I disagree with your statement that Martin is qualified for his job. Martin is not an engineer Of course he's not an engineer. He's a lawyer and politician. I sure hope he has advisers and assistants who ARE engineers, but the job of a chairman has nothing to do with engineer and everything to do with manipulation of people. I a perfect world, he would weigh the technical merits against the desires of the people and the economic impacts of the FCC's decision, and come to conclusions that were in the interest of everyone. He himself doesn't need an in-depth understanding of the technology, he only needs to know the out comes, and how to interact with the parties involved to get a smooth resolution.
And in reality, maybe he does so. But in all likelihood, large businesses with lobbying forces and access to the Vice President (Martin's with is an Aid to VP Chenny) likely have a lot more influence than the public at large, and perhaps even his engineers (provided they haven't also been lobbied or cherry picked neo-cons)
Standard Neo-con practice, appoint like-minded, highly loyal individuals into key points of power to make decisions that benefit big companies and personal investments in ways that congress can not easily effect.
Kevin J. Martin is the current head of the FCC, appointed by Bush in 2005. Prior to that, he was general council for Bush's first election campaign, then he took over the 'technical transition' when Bush/Chenny were moving into the white house. After they got settled he picked up a nice position as a white house assistant. The guy is nothing more than yet another Neo-con chronie who shows his loyalty to big business and the party line over the interests of the people and gets promoted for it.
On the bright side though, he is at least somewhat qualified for the job. He has a real degree from a real school, he worked at the FCC prior to being appointed to Chairman, and has focused much of his career in the tech/telecomm industries.
LOL, okay I drank a little too much last night and my mind isn't operating at full speed today. I even looked at that before I posted and a little voice in my head said "Sysco, don't they make industrial sized vats of cheap food products?"
The biggest problem with mobile wifi is hand offs. It's been a while since I've looked into the issue, I know there were a couple of MIT guys working on millisecond hand off from one hotspot to the next a year or two ago, but the power consumption was huge.
Cellphones don't have to handle hand offs, the towers do all the work. I had a job doing a lot of testing of call hand offs a few years back. You literally drive back and forth between a few towers, or in a bad hand off area (especially around lakes) and work on programming the towers as to when they should hand calls off to another tower based on vector, signal strength, and a tower list. The whole thing is dynamic too, so weather changes, call volume, new construction, etc... can all be handled at least in the short term with out further work.
I know Sysco has some really cool auto-meshing technology that makes their routers talk to each other and adjust signal strength to pick up for downed antennas, but that technology would have to mature a lot to get the same kind of hand off performance as cell phones enjoy.
You should head over to the wikipedia and read the history of AMD. It's an interesting read, and it might shed some light on the whole AMD vs Intel deal.
On Tuesday, his company, Eros, filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court claiming the avatar known as Volkov Catteneo has violated the trademark on one of his devices called a Sex Gen. Eros claims the avatar has made unauthorized copies of the device and is selling it for a profit. So he is filing as Trademark infringement claim? Does he own the trademark for the "Sex Gen"? And what does unauthorized copies have to do with his trademark? I sure hope his disposition was better written than the article.
The nice thing about ultra capacitors in full-electric, and even hybrid-electric cars is the speed at which they can charge/discharge. With a traditional chemical cell battery, you can only pull energy out so fast, and you can only put it in at a much slower rate. That means that heavy breaking with a regenerative breaking system will not be able to put all of that energy back into the batteries as they will generate energy faster than the batteries can accept the charge. Adding capacitors to the mix however allows for all of that energy to go straight into storage in the capacitors, then trickled into the batteries. Same kind of trick for faster acceleration in full electric cars. Charging up a set of capacitors while waiting at a stop light will give you a huge boost in energy for getting the car off the line and up to speed where a slower draw off the batteries is fine.
If the battery is to be replaced by capacitors, they are going to have to come a loooooooooong way. New insulation and carbon tubes may be enough to get them there, but for the time being, I wouldn't count on them for more than augmentation of an existing system.
Well, the Hz rating is the speed of the clock. So far as I know there are still only 16 interrupts (albeit much less visable to us users). The Core 2 Duo is still only a 32-bit processor, same as the Pentium 1 chip set. So each clock cycle you are still only able to push 32 bits of instructions to the CPU. So if you disabled the second core and dropped the clock to 200mhz, you would still have the same amount of floating point opperations per second, although the memory interface has been greatly improved, so IF the old 200MHz chipset was being bottlenecked by memory, you could see an improvement there. All this being ofcourse completely hypothetical as I can't imagine that dropping a board's clock speed that much would be stable if it is even possible.
A 26x improvement is quite impressive, but it's a good ways short of 100x. Even with the quad code chips, you're still only looking at a 50x improvement.
Now if you compare cycles per power consumption... Then I be you would pull 100x, but I don't have those kinds of numbers.
Why are the conservativesCHANGING things?!?! I mean, the whole point of being a conservative is to attempt to PREVENT change, to promote stability, and stop the slow march of the liberal/progressive movement. Instead we have wound up with a conservative party that has been pushing radical changes and altering the status quo while the Liberal party is fighting for our age old core beliefs.
Just to make sure you are aware that not everyone who read your post immediately jumped to the wrong conclusion and donned their flame suit... I read your post as replying to the post you just indicated as well, and it made perfect sense to me. While I might not agree entirely with your sentiment, it seemed clear enough to me that you were not specifically talking about Cuba.
Using that logic, YOU are non-standards-compliant. It can interact with the DOM, it doesn't use the DOM. It can interact with the DOM so that you can effect the web page from with in a Silverlight application. You can redirect the page, change an image, fire off some JavaScript, all the usual DOM stuff. Saying Silverlight is non-standards-compliant is like calling a Windows app non-Windows-standards-compliant because it calls a Windows API. It doesn't have anything to do with the standard you are claiming it doesn't meet.
Hmmm, site comes up just fine for me using FF. And Silverlight is running fine in both FF and IE for me. And the neat thing is, Sliverlight has nothing to do with W3C standards. It can interact with the DOM, but it is an independent entity.
They were nice enough to post their methodology and samples, although since the research and findings were posted by a group with a vested interest, there could easily be some... interpretation of the numbers. My guess for only citing 2006 and later is because Adobe took over in 2005, and I doubt that Macromedia was doing any significant statistical analysis of their user base.
You are either disconnected from reality or delusional. Either way, I really hope you're not in a position to advise anyone about the internet, or internet technologies, if you seriously believe Flash only became "big" because of YouTube.
Personal attacks aside, I did not say that only YouTube made Flash big. And I should have spoken more carefully. What I should have said was "The real reason that Flash is as popular as it is today is because that is the standard that YouTube decided on." Yes, Flash was big before YouTube, as I posted elsewhere in this thread, it was big enough to gain the attention of Adobe in 2k4 for a 2k5 buyout.
I stand by my assessment that had YouTube not chosen Flash, that Flash would not be as ubiquitous as it is today. I don't think it would have died or gone away, but it wouldn't be where it is now.
Correct. Flash was insignificant until v5 which came out in what early 2001? Even then it wasn't that big. It grew, and in 2005 had enough of a following to snag the attention of Adobe. I would hazard a guess that Adobe's very strong penetration with their PDF products, in place sales and advertising tool sets, and connections in the market place are what really lead Flash into becoming the ubiquitous tool it is today. And that all started in 2005 with the v8 release and Adobe buyout.
I disagree. The real reason that Flash is popular is because that is the standard that YouTube decided on. If it hadn't been for YouTube, Flash would still be just another annoying bloat ware addon for IE.
Moonlight does not use Mono or.Net or C# or anything like that. It's written in C++ and can be used as a Firefox plugin directly. Read all the links at the top of the Slashdot story.
Correct, it does not need or use Mono because it IS Mono. It is a stripped down version of Mono. Mono is coded in C++, thus Moonlight is coded in C++.
Slashdot Mirror
And in reality, maybe he does so. But in all likelihood, large businesses with lobbying forces and access to the Vice President (Martin's with is an Aid to VP Chenny) likely have a lot more influence than the public at large, and perhaps even his engineers (provided they haven't also been lobbied or cherry picked neo-cons)
-Rick
Standard Neo-con practice, appoint like-minded, highly loyal individuals into key points of power to make decisions that benefit big companies and personal investments in ways that congress can not easily effect.
Kevin J. Martin is the current head of the FCC, appointed by Bush in 2005. Prior to that, he was general council for Bush's first election campaign, then he took over the 'technical transition' when Bush/Chenny were moving into the white house. After they got settled he picked up a nice position as a white house assistant. The guy is nothing more than yet another Neo-con chronie who shows his loyalty to big business and the party line over the interests of the people and gets promoted for it.
On the bright side though, he is at least somewhat qualified for the job. He has a real degree from a real school, he worked at the FCC prior to being appointed to Chairman, and has focused much of his career in the tech/telecomm industries.
-Rick
LOL, okay I drank a little too much last night and my mind isn't operating at full speed today. I even looked at that before I posted and a little voice in my head said "Sysco, don't they make industrial sized vats of cheap food products?"
So yeah, Cisco makes wireless routers. Sysco makes foodstuff http://www.sysco.com/products/products.asp.
-Rick
So WiFi will hand off to the GSM network, but will GSM hand off to WiFi?
-Rick
The biggest problem with mobile wifi is hand offs. It's been a while since I've looked into the issue, I know there were a couple of MIT guys working on millisecond hand off from one hotspot to the next a year or two ago, but the power consumption was huge.
Cellphones don't have to handle hand offs, the towers do all the work. I had a job doing a lot of testing of call hand offs a few years back. You literally drive back and forth between a few towers, or in a bad hand off area (especially around lakes) and work on programming the towers as to when they should hand calls off to another tower based on vector, signal strength, and a tower list. The whole thing is dynamic too, so weather changes, call volume, new construction, etc... can all be handled at least in the short term with out further work.
I know Sysco has some really cool auto-meshing technology that makes their routers talk to each other and adjust signal strength to pick up for downed antennas, but that technology would have to mature a lot to get the same kind of hand off performance as cell phones enjoy.
-Rick
You should head over to the wikipedia and read the history of AMD. It's an interesting read, and it might shed some light on the whole AMD vs Intel deal.
-Rick
-Rick
LOL That's one heck of a type-o. How about we stick to braking ;)
Thanks for the catch.
-Rick
The nice thing about ultra capacitors in full-electric, and even hybrid-electric cars is the speed at which they can charge/discharge. With a traditional chemical cell battery, you can only pull energy out so fast, and you can only put it in at a much slower rate. That means that heavy breaking with a regenerative breaking system will not be able to put all of that energy back into the batteries as they will generate energy faster than the batteries can accept the charge. Adding capacitors to the mix however allows for all of that energy to go straight into storage in the capacitors, then trickled into the batteries. Same kind of trick for faster acceleration in full electric cars. Charging up a set of capacitors while waiting at a stop light will give you a huge boost in energy for getting the car off the line and up to speed where a slower draw off the batteries is fine.
If the battery is to be replaced by capacitors, they are going to have to come a loooooooooong way. New insulation and carbon tubes may be enough to get them there, but for the time being, I wouldn't count on them for more than augmentation of an existing system.
-Rick
Well, the Hz rating is the speed of the clock. So far as I know there are still only 16 interrupts (albeit much less visable to us users). The Core 2 Duo is still only a 32-bit processor, same as the Pentium 1 chip set. So each clock cycle you are still only able to push 32 bits of instructions to the CPU. So if you disabled the second core and dropped the clock to 200mhz, you would still have the same amount of floating point opperations per second, although the memory interface has been greatly improved, so IF the old 200MHz chipset was being bottlenecked by memory, you could see an improvement there. All this being ofcourse completely hypothetical as I can't imagine that dropping a board's clock speed that much would be stable if it is even possible.
-Rick
Now they're going to start researching genetic modification to bread a super race of humans with out ears!
-Rick
I agree entirely. Software will always grow to require n+1 resources where n is the resources provided by current hardware.
-Rick
Your comparison based on mainstream availability.
1997 Pentium 1: 1 core 200MHz - 200
2007 Core 2 Duo: 2 core 2.6GHz - 5200
A 26x improvement is quite impressive, but it's a good ways short of 100x. Even with the quad code chips, you're still only looking at a 50x improvement.
Now if you compare cycles per power consumption... Then I be you would pull 100x, but I don't have those kinds of numbers.
-Rick
So how long until I can get Windows for free? And who wants to guess what that'll do to the *nix and Mac market share?
-Rick
Why are the conservatives CHANGING things?!?! I mean, the whole point of being a conservative is to attempt to PREVENT change, to promote stability, and stop the slow march of the liberal/progressive movement. Instead we have wound up with a conservative party that has been pushing radical changes and altering the status quo while the Liberal party is fighting for our age old core beliefs.
-Rick
Just to make sure you are aware that not everyone who read your post immediately jumped to the wrong conclusion and donned their flame suit... I read your post as replying to the post you just indicated as well, and it made perfect sense to me. While I might not agree entirely with your sentiment, it seemed clear enough to me that you were not specifically talking about Cuba.
-Rick
How many laptop manufacturing plants are there in the US?
-Rick
Using that logic, YOU are non-standards-compliant. It can interact with the DOM, it doesn't use the DOM. It can interact with the DOM so that you can effect the web page from with in a Silverlight application. You can redirect the page, change an image, fire off some JavaScript, all the usual DOM stuff. Saying Silverlight is non-standards-compliant is like calling a Windows app non-Windows-standards-compliant because it calls a Windows API. It doesn't have anything to do with the standard you are claiming it doesn't meet.
-Rick
Hmmm, site comes up just fine for me using FF. And Silverlight is running fine in both FF and IE for me. And the neat thing is, Sliverlight has nothing to do with W3C standards. It can interact with the DOM, but it is an independent entity.
-Rick
Thanks for the excerpt, Groklaw appears to be /.'d this morning.
-Rick
They were nice enough to post their methodology and samples, although since the research and findings were posted by a group with a vested interest, there could easily be some... interpretation of the numbers. My guess for only citing 2006 and later is because Adobe took over in 2005, and I doubt that Macromedia was doing any significant statistical analysis of their user base.
e .asp?article=articles/archive/c0509/46c09/46c09.as p&guid= not quite as well laid out as the Adobe page, but for non-peer reviewed stuff who cares ;)
And just as a fun comparison... In 2005, 88% of PC had some form of 'potentially unwanted programs' installed. http://www.computerpoweruser.com/editorial/articl
-Rick
You are either disconnected from reality or delusional. Either way, I really hope you're not in a position to advise anyone about the internet, or internet technologies, if you seriously believe Flash only became "big" because of YouTube.
Personal attacks aside, I did not say that only YouTube made Flash big. And I should have spoken more carefully. What I should have said was "The real reason that Flash is as popular as it is today is because that is the standard that YouTube decided on." Yes, Flash was big before YouTube, as I posted elsewhere in this thread, it was big enough to gain the attention of Adobe in 2k4 for a 2k5 buyout.
I stand by my assessment that had YouTube not chosen Flash, that Flash would not be as ubiquitous as it is today. I don't think it would have died or gone away, but it wouldn't be where it is now.
-Rick
Correct. Flash was insignificant until v5 which came out in what early 2001? Even then it wasn't that big. It grew, and in 2005 had enough of a following to snag the attention of Adobe. I would hazard a guess that Adobe's very strong penetration with their PDF products, in place sales and advertising tool sets, and connections in the market place are what really lead Flash into becoming the ubiquitous tool it is today. And that all started in 2005 with the v8 release and Adobe buyout.
-Rick
I disagree. The real reason that Flash is popular is because that is the standard that YouTube decided on. If it hadn't been for YouTube, Flash would still be just another annoying bloat ware addon for IE.
-Rick
Moonlight does not use Mono or .Net or C# or anything like that. It's written in C++ and can be used as a Firefox plugin directly. Read all the links at the top of the Slashdot story.
Correct, it does not need or use Mono because it IS Mono. It is a stripped down version of Mono. Mono is coded in C++, thus Moonlight is coded in C++.
-Rick