I'm pretty sure that my buddy bought his Packard Bell DX2-50 in '93.
God help him.
Me, I wanted the DX-50 (not the clock-doubled DX2-50). that thing was a smokin' machine.
What I got instead was a DX2-66 on my Apple DOS Compatibility Card for my PowerMac 6100. Of course, that wasn't until '94, but it was still a cool rig.
Because it doesn't cost any more to build a high-powered processor (both in terms of wattage and FLOPS) than to build a low-power one, and you have to sell the low powered one for less money.
Same reason you can't buy a 10GB hard drive for $10, but you can easily find 100GB hard drives for $100. Price is very not linear with performance.
Well, for what it's worth, there are dozens of homebuilt ultralights and airplanes that are built with cloth wings (albeit over aluminum and/or steel frames), and one bush airplane I can think of stalls at around 20 mph. It can land in your backyard. (I think it's called the Kitfox.)
Anyhow. Moving right along. Intel still sucks. : )
My point is, Jackson could afford to use whatever damn hardware he wanted to. He chose the iPod, and it did the job.
Seems like you and your tech-savvy friend are, well, wrong.
So the article's slanted. It's a puff piece. What do you expect from journalism today?
And, re: Apple-sponsored astroturfing, Apple's never been busted for doing it. Microsoft has. If you have documentation that belies that contention, I'd like to read it.
Me, I think Apple has done a hell of a job reinventing themselves over the last few years, and some good grassroots PR is the fruit of that reinvention.
But, I'm probably wrong. I guess since I disagree with you, I must be drinking their kool-aid and basking in the comforting rays of the reality distortion field.
An audiophile doesn't like an MP3 player? STOP THE FUCKING PRESSES!
Duh.
I am SO GLAD I don't have golden ears. If I want music to sound substantially better than it does on my relatively inexpensive home stereo, I'll perform it myself.
I've always thought of the audiophile hobby as a particularly obnoxious form of masturbation. I mean, if it gets you off, fine. I just don't really care to hear about your pure silver $200/foot speaker wire.
No technical reason, other than the fact that creative professionals time and time again find that Macs enable them to work more efficiently, and therefore make more money.
You might not agree, but then again you're probably not a creative professional.
(don't misread, I'm not saying that you're not creative or that you're not a professional. I am stating that, by alleging there is no ease-of-use advantage to the Macintosh, that you are not in the business of producing art for money. If you were, you'd buy a Mac.)
Something else tells me that he didn't bother because it would be redundant, and the iPod did the job just fine thank you.
What? Do you have something invested in WANTING the iPod to not be the right tool for the job? It obviously was, or else they would have used something else. Why do YOU care?
And, I suppose since Jackson and his crew could have used any hardware they wanted to, the only reason they used Macs is because they're stupid zealots, right?
I'm sure there's not a rational reason they would have wanted to use Apple hardware. Must be the reality distortion field.
They were given the spectrum. No monies were ever exchanged. Yay FCC.
CBS is censoring their content. It is not illegal or immoral for them to do so, but I do think it is unethical. I (and many other people) are exercising our free-speech rights to tell CBS what we think about their business practices.
CBS is telling the public "If you want to be heard on our network, you need to a) have a lot of money and b) be in our club of "acceptable message senders". I don't think that is an appropriate use of their bandwidth monopoly.
What's with the ad hominem attacks? I know exactly what censorship is. I know people from mainland China. I think that, in order to not become like mainland China, we need to be alert for any and all instances of censorship, whether they come from government or from increasingly powerful media oligopolies.
By spending zillions of dollars to streamline and integrate these systems, they increase the bandwidth of a single investigator by an order of magnitude or three.
Say you've got 200 analysts, each of whom can track ten suspects. (Yes, I'm making these numbers up.) You then decide that you want to track 100 million suspects.
What's the first thing you do? Hire ten million new analysts, or try to increase the bandwidth of your existing staff by 1000 or so, and then hire a few thousand new analysts?
The systems are being engineered to allow the mass surveillance of the American populace. To pretend that it's just "more of the same" is, in my opinion, a dangerous assumption.
Re:Don't forget the ad CBS is refusing to air.
on
Superbowling
·
· Score: 1
I'd much rather see an ad for revoking the DEA's fiat to seize and hold any property or funds that might have been in the same state as a drug lord.
The War on Drugs is controversial.
Re:Don't forget the ad CBS is refusing to air.
on
Superbowling
·
· Score: 1
"They make it overly complicated and expensive"
Sounds like a de facto prohibition to me.
These private interests profit from the public airwaves, and return little to the public interest. That is why they should answer to the people as to what is "appropriate".
What happens when the TV station also owns the radio and the newspaper? That happens more frequently than you would like to admit. Media ownership is becoming less democratic, and the Internet is Just Not There Yet.
Re:You have no idea what censorship is.
on
Superbowling
·
· Score: 1
CBS seems to have forgotten to send me my check this month for the airwaves that they broadcast over. Remember? That finite, public resource that was ceded to them in exchange for their promise to support community-interest broadcasting?
You don't remember that promise? You didn't get your check either? Hmm. I guess we ARE paying for their network.
So why is the Department of Homeland Security spending big bucks integrating these systems together? I mean, if they're tracking a reasonably small number of suspected criminals, surely they could use the same DBs you used 20 years ago as a skip tracer.
See, that's the point. They don't just want to track a few criminals. They want to track EVERYBODY. Cheaply.
if you haff nosing to hide, you haff nosing to fear.
I still contend that changing the set of steps required to do something stupid is not a positive change.
Apple's system (requiring the administrator password to do anything drastic, EVEN IF YOU ARE LOGGED IN AS ADMINISTRATOR) is a very, very good compromise. The user isn't inconvenienced when they want to view an attachment, but hostile attachments aren't allowed to do anything.
Making people do the same process from the command line doesn't add meaningful security, and it adds enormous user training time.
"I don't think you understand the question" yeah i do/uhh....what?
"Click "yes" for me to comply with your foolish desire, human." no/cancel
My point is that, by design, the action of clicking on something in an email message should not have significant consequences ever.
Click on a worm? The system calls "Shenanigans!", reports the changes that are being attempted, and asks you for the root password after telling you that this is a bad idea. That's good design.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm pretty sure that my buddy bought his Packard Bell DX2-50 in '93.
God help him.
Me, I wanted the DX-50 (not the clock-doubled DX2-50). that thing was a smokin' machine.
What I got instead was a DX2-66 on my Apple DOS Compatibility Card for my PowerMac 6100. Of course, that wasn't until '94, but it was still a cool rig.
Why don't Intel and AMD do this?
Because it doesn't cost any more to build a high-powered processor (both in terms of wattage and FLOPS) than to build a low-power one, and you have to sell the low powered one for less money.
Same reason you can't buy a 10GB hard drive for $10, but you can easily find 100GB hard drives for $100. Price is very not linear with performance.
Well, for what it's worth, there are dozens of homebuilt ultralights and airplanes that are built with cloth wings (albeit over aluminum and/or steel frames), and one bush airplane I can think of stalls at around 20 mph. It can land in your backyard. (I think it's called the Kitfox.)
Anyhow. Moving right along. Intel still sucks. : )
My point is, Jackson could afford to use whatever damn hardware he wanted to. He chose the iPod, and it did the job.
Seems like you and your tech-savvy friend are, well, wrong.
So the article's slanted. It's a puff piece. What do you expect from journalism today?
And, re: Apple-sponsored astroturfing, Apple's never been busted for doing it. Microsoft has. If you have documentation that belies that contention, I'd like to read it.
Me, I think Apple has done a hell of a job reinventing themselves over the last few years, and some good grassroots PR is the fruit of that reinvention.
But, I'm probably wrong. I guess since I disagree with you, I must be drinking their kool-aid and basking in the comforting rays of the reality distortion field.
Reviewing the dailies was certainly critical to the mission of completing the film.
There was a lot of money riding on that deal. People's lives? No. People's livelihoods? You bet.
An audiophile doesn't like an MP3 player? STOP THE FUCKING PRESSES!
Duh.
I am SO GLAD I don't have golden ears. If I want music to sound substantially better than it does on my relatively inexpensive home stereo, I'll perform it myself.
I've always thought of the audiophile hobby as a particularly obnoxious form of masturbation. I mean, if it gets you off, fine. I just don't really care to hear about your pure silver $200/foot speaker wire.
No technical reason, other than the fact that creative professionals time and time again find that Macs enable them to work more efficiently, and therefore make more money.
You might not agree, but then again you're probably not a creative professional.
(don't misread, I'm not saying that you're not creative or that you're not a professional. I am stating that, by alleging there is no ease-of-use advantage to the Macintosh, that you are not in the business of producing art for money. If you were, you'd buy a Mac.)
Where, pray tell, can I find these flash-based MP3 players that can carry a non-hilarious amount of high resolution video?
What, pray tell, is the color of the sky on that strange alien planet?
You don't have to be impressed. The guy who's made three bajillion dollar grossing movies is impressed, and that's enough.
Note to posters: Not everybody thinks that posts you think are intelligent are intelligent. Some of those people moderate.
/. as being pro-Apple. Those of us who have been around for a while chuckle at the alleged change in attitude.
/., that's cool. I'll even send you some tinfoil for your hat.
It's pretty funny to me to imagine
Of course, if you want to believe that Apple is paying people to mod on
Something else tells me that he didn't bother because it would be redundant, and the iPod did the job just fine thank you.
What? Do you have something invested in WANTING the iPod to not be the right tool for the job? It obviously was, or else they would have used something else. Why do YOU care?
And, I suppose since Jackson and his crew could have used any hardware they wanted to, the only reason they used Macs is because they're stupid zealots, right?
I'm sure there's not a rational reason they would have wanted to use Apple hardware. Must be the reality distortion field.
They were given the spectrum. No monies were ever exchanged. Yay FCC.
CBS is censoring their content. It is not illegal or immoral for them to do so, but I do think it is unethical. I (and many other people) are exercising our free-speech rights to tell CBS what we think about their business practices.
CBS is telling the public "If you want to be heard on our network, you need to a) have a lot of money and b) be in our club of "acceptable message senders". I don't think that is an appropriate use of their bandwidth monopoly.
What's with the ad hominem attacks? I know exactly what censorship is. I know people from mainland China. I think that, in order to not become like mainland China, we need to be alert for any and all instances of censorship, whether they come from government or from increasingly powerful media oligopolies.
Did I kick your dog? What's with the venom, dude?
But you haven't addressed my central issue.
By spending zillions of dollars to streamline and integrate these systems, they increase the bandwidth of a single investigator by an order of magnitude or three.
Say you've got 200 analysts, each of whom can track ten suspects. (Yes, I'm making these numbers up.) You then decide that you want to track 100 million suspects.
What's the first thing you do? Hire ten million new analysts, or try to increase the bandwidth of your existing staff by 1000 or so, and then hire a few thousand new analysts?
The systems are being engineered to allow the mass surveillance of the American populace. To pretend that it's just "more of the same" is, in my opinion, a dangerous assumption.
I'd much rather see an ad for revoking the DEA's fiat to seize and hold any property or funds that might have been in the same state as a drug lord.
The War on Drugs is controversial.
"They make it overly complicated and expensive"
Sounds like a de facto prohibition to me.
These private interests profit from the public airwaves, and return little to the public interest. That is why they should answer to the people as to what is "appropriate".
What happens when the TV station also owns the radio and the newspaper? That happens more frequently than you would like to admit. Media ownership is becoming less democratic, and the Internet is Just Not There Yet.
CBS seems to have forgotten to send me my check this month for the airwaves that they broadcast over. Remember? That finite, public resource that was ceded to them in exchange for their promise to support community-interest broadcasting?
You don't remember that promise? You didn't get your check either? Hmm. I guess we ARE paying for their network.
Yes! Mod the grandparent down, so nobody gets information that is not sanctioned by the Church. We need to figure out how to shut up those infidels.
What size are your boots?
So why is the Department of Homeland Security spending big bucks integrating these systems together? I mean, if they're tracking a reasonably small number of suspected criminals, surely they could use the same DBs you used 20 years ago as a skip tracer.
See, that's the point. They don't just want to track a few criminals. They want to track EVERYBODY. Cheaply.
if you haff nosing to hide, you haff nosing to fear.
Right.
I still contend that changing the set of steps required to do something stupid is not a positive change.
Apple's system (requiring the administrator password to do anything drastic, EVEN IF YOU ARE LOGGED IN AS ADMINISTRATOR) is a very, very good compromise. The user isn't inconvenienced when they want to view an attachment, but hostile attachments aren't allowed to do anything.
Making people do the same process from the command line doesn't add meaningful security, and it adds enormous user training time.
And I would argue that those people are, by definition, not smart.
QED.
There are lots of people with tons of brain power who aren't very smart.
"Are you sure you want to do this?"
yes/no
"Are you really really sure?"
yes/no
"I don't think you understand the question"
yeah i do/uhh....what?
"Click "yes" for me to comply with your foolish desire, human."
no/cancel
My point is that, by design, the action of clicking on something in an email message should not have significant consequences ever.
Click on a worm? The system calls "Shenanigans!", reports the changes that are being attempted, and asks you for the root password after telling you that this is a bad idea. That's good design.
I think people who can actually speak Elvish (and Klingon for that matter) should have to wear signs so the rest of us normal people can avoid you.
You're seriously beefing with the IMAGINARY LANGUAGE used in the movie?! Come on. Yes, Tolkien was a linguistics freak.
Key word? Freak.
Let's hear it for security by obscurity! We'll fix problems, by making them more difficult to cause!
Oh wait. That's a stupid idea. Maybe we should make the system smart enough to ignore executibles embedded in simple data files. What a ca-RAZY IDEA!
Yeah, learning new things sure is hard for smart people.
Oh wait...no it isn't. By definition.
I think that should read "...after GETTING HIS ASS KICKED in Iowa and New Hampshire???"
Dean is a goner. Glad I didn't give him any money. Once he started talking, he turned into a real prick.