Firewire might be fast enough... it depends where the compression happens. This thing presumably shoots MiniDV-type video, which is 4/1 compressed *before* it goes into the computer, and Firewire should be fine. This kind of thing is even done by some pros using the old "two devices connected by a wire" trick. They shoot on DVCAM or whatever (a 25 MB/s stream, unless I've confused my terms) and stream it over Firewire to be recorded on disc in real time. The advantage here is that the whole 'log and capture' phase of video editing is skipped entirely, and with a dedicated editor they can have an assembly cut ready to watch by the time you're done shooting.
Of course, in that case, it's a $15,000 dollar DVCAM connected to a G4 laptop, not a consumer cam built into a consumer computer. You know that embarrassing geek thing where you describe computer technology as unbearably sexy? I hate that.
UNAIDS sez if we (the world) spend $10 billion a year for 20 years, it will steadily decrease the number of infections. Right now, we're spending more like $1.2 billion a year, and AIDS is going crazy all over the world. Are we not spending that money because of a focus on SARS? No. We're not spending it because the countries who would be paying $5-6 billion of that are not the ones with 40% infection rates, so they simply don't care. SARS doesn't really affect that.
On the other hand, if you read a history of the AIDS outbreak in the US, you'll find that people wish there had been a much stronger response right from the start. If we had reacted to AIDS the way we reacted to SARS, that $10 billion/year wouldn't be necessary right now -- and most of those 40 million people wouldn't have the disease.
Last I checked (about a year ago) it was a big deal that they were letting some of the (state censored) news sites go online -- outside the country only, since as you say most people inside the country aren't allowed computers. The trouble was, since all the content had to be posted by the government to insure that no illicit information got out, when it went up at all it was a couple of months behind the print version.
Anyway, there is at least some web serving capacity in the country. Still, I agree with you -- I can't imagine how these guys arranged this, and I hope it didn't mean dealing with that regime.
The comparison in the article summary is interesting, but in practice I'm not sure I buy it, simply because of the way I use those tools. Over 90% of my use of VCRs is legitimate; over 90% of my use of filesharing tools violates copyright.
Honestly now -- for how many people would those numbers be particularly different?
I'm in the process of making a half hour student film for $600 or so, which of course I'm accomplishing by shooting on DV and using all volunteer labor. It seems to me that the real costs of filmmaking (minus stupid actor expenses) come when you offer a fair rate for skilled labor. Since I'm hoping to get into the ultra low budget business, I wonder if you could tell me more about the budget on those films. How much were people paid? Did you meet guild rates and all that? What, more generally, did things cost?
This is interesting... until there's a search method for bittorrent files, it's basically only useful when a public source is being overloaded all at the same time -- as in the case of releasing a bunch of new ISOs. This is an application of P2P that directly solves a problem for big websites, and doesn't help file sharers much at all.
I think the reason cash balances are stored on the cards, instead of on a central server, isn't primarily because of the speed. Of course it's also nice not to have to network, say, a vending machine, but the real reason is that to replace cash, these things have to be as anonymous as cash. That's hard to guarantee when every transaction you make is sent in to some computer.
Of course the security issue is important -- I'm sure whenever one person adds cash to their card we all end up paying for it, one way or another. Does anyone know just how difficult it would be to crack these things? (Hint: I'd like to hear something like 'mathematically impossible.')
As a side note, any potential identity theft problems sniffing those RF cards?
I am not a rocket scientist, but I think this article uses flashy language because it's talking about something way more complicated than using the moon along the way. They mention, for example, that the Earth to Mars path is much harder to figure out than Jupiter to Saturn (and I got the impression that it would take thousands of years).
This isn't just a way to get from planet to planet using less fuel -- it's a way to get around using no more than a shove in the right direction, starting from between the Earth and Moon and ending up anywhere you want. That's not your father's rocket science, and it's bloody cool -- flashy language or not.
I'm not actually sure that would work out for them. Kazaa is just about as distributed as OpenFT -- distributed enough, anyway, that no central servers are required to keep it running. As long as we can still get the client no one can stop us from running it.
The reason they don't use an OS protocol -- or open up the FastTrack protocol -- is that then anyone could write a client for it. If that was possible, do you really think anyone would use their spyware version? In fact, they have gone to a great deal of effort to make their protocol as closed as possible for that reason.
Kazaa could do what you say, the corporation(s) could disappear entirely, and the network would keep going just fine. I'm sure they'll do that, as soon as they get tired of making millions of dollars a year.
Complacency won't kill us -- bombs will.
on
America's Army on Linux
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
> I sometimes think that this lack of understanding/ > complacency is what will eventually kill this country.
This may not be the right place to have this argument, but -- I sometimes think it is the attitude that we should be able to fight the rest of the world all at the same time that will kill this country. I'm sorry -- that is killing it.
We wouldn't have to fight a war by ourselves on even one Iraq-sized front if we were able to convince another military power it was worth doing. As it is, we haven't even managed to convince the Republicans in the Senate or more than 40% of Americans.
Yes, it would be nice if we could outspend the entire world militarily, instead of only the next 12 countries -- but you know what? If we took 5% of the current budget, and doubled the budget for diplomacy instead, we might not need to.
You want a little science fiction? Here's one way I can envision our country getting killed: we react to North Korea's nuclear program with threats of war instead of diplomacy. North Korea, being even more aggressive, and having a worse grip on long-term consequences, than Bush, does not back down. Finally their only choices are to admit defeat or rain conventional-weapon hell down on Seoul -- and they make the wrong choice. We can't stop them with the troops we have there. Now Bush has a choice -- does he let millions of South Koreans die, or does he use nuclear weapons?
Well, what do you think?
Of course nuclear weapons do not, in themselves, signify the end of the world. They do mean, however, that from that point on, we actually have to outspend the rest of the world combined -- because who's going to be on our side if we give them a choice?
The trouble is, I don't think we can do it -- and I sure as hell don't think it's a good idea to try.
I agree that we need a military -- but I think the only way that we as a free society can coexist with one is if we question its actions at every step of the way. Right now, I have some serious questions, and they're not just about some computer game.
Thanks for telling it like it is for those people who think we should throw out all the computers.
I don't think you're really addressing the point of the study, though, which is to find out what harm we might be causing and see if there's a better way to do it. I'm going to take a wild guess and say that going back to 1995 isn't the only way of addressing pollution.
If you saw a study about the pollution caused by cars, would you explain why cars are useful things to have or look into making them more efficient?
If you saw a study about overfishing would you talk about the vital protein provided by fish or would you start figuring out how to let any of them survive?
If you saw a study about the rate at which rainforests are disappearing, would you start telling me how useful paper is?
Lots of things -- whether its sneakers from Nike sweatshops or CDs from the RIAA -- are useful and good. You know what? That doesn't get us off the hook from thinking about where they came from and what kind of harm they might be causing.
I completely agree that this shouldn't be a legal issue -- but I do think it's an ethical one. If the people who *create* the content that users come to your site for think that what you are doing hurts them, they shouldn't have to go through convoluted technical steps to stop you. Newsbooster shouldn't be sued in a case like this -- but then, they shouldn't *have* to be sued, either.
I don't think there's any problem with linking to entire pages -- or at least there shouldn't be. What is a problem (perhaps hypothetically) is linking to the content of a page without retaining the interface that identifies it with the original owner. As an example, what if I happened to have a perl script that showed me all of my favorite web comics whenever they were updated, but without the ads that keep those sites going? What if I made that script open to the public, and put my own ads on it instead? Then I would clearly be taking money away from the original content creators, and keeping it for myself, and that would be a bad thing.
I'm not sure that's deep linking, at all, but it's an example of a bad way to forward readers to content.
WRT validation of content, what you're describing sounds a lot like sharereactor.com, which stores hashes for the edonkey2000 network. If you created something like that for Newsbrowser, you would have a website, that stored links, for a P2P client, that stored links, for websites. I'm not saying that there's no situation where that would make sense. I'm just saying, I'll probably stick with Google news for now.
I'm a Mac user, and Kazaa is the one program I really wish I could run. Unfortunately, the FastTrack network has been deliberately crippled by the owners -- in order to log in, your client has to get the encryption key from the company servers. *Once it retrieves that key* it is part of a perfectly distributed network which is not reliant on any server. As long as that encryption layer exists, though, Kazaa clients would be useless if the servers went down. You can read more about this at the xnap project at sourceforge -- IIRC, they used to support FastTrack before the encryption layer was changed. The new one hasn't been cracked.
It's obvious why the software is built that way, of course -- if anyone could write a client, then we would use the ones that didn't contain adware and the Kazaa people wouldn't make any money. Ironically, it is only the limitation required to make a profit that leaves the network vulnerable to legal action. I must admit that I'm almost glad that Kazaa is finally being sued. There is nothing I would love more than to see them on the run, and decide to go ahead and open up the client to everybody. Of course, that's probably just a pipe dream...
Being correct when they are wrong will drive them to either apoplepsy or catatonia. Is this something they come out of med school with? I think so. Older physicians seem to be better in this regard. There are two possible explanations that immediately come to mind. First is that they have experience to show their human failings. The other explanation is the makeup of the teachers and instructors in most universities today.
My mother came out of residency (as a psychiatrist) about 6 years ago. From what she has said, your first explanation is plenty on its own. Being in medicine constantly teaches you how human you are. You start out thinking you will be the perfect doc, and then you make a mistake. You decide you will never make a life-threatening mistake -- and then you do. You revise this and decide you will never make mistakes because of tiredness, or ignorance, or sheer gutwrenching stupidity -- and then you do all of these. Then, well, you will certainly never make the same mistake twice, right?
Eventually, if you're honest, you have to recognize that you're human, and sometimes you're going to screw up. I wonder if this is a process that psychiatrists navigate more easily than surgeons?
I love that an ad opens up for Casino On Net or whatever when you read this article... figure out how to beat those guys and you'd really be on to something. How will you throw me out of the casino when you can't see my face?
No, I think you're right -- in a trademark dispute the prosecution has to prove that consumers might be confused and buy the wrong product. I don't think that's true in this case, and I bet if this comes to court it will be thrown out. It looks to me like one of those scare lawsuits that's never intended to come to court...
First of all, I have to completely agree with you -- bad video is fine, but bad audio kills a production instantly. I'm making a DV film as my senior thesis next year, and I don't intend to spend a dollar or an hour on video until I can be confident of perfect audio.
Most of my editing will probably be on Final Cut Pro, and I'm curious what your experience has been with that. I haven't used it since version 1.5, but I recall that it did have audio scrubbing. I spent a lot of time staring at waveforms (doing seamless voice dubs), and they came out all right.
I don't know much about audio, though -- I would love to hear any suggestions or resources you could point me to, esp. regarding isolating human voices
(my own shameless plug, by the way -- I would submit FCP as a competitor to *Avid*, not Premiere. A TV editor told me that he had bought a $40,000 Avid system -- not because it was any better, but just because you can't be taken seriously in the industry with only $1000 of software. I don't know how Cinelerra will stack up, but maybe a few years from now we'll see the old guard clutching their Avid systems in distress while new filmmakers do the same thing with free software...)
As far as TV, I've rarely heard songs I recongnize on low-budget shows. Most of the time, it's MIDI-esque mood music. This stuff comes on royalty-free CDs, like clip art. My college film class had a bunch of these. The table of contents will go:
You pick the one that fits for your piece... of course, at least in our case, most of the songs sucked pretty bad. We would usually just steal a copyrighted piece of music instead. It's true that, unless you manage to make money, no one usually cares.
At one point there was a great act down in the area 7 stage... a guy wearing a george bush mask stood up and pantomimed along to a speech cut together from real george bush audio. "We must continue the war... on America. Democracy, freedom of speech, freedom of expression... these things must be controlled. We must preserve... illegal drugs. I myself use... illegal drugs." The george bush-public speaking rhythm seems to lend itself to this kind of cutting -- it sounded like natural speech. (either that or he really said all those things, who knows...)
I don't know who put that one together -- does anyone have a link?
The new law would "Specify that an existing ban on the "advertisement" of any device that is used primarily for surreptitious electronic surveillance applies to online ads."
Would that apply to all those tiny wireless cameras that fit anywhere? I hate those ads. Maybe this law is a good thing, after all...
OS X relies on vector graphics, xml, java, and lots of other stuff that focusses on architecture over speed. The way I see it, they made an OS designed to run great when everyone's up over 1Ghz, which makes a lot of sense in the long run. (different from bloat, obviously, which requires a fast processor because of *crappy* architecture). In the meantime, we might have to accept a little slowdown.
On the other hand, my 400mhz powerbook with 256 megs of ram has no problem starting up OS 9 in the background while I chat online and install a system upgrade. I'm not complaining.
Slashdot Mirror
Firewire might be fast enough ... it depends where the compression happens. This thing presumably shoots MiniDV-type video, which is 4/1 compressed *before* it goes into the computer, and Firewire should be fine. This kind of thing is even done by some pros using the old "two devices connected by a wire" trick. They shoot on DVCAM or whatever (a 25 MB/s stream, unless I've confused my terms) and stream it over Firewire to be recorded on disc in real time. The advantage here is that the whole 'log and capture' phase of video editing is skipped entirely, and with a dedicated editor they can have an assembly cut ready to watch by the time you're done shooting.
Of course, in that case, it's a $15,000 dollar DVCAM connected to a G4 laptop, not a consumer cam built into a consumer computer. You know that embarrassing geek thing where you describe computer technology as unbearably sexy? I hate that.
UNAIDS sez if we (the world) spend $10 billion a year for 20 years, it will steadily decrease the number of infections. Right now, we're spending more like $1.2 billion a year, and AIDS is going crazy all over the world. Are we not spending that money because of a focus on SARS? No. We're not spending it because the countries who would be paying $5-6 billion of that are not the ones with 40% infection rates, so they simply don't care. SARS doesn't really affect that.
On the other hand, if you read a history of the AIDS outbreak in the US, you'll find that people wish there had been a much stronger response right from the start. If we had reacted to AIDS the way we reacted to SARS, that $10 billion/year wouldn't be necessary right now -- and most of those 40 million people wouldn't have the disease.
Speaking as an editor, if all of my clips start turning into dead people, I'm gone, FCP or no.
Would this system allow editing of video that *didn't* implicate you in a violent crime?
Last I checked (about a year ago) it was a big deal that they were letting some of the (state censored) news sites go online -- outside the country only, since as you say most people inside the country aren't allowed computers. The trouble was, since all the content had to be posted by the government to insure that no illicit information got out, when it went up at all it was a couple of months behind the print version.
Anyway, there is at least some web serving capacity in the country. Still, I agree with you -- I can't imagine how these guys arranged this, and I hope it didn't mean dealing with that regime.
The comparison in the article summary is interesting, but in practice I'm not sure I buy it, simply because of the way I use those tools. Over 90% of my use of VCRs is legitimate; over 90% of my use of filesharing tools violates copyright.
Honestly now -- for how many people would those numbers be particularly different?
... the whole checks and balances thing works. When the Supreme Court does strike it down, I'll be amazed right along with you.
I'm in the process of making a half hour student film for $600 or so, which of course I'm accomplishing by shooting on DV and using all volunteer labor. It seems to me that the real costs of filmmaking (minus stupid actor expenses) come when you offer a fair rate for skilled labor. Since I'm hoping to get into the ultra low budget business, I wonder if you could tell me more about the budget on those films. How much were people paid? Did you meet guild rates and all that? What, more generally, did things cost?
...
Thanks for your time
This is interesting ... until there's a search method for bittorrent files, it's basically only useful when a public source is being overloaded all at the same time -- as in the case of releasing a bunch of new ISOs. This is an application of P2P that directly solves a problem for big websites, and doesn't help file sharers much at all.
Go figure.
I think the reason cash balances are stored on the cards, instead of on a central server, isn't primarily because of the speed. Of course it's also nice not to have to network, say, a vending machine, but the real reason is that to replace cash, these things have to be as anonymous as cash. That's hard to guarantee when every transaction you make is sent in to some computer.
Of course the security issue is important -- I'm sure whenever one person adds cash to their card we all end up paying for it, one way or another. Does anyone know just how difficult it would be to crack these things? (Hint: I'd like to hear something like 'mathematically impossible.')
As a side note, any potential identity theft problems sniffing those RF cards?
I am not a rocket scientist, but I think this article uses flashy language because it's talking about something way more complicated than using the moon along the way. They mention, for example, that the Earth to Mars path is much harder to figure out than Jupiter to Saturn (and I got the impression that it would take thousands of years).
This isn't just a way to get from planet to planet using less fuel -- it's a way to get around using no more than a shove in the right direction, starting from between the Earth and Moon and ending up anywhere you want. That's not your father's rocket science, and it's bloody cool -- flashy language or not.
I'm not actually sure that would work out for them. Kazaa is just about as distributed as OpenFT -- distributed enough, anyway, that no central servers are required to keep it running. As long as we can still get the client no one can stop us from running it.
The reason they don't use an OS protocol -- or open up the FastTrack protocol -- is that then anyone could write a client for it. If that was possible, do you really think anyone would use their spyware version? In fact, they have gone to a great deal of effort to make their protocol as closed as possible for that reason.
Kazaa could do what you say, the corporation(s) could disappear entirely, and the network would keep going just fine. I'm sure they'll do that, as soon as they get tired of making millions of dollars a year.
> I sometimes think that this lack of understanding/
> complacency is what will eventually kill this country.
This may not be the right place to have this argument, but -- I sometimes think it is the attitude that we should be able to fight the rest of the world all at the same time that will kill this country. I'm sorry -- that is killing it.
We wouldn't have to fight a war by ourselves on even one Iraq-sized front if we were able to convince another military power it was worth doing. As it is, we haven't even managed to convince the Republicans in the Senate or more than 40% of Americans.
Yes, it would be nice if we could outspend the entire world militarily, instead of only the next 12 countries -- but you know what? If we took 5% of the current budget, and doubled the budget for diplomacy instead, we might not need to.
You want a little science fiction? Here's one way I can envision our country getting killed: we react to North Korea's nuclear program with threats of war instead of diplomacy. North Korea, being even more aggressive, and having a worse grip on long-term consequences, than Bush, does not back down. Finally their only choices are to admit defeat or rain conventional-weapon hell down on Seoul -- and they make the wrong choice. We can't stop them with the troops we have there. Now Bush has a choice -- does he let millions of South Koreans die, or does he use nuclear weapons?
Well, what do you think?
Of course nuclear weapons do not, in themselves, signify the end of the world. They do mean, however, that from that point on, we actually have to outspend the rest of the world combined -- because who's going to be on our side if we give them a choice?
The trouble is, I don't think we can do it -- and I sure as hell don't think it's a good idea to try.
I agree that we need a military -- but I think the only way that we as a free society can coexist with one is if we question its actions at every step of the way. Right now, I have some serious questions, and they're not just about some computer game.
Thanks for telling it like it is for those people who think we should throw out all the computers.
I don't think you're really addressing the point of the study, though, which is to find out what harm we might be causing and see if there's a better way to do it. I'm going to take a wild guess and say that going back to 1995 isn't the only way of addressing pollution.
If you saw a study about the pollution caused by cars, would you explain why cars are useful things to have or look into making them more efficient?
If you saw a study about overfishing would you talk about the vital protein provided by fish or would you start figuring out how to let any of them survive?
If you saw a study about the rate at which rainforests are disappearing, would you start telling me how useful paper is?
Lots of things -- whether its sneakers from Nike sweatshops or CDs from the RIAA -- are useful and good. You know what? That doesn't get us off the hook from thinking about where they came from and what kind of harm they might be causing.
I'm selling my computer and buying a hamburger.
I completely agree that this shouldn't be a legal issue -- but I do think it's an ethical one. If the people who *create* the content that users come to your site for think that what you are doing hurts them, they shouldn't have to go through convoluted technical steps to stop you. Newsbooster shouldn't be sued in a case like this -- but then, they shouldn't *have* to be sued, either.
I don't think there's any problem with linking to entire pages -- or at least there shouldn't be. What is a problem (perhaps hypothetically) is linking to the content of a page without retaining the interface that identifies it with the original owner. As an example, what if I happened to have a perl script that showed me all of my favorite web comics whenever they were updated, but without the ads that keep those sites going? What if I made that script open to the public, and put my own ads on it instead? Then I would clearly be taking money away from the original content creators, and keeping it for myself, and that would be a bad thing.
I'm not sure that's deep linking, at all, but it's an example of a bad way to forward readers to content.
WRT validation of content, what you're describing sounds a lot like sharereactor.com, which stores hashes for the edonkey2000 network. If you created something like that for Newsbrowser, you would have a website, that stored links, for a P2P client, that stored links, for websites. I'm not saying that there's no situation where that would make sense. I'm just saying, I'll probably stick with Google news for now.
I'm a Mac user, and Kazaa is the one program I really wish I could run. Unfortunately, the FastTrack network has been deliberately crippled by the owners -- in order to log in, your client has to get the encryption key from the company servers. *Once it retrieves that key* it is part of a perfectly distributed network which is not reliant on any server. As long as that encryption layer exists, though, Kazaa clients would be useless if the servers went down. You can read more about this at the xnap project at sourceforge -- IIRC, they used to support FastTrack before the encryption layer was changed. The new one hasn't been cracked.
...
It's obvious why the software is built that way, of course -- if anyone could write a client, then we would use the ones that didn't contain adware and the Kazaa people wouldn't make any money. Ironically, it is only the limitation required to make a profit that leaves the network vulnerable to legal action. I must admit that I'm almost glad that Kazaa is finally being sued. There is nothing I would love more than to see them on the run, and decide to go ahead and open up the client to everybody. Of course, that's probably just a pipe dream
Being correct when they are wrong will drive them to either apoplepsy or catatonia. Is this something they come out of med school with? I think so. Older physicians seem to be better in this regard. There are two possible explanations that immediately come to mind. First is that they have experience to show their human failings. The other explanation is the makeup of the teachers and instructors in most universities today.
My mother came out of residency (as a psychiatrist) about 6 years ago. From what she has said, your first explanation is plenty on its own. Being in medicine constantly teaches you how human you are. You start out thinking you will be the perfect doc, and then you make a mistake. You decide you will never make a life-threatening mistake -- and then you do. You revise this and decide you will never make mistakes because of tiredness, or ignorance, or sheer gutwrenching stupidity -- and then you do all of these. Then, well, you will certainly never make the same mistake twice, right?
Eventually, if you're honest, you have to recognize that you're human, and sometimes you're going to screw up. I wonder if this is a process that psychiatrists navigate more easily than surgeons?
I love that an ad opens up for Casino On Net or whatever when you read this article ... figure out how to beat those guys and you'd really be on to something. How will you throw me out of the casino when you can't see my face?
No, I think you're right -- in a trademark dispute the prosecution has to prove that consumers might be confused and buy the wrong product. I don't think that's true in this case, and I bet if this comes to court it will be thrown out. It looks to me like one of those scare lawsuits that's never intended to come to court ...
First of all, I have to completely agree with you -- bad video is fine, but bad audio kills a production instantly. I'm making a DV film as my senior thesis next year, and I don't intend to spend a dollar or an hour on video until I can be confident of perfect audio.
...)
Most of my editing will probably be on Final Cut Pro, and I'm curious what your experience has been with that. I haven't used it since version 1.5, but I recall that it did have audio scrubbing. I spent a lot of time staring at waveforms (doing seamless voice dubs), and they came out all right.
I don't know much about audio, though -- I would love to hear any suggestions or resources you could point me to, esp. regarding isolating human voices
(my own shameless plug, by the way -- I would submit FCP as a competitor to *Avid*, not Premiere. A TV editor told me that he had bought a $40,000 Avid system -- not because it was any better, but just because you can't be taken seriously in the industry with only $1000 of software. I don't know how Cinelerra will stack up, but maybe a few years from now we'll see the old guard clutching their Avid systems in distress while new filmmakers do the same thing with free software
As far as TV, I've rarely heard songs I recongnize on low-budget shows. Most of the time, it's MIDI-esque mood music. This stuff comes on royalty-free CDs, like clip art. My college film class had a bunch of these. The table of contents will go:
... of course, at least in our case, most of the songs sucked pretty bad. We would usually just steal a copyrighted piece of music instead. It's true that, unless you manage to make money, no one usually cares.
"Spring Rain -- 2:32
Mood: Happy, light, energetic.
Happy Kangaroos -- 5:12
Mood: Energetic, triumphant, bouncy."
You pick the one that fits for your piece
At one point there was a great act down in the area 7 stage ... a guy wearing a george bush mask stood up and pantomimed along to a speech cut together from real george bush audio. "We must continue the war ... on America. Democracy, freedom of speech, freedom of expression ... these things must be controlled. We must preserve ... illegal drugs. I myself use ... illegal drugs." The george bush-public speaking rhythm seems to lend itself to this kind of cutting -- it sounded like natural speech. (either that or he really said all those things, who knows ...)
I don't know who put that one together -- does anyone have a link?
The new law would "Specify that an existing ban on the "advertisement" of any device that is used primarily for surreptitious electronic surveillance applies to online ads."
...
Would that apply to all those tiny wireless cameras that fit anywhere? I hate those ads. Maybe this law is a good thing, after all
OS X relies on vector graphics, xml, java, and lots of other stuff that focusses on architecture over speed. The way I see it, they made an OS designed to run great when everyone's up over 1Ghz, which makes a lot of sense in the long run. (different from bloat, obviously, which requires a fast processor because of *crappy* architecture). In the meantime, we might have to accept a little slowdown.
On the other hand, my 400mhz powerbook with 256 megs of ram has no problem starting up OS 9 in the background while I chat online and install a system upgrade. I'm not complaining.