Slashdot Mirror

Leopard on a Dual core 500. I had to max the ram, and update the Video card a bit. "GeForce 4 from eBay" It was easy. Proof, and instructions below.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3398/3620701745_cb0753c18c_o.png

To install Leopard on an "unsupported" G4 clocked under 867 MHz:

1. Reboot your Mac and hold down the Cmd-Opt-O-F keys until you get a white screen with black text. This is the Open Firmware prompt.

2. Insert the Mac OS X Leopard Install DVD.

3. Type the following lines exactly as shown below into the Open Firmware prompt. Be mindful of capitalization, spaces, zeros, etc. If the command is properly typed and understood, Open Firmware will display "ok" at the end of each line after you hit "return". What these lines do is set the CPU speed reported by Open Firmware to OS X as an 867 MHz G4 processor system. They then continue the boot from the DVD drive.

For single CPUs, use the following three lines:


For dual CPUs, use the following five lines:

dev /cpus/PowerPC,G4@0 d# 867000000 encode-int " clock-frequency" property dev /cpus/PowerPC,G4@1 d# 867000000 encode-int " clock-frequency" property boot cd:,\\:tbxi

4. Continue the install normally.

Not the end of the world.

Not all of the images contain the same restrictive legend. Compare the LaHood-Obama example with the George H.W. Bush - Obama example. The first image contains this legend: "This official White House photograph is being made available only for publication by news organizations and/or for personal use printing by the subject(s) of the photograph." The second image leaves out the word "only," which changes the meaning from being prohibitory to merely explanatory: "This official White House photograph is being made available for publication by news organizations and/or for personal use printing by the subject(s) of the photograph." I wonder if it's a partisan thing.

Not all of the images contain the same restrictive legend. Compare the LaHood-Obama example with the George H.W. Bush - Obama example. The first image contains this legend: "This official White House photograph is being made available only for publication by news organizations and/or for personal use printing by the subject(s) of the photograph." The second image leaves out the word "only," which changes the meaning from being prohibitory to merely explanatory: "This official White House photograph is being made available for publication by news organizations and/or for personal use printing by the subject(s) of the photograph." I wonder if it's a partisan thing.

Kathy, I am a photographer and I am very familiar with copyright. I have also done a lot of work under federal contracts so I'm familiar with copyright in that context as well.

Your post has a headline, "White House Makes Full Copyright Claim on Photos." This is very simply untrue. Think of the ways people assert copyright: using the © copyright symbol, registering works with the copyright office, filing an infringement suit, etc.. I don't mean to say you need to do this to have a copyright, but to say that the White House is making a claim to copyright without doing any of the things we normally do to claim copyright things is misleading at best.

Claiming that works like the ones on Flickr cannot be used for commercial purposes is not claiming a right, but rather stating a fact. The statement is unnecessary, but it seems the White House decided it would be a good idea to remind people of the facts in light of recent events.

The only part that is a little baffling is the statement that the images may not be modified. It's also strange that this is not on the http://www.flickr.com/people/whitehouse page but only under individual images. I'm not sure what they are basing this on, but is certainly does not constitute a "Full Copyright Claim." It seems that the headline and article is written, not to illuminate or inform, but rather to garner attention and be provocative regardless of the facts.

Note that plenty of OTHER PEOPLE have made a big deal about it, but surely you don't claim that Obama should have denied their free speech, do you?

Of course not. There are very limited reasons where the government can curtail the speech of citizens and that certainly wouldn't qualify

There seems to be a lot of assumption that Obama wants to clamp down on people / companies using these images to prevent using them to make it appear that Obama has endorsed something. Firstly, that does not really fall under copyright laws, that would fall under fraud. Secondly, some time spent searching the net yields no clear cases of this having happened, except for the one mentioned in the summary. For those of you that suggest this is the reason, please provide sources. I do not believe that this is a rampant problem.

Also, as someone else has stated the Whitehouse has three conflicting messages on the use of photos

1. Creative Commons: http://www.whitehouse.gov/copyright
2. Statement on Flickr photo stream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/whitehouse/4331402906/
3. USA.gov copyright policy: http://www.usa.gov/copyright.shtml

Numbers 1 and 2 would seem to be in conflict with number 3, which I believe is the proper way.

I thought use of the presidential seal was restricted. I've not seen the photos so I dont know if they have it or not.

Most of them do not.

As lame as this sounds, equality at home from birth produces equality everywhere.

Childless, eh? My mom grew up in a log cabin, got the hell out of the poverty, went to college, and ended up being responsible for the communications network of a major railroad. My wife's a surgeon. My sisters have positions of responsibility in their fields. Frankly, the idea of women as somehow inferior is just foreign to me.

I have two daughters. One plays softball on a year-round team, spends her free time drawing and animating cartoons with Scratch (without me suggesting it - I just showed it to her one day and she took it from there), asked for and got a remote control helicopter for Christmas, and wants to be a biologist or an astronaut.

The other loves strawberries and picks only pink clothes, asks for and gets Littlest Pet Shops and Polly Pockets for birthday and Christmas, wants to be a puppy, and is the stereotype of a little drama queen to her mom's chagrin.

Two kids. Same environment. Same opportunities. One is science oriented, and the other seems tracked for fashion design. I think nature has a lot more influence than you're giving it credit for.

... playing cards don't shoot back.

This one does...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/notionscapital/4256758392/

...it made me think of bird bones: http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1391/548392054_0a1d20612b_o.jpg

Once I can run Flash, Firebug, FlashBlock ... oh wait!

Face it -- 90% of Flash usage is video (not necessary) and conceited designs (not needed) both of which can be done without Flash. The other 10% - games - it is great at that but native platforms are stronger. An iPhone game takes advantage of the iron, Flash could not.

Annoying uses of flash: http://www.flickr.com/groups/1256171@N20/pool/ Add yours too.

Personally, I have trouble estimating the position of the passenger side of my car to closer than six inches so I avoid situations where that would be necessary; if traffic is tight I'll slow down to avoid driving between wide vehicles. I find that when when thinking about programming or other complex problems, I tend to take longer to notice the slowing of a car in front of me so I habitually leave much more than the average (as observed) distance between my own and the car in front of me. I'm not opposed to driving and texting or talking on the phone or discussing politics with a passenger or eating, but when in traffic I don't text, don't take calls, don't discuss politics and don't eat.

You sound like you drive like my sister. Do you ride the brakes, too?

Your friend in the Toyota sounds like he got stuck behind you (lemme guess, speed limit in the fast lane, umpteen car lengths maintained behind next car). He got on your ass for a few miles, got sick of waiting (or found a hole in traffic) and decided to pass you on the right.

That said, i have to agree that cell phone use while driving certainly doesn't work for me (hands-not-free). Mostly because II never set up speed dials. looking down at some -device- while in motion isn't the best move (period, though place, ambient light and traffic certainly make huge differences). eating ain't too bright, either.the fact that the Germans have to make cup holders for the American market (not 'more' cup holders.... cup holders, period) should be a clue; I know that increased traffic has severely limited the autobahn's 'limit-free' sections, but those are still some of the safer highways out there. A German license must be earned; here in the US your worst case scenario is having to find an overcrowded DMV and/or a crooked tester.
as a last point, I still have issues with the whole 'studies show that hands-free devices don't impact cell phone related accidents significantly', or whatever that claim is. i can think of two reasons for this. 1st would be 'people can't drive and talk at the same time'. for some this is true. That's.... not a car I'd want to ride shotgun in.

The second option is more intriguing. I typically drive with a 12-arm dangling out the window approach. maybe elbow on the door frame and left forefinger on the wheel. works for me (and has never jeopardized my vehicle 'handling'). holding a phone up (short of driving a stick, which has certainly been known to happen!) seems no more dangerous than, say, a trucker on his cb. have they outlawed cb radios? Wait, we're talking hands free, so it's just down to the action of tapping the headset button (or steering wheel button, etc.) No, the issue here is quite simple: the assinine cellco companies insist on foisting 'voice dialing' charges on us all (and locking out 3rd party free apps). so, once again, people are putzing around dialing numbers or scrolling through a contact list.
The worst, though, is dash-mounted entertainment systems (literal ones.... but also the stock ones that just have gps and all sorts of crap in them).well, ok, the gps is bad in that case.... but the fool watching some dvd while driving in rush hour traffic should be pulled from his car and beaten with a rubber hose.

also toss rubberneckers, drive-by beauticians, newspaper readers, slow-in-the-fast-lane idjits.... calvin peein' on something sticker putter-on-ers... my sister... prossibly the parent-author... probably you (the reader)... well, most people, 'ceptin' me, into the rubber hose squad's list. Like Harvey Keitel I drive real-fuckin'-fast. Oh, and people with a 3-banger POS with the cofee can mufflers and the ar spoiler off the '68 Lotus 49b http://www.flickr.com/photos/algreen/2492031185/ and maybe some go-fast stripes to boot. yah, them, too.

BURNANATED

I completely agree.
Much preferred the classic Apple logo with the gay pride flag right out on front where you can't miss it.

Seeing Jobs hold the "iPad" reminds of this, in both form and relative functionality: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3244/3137570578_6d9ab29809.jpg

Plus.. it's in this museum! These are trained professionals, they know what they're doing!

Or, in the words of one of the few modern artists whom I consider genuinely good, "Never underestimate the power of a big gold frame"

...I only use a camera (a Canon 40D or 50D), not a telescope. Astro-photography is awesome fun. :)

You can click on all sizes above any image to see larger versions:

My tracked astro photos
My untracked astro photos

...I only use a camera (a Canon 40D or 50D), not a telescope. Astro-photography is awesome fun. :)

You can click on all sizes above any image to see larger versions:

My tracked astro photos
My untracked astro photos

Is it really that hard to bring Ovi maps to N900's Maemo? -- http://www.flickr.com/photos/ctam

Weird! Here's a screenshot of the results I see: screenshot

(for example, they use flash instead of silverlight, because flash is installed on so many machines, and do not try to promote silverlight on cost of their search engine).

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2587/3785979156_e06cb135cb_o.png

An actual study here http://munews.missouri.edu/news-releases/2007/1115-hamilton-inactivity.php explaining why standing is important. ...and I've been standing at my desk for a while now. http://www.flickr.com/photos/jonsphotos/2255538445/

You can destroy anything if you apply the right force.

Of course. Even the forces binding the proton together are not so strong that one can't be blasted apart in a particle accelerator. Even the mythical and ludicrously strong material the Ringworld was made from had to succumb to this rule. It is in some ways trivial to take "unbreakable" in a way that it equals "non-existant".

I think it's more useful to define "unbreakable" to mean "within reason", and go from there. For a phone, being able to use it as an impromptu hammer is pretty good. Or being dropped off your balcony. Or submerged in water. That covers most of the abuse that a phone takes, so "unbreakable" as in "you aren't going to accidentally break it in normal circumstances" is pretty good. Though if a journalist can break it while standing at your booth at a trade show, then it seems it doesn't live up to even this lesser standard.

Of course the gold standard for unbreakability in mobile electronics is over twenty years old. Ah, now that is some damn sturdy hardware!

On the other hand, dip that thing in some water and see what happens...

I don't have a droid so I can't confirm, but this flickr user seems to have replicated the test on the Droid with far different results:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/42580856@N08/4264037413/

Well, if I ever see a box of it in my home, you can be sure it gets some damage from this little buddy here:
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/37/114315512_a8c8669676.jpg?v=0

Here is photo taken in 1911 of the aircraft on the ice: http://www.flickr.com/photos/statelibraryofnsw/2866625141/ (other commenter's have already mentioned how the aircraft came to be wingless).

Yes. We panic a lot less when confronted with dangers we're used to (and can deny).

Information is Beautiful linked to a good graphic showing the relative risk of various things from being killed by terrorists to having your nightclothes start on fire (hint: you were only slightly more likely to be a victim of terrorism than having your pyjamas cremate you). Unfortunately I can't find it. Here's a good one about the swine flu though:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/michaelpaukner/4052849920/sizes/l/

While not shoved in your face, there were a lot of subtle touches of science- like did you notice that the cave to the tree of souls appeared to form along magnetic field lines? See: http://www.flickr.com/photos/officialavatarmovie/4054882634/sizes/l/

I know why it hasn't done it for me. It's because Ballmer is spelled wrong.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/toadwarrior/4234291097/sizes/o/

I'm sure it has worked for you (otherwise you wouldn't have used it) but it should work consistently for everyone. How can you trust sharing results?

Guess that ruins that campaign then.

If you check the summary information on the Wikipedia page, it links you to http://www.flickr.com/photos/dannysotzny/3589316608/ which is titled "WGT vom 1.Juni 2009" and claims

"This photo also belongs to: [WGT 09] Wave Gotik Treffen 2009 (Set)"

so I guess you're onto something...

Even better - how could we forget Songsmith? That was a point so low, it had its own gravity well and Hawking had to write a theory about it. They'd do well if they went "out there" to some of the more creative users for ideas and such; interacting with the userbase could help a bit and would have prevented the Songsmith or Windows 7 cringefests earlier on. And it's not that hard to find... Example

Point being, they need to think beyond the boundaries of Redmond. Just because a manager approves one of their adverts doesn't mean the public will...

Behold!

Use a different grass field in the background... Like this one, for example?

OK, to put it in Slashdot standard units, look at this picture:
http://arweb.sdsu.edu/es/virtualtour/childrens_ctr.html

Now imagine this one joining the game:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/22158290@N04/2139767266/

That's the kind of scale we're talking about.

(Note, the photos were chosen for amusement, not accuracy. They are intended to show "big" and "small", not specific ratios.)

Though you joke, 2010 might be the 'year of the tablet' - Apple will come out with an iTablet and thousands of mactards the world over will decide that a tablet is an important device to have in their digital lives. Forget that they'll only ever use it to tweet about how wonderful it is to use the iTablet; other companies will soon decide that they need to create good looking tablets of their own that don't actually do anything.

I weep for huge manatee.

Why are the news publishers never up in arms about Yahoo News? Yahoo News is more popular than Google News by a significant amount.

I guess they realize there is more money in going after Google than there is in Yahoo.

you can find full size (5017 x 3055) images on flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/bibliodyssey/4194965542/in/photostream/

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3201/3125598008_6e1055dcd2.jpg

DIRECT has a plan for a Space Shuttle Payload Delivery Module, a frame that fits inside the payload fairing of a Jupiter rocket, and provides all the mount points found inside the Shuttle's payload bay. It can have airlock, the Canadarm, the whole nine. About the only thing it can't do is provide a way to bring cargo back to the planet.

Um, yeah. Continuing in the same vein some of these people make even radio amateurs look normal.

Anon, because yesterday I couldn't spell "ham," now I are one.

I took a minute to knock up a more informative sales chart, a stacked graph by year.

I was in a rush so I skipped out the smaller sellers and a label for the Y axis.

• Opera is #1 in Belarus, Georgia and Tajikistan
• It must therefore be ahead of Firefox
• According to the map legend, Safari doesn't exist!

No.

There's a link a flickr set with more photos at the end of the article: http://www.flickr.com/photos/mattblaze/sets/72157622868910267/

... the buddy system!

I joke but human redundancy is probably your best bet and pretty reassuring considering I've seen Dr. Strangelove twenty times or so. Also I enjoyed this picture. Is it a good idea to store the keys right above the safe to the Emergency War Orders? No matter, if you know the combination to the lock and have a twenty pound sledge, those hastily welded rings holding on the safety padlocks will take a few seconds to remove.

Did you read the text accompanying that picture?

Those keys would not have been on top of the cabinet there - that's a display for the tourists.

Each launch officer had a key to one padlock, meaning that two launch officers were necessary to open that cabinet. The point isn't to keep some random guy from walking in and launching a missile... That's what all the guards, barbed wire, blast doors, etc. are for. The point is to make sure that it takes two launch officers to launch a missile.

... the buddy system!

I joke but human redundancy is probably your best bet and pretty reassuring considering I've seen Dr. Strangelove twenty times or so. Also I enjoyed this picture. Is it a good idea to store the keys right above the safe to the Emergency War Orders? No matter, if you know the combination to the lock and have a twenty pound sledge, those hastily welded rings holding on the safety padlocks will take a few seconds to remove.

They also come in a female variety.

So is jellyfish. Shown here with duck's webbing (equally delicious).

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3026/3072722004_0566d519e0.jpg

If there was a possibility that you could go deaf because some jackass with a jamming device could blow out your eardrums, do you think you'd be anxious to listen to your iPod at the maximum volume?

This image describes the general concept:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/saltation/249941924/