I thought AT&T Wireless was in the wireless operator segment, not in the wireless hardware? I don't mean it as a cliche, but here in Europe the two are separate. Sure I may buy a phone from my operator, often for a good price (if together with a long-time plan), but personally, I haven't done so yet and I've had different phones and different operators. Interoperable, btw.
Also, here we used to have two wireless operators, and the competition really only showed when the third started. On the other hand, for our small market a fourth operator would be an overkill, I believe, unless the borders really start to dissolve in the EU.
I work in Europe, so I'm used to getting plenty of paid vacation time (4 weeks, the legal minimum in my country), but last christmas we got a few additional paid days off and it was very nice. If only to save your normal vacation time for later.
If you can afford $1500 each, it looks like a week off with full pay is a nice way to say thanks.
As a basic mobile phone/PDA/camera user I cannot but applaud these efforts. Granted, no-zoom 1MPix is not sufficient, but I don't want to carry around a PDA and a phone and a camera and all of those capabilities I'd like to have about me. I love making moment pictures, but my camera is usually in my bag or at home.
Anyhow, I think once they make these rugged and with a super-LED flash-light, I'm on for one. (Rugged as in Siemens ME45 - shock-proof, water-proof and stuff.)
You know, URIs identify resources; and that is URIs of any kind, URNs or HTTP URLs alike. The naming authority who creates the URIs (NISO-registered owner of a namespace for info: URIs, the owner of the domain for HTTP URIs) gets to decide what the URI identifies.
According to some (including me), a URI may identify me. A URI may indentify a book the same way its Dewey code identifies it. The advantage of using a dereferencable URI is that you can presumably (not always, but usually) get a representation of the resource.
Still, according to some, and contrary to the naive opinion (no offense meant), HTTP URIs don't identify documents - what do you do about CGI scripts, like "the current weather in Prague"? OK, let's broaden it to changing documents. This still won't work - what do we do with content negotiation? I can request a JPEG representation of www.example.com/ and get the picture of the Example Corp. and I can request an HTML representation and I'll get the home page.
Anyhow, there's an ongoing discussion on this topic in the W3C, see the TAG list. (too lazy to look up the links) E.g. is what you get a description of a resource or is the description itself a resource and should get a different URI?
http://loc.gov/lccn/2002022641 might tell you where to find a copy of the information, but info:lccn/2002022641 would tell you what it was.
Not necessarily. HTTP URIs identify resources; it's true that HTTP resources usually are web pages, but that's not the rule. With http://loc.gov/lccn/2002022641 one can identify the thing; with one representation of it being readily available at the same address. Remember - multiple URIs may identify the same resource, and one particular representation may be in fact a representation of multiple resources at various (not necessarily different) instants of time.
The thing is, one resource can be "the document", another can be "the document in an XML form", yet another can be "the document as of 2003/10/01" etc. It's the naming authority (loc.gov in our case) that decides what the URI identifies.
What is the difference between, say, http://loc.gov/lccn/2002022641 and info:lccn/2002022641?
The latter requires a new URI scheme (deployment of new URI schemes is expensive)
The latter requires a new registry
The other difference is that info: is not http:. But why exactly does a piece of software need to know that a URI identifies an "information asset"? HTTP URIs identify resources that may be (or may get or may have been) dereferencable using HTTP, no more semantics than that. Oh, and every organization (that would possibly want to register an info: namespace with NISO) already has its domain name.
Basically, IMHO it's cheaper (both for the organization and for the internet) if the org just creates a URI form (like the loc.gov above) and uses that.
Well, for us not living in the USA and used to the final prices on the products, it's not such a simple thing. Even if you travel around the States, the local tax may vary and you don't really know how much you are going to pay.
With GiB != GB: if the people think 1000MB == GB, they can only be positively surprised if they get a 100GB harddrive with 102400MB (or more, depending on the current MB). If they get a 100000MB drive, they should be OK. The people already aware of GiB should also know the hard-drive makers may mean GB when they write GB.
Really, I don't see that much of a difference between buying a hard-drive which may be smaller than I thought and buying a thing and paying more than I thought.
The thing about the sequences 1,2,3,4,5,6 and 4,17,30,33,53,61 is that while they are both equally probable, the first is pretty while the second isn't, so it's basically the same as 3,18,31,34,55,60 to anyone.
There are so bloody few pretty sequences compared to the normal, randomly chaotic ones. That's what makes 1,2,3,4,5,6 look so improbable.
I agree, but most SOAP toolkits I know base most of their functionality off WSDL - generating client-side proxies, serialization and deserialization etc. I don't believe the majority of web services to work on the XML level.
Personally, I had the feeling that WSDL 1.1 was, in fact, adopted by the overwhelming majority of web services (HTTP/HTML services excluding). Are you aware of other interface definition language being more successful than WSDL 1.1 or are you just stating that majority of web services does without interface definition?
WSDL 1.1 is an old specification and the split is just as old and mostly solved by general adoption of the document/literal (as opposed to RPC/encoded) approach.
Now the pressing question seems to be the RESTfulness or not of Web Services. See a related Mark Baker's blog entry for illustration.
re 1: in the Czech Republic, for instance, we can't transfer our number to a different provider (I haven't even heard of any plans in this regard)
re 4: in Europe, numbers are geographically fixed on the level of the countries, which matters if you're moving inside the EU
Re:Why are we so surprized?
on
Incas Used Binary?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
The more we learn, the more we forget. For example, who can tell me the best mix for bronze? Not many now. How about what's best to plant after sowing rye for two years? As we continue to move into a more technological society, there is quite a bit of knowledge we are losing. Remember the famous ancient battery?
I don't think that 500 years ago, or a couple thousand years ago (in the bronze era) there were that many who would tell you the best mix for bronze.
While it is true that some arts are lost (dead languages, for example), still there are enough people who know the best mix for bronze or what to plant after rye. The thing is we don't need one such person per neighbourhood anymore since we can store and communicate information very easily.
In fact, even if we suddently stop using bronze and the current makers slowly die leaving no successors, we may still be able to recreate bronze because the best mix is recorded somewhere. That is, as long as we can read it - we are now surprised with the Incas' use of binary because their whole civilization is gone. If Incas lived, they could have been the origin of computers, once the technology was there.
So the quick installation guide was posted anonymously on purpose by you in order for you to add this comment and have *two* high-score posts, right? 8-)
We're creating new technologies to allow us to see our neighbours (in whatever sense). It reminds me of wells in the centres of village, where neighbours getting water would gather and chat.
This shows the underlying stuff (the internet) seems to be ready for the society. Good. Personal flesh-to-flesh meetings are not strictly necessary, but meeting people is important.
Slashdot Mirror
Also, here we used to have two wireless operators, and the competition really only showed when the third started. On the other hand, for our small market a fourth operator would be an overkill, I believe, unless the borders really start to dissolve in the EU.
In short: get the customers' heads into the real world.
Anyway, here's a use of the word "pirate" that fits better than software/audio/video pirates.
If you can afford $1500 each, it looks like a week off with full pay is a nice way to say thanks.
Envy you? Why?
Anyhow, I think once they make these rugged and with a super-LED flash-light, I'm on for one. (Rugged as in Siemens ME45 - shock-proof, water-proof and stuff.)
According to some (including me), a URI may identify me. A URI may indentify a book the same way its Dewey code identifies it. The advantage of using a dereferencable URI is that you can presumably (not always, but usually) get a representation of the resource.
Still, according to some, and contrary to the naive opinion (no offense meant), HTTP URIs don't identify documents - what do you do about CGI scripts, like "the current weather in Prague"? OK, let's broaden it to changing documents. This still won't work - what do we do with content negotiation? I can request a JPEG representation of www.example.com/ and get the picture of the Example Corp. and I can request an HTML representation and I'll get the home page.
Anyhow, there's an ongoing discussion on this topic in the W3C, see the TAG list. (too lazy to look up the links) E.g. is what you get a description of a resource or is the description itself a resource and should get a different URI?
It's all kinda murky... 8-)
Not necessarily. HTTP URIs identify resources; it's true that HTTP resources usually are web pages, but that's not the rule. With http://loc.gov/lccn/2002022641 one can identify the thing; with one representation of it being readily available at the same address. Remember - multiple URIs may identify the same resource, and one particular representation may be in fact a representation of multiple resources at various (not necessarily different) instants of time.
The thing is, one resource can be "the document", another can be "the document in an XML form", yet another can be "the document as of 2003/10/01" etc. It's the naming authority (loc.gov in our case) that decides what the URI identifies.
The latter requires a new URI scheme (deployment of new URI schemes is expensive)
The latter requires a new registry
The other difference is that info: is not http:. But why exactly does a piece of software need to know that a URI identifies an "information asset"? HTTP URIs identify resources that may be (or may get or may have been) dereferencable using HTTP, no more semantics than that. Oh, and every organization (that would possibly want to register an info: namespace with NISO) already has its domain name.
Basically, IMHO it's cheaper (both for the organization and for the internet) if the org just creates a URI form (like the loc.gov above) and uses that.
I think I've heard the likes of this before. Guess Bill knows this limit doesn't hold. 8-)
With GiB != GB: if the people think 1000MB == GB, they can only be positively surprised if they get a 100GB harddrive with 102400MB (or more, depending on the current MB). If they get a 100000MB drive, they should be OK. The people already aware of GiB should also know the hard-drive makers may mean GB when they write GB.
Really, I don't see that much of a difference between buying a hard-drive which may be smaller than I thought and buying a thing and paying more than I thought.
*tax will be added on check out
There are so bloody few pretty sequences compared to the normal, randomly chaotic ones. That's what makes 1,2,3,4,5,6 look so improbable.
Gives a new weight to me saying that being a vegetarian is dumb.
I agree, but most SOAP toolkits I know base most of their functionality off WSDL - generating client-side proxies, serialization and deserialization etc. I don't believe the majority of web services to work on the XML level.
Personally, I had the feeling that WSDL 1.1 was, in fact, adopted by the overwhelming majority of web services (HTTP/HTML services excluding). Are you aware of other interface definition language being more successful than WSDL 1.1 or are you just stating that majority of web services does without interface definition?
http://www.google.com/search?q=+latex%20+pictures
But the category is still "Mature content". I guess you have to be mature in order to use LaTeX. 8-)
Now the pressing question seems to be the RESTfulness or not of Web Services. See a related Mark Baker's blog entry for illustration.
re 1: in the Czech Republic, for instance, we can't transfer our number to a different provider (I haven't even heard of any plans in this regard)
re 4: in Europe, numbers are geographically fixed on the level of the countries, which matters if you're moving inside the EU
I don't think that 500 years ago, or a couple thousand years ago (in the bronze era) there were that many who would tell you the best mix for bronze.
While it is true that some arts are lost (dead languages, for example), still there are enough people who know the best mix for bronze or what to plant after rye. The thing is we don't need one such person per neighbourhood anymore since we can store and communicate information very easily.
In fact, even if we suddently stop using bronze and the current makers slowly die leaving no successors, we may still be able to recreate bronze because the best mix is recorded somewhere. That is, as long as we can read it - we are now surprised with the Incas' use of binary because their whole civilization is gone. If Incas lived, they could have been the origin of computers, once the technology was there.
More interestingly, it seems may are actually RTFBing.
Oh, I just hope no karma whore posts the book here. 8-)
So the quick installation guide was posted anonymously on purpose by you in order for you to add this comment and have *two* high-score posts, right? 8-)
This shows the underlying stuff (the internet) seems to be ready for the society. Good. Personal flesh-to-flesh meetings are not strictly necessary, but meeting people is important.
would that be called a Berserk cluster instead of Beowulf cluster? 8-)