I'm sure this revelation comes as no suprise to anyone, but this the beginning effect of the free browser phenomena. This is exactly what was planned. Both Netscape and Microsoft made attempts to "add functionality" to their browsers that were not standard. Both gave away thier browsers for free in an attempt to become the browser standard. Both wanted to dominate the internet.
Microsoft has won. Like the desktop, let the domination begin! Now they can afford to break HTML and internet standards without losing market share. Soon, much of the internet will begin to bend to the will of Microsoft much like everything else does (Incedentally, console games are next). The free internet (as in speech as well as $$) is coming to an end.
I will continue to be a niche player and use the Mac OS and browse the internet with iCab. I will also continue to root for Linux to unseat Microsoft. I refuse to succumb and fall in line.
I have no idea why people keep talking about GPS accuracy measured in yards
I have no idea why people keep talking about GPS accuracy measured in yards. GPS accuracy can be measured in millimeters using freely (as in no government restrictions) available civilian technology. I work in the civil engineering field where GPS would be a logical non-military application. If GPS had a measure of accuracy measured in yards it would be nearly useless in our line of work, yet it is routinely used on more and more projects.
Here is a link to the specs to just one of many civilian GPS surveying receivers where you can see that post-processed measurements can be accurate down to 5mm and real-time kinematic measurements down to around 1cm horizontal And 2 cm vertical.
I think it would be interesting to find out if the reality distortion fields eminated by ESR and Steve Jobs are scientifically measureable and, if so, whose is stronger.
My gut feeling is that two new subatomic particles will be discovered as a result of any such study. I propose they be named oblivious and untruth.
Expandability can be found in the high-end tower line if by expandability you meant PCI and AGP slots. Otherwise, all other Macs have USB and Firewire. Removable storage can be had in the high-end tower line. The point about having an ugly stack of peripherals laying around is conceded.
I see nothing here that hasn't already been done or is only unique in a minor way. If this is where Linux is going, then it will quickly become as huge and bloated as Windows. X and everything that is dependent on it needs to be dumped. I'm not advocating returning to a CLI-only interface either.
Speaking of CLI, ever notice that many Linux users feel that they have to add the "I use the CLI most of the time" disclaimer before they feel they are qualified to talk about a GUI. It's like what some people say when they talk about gay people or religion. It's one of the reasons why the Linux GUI(s) are horrid compared to commercial quality OSes. For many in the Linux community, it's shameful to use one!
"I use the CLI about 99% of the time but..."
"I'm not gay or anything but..."
"I'm not religious or anything but..."
I hardly consider it the best way to run Linux on a Mac. Virtual PC is emulating Intel hardware via software. I can only imagine how hideously slow this must be. The time spent formatting a Linux partition has to be trivial compared to the day to day time spent waiting on Gnome to come up on an emulated Intel linux distro.
I'm not a sysadmin nor do I have extensive experience with Unix boxen. Somebody out there surely has shopped for and uses Unix workstations. Therefore, I ask you to confirm or not confirm my impression that many Unix boxes are far more expensive than a Mac. What are the ballpark prices for the various workstations below?
A Sun Solaris Workstation An HP PA-Risc (did I get that right?) Workstation An IBM AIX Workstation A Compaq Tru-64 Alpha Workstation An SGI Irix Workstation A SCO Workstation A BSD Workstation A Linux Workstation An OS X Workstation
I'm guessing the OS X Workstation will be priced on the low end, obviously not as low as a Celeron/Linux box but not as high as a Sparcstation/Solaris box either.
Also, I'm wondering, how far is each platform entrenched in the real world? Are there more businesses, universities, laboratories, etc. using Intel/SCO boxes than Sun or HP boxes? What I'm getting at is that there are cheap Intel boxes out there but is anybody using them to a great extent or are they typically shelling out the cash for Sun/HP/IBM/Compaq boxes?
I think we may find that the statement of Apple hardware and software being more expensive than what is expected in the Unix world is greatly exaggerated. In fact, I bet an Apple workstation will be a pretty good deal.
Has adaptive optics foregone the need to deploy space-based telescopes? For those who don't know about adaptive optics, the primary mirror continuously makes small variations in its figure to compensate for atmospheric distortions, thus giving very crisp resolution like we see from the Hubble (which operates free from atmospheric distortions). To launch or construct a 100m scope in space would seem to be exceedingly expensive both in initial construction costs and the inevitable component replacements and upgrades. Given the cost of launching and constructing objects in space, recent advances in the field of adaptive optics and placing several smaller telescopes in an array to simulate larger apertures (what, if I recall correctly, is called an inferometer), do space-based scopes still offer any advantages to earthbound scopes?
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sure this revelation comes as no suprise to anyone, but this the beginning effect of the free browser phenomena. This is exactly what was planned. Both Netscape and Microsoft made attempts to "add functionality" to their browsers that were not standard. Both gave away thier browsers for free in an attempt to become the browser standard. Both wanted to dominate the internet.
Microsoft has won. Like the desktop, let the domination begin! Now they can afford to break HTML and internet standards without losing market share. Soon, much of the internet will begin to bend to the will of Microsoft much like everything else does (Incedentally, console games are next). The free internet (as in speech as well as $$) is coming to an end.
I will continue to be a niche player and use the Mac OS and browse the internet with iCab. I will also continue to root for Linux to unseat Microsoft. I refuse to succumb and fall in line.
Viva la Mac! Viva Linux!
I have no idea why people keep talking about GPS accuracy measured in yards. GPS accuracy can be measured in millimeters using freely (as in no government restrictions) available civilian technology. I work in the civil engineering field where GPS would be a logical non-military application. If GPS had a measure of accuracy measured in yards it would be nearly useless in our line of work, yet it is routinely used on more and more projects.
Here is a link to the specs to just one of many civilian GPS surveying receivers where you can see that post-processed measurements can be accurate down to 5mm and real-time kinematic measurements down to around 1cm horizontal And 2 cm vertical.
http://www.sokkia.com/Products/Radianspecs.htm
I think it would be interesting to find out if the reality distortion fields eminated by ESR and Steve Jobs are scientifically measureable and, if so, whose is stronger.
My gut feeling is that two new subatomic particles will be discovered as a result of any such study. I propose they be named oblivious and untruth.
Expandability can be found in the high-end tower line if by expandability you meant PCI and AGP slots. Otherwise, all other Macs have USB and Firewire. Removable storage can be had in the high-end tower line. The point about having an ugly stack of peripherals laying around is conceded.
I see nothing here that hasn't already been done or is only unique in a minor way. If this is where Linux is going, then it will quickly become as huge and bloated as Windows. X and everything that is dependent on it needs to be dumped. I'm not advocating returning to a CLI-only interface either.
Speaking of CLI, ever notice that many Linux users feel that they have to add the "I use the CLI most of the time" disclaimer before they feel they are qualified to talk about a GUI. It's like what some people say when they talk about gay people or religion. It's one of the reasons why the Linux GUI(s) are horrid compared to commercial quality OSes. For many in the Linux community, it's shameful to use one!
"I use the CLI about 99% of the time but..."
"I'm not gay or anything but..."
"I'm not religious or anything but..."
I hardly consider it the best way to run Linux on a Mac. Virtual PC is emulating Intel hardware via software. I can only imagine how hideously slow this must be. The time spent formatting a Linux partition has to be trivial compared to the day to day time spent waiting on Gnome to come up on an emulated Intel linux distro.
I'm not a sysadmin nor do I have extensive experience with Unix boxen. Somebody out there surely has shopped for and uses Unix workstations. Therefore, I ask you to confirm or not confirm my impression that many Unix boxes are far more expensive than a Mac. What are the ballpark prices for the various workstations below?
A Sun Solaris Workstation
An HP PA-Risc (did I get that right?) Workstation
An IBM AIX Workstation
A Compaq Tru-64 Alpha Workstation
An SGI Irix Workstation
A SCO Workstation
A BSD Workstation
A Linux Workstation
An OS X Workstation
I'm guessing the OS X Workstation will be priced on the low end, obviously not as low as a Celeron/Linux box but not as high as a Sparcstation/Solaris box either.
Also, I'm wondering, how far is each platform entrenched in the real world? Are there more businesses, universities, laboratories, etc. using Intel/SCO boxes than Sun or HP boxes? What I'm getting at is that there are cheap Intel boxes out there but is anybody using them to a great extent or are they typically shelling out the cash for Sun/HP/IBM/Compaq boxes?
I think we may find that the statement of Apple hardware and software being more expensive than what is expected in the Unix world is greatly exaggerated. In fact, I bet an Apple workstation will be a pretty good deal.
Has adaptive optics foregone the need to deploy space-based telescopes? For those who don't know about adaptive optics, the primary mirror continuously makes small variations in its figure to compensate for atmospheric distortions, thus giving very crisp resolution like we see from the Hubble (which operates free from atmospheric distortions). To launch or construct a 100m scope in space would seem to be exceedingly expensive both in initial construction costs and the inevitable component replacements and upgrades. Given the cost of launching and constructing objects in space, recent advances in the field of adaptive optics and placing several smaller telescopes in an array to simulate larger apertures (what, if I recall correctly, is called an inferometer), do space-based scopes still offer any advantages to earthbound scopes?