With Jaguar, Apple's never made a distinction between an upgrade and an OS purchase. Everyone who has a machine that can run Jaguar already has a version of the Mac OS, so what's the difference between calling it an upgrade or not?
It's easy to look at the matte grey and assume it's a fighter, but a trip to Boeing's press release tells a different story.
The aircraft has an operational ceiling of 20,000 feet, and a cruising speed of 260 knots (mach 0.4). It's weight is 7,400 lbs. that's less than half the weight of an empty F-16 and a sixth that of an F-14. The weight alone doesn't mean it can't be a fighter, but it's no good for any sort of mixed-use, because of its minimal load capacity.
It's also an unlikely choice for surveillance because of its low ceiling. the U-2 was good because anti-aircraft munitions couldn't reach it. The SR-71 was good because they could outrun missiles. This thing, as stealthy as it may be, is a sitting duck as it patrols below its 20,000 foot ceiling, putting along at 280 knots.
No, the point of this aircraft is that it proves new design and fabrication techniques. the prototype was built for $64 million, soup to nuts, and that's a huge deal. Boeing financed the design and production out-of-pocket, and my best guess is that they did it to rpove to the DoD that they could come up with innovative designs, fabricate and test them cheaply and quickly, and maintain a veil of secrecy while they do it.
After losing the F-22/23 battle to Lockheed Martin, Boeing has to rebuild cred with the DoD as more than a missile and satellite maker. My guess is that this is their 'see what we can do' project for the military, since the Skunkworks facilities were't working on much else nowadays.
Someone previously mentioned the gas turbines powering Aegis-class destroyers, but I'd also note that they're now starting to be used in cruise ships as well.
I had the chance to cruise on the Millennium last year, which has two gas turbine engines hooked to electrical generators which both supply energy to the ship's power grid and also power the motors driving the propellers. I'm sure kilotonnes of ship will help silence the engines, so I can't speak to noise, but they were amazingly vibration-free, unlike more common deisel engines with a direct physical linkage from engine to drivetrain to prop.
I'm not sure how that translates to train use, but I'm curious to find out. Considering that they'd probably provide electricity to power the wheels, I wonder if a sufficiently sized flywheel arrangement or battery bank could mean that the engine could operate at constant speed, preventing the frequent idleup and idledown which creates a much more distracting noise at a distance than the noise of a constant engine...
"Not necessarily. If sliced bread has a goodness of 100, and everything since then has a goodness of 90 or lower, then whether the new thing has a goodness of 95 or 105 it is still the best thing since sliced bread and can be either better or worse than sliced bread itself."
I thought about that as I was writing, but I figured that nobody would be more picky than I am. Anyhow, the implication is there that if you're saying 'since' then that time designation is somehow relevant..
Not to be nitpicky, but it's a pet peeve of mine: Is it smaller than the miniPC, as the title claims, or is it the smallest since the miniPC, as the body states?
The two don't mean the same thing. If something is the best thing since sliced bread, then sliced bread is still better.
The trouble is that, with this particular problem of movie pirating, it has to be 100% effective or it's no good.
It doesn't matter if they find ways to block 95% of camcorders from being able to read the signal, since most or all pirated copies of a given movie come from one point source, so as long as there is *any* camcorder or other solution out there, the copy will be made, and once one copy is made, that's the ballgame, since VCD-Rs and mpegs will propogate from there.
Of course, the vast majority of these copies come from Asian countries, and are often recorded in poorer neighborhoods. I'd like to see how their business plan will get this digital protection mechanism into every theater in the East, regardless of the economic level.
If they only manage to get it into 80% or even 98% of the theaters, then it doesn't do any good at all.
Last year TiVo spent almost nothing on advertising, and it's interesting why:
It turns out that MS was pumping millions into Ultimate TV advertising, and enthused customers were flocking to Circuit City and Good Guys, only to be told that they'd have to also get a satellite dish and service, regardless of what they already had.
Seeing their frustration, salespeople show them the TiVo, which works with whatever service they already have. Every dollar spent by Microsoft generated more TiVo revenue than UTV revenue...
I was simply disputing the statement that it's cheaper to setup and maintain multiple services than a single web service which is useable from multiple devices.
But they wouldn't be in compliance if they had a single webiste that was ADA accessable to the blind, deaf, etc, at the expense of offering TTY support.
As long as they have operators, they have to have operators for the deaf. Since it's in the interests of Southwest's profit model to have access on the web as well as access that doesn't require a computer, they will have phone operators whether the ADA exists or not.
They would, however, be far more succeptable to a successful ADA lawsuit if they only offered disabled access on the web, since it means that blind and/or deaf without special computers wouldn't be able to use their services.
Telephones are the lowest common technological denominator. Requiring a disbled person to have and be able to use a computer is not the right answer.
Of course the site itself is orders of magnitudes more complex, but what I'm talking about is on top of that. Putting in alt tags is one thing, but having to merge the creative vision of a visual designer with a layour that's table and/or css friendly to both visual and aural browsers is no easy task, especially when you're talking about more than flat-page interaction, but are adding multi-step features into the mix, and a design that can change quickly beyond the original specifications.
As for your comment about momentum, well, frankly it's malarky. People in the tech sector don't work they way they do because everyone else works that way. People work the way they can when balancing costs, needs, timeframes and capabilities.
I'm a usability researcher and damnit I'd love to be able to have the luxury of executing the full 14 stages of usability design and evaluation on every single project, but unless they gave me 18 months per project (instead of 4), and funds to conduct the proper evaluations, I do what subset I can to maximize what resources, time, and money I have to work with.
The ADA is there to make sure people with disabilities aren't disenfranchised. that doesn't mean the blind get free experimental retinal implants. It's about compromises. If we were talking about a site without a telephone parity version, I'd agree that it would have to be compliant, but I strongly feel that when using a tool like SWA's web site, the telephone and TTY services are a valid way of creating compliance. That functionality was there to meet ADA requirements before Southwest even had a web site, and just because another avenue was added to purchase tickets and check flights doesn't negate the work that Southwest has done to meet ADA laws from its inception.
I'm starting to see how this is all going to pan out. Apologies to those who already figured it out.
so HP makes most of its money off of proprietary inkjet refill carts. It's the disposable razor model, where you get the printer for a song, but the supplies suck you dry. now with fuel cells, for the sake of 'safe transferrance' of fuel to the cell, the fuel cell supplier will sell you fuel packs in proprietary cases (probably with microchips (ala Epson ink carts) to deter 'piracy' (ie third parties)). The batteries will go for a song, and at $10 each the refills won't seem prohibitively expensive. heck, you could get a 10-pack for $70 at costco, most likely.
But use them day after day for your commute to work, use them on planes, on vacation so you don't have to lug a power supply (since you'll be able to buy them on demand all over the world, like film) and suddenly a huge new industry emerges, because we're too clumsy to put methanol into a compartment without NASA-level safeguards.
Yeah, I'm bitter, but this is how the world works. Things don't come to market because they're better; things come to market when people figure out how to get rich off it.
I'm telling you that it's easier and more cost effective to support customer service reps and TTY lines than to create and maintain a site that is both visually appealing and best-of-breed for the average use, while still having full aural and braile compatability.
Your home page is several orders of magnitude less complex and less frequently modified in ways that were unanticipated at design time than that of Southwest's web site. you're comparing apples to oranges.
Having designed and built ecommerce sites for Levi Strauss, Segasoft, and Petstore.com, I can tell you that when it's legal, it's less work and less money to support users with disabilities using the modes they already have to facilitate them, such as telephone support and TTY.
If this wasn't the case, then the ADA wouldn't need to mandate cross-compatability with aural and braile browsers, because people would just do it anyhow.
"Wouldn't it be cheaper to design such a single site which could be used and read by all manner of devices site instead of providing a plurality of services?"
Did nobody actually read my whole post, or do they just read the first and last paragraphs? To quote myself: "The *only* caveat I would make is that if they show they are blind, they should be able to get the double-points and internet-only fares afforded to those who frequent the site."
Do you know that this isn't already the case? Do you know that discrimination is happening here, or are you just assuming?
Is anyone going to call them and find out? Or are we all going top play holier than thou?
Unfortunately, the online version is often cheaper (because it doesn't take up the time of a human). With this in mind we can see that someone *is* disenfrancised by their ability...unless you really do think that the blind should pay more for the same service?
Apparently you glossed over the paragraph where I said "The *only* caveat I would make is that if they show they are blind, they should be able to get the double-points and internet-only fares afforded to those who frequent the site."
Let the service provider determine the means of access that is most cost-effective for them, as long as it provides equal access.
I use the web when interacting with Southwest because I can get the data I need faster visually than aurally.
If someone's blind, it would seem only fair that southwest has the option of providing them with a dedicated, live concierge to help them with all their questions. That's why they can CALL 1-800-IFLYSWA.
The ADA is intended to make sure that people are not disenfranchised by their disability, and in this case the person is not, since they cn accomplish the same task via a means that SWA has provided for them that is compatable with their abilities. The *only* caveat I would make is that if they show they are blind, they should be able to get the double-points and internet-only fares afforded to those who frequent the site.
This particular lawsuit is as ridiculous as a person in a wheelchair suing for there not being a stair-climing inclinator when there's an elevator down the hall.
I'm all for blind readability on sites without an alternative, but if it's a service operation where you can accomplish tasks via phone, then I believe that that is a solution to the mandated requirements.
Call me nitpicky, but it should be made clear that this software lets you sync your iPod with the Linux platform, as opposed to running your iPod under Linux which implies a new firmware for the iPod that replaces the iPodOS.
With all the Linux PDAs and open source Linux replacements for existing PDA firmware, this kind of clarification is necessary.
Actually, the confusion is a testament to the versatility of Linux. What other OS could be used so easily in both desktop and digital appliance environments as to make necessary the clarification? Nobody assumes the Windows iPod runs Windows, after all...
The next time an IE glitch is found that renders your machine open to full directory access and, after a reasonable amount of time, you still haven't applied the patch (if Microsoft actually released one), then are you guilty of DCMA violations?
Of course not, but what if people intentionally didn't apply the patch, and others created handy software to exploit the hole, so by tacit agreement you share in this 'non-intentional' way. Now don't you think they'd go after everyone?
Because that's basically the same as leaving ftp access open...
The problem, unlike what you probably expected after my trolling subject, is that just because someone left a port open and had DCMA-relevant content behind it, doesn't mean they broke the law.
If my mom flips a switch on OS X to allow personal web sharing, and doesn't understand that this means someone can traverse her iTunes library, then just because some guy can exploit that security breach doesn't mean that she violated the DCMA any more than someone who forgot their purse on a bench, and someone photocopied the book they found inside.
Slashdot Mirror
With Jaguar, Apple's never made a distinction between an upgrade and an OS purchase. Everyone who has a machine that can run Jaguar already has a version of the Mac OS, so what's the difference between calling it an upgrade or not?
not Skunkworks. My bad.
It's easy to look at the matte grey and assume it's a fighter, but a trip to Boeing's press release tells a different story.
The aircraft has an operational ceiling of 20,000 feet, and a cruising speed of 260 knots (mach 0.4). It's weight is 7,400 lbs. that's less than half the weight of an empty F-16 and a sixth that of an F-14. The weight alone doesn't mean it can't be a fighter, but it's no good for any sort of mixed-use, because of its minimal load capacity.
It's also an unlikely choice for surveillance because of its low ceiling. the U-2 was good because anti-aircraft munitions couldn't reach it. The SR-71 was good because they could outrun missiles. This thing, as stealthy as it may be, is a sitting duck as it patrols below its 20,000 foot ceiling, putting along at 280 knots.
No, the point of this aircraft is that it proves new design and fabrication techniques. the prototype was built for $64 million, soup to nuts, and that's a huge deal. Boeing financed the design and production out-of-pocket, and my best guess is that they did it to rpove to the DoD that they could come up with innovative designs, fabricate and test them cheaply and quickly, and maintain a veil of secrecy while they do it.
After losing the F-22/23 battle to Lockheed Martin, Boeing has to rebuild cred with the DoD as more than a missile and satellite maker. My guess is that this is their 'see what we can do' project for the military, since the Skunkworks facilities were't working on much else nowadays.
Just like I said last week, when they ran the fuel cell airline story.
And you know it's true.
I had the chance to cruise on the Millennium last year, which has two gas turbine engines hooked to electrical generators which both supply energy to the ship's power grid and also power the motors driving the propellers. I'm sure kilotonnes of ship will help silence the engines, so I can't speak to noise, but they were amazingly vibration-free, unlike more common deisel engines with a direct physical linkage from engine to drivetrain to prop.
I'm not sure how that translates to train use, but I'm curious to find out. Considering that they'd probably provide electricity to power the wheels, I wonder if a sufficiently sized flywheel arrangement or battery bank could mean that the engine could operate at constant speed, preventing the frequent idleup and idledown which creates a much more distracting noise at a distance than the noise of a constant engine...
"Not necessarily. If sliced bread has a goodness of 100, and everything since then has a goodness of 90 or lower, then whether the new thing has a goodness of 95 or 105 it is still the best thing since sliced bread and can be either better or worse than sliced bread itself."
I thought about that as I was writing, but I figured that nobody would be more picky than I am. Anyhow, the implication is there that if you're saying 'since' then that time designation is somehow relevant..
I just had a sandwich.
Not to be nitpicky, but it's a pet peeve of mine: Is it smaller than the miniPC, as the title claims, or is it the smallest since the miniPC, as the body states?
The two don't mean the same thing. If something is the best thing since sliced bread, then sliced bread is still better.
Because a $199 Linux PC doesn't have a kickass video card, DVD drive, or NTSC out.
The trouble is that, with this particular problem of movie pirating, it has to be 100% effective or it's no good.
It doesn't matter if they find ways to block 95% of camcorders from being able to read the signal, since most or all pirated copies of a given movie come from one point source, so as long as there is *any* camcorder or other solution out there, the copy will be made, and once one copy is made, that's the ballgame, since VCD-Rs and mpegs will propogate from there.
Of course, the vast majority of these copies come from Asian countries, and are often recorded in poorer neighborhoods. I'd like to see how their business plan will get this digital protection mechanism into every theater in the East, regardless of the economic level.
If they only manage to get it into 80% or even 98% of the theaters, then it doesn't do any good at all.
Last year TiVo spent almost nothing on advertising, and it's interesting why:
It turns out that MS was pumping millions into Ultimate TV advertising, and enthused customers were flocking to Circuit City and Good Guys, only to be told that they'd have to also get a satellite dish and service, regardless of what they already had.
Seeing their frustration, salespeople show them the TiVo, which works with whatever service they already have. Every dollar spent by Microsoft generated more TiVo revenue than UTV revenue...
Some day everyone will have Danger Hiptop Sidekicks, in visual, braile, and voice.
and it will be good...
I was simply disputing the statement that it's cheaper to setup and maintain multiple services than a single web service which is useable from multiple devices.
But they wouldn't be in compliance if they had a single webiste that was ADA accessable to the blind, deaf, etc, at the expense of offering TTY support.
As long as they have operators, they have to have operators for the deaf. Since it's in the interests of Southwest's profit model to have access on the web as well as access that doesn't require a computer, they will have phone operators whether the ADA exists or not.
They would, however, be far more succeptable to a successful ADA lawsuit if they only offered disabled access on the web, since it means that blind and/or deaf without special computers wouldn't be able to use their services.
Telephones are the lowest common technological denominator. Requiring a disbled person to have and be able to use a computer is not the right answer.
sigh...
Of course the site itself is orders of magnitudes more complex, but what I'm talking about is on top of that. Putting in alt tags is one thing, but having to merge the creative vision of a visual designer with a layour that's table and/or css friendly to both visual and aural browsers is no easy task, especially when you're talking about more than flat-page interaction, but are adding multi-step features into the mix, and a design that can change quickly beyond the original specifications.
As for your comment about momentum, well, frankly it's malarky. People in the tech sector don't work they way they do because everyone else works that way. People work the way they can when balancing costs, needs, timeframes and capabilities.
I'm a usability researcher and damnit I'd love to be able to have the luxury of executing the full 14 stages of usability design and evaluation on every single project, but unless they gave me 18 months per project (instead of 4), and funds to conduct the proper evaluations, I do what subset I can to maximize what resources, time, and money I have to work with.
The ADA is there to make sure people with disabilities aren't disenfranchised. that doesn't mean the blind get free experimental retinal implants. It's about compromises. If we were talking about a site without a telephone parity version, I'd agree that it would have to be compliant, but I strongly feel that when using a tool like SWA's web site, the telephone and TTY services are a valid way of creating compliance. That functionality was there to meet ADA requirements before Southwest even had a web site, and just because another avenue was added to purchase tickets and check flights doesn't negate the work that Southwest has done to meet ADA laws from its inception.
I'm starting to see how this is all going to pan out. Apologies to those who already figured it out.
so HP makes most of its money off of proprietary inkjet refill carts. It's the disposable razor model, where you get the printer for a song, but the supplies suck you dry. now with fuel cells, for the sake of 'safe transferrance' of fuel to the cell, the fuel cell supplier will sell you fuel packs in proprietary cases (probably with microchips (ala Epson ink carts) to deter 'piracy' (ie third parties)). The batteries will go for a song, and at $10 each the refills won't seem prohibitively expensive. heck, you could get a 10-pack for $70 at costco, most likely.
But use them day after day for your commute to work, use them on planes, on vacation so you don't have to lug a power supply (since you'll be able to buy them on demand all over the world, like film) and suddenly a huge new industry emerges, because we're too clumsy to put methanol into a compartment without NASA-level safeguards.
Yeah, I'm bitter, but this is how the world works. Things don't come to market because they're better; things come to market when people figure out how to get rich off it.
I'm telling you that it's easier and more cost effective to support customer service reps and TTY lines than to create and maintain a site that is both visually appealing and best-of-breed for the average use, while still having full aural and braile compatability.
Your home page is several orders of magnitude less complex and less frequently modified in ways that were unanticipated at design time than that of Southwest's web site. you're comparing apples to oranges.
Having designed and built ecommerce sites for Levi Strauss, Segasoft, and Petstore.com, I can tell you that when it's legal, it's less work and less money to support users with disabilities using the modes they already have to facilitate them, such as telephone support and TTY.
If this wasn't the case, then the ADA wouldn't need to mandate cross-compatability with aural and braile browsers, because people would just do it anyhow.
"Wouldn't it be cheaper to design such a single site which could be used and read by all manner of devices site instead of providing a plurality of services?"
You'd think so, but no. It's not cheaper.
"What if someone is deaf and blind? Are they SOL?"
Not at all. Southwest provides TTY access: 1-800-533-1305
Now if they're deaf, blind, and paralyzed below the neck, they may have a harder time of it.
Did nobody actually read my whole post, or do they just read the first and last paragraphs? To quote myself: "The *only* caveat I would make is that if they show they are blind, they should be able to get the double-points and internet-only fares afforded to those who frequent the site."
Do you know that this isn't already the case? Do you know that discrimination is happening here, or are you just assuming?
Is anyone going to call them and find out? Or are we all going top play holier than thou?
Unfortunately, the online version is often cheaper (because it doesn't take up the time of a human). With this in mind we can see that someone *is* disenfrancised by their ability. ..unless you really do think that the blind should pay more for the same service?
Apparently you glossed over the paragraph where I said "The *only* caveat I would make is that if they show they are blind, they should be able to get the double-points and internet-only fares afforded to those who frequent the site."
Let the service provider determine the means of access that is most cost-effective for them, as long as it provides equal access.
I use the web when interacting with Southwest because I can get the data I need faster visually than aurally.
If someone's blind, it would seem only fair that southwest has the option of providing them with a dedicated, live concierge to help them with all their questions. That's why they can CALL 1-800-IFLYSWA.
The ADA is intended to make sure that people are not disenfranchised by their disability, and in this case the person is not, since they cn accomplish the same task via a means that SWA has provided for them that is compatable with their abilities. The *only* caveat I would make is that if they show they are blind, they should be able to get the double-points and internet-only fares afforded to those who frequent the site.
This particular lawsuit is as ridiculous as a person in a wheelchair suing for there not being a stair-climing inclinator when there's an elevator down the hall.
I'm all for blind readability on sites without an alternative, but if it's a service operation where you can accomplish tasks via phone, then I believe that that is a solution to the mandated requirements.
Call me nitpicky, but it should be made clear that this software lets you sync your iPod with the Linux platform, as opposed to running your iPod under Linux which implies a new firmware for the iPod that replaces the iPodOS.
With all the Linux PDAs and open source Linux replacements for existing PDA firmware, this kind of clarification is necessary.
Actually, the confusion is a testament to the versatility of Linux. What other OS could be used so easily in both desktop and digital appliance environments as to make necessary the clarification? Nobody assumes the Windows iPod runs Windows, after all...
Love/hate the sig. Very creative...
Does this mean I can go back to alien hunting now?
The next time an IE glitch is found that renders your machine open to full directory access and, after a reasonable amount of time, you still haven't applied the patch (if Microsoft actually released one), then are you guilty of DCMA violations?
Of course not, but what if people intentionally didn't apply the patch, and others created handy software to exploit the hole, so by tacit agreement you share in this 'non-intentional' way. Now don't you think they'd go after everyone?
Because that's basically the same as leaving ftp access open...
The problem, unlike what you probably expected after my trolling subject, is that just because someone left a port open and had DCMA-relevant content behind it, doesn't mean they broke the law.
If my mom flips a switch on OS X to allow personal web sharing, and doesn't understand that this means someone can traverse her iTunes library, then just because some guy can exploit that security breach doesn't mean that she violated the DCMA any more than someone who forgot their purse on a bench, and someone photocopied the book they found inside.