1. Get a "catch a phisher" account number 2. Connect to the bank site through an ISP which NATs your IP address 3. Use the account number 4. The ISP gets blocked
I'm not impressed. It's simply virtualization with a halved screen and a dedicated keyboard and mouse for each half. If you run two VMWare instances with Windows inside you're pretty close to what they have "invented".
It's not a very efficient system either. Nowadays' machines can be pretty much summed up as follows:
- Input devices (mouse, keyboard etc). Nothing is saved here. - Memory (RAM) - nothing is saved here. Running two OSs requires twice as much RAM. - Storage (HD etc) - nothing is save here. Ok, maybe they share the installed software, but I doubt that. - Processor - this system actually shares that. - Monitor - this system shares that, too. - Other output devices - nothing is gained.
So what this system achieves is some savings on CPU (by better usage) and Monitors (by giving only half a screen to each user).
I would *much* prefer to have a smaller screen instead of sharing a larger one - you can get two 17" screens for the price of a 19".
Given that setting up and maintaining such a system *is* going to be more complex than setting up a normal system, I doubt that the savings on the processors are going to be worth the hassle - not even if labour is cheap.
That's intended behaviour, not a bug. Select = copy. Middle click = paste. How do you think the clipboard can know that the *second* selection is not a copy?
I agree that that's intended behavior, and it was great back in the time when the only thing you would copy/paste around was command lines from and to different terminals. But the desktops have changed since then; I find myself (and observe other people) doing this kind of thing a *lot*:
- Copy something - Do some other editing, possibly with selecting things, e.g. deleting some text - Paste
And the select/middle click model just doesn't work for that. I'm not complaining about bugs here, but about bad design.
I heard of this bug, and it *is* a bug, but what the hell is the purpose of closing a program after you copied info from that? It's a sane measure to wait until you pasted, just to check if you copied-and-pasted what you really wanted to paste, for example. Yes, it's formally a bug, and I agree it has to be fixed (it makes sense to have the intact clipboard if the ctrl-c app crashes, for example) but every sane user should almost never have seen it.
Well, suppose you're editing some text. Then you think "oh I'd like to paste something from another file in here". So you open the other file - possibly in another editor, or a browser, or whatever - copy a sentence or maybe just a single word or number - close the program and...do it again. It's of course not a good idea to use the clipboard as "storage for otherwise non-existent data" because it's just too easy to lose. But the behavior many Linux desktops expose nowadays is just plain user-unfriendly.
[Sorry for the bad formatting, this is the same thing again. That'll teach me to use preview first.]
As current Linux user that mixes everyday Gnome, KDE, and desktop-agnostic apps at home and work, I can assure you the "clipboard hell" issue has not been fixed at all. And I'm not anti-Linux trolling, I'm a Debian fan and used to be a package maintainer there. But you should be able to admit where Linux is just weaker than Windows or OS X.
Here's an extract of the various "clipboards" or "yank buffers" or whatever they're called I deal with on a daily basis:
- The venerable X11 buffer - select and middle click. This works great BUT if you happen to select something by mistake whatever you had in the clipboard before has gone. This is especially annoying if you select a link from somewhere and want to *replace* the URL in the address bar of Firefox. What you intuitevely do is the following:
1. Select the link in some program 2. Alt-Tab to Firefox 3. Select the link currently in the location bar (in order to replace it) 4. You just lost because the second selection replaced the first.
- Then there is the Gnome Clipboard (I believe that's what it is called). This is the Control-C, Control-V clipboard which works like in Windows - with one subtle difference. If you close the program you have cut/copied from, the content of the clipboard is *gone*.
1. Select and copy some text in some program 2. Close the program 3. You just lost
- Then there is the vim yank buffer. Yes, you can have multiple yank buffers and probably program them and whatever. But it is totally separate from the other clipboards. Vim even stores it when you close and restart vim. Thus you can:
1. Open vim, yank some text (that's "copy" for non-vimmers) 2. Reboot your machine 3. Log in from another machine with ssh 4. Paste it back. You win!
BUT of course it doesn't work across multiple concurrently running instances of vim. Don't tell me that I should use only one vim for multiple files and splits and all that crap. I want to be able to yank and paste across vims. Which you can't.
And if you use gvim (the vim with gui) then pasting from the Gnome clipboard is as easy as...pressing (no joke)
ESC : " g P
They must be out of their mind.
- And then there's the Emacs buffers (I believe it's called the "buffer ring" or something like that) which are again similar to the ones in vim. I hope I don't offend any emacs users here since I'm not that familiar with it, but I know that they are again incompatible with everything else.
What Linux needs is ONE universal clipboard. Just ONE. It shouldn't be part of Gnome, KDE, Xfce or even X11. It should be a system service. So you can copy and paste LIKE A SANE PERSON in ALL PROGRAMS. Just like on Windows. Or a Mac.
You could throw in persistence across reboots. And maybe across different sessions (say, local X11 and remote SSH). Then it would even be better than everything else. I'm actually thinking of implementing something like that - maybe even with X11 and Gnome clipboard bindings to "unify" them finally.
There should *definitely not* be multiple buffers, rings and crap like that. 99% of the time they are just confusing.
If a program *really* needs multiple buffers - and most do not - they could still implement that ON TOP of the universal clipboard. It's ok if *that* is not compatible across programs.
Greetings from one who loves, and loves to works with Linux but just *HATES* its clipboard functionality.
As current Linux user that mixes everyday Gnome, KDE, and desktop-agnostic apps at home and work, I can assure you the "clipboard hell" issue has not been fixed at all. And I'm not anti-Linux trolling, I'm a Debian fan and used to be a package maintainer there. But you should be able to admit where Linux is just weaker than Windows or OS X.
Here's an extract of the various "clipboards" or "yank buffers" or whatever they're called I deal with on a daily basis:
- The venerable X11 buffer - select and middle click. This works great BUT if you happen to select something by mistake whatever you had in the clipboard before has gone. This is especially annoying if you select a link from somewhere and want to *replace* the URL in the address bar of Firefox. What you intuitevely do is the following:
1. Select the link in some program
2. Alt-Tab to Firefox
3. Select the link currently in the location bar (in order to replace it)
4. You just lost because the second selection replaced the first.
- Then there is the Gnome Clipboard (I believe that's what it is called). This is the Control-C, Control-V clipboard which works like in Windows - with one subtle difference. If you close the program you have cut/copied from, the content of the clipboard is *gone*.
1. Select and copy some text in some program
2. Close the program
3. You just lost
- Then there is the vim yank buffer. Yes, you can have multiple yank buffers and probably program them and whatever. But it is totally separate from the other clipboards. Vim even stores it when you close and restart vim. Thus you can:
1. Open vim, yank some text (that's "copy" for non-vimmers)
2. Reboot your machine
3. Log in from another machine with ssh
4. Paste it back. You win!
BUT of course it doesn't work across multiple concurrently running instances of vim. Don't tell me that I should use only one vim for multiple files and splits and all that crap. I want to be able to yank and paste across vims. Which you can't.
And if you use gvim (the vim with gui) then pasting from the Gnome clipboard is as easy as...pressing (no joke)
ESC : " g P
They must be out of their mind.
- And then there's the Emacs buffers (I believe it's called the "buffer ring" or something like that) which are again similar to the ones in vim. I hope I don't offend any emacs users here since I'm not that familiar with it, but I know that they are again incompatible with everything else.
What Linux needs is ONE universal clipboard. Just ONE. It shouldn't be part of Gnome, KDE, Xfce or even X11. It should be a system service. So you can copy and paste LIKE A SANE PERSON in ALL PROGRAMS. Just like on Windows. Or a Mac.
You could throw in persistence across reboots. And maybe across different sessions (say, local X11 and remote SSH). Then it would even be better than everything else. I'm actually thinking of implementing something like that - maybe even with X11 and Gnome clipboard bindings to "unify" them finally.
There should *definitely not* be multiple buffers, rings and crap like that. 99% of the time they are just confusing.
If a program *really* needs multiple buffers - and most do not - they could still implement that ON TOP of the universal clipboard. It's ok if *that* is not compatible across programs.
Greetings from one who loves, and loves to works with Linux but just *HATES* its clipboard functionality.
"Just in case" planning for this is just stupid and a waste of time and money. There are many other things (wars, diseases, maybe terrorism) which are much more likely to destroy civilization as we know it. It'd be better to invest more in that than to play Armageddon.
I realize that a single asteroid may wipe out humanity, but the probability that this is what will put an end to civilization is basically zero.
Humans (in some form or other) live on earth since 4 million years, and no killer asteroid has hit this planet since. How crazy do you have to be to think that an asteroid is a real threat for humankind? *shakes head*
So, our elected officials go to Washington with the best of intentions, perhaps with a sincere desire to make the nation a better place... and then they get within range of the D.C. distortion field. I believe that it's a lot like picking up a girl in a bar and going home with her. It all seems to make perfect sense at the time, but the next morning you wake up and go "Oh my God... what have I done?"
This is ridiculous and doesn't make any sense. "Girl", "bar" and "morning" are not even words. I believe you wanted to say:
So, our elected officials go to Washington with the best of intentions, perhaps with a sincere desire to make the nation a better place... and then they get within range of the D.C. distortion field. I believe that it's a lot like downloading a keygen from the internet and running it under your admin account on your main machine. It all seems to make perfect sense at the time, but after the next reboot you wake up and go "Oh my God... what have I done?"
I worked as an intern for a big company in the power protection and control field (i.e. power substation automation). It's not warship control and if something fails probably no-one is going to be killed, but things will break and money will be lost.
They had some in-house software to program the protection and control devices. That software could also be run under Windows for testing and debugging purposes. I worked on a prototype of an extension of said testing and debugging environment, so I have a bit of experience with this kind of embedded-ish real-time Windows programming, and I must say that Windows is definitely not the way to go for anything like that. It just lacks the flexibility of operating systems made for this sort of task.
Later I found out that what they actually wanted to do is to replace the special-purpose systems with the simulation and debugging environment, all running on Windows because it was supposedly much easier to use and what not. They're going to use my prototype to do so:-(
I have the impression that Windows is often chosen for this sort of task because management knows it and has the feeling that "Microsoft is the real thing", that it is easier to find experienced developers for Windows than for any other platform and that the development tools are better and/or more user friendly. While I agree on the last two points, I'd like to point out that "experienced Windows developer" does not mean experienced real-time, high-reliability-systems or embedded developer, and that the development tools are mostly focused on GUI/Network service programming which is what windows is mainly used for.
I'm sure there are lots of people out there with way more experience in this field than me, but if I were to decide for an OS on a warship it would definitely not be Windows, Unix or any other general purpose OS, but something which can be customized and is built for this kind of task - VxWorks or something similar.
...to support VMWare and buy a license for a great piece of software which you're probably using anyway. I am a Debian user and free software enthusiast, but I bought my license for VMWare workstation years ago and never looked back. VMWare is one of the very few commercial programs which I consider worth spending money on. I never had any real problems with it (at least since version 5, which is what I bought), it's fast and a pleasure to use. Maybe Xen or KVM will replace it in the long run, but I'm sure I'll keep on using VMWare for at least another two years.
I know this sounds like an ad, but even their Linux support is great. I had some issues with VMWare 4 (I was using the trial) and asked on the newsgroup; the answers were quick and helpful.
VMWare is exactly the way software should be. If you use it and like it you should really consider buying it.
TFA is total crap. Out of the 10 projects I've heard of 2 (KVM and MontaVista), and I'd hardly call any of them (except maybe KVM) even remotely "innovative". They just happen to be what venture capitalists think is profitable - virtualization and enterprise "management" software. Actually most of them aren't even real products but "platforms" or "frameworks" which can only be described in buzzwords. Quote:
[bla bla] software helps project-based organizations quantify the nature of each engagement in terms of the resources needed to complete the project and the final value to the organization's bottom line.
What the hell is that supposed to mean anyway?
The real strength of open source is its technological superiority in some fields (e.g. LAMP, Mozilla, some open source kernels), new approaches in development (the "distributed development" model) and some technological innovations (BitTorrent etc), but definitely not in "enterprise software".
"The word 'labels' is the one in common use on Google today and is one of the distinctive features of Google. Ever since Web 2.0 came out, Web 2.0 has decided to use the term 'tag' instead of the term 'label' despite they are basically the exact same thing and have the exact same function. Why is Web 2.0 using inconsistent terminology in its products for such an important term? Is there a real difference between a tag and a label?"
MD? Hi-MD? A new proprietary format by Sony? I beg you. As others have pointed out, flash memory is the way to go.
A Hi-MD (1 GB) costs about $3. A cheap 1 GB SD card about $30. That's 10 times more expensive, I admit. But look at this: I remember prices of about $8 for one MD when they came out (1991); now they're about $1. That's 1/8 in 15 years. And I think we can realistically expect that the price/size ration of flash memory will halve about every 18 months, while the price of Hi-MDs will drop about as slowly as the one of MDs. That means that flash memory might be as cheap as Hi-MD in 4 years from now.
Flash memory thus has the following advantages compared to Hi-MD:
No moving parts -> less problems, no noise, better battery life.
Just way faster even now, and likely to become more so. Hi-MD will hardly see any major speed increases.
If some standard storage format is used (CF, SD, whatever) the cartdridges might be used with other devices too.
Ability to use smaller (cheaper) memory cartdridges if you don't need the space, or larger and more expensive ones if you do.
Probably cheaper in the long run.
Now, what Sony should have done IMHO:
A high-quality player/recorder with swappable flash memory cartdridges; if possible using some standard cartdridge format.
Use the standard USB mass storage device protocol and a well-known file system (FAT32 would do); so devices can be used with just about any computer without need for additional software.
Some reasonable file system based way to save the tracks. So one could add and remove tracks with any file system browser, or with very simple tools.
The ability to play/record a variety of formats; at least uncompressed format (WAV? AIFF?), one lossless compressed format (FLAC? Apple Lossless?) and one lossy compressed format (MP3? Ogg Vorbis? AAC?)
The ability to program the damned device, or at least extend the supported formats. Now that would be cool. Come on, it has a processor anyway; why not let people use it as they wish?
Some "pro" version of the thing with digital I/O and two (or more) cartdridge slots for "seamless tape changing" or whatever you want to call it.
The sad thing is that this would not have been too hard to do. Flash reading/writing devices are here. USB mass storage device drivers are available. FAT32 drivers are available. Open source implementations of at least WAV, MP3, OGG, FLAC are available. Supporting that would not require incredible amounts of processor power which aren't needed anyway for ATRAC. The device is programmable anyway. I'd just wish some high-quality hardware - which is no problem for Sony - which is usable and has a reasonable design. Which should be no problem too.
I don't understand why no big company is doing that. I'm sure there's a market for this kind of device - even if the price is steep.
I'm a little skeptical. A search engine with a smiley in its logo? That's so 1999! But the FAQ puts me into an even more pessimistic mood. IMHO this Accoona thing is just lots of marketing speak, but doesn't really offer anything new, neither from the usability nor from the technology point of view.
To quote from the FAQ:
Accoona gives you the ability to use Artificial Intelligence technology to SuperTarget Your Search(TM)
SuperTarget Your Search TM depends on sophisticated Artificial Intelligence technology, but Accoona makes this feature easy to use. Accoona adds another step in which you see the words you typed in your search query appear separately. All you have to do is click on the most important word in the phrase.
Accoona's Artificial Intelligence uses the meaning of words to get you better results. For example, when you type five keywords in a traditional search engine, you're going to get every page that has all five keywords, no more, no less. With Accoona's Artificial Intelligence Software, which understands the meaning of the query, the user will get many additional results.
Accoona's Artificial Intelligence also allows you to SuperTarget Your Search TM. For example, within a query of five keywords, Accoona Artificial Intelligence lets the user select one keyword so that the search results are ranked to favor pages where the meaning of that one keyword is more important than the meaning of the other four keywords.
As far as I can see, this means that
They understand synonyms and add them to your query "intelligently". I'm not sure whether this is really a good thing. It's probably useful sometimes, but will be a pain if the AI decides to add some bogus terms to your query. By the way, since Google looks at the content of the links pointing to a page they also have this kind of "related words" feature. With the difference that theirs is not based on AI, but on people.
You can give different weights to the words you're looking for. I hoped not to see that ever again. This simply means that you're going to try multiple combinations priorities if you're really desperately looking for something.
Ah, and one last thing. Accoona doesn't have "teh snappy". It's just too damn slow. And I'm not waiting for search engines EVER AGAIN.
You should not forget that Intel supplied both the hardware and the benchmarks. Obviously, they will only supply benchmarks where they win, and not the ones where the Athlon is better (if there are any). The F.E.A.R. benchmark seems to confirm that Conroe is really faster, but that's just one benchmark, which is not enough to convince me of Conroe's superiority.
That being said, I think it is in everybody's best interest if the benchmark results actually represent a real advantage; 20% more speed is indeed a big step forward.
Slashdot Mirror
That's stupid.
1. Get a "catch a phisher" account number
2. Connect to the bank site through an ISP which NATs your IP address
3. Use the account number
4. The ISP gets blocked
I'm not impressed. It's simply virtualization with a halved screen and a dedicated keyboard and mouse for each half. If you run two VMWare instances with Windows inside you're pretty close to what they have "invented".
It's not a very efficient system either. Nowadays' machines can be pretty much summed up as follows:
- Input devices (mouse, keyboard etc). Nothing is saved here.
- Memory (RAM) - nothing is saved here. Running two OSs requires twice as much RAM.
- Storage (HD etc) - nothing is save here. Ok, maybe they share the installed software, but I doubt that.
- Processor - this system actually shares that.
- Monitor - this system shares that, too.
- Other output devices - nothing is gained.
So what this system achieves is some savings on CPU (by better usage) and Monitors (by giving only half a screen to each user).
I would *much* prefer to have a smaller screen instead of sharing a larger one - you can get two 17" screens for the price of a 19".
Given that setting up and maintaining such a system *is* going to be more complex than setting up a normal system, I doubt that the savings on the processors are going to be worth the hassle - not even if labour is cheap.
Since we're all nerds, we shouldn't forget the best nerd April's fool joke ever:
http://www.python.org/parrot.html
Read it. It is worth it.
I agree that that's intended behavior, and it was great back in the time when the only thing you would copy/paste around was command lines from and to different terminals. But the desktops have changed since then; I find myself (and observe other people) doing this kind of thing a *lot*:
- Copy something
- Do some other editing, possibly with selecting things, e.g. deleting some text
- Paste
And the select/middle click model just doesn't work for that. I'm not complaining about bugs here, but about bad design.
Well, suppose you're editing some text. Then you think "oh I'd like to paste something from another file in here". So you open the other file - possibly in another editor, or a browser, or whatever - copy a sentence or maybe just a single word or number - close the program and...do it again. It's of course not a good idea to use the clipboard as "storage for otherwise non-existent data" because it's just too easy to lose. But the behavior many Linux desktops expose nowadays is just plain user-unfriendly.
[Sorry for the bad formatting, this is the same thing again. That'll teach me to use preview first.]
As current Linux user that mixes everyday Gnome, KDE, and desktop-agnostic apps at home and work, I can assure you the "clipboard hell" issue has not been fixed at all. And I'm not anti-Linux trolling, I'm a Debian fan and used to be a package maintainer there. But you should be able to admit where Linux is just weaker than Windows or OS X.
Here's an extract of the various "clipboards" or "yank buffers" or whatever they're called I deal with on a daily basis:
- The venerable X11 buffer - select and middle click. This works great BUT if you happen to select something by mistake whatever you had in the clipboard before has gone. This is especially annoying if you select a link from somewhere and want to *replace* the URL in the address bar of Firefox. What you intuitevely do is the following:
1. Select the link in some program
2. Alt-Tab to Firefox
3. Select the link currently in the location bar (in order to replace it)
4. You just lost because the second selection replaced the first.
- Then there is the Gnome Clipboard (I believe that's what it is called). This is the Control-C, Control-V clipboard which works like in Windows - with one subtle difference. If you close the program you have cut/copied from, the content of the clipboard is *gone*.
1. Select and copy some text in some program
2. Close the program
3. You just lost
- Then there is the vim yank buffer. Yes, you can have multiple yank buffers and probably program them and whatever. But it is totally separate from the other clipboards. Vim even stores it when you close and restart vim. Thus you can:
1. Open vim, yank some text (that's "copy" for non-vimmers)
2. Reboot your machine
3. Log in from another machine with ssh
4. Paste it back. You win!
BUT of course it doesn't work across multiple concurrently running instances of vim. Don't tell me that I should use only one vim for multiple files and splits and all that crap. I want to be able to yank and paste across vims. Which you can't.
And if you use gvim (the vim with gui) then pasting from the Gnome clipboard is as easy as...pressing (no joke)
ESC : " g P
They must be out of their mind.
- And then there's the Emacs buffers (I believe it's called the "buffer ring" or something like that) which are again similar to the ones in vim. I hope I don't offend any emacs users here since I'm not that familiar with it, but I know that they are again incompatible with everything else.
What Linux needs is ONE universal clipboard. Just ONE. It shouldn't be part of Gnome, KDE, Xfce or even X11. It should be a system service. So you can copy and paste LIKE A SANE PERSON in ALL PROGRAMS. Just like on Windows. Or a Mac.
You could throw in persistence across reboots. And maybe across different sessions (say, local X11 and remote SSH). Then it would even be better than everything else. I'm actually thinking of implementing something like that - maybe even with X11 and Gnome clipboard bindings to "unify" them finally.
There should *definitely not* be multiple buffers, rings and crap like that. 99% of the time they are just confusing.
If a program *really* needs multiple buffers - and most do not - they could still implement that ON TOP of the universal clipboard. It's ok if *that* is not compatible across programs.
Greetings from one who loves, and loves to works with Linux but just *HATES* its clipboard functionality.
As current Linux user that mixes everyday Gnome, KDE, and desktop-agnostic apps at home and work, I can assure you the "clipboard hell" issue has not been fixed at all. And I'm not anti-Linux trolling, I'm a Debian fan and used to be a package maintainer there. But you should be able to admit where Linux is just weaker than Windows or OS X. Here's an extract of the various "clipboards" or "yank buffers" or whatever they're called I deal with on a daily basis: - The venerable X11 buffer - select and middle click. This works great BUT if you happen to select something by mistake whatever you had in the clipboard before has gone. This is especially annoying if you select a link from somewhere and want to *replace* the URL in the address bar of Firefox. What you intuitevely do is the following: 1. Select the link in some program 2. Alt-Tab to Firefox 3. Select the link currently in the location bar (in order to replace it) 4. You just lost because the second selection replaced the first. - Then there is the Gnome Clipboard (I believe that's what it is called). This is the Control-C, Control-V clipboard which works like in Windows - with one subtle difference. If you close the program you have cut/copied from, the content of the clipboard is *gone*. 1. Select and copy some text in some program 2. Close the program 3. You just lost - Then there is the vim yank buffer. Yes, you can have multiple yank buffers and probably program them and whatever. But it is totally separate from the other clipboards. Vim even stores it when you close and restart vim. Thus you can: 1. Open vim, yank some text (that's "copy" for non-vimmers) 2. Reboot your machine 3. Log in from another machine with ssh 4. Paste it back. You win! BUT of course it doesn't work across multiple concurrently running instances of vim. Don't tell me that I should use only one vim for multiple files and splits and all that crap. I want to be able to yank and paste across vims. Which you can't. And if you use gvim (the vim with gui) then pasting from the Gnome clipboard is as easy as...pressing (no joke) ESC : " g P They must be out of their mind. - And then there's the Emacs buffers (I believe it's called the "buffer ring" or something like that) which are again similar to the ones in vim. I hope I don't offend any emacs users here since I'm not that familiar with it, but I know that they are again incompatible with everything else. What Linux needs is ONE universal clipboard. Just ONE. It shouldn't be part of Gnome, KDE, Xfce or even X11. It should be a system service. So you can copy and paste LIKE A SANE PERSON in ALL PROGRAMS. Just like on Windows. Or a Mac. You could throw in persistence across reboots. And maybe across different sessions (say, local X11 and remote SSH). Then it would even be better than everything else. I'm actually thinking of implementing something like that - maybe even with X11 and Gnome clipboard bindings to "unify" them finally. There should *definitely not* be multiple buffers, rings and crap like that. 99% of the time they are just confusing. If a program *really* needs multiple buffers - and most do not - they could still implement that ON TOP of the universal clipboard. It's ok if *that* is not compatible across programs. Greetings from one who loves, and loves to works with Linux but just *HATES* its clipboard functionality.
Yes, that was 65 million years ago. Way before humanity.
e xtinction_event
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceous-Tertiary_
"Just in case" planning for this is just stupid and a waste of time and money. There are many other things (wars, diseases, maybe terrorism) which are much more likely to destroy civilization as we know it. It'd be better to invest more in that than to play Armageddon.
I realize that a single asteroid may wipe out humanity, but the probability that this is what will put an end to civilization is basically zero.
Humans (in some form or other) live on earth since 4 million years, and no killer asteroid has hit this planet since. How crazy do you have to be to think that an asteroid is a real threat for humankind? *shakes head*
I think you have absolutely no idea of what is possible with LaTeX and friends.
l
http://www.tug.org/applications/Xy-pic/Xy-pic.htm
http://cm.bell-labs.com/who/hobby/mppubs.html#man
This is ridiculous and doesn't make any sense. "Girl", "bar" and "morning" are not even words. I believe you wanted to say:
So, our elected officials go to Washington with the best of intentions, perhaps with a sincere desire to make the nation a better place ... and then they get within range of the D.C. distortion field. I believe that it's a lot like downloading a keygen from the internet and running it under your admin account on your main machine. It all seems to make perfect sense at the time, but after the next reboot you wake up and go "Oh my God ... what have I done?"
You haven't seen the simulation and debugging system. It wasn't a smart move, trust me ;-)
I worked as an intern for a big company in the power protection and control field (i.e. power substation automation). It's not warship control and if something fails probably no-one is going to be killed, but things will break and money will be lost.
They had some in-house software to program the protection and control devices. That software could also be run under Windows for testing and debugging purposes. I worked on a prototype of an extension of said testing and debugging environment, so I have a bit of experience with this kind of embedded-ish real-time Windows programming, and I must say that Windows is definitely not the way to go for anything like that. It just lacks the flexibility of operating systems made for this sort of task.
Later I found out that what they actually wanted to do is to replace the special-purpose systems with the simulation and debugging environment, all running on Windows because it was supposedly much easier to use and what not. They're going to use my prototype to do so :-(
I have the impression that Windows is often chosen for this sort of task because management knows it and has the feeling that "Microsoft is the real thing", that it is easier to find experienced developers for Windows than for any other platform and that the development tools are better and/or more user friendly. While I agree on the last two points, I'd like to point out that "experienced Windows developer" does not mean experienced real-time, high-reliability-systems or embedded developer, and that the development tools are mostly focused on GUI/Network service programming which is what windows is mainly used for.
I'm sure there are lots of people out there with way more experience in this field than me, but if I were to decide for an OS on a warship it would definitely not be Windows, Unix or any other general purpose OS, but something which can be customized and is built for this kind of task - VxWorks or something similar.
...to support VMWare and buy a license for a great piece of software which you're probably using anyway. I am a Debian user and free software enthusiast, but I bought my license for VMWare workstation years ago and never looked back. VMWare is one of the very few commercial programs which I consider worth spending money on. I never had any real problems with it (at least since version 5, which is what I bought), it's fast and a pleasure to use. Maybe Xen or KVM will replace it in the long run, but I'm sure I'll keep on using VMWare for at least another two years.
I know this sounds like an ad, but even their Linux support is great. I had some issues with VMWare 4 (I was using the trial) and asked on the newsgroup; the answers were quick and helpful.
VMWare is exactly the way software should be. If you use it and like it you should really consider buying it.
TFA is total crap. Out of the 10 projects I've heard of 2 (KVM and MontaVista), and I'd hardly call any of them (except maybe KVM) even remotely "innovative". They just happen to be what venture capitalists think is profitable - virtualization and enterprise "management" software. Actually most of them aren't even real products but "platforms" or "frameworks" which can only be described in buzzwords. Quote:
What the hell is that supposed to mean anyway?
The real strength of open source is its technological superiority in some fields (e.g. LAMP, Mozilla, some open source kernels), new approaches in development (the "distributed development" model) and some technological innovations (BitTorrent etc), but definitely not in "enterprise software".
No, in the land of chocolate, banks and watches.
...country of freedom and civil rights ;-)
"The word 'labels' is the one in common use on Google today and is one of the distinctive features of Google. Ever since Web 2.0 came out, Web 2.0 has decided to use the term 'tag' instead of the term 'label' despite they are basically the exact same thing and have the exact same function. Why is Web 2.0 using inconsistent terminology in its products for such an important term? Is there a real difference between a tag and a label?"
Say hi to the principality of GoldenPalace.com.
Here you see what happens when people do too much GuiDesign.
Now that is cool. Cook would have been my 2nd choice - now I'm working on my CS master. My mom would have preferred a cook though.
I just had to think of this one.
Tyger! Tyger! burning bright
In the forests of the night,
What immortal hand or eye
Could frame thy fearful symmetry?
In what distant deeps or skies
Burnt the fire of thine eyes?
On what wings dare he aspire?
What the hand dare sieze the fire?
And what shoulder, & what art.
Could twist the sinews of thy heart?
And when thy heart began to beat,
What dread hand? & what dread feet?
What the hammer? what the chain?
In what furnace was thy brain?
What the anvil? what dread grasp
Dare its deadly terrors clasp?
When the stars threw down their spears,
And watered heaven with their tears,
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the Lamb make thee?
Tyger! Tyger! burning bright
In the forests of the night,
What immortal hand or eye
Dare frame thy fearful symmetry?
The old world? Hmm? AES is from Belgium; Diffie-Hellman was originally invented in the UK. Cryptography is not a "US only" thing.
MD? Hi-MD? A new proprietary format by Sony? I beg you. As others have pointed out, flash memory is the way to go.
A Hi-MD (1 GB) costs about $3. A cheap 1 GB SD card about $30. That's 10 times more expensive, I admit. But look at this: I remember prices of about $8 for one MD when they came out (1991); now they're about $1. That's 1/8 in 15 years. And I think we can realistically expect that the price/size ration of flash memory will halve about every 18 months, while the price of Hi-MDs will drop about as slowly as the one of MDs. That means that flash memory might be as cheap as Hi-MD in 4 years from now.
Flash memory thus has the following advantages compared to Hi-MD:
Now, what Sony should have done IMHO:
The sad thing is that this would not have been too hard to do. Flash reading/writing devices are here. USB mass storage device drivers are available. FAT32 drivers are available. Open source implementations of at least WAV, MP3, OGG, FLAC are available. Supporting that would not require incredible amounts of processor power which aren't needed anyway for ATRAC. The device is programmable anyway. I'd just wish some high-quality hardware - which is no problem for Sony - which is usable and has a reasonable design. Which should be no problem too.
I don't understand why no big company is doing that. I'm sure there's a market for this kind of device - even if the price is steep.
I'm a little skeptical. A search engine with a smiley in its logo? That's so 1999! But the FAQ puts me into an even more pessimistic mood. IMHO this Accoona thing is just lots of marketing speak, but doesn't really offer anything new, neither from the usability nor from the technology point of view.
To quote from the FAQ:
As far as I can see, this means that
Ah, and one last thing. Accoona doesn't have "teh snappy". It's just too damn slow. And I'm not waiting for search engines EVER AGAIN.
You should not forget that Intel supplied both the hardware and the benchmarks. Obviously, they will only supply benchmarks where they win, and not the ones where the Athlon is better (if there are any). The F.E.A.R. benchmark seems to confirm that Conroe is really faster, but that's just one benchmark, which is not enough to convince me of Conroe's superiority.
That being said, I think it is in everybody's best interest if the benchmark results actually represent a real advantage; 20% more speed is indeed a big step forward.