It certainly was a real threat. When RedHat was beginning to put together RHEL5, this was widely reported. For example, http://searchservervirtualization.techtarget.com/o riginalContent/0,289142,sid94_gci1245982,00.html . When the claims started to be made about this, RedHat simply played it safe and backed off on using the Xen name and trademark at all. It was simply the prudent thing to do. So there's no FUD here. What's clear to you is irrelevant. It's all about what the lawyers at RedHat recommend they do to CTA in case the claims about Xen trademarks turned (or will turn) out to be true. Simply put RedHat could not take that change. Today things might be different. Maybe RHEL6 will use the Xen trademark. Who knows.
Whatever the case, the Xen developers *are* credited by RH. Their copyright was never altered or hidden by RH. The source code still maintains their copyright notices assigned to them.
Personally I want to see kvm go far. Giving xen competition is a good thing.
Some of the most elegant and functional code I have ever seen was done in Python. Anything pythonic is rather elegant and beautiful. But whether it's pretty is in the eye of the beholder. I happen to think large parts of the GTK+ source code tree are very elegant, functional, and fairly easy to debug. But they are in C; they aren't pretty. Lots of cruft to make object-oriented construcs. But once you recognize the patterns, you'll see real elegance. The same for any language.
It's kind of like how the world is full of hot women, but very few of those are beautiful.
But what he has a lot of good views and ideas on things. In this case, though, he's being typically difficult. Instead of saying nothing at all on the subject, or just simply stating that the kernel will not be moving to GPLv3, he instead does a ridiculous attack on RMS.
Torvalds is brilliant, and we and RMS all owe him for everything he's done with Linux and in promoting free software (maybe a happy byproduct). But he can still be egotistical and petty. This is life I guess. But it's exactly these kind of statements that are going to worry PHBs and prevent Linux adoption just as much as FUD concerning GPLv3.
I think everyone is going to be watching the Samba team's adoption of GPLv3. At a certain point, it's irrelevant what license the kernel uses and what licenses Torvalds likes personally. Actually it's irrelevant now.
What allofmp3.com wasn't illegal for russians in russia. If a bar on Romulus sells Romulan ale to federation members, it's still legal even if Romulan ale is itself illegal in the Federation. Now of course this is a different situation since a) allofmp3.com was operating within the rules of Russian copyright law, and b) it's not illegal to import music for personal use into the US from abroad, no matter how you bought it. CDs on the street in Bangkok may be pirated, but it's not illegal to buy them and bring them home.
In any even, two wrongs don't make a right. Even if allofmp3.com was wrong to offer 80% pirated music, it's just as wrong that the RIAA claims unilateral copyright privilege over anything that's remotely related to music, russian, or even American indie music. Just recently I was told of how the RIAA contributed to the demise of 3 popular indie bands. The anecdotal story goes that these local bands were becoming very popular but since they defied the traditional channels for marketing their music, the RIAA and cronies underhandedly arranged for their venues to be canceled, which pretty much spelled the end of their success since the most money is always made on live performances. From the sound of it, the RIAA would threaten venues with unspecified threats if they had the bands played. I wouldn't put much stock in such an anecdote, except that it fits very well with how the RIAA is perceived, and rightly so.
1 - The GPLv2 license has an option to specify that code is licensed by "GPL version 2 or later". If this is the case then the argument goes that many of those who wrote code under GPLv2 could simply say "well now my code is licensed under GPLv3". No. This isn't the case. This isn't a difficult-to-understand thing. What the "version 2 or, at your option, a later version" clause means is that you as a *distributor* have the choice of distributing the source code you have already obtained under the terms of the GPLv2, or you can distribute it under the new GPLv3. It's your choice as the distributor. The copyright holder can, at his or her option, move all his code to GPLv3, or any other license, even a proprietary one, but this is not retroactive to the source code that people already have obtained under the terms of the original GPLv2. This new license would only apply to his code as it is distributed from this point on. People who already have GPLv2 code, or are already distributing code with the GPLv2 or later license can continue to do so, effectively creating a fork. This is something that has happened on occasion, and isn't a bad thing.
While it is not suitable for all the domains you are using Java for, I find Python to be a refreshing breath of air. Python makes programming actually fun again. Not to mention productive. I can't really explain why. Maybe it's a religious thing. I never did pick up Java and have spent years dreading having to use it since I find Java syntax so cumbersome. Paradoxically, I like C++ syntax and I quite like C# (that's mainly because I like the standard runtime libraries in.NET a bit better than Java's class library). If I'm ever forced to work with Java, I just may try to find a place for JPython so I can still use pythonic goodness while linking to heavy-lifting Java code. For now, though, my programming is pretty much a mixture of python, C, and some C++. Integration with other languages (including Java) is one of Python's strongest point.
So anyway if you want to have some fun on the side, mess with Python a bit. It's an interesting diversion, anyway.
Many Russian expats relied on allofmp3.com as the only real way to access a lot of the music they know and love from back home. You just can't buy CDs of Hi-Fi or even Russian folk bands in the US. The RIAA has now essentially stolen representation of russian artists whether the russian artists cared about allofmp3.com or not. I'm not saying that allofmp3.com supported Russian artists at all, nor am I saying that allofmp3.com wasn't pirating russian music (it appears not, due to russian copyright law). But rather that the RIAA has unilaterally declared themselves the owner of all copyrighted music material in the Russia as well as the US, whether or not they really do. That is the despicable part of their actions.
You are right. If I hadn't posted, I would mod you up. What you say is a very important point, one that is overlooked often.
People spreading FUD about the GPL like Microsoft would have someone believe that just one use of GPL'd code in your own software is a poison pill that opens up your entire IP magically. However this just isn't true. Someone in violation of the source code license has 2 choices. Either release their changes to the code (which in some cases is impossible for them) or remove the offending code entirely.
Umm, as original developers they own the copyright on the code. Period. Any distribution of the derived library (not the entire Parallels suite!) can only occur under the terms of the LGPL. Thus while the developers do not have a purchased license to install parallels, they are in a position to demand that Parallels release the modified library source doe to their customers. Otherwise Parallels is in breach of copyright and has no right to distribute the derived library in any form, customers or not.
These are much more than just balloons and launching them really does give them credibility. They have proved that they can, using so-called balloon technology, create a habitable module in space that can survive the vacuum, micrometerites, radiation, and so forth. I'm frankly excited at what they've been able to do. I would not doubt at all that if this project ultimately proves successfully technologically, that we'll eventually see Bigelow inflatable modules on the international space station. This may give NASA a bit of competition, which will be good.
There's a long way for them to yet go. They have to figure out how to assemble and build stations out of these modules in orbit. That requires things like space walks and robotic arms and so forth. Watching the astronauts spend hours and hours under difficult conditions working to just bolt a truss into place on the station gives me a lot of respect for what it takes. Also a critical piece of Bigelow's vision is still missing, which is a way to get people up there. Even buying launches from Inertia, it will cost many millions of dollars per launch, not to mention years of training for people flying. Space flights will not be routine for many more years.
But Bigelow is making small but giant steps towards the future. I think it's exciting and worthwhile.
Good idea if the cost was low enough. Up until now, that's the big issue. No USB computer key thing can approach the low cost of the linksys. If only they made a linux-based router for under $100 that had expandable RAM (or hard-wired 256 MB or somethinng), and a bit more flash with USB, we'd all be set.
nope. Doesn't work. I have enough space on the disk (as it were) for dansguardian, but 32 MB of RAM is not enough. chokes and dies loading cnn.com. Apps run fine from a mounted share, though, other than that.
I disagree. I presume the device can run with only power (ie standalone). If so, and if it was cheap enough, stick one of these inside a Linksys WRT54GL case, attach it to an ethernet port, and you have a very nice parental filter dansguardian box. The Linksys itself isn't powerful enough to run dansguardian (not enough ram), but this device has sufficient ram. Or it could be used to augment the capabilities of linksys itself, like to do a PBX, or something.
It's about economies of scale. Your home hydroponics system is a fun hobby but it will still struggle to provide enough food to feed your family, to say nothing about feeding all the other families on the earth.
As fuel prices continue to rise home hydroponics becomes more expensive. everything from electricity to plastics costs will rise in correlation to gas prices. Large-scale food production becomes more expensive also, but because of the ability to consolidate costs on a large scale (ie the tractor), it's still more economical.
I believe you are incorrect with your assertion that the reason Vista took so long was because they started over from scratch. I think many things may have been, and there were great plans for a rewrite in the beginning. But part way through, from what I can see, they gave up on the idea and instead hacked some things into XP. The Aero interface is a large rewrite. But the under-the-hood stuff is really just XP with enhancements. An improved driver layer, the questionably useful UAC, etc. Even.NET didn't turn out the way that MS had hoped so most of the stuff in Vista that was originally intended to be written in C# didn't happen. All of the revolutionary features that were a part of this initial intended writing from scratch really haven't panned out, like WinFS. Heck even Monad didn't make the cut (you have to download it).
So vista took 5 years because of mismanagement largely. Kind of scary if you consider that Linux hackers have build the beginnings of an interface that does many of the things aero can do (rendering and compositing subsystem) in only about a year. Another year and compiz and friends will certainly be as good as Aero or even Quartz. Of course by then Leopard will have set the standard even higher.
It's not clear that the computers were ever delivered. No trace of paper work or the computers themselves can be found. Does IBM have actual delivery paperwork to prove the goods were actually delivered? Guess I'll go read the FA and find out.
Don't mistake the MS EULA (TOS) with the purpose of the GPL. The GPL governs *distribution* not use. Microsoft's purpose behind the TOS and EULA is to control what you can do with a piece of software to their own benefit. The purpose of the GPL is to make sure the end user has the power to modify and redistribute the software. The GPL says nothing about the use of the software. In fact as long as you're not distributing the code, you don't have to accept the GPL in anyway. This is dramatically different in purpose. You cannot redistribute MS's code without accepting the terms of a costly source code license, which is similar in purpose to the GPL.
I have complete control of my computer in every way by virtue of the fact that I *own* it. Putting Microsoft software on that piece of hardware removes control from me of my own computer. I also have to give up the right to modify (disassemble, etc) Microsoft's code once it is on my computer. Compare that to GPL'd software which generally are of the purpose to enable and empower my freedom to use my own hardware.
So your statement is based on the fallacy that the MS EULA or TOS serves the same purpose as the GPL. It does not.
In the meantime, I don't think hinting is the answer. From what I can see, Apple's font appearance in large part comes from the fact that Apple doesn't do much hinting at all, allowing the full shape of the character to come out, albeit some people don't like it fuzzy. I think the parameters I want to control include the contrast and grey curves of the antlialiasing.
The closest I can come to getting Mac-like fonts is to disable hinting entirely.
Sadly this doesn't do what I want. These options do affect the shape of the letters, but not the weight. Apple fonts are heavier, and some claim fuzzier. Freetype's default antialiasing is more windows-like (even with these options you mention) and not nearly as dark.
I downloaded Safari right away just because it was there. I ran it, thought, oh that's nice. Maybe good for testing browser compatibility some day. Then went back to Firefox. Same thing with everyone I know who downloaded it. Certainly Safari on windows will never be anyone's primary browser. But it will certainly find uses. Testing web pages, iphone development, and of course embedding the engine in iTunes (did it use IE up til now?). Jobs claimed Safari was the best web browser on all platforms. I call BS. Even almost all mac users I know use firefox or camino because they need features and capabilities that safari just doesn't have. As far as features go, Safari is at the very back of the pack (worst). Even IE 7 is much better in terms of extensions, core feature set. Safari for Windows is the Steve Jobs reality distortion field at its finest.
I do love how Safari for windows uses the nicer Cocoa font rendering. Really makes Windows' native font rendering look blocky and horrible. Does anyone know how to tweak freetype on linux to render the fonts closer to OS X? I already have hinting turned off and that helps, but the contrast of the fonts still isn't right (OS X fonts render a bit heavier, which I like on the screen).
I also personally don't mind the cocoa widgets either. Cocoa looks nice and is highly functional. That's all I care about. Although it definitely would look very out of place on Vista. But on XP, I think it's fine.
This is very interesting to read as I just finished reading Ben Rich's book "Skunk Works" where he talks about the SR71. When president Reagan announced the administration's intention to build a hypersonic airplane, he just shook his head. It's simply not practical, with or without the scramjet engine. The SR71 flew at 85,000 feet at about Mach 3.2, and reaches skin temperatures of 2000-3000 degrees (F I presume) just from moving through the atmosphere. Accelerating to Mach 10 would burn up or otherwise compromise any current building material, except for the carbon-carbon and ceramic materials used on the space shuttle's heat shield, but aren't practical for airplanes. So what good is this scramjet, at least as far as a hypersonic airplane goes? Seems to me all this talk of Sydney to London in 12 hours is a bit fanciful. So the question is, how exactly will this engine be used to accomplish this? The only way to reach hypersonic speeds without burning up is to make the trajectory sub-orbital so that the aircraft is in the thinnest atmosphere possible when it's firing it's engines to go Mach 10. But of course there's not a lot of oxygen at that altitude. And to really achieve sub-orbital trajectory you need a rocket engine, not any kind of air-breathing engine. So my questions are: Is Ben Rich right that hypersonic travel is essentially impossible? Will the scramjet help with a suborbital trajectory? I understand that igniting the scramjet is a breakthrough. Jet turbines at supersonic velocity have always been problematic.
Off-topic, Ben Rich says in his book that the codename Aurora that everyone likes to think refers to some hypersonic aircraft, was actually the codename placed on the B-2 project as Lockheed and Northrop were competing for the contract. It's funny to think that to this day, folks still hang onto this and imagine some mythical hypersonic airplane. Which never existed. Or does it?
You are probably correct. My hearing is not as good as when I was a young teenager. Some of that is likely due to loud environments. And that certainly does make discerning sounds much harder. Maybe it's a combination of hearing loss and ADD then.:)
Slashdot Mirror
It certainly was a real threat. When RedHat was beginning to put together RHEL5, this was widely reported. For example, http://searchservervirtualization.techtarget.com/o riginalContent/0,289142,sid94_gci1245982,00.html . When the claims started to be made about this, RedHat simply played it safe and backed off on using the Xen name and trademark at all. It was simply the prudent thing to do. So there's no FUD here. What's clear to you is irrelevant. It's all about what the lawyers at RedHat recommend they do to CTA in case the claims about Xen trademarks turned (or will turn) out to be true. Simply put RedHat could not take that change. Today things might be different. Maybe RHEL6 will use the Xen trademark. Who knows.
Whatever the case, the Xen developers *are* credited by RH. Their copyright was never altered or hidden by RH. The source code still maintains their copyright notices assigned to them.
Personally I want to see kvm go far. Giving xen competition is a good thing.
Redhat was forced to do this. Xen would not let them use their trademark. So it's Xen's own fault that they aren't being credited.
Some of the most elegant and functional code I have ever seen was done in Python. Anything pythonic is rather elegant and beautiful. But whether it's pretty is in the eye of the beholder. I happen to think large parts of the GTK+ source code tree are very elegant, functional, and fairly easy to debug. But they are in C; they aren't pretty. Lots of cruft to make object-oriented construcs. But once you recognize the patterns, you'll see real elegance. The same for any language.
It's kind of like how the world is full of hot women, but very few of those are beautiful.
Possibly http://freshmeat.net/search?q=erp may give you a place to start.
From what I've heard, http://www.compiere.org/ is a good one.
But what he has a lot of good views and ideas on things. In this case, though, he's being typically difficult. Instead of saying nothing at all on the subject, or just simply stating that the kernel will not be moving to GPLv3, he instead does a ridiculous attack on RMS.
Torvalds is brilliant, and we and RMS all owe him for everything he's done with Linux and in promoting free software (maybe a happy byproduct). But he can still be egotistical and petty. This is life I guess. But it's exactly these kind of statements that are going to worry PHBs and prevent Linux adoption just as much as FUD concerning GPLv3.
I think everyone is going to be watching the Samba team's adoption of GPLv3. At a certain point, it's irrelevant what license the kernel uses and what licenses Torvalds likes personally. Actually it's irrelevant now.
What allofmp3.com wasn't illegal for russians in russia. If a bar on Romulus sells Romulan ale to federation members, it's still legal even if Romulan ale is itself illegal in the Federation. Now of course this is a different situation since a) allofmp3.com was operating within the rules of Russian copyright law, and b) it's not illegal to import music for personal use into the US from abroad, no matter how you bought it. CDs on the street in Bangkok may be pirated, but it's not illegal to buy them and bring them home.
In any even, two wrongs don't make a right. Even if allofmp3.com was wrong to offer 80% pirated music, it's just as wrong that the RIAA claims unilateral copyright privilege over anything that's remotely related to music, russian, or even American indie music. Just recently I was told of how the RIAA contributed to the demise of 3 popular indie bands. The anecdotal story goes that these local bands were becoming very popular but since they defied the traditional channels for marketing their music, the RIAA and cronies underhandedly arranged for their venues to be canceled, which pretty much spelled the end of their success since the most money is always made on live performances. From the sound of it, the RIAA would threaten venues with unspecified threats if they had the bands played. I wouldn't put much stock in such an anecdote, except that it fits very well with how the RIAA is perceived, and rightly so.
While it is not suitable for all the domains you are using Java for, I find Python to be a refreshing breath of air. Python makes programming actually fun again. Not to mention productive. I can't really explain why. Maybe it's a religious thing. I never did pick up Java and have spent years dreading having to use it since I find Java syntax so cumbersome. Paradoxically, I like C++ syntax and I quite like C# (that's mainly because I like the standard runtime libraries in .NET a bit better than Java's class library). If I'm ever forced to work with Java, I just may try to find a place for JPython so I can still use pythonic goodness while linking to heavy-lifting Java code. For now, though, my programming is pretty much a mixture of python, C, and some C++. Integration with other languages (including Java) is one of Python's strongest point.
So anyway if you want to have some fun on the side, mess with Python a bit. It's an interesting diversion, anyway.
Many Russian expats relied on allofmp3.com as the only real way to access a lot of the music they know and love from back home. You just can't buy CDs of Hi-Fi or even Russian folk bands in the US. The RIAA has now essentially stolen representation of russian artists whether the russian artists cared about allofmp3.com or not. I'm not saying that allofmp3.com supported Russian artists at all, nor am I saying that allofmp3.com wasn't pirating russian music (it appears not, due to russian copyright law). But rather that the RIAA has unilaterally declared themselves the owner of all copyrighted music material in the Russia as well as the US, whether or not they really do. That is the despicable part of their actions.
You are right. If I hadn't posted, I would mod you up. What you say is a very important point, one that is overlooked often.
People spreading FUD about the GPL like Microsoft would have someone believe that just one use of GPL'd code in your own software is a poison pill that opens up your entire IP magically. However this just isn't true. Someone in violation of the source code license has 2 choices. Either release their changes to the code (which in some cases is impossible for them) or remove the offending code entirely.
Umm, as original developers they own the copyright on the code. Period. Any distribution of the derived library (not the entire Parallels suite!) can only occur under the terms of the LGPL. Thus while the developers do not have a purchased license to install parallels, they are in a position to demand that Parallels release the modified library source doe to their customers. Otherwise Parallels is in breach of copyright and has no right to distribute the derived library in any form, customers or not.
These are much more than just balloons and launching them really does give them credibility. They have proved that they can, using so-called balloon technology, create a habitable module in space that can survive the vacuum, micrometerites, radiation, and so forth. I'm frankly excited at what they've been able to do. I would not doubt at all that if this project ultimately proves successfully technologically, that we'll eventually see Bigelow inflatable modules on the international space station. This may give NASA a bit of competition, which will be good.
There's a long way for them to yet go. They have to figure out how to assemble and build stations out of these modules in orbit. That requires things like space walks and robotic arms and so forth. Watching the astronauts spend hours and hours under difficult conditions working to just bolt a truss into place on the station gives me a lot of respect for what it takes. Also a critical piece of Bigelow's vision is still missing, which is a way to get people up there. Even buying launches from Inertia, it will cost many millions of dollars per launch, not to mention years of training for people flying. Space flights will not be routine for many more years.
But Bigelow is making small but giant steps towards the future. I think it's exciting and worthwhile.
Good idea if the cost was low enough. Up until now, that's the big issue. No USB computer key thing can approach the low cost of the linksys. If only they made a linux-based router for under $100 that had expandable RAM (or hard-wired 256 MB or somethinng), and a bit more flash with USB, we'd all be set.
nope. Doesn't work. I have enough space on the disk (as it were) for dansguardian, but 32 MB of RAM is not enough. chokes and dies loading cnn.com. Apps run fine from a mounted share, though, other than that.
I disagree. I presume the device can run with only power (ie standalone). If so, and if it was cheap enough, stick one of these inside a Linksys WRT54GL case, attach it to an ethernet port, and you have a very nice parental filter dansguardian box. The Linksys itself isn't powerful enough to run dansguardian (not enough ram), but this device has sufficient ram. Or it could be used to augment the capabilities of linksys itself, like to do a PBX, or something.
It's about economies of scale. Your home hydroponics system is a fun hobby but it will still struggle to provide enough food to feed your family, to say nothing about feeding all the other families on the earth.
As fuel prices continue to rise home hydroponics becomes more expensive. everything from electricity to plastics costs will rise in correlation to gas prices. Large-scale food production becomes more expensive also, but because of the ability to consolidate costs on a large scale (ie the tractor), it's still more economical.
I believe you are incorrect with your assertion that the reason Vista took so long was because they started over from scratch. I think many things may have been, and there were great plans for a rewrite in the beginning. But part way through, from what I can see, they gave up on the idea and instead hacked some things into XP. The Aero interface is a large rewrite. But the under-the-hood stuff is really just XP with enhancements. An improved driver layer, the questionably useful UAC, etc. Even .NET didn't turn out the way that MS had hoped so most of the stuff in Vista that was originally intended to be written in C# didn't happen. All of the revolutionary features that were a part of this initial intended writing from scratch really haven't panned out, like WinFS. Heck even Monad didn't make the cut (you have to download it).
So vista took 5 years because of mismanagement largely. Kind of scary if you consider that Linux hackers have build the beginnings of an interface that does many of the things aero can do (rendering and compositing subsystem) in only about a year. Another year and compiz and friends will certainly be as good as Aero or even Quartz. Of course by then Leopard will have set the standard even higher.
It's not clear that the computers were ever delivered. No trace of paper work or the computers themselves can be found. Does IBM have actual delivery paperwork to prove the goods were actually delivered? Guess I'll go read the FA and find out.
Don't mistake the MS EULA (TOS) with the purpose of the GPL. The GPL governs *distribution* not use. Microsoft's purpose behind the TOS and EULA is to control what you can do with a piece of software to their own benefit. The purpose of the GPL is to make sure the end user has the power to modify and redistribute the software. The GPL says nothing about the use of the software. In fact as long as you're not distributing the code, you don't have to accept the GPL in anyway. This is dramatically different in purpose. You cannot redistribute MS's code without accepting the terms of a costly source code license, which is similar in purpose to the GPL.
I have complete control of my computer in every way by virtue of the fact that I *own* it. Putting Microsoft software on that piece of hardware removes control from me of my own computer. I also have to give up the right to modify (disassemble, etc) Microsoft's code once it is on my computer. Compare that to GPL'd software which generally are of the purpose to enable and empower my freedom to use my own hardware.
So your statement is based on the fallacy that the MS EULA or TOS serves the same purpose as the GPL. It does not.
I'll continue to experiment.
In the meantime, I don't think hinting is the answer. From what I can see, Apple's font appearance in large part comes from the fact that Apple doesn't do much hinting at all, allowing the full shape of the character to come out, albeit some people don't like it fuzzy. I think the parameters I want to control include the contrast and grey curves of the antlialiasing.
The closest I can come to getting Mac-like fonts is to disable hinting entirely.
Sadly this doesn't do what I want. These options do affect the shape of the letters, but not the weight. Apple fonts are heavier, and some claim fuzzier. Freetype's default antialiasing is more windows-like (even with these options you mention) and not nearly as dark.
I downloaded Safari right away just because it was there. I ran it, thought, oh that's nice. Maybe good for testing browser compatibility some day. Then went back to Firefox. Same thing with everyone I know who downloaded it. Certainly Safari on windows will never be anyone's primary browser. But it will certainly find uses. Testing web pages, iphone development, and of course embedding the engine in iTunes (did it use IE up til now?). Jobs claimed Safari was the best web browser on all platforms. I call BS. Even almost all mac users I know use firefox or camino because they need features and capabilities that safari just doesn't have. As far as features go, Safari is at the very back of the pack (worst). Even IE 7 is much better in terms of extensions, core feature set. Safari for Windows is the Steve Jobs reality distortion field at its finest.
I do love how Safari for windows uses the nicer Cocoa font rendering. Really makes Windows' native font rendering look blocky and horrible. Does anyone know how to tweak freetype on linux to render the fonts closer to OS X? I already have hinting turned off and that helps, but the contrast of the fonts still isn't right (OS X fonts render a bit heavier, which I like on the screen).
I also personally don't mind the cocoa widgets either. Cocoa looks nice and is highly functional. That's all I care about. Although it definitely would look very out of place on Vista. But on XP, I think it's fine.
Ahem. Sydney to London in 2 hours.
This is very interesting to read as I just finished reading Ben Rich's book "Skunk Works" where he talks about the SR71. When president Reagan announced the administration's intention to build a hypersonic airplane, he just shook his head. It's simply not practical, with or without the scramjet engine. The SR71 flew at 85,000 feet at about Mach 3.2, and reaches skin temperatures of 2000-3000 degrees (F I presume) just from moving through the atmosphere. Accelerating to Mach 10 would burn up or otherwise compromise any current building material, except for the carbon-carbon and ceramic materials used on the space shuttle's heat shield, but aren't practical for airplanes. So what good is this scramjet, at least as far as a hypersonic airplane goes? Seems to me all this talk of Sydney to London in 12 hours is a bit fanciful. So the question is, how exactly will this engine be used to accomplish this? The only way to reach hypersonic speeds without burning up is to make the trajectory sub-orbital so that the aircraft is in the thinnest atmosphere possible when it's firing it's engines to go Mach 10. But of course there's not a lot of oxygen at that altitude. And to really achieve sub-orbital trajectory you need a rocket engine, not any kind of air-breathing engine. So my questions are: Is Ben Rich right that hypersonic travel is essentially impossible? Will the scramjet help with a suborbital trajectory? I understand that igniting the scramjet is a breakthrough. Jet turbines at supersonic velocity have always been problematic.
Off-topic, Ben Rich says in his book that the codename Aurora that everyone likes to think refers to some hypersonic aircraft, was actually the codename placed on the B-2 project as Lockheed and Northrop were competing for the contract. It's funny to think that to this day, folks still hang onto this and imagine some mythical hypersonic airplane. Which never existed. Or does it?
You are probably correct. My hearing is not as good as when I was a young teenager. Some of that is likely due to loud environments. And that certainly does make discerning sounds much harder. Maybe it's a combination of hearing loss and ADD then. :)