Another thing to consider is, while I don't know what the operating life of a Peltier is, when they fail, they make a very nice thermal insulator between your processor and heatsink.
Oh, and don't forget moisture tends to condense on them in humid weather. Which is not conducive to long processor life.
That's the beauty of the free market! If you don't like Playstation 2, get a Dreamcast! It has a much more conventional architecture and it even runs Windows CE (well, a version anyway).
Or, if you want to wait, x-box and dolphin should be even more to your liking.
Personally, I think Sony is going to be laughing all the way to the bank.
I think NASA is basically saying that they are going back to the way things used to be. It was more expensive, but it was also more cost effective.
The problem is those more expensive missions seem just as prone to failure as the "smaller, faster, cheaper" ones. Of course, the advantage of the more expensive ones (from NASA's point of view) is that you can spend years just on the feasibility studies alone. Plus, since you launch fewer missions, you get fewer failures. And if it fails, well, obviously you should have done more studies.:-)
The basic problem with just privatizing NASA is that NASA isn't suppose to make a profit. NASA should be doing basic engineering research and development (and releasing it) to enable other companies to make a profit. The problem is that NASA has grown so massive and bureaucratic that it actively smothers private space development (IMO, the rise of private space development companies is in spite of, not because of NASA).
The only reason I might support privatizing NASA is to watch it crash and burn (metaphorically speaking) and make room for private space development.
> I'm not sure if I'm in the minority here, or what, but I'm pretty anxious to see the source > code for Windows. I think it'd probably be very instructive, even if (as a lot of nay-sayers say) > it would be a lesson in what not to do.
Personally, I'd rather see them be forced to document all their APIs, all their file formats, and all their protocols. In perpetuity.
Are there any Linux-compatible TV tuner cards with MPEG encoding?
TV listings (broadcast, cable, and satellite) are available on the 'net. Perhaps one might could write a Linux app to extract the relevant listings from a site like ClickTV, and record their favorite shows. Slo-mo and freeze-frame are optional.
I'd do it, but I can't remember the last time I watched TV.:-)
Hmmm, you're right. It says Microsoft will "manufacture and market" the x-box right in the first paragraph.
I was recalling a previous report (admittedly based on rumors and speculation) that claimed Microsoft would only develop the specifications and merely license them to third-party manufacturers.
Goes to show I shouldn't post before my second coffee.
I think Panasonic was the only company to make a box.
I know Goldstar made one too, and it seems to me another smaller company did, but the name escapes me.
I only have one question, who is going to make the x-box? Seriously.
Follow me on this. Traditionally, console companies have made little or no money (or even lost money) selling the system itself, but they make up for that in licensing fees and game sales.
As I understand it, Microsoft doesn't want to make the system because; a) they're a software company, and b) there's no money in it. They just want to produce a specification and license it to third-party manufacturers. So, I'm guessing here, Microsoft figures they'll make money licensing the spec and/or selling the OS for it and/or maybe selling some games for it.
So Microsoft is cool with this, and game manufacturers are cool with it, but what kind of company is going to manufacture and sell the console itself at a competitive price (i.e., little or no profit) against Sega, Sony, and Nintendo? The spec's I've seen for x-box aren't that much better than Playstation 2 or the mythical Nintendo Dolphin.
So seriously, who's going to make the system?
Disclaimer, I'm just a humble engineer, not an MBA or anything.
Why do some people seem to think satellites are the only application space is good for?
Think space stations (big space stations). Think lunar colonies (plural). Think Mars colonies. Think asteriod mining. We're going to need cheap, heavy-lift boosters.
It reminds me of the elderly woman who said, "Man wasn't meant to fly. He should stay home and watch TV like God intended".
Unfortunately X-33's turning into same-old, same-old NASA project, over-time, over-budget. It's already late, it's so overweight it can't met it's original design objectives. Lockheed's talking about X-33A, which will be "New and Improved" (and lemon scented, presumably).
If I were a cynic I might point out that Lockheed has the Shuttle maintenance contract, which is a cash-cow for them. Arguably they might not want a cheaper, easily maintained replacement for it. Being paid to make it fail is just a bonus.
Complementary market niches. Think of Rotary Rocket as a taxi-cab service and Beal as a long-haul trucking company. We're going to need both if we're seriously going to get off this rock.
Ummm, everything else being equal, Mr. Walker is probably correct. But, analogously, I sure building Volkswagens is more efficient, but sometimes you need a truck.
Well, maybe if you already had a Linux box as a gateway to your DSL/cable/dial-up connection...
Re:CmdrTaco Forgot one thing
on
A New DeCSS
·
· Score: 1
> I did have one theroy though...don't know if it was brought up before...what if someone posted > a wav file ( because mp3 would be too "underground" ) of them reading the DeCSS > ( as in the DVD program ) source code?
Hahahaha, I had this mental image of a beatnik reciting the DeCSS code as free verse in a smoke-filled, candle-lit coffeehouse as someone plays bongos in the background. Hahahaha.
Or today I guess you could release a rap music version. Hahahaha.
Right now, almost all computer monitors have analog inputs. I think I'm safe in guessing you have one of those simple A-B-C-D KVM (keyboard/video monitor) switchboxes (like I have), or maybe one of those cool electronic switchboxes from Belkin or Linksys.
This encryption is based on the new DVI (digital video interface) standard being developed which, I understand, is all digital between the computer and monitor instead of analog.
So, as I understand it, not only can't you use your switchbox with encrypted DVI video, you can't use it with any DVI video.
How much of an improvement DVI is over standard analog video is argueable. I believe it does offer an improvement for LCD displays, but less of an improvement for vacuum tube displays. Remember that Intel is in business to sell chips, so one point of view is that they're basically feeding on movie industry paranoia.
Mmmm, you seem to be saying if a user demands changes in a program at no charge and the developer (commercial or open-source) declines, it's the user that's getting screwed. That's an... interesting point of view.
> Hmm, that's the attitude that will keep MS in business, I think. I don't know what the > answer is, but when I tell my customers (I develop IC test applications) what my schedule > is, if they don't like it, I *can't* tell them to shove it.
> Giving them the source code won't work either. They are coming to you for your expertise. > If they want source code, there's lots of distributions.
I believe grappler was refering to demands on the Linux community as a whole. Obviously the correct response in that case is "Here's the source. Have a nice day". The Linux community as a whole has no other obligations.
Obviously, if an individual programmer enters into a contractual agreement to create new or modify existing software, then that's a completely different situation, and, you're right, neither response would be acceptable.
> Have any of you actually read the UCITA ? I haven't but I wholly support the idea that those > user agreements are enforceable.
I believe the fundamental issue with "shrinkwrap" and "click through" user agreements is that, generally, the user doesn't have the opportunity to review the agreement before purchasing or installing the software.
I doubt you would argue that someone should buy a car or house without reviewing the purchase contract before signing, yet that is how you buy software. Currently, the user is "protected" because (as I understand it) shrinkwrap agreements (and by extension, click-through agreements (though that hasn't been determined by a court of law to my knowledge)) are unenforceable in court. I, for one, prefer it that way.
Shoutcast (and Icecast) is cool, but (1) not all broadcasters use it, and (2) it only handles streaming audio (correct me if I'm wrong).
The combination of.ASF/.ASX is much more flexible. You could stream, or setup playlists with pause, skip, shuffle options. Associate graphics and URLs with audio selections. And stream video.
Of course, proprietary codecs are the biggest (and, at the moment, seemingly insurmountable) problem.
Slashdot Mirror
Another thing to consider is, while I don't know what the operating life of a Peltier is, when they fail, they make a very nice thermal insulator between your processor and heatsink.
Oh, and don't forget moisture tends to condense on them in humid weather. Which is not conducive to long processor life.
That's the beauty of the free market! If you don't like Playstation 2, get a Dreamcast! It has a much more conventional architecture and it even runs Windows CE (well, a version anyway).
Or, if you want to wait, x-box and dolphin should be even more to your liking.
Personally, I think Sony is going to be laughing all the way to the bank.
I think NASA is basically saying that they are going back to the way things used to be. It was more expensive, but it was also more cost effective.
:-)
The problem is those more expensive missions seem just as prone to failure as the "smaller, faster, cheaper" ones. Of course, the advantage of the more expensive ones (from NASA's point of view) is that you can spend years just on the feasibility studies alone. Plus, since you launch fewer missions, you get fewer failures. And if it fails, well, obviously you should have done more studies.
The basic problem with just privatizing NASA is that NASA isn't suppose to make a profit. NASA should be doing basic engineering research and development (and releasing it) to enable other companies to make a profit. The problem is that NASA has grown so massive and bureaucratic that it actively smothers private space development (IMO, the rise of private space development companies is in spite of, not because of NASA).
The only reason I might support privatizing NASA is to watch it crash and burn (metaphorically speaking) and make room for private space development.
> I'm not sure if I'm in the minority here, or what, but I'm pretty anxious to see the source
> code for Windows. I think it'd probably be very instructive, even if (as a lot of nay-sayers say)
> it would be a lesson in what not to do.
Personally, I'd rather see them be forced to document all their APIs, all their file formats, and all their protocols. In perpetuity.
Are there any Linux-compatible TV tuner cards with MPEG encoding?
:-)
TV listings (broadcast, cable, and satellite) are available on the 'net. Perhaps one might could write a Linux app to extract the relevant listings from a site like ClickTV, and record their favorite shows. Slo-mo and freeze-frame are optional.
I'd do it, but I can't remember the last time I watched TV.
> Or dort, whichever you prefer.
:)
Is that a cross between a dork and a dolt?
I wonder if Transmeta could do that with their Crusoe processor?
Hmmm, four Crusoe processors on one chip....
Hmmm, you're right. It says Microsoft will "manufacture and market" the x-box right in the first paragraph.
I was recalling a previous report (admittedly based on rumors and speculation) that claimed Microsoft would only develop the specifications and merely license them to third-party manufacturers.
Goes to show I shouldn't post before my second coffee.
I think Panasonic was the only company to make a box.
I know Goldstar made one too, and it seems to me another smaller company did, but the name escapes me.
I only have one question, who is going to make the x-box? Seriously.
Follow me on this. Traditionally, console companies have made little or no money (or even lost money) selling the system itself, but they make up for that in licensing fees and game sales.
As I understand it, Microsoft doesn't want to make the system because; a) they're a software company, and b) there's no money in it. They just want to produce a specification and license it to third-party manufacturers. So, I'm guessing here, Microsoft figures they'll make money licensing the spec and/or selling the OS for it and/or maybe selling some games for it.
So Microsoft is cool with this, and game manufacturers are cool with it, but what kind of company is going to manufacture and sell the console itself at a competitive price (i.e., little or no profit) against Sega, Sony, and Nintendo? The spec's I've seen for x-box aren't that much better than Playstation 2 or the mythical Nintendo Dolphin.
So seriously, who's going to make the system?
Disclaimer, I'm just a humble engineer, not an MBA or anything.
Why do some people seem to think satellites are the only application space is good for?
Think space stations (big space stations). Think lunar colonies (plural). Think Mars colonies. Think asteriod mining. We're going to need cheap, heavy-lift boosters.
It reminds me of the elderly woman who said, "Man wasn't meant to fly. He should stay home and watch TV like God intended".
Unfortunately X-33's turning into same-old, same-old NASA project, over-time, over-budget. It's already late, it's so overweight it can't met it's original design objectives. Lockheed's talking about X-33A, which will be "New and Improved" (and lemon scented, presumably).
If I were a cynic I might point out that Lockheed has the Shuttle maintenance contract, which is a cash-cow for them. Arguably they might not want a cheaper, easily maintained replacement for it. Being paid to make it fail is just a bonus.
Complementary market niches. Think of Rotary Rocket as a taxi-cab service and Beal as a long-haul trucking company. We're going to need both if we're seriously going to get off this rock.
Ummm, everything else being equal, Mr. Walker is probably correct. But, analogously, I sure building Volkswagens is more efficient, but sometimes you need a truck.
Ahh, the old big-corporation-ripping-off-the-consumer-trick, that's the second time I've fallen for it this month.
> Why bother though. ...
Well, maybe if you already had a Linux box as a gateway to your DSL/cable/dial-up connection...
> I did have one theroy though...don't know if it was brought up before...what if someone posted
> a wav file ( because mp3 would be too "underground" ) of them reading the DeCSS
> ( as in the DVD program ) source code?
Hahahaha, I had this mental image of a beatnik reciting the DeCSS code as free verse in a smoke-filled, candle-lit coffeehouse as someone plays bongos in the background. Hahahaha.
Or today I guess you could release a rap music version. Hahahaha.
Maybe they should file a complaint with the WTO (yes, the World Trade Organization). Isn't this what the WTO is for?
Right now, almost all computer monitors have analog inputs. I think I'm safe in guessing you have one of those simple A-B-C-D KVM (keyboard/video monitor) switchboxes (like I have), or maybe one of those cool electronic switchboxes from Belkin or Linksys.
This encryption is based on the new DVI (digital video interface) standard being developed which, I understand, is all digital between the computer and monitor instead of analog.
So, as I understand it, not only can't you use your switchbox with encrypted DVI video, you can't use it with any DVI video.
How much of an improvement DVI is over standard analog video is argueable. I believe it does offer an improvement for LCD displays, but less of an improvement for vacuum tube displays. Remember that Intel is in business to sell chips, so one point of view is that they're basically feeding on movie industry paranoia.
Mmmm, you seem to be saying if a user demands changes in a program at no charge and the developer (commercial or open-source) declines, it's the user that's getting screwed. That's an... interesting point of view.
> Hmm, that's the attitude that will keep MS in business, I think. I don't know what the
> answer is, but when I tell my customers (I develop IC test applications) what my schedule
> is, if they don't like it, I *can't* tell them to shove it.
> Giving them the source code won't work either. They are coming to you for your expertise.
> If they want source code, there's lots of distributions.
I believe grappler was refering to demands on the Linux community as a whole. Obviously the correct response in that case is "Here's the source. Have a nice day". The Linux community as a whole has no other obligations.
Obviously, if an individual programmer enters into a contractual agreement to create new or modify existing software, then that's a completely different situation, and, you're right, neither response would be acceptable.
> No, no, no. The correct response is "I'll be happy to make this change for you. My fee is
> $500/hour". Those are wealthy organizations after all.
Actually, they're both correct responses.
> 2. Tell those "wealthy organizations accostomed to getting their way" to take their "schedules"
> and shove them. We have no time for that.
No. The correct response is, "Here's the source, have a nice day". That's why it's called open-source, isn't it?
> Have any of you actually read the UCITA ? I haven't but I wholly support the idea that those
> user agreements are enforceable.
I believe the fundamental issue with "shrinkwrap" and "click through" user agreements is that, generally, the user doesn't have the opportunity to review the agreement before purchasing or installing the software.
I doubt you would argue that someone should buy a car or house without reviewing the purchase contract before signing, yet that is how you buy software. Currently, the user is "protected" because (as I understand it) shrinkwrap agreements (and by extension, click-through agreements (though that hasn't been determined by a court of law to my knowledge)) are unenforceable in court. I, for one, prefer it that way.
Shoutcast (and Icecast) is cool, but (1) not all broadcasters use it, and (2) it only handles streaming audio (correct me if I'm wrong).
.ASF/.ASX is much more flexible. You could stream, or setup playlists with pause, skip, shuffle options. Associate graphics and URLs with audio selections. And stream video.
The combination of
Of course, proprietary codecs are the biggest (and, at the moment, seemingly insurmountable) problem.