Since the article appears to apply to unique users of streaming media, it seems like it would be fairly easy to measure and not be based on number of downloads of the clients. It also appears to not be taking into account local media libraries or iPod-stored media at all, although the article is vague on that point.
Canada is the only country with an ITAR waiver at present -- to the best of my knowledge. Since you can't *give* the Canadians weapons, it is a largely meaningless agreement in their case. And the Bush administration probably wouldn't give the software to the Canadians either (although they might hire them to help write it).
Actually the last sentence is why the ITAR thing exists in the first place. Even between the US and Canada writing military software is a pain in the butt with ITAR.
There is only so far left you can go before it becomes a national security risk.
I call shenanigans! Bush has the worst national security record since Pearl Harbor, and he's considered one of the most conservative presidents since Reagan. I think some liberal policies, which tend to lead to a stronger economy at home and better attitudes toward the US abroad, would dramatically increase our national security.
Back on-topic, the "broadband for all" promise only matters to geeks, really. It will be great for the country, but most people aren't going to change their vote over it. When Al Gore championed the internet in the mid-80's and created the funding necessary to create the WWW technology and services, it took over a decade for it to improve worker productivity and the economy, but still led to ridicule for Gore and the Democrats.
The other "Christian gospels" were left out because they are historically inaccurate and contradictory.
So says the modern Catholic church. We'll never know, because they were not just "left out", they were ordered completely destroyed in antiquity, and only accidental incomplete findings of the texts survive. As for the historical accuracy of the existing New Testament, almost none of it can be archeologically verified, including the actual authors of the remaining gospels, which were assigned their "authors" hundreds of years later.
In any case, as to the topic at hand, I don't think one can claim a religion predates its differentiator (ie. the person who caused the religion's followers to differentiate themselves from others.) The belief structure can go back to antiquity, just like you could claim that much of Judeo-Christian-Muslim thought goes back to the addition of "good" and "evil" to Western religious dogma in Zoraster's time.
Re:"Happy Face" way better than "The Face"
on
Google Goes to Mars
·
· Score: 1
My question is, if Google starts co-locating their servers on Mars, will the www.google.mars servers allow the Martian authorities to censor features such as the Martian face!?
The biggest difference between Microsoft's APIs and others, I think, is that at any given time one and only one API is considered the canonical one in which to write all future software. If I want to sit down today and write software to be released in a year or so, Microsoft will tell me what API to write to unequivocally. With "UNIX", although it's getting better, there have been competing APIs for threads, networking, GUIs, configuration, user handling, etc., often co-existing and sharing the "this is the future" status. Even MacOS has Carbon and Cocoa these days, and despite what a lot of former NeXT fans inside and outside Apple wish, does not advocate either API as the canonical one going forward-- and probably, as a matter of market share, doesn't even have the power to do so if they wanted. Even the format of libraries and versions of libc have changed from release to release, while a Windows binary from 10 years ago will probably run unmodified today.
I think this has helped solidify Microsoft's reputation for API stability among their proponents, and hurt the Unixy operating systems.
Agreed. The Mac community often calls this guy "Rob 'Microsoft wrote the original MacOS' Enderle" because that's one of the claims he stands by to this day.
I don't think I've yet seen definitive proof that solar power is renewable. That may sound absurd, but it takes a lot of power to get all the raw materials, transport them to the manufacturing plant, build a solar panel, ship them to distrubution areas, carry them home, install them, etc. Is the lifetime power output of a solar panel really greater than the energy expenditure to build it? And how much pollution does the manufacturing process create? Some of the materials in some solar panels sound a little toxic.
Anyway, ethanol is essentially solar power, but it is only energy-positive if it's used locally. I'm curious to see what solar panels yield in a full lifecycle analysis.
There was large amounts of photographic evidence of the Wright brothers' accomplishments, some of which was lost in the Ohio floods early in the 1900's, and some of which survives today. Needless to say, NO ONE is documented to have flown out of ground effect, nor make a coordinated turn, until the Wright brothers demonstrated their plane publicly in France. By 1906 when Santos-Dumont made his little hop, the Wright brothers were flying for 20-30 minutes at a time at heights of 100 feet before spectators from the US Army as well as others in his town.
The Wright brothers didn't demonstrate publicly because they were in it for more than a hobby. Not being an independently wealthy tinkerer, they wanted to make their living making airplanes, and realized that they had the only viable design anyone had come up with, so not trusting the patent system, held out until they could secure agreements with various military organizations. They were engineers more than scientists.
Much of the "evidence" of earlier flight, including claims that Ader flew in the late 1800's, was concocted to try to overturn the Wright brothers' patents on their system of differing the angle of attack of the two wings in order to bank the plane. (Almost no one had banked planes before, either... most others were still thinking of planes like ships that would use the rudder to steer, which at those speeds every pilot now knows would lead to a stall.) Newspaper reports from before the patent battle clearly admit the Wright brothers unique invention, while those after the patent battle try to find almost anyone else to assign the invention to. As most know, though, the Wright brothers won every patent battle they faced and the only "evidence" of earlier flight lies in retellings of myths on sites like wikipedia.
Oh, well, nothing sensationalist about that headline. (*rolls eyes*)
This is the same "journalist" who claimed Al Gore said he invented the internet and that Congress had passed a law banning all annoying speech on the internet. Sensationalism is all he has. Reasonable discourse doesn't get nearly as many clicks, especially from Slashdot readers.
That's probably a slight exaggeration, but in the first Gulf War, CNN seemed to have better information than either side's military. I had the opportunity to call in two scuds to the Navy from my house in CT when I was in High School based on CNN's information. I happened to be on the phone to my father who was in the Navy operations and planning center in Bahrain, and told him that CNN was reporting two incoming scuds on Dharan, Saudi Arabia. He told me not to worry, it wasn't happening. I told him that CNN seemed pretty adamant and they were donning gas masks. He started to tell me that it really wasn't happ... then said "um, I'll call you back *click*". I heard later that our satellites were getting "red out" on their IR sensors and that multiple scuds launched in sequence on the same trajectory wouldn't show them all unless they used radar pings, which they hadn't been doing consistently. The CNN report was accurate, and the Navy missile sensors were not.
After that they put a 10 minute delay on CNN, installed CNN in the Navy HQ, started using radar pings a lot more, and generally started reviewing what information was being released by the media. Anyway, the US military has come a long way since the first Gulf War.
This may be because they haven't been challenged in this area. It seems like Google is the best company in the world right now at aggressively responding to a technical challenge. And spending a lot of resources on an uncontested strength is just a bad business decision.
And you're going to force people to enroll in medical school at gunpoint, too, right, and chain them to the lab counter to work for peanuts to develop your super drugs, right? I think you're missing the entire point of what motivates most people.
iWork doesn't include a word processor, just a PageMaker-style page layout app called Pages. I would never subject my kid to Pages for writing reports. And TextEdit is reasonably powerful, but still seems mostly targeted towards reading, not writing formatted text (no tool bars, etc.) I'm not really sure Apple's sat down with their average home user and asked them what they want for years.
Apple makes a little under half its revenue from iPods, and a little over half from the Mac. The mini probably doesn't contribute significantly to the revenue figure, since it's a low-price, low-margin machine. The iMac and the PowerBook are Apple's cash cow. Unlike Dell, they really haven't figured out how to sell a home computer to average folks.
I'm not a huge fan of a pile of slots, but I'd say take away most of the mini's ports and add a single slot. If someone needs gigabit ethernet, remote control, external storage, etc., let them fill that slot with whatever they need to specialize the machine for their needs.
You said entry-level Blu-Ray players would cost $1000. The PS3 is going to be released this year at a whole lot less than that. Given the PS3's likely volume, I suspect Blu-Ray will hit "mass market" prices much faster than HD DVD and generally become the cheaper option, not the more expensive one. Thus, unless you think the PS3 is going to cost $1000, you're completely off-base.
Compare the P4-based Dells and the Dells clearly come out dramatically ahead in price/performance. Of course, you're not paying for a lot of extra features you won't use anyway. And you get a few extra slots, and a word processor. (But who needs a word processor on a home computer anyway, right Apple?)
The bottom line is that Apple doesn't sell a basic home computer anymore.
I'm a huge Mac fan. I just wish Apple woke up and sold computers I could widely recommend.
I think they should try to swing it such that the empty space suit catches the golf ball. Or maybe they have planned it that way... this is the low-budget "repair mission" to fix the transmitter in the space suit?
I'm sorry, but I disagree. I don't think Intel has changed a single thing in response to Cell in any desktop or server chip. They MAY have tweaked the StrongARM future designs to compete on the DSP level, but I'm almost positive that Cell has no affect on Itanium. The Itanium was crushed by AMD64 at the low end but is still a very viable and well-respected chip at the very high end (massively parallel number crunchers,) but will compete much more with the POWER chips than the Cell chips.
I'd argue AMD has forced Intel to try and compete. The Cell is hardly a blip on the radar, and will likely be about as popular in a desktop as StrongARM, SuperH, or other embedded chips.
Slashdot Mirror
Since the article appears to apply to unique users of streaming media, it seems like it would be fairly easy to measure and not be based on number of downloads of the clients. It also appears to not be taking into account local media libraries or iPod-stored media at all, although the article is vague on that point.
Actually the last sentence is why the ITAR thing exists in the first place. Even between the US and Canada writing military software is a pain in the butt with ITAR.
I call shenanigans! Bush has the worst national security record since Pearl Harbor, and he's considered one of the most conservative presidents since Reagan. I think some liberal policies, which tend to lead to a stronger economy at home and better attitudes toward the US abroad, would dramatically increase our national security.
Back on-topic, the "broadband for all" promise only matters to geeks, really. It will be great for the country, but most people aren't going to change their vote over it. When Al Gore championed the internet in the mid-80's and created the funding necessary to create the WWW technology and services, it took over a decade for it to improve worker productivity and the economy, but still led to ridicule for Gore and the Democrats.
So says the modern Catholic church. We'll never know, because they were not just "left out", they were ordered completely destroyed in antiquity, and only accidental incomplete findings of the texts survive. As for the historical accuracy of the existing New Testament, almost none of it can be archeologically verified, including the actual authors of the remaining gospels, which were assigned their "authors" hundreds of years later.
In any case, as to the topic at hand, I don't think one can claim a religion predates its differentiator (ie. the person who caused the religion's followers to differentiate themselves from others.) The belief structure can go back to antiquity, just like you could claim that much of Judeo-Christian-Muslim thought goes back to the addition of "good" and "evil" to Western religious dogma in Zoraster's time.
My question is, if Google starts co-locating their servers on Mars, will the www.google.mars servers allow the Martian authorities to censor features such as the Martian face!?
The biggest difference between Microsoft's APIs and others, I think, is that at any given time one and only one API is considered the canonical one in which to write all future software. If I want to sit down today and write software to be released in a year or so, Microsoft will tell me what API to write to unequivocally. With "UNIX", although it's getting better, there have been competing APIs for threads, networking, GUIs, configuration, user handling, etc., often co-existing and sharing the "this is the future" status. Even MacOS has Carbon and Cocoa these days, and despite what a lot of former NeXT fans inside and outside Apple wish, does not advocate either API as the canonical one going forward-- and probably, as a matter of market share, doesn't even have the power to do so if they wanted. Even the format of libraries and versions of libc have changed from release to release, while a Windows binary from 10 years ago will probably run unmodified today.
I think this has helped solidify Microsoft's reputation for API stability among their proponents, and hurt the Unixy operating systems.
You've never read a Sendmail.cf file, have you?
Agreed. The Mac community often calls this guy "Rob 'Microsoft wrote the original MacOS' Enderle" because that's one of the claims he stands by to this day.
I don't think I've yet seen definitive proof that solar power is renewable. That may sound absurd, but it takes a lot of power to get all the raw materials, transport them to the manufacturing plant, build a solar panel, ship them to distrubution areas, carry them home, install them, etc. Is the lifetime power output of a solar panel really greater than the energy expenditure to build it? And how much pollution does the manufacturing process create? Some of the materials in some solar panels sound a little toxic.
Anyway, ethanol is essentially solar power, but it is only energy-positive if it's used locally. I'm curious to see what solar panels yield in a full lifecycle analysis.
There was large amounts of photographic evidence of the Wright brothers' accomplishments, some of which was lost in the Ohio floods early in the 1900's, and some of which survives today. Needless to say, NO ONE is documented to have flown out of ground effect, nor make a coordinated turn, until the Wright brothers demonstrated their plane publicly in France. By 1906 when Santos-Dumont made his little hop, the Wright brothers were flying for 20-30 minutes at a time at heights of 100 feet before spectators from the US Army as well as others in his town.
The Wright brothers didn't demonstrate publicly because they were in it for more than a hobby. Not being an independently wealthy tinkerer, they wanted to make their living making airplanes, and realized that they had the only viable design anyone had come up with, so not trusting the patent system, held out until they could secure agreements with various military organizations. They were engineers more than scientists.
Much of the "evidence" of earlier flight, including claims that Ader flew in the late 1800's, was concocted to try to overturn the Wright brothers' patents on their system of differing the angle of attack of the two wings in order to bank the plane. (Almost no one had banked planes before, either... most others were still thinking of planes like ships that would use the rudder to steer, which at those speeds every pilot now knows would lead to a stall.) Newspaper reports from before the patent battle clearly admit the Wright brothers unique invention, while those after the patent battle try to find almost anyone else to assign the invention to. As most know, though, the Wright brothers won every patent battle they faced and the only "evidence" of earlier flight lies in retellings of myths on sites like wikipedia.
You're thinking of the President and Congress. The US military has never unilaterally decided to invade anyone.
This is the same "journalist" who claimed Al Gore said he invented the internet and that Congress had passed a law banning all annoying speech on the internet. Sensationalism is all he has. Reasonable discourse doesn't get nearly as many clicks, especially from Slashdot readers.
That's probably a slight exaggeration, but in the first Gulf War, CNN seemed to have better information than either side's military. I had the opportunity to call in two scuds to the Navy from my house in CT when I was in High School based on CNN's information. I happened to be on the phone to my father who was in the Navy operations and planning center in Bahrain, and told him that CNN was reporting two incoming scuds on Dharan, Saudi Arabia. He told me not to worry, it wasn't happening. I told him that CNN seemed pretty adamant and they were donning gas masks. He started to tell me that it really wasn't happ... then said "um, I'll call you back *click*". I heard later that our satellites were getting "red out" on their IR sensors and that multiple scuds launched in sequence on the same trajectory wouldn't show them all unless they used radar pings, which they hadn't been doing consistently. The CNN report was accurate, and the Navy missile sensors were not.
After that they put a 10 minute delay on CNN, installed CNN in the Navy HQ, started using radar pings a lot more, and generally started reviewing what information was being released by the media. Anyway, the US military has come a long way since the first Gulf War.
This may be because they haven't been challenged in this area. It seems like Google is the best company in the world right now at aggressively responding to a technical challenge. And spending a lot of resources on an uncontested strength is just a bad business decision.
And you're going to force people to enroll in medical school at gunpoint, too, right, and chain them to the lab counter to work for peanuts to develop your super drugs, right? I think you're missing the entire point of what motivates most people.
iWork doesn't include a word processor, just a PageMaker-style page layout app called Pages. I would never subject my kid to Pages for writing reports. And TextEdit is reasonably powerful, but still seems mostly targeted towards reading, not writing formatted text (no tool bars, etc.) I'm not really sure Apple's sat down with their average home user and asked them what they want for years.
Apple makes a little under half its revenue from iPods, and a little over half from the Mac. The mini probably doesn't contribute significantly to the revenue figure, since it's a low-price, low-margin machine. The iMac and the PowerBook are Apple's cash cow. Unlike Dell, they really haven't figured out how to sell a home computer to average folks.
I'm not a huge fan of a pile of slots, but I'd say take away most of the mini's ports and add a single slot. If someone needs gigabit ethernet, remote control, external storage, etc., let them fill that slot with whatever they need to specialize the machine for their needs.
Frankly, few care.
You said entry-level Blu-Ray players would cost $1000. The PS3 is going to be released this year at a whole lot less than that. Given the PS3's likely volume, I suspect Blu-Ray will hit "mass market" prices much faster than HD DVD and generally become the cheaper option, not the more expensive one. Thus, unless you think the PS3 is going to cost $1000, you're completely off-base.
Compare the P4-based Dells and the Dells clearly come out dramatically ahead in price/performance. Of course, you're not paying for a lot of extra features you won't use anyway. And you get a few extra slots, and a word processor. (But who needs a word processor on a home computer anyway, right Apple?)
The bottom line is that Apple doesn't sell a basic home computer anymore.
I'm a huge Mac fan. I just wish Apple woke up and sold computers I could widely recommend.
You really think the PS3 is going to cost $1000? I am highly dubious of your claim.
I think they should try to swing it such that the empty space suit catches the golf ball. Or maybe they have planned it that way... this is the low-budget "repair mission" to fix the transmitter in the space suit?
In the same sense, it's much like saying that RMS is no longer connected with reality.
Is something to the effect of "If you use my software, you have to prepend GNU/ to the name of your product" in the license yet?
I'll bet Samsung a billion tracks that their player with Microsoft's service isn't going to displace the iPod.
Any non-iTunes Music Store capable player is about as likely to kill the iPod as any non-Win32-running OS is to kill Windows.
I'm sorry, but I disagree. I don't think Intel has changed a single thing in response to Cell in any desktop or server chip. They MAY have tweaked the StrongARM future designs to compete on the DSP level, but I'm almost positive that Cell has no affect on Itanium. The Itanium was crushed by AMD64 at the low end but is still a very viable and well-respected chip at the very high end (massively parallel number crunchers,) but will compete much more with the POWER chips than the Cell chips.
I'd argue AMD has forced Intel to try and compete. The Cell is hardly a blip on the radar, and will likely be about as popular in a desktop as StrongARM, SuperH, or other embedded chips.