I think Apple dropped the buttons surrounding the click wheel because 1) you had less things to physically fail and 2) it was vastly cheaper to manufacture.
Let me clarify myself on this. If you look at the 1G to 3G iPods, note on the 1G and 2G model they had buttons surround the "wheel," and the 3G had buttons above the "wheel." It was with the 4G iPod (using an idea borrowed from the iPod mini) that 1) Apple got rid of the additional buttons and 2) switched to USB 2.0 as the primary way to interface the iPod with a computer. Every iPod with the Click Wheel interface since the 4G iPod and iPod mini has pretty much maintained the newer Click Wheel interface design.
Yes, IEEE-1394 "Firewire" was a better I/O connection, but since by 2003-2004 most computers sported USB 2.0 interfaces, if Apple wanted to capture the PC market with the iPod they had to offer the USB 2.0 interface. Indeed, iPods since the 5G iPod video and 1G iPod nano in 2005 no longer use the IEEE-1394 interface since both PCs and Macs by 2005 commonly sported USB 2.0 connectors.
...Until this portable media player reached the 4G iPod (20 and 40 GB hard disk model) and the iPod mini (4 GB hard disk model) in 2004. These were the first iPods with the modern Click Wheel interface only and full USB 2.0 interface support.
Interestingly, it's been said the best-sounding of the iPods are the 2G iPods nano and 5G/5.5G iPods with the Wolfson DAC chip. Mind you, the current "6.5G" iPod classic (120GB/160 GB), 4G/5G iPod nano and the 2G/3G iPod touch overcame some of the early issues with the Cirrus Logic DACs and they too sound quite good.
Given that the patch was posted on Microsoft's OEM Builder web site back in October 2009, it's kind of old news if you have a Microsoft OEM license. The question now is will Microsoft roll out a similar patch on the public Office Update website, though.
In fact, this workaround has been around for two months!
My guess right now is that Microsoft could do an "accelerated beta test" of Word 2010 from Office 2010 and could have that available for new-build machine Office 2007 users by early February 2010. So starting in February next year, when you buy a new computer with Office 2007 installed, you'll get every element of Office except Word 2007, which will be replaced by Word 2010.
Or given MIcrosoft's big cash reserve, just buy out i4i for US$400 million.
Another possibility is that Microsoft could do an accelerated beta test for Word 2010 and by early February 2010 offer Office 2007 with Word 2010 instead of Word 2007.
However, with the success of Windows 7, expect a major spike in IE usage, especially with IE 8.0 being part of Windows 7 itself in most versions.
I myself would like to go to Chrome 4.0 full-time, since Chrome does a masterful job of handling tabs and Chromes uses the ultra-fast WebKit page layout engine.
We have legal precedent in this case: look up how the Feds went after United Shoe Machinery Company in the first half of the 20th Century. United Shoe was notorious for using its patent portfolio on shoe-machine machinery to drive out competitors, just as Intel is using its CPU and motherboard chipset patents to keep AMD/ATI at bay.
We could see Intel hit with a multi-billion dollar fine and be forced to share information on x86 CPU and motherboard chipset technology with AMD and nVidia.
However, the Boeing 767 is a well-proven design, and as such the conversion costs of a 767-200(ER) or 767-300(ER) into a tanker are vastly cheaper, especially since the production jigs are still in place.
And the big problem with the A350 is the use of a lot of carbon fiber in the structural design, and given Boeing's problems with the 787 structural design, the A350 could have a pretty complicated development cycle, to say the least.
The problems with the Comet I came from the fact the airframe developed cracks around the squared off windows, which caused serious metal fatigue problems, especially given the pressure differential from inside the cabin to the higher altitudes that the Comet I was flying in. That's why the Comet 4 switched to rounded off windows, which eliminated this very specific metal fatigue problem (that's why the passenger windows on all subsequent jet airliners have rounded shapes).
Yes, the response was VERY extreme, but the threat from determined terrorists are just as extreme, too. Remember, the terrorist that hid a fairly powerful bomb inside his body and nearly killed a Saudi official a few months ago?
By the way, laptops with modern case designs--even as thin as they are today--can be turned into lethally deadly weapons. With today's ultra-powerful plastique explosives, a terrorist could hide explosive material in a case even as thin as the current MacBook Pro and when the explosive goes off, the shrapnel from the explosion could kill or serious injure people 10-15 feet away from the point of explosion. And even such a thin case could hide enough Sarin organophosphate nerve gas that when the gas is dispersed it could kill or seriously injure people quite a ways away from the point of dispersal.
I believe the RQ-170--especially if it uses the same Rolls-Royce Allison AE3007H engine as the RQ-4 Global Hawk--is capable of cruising at 65,000 feet, with a radar cross section far smaller than even the B-2 Spirit bomber, since the RQ-170 is probably almost the same size as the Global Hawk. From bases in Afghanistan, the RQ-170 could easily fly into Chinese and Iranian airspace with essentially zero chance of being shot down cruising at 60,000 feet, since the plane would be undetectable from radar at its cruising altitude.
I think in retrospect, the mainstream media should have heeded the warning of one Alvin Toffler, who wrote in The Third Wave in 1980 that as communication technologies improves, the days of the the mass media controlling media distribution will come to an end.
With cable TV, small-dish satellite TV and the public Internet, Toffler's warning has become 2009 reality. The only survivors will be those who can quickly embrace taking full advantage of today's communication technologies, and Time, Inc.'s recent "fantasy demo" of an electronic edition of Sports Illustrated designed to take full advantage to future tablet computers (such as the much-rumored Apple tablet) is proof there are some in the mainstream media who understand they must change with the times (pun not intended:-) ).
This is why the Comcast deal to buy 51% of NBC Universal could run afoul not only from competing cable systems, small-dish satellite TV providers and other cable content providers, but also could get a LOT of scrutiny from Congress, FCC and FTC.
The fear is simple: Comcast could shut out other cable content providers on Comcast cable systems and/or pull NBC Universal-owned channels from competing cable systems and small-dish satellite providers (the current spat between DirecTV and Comcast-owned Versus channel will be NOTHING compared to what happens if Comcast were to threaten to pull CNBC off non-Comcast cable systems, DirecTV and Dish Network).
Given that 1080p TV's have 1920x1080 resolution, they actually become very nice computer monitors. As such, making Chrome OS part of the operating system for a set top box for cable TV (or eventually a set top box for DirecTV or Dish Network) makes a lot of sense--imagine the Chrome OS interface controlling everything on your DirecTV set top box, including the built-in DVR, through essentially a browser interface.
In fact, Chrome OS is designed specifically for lower-end products where people have close access to an 802.11g/n Wi-Fi link, for example in schools or the numerous Wi-Fi hot spots in public gathering places. It's not designed to work a lot offline like you get with machines loaded with real Linux distrubutions, Windows XP/7, or even MacOS X 10.6.x.
The biggest problems with FLAC comes down to these factors:
1) You can't play them with the vast majority of iPods and iPhones out there.
2) Relative few portable media players can play FLAC files "out of the box."
3) You have to use a third party software encoder to create FLAC file from your own CD collection.
In contrast, at least with Apple Lossless (ALAC) you have two advantages:
1) The VAST majority of hard-disk based iPods, all iPod nano models, the iPod touch and the iPhone can play ALAC files. And that's a HUGE number of portable media players out htere.
3) Creating an ALAC-encoded file is easy--just do it in iTunes.
Mind you, given that for most portable media player usage you're not plugged into a multi-thousand dollar stereo system, for top-notch sound quality you should rip your CD collection for your player at 256 kbps variable bit rate encoding, and the resulting sound quality is still very close to the original CD itself.
The biggest problem against FLAC is simple: relatively few portable media players support FLAC "out of the box." In fact, you almost would be better off with selling Apple Lossless encoded music, since just about every iPod classic, nano and touch model since 2004 and all iPhone models support Apple Lossless natively.
I'd almost agree, but to hear the difference clearly at lower bit rates with a portable music player requires really good in-ear headphones--and most of the really good models start at around US$120 and go WAY up from there (go take a look at how much you pay for a "reference" quality in-ear headphone like the Sennheiser IE8 or Shure SE530--they cost as much as the current 32 GB iPod touch from a discount online store).
This is why my entire CD collection has been ripped into my computer using 256 kbps variable bit rate AAC encoding--unlike MP3 encoding, AAC encoding has excellent sound quality at this encoding rate with very quiet background noise level. While in the past using AAC encoding could be a disadvantage, given that most of today's higher-end portable music players support AAC files, I'm sticking with AAC encoding.
There's good reason why Amazon went with 256 kbps VBR encoding for their MP3 downloads and Apple went with 256 kbps VBR encoding for their iTunes Plus downloads--the sound quality is quite good and to tell the difference between 256 kbps VBR encoding and the original CD would require equipment that most of us couldn't afford. Besides, based on my experience with my auto car stereo that has direct iPod control (the Sony CDX-GT630UI), there's practically no difference between the original CD and the 256 kbps VBR encoded version played back from my 4G iPod nano.
If this project works, we're talking extracting energy from deuterium (which is plentiful in seawater!) in an amount that would make energy generated by the entire world's known supply of crude oil, natural gas, coal, undersea methane hydrates, and even uranium ore seem like an insignificant event in comparison. We're talking billions of years of energy output at modern levels.
It's not as ridiculous as you think because if you're an intelligent alien life form and you want to eventually reveal yourself publicly to the world, who would you want to contact first? Besides political leaders and military leaders, it has to be the highest religious authorities because such a revelation would cause a gigantic shock in the belief system of the locals living on that planet. As such, I would not be surprised if the extraterrestrials may have been quietly communicating with the likes of the Pope, the Archbishop of Cantebury (who heads the Anglican Church), the major imans and mullahs in the two major sects of Islam, the Patriarch of Moscow (who leads the Russian Orthodox Church), the Dalai Lama, and so on.
Slashdot Mirror
I think Apple dropped the buttons surrounding the click wheel because 1) you had less things to physically fail and 2) it was vastly cheaper to manufacture.
Let me clarify myself on this. If you look at the 1G to 3G iPods, note on the 1G and 2G model they had buttons surround the "wheel," and the 3G had buttons above the "wheel." It was with the 4G iPod (using an idea borrowed from the iPod mini) that 1) Apple got rid of the additional buttons and 2) switched to USB 2.0 as the primary way to interface the iPod with a computer. Every iPod with the Click Wheel interface since the 4G iPod and iPod mini has pretty much maintained the newer Click Wheel interface design.
Yes, IEEE-1394 "Firewire" was a better I/O connection, but since by 2003-2004 most computers sported USB 2.0 interfaces, if Apple wanted to capture the PC market with the iPod they had to offer the USB 2.0 interface. Indeed, iPods since the 5G iPod video and 1G iPod nano in 2005 no longer use the IEEE-1394 interface since both PCs and Macs by 2005 commonly sported USB 2.0 connectors.
I would like to see every e-book reader support improved versions of the Adobe Acrobat encrypted format, one that has been around for some time.
That way, e-book publisher only need to deal with ONE format, not multiple formats like you need now.
...Until this portable media player reached the 4G iPod (20 and 40 GB hard disk model) and the iPod mini (4 GB hard disk model) in 2004. These were the first iPods with the modern Click Wheel interface only and full USB 2.0 interface support.
Interestingly, it's been said the best-sounding of the iPods are the 2G iPods nano and 5G/5.5G iPods with the Wolfson DAC chip. Mind you, the current "6.5G" iPod classic (120GB/160 GB), 4G/5G iPod nano and the 2G/3G iPod touch overcame some of the early issues with the Cirrus Logic DACs and they too sound quite good.
Given that the patch was posted on Microsoft's OEM Builder web site back in October 2009, it's kind of old news if you have a Microsoft OEM license. The question now is will Microsoft roll out a similar patch on the public Office Update website, though.
In fact, this workaround has been around for two months!
My guess right now is that Microsoft could do an "accelerated beta test" of Word 2010 from Office 2010 and could have that available for new-build machine Office 2007 users by early February 2010. So starting in February next year, when you buy a new computer with Office 2007 installed, you'll get every element of Office except Word 2007, which will be replaced by Word 2010.
Or given MIcrosoft's big cash reserve, just buy out i4i for US$400 million.
Another possibility is that Microsoft could do an accelerated beta test for Word 2010 and by early February 2010 offer Office 2007 with Word 2010 instead of Word 2007.
However, with the success of Windows 7, expect a major spike in IE usage, especially with IE 8.0 being part of Windows 7 itself in most versions.
I myself would like to go to Chrome 4.0 full-time, since Chrome does a masterful job of handling tabs and Chromes uses the ultra-fast WebKit page layout engine.
We have legal precedent in this case: look up how the Feds went after United Shoe Machinery Company in the first half of the 20th Century. United Shoe was notorious for using its patent portfolio on shoe-machine machinery to drive out competitors, just as Intel is using its CPU and motherboard chipset patents to keep AMD/ATI at bay.
We could see Intel hit with a multi-billion dollar fine and be forced to share information on x86 CPU and motherboard chipset technology with AMD and nVidia.
However, the Boeing 767 is a well-proven design, and as such the conversion costs of a 767-200(ER) or 767-300(ER) into a tanker are vastly cheaper, especially since the production jigs are still in place.
And the big problem with the A350 is the use of a lot of carbon fiber in the structural design, and given Boeing's problems with the 787 structural design, the A350 could have a pretty complicated development cycle, to say the least.
The problems with the Comet I came from the fact the airframe developed cracks around the squared off windows, which caused serious metal fatigue problems, especially given the pressure differential from inside the cabin to the higher altitudes that the Comet I was flying in. That's why the Comet 4 switched to rounded off windows, which eliminated this very specific metal fatigue problem (that's why the passenger windows on all subsequent jet airliners have rounded shapes).
Yes, the response was VERY extreme, but the threat from determined terrorists are just as extreme, too. Remember, the terrorist that hid a fairly powerful bomb inside his body and nearly killed a Saudi official a few months ago?
By the way, laptops with modern case designs--even as thin as they are today--can be turned into lethally deadly weapons. With today's ultra-powerful plastique explosives, a terrorist could hide explosive material in a case even as thin as the current MacBook Pro and when the explosive goes off, the shrapnel from the explosion could kill or serious injure people 10-15 feet away from the point of explosion. And even such a thin case could hide enough Sarin organophosphate nerve gas that when the gas is dispersed it could kill or seriously injure people quite a ways away from the point of dispersal.
I believe the RQ-170--especially if it uses the same Rolls-Royce Allison AE3007H engine as the RQ-4 Global Hawk--is capable of cruising at 65,000 feet, with a radar cross section far smaller than even the B-2 Spirit bomber, since the RQ-170 is probably almost the same size as the Global Hawk. From bases in Afghanistan, the RQ-170 could easily fly into Chinese and Iranian airspace with essentially zero chance of being shot down cruising at 60,000 feet, since the plane would be undetectable from radar at its cruising altitude.
I think in retrospect, the mainstream media should have heeded the warning of one Alvin Toffler, who wrote in The Third Wave in 1980 that as communication technologies improves, the days of the the mass media controlling media distribution will come to an end.
With cable TV, small-dish satellite TV and the public Internet, Toffler's warning has become 2009 reality. The only survivors will be those who can quickly embrace taking full advantage of today's communication technologies, and Time, Inc.'s recent "fantasy demo" of an electronic edition of Sports Illustrated designed to take full advantage to future tablet computers (such as the much-rumored Apple tablet) is proof there are some in the mainstream media who understand they must change with the times (pun not intended :-) ).
This is why the Comcast deal to buy 51% of NBC Universal could run afoul not only from competing cable systems, small-dish satellite TV providers and other cable content providers, but also could get a LOT of scrutiny from Congress, FCC and FTC.
The fear is simple: Comcast could shut out other cable content providers on Comcast cable systems and/or pull NBC Universal-owned channels from competing cable systems and small-dish satellite providers (the current spat between DirecTV and Comcast-owned Versus channel will be NOTHING compared to what happens if Comcast were to threaten to pull CNBC off non-Comcast cable systems, DirecTV and Dish Network).
Given that 1080p TV's have 1920x1080 resolution, they actually become very nice computer monitors. As such, making Chrome OS part of the operating system for a set top box for cable TV (or eventually a set top box for DirecTV or Dish Network) makes a lot of sense--imagine the Chrome OS interface controlling everything on your DirecTV set top box, including the built-in DVR, through essentially a browser interface.
In fact, Chrome OS is designed specifically for lower-end products where people have close access to an 802.11g/n Wi-Fi link, for example in schools or the numerous Wi-Fi hot spots in public gathering places. It's not designed to work a lot offline like you get with machines loaded with real Linux distrubutions, Windows XP/7, or even MacOS X 10.6.x.
The biggest problems with FLAC comes down to these factors:
1) You can't play them with the vast majority of iPods and iPhones out there.
2) Relative few portable media players can play FLAC files "out of the box."
3) You have to use a third party software encoder to create FLAC file from your own CD collection.
In contrast, at least with Apple Lossless (ALAC) you have two advantages:
1) The VAST majority of hard-disk based iPods, all iPod nano models, the iPod touch and the iPhone can play ALAC files. And that's a HUGE number of portable media players out htere.
3) Creating an ALAC-encoded file is easy--just do it in iTunes.
Mind you, given that for most portable media player usage you're not plugged into a multi-thousand dollar stereo system, for top-notch sound quality you should rip your CD collection for your player at 256 kbps variable bit rate encoding, and the resulting sound quality is still very close to the original CD itself.
The biggest problem against FLAC is simple: relatively few portable media players support FLAC "out of the box." In fact, you almost would be better off with selling Apple Lossless encoded music, since just about every iPod classic, nano and touch model since 2004 and all iPhone models support Apple Lossless natively.
I'd almost agree, but to hear the difference clearly at lower bit rates with a portable music player requires really good in-ear headphones--and most of the really good models start at around US$120 and go WAY up from there (go take a look at how much you pay for a "reference" quality in-ear headphone like the Sennheiser IE8 or Shure SE530--they cost as much as the current 32 GB iPod touch from a discount online store).
This is why my entire CD collection has been ripped into my computer using 256 kbps variable bit rate AAC encoding--unlike MP3 encoding, AAC encoding has excellent sound quality at this encoding rate with very quiet background noise level. While in the past using AAC encoding could be a disadvantage, given that most of today's higher-end portable music players support AAC files, I'm sticking with AAC encoding.
There's good reason why Amazon went with 256 kbps VBR encoding for their MP3 downloads and Apple went with 256 kbps VBR encoding for their iTunes Plus downloads--the sound quality is quite good and to tell the difference between 256 kbps VBR encoding and the original CD would require equipment that most of us couldn't afford. Besides, based on my experience with my auto car stereo that has direct iPod control (the Sony CDX-GT630UI), there's practically no difference between the original CD and the 256 kbps VBR encoded version played back from my 4G iPod nano.
If this project works, we're talking extracting energy from deuterium (which is plentiful in seawater!) in an amount that would make energy generated by the entire world's known supply of crude oil, natural gas, coal, undersea methane hydrates, and even uranium ore seem like an insignificant event in comparison. We're talking billions of years of energy output at modern levels.
It's not as ridiculous as you think because if you're an intelligent alien life form and you want to eventually reveal yourself publicly to the world, who would you want to contact first? Besides political leaders and military leaders, it has to be the highest religious authorities because such a revelation would cause a gigantic shock in the belief system of the locals living on that planet. As such, I would not be surprised if the extraterrestrials may have been quietly communicating with the likes of the Pope, the Archbishop of Cantebury (who heads the Anglican Church), the major imans and mullahs in the two major sects of Islam, the Patriarch of Moscow (who leads the Russian Orthodox Church), the Dalai Lama, and so on.