first opportunity. You shouldn't have to wait until you're trying to save a document for the error to screw you. You shouldn't even have to wait until clicking "OK" for an error box to show up saying a value is out of bounds... basically helpful tooltips should appear as you are typing, warning you if your input doesn't makes sense or is out of bounds or whatever.
Applications can also be built to "look" for certain kinds of common problems and take action. For instance, an application can keep watch of memory or disk space, so instead of just getting a "disk full" error or whatever, the user is warned enough ahead of time that he can deal with the problem... rather than losing the work he's done.
As a matter of fact, the formula for viagra is well-known. Even the synthetic pathway is not a secret. Pharmaceutical patents are never a patent on the drug itself, only a patent on a particular process to make the drug. Until the patent runs out, other companies cannot use the same process (although if they can find another way to make it, they can release the same product under a different name).
I don't think setting up the internet site, managing an online accounting system, web-costs, and all the rest of that tech stuff is the limiting factor.
Most restaurants do not have delivery services because of the huge costs of having a fleet of delivery vehicles. It isn't cost effective, since to respond to demand properly you need quite a few vehicles (and somewhere to park them), a dispatching service, pay for fuel, drivers, licensing, etc. Does it make sense for every restaurant to own a few cars? No. Does it make sense for some company to be set up to take care of these details? Yes. By centralizing all the vehicle costs, it can be managed more effectively. Plus, different types of take-out foods reach their peak consumption at different times (pizza late at night vs. sushi at dinner time)... so having only one fleet of vehicles saves alot of money.
The fact that you only need to set up one website is a bonus. Plus, most consumers prefer a single internet site. Rather than having to search through 20 differnt sites for something you like, you can just "one stop shop" and find what you want. You can even order food that comes from different restaurants and it will be delivered at the same time (with an additional charge, no doubt).
"Ruby glass" or "cranberry glass" is actually glass with colloidal (small particles) of gold dispersed in it. It looks very red.
The color (spectral characteristics more generally) of a substance are of course related to the constituent atoms, however for something like bulk metal the band structure is what gives rise to its properties. The band structure of a conductor (metal) makes it look shiny and lustrous. If you make the metal small enough, then the band structure's quantization becomes more apparent, which greatly modifies its spectral properties. This quantum localization is the basis for quantum dots and explains why they have such broad absorption and narrow emission spectra. Similarly, colloidal gold looks very red.
If the color of all objects were based solely on the atoms involved, then how could various dyes and paints (which are usually just made of carbon, oxygen, and nitrogen) be different colors? It's the bonding structure (molecular structure or crystal structure) that gives rise to such properties.
Basically, a material's color depends on interactions between light and that material's valence (most loosely-bound, outermost) electrons. So as soon as you bond atoms together into molecules, solid crystals (metals) or very small crystals (nanoparticles), you're changing the energy-states of those valence electrons, hence changing color. The exact spacing of those energy levels is quite different in a nano-sized object. When you have a gold nanoparticle that only contains 100-200 gold atoms, you can't treat it like "bulk" gold any longer.
With regard to reactivity, people sometimes overstate the reactivity of gold nanoparticles. Gold nanoparticles are still fairly inert. However, nanoparticles in general are much more reactive than their bulk analogues. The reason is that the surface of a material is usually less stable than the interior, because the atoms at the surface have "dangling bonds" (unfullfilled valency). A given mass of nanoparticles will have a very high surface area (compared to the same mass of bulk material). The 'edges' of nanoparticles are regions of even higher instability and very high surface energy. These act as excellent catalysis sites, which explains why colloidal metals can be used as catalysts in numerous chemical reactions.
This is why nanotechnology is so "cool"... by being very small, the properties are suddenly very much different from the bulk material, even though the atoms involved (and even the crystal packing) are exactly the same.