So you have a process, lets call it "safety". This process continuously tells the hardware to keep off the trigger. When you issue the kill command for this process, it does!
*Disclaimer: This is a horrible approach, and should obviously not** be implemented on a Windows based machine. If you are dumb enough to do it this way, use some version of ultra-hardened, enterprise grade *nix. And don't go patching the OS or software until you've done extensive testing on an unarmed model.
** Should Not = really really should for comedic value. Try it!***
*** No, I'm still not responsible for your own stupidity.
You can't be serious. OS X beats Vista already. OS X was ahead of Vista years ago. Hell, I have Vista x64 Ultimate, and I still prefer XP! Nowadays I only use XP or Vista when I have a game that I need Windows for. And since Vista, the only games I have been playing have been ported to Mac. I just haven't got around to picking up a copy.
How does a quantum NOT gate work exactly? Normal NOT gates make zeroes into ones and visa versa. So this makes something from a simultaneous one and zero into a simultaneous zero and one?! How does this even help perform calculations? How do you use that info? *Not zero or one, but both? WTH?* Sorry if this is an obvious question, Discrete mathematics isn't in the curriculum for aerospace engineering. Does this do tons of simple calculations very fast? If not, I don't see as much of an application in it. Maybe if it could do some higher level calculus *in hardware* then it has real value.
I've seen and played around with a facial recognition system that could correctly identify emotions and would draw a box on screen around each face in the image (done in real time with a thermal camera, works even in the dark!) and then write the proper name for each emotion expressed under the box along with estimated distance, etc. It was very accurate, and fooling it, while possible, required a good deal of concentration to express the proper emotion, and without seeing the screen, chances are the emotion you were actually expressing would slip through at some point, so you couldn't completely mask what you were thinking. The question is, will you be faking the expression at the moment you are caught on camera? Will you be able to hold the fake expression (requiring a lot of concentration) and do anything else at the same time. Throw in an RFID id card system and they will be able to know who is where and what they are thinking, anytime you are on camera. So microwave those RFID tags and wear paper sacks over your heads! (Ski masks and panty hose are really suspicious and still could give away identifiable expressions!) Even worse, the real time emotion identification could be used to identify thought patterns with a decent accuracy (at least with the thought patterns you want to find and stamp out...)
I'm tired of hearing about this whole One Laptop Per Child thing. It doesn't provide any real benefit. How many third world countries have a high demand for computer skills? Give the money for the laptops to the children and they'll be better off. Better yet, sell versions of these rugged, use anywhere, cheap laptops to the people who can buy them, and then give the profits to the children.
I see myself using virtualization to run Windows inside Mac OS X. Don't like Xcode? It happens to be built on top of the most commonly used compiler, GCC. It is just a front end to replace using terminal based text editors and prevents you from needing to remember all the options needed to run GCC from the command line. I'd say that if any OS dies out, it will be Windows first. If people can dual boot/virtualize Windows on Macs, the biggest obstacle in the way of mass Mac adoption is gone. I'm confident that once people get Macs and play around in OS X (it's inevitable) then many will start switching to OS X for everyday use. Developers think they can just switch to Windows? Not likely when it gradually becomes considered a burden to swap to Windows, and suddenly Mac compatibility becomes a feature! I think it is far easier to write an Objective C/Cocoa Framework app (including all the necessary under the hood work in addition to a GUI) than it is to write a Windows application with a GUI. Just want to tie good old C++ into a GUI? Xcode already can do, or you could just compile it to run on the command line. Want to use a command line editor and GCC? Already there. Want to compile for Linux and Windows? Look at GNU Step and related open source implementations of Cocoa. C/C++ is the foundation for Objective C, so you can jump right in after a basic tutorial on objects and message passing. I don't see linux going anywhere, maybe gaining ground as Windows boxes suddenly become obsolete because of new mac switchers or Vista's (and successor's) large jump in system requirements. Given the trend among my friends (all of us college students, tomorrow's leaders, etc.) then Mac market share is looking at a sharp increase in the near future. Heck, I'm in aerospace engineering, and I'm writing this from a Powerbook G4, when many small, home brewed applications I encounter require Windows. But you know what? No small home brewed app is more than a match for Virtual PC. Any app that is something important enough to pay for has a Mac version or equivalent.
It is impossible for iTunes to be more used than Quicktime, because iTunes is built on top of Quicktime. So, it is only logical that Quicktime is more used than iTunes, since it is used standalone and with other apps too.
I have this thing called a folder, filled with folder for each programming language I know, filled with folders for each program I have made, filled with folders for each version of the program (generally only the latest stable version, the dev version, and any major branches), etc. Back up every important revision and you are good to go.
1. Normal users shouldn't back up their files.
2. All viruses should be given root access to the system.
3. It is better to lose system files than the user's files.
4. It is better to lose the user's files and system files than just the user's files.
Why would a loving God create predators? Why did He create anything? Who said God was loving? If you had ever read the Bible, you would know that in the Old Testament, God was all about smiting. But seriously, before you mod me down for dissing your religion: It is my religion too. People often forget that the Bible as it is now has been through so many revisions that it is almost certain all the original intentions and meanings in it have been obscured beyond recovery (ever heard the phrase "lost in translation" ?). Also, keep in mind the Bible wasn't handed down by God in absolute, immutable perfection (unlike, say, the Book of Mormon, which is supposed to be an addition and correction to things left out or screwed up in the Bible). The Bible was originally a compilation of stories made by human editors, influenced by their own ideas, then edited by those who wish to use it for their own purposes. Many stories were cut along the way, many intentionally modified to convey different messages, and some were just left out from the start because someone didn't agree with them.
Makes me wonder if in the future people will worship a religion based off modern day stories that are deemed miracles or unexplainable, just because people would rather call it a miracle than try and figure it out.
...without all the (useless) high tech gear. I like to call it "running to class". All you need is a backpack, a laptop, an iPod, and tons of books and supplies.
Doesn't MythTV function as a client server system? If you are recording and watching all on one box, it is both client and server, but you can run front-end HTPCs to play and record to the back-end server, so just throw together a RAID on your back-end.
Notes: 1. For this to work with multiple front-ends your file server can't be some old box you just threw Linux on. 2. I know this because I have a Mac, and the back-end has not been ported, but the front end has, so you could theoretically use a Mac Mini as the HTPC (without putting Linux on it, unless you just wanted to).
Small inventors' application fees = $
Big companies' fees = $$$
Also, you could require on the application a reason why their invention is different from any competing patents.
*looks at patent*looks at competing patents*reads reason*
"This reason is BS. Sounds like a defensive patent (or not different from competition)." *trash*
They need the patents listed in the computers so they could make comparisons based on content and find the closest related patent.
I never was a fan of blogging. If these people have something important to say, I will hear about it without dredging through their garbage. At first blogging was OK, but once it became mainstream (the moment the word blogging was coined), the field became flooded with worthless junk from idiots that aren't listened to in the real world. In short, your opinions are unimportant unless A. they support my opinions or B. you have some sort of authority that enables you to spread your opinions (in which case you should keep them to yourself).
Feel free to comment, but either way keep in mind that, unlike some people, I have better things to do than look and see what complete strangers think about my ideas.
Why take the easy way out?
on
When Pigs Wifi
·
· Score: 1
Blanketing areas with wifi is a cheap and easy solution to a broadband infrastructure. Lets do things the hard way and blanket everywhere with underground fiber optic! Make the cables a little above spec, and later you could upgrade the hardware on either ends to increase speeds. After all, the cables only carry the light pulses, right?
I still have to deal with the local evil overlords at Gulftel. They have decent speed but under continuous usage they disconnect you. They have remote administration on the modems and they have all ports firewalled so you can't do anything with it. What is the point of SDSL (1.1Mb down and up) if I can't host anything behind the firewall and can't download large files (they block bittorrent and disconnect you during large downloads). They are also the only ISP in the area.
Shouldn't they be more worried about this type of thing?
Using the Command-Click, Option-Click, Control-Click, etc. one can do everything a multi-button mouse can do with only one button. Seeing as I just got a bluetooth Apple mouse for my Powerbook, I will have to wait until this thing at least has bluetooth.
When will we have mice with optical scrolling? I'm tired of cleaning my scroll ball! All jokes aside, I have had a mouse scroll wheel lock up. What happened was, the scroll wheel on a Microsoft *cough* Intellimouse Explorer was rubbing the edges of the mouse's casing, and the rubbing ground off the little ridges on the wheel, which fell into the mouse and jammed the wheel. So I held the mouse upside down and forced the wheel to turn, expelling some bits of rubber, and stripping the wheel bare in process.
Also, I know people who never use the extra buttons on a PC mouse, and when I tried to show them all the things they could do quicker with Right-clicking, they got really confused. Maybe Apple has a point. I'm sure developers can handle using a third party mouse! (They always seem to, because every Mac game I have seems to require at least one form of alternate clicking, and oftentimes they don't use the right function key to do it! Usually, you use Command-Click, but in Neverwinter Nights it uses Option-Click, and I've seen apps that use Control-Click instead for right clicking.)
If you can't find away around paying the $30 (use another player? Make one yourself in Xcode and Interface Builder? (Which rarely requires actual coding (drag objects, link 'em, save, compile, done))) then you deserve to pay for it.
Apple has said that developers should not depend on the BIOS system being used in a release model. Apple likely threw these dev boxes together quickly and inexpensively, so they haven't had time to design all the extra stuff a final version would have, like Open Firmware. As was stated earlier, the boxes are fast because they lack many things that would slow them down, things that are needed in a release version. Same goes for the developer's x86 OS X. An interesting point was made on Apple's overclocking to provide the speed needed for updated model releases. Case in point: As far as I know, there is no official 1.67 GHz G4, yet here I sit with a 1.67 GHz 17" Powerbook (the aluminum burns like hell if you try to play a game with it in your lap, but that sucks the battery dry anyway, otherwise it is great). Also, the x86 versions were created to ensure that x86 specific bugs were caught, and little x86 optimization exists in the developer versions of x86 OS X. Once they get the ball rolling, release versions will be better optimized. One point I think makes a difference is OS X and its open source base are well coded, with none of the insanity that is Windows code, and as such, they can be easily ported and run decently on anything (they are not specifically optimized for one architecture, until Apple does it for a release). The first couple of Intel Macs will likely be slower at (ported) existing Mac apps than the last PPC Macs until OS X is optimized better for x86. Games (as well as any app that is badly ported (read: not optimized or well coded), games just happen to be a great example) will likely run better on Intel Macs, as well as any new ports from Windows that were inspired by the switch to Intel. Blah, blah, blah, PPC is a superior architecture, blah, blah, x86 is outmoded junk. It just happens that IBM doesn't really care about Apple as much as they should, and Intel has tons of cash to throw at x86 to make it faster. I'll be getting an Intel Mac, likely a desktop (I like to alternate, a desktop, a laptop, a desktop, etc.) when they are 64 bit, dual core, and properly optimized. That is, if their x86 laptops are anything like the Powerbooks compared to the Powermacs (way behind). Oh, and I'm sure that Intel strong-armed their way into this deal, because I know Apple would have taken AMD's dual core 64 bit solutions in a heartbeat. What with the lawsuit from AMD and all, we may see Intel Macs only for a release or two, before swapping to AMD. Regardless, Apple keeps a tight platform with few processor variants, so I doubt Intel and AMD will coexist (at least not in the same model line). I would bet that Intel would hold Apple hostage if they tried to use AMD at the same time. I imagine that Intel will give its all for Apple, at least for a while, until Apple, and Mac users, are loyal to them alone.
Slashdot Mirror
So you have a process, lets call it "safety". This process continuously tells the hardware to keep off the trigger. When you issue the kill command for this process, it does!
*Disclaimer: This is a horrible approach, and should obviously not** be implemented on a Windows based machine. If you are dumb enough to do it this way, use some version of ultra-hardened, enterprise grade *nix. And don't go patching the OS or software until you've done extensive testing on an unarmed model.
** Should Not = really really should for comedic value. Try it!***
*** No, I'm still not responsible for your own stupidity.
You can't be serious. OS X beats Vista already. OS X was ahead of Vista years ago. Hell, I have Vista x64 Ultimate, and I still prefer XP! Nowadays I only use XP or Vista when I have a game that I need Windows for. And since Vista, the only games I have been playing have been ported to Mac. I just haven't got around to picking up a copy.
http://begthequestion.info/
Translation:
"Lick my balls, Slashdot. This is yet another filler article. Not news, just junk."
Google "binary to text". It's ASCII code in binary form.
How does a quantum NOT gate work exactly? Normal NOT gates make zeroes into ones and visa versa. So this makes something from a simultaneous one and zero into a simultaneous zero and one?! How does this even help perform calculations? How do you use that info? *Not zero or one, but both? WTH?* Sorry if this is an obvious question, Discrete mathematics isn't in the curriculum for aerospace engineering. Does this do tons of simple calculations very fast? If not, I don't see as much of an application in it. Maybe if it could do some higher level calculus *in hardware* then it has real value.
I've seen and played around with a facial recognition system that could correctly identify emotions and would draw a box on screen around each face in the image (done in real time with a thermal camera, works even in the dark!) and then write the proper name for each emotion expressed under the box along with estimated distance, etc. It was very accurate, and fooling it, while possible, required a good deal of concentration to express the proper emotion, and without seeing the screen, chances are the emotion you were actually expressing would slip through at some point, so you couldn't completely mask what you were thinking. The question is, will you be faking the expression at the moment you are caught on camera? Will you be able to hold the fake expression (requiring a lot of concentration) and do anything else at the same time. Throw in an RFID id card system and they will be able to know who is where and what they are thinking, anytime you are on camera. So microwave those RFID tags and wear paper sacks over your heads! (Ski masks and panty hose are really suspicious and still could give away identifiable expressions!) Even worse, the real time emotion identification could be used to identify thought patterns with a decent accuracy (at least with the thought patterns you want to find and stamp out...)
I'm tired of hearing about this whole One Laptop Per Child thing. It doesn't provide any real benefit. How many third world countries have a high demand for computer skills? Give the money for the laptops to the children and they'll be better off. Better yet, sell versions of these rugged, use anywhere, cheap laptops to the people who can buy them, and then give the profits to the children.
I see myself using virtualization to run Windows inside Mac OS X. Don't like Xcode? It happens to be built on top of the most commonly used compiler, GCC. It is just a front end to replace using terminal based text editors and prevents you from needing to remember all the options needed to run GCC from the command line. I'd say that if any OS dies out, it will be Windows first. If people can dual boot/virtualize Windows on Macs, the biggest obstacle in the way of mass Mac adoption is gone. I'm confident that once people get Macs and play around in OS X (it's inevitable) then many will start switching to OS X for everyday use. Developers think they can just switch to Windows? Not likely when it gradually becomes considered a burden to swap to Windows, and suddenly Mac compatibility becomes a feature! I think it is far easier to write an Objective C/Cocoa Framework app (including all the necessary under the hood work in addition to a GUI) than it is to write a Windows application with a GUI. Just want to tie good old C++ into a GUI? Xcode already can do, or you could just compile it to run on the command line. Want to use a command line editor and GCC? Already there. Want to compile for Linux and Windows? Look at GNU Step and related open source implementations of Cocoa. C/C++ is the foundation for Objective C, so you can jump right in after a basic tutorial on objects and message passing. I don't see linux going anywhere, maybe gaining ground as Windows boxes suddenly become obsolete because of new mac switchers or Vista's (and successor's) large jump in system requirements. Given the trend among my friends (all of us college students, tomorrow's leaders, etc.) then Mac market share is looking at a sharp increase in the near future. Heck, I'm in aerospace engineering, and I'm writing this from a Powerbook G4, when many small, home brewed applications I encounter require Windows. But you know what? No small home brewed app is more than a match for Virtual PC. Any app that is something important enough to pay for has a Mac version or equivalent.
It is impossible for iTunes to be more used than Quicktime, because iTunes is built on top of Quicktime. So, it is only logical that Quicktime is more used than iTunes, since it is used standalone and with other apps too.
mv ./random_program ~/Fortran/random_program
What?
I have this thing called a folder, filled with folder for each programming language I know, filled with folders for each program I have made, filled with folders for each version of the program (generally only the latest stable version, the dev version, and any major branches), etc. Back up every important revision and you are good to go.
1. Normal users shouldn't back up their files.
2. All viruses should be given root access to the system.
3. It is better to lose system files than the user's files.
4. It is better to lose the user's files and system files than just the user's files.
Why would a loving God create predators? Why did He create anything? Who said God was loving? If you had ever read the Bible, you would know that in the Old Testament, God was all about smiting. But seriously, before you mod me down for dissing your religion: It is my religion too. People often forget that the Bible as it is now has been through so many revisions that it is almost certain all the original intentions and meanings in it have been obscured beyond recovery (ever heard the phrase "lost in translation" ?). Also, keep in mind the Bible wasn't handed down by God in absolute, immutable perfection (unlike, say, the Book of Mormon, which is supposed to be an addition and correction to things left out or screwed up in the Bible). The Bible was originally a compilation of stories made by human editors, influenced by their own ideas, then edited by those who wish to use it for their own purposes. Many stories were cut along the way, many intentionally modified to convey different messages, and some were just left out from the start because someone didn't agree with them.
Makes me wonder if in the future people will worship a religion based off modern day stories that are deemed miracles or unexplainable, just because people would rather call it a miracle than try and figure it out.
Steve flies into a rage, and in a whirlwind of black turtlenecks, fires him!
Oh wait, you said former exec...
How many more Apple related taboos can I violate?
...without all the (useless) high tech gear. I like to call it "running to class". All you need is a backpack, a laptop, an iPod, and tons of books and supplies.
Doesn't MythTV function as a client server system? If you are recording and watching all on one box, it is both client and server, but you can run front-end HTPCs to play and record to the back-end server, so just throw together a RAID on your back-end.
Notes:
1. For this to work with multiple front-ends your file server can't be some old box you just threw Linux on.
2. I know this because I have a Mac, and the back-end has not been ported, but the front end has, so you could theoretically use a Mac Mini as the HTPC (without putting Linux on it, unless you just wanted to).
They call them "speakers". Together with an "amplifier", you can wake the neighbors a mile down the street.
Small inventors' application fees = $ Big companies' fees = $$$ Also, you could require on the application a reason why their invention is different from any competing patents. *looks at patent*looks at competing patents*reads reason* "This reason is BS. Sounds like a defensive patent (or not different from competition)." *trash* They need the patents listed in the computers so they could make comparisons based on content and find the closest related patent.
I never was a fan of blogging. If these people have something important to say, I will hear about it without dredging through their garbage. At first blogging was OK, but once it became mainstream (the moment the word blogging was coined), the field became flooded with worthless junk from idiots that aren't listened to in the real world. In short, your opinions are unimportant unless A. they support my opinions or B. you have some sort of authority that enables you to spread your opinions (in which case you should keep them to yourself).
Feel free to comment, but either way keep in mind that, unlike some people, I have better things to do than look and see what complete strangers think about my ideas.
Blanketing areas with wifi is a cheap and easy solution to a broadband infrastructure. Lets do things the hard way and blanket everywhere with underground fiber optic! Make the cables a little above spec, and later you could upgrade the hardware on either ends to increase speeds. After all, the cables only carry the light pulses, right?
I still have to deal with the local evil overlords at Gulftel. They have decent speed but under continuous usage they disconnect you. They have remote administration on the modems and they have all ports firewalled so you can't do anything with it. What is the point of SDSL (1.1Mb down and up) if I can't host anything behind the firewall and can't download large files (they block bittorrent and disconnect you during large downloads). They are also the only ISP in the area.
Shouldn't they be more worried about this type of thing?
Using the Command-Click, Option-Click, Control-Click, etc. one can do everything a multi-button mouse can do with only one button. Seeing as I just got a bluetooth Apple mouse for my Powerbook, I will have to wait until this thing at least has bluetooth.
When will we have mice with optical scrolling? I'm tired of cleaning my scroll ball! All jokes aside, I have had a mouse scroll wheel lock up. What happened was, the scroll wheel on a Microsoft *cough* Intellimouse Explorer was rubbing the edges of the mouse's casing, and the rubbing ground off the little ridges on the wheel, which fell into the mouse and jammed the wheel. So I held the mouse upside down and forced the wheel to turn, expelling some bits of rubber, and stripping the wheel bare in process.
Also, I know people who never use the extra buttons on a PC mouse, and when I tried to show them all the things they could do quicker with Right-clicking, they got really confused. Maybe Apple has a point. I'm sure developers can handle using a third party mouse! (They always seem to, because every Mac game I have seems to require at least one form of alternate clicking, and oftentimes they don't use the right function key to do it! Usually, you use Command-Click, but in Neverwinter Nights it uses Option-Click, and I've seen apps that use Control-Click instead for right clicking.)
If you can't find away around paying the $30 (use another player? Make one yourself in Xcode and Interface Builder? (Which rarely requires actual coding (drag objects, link 'em, save, compile, done))) then you deserve to pay for it.
can it scratch Linux?
In your face, Z-board!
Apple has said that developers should not depend on the BIOS system being used in a release model. Apple likely threw these dev boxes together quickly and inexpensively, so they haven't had time to design all the extra stuff a final version would have, like Open Firmware.
As was stated earlier, the boxes are fast because they lack many things that would slow them down, things that are needed in a release version. Same goes for the developer's x86 OS X. An interesting point was made on Apple's overclocking to provide the speed needed for updated model releases. Case in point: As far as I know, there is no official 1.67 GHz G4, yet here I sit with a 1.67 GHz 17" Powerbook (the aluminum burns like hell if you try to play a game with it in your lap, but that sucks the battery dry anyway, otherwise it is great). Also, the x86 versions were created to ensure that x86 specific bugs were caught, and little x86 optimization exists in the developer versions of x86 OS X. Once they get the ball rolling, release versions will be better optimized. One point I think makes a difference is OS X and its open source base are well coded, with none of the insanity that is Windows code, and as such, they can be easily ported and run decently on anything (they are not specifically optimized for one architecture, until Apple does it for a release). The first couple of Intel Macs will likely be slower at (ported) existing Mac apps than the last PPC Macs until OS X is optimized better for x86. Games (as well as any app that is badly ported (read: not optimized or well coded), games just happen to be a great example) will likely run better on Intel Macs, as well as any new ports from Windows that were inspired by the switch to Intel.
Blah, blah, blah, PPC is a superior architecture, blah, blah, x86 is outmoded junk. It just happens that IBM doesn't really care about Apple as much as they should, and Intel has tons of cash to throw at x86 to make it faster. I'll be getting an Intel Mac, likely a desktop (I like to alternate, a desktop, a laptop, a desktop, etc.) when they are 64 bit, dual core, and properly optimized. That is, if their x86 laptops are anything like the Powerbooks compared to the Powermacs (way behind).
Oh, and I'm sure that Intel strong-armed their way into this deal, because I know Apple would have taken AMD's dual core 64 bit solutions in a heartbeat. What with the lawsuit from AMD and all, we may see Intel Macs only for a release or two, before swapping to AMD. Regardless, Apple keeps a tight platform with few processor variants, so I doubt Intel and AMD will coexist (at least not in the same model line). I would bet that Intel would hold Apple hostage if they tried to use AMD at the same time. I imagine that Intel will give its all for Apple, at least for a while, until Apple, and Mac users, are loyal to them alone.