>>>Efficient or not Diesel exhaust contains a lot of particulate matter (PM).
So does gasoline exhaust, and it's actually more dangerous more gas PM is smaller and can enter the bloodstream (via the lungs). It really should be regulated.
As for diesel, the europeans have developed PM neutralizers, which enabled Ford and VW to pass California's SULEV standards.
I suspect Macs are NOT at 20% share of computers. Not even close. Windows sits on 90% of the world's computers, IE is Windows' default browser, and is currently at 50% usage. So it's used by 50/90 or 5/9th of Windows PC users.
If a similar proportion of Macs use the default Safari, that would be 5/9 times 20% == 11%. But Safari's real-world usage is only 4%. Mac share is probably only 5-10%.
Not when I'm trying to balance my budget, it isn't. I just acquired a dualcore Windows 7 PC for $150. Granted that was the clearance price (it was 6 months old) but still: Can you show me a New Mac for that cheap? Not even close.
I simply don't see any reason to pay extra for MacOS when Windows 7 is almost as good. Likewise I don't see the need to pay extra for a Lexus or Audi, when a Toyota or Volkswagen is essentially the same thing at half the cost. .
>>>the Dell build quality is worse than crap.
So buy an Acer instead. Reliability studies show they have fewer breakdowns than the MacBooks, but without the high cost. .
>>>I spend almost zero time maintaining Macs.
I had a G4 Mac that refused to talk to my ethernet connection. One day it just stopped. I had to reinstall the Original OS to make it operational again, plus a couple hours of downloading updates, so the claim you don't have to do this with Macs is disingenuous.
8GB is insufficient to replace a modern hard drive. That's not even enough room to hold the Windows or Mac OS, much your downloaded HD movie collection.
As for size:
If you tried to recreate the capacity of a typical c: drive (500GB) in a solid state device like ROM or FRAM cartridge, the thing would be huge. And expensive.
They could simply decide, "We're not selling Kindles anymorem because the iPhone now has 99% of the market, so like Betamax... we flopped," and end the service. This is what Walmart did when they suddenly decided to stop selling MP3 songs, closed down the server, and made everyone's songs unusable.
No idea. The latest version of Puppy Linux 2010 moved from seaMonkey to Chromium (not google... just barebones chromium). I don't know why that decision was made when in 2006 they were pro-seamonkey?
Another reason I like SeaMonkey (versus firefox) is that it spawns a separate process from Youtube and other plugin applications. If youtube freezes, the browser doesn't become nonresponsive. You can just open Task Manager and kill the youtube/plugin process and continue working.
I organize my life by: Not having a complicated life in the first place. Simplify; simplify. And for my work, I use a calendar or dayplanner to write down appointments such as: Boss Meeting 2pm room xxx.
My data (movies, music, etc) is backed-up from the c: drive to two USB drives, one of which is put in a safe along with birth certificate, medical records, and other life crucial information that I don't want to lose in case of fire.
Or SeaMonkey which I've been trying these last few days. It has the same engine as FF4 but with far less bloat (~150,000 vs. ~300,000 kilobytes). Copied from another guy's post yesterday:
Q: Why not use Firefox instead of Seamonkey?
A: "Yes, Firefox web browser, Thunderbird email and news client, Sunbird Calendar, and NVU HTML editor are useful programs. The Mozilla/SeaMonkey suite, with all of this functionality, is about 11M compressed, whereas the separate applications are each about 35M compressed. So, the live-CD, instead of being 60M would be 85M and would be too big to run in RAM in a PC with 128MB.
"Why are the separate applications so big compared with the Mozilla/Seamonkey suite? Simply because the Mozilla suite has a lot of common code shared by each module, whereas the separate applications have to duplicate that code. This creates a gigantic size bloat, not in the spirit of Puppy."
Faster javacript is also good when you visit Websites that were written by your Redneck third cousin who is also your wife (i.e. none too bright):
For example NBC.com's feedback site made my firefox freeze for about 10 seconds when I visited it yesterday. 6ms faster response on a "good" javascipt site might translate to a full second faster on a poorly-coded site..... i.e. waiting 9 seconds to "unfreeze" nbc.com instead of 10 seconds. For me that would make it worth switching from Chrome to Firefox.
Ron Paul was running for office in 2007. He organized the first Tea Party in the fall of 2007, and they had their first rally in December. It then grew larger and larger. I joined the party in 2008, partly to support Paul and partly to protest George Duh Bush. That was BEFORE Obama ever won the election.
As for "proof" I'm sure you know how to search wikipedia for "tea party" which includes the citations you're looking for. Or you can just choose to believe I'm telling you the truth (I joined before Obama had won).
>>>Atari ST and Commodore Amiga didn't take off in United States homes to nearly the extent that IBM PC and Macintosh did
Well..... if you look at actual units sold:
(1) IBM PC and compatibles (2) Commodore 64 (3) Commodore Amiga 500 (4) TRS-80 (because of radio shack practically giving them away) (5) Atari 400/800
Source: arstechnica. The Apples were successful (in schools), but the Macs barely sold in the 80s due to their high cost ($3-4000) and was less than 5% of the overall market. That's ten times what an Atari or Commodore cost. It's only since Steve Jobs returned that Macs experienced any real success.
While a record may sound better than CD (until after 100 plays it sounds like crap), no record will sound better than Super CD or DVD-Audio with their 0-96,000 hertz range and 24(?) bit sampling. The record is 1800s technology and obsolete.
And you're right AAC+ does "invent" the high-range frequencies, but not randomly. AAC's (or MP3's) SBR extension looks at the harmonics above 10,000, compresses them, and then recreates them using the sound chip. The result is not perfect but close enough to the real thing. It means you can listen to a 12 kbit/s radio station and trick the listener into thinking it's FM quality (it has the same 50-15,000 hertz range).
My radio station's DJ has a laptop that *looks* like a turntable, but is really just a round disc. All the "scratching" is computer-generated while playing back the MP3s. Not a real record.
I have a CED videorecord player. It was obsolete when it was released (1979?) because people wanted to be able to record TV and the videorecord couldn't do it.
If RCA had released their videorecords when first developed (1971) they would have beat the VCR to market, and probably seen a great success. It was a case of procrastination costing them the "win".
You could be right. My Best Buy Insignia player does AAC but I've not tried other players. Also was it necessary to mod me "troll" just because you (or the mod) disagreed with my statement? Jeez.
>>>This is simply not the case, I saw both at the time on many occasions and VHS had a markedly inferior picture to Betamax.
I hear this alot, but I've never seen it myself. I remember in college some girl played a Betamax VCR for me and she said "It makes a better picture." So I stared and stared and stared. I concluded it looked just as shitty (below broadcast quality).
I then had an opportunity to use the college TV studio where they had Super VHS which looked amazing (dvd quality), so I bought one.
>>>anyone know why PAL VHS tapes ran significantly slower (and longer)?
As I said above, JVC developed PAL VCRs later than the NTSC VCRs. When they did that, they chose to sacrifice horizontal resolution (240 lines instead of 250) in order to get approximately 1.5 times more video per tape. (3 hours on SP instead of 2 hours.)
>>>No idea why NTSC was defined as such an odd number
Both PAL and NTSC predated precision electronics, so they used the line frequency coming out of the wall outlet. For PAL that was 50 fields/second and for NTSC it was 60 fields/second (25 frames and 30 frames respectively). Later when NTSC-Color was invented they experienced interference between the Color Burst signal and the 60 field rate, they dropped one scanline per second, which altered the field rate to 59.997 (or something in that realm). This is known as NTSC-II.
The final standard NTSC-III is a pure digital standard, and was developed for use with Digi-Betacam and other professional VCRs of the 1990s. NTSC-III was also used for consumer DVDs.
>>>Sony didn't want Betamax associated with adult films
(holds up Betamax video of Playboy porn) - Completely and totally false/urban legend. Betamax allowed anything you felt like recording on the blank tapes. .
>>>Betamax is alive and well and is being used still professionally.
False again. Professionals would never use the inferior Betamax shit. It's not even broadcast quality (330 lines or better). The professionals used BetaCAM which was a Component Video and Type IV Metal tape standard, in order to achieve superior video & multi-generation copy ability.
>>>Still Sony is the head poncho when it comes to any developments in the blu-ray format
Not really. It was TDK that extended the Bluray specification with a 4 layer disc (100 gigabytes), not Sony. Then they extended it again with a 200 GB disc. Sony was the inventor but now they are taking a backseat to more-capable companies inside the Bluray Consortium.
Slashdot Mirror
>>>Efficient or not Diesel exhaust contains a lot of particulate matter (PM).
So does gasoline exhaust, and it's actually more dangerous more gas PM is smaller and can enter the bloodstream (via the lungs). It really should be regulated.
As for diesel, the europeans have developed PM neutralizers, which enabled Ford and VW to pass California's SULEV standards.
I suspect Macs are NOT at 20% share of computers. Not even close. Windows sits on 90% of the world's computers, IE is Windows' default browser, and is currently at 50% usage. So it's used by 50/90 or 5/9th of Windows PC users.
If a similar proportion of Macs use the default Safari, that would be 5/9 times 20% == 11%. But Safari's real-world usage is only 4%.
Mac share is probably only 5-10%.
>>>The Apple tax bit is a little disingenuous.
Not when I'm trying to balance my budget, it isn't. I just acquired a dualcore Windows 7 PC for $150. Granted that was the clearance price (it was 6 months old) but still: Can you show me a New Mac for that cheap? Not even close.
I simply don't see any reason to pay extra for MacOS when Windows 7 is almost as good. Likewise I don't see the need to pay extra for a Lexus or Audi, when a Toyota or Volkswagen is essentially the same thing at half the cost.
.
>>>the Dell build quality is worse than crap.
So buy an Acer instead. Reliability studies show they have fewer breakdowns than the MacBooks, but without the high cost.
.
>>>I spend almost zero time maintaining Macs.
I had a G4 Mac that refused to talk to my ethernet connection. One day it just stopped. I had to reinstall the Original OS to make it operational again, plus a couple hours of downloading updates, so the claim you don't have to do this with Macs is disingenuous.
8GB is insufficient to replace a modern hard drive. That's not even enough room to hold the Windows or Mac OS, much your downloaded HD movie collection.
As for size:
If you tried to recreate the capacity of a typical c: drive (500GB) in a solid state device like ROM or FRAM cartridge, the thing would be huge. And expensive.
Amazon doesn't have to go out of business.
They could simply decide, "We're not selling Kindles anymorem because the iPhone now has 99% of the market, so like Betamax... we flopped," and end the service. This is what Walmart did when they suddenly decided to stop selling MP3 songs, closed down the server, and made everyone's songs unusable.
No idea. The latest version of Puppy Linux 2010 moved from seaMonkey to Chromium (not google... just barebones chromium). I don't know why that decision was made when in 2006 they were pro-seamonkey?
Another reason I like SeaMonkey (versus firefox) is that it spawns a separate process from Youtube and other plugin applications. If youtube freezes, the browser doesn't become nonresponsive. You can just open Task Manager and kill the youtube/plugin process and continue working.
I'm replying because I like your subject line. :-)
I organize my life by: Not having a complicated life in the first place. Simplify; simplify. And for my work, I use a calendar or dayplanner to write down appointments such as: Boss Meeting 2pm room xxx.
My data (movies, music, etc) is backed-up from the c: drive to two USB drives, one of which is put in a safe along with birth certificate, medical records, and other life crucial information that I don't want to lose in case of fire.
>>>I would just turn off JS for that site.
You can't do that if your browser is frozen for ten seconds. You have to sit and wait.
How is this any different the Ubuntu Linux?
It doesn't come with flash either.
You have to download it directly.
>>>worth switching from Chrome to Firefox
Or SeaMonkey which I've been trying these last few days. It has the same engine as FF4 but with far less bloat (~150,000 vs. ~300,000 kilobytes). Copied from another guy's post yesterday:
Q: Why not use Firefox instead of Seamonkey?
A: "Yes, Firefox web browser, Thunderbird email and news client, Sunbird Calendar, and NVU HTML editor are useful programs. The Mozilla/SeaMonkey suite, with all of this functionality, is about 11M compressed, whereas the separate applications are each about 35M compressed. So, the live-CD, instead of being 60M would be 85M and would be too big to run in RAM in a PC with 128MB.
"Why are the separate applications so big compared with the Mozilla/Seamonkey suite? Simply because the Mozilla suite has a lot of common code shared by each module, whereas the separate applications have to duplicate that code. This creates a gigantic size bloat, not in the spirit of Puppy."
- Puppy Linux FAQ
- Barry Kauler 2006
http://www.puppylinux.com/faq.htm
>>>Note that it's 20% of the "consumer retail" market share.
Okay. So that still means Mac does NOT have a 20% share of total computers. (The original claim by the great-great grandparent poster.)
Faster javacript is also good when you visit Websites that were written by your Redneck third cousin who is also your wife (i.e. none too bright):
For example NBC.com's feedback site made my firefox freeze for about 10 seconds when I visited it yesterday. 6ms faster response on a "good" javascipt site might translate to a full second faster on a poorly-coded site..... i.e. waiting 9 seconds to "unfreeze" nbc.com instead of 10 seconds. For me that would make it worth switching from Chrome to Firefox.
>>>Show some concrete proof of that.
Ron Paul was running for office in 2007. He organized the first Tea Party in the fall of 2007, and they had their first rally in December. It then grew larger and larger. I joined the party in 2008, partly to support Paul and partly to protest George Duh Bush. That was BEFORE Obama ever won the election.
As for "proof" I'm sure you know how to search wikipedia for "tea party" which includes the citations you're looking for.
Or you can just choose to believe I'm telling you the truth (I joined before Obama had won).
>>>Atari ST and Commodore Amiga didn't take off in United States homes to nearly the extent that IBM PC and Macintosh did
Well..... if you look at actual units sold:
(1) IBM PC and compatibles
(2) Commodore 64
(3) Commodore Amiga 500
(4) TRS-80 (because of radio shack practically giving them away)
(5) Atari 400/800
Source: arstechnica. The Apples were successful (in schools), but the Macs barely sold in the 80s due to their high cost ($3-4000) and was less than 5% of the overall market. That's ten times what an Atari or Commodore cost. It's only since Steve Jobs returned that Macs experienced any real success.
>>>CD players were an expensive OEM option until the mid-90s.
They also skipped. Who on earth wants to listen to a car or walkman CD that skips? So cassettes remained the number one format into the late 90s.
While a record may sound better than CD (until after 100 plays it sounds like crap), no record will sound better than Super CD or DVD-Audio with their 0-96,000 hertz range and 24(?) bit sampling. The record is 1800s technology and obsolete.
>>>midrange euphonic distortions
Not a clue what that means.
And you're right AAC+ does "invent" the high-range frequencies, but not randomly. AAC's (or MP3's) SBR extension looks at the harmonics above 10,000, compresses them, and then recreates them using the sound chip. The result is not perfect but close enough to the real thing. It means you can listen to a 12 kbit/s radio station and trick the listener into thinking it's FM quality (it has the same 50-15,000 hertz range).
My radio station's DJ has a laptop that *looks* like a turntable, but is really just a round disc.
All the "scratching" is computer-generated while playing back the MP3s. Not a real record.
I have a CED videorecord player. It was obsolete when it was released (1979?) because people wanted to be able to record TV and the videorecord couldn't do it.
If RCA had released their videorecords when first developed (1971) they would have beat the VCR to market, and probably seen a great success. It was a case of procrastination costing them the "win".
You could be right. My Best Buy Insignia player does AAC but I've not tried other players.
Also was it necessary to mod me "troll" just because you (or the mod) disagreed with my statement?
Jeez.
>>>This is simply not the case, I saw both at the time on many occasions and VHS had a markedly inferior picture to Betamax.
I hear this alot, but I've never seen it myself. I remember in college some girl played a Betamax VCR for me and she said "It makes a better picture." So I stared and stared and stared. I concluded it looked just as shitty (below broadcast quality).
I then had an opportunity to use the college TV studio where they had Super VHS which looked amazing (dvd quality), so I bought one.
>>>anyone know why PAL VHS tapes ran significantly slower (and longer)?
As I said above, JVC developed PAL VCRs later than the NTSC VCRs. When they did that, they chose to sacrifice horizontal resolution (240 lines instead of 250) in order to get approximately 1.5 times more video per tape. (3 hours on SP instead of 2 hours.)
>>>No idea why NTSC was defined as such an odd number
Both PAL and NTSC predated precision electronics, so they used the line frequency coming out of the wall outlet. For PAL that was 50 fields/second and for NTSC it was 60 fields/second (25 frames and 30 frames respectively). Later when NTSC-Color was invented they experienced interference between the Color Burst signal and the 60 field rate, they dropped one scanline per second, which altered the field rate to 59.997 (or something in that realm). This is known as NTSC-II.
The final standard NTSC-III is a pure digital standard, and was developed for use with Digi-Betacam and other professional VCRs of the 1990s. NTSC-III was also used for consumer DVDs.
>>>Sony didn't want Betamax associated with adult films
(holds up Betamax video of Playboy porn) - Completely and totally false/urban legend. Betamax allowed anything you felt like recording on the blank tapes.
.
>>>Betamax is alive and well and is being used still professionally.
False again. Professionals would never use the inferior Betamax shit. It's not even broadcast quality (330 lines or better). The professionals used BetaCAM which was a Component Video and Type IV Metal tape standard, in order to achieve superior video & multi-generation copy ability.
>>>Still Sony is the head poncho when it comes to any developments in the blu-ray format
Not really. It was TDK that extended the Bluray specification with a 4 layer disc (100 gigabytes), not Sony. Then they extended it again with a 200 GB disc. Sony was the inventor but now they are taking a backseat to more-capable companies inside the Bluray Consortium.