Deep down, secretly, I bet Apple could give a rat's ass about DRM. They have do to it to appease the industry. And they're going to have to close obvious holes pretty quickly. But ripping and re-encoding is a) slightly obscure to the average iTMS user, b) annoying, and c) (at least in theory) degrades the music quality so that it's unappealing to discerning ears and tech/audio-philes for whom (a) is not a factor.
There's also nearly no way to prevent "hacks" like WireTap that just grab the audio stream without completely munging up the way an OS handles the audio stream. They can only do so much and Apple is not stupid enough to know that. They are the best buffer we have right now between the (wanting-to-try-to-be-legal) consumer and the greedy idiots controlling music distribution.
Maybe I'm optimistic, but I feel like something like what Apple is doing now had to happen to break open the digital purchansing flow. There's no turning back now. If "good" DRM gets more and more expensive to develop, implement, manage, and enforce, it might just become a poor(er) business model. Someone will hopefully push the "innovation" and get us beyond this hacked system we have now.
Like if your house burns down with your CD collection? If you don't back up your important files, you're an idiot.
On top of that, your purchase history with the iTMS is saved. You can review it anytime and under such unusual circumstances might have a shot at getting your music back from Apple.
or you upgrade your PC.
WTF are you talking about? Is the copy mechanism on your machine broken? Buy a cheap network cable and attach the machines together. Buy an inexpensive FW/USB2 drive (see backups above).
Heck if you are upgrading your Mac these days, you plug one machine into the other with a FW cable and it mirrors your user space on the new machine in a few clicks automatically.
Using such FU logic, we should shut down the gender that screwed those up, eh? Or maybe it's their race in this case? I'm sure you've got a good sterotype to entertain us with...
Here, have a quarter. Quit your whining and start doing something productive.
WTF are you talking about? The new news comes from a blog site "everythingapple" and talks about something Apple publicly released! The link to thinksecret is from last summer!
it's about the hubble being a piece of crap that needs to be replaced in order for us to move forward.
Well, maybe I'm biased being an astronomer and all, but with Hubble data being used in about 1 out of 2-3 papers I read, mentioned in about a similar number of talks, and proposed to by about 1/2 the astronomers I know at least every other year, I think (well, really I know) a lot of us "non-experts" would be happy to have the money spent to continue the "piece of crap".
But what do I know. I don't work for NASA. It's good to have opinions from independent sources like yourself to let us know when the field has become stagnant.
...but in terms of its mission statement it will largely replace what Hubble is doing now.
First of all, NASA almost never builds straight replacement instruments. They are always focused on something new. JWST will not replace Hubble by any means. In fact, if both were up at the same time (sustained, not about-to-be-junk), the amount of additional science able to come from their complementary instrumentation should be reason alone to keep Hubble strong until it launches.
Astronomy in the ultraviolet is all but mothballed for a decade if one of the instruments (Cosmic Origins Spectrograph, COS) slated for installation in Hubble does not make it to orbit somehow. The only functioning instrument right now is GALEX, an imaging experiment.
However, when we obtain spectra, the ultraviolet, more than any other waveband, gives us tremendous direct information about the atomic composition of many astronomical objects. (Molecules are best studied in the radio part of the spectrum. Solid particles [e.g. dust] in the infrared).
JWST will not fill this gap. It will be a great loss and put a halt to a wealth of knowledge gained from ultraviolet spectroscopy that began about three decades ago.
Oh, sure. I was being sarcastic for fun mostly. I know that a lot of these types of services vary from place to place. But to continue the spirit of debate...
For one thing, everyone who has trash pick-up pays the same, unlike property tax where people with more expensive houses pay more.
One could argue that those with more trash ought to pay more. A flat rate is not always the most just. Here, we have a mix. Basic pickup is included in city services. But if you have large or hazardous items, you have to either pay the city or take it to a private place yourself.
In some areas, trash pickup is not done by the local government at all. When I lived in Knoxville, TN, we had a choice of two private companies to pick up our trash, or we could choose none and take it to the dump ourselves.
I'm going to go out on a limb here, but even though you're paying a private company, do you think all those private payments really cover the cost of dealing with trash? I would hazard a guess that such companies are paid subsidies, contracted, or given serious tax breaks by local governments to handle this kind of stuff. In that case, you're still paying for part of the basics of "dealing with trash" through your taxes, just indirectly. The city/county/etc. does eliminate the volatility of having to deal with the business part of it, though.
But, I'll be happy to defer to someone who knows more...
Sounds great! Can we sign you up first to be the first house that the fire department doesn't respond to? Cool. We'll take your street off the plowing list as well. And, let's see, you'll be taking all your garbage to the dump yourself now right? Yes, please head right to the landfill so we don't have to have someone actually move it for you at all. What's next. Oh. Please don't use any of the recreational facilities like parks, lakes, beaches, trails, or bike paths anymore. We'll be letting them go to pot. Actually, better get yourself a 4x4 since the streets around your place will become pretty ratty in another year or so.
A white dwarf is the remnant from a low to mid-mass star (less than about 10 solar masses). White dwarves do not go supernova unless they have a very close binary companion that begins to dump mass onto its surface.
As a side note, white dwarf+companion supernova have characterstics in their spectra that are different from those of a single massive star collapse. As a result, they are distinguished by the labels Type Ia (for the WD binary SN) and Type II (for most single massive star SN), Ib, and Ic (for oddball stars that have been modified before the SN occurs). The labels are a bit strange because SN were classified by spectra before the explanation for the difference in their spectra existed.
Finally, although I'm not an expert in massive star formation, I think the 120-150 solar mass limit is not from a fast-burning argument, but from an argument that arises from looking at how such a massive system evolves dynamically in the early part of its life. Most massive stars have significant "winds" that slowly shed material from their envelops right from the start. It may be that such a process in stars with a chance to get larger end up disrupting the accretion process too fast.
The article you link to could have been a bit more clear, but if you read carefully, notice that "large" is not referring to the mass of the star, but to its radius.
A star only 15 times the mass of the sun can go through the red supergiant phase near the end of its life. However, this time is short in relation to the lifetime of the star. Finding the largest ones in the sky right now is more of a matter of catching a star at the right time rather than just of how massive it actually is.
I wouldn't mind seeing PPC Linux on-par with x86 Linux when it comes to hardware compatibility. It's close, but there is room for improvement.
And that should be the main excitement here.
There was a time right before OS X dropped in our laps that I was running Linux PPC or YDL more often than OS 9 on my well-abused Powerbase (long live PCC). Now OS X is leaps an bounds ahead of OS 9 in all the right places, but having an alternate OS that has a growing user base that's able to do some pretty intersting development just might be a great fire under Apple's butt to keep the performance improvements coming.
I mean, imagine in a year if Linus and PPC Linux junkies end up being able to run a (hypothetical) Linux/PPC Doom3 at 50-100% increased fps over OS X. Bring it on. Push these boxes to their limits.
I'm not leaving this hardware platform any time soon. Anything that's going to put competition at the OS level to push the software development on that very platform can only bring good things(TM).
First, Apple only wishes to "innovate" because they have to beat Microsoft. Once they become the monopolist, they won't have to innovate.
There is no Microsoft to speak of in the portable music player market. There are several professional software markets that Apple still holds an appreciable market share. Apple proves often that innovation is not necessarily driven by a desire to own the market.
Next, Apple restricts choice. You have to buy their hardware,
Uh, last I heard, they were in fact, a hardware company.
most of their OS updates aren't backwards compatible,
In what sense? I've been with X since the beta. Sure, there is an app or few that needs updating after a major 0.1 upgrade. But by and large apps that aren't hacking the system haven't.
and much like Microsoft most of their stuff is proprietary.
Depends on what you call "their stuff". Most of "their stuff" in OS X is actually based on FreeBSD, at least the stuff that makes it an OS. The GUI may be all theirs, but, hey, that's a model I can live with for now.
Apple has not maintained the "spirit" of open source, that is, it is unwilling to share it's codebase with the world. It benefited from the idea of open source, but fails to maintain it's spirit.
You and I have different ideas of what the open source spirit is about, I guess. Darwin, Rendezvous, Darwin Streaming Server, their adaptation and contributions to KHTML, gcc, and more speak volumes of their use and abuse of open source.
They are even willing to attack their own fanbase.
If you want to spin it that way when a segment of the "fanbase" seems willing to jeopardize the future of the company for their own profit, glory, and impatience. And it's not like their throwing someone in jail or suing them for millions of dollars. They're asking for a name or set of names of people who broke their word.
Apple also might be much worse than Microsoft in comparison. We've learned to hate microsoft, which means we can 'resist' their attempts to feed us garbage. They are under constant critism. They can't even win courtcases even when they're right (Eolas). If Apple becomes the monopolist, they might be better than Mircosoft in their PR, meaning they'll be able to manipulate the masses much more eaisly, meaning, people will still get skrewed over only this time no one will notice.
Personally, I don't think there's any chance of any of this thought experiment happening (Apple & M$ switching) even in 10 years time. What I do hope happens is that increased market share of a quality OS like OS X will make developers rethink their idea of "platform" development. Or drive us toward more and more open standards.
Jobs, in contrast, is at his core someone who knows marketing and wants to dazzle his customers. With Microsoft it's what they want and you have to go along with it. With Apple, it's about finding the best customer experience and using that for profit.
That's spot on.
Apple is in the zone of making products you think you just can't be without. You want them. Have to have them. And you will spend the little extra to get the little extras they spend time investing in making a quality product.
M$ has labored to create a market where you have no choice. There is no rational thought involved. You must buy product X to do whatever it is you need or want to do. If you don't, it's not just the little extras you'll be missing. By design you won't (and can't) be compatible with "the market"--whatever that happens to mean for a given segment.
Even if Apple begins to drive a market segment, their philosophy thrives on competitors, even when they hold a majority of the segment. Having something crappy that you could buy but decide on an Apple product instead nets them more profit per unit. As a company, that short- to mid-term strategy is starting to pay off for all involved big time now. Whereas the M$ long-term strategy of sheer dominance is showing cracks lately.
Second, the public was indeed being protected. By releasing early Apple's near term marketing plans, thousands of Apple customers during the month of January were assisting in making better buying decisions. That's useful information.
Your personal financial success is not a "public good". Nor is the collective financial successes of all potential buyers of Apple products.
In fact, it's pretty easy to argue the reverse (as obnoxiously) since a decrease in Apple's profits due to leaks may adversely affect company performance and therefore the financial success of shareholders, employees, parts vendors, and retailers. A reduction in their financial success may indeed impact their local environment, most certainly not a "public good".
"Public good" used in this context typically refers to ethical, safety, or common (meaning everyone in the society) good. Not generally qualitatively good.
How you get your information as a journalist does matter. But as long as *you* do not commit a crime, then you're fine. There's no problem with interviewing someone who has committed a crime, what they know, etc. You're not a party to the crime when you do that.
As you point out (correctly, I think), this is about contract breach, not criminal activity. Nevertheless, the analogy you draw is flawed. This is not about recording what someone found (illegally or as a breach of contract). This is about the telling itself being the act of breach. There would be no telling (i.e., breach) if there was no recording (and disseminating). The sites in question are much closer to the 'act' than a recorder of a deed is.
The real points here are that the information leaked had nothing to do with improper internal activities of a company. If they were, the ethical issue becomes more clear with weight leaning toward the breacher and the recorder. As many have mentioned there are explicit laws in place to help protect workers from retribution in these cases. This is not such a case.
This is about one party wanting anonymous glory or (hopefully not) manifesting spite; one party that is in the business of ferreting out such information for the sheer interest, notoriety, and *income* (re: ads on said websites); and one party whose financial interests were possibly (short-term) affected by the interaction between the former two.
Few would label me as pro-business in any context, but I have a strong sense of empowering an entity's (person, corporation, etc.) word. Defenders can spout "journalist" all they want, but there are ethics involved as well, and Apple is right to call these sites on that ground to try and protect their interests--if not for the recent action, then for a potential larger incident down the road.
Website authors (and all variations of journalists) have tremendous freedom to publish. Actions have consequences though. Apple should have the freedom to pursue the power of contract. Some say it's Apple's job to police their own leaks. A contractual NDA is one major tool in such a task! Do we limit their ability to enforce it (through suit, not criminal filing) to protect the egos of the breacher and reporters? In this case, with the evidence that's "out there," I say no. There are situations where ethics would say otherwise, but this is pretty clearly not one of them, IMHO.
Glad I hung on through the rough '90s with Apple. I almost ditched for any of my usage. I was down to mostly "domestic" tasks. But now, there's so little else worth considering. It's swung the other way and now I'm using my Macs for everything. The last big hurdle is hardware driver support (particularly science/engineering) from my angle. Fun ride.
iTunes automatically detects the connection. When you open iTunes on your AirPort-equipped Mac or Wi-Fi-compliant PC, you'll see a popup list at the bottom right of the iTunes window showing your remote speakers. Select it, click play and your stereo becomes the world's greatest digital jukebox.
Last time i checked maps.google.com doesn't work in opera. I don't see the guys from opera or anyone else complaining about this.
Last time I checked (like 5 seconds ago), maps.google.com said this:
Your browser is not supported by Google Maps just yet. We currently support the following browsers:
IE 5.5+ (download: Windows) Firefox 0.8+ (download: Windows Mac Linux) Netscape 7.1+ (download: Windows Mac Linux) Mozilla 1.4+ (download: Windows Mac Linux)
We are working on supporting Safari. Regardless of your browser type, you must have JavaScript enabled to use Google Maps.
We recommend you download one of the browsers above, or you can try to load Google Maps in your current browser.
Now I don't know about you, but that doesn't seem to be claiming anything about interoperability. In fact, it's quite up front and polite about not being so.
Slashdot Mirror
Deep down, secretly, I bet Apple could give a rat's ass about DRM. They have do to it to appease the industry. And they're going to have to close obvious holes pretty quickly. But ripping and re-encoding is a) slightly obscure to the average iTMS user, b) annoying, and c) (at least in theory) degrades the music quality so that it's unappealing to discerning ears and tech/audio-philes for whom (a) is not a factor.
There's also nearly no way to prevent "hacks" like WireTap that just grab the audio stream without completely munging up the way an OS handles the audio stream. They can only do so much and Apple is not stupid enough to know that. They are the best buffer we have right now between the (wanting-to-try-to-be-legal) consumer and the greedy idiots controlling music distribution.
Maybe I'm optimistic, but I feel like something like what Apple is doing now had to happen to break open the digital purchansing flow. There's no turning back now. If "good" DRM gets more and more expensive to develop, implement, manage, and enforce, it might just become a poor(er) business model. Someone will hopefully push the "innovation" and get us beyond this hacked system we have now.
OK wait until your hard drive crashes
Like if your house burns down with your CD collection? If you don't back up your important files, you're an idiot.
On top of that, your purchase history with the iTMS is saved. You can review it anytime and under such unusual circumstances might have a shot at getting your music back from Apple.
or you upgrade your PC.
WTF are you talking about? Is the copy mechanism on your machine broken? Buy a cheap network cable and attach the machines together. Buy an inexpensive FW/USB2 drive (see backups above).
Heck if you are upgrading your Mac these days, you plug one machine into the other with a FW cable and it mirrors your user space on the new machine in a few clicks automatically.
At least no one lost their lives.
Using such FU logic, we should shut down the gender that screwed those up, eh? Or maybe it's their race in this case? I'm sure you've got a good sterotype to entertain us with...
Here, have a quarter. Quit your whining and start doing something productive.
WTF are you talking about? The new news comes from a blog site "everythingapple" and talks about something Apple publicly released! The link to thinksecret is from last summer!
READ!
it's about the hubble being a piece of crap that needs to be replaced in order for us to move forward.
Well, maybe I'm biased being an astronomer and all, but with Hubble data being used in about 1 out of 2-3 papers I read, mentioned in about a similar number of talks, and proposed to by about 1/2 the astronomers I know at least every other year, I think (well, really I know) a lot of us "non-experts" would be happy to have the money spent to continue the "piece of crap".
But what do I know. I don't work for NASA. It's good to have opinions from independent sources like yourself to let us know when the field has become stagnant.
First of all, NASA almost never builds straight replacement instruments. They are always focused on something new. JWST will not replace Hubble by any means. In fact, if both were up at the same time (sustained, not about-to-be-junk), the amount of additional science able to come from their complementary instrumentation should be reason alone to keep Hubble strong until it launches.
Astronomy in the ultraviolet is all but mothballed for a decade if one of the instruments (Cosmic Origins Spectrograph, COS) slated for installation in Hubble does not make it to orbit somehow. The only functioning instrument right now is GALEX, an imaging experiment.
However, when we obtain spectra, the ultraviolet, more than any other waveband, gives us tremendous direct information about the atomic composition of many astronomical objects. (Molecules are best studied in the radio part of the spectrum. Solid particles [e.g. dust] in the infrared).
JWST will not fill this gap. It will be a great loss and put a halt to a wealth of knowledge gained from ultraviolet spectroscopy that began about three decades ago.
Oh, sure. I was being sarcastic for fun mostly. I know that a lot of these types of services vary from place to place. But to continue the spirit of debate...
For one thing, everyone who has trash pick-up pays the same, unlike property tax where people with more expensive houses pay more.
One could argue that those with more trash ought to pay more. A flat rate is not always the most just. Here, we have a mix. Basic pickup is included in city services. But if you have large or hazardous items, you have to either pay the city or take it to a private place yourself.
In some areas, trash pickup is not done by the local government at all. When I lived in Knoxville, TN, we had a choice of two private companies to pick up our trash, or we could choose none and take it to the dump ourselves.
I'm going to go out on a limb here, but even though you're paying a private company, do you think all those private payments really cover the cost of dealing with trash? I would hazard a guess that such companies are paid subsidies, contracted, or given serious tax breaks by local governments to handle this kind of stuff. In that case, you're still paying for part of the basics of "dealing with trash" through your taxes, just indirectly. The city/county/etc. does eliminate the volatility of having to deal with the business part of it, though.
But, I'll be happy to defer to someone who knows more...
Prioritize and cut out the crap spending.
Uh, I don't disagree.
Parent suggested we just stop spending. I don't think that's a way to run personal or governmental financing.
Sounds great! Can we sign you up first to be the first house that the fire department doesn't respond to? Cool. We'll take your street off the plowing list as well. And, let's see, you'll be taking all your garbage to the dump yourself now right? Yes, please head right to the landfill so we don't have to have someone actually move it for you at all. What's next. Oh. Please don't use any of the recreational facilities like parks, lakes, beaches, trails, or bike paths anymore. We'll be letting them go to pot. Actually, better get yourself a 4x4 since the streets around your place will become pretty ratty in another year or so.
A white dwarf is the remnant from a low to mid-mass star (less than about 10 solar masses). White dwarves do not go supernova unless they have a very close binary companion that begins to dump mass onto its surface.
As a side note, white dwarf+companion supernova have characterstics in their spectra that are different from those of a single massive star collapse. As a result, they are distinguished by the labels Type Ia (for the WD binary SN) and Type II (for most single massive star SN), Ib, and Ic (for oddball stars that have been modified before the SN occurs). The labels are a bit strange because SN were classified by spectra before the explanation for the difference in their spectra existed.
Finally, although I'm not an expert in massive star formation, I think the 120-150 solar mass limit is not from a fast-burning argument, but from an argument that arises from looking at how such a massive system evolves dynamically in the early part of its life. Most massive stars have significant "winds" that slowly shed material from their envelops right from the start. It may be that such a process in stars with a chance to get larger end up disrupting the accretion process too fast.
The article you link to could have been a bit more clear, but if you read carefully, notice that "large" is not referring to the mass of the star, but to its radius.
A star only 15 times the mass of the sun can go through the red supergiant phase near the end of its life. However, this time is short in relation to the lifetime of the star. Finding the largest ones in the sky right now is more of a matter of catching a star at the right time rather than just of how massive it actually is.
And that should be the main excitement here.
There was a time right before OS X dropped in our laps that I was running Linux PPC or YDL more often than OS 9 on my well-abused Powerbase (long live PCC). Now OS X is leaps an bounds ahead of OS 9 in all the right places, but having an alternate OS that has a growing user base that's able to do some pretty intersting development just might be a great fire under Apple's butt to keep the performance improvements coming.
I mean, imagine in a year if Linus and PPC Linux junkies end up being able to run a (hypothetical) Linux/PPC Doom3 at 50-100% increased fps over OS X. Bring it on. Push these boxes to their limits.
I'm not leaving this hardware platform any time soon. Anything that's going to put competition at the OS level to push the software development on that very platform can only bring good things(TM).
There is no Microsoft to speak of in the portable music player market. There are several professional software markets that Apple still holds an appreciable market share. Apple proves often that innovation is not necessarily driven by a desire to own the market.
Uh, last I heard, they were in fact, a hardware company.
In what sense? I've been with X since the beta. Sure, there is an app or few that needs updating after a major 0.1 upgrade. But by and large apps that aren't hacking the system haven't.
Depends on what you call "their stuff". Most of "their stuff" in OS X is actually based on FreeBSD, at least the stuff that makes it an OS. The GUI may be all theirs, but, hey, that's a model I can live with for now.
You and I have different ideas of what the open source spirit is about, I guess. Darwin, Rendezvous, Darwin Streaming Server, their adaptation and contributions to KHTML, gcc, and more speak volumes of their use and abuse of open source.
If you want to spin it that way when a segment of the "fanbase" seems willing to jeopardize the future of the company for their own profit, glory, and impatience. And it's not like their throwing someone in jail or suing them for millions of dollars. They're asking for a name or set of names of people who broke their word.
Personally, I don't think there's any chance of any of this thought experiment happening (Apple & M$ switching) even in 10 years time. What I do hope happens is that increased market share of a quality OS like OS X will make developers rethink their idea of "platform" development. Or drive us toward more and more open standards.
That's spot on.
Apple is in the zone of making products you think you just can't be without. You want them. Have to have them. And you will spend the little extra to get the little extras they spend time investing in making a quality product.
M$ has labored to create a market where you have no choice. There is no rational thought involved. You must buy product X to do whatever it is you need or want to do. If you don't, it's not just the little extras you'll be missing. By design you won't (and can't) be compatible with "the market"--whatever that happens to mean for a given segment.
Even if Apple begins to drive a market segment, their philosophy thrives on competitors, even when they hold a majority of the segment. Having something crappy that you could buy but decide on an Apple product instead nets them more profit per unit. As a company, that short- to mid-term strategy is starting to pay off for all involved big time now. Whereas the M$ long-term strategy of sheer dominance is showing cracks lately.
Agreed.
Maybe we need to fork off SA for trolls.
That or I need to carry my +3 flaming troll bane long sword more often.
Your personal financial success is not a "public good". Nor is the collective financial successes of all potential buyers of Apple products.
In fact, it's pretty easy to argue the reverse (as obnoxiously) since a decrease in Apple's profits due to leaks may adversely affect company performance and therefore the financial success of shareholders, employees, parts vendors, and retailers. A reduction in their financial success may indeed impact their local environment, most certainly not a "public good".
"Public good" used in this context typically refers to ethical, safety, or common (meaning everyone in the society) good. Not generally qualitatively good.
As you point out (correctly, I think), this is about contract breach, not criminal activity. Nevertheless, the analogy you draw is flawed. This is not about recording what someone found (illegally or as a breach of contract). This is about the telling itself being the act of breach. There would be no telling (i.e., breach) if there was no recording (and disseminating). The sites in question are much closer to the 'act' than a recorder of a deed is.
The real points here are that the information leaked had nothing to do with improper internal activities of a company. If they were, the ethical issue becomes more clear with weight leaning toward the breacher and the recorder. As many have mentioned there are explicit laws in place to help protect workers from retribution in these cases. This is not such a case.
This is about one party wanting anonymous glory or (hopefully not) manifesting spite; one party that is in the business of ferreting out such information for the sheer interest, notoriety, and *income* (re: ads on said websites); and one party whose financial interests were possibly (short-term) affected by the interaction between the former two.
Few would label me as pro-business in any context, but I have a strong sense of empowering an entity's (person, corporation, etc.) word. Defenders can spout "journalist" all they want, but there are ethics involved as well, and Apple is right to call these sites on that ground to try and protect their interests--if not for the recent action, then for a potential larger incident down the road.
Website authors (and all variations of journalists) have tremendous freedom to publish. Actions have consequences though. Apple should have the freedom to pursue the power of contract. Some say it's Apple's job to police their own leaks. A contractual NDA is one major tool in such a task! Do we limit their ability to enforce it (through suit, not criminal filing) to protect the egos of the breacher and reporters? In this case, with the evidence that's "out there," I say no. There are situations where ethics would say otherwise, but this is pretty clearly not one of them, IMHO.
mh
Sad.
Glad I hung on through the rough '90s with Apple. I almost ditched for any of my usage. I was down to mostly "domestic" tasks. But now, there's so little else worth considering. It's swung the other way and now I'm using my Macs for everything. The last big hurdle is hardware driver support (particularly science/engineering) from my angle. Fun ride.
Go RTFWPs:
http://www.apple.com/airportexpress/specs.html
mh
mplayer, RealPlayer, or VLC...
Or... Doom3. Wonder how long it will take for the neighbors to call the cops.
Send that one to Budweiser for their next Bud Light ad...
They dropped the 40GB mono model...
Good thing too. Most of my music is now in stereo.
Last time I checked (like 5 seconds ago), maps.google.com said this:
Now I don't know about you, but that doesn't seem to be claiming anything about interoperability. In fact, it's quite up front and polite about not being so.
These two groups better get together:
"Unpredictability in Future Microprocessors"
"Random Number Generator That Sees Into the Future"
Hmm....
Wow. I just dozed off there for a moment and the rest of February and March just zipped on by. I must be getting old or something...