Surely hardware debuggers existed long before software ones? If I remember the history of computing the notion of software was only added later - software being changing the systems characteristics without manually changing hardware state.
Kudos to the editor for not buckling to the financial conflict of interest.
Definitely Kudos, but I have to wonder where an editor who takes this sort of stand is going to get his next job? I ask this, given that there are a good number of print magazines that are like this.
I think they just want it to look more Vista-y. "Fluence", the new toolbar interface for Office 2007, looks way different than previous gens in that they got rid of the menu bar. I guess they figured they wanted IE7 to mesh more. Ever notice how the new back and forward buttons look like the new Vista "Pearl."
How does this UI design in Vista actually work out in practice, ie how easy is it to access the functionality that were in the menus? I haven't used Vista, so I'd rather ask someonewho has spent time with it?
Since we are on the subject of IE, can someone tell me why Microsoft started hiding the menu bar and then only make it visible under the address bar!? I know that this is a hack to get it back to the right place, but I am interested what the human interface designers were thinking over there?
This solution certainly helps if you accidentally delete something or need to go back to an older version. SVN is one solution, but it is a bit more explicit, while solutions like this and Apple's Time Machine help avoid needing to remember to update your repository. It should be noted that this doesn't replace backups, since this does not protect against hard-drive corruption. I do have a few of questions though:
- what are the security considerations here?
- can you delete the existence of file, as to ensure that it is not easily found again?
- what are the effects on hard-disc storage space, ie are there any estimates to how much extra storage is needed for this?
I wonder whether he used an object oriented approach? Many cameras share common functionality, whether it be chipset or processing method, so much of that functionality could be inherited and tweaked according to the camera at hand. Doing so makes the task of targeting so many cameras that much easier. This is not to take anything away from the work this guy did, just an observation from the side lines.
At this point in time MacOS X does not have the necessary drivers for either HD-DVD or BluRay. I also don't see MacOS X gaining the necessary drivers until the delivery of Leopard, which is now slated for October. For this reason I don't see any chance of seeing Apple providing either drive as an option until then. At that point in time I would not be surprised that if the drives are offered, then it will be a build-to-order option, given the cost and the fact the competition between HD-DVD and BluRay is just hurting everyone.
This is a silly argument. True, there aren't a lot of other players that do AAC now. But if being compatible with iTunes downloads is as useful to Apple's competitors as you imply, they'll all support it pretty fast. The notion that Apple should adopt an inferior format just to save its competitors the trouble of implementing AAC is frankly ludicrous.
In fact if their competitors plan on providing video in MPEG 4 format, then I hope they plan on supporting AAC. Not doing so is like supporting MPEG 1 video, without supporting MP3 audio, since in other words the relationship is the same: they are both the audio layer for their respective video formats. More info here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Audio_Coding
You're right in that this June, probably only 1% of ipod users will convert to the iPhone. However, 5 years from now cell phones will indeed kill the iPod market.
As long as Apple is making money and is still understanding what people want, will they mind? So in many ways what the market is 5 years doesn't matter. Heck, just look at what we were doing 5 years ago and you will see much has changed.
The Airbus A380 is an impressive plane, and should be recognised as such, yet at the same time if you want a plane that just makes your jaws drop, you need to check out the Antonov 225, a truly impressive plane built by the Russians, capable of handling a payload of 250,000 kg (551,000 lb):
Meanwhile, Boeing has conceded that the very large aircraft (VLA) market is minimal and not worth investing tons of money into. It has spent a nominal sum to upgrade the 747 with the 747-8. The result? Airbus has about 144 orders for the A380 in 7 years, and Boeing has over 80 in less than 2.
I believe the concession was not so much that there was no market for the A380, but that there wasn't room for two companies building a similar configuration. There is certainly a market for this type of plane, generally for long haul flights, but it is not huge. If Boeing decided to target that market once Airbus had gone for it, then they would have both failed.
It makes more sense for Boeing to concentrate on aeroplanes, such as the 777 where there is chance of succeeding, even with competition. Current aeroplanes need improvement in cost effectiveness when it comes to fuel efficiency. The 777 being a majority composite body and taking advantage of advances of engine design fits this market nicely.
The one market that Boeing definitely has avoided at this point is the supersonic aircraft. The problem here, is that it is not cost effective with current technology and it is difficult to make fit the environmental requirements being applied by so many countries.
I should mention that the failures of the A380 have not been design related, but in adjusting their production facilities to build the plane. There is a thread here discussing the 'problems':
Airports that are wanting to welcome the A380 are doing renovations to handle the aeroplane. The USA is generally lagging behind in its readiness, but accommodating the A380 is in many airports interests. Currently the A380 is flying to various destinations, so airports can check that are capable of handling the aeroplane, as well a general marketing tour. Just last week the A380 made visit to JFK. A few links on airport readiness:
The extra problem that the aeroplane poses, on top of the plane itself, is dealing with the number of people arriving in the airport at any one time. Think gate waiting lounges and customs clearance.
Clearly, either of these devices can be modded- but I'm talking from a consumer standpoint.
Then again the general consumer standpoint is to buy what ever offers the features they want in an easy to use package. While the 360 is probably a good option, people don't perceive its primary task as being a media platform, and this is what makes the difference.
BTW I am adverse to WMV. MP4 is my preferred format since it has easily accessible specification documents.
Why not let the market take care of it? If these overly restrictive DRM terms turn off enough people then the market itself will force these companies to open up their systems more.
My cynical self believes that the market will be put in jail before its allowed to decide what they want. People make noise and senators don't seem to care, after all your taxes don't compare to their sponsorship.
This change in DST was definitely worth it, if only for the benefit of forcing embedded systems designers to remember to not hard-code DST dates into their code. Historically, these dates have been changed about once per decade in the US alone. Assuming that they'll never change again is plain stupid. This shift will help train the current generation of developers to just not do that.
And even better, ensure that the internal clock is GMT, while the local time is calculated on the fly with the right offset.
The other approach that Apple seems to be encouraging, is to let the hardware manufactures support their own devices. Sure it means the mobile carriers lose some control, but in doing so they also offload some of the headaches. Mobile carriers want to control so much, that they are causing their own problems.
Does anyone know whether there are any hack to turn DSL routers into basic web servers? My ideal solution, would be:
- main computer powered down
- DSL router serves basic web site
- If requests are made on ssh port or 'extend web site', then Wake on LAN is sent to main PC
- PC goes to sleep after a certain amount of idle time or explicit command
Of course this is probably only useful for home PCs, but this would allow the main computer to only be on when it is needed.
And you can make a business case for that. Face it -- you develop for your company based (hopefully) on a set of standards for what the company will use as its backbone technology. I worked at a Fortune 500 once, and they held on to Netscape 4.7 for the longest time, because it was deployed everywhere (globally), and everything was designed to work for it. It wasn't the greatest browser, but it was still better than IE5 at some critical things.
I must admit I have been in similar situations as the grandparent post. Heck, in some cases I wasn't allowed to have admin rights to a machine I was developing on, or I wouldn't get support. Generally when in situations like this I usually tell them I am quite happy supporting my own machine, since its not as if the usually know what to do with a development system anyhow. This is not to disrespect good system admins, but I usually find that those applying limits are scared of being presented with any real world issues.
In other situations when you can't get the necessary software installed, because of admins who don't want to understand, I delegate the problem to my boss. If you put things in terms of "I need x, because I don't have it I might aswell be sitting at home", then any smart person would make sure a solution gets found, as for the stupid people, well if you are surrounded by too many then its time to change job.
Uhh, no. If you're referring to the rendering engine, Opera built their own, called Presto, which replaced Elektra (also their own work) a few years back. The current version (Opera 9) is built on a a revamped version of Presto. Don't know where you got any other idea; maybe you were thinking of OmniWeb?
The must have changed, since I am pretty sure Opera 8 was using webkit, based on presence of webkit.framework in the applicatio bundle.
Opera for Windows and Mac has been free as in beer for quite some time now. Go download it from Opera.com, it's pretty good.
From what I can tell, Opera on the Mac uses the same engine as Safari, known as WebKit, but just a different release. There may be a few tweaks but the difference essentially lies in the chrome.
Slashdot Mirror
Surely hardware debuggers existed long before software ones? If I remember the history of computing the notion of software was only added later - software being changing the systems characteristics without manually changing hardware state.
Kudos to the editor for not buckling to the financial conflict of interest.
Definitely Kudos, but I have to wonder where an editor who takes this sort of stand is going to get his next job? I ask this, given that there are a good number of print magazines that are like this.
I think they just want it to look more Vista-y. "Fluence", the new toolbar interface for Office 2007, looks way different than previous gens in that they got rid of the menu bar. I guess they figured they wanted IE7 to mesh more. Ever notice how the new back and forward buttons look like the new Vista "Pearl."
How does this UI design in Vista actually work out in practice, ie how easy is it to access the functionality that were in the menus? I haven't used Vista, so I'd rather ask someonewho has spent time with it?
Since we are on the subject of IE, can someone tell me why Microsoft started hiding the menu bar and then only make it visible under the address bar!? I know that this is a hack to get it back to the right place, but I am interested what the human interface designers were thinking over there?
This solution certainly helps if you accidentally delete something or need to go back to an older version. SVN is one solution, but it is a bit more explicit, while solutions like this and Apple's Time Machine help avoid needing to remember to update your repository. It should be noted that this doesn't replace backups, since this does not protect against hard-drive corruption. I do have a few of questions though:
- what are the security considerations here?
- can you delete the existence of file, as to ensure that it is not easily found again?
- what are the effects on hard-disc storage space, ie are there any estimates to how much extra storage is needed for this?
I wonder whether he used an object oriented approach? Many cameras share common functionality, whether it be chipset or processing method, so much of that functionality could be inherited and tweaked according to the camera at hand. Doing so makes the task of targeting so many cameras that much easier. This is not to take anything away from the work this guy did, just an observation from the side lines.
At this point in time MacOS X does not have the necessary drivers for either HD-DVD or BluRay. I also don't see MacOS X gaining the necessary drivers until the delivery of Leopard, which is now slated for October. For this reason I don't see any chance of seeing Apple providing either drive as an option until then. At that point in time I would not be surprised that if the drives are offered, then it will be a build-to-order option, given the cost and the fact the competition between HD-DVD and BluRay is just hurting everyone.
I doubt God uses DSL, He must use at least T3.
Not sure about that, since I don't see any wires disappearing into the ether. I reckon God is using one of those wireless thingy-mi-jigs.
This is a silly argument. True, there aren't a lot of other players that do AAC now. But if being compatible with iTunes downloads is as useful to Apple's competitors as you imply, they'll all support it pretty fast. The notion that Apple should adopt an inferior format just to save its competitors the trouble of implementing AAC is frankly ludicrous.
g
In fact if their competitors plan on providing video in MPEG 4 format, then I hope they plan on supporting AAC. Not doing so is like supporting MPEG 1 video, without supporting MP3 audio, since in other words the relationship is the same: they are both the audio layer for their respective video formats. More info here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Audio_Codin
Now just to see if they fix that dreaded 'out of sync' issue.
You're right in that this June, probably only 1% of ipod users will convert to the iPhone. However, 5 years from now cell phones will indeed kill the iPod market.
As long as Apple is making money and is still understanding what people want, will they mind? So in many ways what the market is 5 years doesn't matter. Heck, just look at what we were doing 5 years ago and you will see much has changed.
I hear there was a time before we had phones too, when people used to tie two cups together with a string.
Before that there was this odd notion of being in the same room as the person you were communicating with.
The Airbus A380 is an impressive plane, and should be recognised as such, yet at the same time if you want a plane that just makes your jaws drop, you need to check out the Antonov 225, a truly impressive plane built by the Russians, capable of handling a payload of 250,000 kg (551,000 lb):
5
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-225
On the Wikipedia page there is also a diagram comparing the size of the 747, A380 and AN-225 and the Spruce Bruce.
YouTube has some videos of the plane:
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=an-22
Meanwhile, Boeing has conceded that the very large aircraft (VLA) market is minimal and not worth investing tons of money into. It has spent a nominal sum to upgrade the 747 with the 747-8. The result? Airbus has about 144 orders for the A380 in 7 years, and Boeing has over 80 in less than 2.
t ion/read.main/2422535/
I believe the concession was not so much that there was no market for the A380, but that there wasn't room for two companies building a similar configuration. There is certainly a market for this type of plane, generally for long haul flights, but it is not huge. If Boeing decided to target that market once Airbus had gone for it, then they would have both failed.
It makes more sense for Boeing to concentrate on aeroplanes, such as the 777 where there is chance of succeeding, even with competition. Current aeroplanes need improvement in cost effectiveness when it comes to fuel efficiency. The 777 being a majority composite body and taking advantage of advances of engine design fits this market nicely.
The one market that Boeing definitely has avoided at this point is the supersonic aircraft. The problem here, is that it is not cost effective with current technology and it is difficult to make fit the environmental requirements being applied by so many countries.
I should mention that the failures of the A380 have not been design related, but in adjusting their production facilities to build the plane. There is a thread here discussing the 'problems':
http://www.airliners.net/discussions/general_avia
Airports that are wanting to welcome the A380 are doing renovations to handle the aeroplane. The USA is generally lagging behind in its readiness, but accommodating the A380 is in many airports interests. Currently the A380 is flying to various destinations, so airports can check that are capable of handling the aeroplane, as well a general marketing tour. Just last week the A380 made visit to JFK. A few links on airport readiness:
t ion/read.main/1493607/e 653/n t/article.html?articleID=1187s _2002_March_6/ai_83557785
- http://www.airliners.net/discussions/general_avia
- http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05333/614282.stm
- http://www.airport-technology.com/features/featur
- http://www.atwonline.com/channels/aircraftEquipme
- http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0CWU/i
The extra problem that the aeroplane poses, on top of the plane itself, is dealing with the number of people arriving in the airport at any one time. Think gate waiting lounges and customs clearance.
Clearly, either of these devices can be modded- but I'm talking from a consumer standpoint.
Then again the general consumer standpoint is to buy what ever offers the features they want in an easy to use package. While the 360 is probably a good option, people don't perceive its primary task as being a media platform, and this is what makes the difference.
BTW I am adverse to WMV. MP4 is my preferred format since it has easily accessible specification documents.
See this link: http://phorums.com.au/showthread.php?t=57817&goto= nextnewest
I don't think anybody has claimed potatoes yet, have they?
:D
Well the South Americans probably do, given the potato's origin
Why not let the market take care of it? If these overly restrictive DRM terms turn off enough people then the market itself will force these companies to open up their systems more.
My cynical self believes that the market will be put in jail before its allowed to decide what they want. People make noise and senators don't seem to care, after all your taxes don't compare to their sponsorship.
This change in DST was definitely worth it, if only for the benefit of forcing embedded systems designers to remember to not hard-code DST dates into their code. Historically, these dates have been changed about once per decade in the US alone. Assuming that they'll never change again is plain stupid. This shift will help train the current generation of developers to just not do that.
And even better, ensure that the internal clock is GMT, while the local time is calculated on the fly with the right offset.
The other approach that Apple seems to be encouraging, is to let the hardware manufactures support their own devices. Sure it means the mobile carriers lose some control, but in doing so they also offload some of the headaches. Mobile carriers want to control so much, that they are causing their own problems.
Does anyone know whether there are any hack to turn DSL routers into basic web servers? My ideal solution, would be:
- main computer powered down
- DSL router serves basic web site
- If requests are made on ssh port or 'extend web site', then Wake on LAN is sent to main PC
- PC goes to sleep after a certain amount of idle time or explicit command
Of course this is probably only useful for home PCs, but this would allow the main computer to only be on when it is needed.
And you can make a business case for that. Face it -- you develop for your company based (hopefully) on a set of standards for what the company will use as its backbone technology. I worked at a Fortune 500 once, and they held on to Netscape 4.7 for the longest time, because it was deployed everywhere (globally), and everything was designed to work for it. It wasn't the greatest browser, but it was still better than IE5 at some critical things.
I must admit I have been in similar situations as the grandparent post. Heck, in some cases I wasn't allowed to have admin rights to a machine I was developing on, or I wouldn't get support. Generally when in situations like this I usually tell them I am quite happy supporting my own machine, since its not as if the usually know what to do with a development system anyhow. This is not to disrespect good system admins, but I usually find that those applying limits are scared of being presented with any real world issues.
In other situations when you can't get the necessary software installed, because of admins who don't want to understand, I delegate the problem to my boss. If you put things in terms of "I need x, because I don't have it I might aswell be sitting at home", then any smart person would make sure a solution gets found, as for the stupid people, well if you are surrounded by too many then its time to change job.
Uhh, no. If you're referring to the rendering engine, Opera built their own, called Presto, which replaced Elektra (also their own work) a few years back. The current version (Opera 9) is built on a a revamped version of Presto. Don't know where you got any other idea; maybe you were thinking of OmniWeb?
The must have changed, since I am pretty sure Opera 8 was using webkit, based on presence of webkit.framework in the applicatio bundle.
Opera for Windows and Mac has been free as in beer for quite some time now. Go download it from Opera.com, it's pretty good.
From what I can tell, Opera on the Mac uses the same engine as Safari, known as WebKit, but just a different release. There may be a few tweaks but the difference essentially lies in the chrome.