Can anyone point me to a link that describes what the astronauts do with this extra day in orbit? Considering the expense of getting them there, I find it hard to believe that they just sit around for this extra day picking their nose and farting, but it would seem like all of the experiments would have already been stowed.
Can they make use of this extra day?
On a related note, I'm well aware that the astronauts have plenty of air+power+water+food for this extra day, but how long could they actually stay in orbit before one of those things ran out? Just curious; mostly to know how conservatively these things are planned.
The only possible exciting part would be a battle for Taiwan... but that would suck for everyone, even those not involved.
Since you brought it up--what do you think the real chances are for a shooting war over Taiwan in our lifetimes? Don't the Chinese themselves have too much to lose? Are they really serious about it, or just using.tw as a bargaining chip? Could China position itself that it wouldn't have so much to lose from this conflict ie biz interests from.eu instead of.us?
There is consternation about China's intentions, but I just don't see how such a conflict could be worth it to the Chinese. Although it's interesting to think about how our military would fare against China's.
Why program a TiVo to get certain shows for you when you can record every single show on the air, all at once, and then use recommendations, search, a grid, or any other means you care to name to figure out which of those thousands and thousands and thousands of hours of programming you want to watch.
Why use Google when I can download the whole internet and then search that? Really now. I have Zero, Zip, Nada, interest in 90% of the shows being run, for instance daytime soaps, in Spanish. Why bother to download those, just to delete later?
Much rather get the half-dozen or so shows I like, and a once-in-awhile recommendation for a new show is nice. But to record everything sounds to me like a management nightmare.
Is there really any doubt whether Apple will use EFI in their machines?
Yes. You'll note that they're not listed as a member. Not invited? Not interested? Working on something else? Will they just license the developed tech from Intel? Who knows. But it's interesting that Dell is there but Apple is not.
Dell and MS marketing execs probably spend many a sleepless night trying to figure out how they can come up with something with nearly the same cost to value ratio.
How about they do something interesting? Apple's news is reported on/. because, rightly or wrongly, Apple is perceived as doing interesting new things, some of which fail and and some of which work. Dell doesn't do much new at all (and makes vast sums doing that, so I'm guessing they're happy in that position.)
You can install Location Finder to display your current location on a Virtual Earth map by using Wi-Fi technology.
I don't have ActiveX enabled, natch, so I can't test this little piece of technology--but based on the blurb it sounds like it works via WPS which is interesting mostly becuase of what it's likely to do to the WPS competition.
Can anyone else test this to see how it operates, if the tech was developed in house or purchased, and if it's accurate at all?
So if it cost $50 of electricity to make, and will generate $45 in energy during its lifetime, there's no reason the company can't sell it for $5,000
But the issue is that there is no one suggesting that anyone pay $5,000 to save $45 in utility bills. All of the arguments for solar power that I've seen argue that you save more money in lowered utility bills than you spent on the panels. Therefore, the cost to you must be less than the $45 it saves in energy.
Even if the power cost of manufacture is 1/10 the total cost, that doesn't change the argument; if it cost $50 to make, and retails for $500 since the power cost of manufacture is 10% of the total cost, you would still expect to save at least $500 in utility bills.
People don't buy these just to be green: they buy them because over the life of the unit they expect to save money. And it's been determined that given the proper conditions, you can make your money back in 4 years on a product with a 20 year lifetime. So given that, how could it possibly take more money to manufacture than it generates over the course of it's lifetime? The manufacturing plant would have to have a huge discount on utility plants vs. the cost of power to the consumer; perhaps they do.
He or she said it takes more energy to produce them then they will generate in their expected lifetime.
Ok, right. But if it were to take more energy to produce than they generate, they would be sold for less than their cost to manufacture. eg If they require 1500 kw to produce, at $.15/kw, that'd be $225 in energy costs to produce. However, if they were only able to produce less energy than they required they'd only be able to save the consumer the amount they could produce eg if they max produced 1000kw they would save the consumer $150.
So you'd have to pay $225 to save $150; and of course you wouldn't. In fact, you pay something much closer to $50. So if it costs more in energy costs to produce than is saved over the course of their lifetime, when is that extra energy paid for?
They tried to knock over the World Trade Center in 1993 when Bill Clinton was president. Why?
Simply put, it's because we give tremendous financial support to Israel, who in turn kills Palestinians. Israel is a hard target, and we are (were) not. Therefore, by attacking us they hoped that we would withdraw our support of Israel, weakening them.
Rational people do not blow themselves up.
We have heroes of our military who themselves give their lives to save others. Al Queda operates from the same instinct: there are times when it is necessary to sacrifice yourself to save the lives of others; and they believe that they are working at stopping an oppressor who kills Palestinians.
Frankly, to think otherwise is to underestimate the enemy. You must operate with a clear perspective if you hope to defeat them, otherwise you target the wrong targets and fail to see their vulnerabilities.
I disagree, vehemently. That means strongly, and hopefully it always will, so that a few hundred years from now someone reading this thread will still be able to understand most of what we were talking about.
You may be interested to know that "literally" is shifting meaning--it no longer always means "exactly"; it can sometimes mean "I mean the statement intensely, although it is not an actual depiction." There is an interesting note on this phenomenon at dictionary.com
You would rather die? There are things worse than death. I would consider waking up after losing 100 IQ points to be one of them (due to not all of my neurons thawing out). For instance.
I do not know if any of the Tuskegee Airmen (the only black squadron -- or the first, I don't remember -- in WWII)
Both groups (The Tuskegee Airmen and the participants in the Tuskegee syphilis study) were comprised of African-Americans, also. I believe that is a component of the confusion.
I think the reason why Microsoft didn't completely fold up the Mac Business Unit after Apple raised its middle finger in Microsoft's face with Safari and iWork was that the "Chief Software Architect" prefers working with Mac OS X over XP.
I'd be interested to see some support for what is obviously an outlandish claim.
While I could indeed believe it, I resist doing so because I recognize and resist the fanboi in me. However I would very much appreciate a link that would allow me to indulge my fantasies.
And by "run", I hope you mean something besides "have on a shelf." Cause, I mean, who doesn't have at least three OSes at home. I hope you mean "use on a daily basis."
I have a PhD in computer science and biology. I was consulted in the design of the PowerPC microprocessors. I worked at BBN and refined a bit of TCP/IP. I had (and have, and still own) the 2nd (or is it 3rd?) "personally owned" domain name.
This isn't "fool-proof" (fools are way too ingenious) but it would offer a formidable target that would be hard to punch through.
The key is understanding that an attacker won't meet you on your terms. You will almost always be able to control some aspect effectively. Therefore, for me to be successful, I must avoid engaging you with the aspect that you have designed.
Certainly, you could build an impentrable fortress. So what? I could
drop cluster-bombs, thereby consuming all the oxygen.
Drop a chem-bio weapons, circumventing the wall
Lay seige, until you starved.
Nuke you. You might be shielded from the blast, but the radiation would nonetheless get you.
Have someone from inside your wall give me the key.
The point is: of course you can make a wall stronger than I can break. So I have to do something besides attempt to break it. And that is exactly how software cracking works; otherwise, we'd all be brute-force attackers.
Do you see it, now? Sorry for the snark-attack, but man, how did you not get this?
After degrading the accuracy/reliability of GPS in NYC--and I don't have much experience with either, frankly--can you explain to me how WiFi WAPs are expected to stay static enough to provide consistent datapoints for triangulation?
People in NYC don't move, I take it? Businesses don't tinker with their WAP settings/signal strengths? Gee, I do, regularly; and my workplace does also. Cause it's a system that we are continually tweaking for performance/security reasons. Not to mention intermittent environmental influences, like microwaves.
If these folks re-surveyed on a weekly or monthly basis, maybe it would be useful . But exactly what systems can rely upon this data, and fail gracefully when changes are encountered? You sure wouldn't want to base a mapping solution on it; not for 10 years, at which point the market may have matured enough that changes are no longer routinely made. But I don't think we're at that point yet.
Assuming people don't get swap-happy and trade access points all over the place, the reliability should be very high, too.
Well, that would be an issue, wouldn't it? And, unlike, say, a system you own, other folks own and control these datapoints that your system depends on.
I have to say that I regularly reconfigure my WAP becasuse, well, it's mine, and I chose to use it like a toy. I notice that a great many of my neighbors have WAPs of their own, but, not so surprisingly, I find that everytime I look the configuration is a little different--cause they're playing with theirs too.
You know, they lose power so vanish for awhile. Or are configured for security, but then the owner decides that's too much a pain in the neck so reverts. Or buys a different brand, hoping to get better signal. Or people move away--I hear that "rentals" are common in "urban centers", which tend to attract a transient demographic. Or the mix changes for any number of other reasons.
I hope for your sake that you guys took a snapshot and then took another 3 mos. later to determine average drift; I suspect that it'd be significant, enough that you couldn't triangulate off of it, at least.
Really, at this stage of your product cycle you shouldn't be guessing if this is feasible; you should be able to respond to this (obvious) criticism in the strong affirmative, without the guessing you displayed. How else can I be expected to trust it? And while it may be accurate for a month or so, it'll only be updated once a year? Gee, I sure hope I'm trying to get my position at the beginning of the year rather than at the end.
Sorry to be harsh, but really this is one of the stupider ideas I've seen posted here. You may as well give directions based on the make, model, and color of cars parked in driveways. Those don't change, much either. But over the course of a year, I guess they actually do, huh?
Most bills that go through Congress have so much unrelated crap tacked onto them that no matter which way you vote, you're almost guaranteed to be voting for or against something people like and something people dislike at the same time, and whichever part of that was unpopular, your opponent will use against you during your reelection campaign.
Indeed. One of the commentators in the post-election analysis was interesting: he claimed to have worked on the Clinton re-election campaign, which if you recall was vs. Dole. This analyst admitted that Dole was one of the best senators that we've had, but that they were nonetheless able to "kill" him in much the same way that Kerry was defeated.
Senators are simply presented with too many bills, and they'll defeat one just so another one with stronger language is passed instead, so to construe them as against the issue altogether isn't accurate.
It is for that reason that I don't think we'll have a President Hillary Clinton; I think our next president is much more likely to be a governor--who isn't confronted with these kinds of dilemmas, as they are Executives and not Legislators.
Why don't I ever hear stories about conservatives/libertarians sneaking laissez-faire clauses into appropriations bills? Someone should have sneakily repealed DMCA by now.
I dunno. You guys run Congress, what's stopping you? Oh, that's right--nothing. I guess maybe they're not really interested in looking out for your interests after all, huh? How else do you explain inaction on this?
And when this appropriations bill is passed, do you think it'll be passed by a majority of GOP votes, or not?
Nuclear war certainly wasn't on the table when Japan decided to make its move...
EVERYTHING is on the table. Anyone that tells you that war has rules and boundaries have more faith in diplomacy than is warranted.
Here's the lesson that we should come away with: if you start something, you'd better be prepared to end it (*). Discounting technological advancements of your opponent (**), or indeed any other surprise maneuvers, is to give a predictability to warfare that has simply never existed.
Ask the Spanish Armada. Think they were innocent of aggression because they weren't supposed to lose?
(*) A lesson that our own administration seems to have forgotten. Both sides can read a force chart; if you're on the losing side, do you fight bravely and die? Or do you change the rules of the engagement to your advantage as much as possible?
(**) Indeed, a great many, even majority, of technological advancements have been spurred by the desire to outmaneuver an opponent. That this occurred in World War II as well should surprise no one. That it surprised the Japanese is a testament to their arrogance.
That was before the iPod. Take a look at Apple's quarterly statements, and I think you'll find that they are a music distributor first, who also happens to sell workgroup class RAIDs and 1U Servers. How they jell those two positions for long term health I think remains to be seen, especially in light of moving to commodity CPUs.
Before Monday, I thought Apple would never go x86, either. Now I think all bets are of, and their strategy is still being analyzed.
Which, incidentally, is amazing they managed to keep that secret for 5 YEARS!
Uh, I imagine that I read Mac rumors more than you, but it wasn't much of a secret. It was pretty widely acknowledged that Apple had a working version of OS X for x86 in their labs.
The big surprise was that Apple decided to actually play that card, not that they had the card up their sleeves.
That, and now the OS X-on-x86 guys get offices with windows, and the PPC developers go to the skunkworks basement. C'est la vie! It's funny to think of the OSx86 developers rising from the ground, like zombies seeking brains.
Apple's online store says the highest-end Dual 2.7GHz model is "Estimated Ship: Same business day".
Apple keeps their prices high to keep demand constrained. Would they rather sell 10x as many G5s and make less on each one? They have said so in the past. But since CPU production couldn't keep pace at that rate, Apple keeps their prices high.
Slashdot Mirror
Can anyone point me to a link that describes what the astronauts do with this extra day in orbit? Considering the expense of getting them there, I find it hard to believe that they just sit around for this extra day picking their nose and farting, but it would seem like all of the experiments would have already been stowed.
Can they make use of this extra day?
On a related note, I'm well aware that the astronauts have plenty of air+power+water+food for this extra day, but how long could they actually stay in orbit before one of those things ran out? Just curious; mostly to know how conservatively these things are planned.
The only possible exciting part would be a battle for Taiwan... but that would suck for everyone, even those not involved.
Since you brought it up--what do you think the real chances are for a shooting war over Taiwan in our lifetimes? Don't the Chinese themselves have too much to lose? Are they really serious about it, or just using .tw as a bargaining chip? Could China position itself that it wouldn't have so much to lose from this conflict ie biz interests from .eu instead of .us?
There is consternation about China's intentions, but I just don't see how such a conflict could be worth it to the Chinese. Although it's interesting to think about how our military would fare against China's.
Why program a TiVo to get certain shows for you when you can record every single show on the air, all at once, and then use recommendations, search, a grid, or any other means you care to name to figure out which of those thousands and thousands and thousands of hours of programming you want to watch.
Why use Google when I can download the whole internet and then search that? Really now. I have Zero, Zip, Nada, interest in 90% of the shows being run, for instance daytime soaps, in Spanish. Why bother to download those, just to delete later?
Much rather get the half-dozen or so shows I like, and a once-in-awhile recommendation for a new show is nice. But to record everything sounds to me like a management nightmare.
Is there really any doubt whether Apple will use EFI in their machines?
Yes. You'll note that they're not listed as a member. Not invited? Not interested? Working on something else? Will they just license the developed tech from Intel? Who knows. But it's interesting that Dell is there but Apple is not.
Dell and MS marketing execs probably spend many a sleepless night trying to figure out how they can come up with something with nearly the same cost to value ratio.
How about they do something interesting? Apple's news is reported on /. because, rightly or wrongly, Apple is perceived as doing interesting new things, some of which fail and and some of which work. Dell doesn't do much new at all (and makes vast sums doing that, so I'm guessing they're happy in that position.)
You can install Location Finder to display your current location on a Virtual Earth map by using Wi-Fi technology.
I don't have ActiveX enabled, natch, so I can't test this little piece of technology--but based on the blurb it sounds like it works via WPS which is interesting mostly becuase of what it's likely to do to the WPS competition.
Can anyone else test this to see how it operates, if the tech was developed in house or purchased, and if it's accurate at all?
Again, their society doesn't include things like illegal drug use (and hence, no drug-related crime.)
Unfortunately, not quite true. And while the perps may be idiosyncrasies, note who their customers were.
So if it cost $50 of electricity to make, and will generate $45 in energy during its lifetime, there's no reason the company can't sell it for $5,000
But the issue is that there is no one suggesting that anyone pay $5,000 to save $45 in utility bills. All of the arguments for solar power that I've seen argue that you save more money in lowered utility bills than you spent on the panels. Therefore, the cost to you must be less than the $45 it saves in energy.
Even if the power cost of manufacture is 1/10 the total cost, that doesn't change the argument; if it cost $50 to make, and retails for $500 since the power cost of manufacture is 10% of the total cost, you would still expect to save at least $500 in utility bills.
People don't buy these just to be green: they buy them because over the life of the unit they expect to save money. And it's been determined that given the proper conditions, you can make your money back in 4 years on a product with a 20 year lifetime. So given that, how could it possibly take more money to manufacture than it generates over the course of it's lifetime? The manufacturing plant would have to have a huge discount on utility plants vs. the cost of power to the consumer; perhaps they do.
He or she said it takes more energy to produce them then they will generate in their expected lifetime.
Ok, right. But if it were to take more energy to produce than they generate, they would be sold for less than their cost to manufacture. eg If they require 1500 kw to produce, at $.15/kw, that'd be $225 in energy costs to produce. However, if they were only able to produce less energy than they required they'd only be able to save the consumer the amount they could produce eg if they max produced 1000kw they would save the consumer $150.
So you'd have to pay $225 to save $150; and of course you wouldn't. In fact, you pay something much closer to $50. So if it costs more in energy costs to produce than is saved over the course of their lifetime, when is that extra energy paid for?
They tried to knock over the World Trade Center in 1993 when Bill Clinton was president. Why?
Simply put, it's because we give tremendous financial support to Israel, who in turn kills Palestinians. Israel is a hard target, and we are (were) not. Therefore, by attacking us they hoped that we would withdraw our support of Israel, weakening them.
Rational people do not blow themselves up.
We have heroes of our military who themselves give their lives to save others. Al Queda operates from the same instinct: there are times when it is necessary to sacrifice yourself to save the lives of others; and they believe that they are working at stopping an oppressor who kills Palestinians.
Frankly, to think otherwise is to underestimate the enemy. You must operate with a clear perspective if you hope to defeat them, otherwise you target the wrong targets and fail to see their vulnerabilities.
I disagree, vehemently. That means strongly, and hopefully it always will, so that a few hundred years from now someone reading this thread will still be able to understand most of what we were talking about.
You may be interested to know that "literally" is shifting meaning--it no longer always means "exactly"; it can sometimes mean "I mean the statement intensely, although it is not an actual depiction." There is an interesting note on this phenomenon at dictionary.com
You would rather die?
There are things worse than death. I would consider waking up after losing 100 IQ points to be one of them (due to not all of my neurons thawing out). For instance.
I do not know if any of the Tuskegee Airmen (the only black squadron -- or the first, I don't remember -- in WWII)
Both groups (The Tuskegee Airmen and the participants in the Tuskegee syphilis study) were comprised of African-Americans, also. I believe that is a component of the confusion.
I think the reason why Microsoft didn't completely fold up the Mac Business Unit after Apple raised its middle finger in Microsoft's face with Safari and iWork was that the "Chief Software Architect" prefers working with Mac OS X over XP.
I'd be interested to see some support for what is obviously an outlandish claim.
While I could indeed believe it, I resist doing so because I recognize and resist the fanboi in me. However I would very much appreciate a link that would allow me to indulge my fantasies.
And by "run", I hope you mean something besides "have on a shelf." Cause, I mean, who doesn't have at least three OSes at home. I hope you mean "use on a daily basis."
Codeweavers announces support for OS X Intel, linky.
I have a PhD in computer science and biology. I was consulted in the design of the PowerPC microprocessors. I worked at BBN and refined a bit of TCP/IP. I had (and have, and still own) the 2nd (or is it 3rd?) "personally owned" domain name.
Well, I have a lower /. UID, so there. ;)
This isn't "fool-proof" (fools are way too ingenious) but it would offer a formidable target that would be hard to punch through.
The key is understanding that an attacker won't meet you on your terms. You will almost always be able to control some aspect effectively. Therefore, for me to be successful, I must avoid engaging you with the aspect that you have designed.
Certainly, you could build an impentrable fortress. So what? I could
- drop cluster-bombs, thereby consuming all the oxygen.
- Drop a chem-bio weapons, circumventing the wall
- Lay seige, until you starved.
- Nuke you. You might be shielded from the blast, but the radiation would nonetheless get you.
- Have someone from inside your wall give me the key.
The point is: of course you can make a wall stronger than I can break. So I have to do something besides attempt to break it. And that is exactly how software cracking works; otherwise, we'd all be brute-force attackers.Do you see it, now? Sorry for the snark-attack, but man, how did you not get this?
After degrading the accuracy/reliability of GPS in NYC--and I don't have much experience with either, frankly--can you explain to me how WiFi WAPs are expected to stay static enough to provide consistent datapoints for triangulation?
People in NYC don't move, I take it? Businesses don't tinker with their WAP settings/signal strengths? Gee, I do, regularly; and my workplace does also. Cause it's a system that we are continually tweaking for performance/security reasons. Not to mention intermittent environmental influences, like microwaves.
If these folks re-surveyed on a weekly or monthly basis, maybe it would be useful . But exactly what systems can rely upon this data, and fail gracefully when changes are encountered? You sure wouldn't want to base a mapping solution on it; not for 10 years, at which point the market may have matured enough that changes are no longer routinely made. But I don't think we're at that point yet.
Assuming people don't get swap-happy and trade access points all over the place, the reliability should be very high, too.
Well, that would be an issue, wouldn't it? And, unlike, say, a system you own, other folks own and control these datapoints that your system depends on.
I have to say that I regularly reconfigure my WAP becasuse, well, it's mine, and I chose to use it like a toy. I notice that a great many of my neighbors have WAPs of their own, but, not so surprisingly, I find that everytime I look the configuration is a little different--cause they're playing with theirs too.
You know, they lose power so vanish for awhile. Or are configured for security, but then the owner decides that's too much a pain in the neck so reverts. Or buys a different brand, hoping to get better signal. Or people move away--I hear that "rentals" are common in "urban centers", which tend to attract a transient demographic. Or the mix changes for any number of other reasons.
I hope for your sake that you guys took a snapshot and then took another 3 mos. later to determine average drift; I suspect that it'd be significant, enough that you couldn't triangulate off of it, at least.
Really, at this stage of your product cycle you shouldn't be guessing if this is feasible; you should be able to respond to this (obvious) criticism in the strong affirmative, without the guessing you displayed. How else can I be expected to trust it? And while it may be accurate for a month or so, it'll only be updated once a year? Gee, I sure hope I'm trying to get my position at the beginning of the year rather than at the end.
Sorry to be harsh, but really this is one of the stupider ideas I've seen posted here. You may as well give directions based on the make, model, and color of cars parked in driveways. Those don't change, much either. But over the course of a year, I guess they actually do, huh?
Most bills that go through Congress have so much unrelated crap tacked onto them that no matter which way you vote, you're almost guaranteed to be voting for or against something people like and something people dislike at the same time, and whichever part of that was unpopular, your opponent will use against you during your reelection campaign.
Indeed. One of the commentators in the post-election analysis was interesting: he claimed to have worked on the Clinton re-election campaign, which if you recall was vs. Dole. This analyst admitted that Dole was one of the best senators that we've had, but that they were nonetheless able to "kill" him in much the same way that Kerry was defeated.
Senators are simply presented with too many bills, and they'll defeat one just so another one with stronger language is passed instead, so to construe them as against the issue altogether isn't accurate.
It is for that reason that I don't think we'll have a President Hillary Clinton; I think our next president is much more likely to be a governor--who isn't confronted with these kinds of dilemmas, as they are Executives and not Legislators.
Why don't I ever hear stories about conservatives/libertarians sneaking laissez-faire clauses into appropriations bills? Someone should have sneakily repealed DMCA by now.
I dunno. You guys run Congress, what's stopping you? Oh, that's right--nothing. I guess maybe they're not really interested in looking out for your interests after all, huh? How else do you explain inaction on this?
And when this appropriations bill is passed, do you think it'll be passed by a majority of GOP votes, or not?
Nuclear war certainly wasn't on the table when Japan decided to make its move...
EVERYTHING is on the table. Anyone that tells you that war has rules and boundaries have more faith in diplomacy than is warranted.
Here's the lesson that we should come away with: if you start something, you'd better be prepared to end it (*). Discounting technological advancements of your opponent (**), or indeed any other surprise maneuvers, is to give a predictability to warfare that has simply never existed.
Ask the Spanish Armada. Think they were innocent of aggression because they weren't supposed to lose?
(*) A lesson that our own administration seems to have forgotten. Both sides can read a force chart; if you're on the losing side, do you fight bravely and die? Or do you change the rules of the engagement to your advantage as much as possible?
(**) Indeed, a great many, even majority, of technological advancements have been spurred by the desire to outmaneuver an opponent. That this occurred in World War II as well should surprise no one. That it surprised the Japanese is a testament to their arrogance.
Apple is a Hardware Company
That was before the iPod. Take a look at Apple's quarterly statements, and I think you'll find that they are a music distributor first, who also happens to sell workgroup class RAIDs and 1U Servers. How they jell those two positions for long term health I think remains to be seen, especially in light of moving to commodity CPUs.
Before Monday, I thought Apple would never go x86, either. Now I think all bets are of, and their strategy is still being analyzed.
Which, incidentally, is amazing they managed to keep that secret for 5 YEARS!
Uh, I imagine that I read Mac rumors more than you, but it wasn't much of a secret. It was pretty widely acknowledged that Apple had a working version of OS X for x86 in their labs.
The big surprise was that Apple decided to actually play that card, not that they had the card up their sleeves.
That, and now the OS X-on-x86 guys get offices with windows, and the PPC developers go to the skunkworks basement. C'est la vie! It's funny to think of the OSx86 developers rising from the ground, like zombies seeking brains.
Apple's online store says the highest-end Dual 2.7GHz model is "Estimated Ship: Same business day".
Apple keeps their prices high to keep demand constrained. Would they rather sell 10x as many G5s and make less on each one? They have said so in the past. But since CPU production couldn't keep pace at that rate, Apple keeps their prices high.