All modern video cards already have EEPROMs on them.
In fact, that's precisely how both nvidia and ati differentiate their "professional" cards from their "consumer" cards.
Ease of 'hacking' apparently isn't much of a concern because cards from both vendors have been 'upgradeable' in this manner for more than a decade.
I thought this was a little bit of a stretch. But a little Googling popped up some interesting results. I haven't had a chance to look at this card but check this out:
http://www.guru3d.com/guide/quadro-modify/
Seriously, this is so cool and I never thought about it before. Thanks for the tip!
I hate Windows like many others at Slashdot. But you gave a nice summary of the conditions that helped Windows thrive.
Macs were the evil monsters at the time (late 80s early 90s). Hardware lock-in, expensive, anti-competitive. Thank goodness there was something else to keep us from tumbling down the Apple path. I also remembering running SCO (before they were evil) on a 486. The OS was about $2,500. A C compiler was another $2,500. You get the idea. They had no hope of mainstream acceptance at those prices and this was in the mid-90s. That was a lot of money.
I hated Windows 95, but there was nothing else except OS/2 which was better, but like you say, IBM didn't have their head in the right place for the mainstream. Linux was cool but it was weeks of time wasted to get it set up on hardware and even then you couldn't get it all working. Even back then it was stable, but it was far from being a productivity tool without enormous effort. Not that I didn't learn a ton and not that it wasn't fun.
Today... Microsoft is the evil company of our time. They were substandard in the 90s too but they were cheap and Windows ran on "stuff" people could reasonably afford. Times have changed and Microsoft hasn't. There are several other OS options that have stepped up to fill the void. In one release, Microsoft blinked and lost their marbles. They are still riding old momentum and developing to their 90s model that made them so successful. This isn't the 90s anymore. People aren't lined up outside Best Buy at midnight for their releases as was the case for Windows 95. I wasn't there for it but I heard all about it none-the-less.
The landscape is what it is. Linux is what it is. Macs are what they are. Vista is what it is. Point is... progress is being made and we're not tumbling down a path that doesn't look brighter as time goes on. Things in general are improving in the computer world. Innovation is happening, people are learning and things are getting better regardless of what Microsoft execs like Steve Balmer try to do.
If Microsoft went away tomorrow, things would be okay. Everyone would adapt with only slight pain. They were important, but that's not the case anymore. This is a really good thing. No one looks to Microsoft for innovation anymore. They aren't stopping anything. Hardware vendors who have subscribed to Vista are slowly wising up. That was the old model. Sales are down for new computers so numerous vendors are responding and starting to sell Linux systems. Apple is doing well.
Definite speculation for sure. And this is mine... Things will continue to get better and Microsoft will continue to have a dwindling role in future improvements.
Some of the shortcuts changed for sure. The first thing I did was enable single key shortcuts again. Things are mostly the same as 9.2 when you do that. It's not going to fix all you grievances, but it will get some.
9.5 is a tremendous improvement or 9.2. There are still a few sites which force me to Firefox, but not too many anymore.
There's also a 9.2 compatibility mode in the shortcuts menu. I didn't fight it and simply learned the new ones.
Bookmarks sync is cool too. I use it to go between work which is Windows and home which is Linux. I used to use an automatic sync script. This saves me a little effort on my part.
Of course, it you are worried about privacy, then automatic bookmark syncing is probably not a good idea. It's still a nice feature and my bookmarks aren't too interesting to anyone anyway.
WiFi hotspots are all over. I've connected to dozens of them. That's what they are for.
So the only way a person *knows* it's not intended to be a public network is by having someone complain about it after the fact. Lots of people leave their WiFi open at home as a "public service".
It's different to intentionally circumvent protections that are in place, like WEP or restriction by MAC address. That's prying open a locked door so to speak.
Sometimes I think these article summaries are intentionally worded to get slashdotters cranked up. Okay, it worked on me.
I should note that, no matter what, I have never used Internet Explorer for anything but testing on the job. 5 years ago I took some heat for it too. I was scolded at a couple of different jobs as a result of not using IE as my primary browser. I can assure everyone that I did not comply and I could care less what happened with any of them now... one company was dissolved after I'd left:-D
Stability? Other Linux distros are just as stable, many have run for years without a hiccup. That's true, but Slackware is typically one of the best. In fact *the best*, in my opinion of 13 years of use. It's not a lot different from Debian though in terms of stability. Debian has my respect there.
Learning? Learn what? If you want to work professionally with Linux, you will find that most businesses want you to know redhat. I have to disagree with this. When I mention that I *only* use Slackware in job interviews, I generally don't have to answer any more questions about system administration knowledge or any Unix knowledge for that matter. That's how much weight it carries! People have tons of respect for Slackware users and anyone you'd want to work for knows about Slackware. It's not the same with other distributions. Rock Linux might be second on this and maybe LFS (Linux From Scratch). They don't have the name recognition but they certainly carry respect by people who know about them.
I use debian because I think it has the best package management in the business, among other things. If you going to do a better job of manually managing your packages, you are going to have to really fight to stay on top of your system. Debian is a good distro. I don't like package managers and I don't like System V Init. BSD style is better in my opinion and I've used both a lot. Package managers are usually more trouble than they're worth. It's not that much work to keep your system up to date, especially if you stay in the "current" stream of Slackware.
As for the advantages? Just like anything else, it depends on what you want to do. I've never heard anyone regret using Slackware unless they never got past the installation. I'm sure there's no advantage for you to use it. But I find it to be the closest thing to computing nirvana there is. I spend the vast majority of my time *using* my system. I spend very little time on maintenance. This has not been my experience with other distros. It's the best, the simplest, the most stable, the leanest, the quickest to install (~20 min for a full install), the most complete for libraries and development tools, the least headaches, the least maintenance, it's easy to customize and understand, thriving community of users, and there was a time, *back in the day*, when Slackware was the favorite of the people of Slashdot. It's a different crowd now, no doubt. Debian had good respect and still does.
Unfortunately they *seem* to be the same thing in the case of Microsoft because of the way they have conducted themselves. But sticking it to a rogue vendor is not the objective here. The objective is to protect publically owned data. So forcing ODF is not about removing MS Office. In fact MS Office can still be used. But with ODF there is choice and assurances that documents will be available for generations.
Don't misunderstand, I don't like Microsoft any more than the next guy. But the truth about it is that technology and innovation is leaving them behind and the only reason for this is their executive management (it's not resources or lack of talent). It doesn't have to be this way and the reasons for this ODF push should not have anything to do with Microsoft because it's not about them.
So in answer to your question: They are *not* the same thing. And to the extent that they are is self created by Microsoft's poor management.
Leave it to Slashdot for someone to nitpick, but okay. I'll concede that from a copyright perspective or patent perspective or whatever other protections for intellect, this is a wrong word choice.
Government is "by the people, for the people" in the US. So things in government are supposed to be in the public's interest. Universal accessibility to public documents or any documents maintained by the the government for the benefit of the people should be in an open format. And the government must do this. So I hope the US is not far behind the Netherlands.
I don't care which vendor, be it Microsoft or any other, is used by government. As long as an open spec is properly supported by the tool.
I suppose you're right but it doesn't have to be that way.
The focus is truly about protecting publically owned data and that's any data in government. Which means it should not be stored in any format supported by only one vendor with questionable specifications published in the document format.
The article title talks about getting rid of Microsoft but it's really about doing the right thing to serve the people. The article content has nothing to do with the title. There's no need for a title like this. I hate to see this nonsense. It diverts from what really matters.
Governments *MUST* do this. Public documents are public domain, not Microsoft's (or any other company's) hostage.
We need to continue to have articles posted (even though they get old sometimes) here that push these issues and lay them out for people because they are so important.
Taco Meat,
You're going to continue to be modded down by posting the same thing over and over. I know this account was not intended to be a trolling account for you. I remember your early posts. You ended up being modded down for a couple of benign posts a while back, I don't even remember them now. We *ALL* have had problems with moderation at some point and I'm no exception.
I even had negative karma for a while. It happens to the best of us. I also don't rely on moderation when I'm reading Slashdot, I use friends and friends of friends to change moderation ratings. I watch for people I like to hear. I "foe" people I get sick of reading. It really works well and I don't rely on others to determine what I'm going to read. What I've done really cuts down on the noise. I may like a person, but if they post too much noise I remove them from by friends list because my purpose here is to learn and gain insight efficiently.
Once you've spent some time tweaking Slashdot, it really can be a nice forum with good information and good comments to read. The trick is to learn how to filter effectively. Personally I set friends to +6, I set friends of friends to +3 and I set my threshold to 4. I always see what friends have to say and I see what friends of friends have to say if they have good karma.
Karma doesn't matter at that point. Slashdot then becomes a utility for learning. Who cares if you're popular or not. With what I'm doing it becomes more serious and enjoyable because I don't see all the noise makers, teenagers, trolls, karma whores and popularity mongers. I forget they even exist.
Just some thoughts for you. Stop worrying about it and move on. Use the tools here to make it useful. Only post when you have something to say and karma (if you're still concerned about it) will take care of itself.
I was flying first class a few years ago, before 9-11. I saw a guy use the phone once. I used to fly a lot too. Business man no doubt. He was on the phone for a few minutes, I don't remember how long now. When I calculated it out, it came out to a $75 phone call. That part I DO remember.
Who needs to spend $75 to tell somebody something? It's no wonder it doesn't get used. I bet they haven't made squat on them. In fact because of the large cost of installation, recalculation of the weight and balance, FAA certification of the equipment as suitable for passenger aircraft, FCC certification to meet communications requirements, and the continuous cost of extra weight to carry the equipment on *every* flight, I'm sure they've lost a bundle.
Internet will be the same way if they take that business model.
Thanks for sharing your experiences. I've had the same experiences. I've never touched 240V because I've heard to many stories. I'm afraid of it. I've been hit by 120V countless times. It's not good, but it's no big deal. So yeah. It's typically not lethal because I'm still here responding to dwywit's nonsense.
But hey, he my point in his own post when he talked about arcing. Higher voltage is harder to control for a bunch of different reasons and he only mentioned one.
Sounds to me like the the guy has no experience with A/C electrical work. Anyone can look up information on how something is done but it's quite another matter to have experience doing it.
While much of what you say is true, one of the biggest reasons for 120V over 240V is safety. 120V is typically not lethal. 240V is different because it will kill more readily. At what point do you stop this line of reasoning? Why not 440V? Or 880V? It's more efficient, uses less copper and copper is expensive now, and the savings are undeniable.
You mentioned the savings and infrastructure but it is also much safer to use low voltage. What you envision will never happen in the US because the return on investment is not there. I think it would be humorous to see someone try and change the infrastructure of the US and decrease the safety for an overall savings of 2% to 4%.
You have a point to be sure. But that would mean that hardware vendors are no longer dependent on a Microsoft operating system release to drive sales. This is historically different than what we've seen in the past. Because of the long release cycle between XP and Vista I would say we probably have seen more people wear out their hardware than ever before.
I personally have lots of hand me down systems that I use as far back as Pentiums. I generally use my stuff until it breaks and even then I still normally replace the component that went out. Alas, I realize I may be in the minority, but too often I hear people say, "I need a new computer because it's slow." People often think the reason is because it's old, but the real reason is they need to do a fresh install, clean our viruses, or delete programs that stay resident in memory for faster loading times.
I can't tell you how many people I've convinced to clean up their systems, rather than buy a new one. Invariably they are gratefull too. Many people I know are keeping their systems longer than ever before and they are not tech people!
You're absolutely right about it still working. I don't deny that. I experience it myself daily.
But it's becoming a less and less successful strategy. People like you and me are eroding this technique's affectiveness because we're tired of working around the inherent limitations it puts on our systems and the people around us. Vendor lock-in doesn't allow us to make the best decisions we can about a solution because it attempts to eliminate those solutions' viability for reasons other than quality and effectiveness.
I don't sit by idly and let it go. As a developer and advocate of technology, I'm compelled to give the best advice I can about risks, limitations, or future viability of a solution. It's my job and I can't help but give the best advice I can on areas where I'm qualified. If I smell vendor lock-in I have to respond early before it's too late and causes negative consequences. I know I'm not alone in this as you illustrate in your post:-)
Yep. I know. I wholly agree with you. I'm a Slackware user so I'm pretty familiar with speed and efficiency. I'm using Opera too. I like things neat, clean, effiecient and fast.
I'm not worried about anything Microsoft does anymore. I just don't care. It doesn't affect me. I would like to see a decrease in bot nets and spam tough. So, however slow and kludgy their next greatest system is, I hope it doesn't clog the internet with garbage because it's insecure.
Explain please? I don't get it. Vendor lock-in? They can try all the vendor lock-in they want but that is a failing stategy. No one is moving towards that model. They're going to have to play ball. Users seem to be avoiding vendor lock in, I'm talking governements, nations, schools, etc. Even businesses are trying to avoid that risk. They cannot afford to do anything but minimal vendor lock-in if they are going to survive. The jig is up on vendor lock-in techniques and people aren't buying it anymore.
Am I missing something here or is this simply a matter of differing opinion on the future movement of the tech industry?
By the way, vendor lock-in is how they've gotten the where they are today. They can't seem to make their new system take off because they vendor locked themselves right out of their own market;-)
Hardware suppliers have always counted on Microsoft to force people into buying a new system. If they design something that's optimized and competitive, they will lose their advantage and preferrential treatment by those vendors.
In other words, they have backed themselves into a corner. They must either continue down the path of slowness for their "partners" benefit or they must respond to the newer, faster systems that Apple and Linux offer people. More bang for the buck is what customers will want.
They have a real uphill battle because their two main market drivers were the variety applications that were available and the control of hardware vendors, which includes drivers, discounts, or whatever other "agreements" they have.
With Vista, there are driver and application compatibility issues just like there are with Linux (which is *much* less of an issue today). They are trying to toss away XP ecosystem and it puts them on a level playing field with other competitors. Suddenly, all the reasons for choosing Windows over Mac or Linux have disappeared!
These are interesting times. Microsoft is having to compete with themselves as well as others:-D
I think you're right. If you're lazy and all you want to do is play games, stay with Windows XP or whatever Microsoft wants to shove down your throat at the time.
I would also say that you're going into the wrong profession. Engineering is not for people who are lazy. Engineering of any kind requires you to be self-motivated. If what you are saying is true and you really would genuinely love to learn about Linux, then laziness shouldn't be what's stopping you. If laziness is keeping you from doing what you want to do, your computer operating system is the least of your worries.
I'm not trying to discourage you. I'm trying to encourage you. I'm telling you what you need to do to move forward. You can't afford to be lazy or play too many computer games.
In the past (past meaning 10 years ago) I would have bought your argument and it would have had some validity, but now it's not true. Download and burn a Ubuntu or Kubuntu CD, throw it in your computer and start using it. You don't have to know anything more these days. It's the easiest thing you've ever done.
You don't have to "learn" Linux anymore. If you want to "learn" it, try Slackware, Gentoo, Linux from Scratch, or maybe Rock Linux. But those distros are *not* for people who are lazy.
Good point. I'd rather cut my toenails by yanking them with pliers than be a manager.
However, people listen to geeks. Sometimes it takes a while for them to come around but eventually it always is the programmers who drive technology and dictate the directions of the tech industry. Why? Because WE generate the ideas, the inventions, and the innovations.
Savvy business execs and managers MAY take up an idea and run with it but I've never heard of a new innovation that originated in an MBA's mind. Have you? They simply don't think that way.
And it is so with the Open Source development model. Some business types will pick it up and run with it, some will fight against it. But it wasn't until GEEKS made it successful that business types started to consider it.
So I disagree wholeheartedly. What WE think matters. What WE do makes a big difference. What WE're doing now is what consumers will talk about tomorrow. You don't want to be the laughing stock of the tech industry. It's NOT good. It means you could end up with a lot of really smart people working against you. Ballmer is illustrating his short sightedness and lack of understanding of technology if he uses this reasoning.
I personally don't think he's that deep. He's too simple. I think he's just plain stupid.
This kind of thing doesn't work. It's been shown time and again. Microsoft's Steve Ballmer is becoming the laughing stock of the tech industry.
SCO is an example. There was some uncertainty before everything fell out. I don't think there is any uncertainty about patents or copyrights regarding Linux anymore. There is a lot of confidence in Linux now.
Microsoft needs to get off the litigation and on to innovation. Ballmer seems to not understand what this company attitude does to Microsoft's customer base and its reputation.
When I see comments like this I see that Microsoft needs a new CEO with a vision and not a Steve Ballmer with a litigation team. Just my perception. I think there are many others who share this view.
Most of the time I just let this stuff go but since no one else stepped up, I guess I should.
ELT's don't need to be "turned on", they are activated by impact. We don't even know if there was an impact. It could be that it wasn't tested properly at annual, but if he's dead, I'm sure the ELT is too. They're tough but he either had control on the way down or he didn't.
Filing a flight plan is next to worthless. He's either dead because of catastrophic airframe or control failure (in which case he doesn't care about his flight plan) or he's dead because he made some really *unlikely* mistake like nosing it into a mountain.
Not filing a flight plan is not bold, stupid or arrogant. It's a matter of practicality. My flight plans amount to pointing to a map and telling my family that I will be somewhere in this area (waving my hand around the map).
Why do people (especially in the aviation community) always rush to judgement, then criticize without having any facts, and then tout experise as though they've never done anything *that* stupid before. He must be incompetent.... blah blah blah. It get's old. I had 3 forced landings during my first few hundred hours of flying and I guarantee I did nothing dumb. But shit happens. That's flying. You almost always live to tell about it and most importantly learn from it.
This guy wasn't being stupid. If he was, I take it all back, but we certainly don't know if he was being stupid from the information we have right now.
I was one of those people. I used Linux for at least 5 years prior but I switched exclusively to Linux from that point on. I never used XP at home, I had already given up on Microsoft by that point.
The killer for me was when I was working on my computer science degree and it destroyed all my programming work... twice in about a 3 week period.
I've never looked back and I've never regretted my decision.
I wish more people could discover that they don't have to worry anymore about their computer eating itself alive. There's alternatives you can count on. And they are a lot less time consuming and easier to manage than Windows (pick your version). I've used XP at a couple of jobs, all the various versions. I crash helplessly about 3 to 4 times a week on average at my current job. This is a general improvement for Microsoft. But after my work experiences, I can't imagine ever knowingly choosing to run Windows XP. It just doesn't make sense to use it unless you have to for an application.
The biggest problem I've run into is Exchange and it's incompatibility to any other mail client besides Outlook. There are others but they don't work well. I'm still reeling that Microsoft was able to take a 30 year old, legacy technology like email proprietary. I still can't believe that even now.
Slashdot Mirror
I thought this was a little bit of a stretch. But a little Googling popped up some interesting results. I haven't had a chance to look at this card but check this out: http://www.guru3d.com/guide/quadro-modify/
Seriously, this is so cool and I never thought about it before. Thanks for the tip!
I hate Windows like many others at Slashdot. But you gave a nice summary of the conditions that helped Windows thrive.
Macs were the evil monsters at the time (late 80s early 90s). Hardware lock-in, expensive, anti-competitive. Thank goodness there was something else to keep us from tumbling down the Apple path. I also remembering running SCO (before they were evil) on a 486. The OS was about $2,500. A C compiler was another $2,500. You get the idea. They had no hope of mainstream acceptance at those prices and this was in the mid-90s. That was a lot of money.
I hated Windows 95, but there was nothing else except OS/2 which was better, but like you say, IBM didn't have their head in the right place for the mainstream. Linux was cool but it was weeks of time wasted to get it set up on hardware and even then you couldn't get it all working. Even back then it was stable, but it was far from being a productivity tool without enormous effort. Not that I didn't learn a ton and not that it wasn't fun.
Today... Microsoft is the evil company of our time. They were substandard in the 90s too but they were cheap and Windows ran on "stuff" people could reasonably afford. Times have changed and Microsoft hasn't. There are several other OS options that have stepped up to fill the void. In one release, Microsoft blinked and lost their marbles. They are still riding old momentum and developing to their 90s model that made them so successful. This isn't the 90s anymore. People aren't lined up outside Best Buy at midnight for their releases as was the case for Windows 95. I wasn't there for it but I heard all about it none-the-less.
The landscape is what it is. Linux is what it is. Macs are what they are. Vista is what it is. Point is... progress is being made and we're not tumbling down a path that doesn't look brighter as time goes on. Things in general are improving in the computer world. Innovation is happening, people are learning and things are getting better regardless of what Microsoft execs like Steve Balmer try to do.
If Microsoft went away tomorrow, things would be okay. Everyone would adapt with only slight pain. They were important, but that's not the case anymore. This is a really good thing. No one looks to Microsoft for innovation anymore. They aren't stopping anything. Hardware vendors who have subscribed to Vista are slowly wising up. That was the old model. Sales are down for new computers so numerous vendors are responding and starting to sell Linux systems. Apple is doing well.
Definite speculation for sure. And this is mine... Things will continue to get better and Microsoft will continue to have a dwindling role in future improvements.
Some of the shortcuts changed for sure. The first thing I did was enable single key shortcuts again. Things are mostly the same as 9.2 when you do that. It's not going to fix all you grievances, but it will get some.
9.5 is a tremendous improvement or 9.2. There are still a few sites which force me to Firefox, but not too many anymore.
There's also a 9.2 compatibility mode in the shortcuts menu. I didn't fight it and simply learned the new ones.
Bookmarks sync is cool too. I use it to go between work which is Windows and home which is Linux. I used to use an automatic sync script. This saves me a little effort on my part.
Of course, it you are worried about privacy, then automatic bookmark syncing is probably not a good idea. It's still a nice feature and my bookmarks aren't too interesting to anyone anyway.
I wish I could mod you funny for this one. Thanks! I needed a good laugh!
WiFi hotspots are all over. I've connected to dozens of them. That's what they are for.
So the only way a person *knows* it's not intended to be a public network is by having someone complain about it after the fact. Lots of people leave their WiFi open at home as a "public service".
It's different to intentionally circumvent protections that are in place, like WEP or restriction by MAC address. That's prying open a locked door so to speak.
Sometimes I think these article summaries are intentionally worded to get slashdotters cranked up. Okay, it worked on me.
ought to be browser enough for anyone.
:-D
I should note that, no matter what, I have never used Internet Explorer for anything but testing on the job. 5 years ago I took some heat for it too. I was scolded at a couple of different jobs as a result of not using IE as my primary browser. I can assure everyone that I did not comply and I could care less what happened with any of them now... one company was dissolved after I'd left
We didn't give in and Firefox has helped us win.
As for the advantages? Just like anything else, it depends on what you want to do. I've never heard anyone regret using Slackware unless they never got past the installation. I'm sure there's no advantage for you to use it. But I find it to be the closest thing to computing nirvana there is. I spend the vast majority of my time *using* my system. I spend very little time on maintenance. This has not been my experience with other distros. It's the best, the simplest, the most stable, the leanest, the quickest to install (~20 min for a full install), the most complete for libraries and development tools, the least headaches, the least maintenance, it's easy to customize and understand, thriving community of users, and there was a time, *back in the day*, when Slackware was the favorite of the people of Slashdot. It's a different crowd now, no doubt. Debian had good respect and still does.
Unfortunately they *seem* to be the same thing in the case of Microsoft because of the way they have conducted themselves. But sticking it to a rogue vendor is not the objective here. The objective is to protect publically owned data. So forcing ODF is not about removing MS Office. In fact MS Office can still be used. But with ODF there is choice and assurances that documents will be available for generations.
Don't misunderstand, I don't like Microsoft any more than the next guy. But the truth about it is that technology and innovation is leaving them behind and the only reason for this is their executive management (it's not resources or lack of talent). It doesn't have to be this way and the reasons for this ODF push should not have anything to do with Microsoft because it's not about them.
So in answer to your question: They are *not* the same thing. And to the extent that they are is self created by Microsoft's poor management.
Leave it to Slashdot for someone to nitpick, but okay. I'll concede that from a copyright perspective or patent perspective or whatever other protections for intellect, this is a wrong word choice.
Government is "by the people, for the people" in the US. So things in government are supposed to be in the public's interest. Universal accessibility to public documents or any documents maintained by the the government for the benefit of the people should be in an open format. And the government must do this. So I hope the US is not far behind the Netherlands.
I don't care which vendor, be it Microsoft or any other, is used by government. As long as an open spec is properly supported by the tool.
There, fixed.
I suppose you're right but it doesn't have to be that way.
The focus is truly about protecting publically owned data and that's any data in government. Which means it should not be stored in any format supported by only one vendor with questionable specifications published in the document format.
Mod +1 Clever.
The article title talks about getting rid of Microsoft but it's really about doing the right thing to serve the people. The article content has nothing to do with the title. There's no need for a title like this. I hate to see this nonsense. It diverts from what really matters.
Governments *MUST* do this. Public documents are public domain, not Microsoft's (or any other company's) hostage.
We need to continue to have articles posted (even though they get old sometimes) here that push these issues and lay them out for people because they are so important.
Taco Meat,
You're going to continue to be modded down by posting the same thing over and over. I know this account was not intended to be a trolling account for you. I remember your early posts. You ended up being modded down for a couple of benign posts a while back, I don't even remember them now. We *ALL* have had problems with moderation at some point and I'm no exception.
I even had negative karma for a while. It happens to the best of us. I also don't rely on moderation when I'm reading Slashdot, I use friends and friends of friends to change moderation ratings. I watch for people I like to hear. I "foe" people I get sick of reading. It really works well and I don't rely on others to determine what I'm going to read. What I've done really cuts down on the noise. I may like a person, but if they post too much noise I remove them from by friends list because my purpose here is to learn and gain insight efficiently.
Once you've spent some time tweaking Slashdot, it really can be a nice forum with good information and good comments to read. The trick is to learn how to filter effectively. Personally I set friends to +6, I set friends of friends to +3 and I set my threshold to 4. I always see what friends have to say and I see what friends of friends have to say if they have good karma.
Karma doesn't matter at that point. Slashdot then becomes a utility for learning. Who cares if you're popular or not. With what I'm doing it becomes more serious and enjoyable because I don't see all the noise makers, teenagers, trolls, karma whores and popularity mongers. I forget they even exist.
Just some thoughts for you. Stop worrying about it and move on. Use the tools here to make it useful. Only post when you have something to say and karma (if you're still concerned about it) will take care of itself.
Good luck!
I was flying first class a few years ago, before 9-11. I saw a guy use the phone once. I used to fly a lot too. Business man no doubt. He was on the phone for a few minutes, I don't remember how long now. When I calculated it out, it came out to a $75 phone call. That part I DO remember.
Who needs to spend $75 to tell somebody something? It's no wonder it doesn't get used. I bet they haven't made squat on them. In fact because of the large cost of installation, recalculation of the weight and balance, FAA certification of the equipment as suitable for passenger aircraft, FCC certification to meet communications requirements, and the continuous cost of extra weight to carry the equipment on *every* flight, I'm sure they've lost a bundle.
Internet will be the same way if they take that business model.
Thanks for sharing your experiences. I've had the same experiences. I've never touched 240V because I've heard to many stories. I'm afraid of it. I've been hit by 120V countless times. It's not good, but it's no big deal. So yeah. It's typically not lethal because I'm still here responding to dwywit's nonsense.
But hey, he my point in his own post when he talked about arcing. Higher voltage is harder to control for a bunch of different reasons and he only mentioned one.
Sounds to me like the the guy has no experience with A/C electrical work. Anyone can look up information on how something is done but it's quite another matter to have experience doing it.
While much of what you say is true, one of the biggest reasons for 120V over 240V is safety. 120V is typically not lethal. 240V is different because it will kill more readily. At what point do you stop this line of reasoning? Why not 440V? Or 880V? It's more efficient, uses less copper and copper is expensive now, and the savings are undeniable.
You mentioned the savings and infrastructure but it is also much safer to use low voltage. What you envision will never happen in the US because the return on investment is not there. I think it would be humorous to see someone try and change the infrastructure of the US and decrease the safety for an overall savings of 2% to 4%.
You have a point to be sure. But that would mean that hardware vendors are no longer dependent on a Microsoft operating system release to drive sales. This is historically different than what we've seen in the past. Because of the long release cycle between XP and Vista I would say we probably have seen more people wear out their hardware than ever before.
I personally have lots of hand me down systems that I use as far back as Pentiums. I generally use my stuff until it breaks and even then I still normally replace the component that went out. Alas, I realize I may be in the minority, but too often I hear people say, "I need a new computer because it's slow." People often think the reason is because it's old, but the real reason is they need to do a fresh install, clean our viruses, or delete programs that stay resident in memory for faster loading times.
I can't tell you how many people I've convinced to clean up their systems, rather than buy a new one. Invariably they are gratefull too. Many people I know are keeping their systems longer than ever before and they are not tech people!
You're absolutely right about it still working. I don't deny that. I experience it myself daily.
:-)
But it's becoming a less and less successful strategy. People like you and me are eroding this technique's affectiveness because we're tired of working around the inherent limitations it puts on our systems and the people around us. Vendor lock-in doesn't allow us to make the best decisions we can about a solution because it attempts to eliminate those solutions' viability for reasons other than quality and effectiveness.
I don't sit by idly and let it go. As a developer and advocate of technology, I'm compelled to give the best advice I can about risks, limitations, or future viability of a solution. It's my job and I can't help but give the best advice I can on areas where I'm qualified. If I smell vendor lock-in I have to respond early before it's too late and causes negative consequences. I know I'm not alone in this as you illustrate in your post
Yep. I know. I wholly agree with you. I'm a Slackware user so I'm pretty familiar with speed and efficiency. I'm using Opera too. I like things neat, clean, effiecient and fast.
I'm not worried about anything Microsoft does anymore. I just don't care. It doesn't affect me. I would like to see a decrease in bot nets and spam tough. So, however slow and kludgy their next greatest system is, I hope it doesn't clog the internet with garbage because it's insecure.
Explain please? I don't get it. Vendor lock-in? They can try all the vendor lock-in they want but that is a failing stategy. No one is moving towards that model. They're going to have to play ball. Users seem to be avoiding vendor lock in, I'm talking governements, nations, schools, etc. Even businesses are trying to avoid that risk. They cannot afford to do anything but minimal vendor lock-in if they are going to survive. The jig is up on vendor lock-in techniques and people aren't buying it anymore.
;-)
Am I missing something here or is this simply a matter of differing opinion on the future movement of the tech industry?
By the way, vendor lock-in is how they've gotten the where they are today. They can't seem to make their new system take off because they vendor locked themselves right out of their own market
Hardware suppliers have always counted on Microsoft to force people into buying a new system. If they design something that's optimized and competitive, they will lose their advantage and preferrential treatment by those vendors.
:-D
In other words, they have backed themselves into a corner. They must either continue down the path of slowness for their "partners" benefit or they must respond to the newer, faster systems that Apple and Linux offer people. More bang for the buck is what customers will want.
They have a real uphill battle because their two main market drivers were the variety applications that were available and the control of hardware vendors, which includes drivers, discounts, or whatever other "agreements" they have.
With Vista, there are driver and application compatibility issues just like there are with Linux (which is *much* less of an issue today). They are trying to toss away XP ecosystem and it puts them on a level playing field with other competitors. Suddenly, all the reasons for choosing Windows over Mac or Linux have disappeared!
These are interesting times. Microsoft is having to compete with themselves as well as others
I think you're right. If you're lazy and all you want to do is play games, stay with Windows XP or whatever Microsoft wants to shove down your throat at the time.
I would also say that you're going into the wrong profession. Engineering is not for people who are lazy. Engineering of any kind requires you to be self-motivated. If what you are saying is true and you really would genuinely love to learn about Linux, then laziness shouldn't be what's stopping you. If laziness is keeping you from doing what you want to do, your computer operating system is the least of your worries.
I'm not trying to discourage you. I'm trying to encourage you. I'm telling you what you need to do to move forward. You can't afford to be lazy or play too many computer games.
In the past (past meaning 10 years ago) I would have bought your argument and it would have had some validity, but now it's not true. Download and burn a Ubuntu or Kubuntu CD, throw it in your computer and start using it. You don't have to know anything more these days. It's the easiest thing you've ever done.
You don't have to "learn" Linux anymore. If you want to "learn" it, try Slackware, Gentoo, Linux from Scratch, or maybe Rock Linux. But those distros are *not* for people who are lazy.
Good point. I'd rather cut my toenails by yanking them with pliers than be a manager.
However, people listen to geeks. Sometimes it takes a while for them to come around but eventually it always is the programmers who drive technology and dictate the directions of the tech industry. Why? Because WE generate the ideas, the inventions, and the innovations.
Savvy business execs and managers MAY take up an idea and run with it but I've never heard of a new innovation that originated in an MBA's mind. Have you? They simply don't think that way.
And it is so with the Open Source development model. Some business types will pick it up and run with it, some will fight against it. But it wasn't until GEEKS made it successful that business types started to consider it.
So I disagree wholeheartedly. What WE think matters. What WE do makes a big difference. What WE're doing now is what consumers will talk about tomorrow. You don't want to be the laughing stock of the tech industry. It's NOT good. It means you could end up with a lot of really smart people working against you. Ballmer is illustrating his short sightedness and lack of understanding of technology if he uses this reasoning.
I personally don't think he's that deep. He's too simple. I think he's just plain stupid.
This kind of thing doesn't work. It's been shown time and again. Microsoft's Steve Ballmer is becoming the laughing stock of the tech industry.
SCO is an example. There was some uncertainty before everything fell out. I don't think there is any uncertainty about patents or copyrights regarding Linux anymore. There is a lot of confidence in Linux now.
Microsoft needs to get off the litigation and on to innovation. Ballmer seems to not understand what this company attitude does to Microsoft's customer base and its reputation.
When I see comments like this I see that Microsoft needs a new CEO with a vision and not a Steve Ballmer with a litigation team. Just my perception. I think there are many others who share this view.
Most of the time I just let this stuff go but since no one else stepped up, I guess I should.
ELT's don't need to be "turned on", they are activated by impact. We don't even know if there was an impact. It could be that it wasn't tested properly at annual, but if he's dead, I'm sure the ELT is too. They're tough but he either had control on the way down or he didn't.
Filing a flight plan is next to worthless. He's either dead because of catastrophic airframe or control failure (in which case he doesn't care about his flight plan) or he's dead because he made some really *unlikely* mistake like nosing it into a mountain.
Not filing a flight plan is not bold, stupid or arrogant. It's a matter of practicality. My flight plans amount to pointing to a map and telling my family that I will be somewhere in this area (waving my hand around the map).
Why do people (especially in the aviation community) always rush to judgement, then criticize without having any facts, and then tout experise as though they've never done anything *that* stupid before. He must be incompetent.... blah blah blah. It get's old. I had 3 forced landings during my first few hundred hours of flying and I guarantee I did nothing dumb. But shit happens. That's flying. You almost always live to tell about it and most importantly learn from it.
This guy wasn't being stupid. If he was, I take it all back, but we certainly don't know if he was being stupid from the information we have right now.
I was one of those people. I used Linux for at least 5 years prior but I switched exclusively to Linux from that point on. I never used XP at home, I had already given up on Microsoft by that point.
The killer for me was when I was working on my computer science degree and it destroyed all my programming work... twice in about a 3 week period.
I've never looked back and I've never regretted my decision.
I wish more people could discover that they don't have to worry anymore about their computer eating itself alive. There's alternatives you can count on. And they are a lot less time consuming and easier to manage than Windows (pick your version). I've used XP at a couple of jobs, all the various versions. I crash helplessly about 3 to 4 times a week on average at my current job. This is a general improvement for Microsoft. But after my work experiences, I can't imagine ever knowingly choosing to run Windows XP. It just doesn't make sense to use it unless you have to for an application.
The biggest problem I've run into is Exchange and it's incompatibility to any other mail client besides Outlook. There are others but they don't work well. I'm still reeling that Microsoft was able to take a 30 year old, legacy technology like email proprietary. I still can't believe that even now.