Perhaps you're thinking of the ban on cell phones? That has nothing to do with safety. A cell uses up bandwidth on every node that's in line-of-site. So someone in the air strains the system more than someone on the ground. If passengers were allowed to use their phones, local systems would get saturated every time a plane flies over them.
Although that may be true, the ban on cell phones is due to the fact that airplane-tower communications are all done in AM, and are therefore quite susceptible to EMI, especially if it is close by.
My cable TV company ordered me not to install an FM splitter on my own -- if not done by a "trained technician" (snicker), it might cause airplanes to fall out of the sky. Many gas stations now ban people from talking on their cells while fueling, because somebody told someone that they'd heard somewhere that a gas station was destroyed when sparks from a cell ignited the fumes. (Think about it, what has more circuitry, a cell phone or a car?)
I think you mean an RF splitter, and yes, a splitter not properly installed can give off more EMI than is allowed by the FCC, and part of the reason for the FCC rules is to prevent interference with airplane communications.
Although a cell phone causing a spark that ignites a gas station is dubious, I could see a cell phone ban in gas stations due to the inattentiveness caused by them. Someone somewhere probably drove off with the gas nozzle still in his tank, ripped it off, and caused an explosion because he/she was talking on his cell phone and not paying attention.
So even though the reasons have been exagerated, there is a grain of truth to them. And yes, a cell phone has far more circuitry in it than a car, if you mean length of conductive material. Cars certainly have more power running through them though.
Unless you install a cell in the aircraft... Which is probably less kit than "Sky phones", since you don't need to provide handsets and credit card readers.
How could you install a cell site in an airplane? Cell sites are where the call from a cell phone gets transfered to a land trunk.
How is methanol green? Oxidation of methanol produces carbon dioxide just like standard power production. Granted it is somewhat more efficient, but it is not any more "green" than the alternative.
Damn formatting. That big paragraph was supposed to read like this:
Compatibility: Developers may use Apple, Macintosh, iMac, or any other Apple word mark (but not the Apple Logo or other Apple-owned graphic symbol/logo) in a referential phrase on packaging, promotional/advertising materials to describe that the third party product is compatible with the referenced Apple product or technology, provided they comply with the following requirements.
a. The Apple word mark is not part of the product name.
b. The Apple word mark is used in a referential phrase such as "runs on," "for use with," "for," or "compatible with."
c. The Apple word mark appears less prominent than the product name.
d. The product is in fact compatible with, or otherwise works with, the referenced Apple product.
e. The reference to Apple does not create a sense of endorsement, sponsorship, or false association with Apple or Apple products or services.
f. The use does not show Apple or its products in a false or derogatory light.
All that says is that you can't name your product "Mac Compatible" or something else with "Mac" in its name.
The relevant paragraph of that document is this:
Compatibility: Developers may use Apple, Macintosh, iMac, or any other Apple word mark (but not the Apple Logo or other Apple-owned graphic symbol/logo) in a referential phrase on packaging, promotional/advertising materials to describe that the third party product is compatible with the referenced Apple product or technology, provided they comply with the following requirements.
a. The Apple word mark is not part of the product name.
b. The Apple word mark is used in a referential phrase such as "runs on," "for use with," "for," or "compatible with."
c. The Apple word mark appears less prominent than the product name.
d. The product is in fact compatible with, or otherwise works with, the referenced Apple product.
e. The reference to Apple does not create a sense of endorsement, sponsorship, or false association with Apple or Apple products or services.
f. The use does not show Apple or its products in a false or derogatory light.
You can call any computer you want a "Mac compatible" provided its true, and the claim is less prominent than the name of the product in advertising.
Or maybe because Win95 and NT were great leaps forward in design and usability from the kludges of Win 1.x/2.x/3.x...? Not every single "innovation" of Microsoft's has been designed solely to destroy competition.
Maybe not every one, but this one certainly was. There are several internal memos used as evidence in Caldera vs. Microsoft that point to this fact.
Sued over what? Apple wouldn't have a leg to stand on. When Apple was allowing clones, the BIOS wasn't open, and you did require a licensed copy of the Mac ROM to manufacture a clone. You don't anymore. Therefore, Apple can't stop a clone manufacturer from making a clone, and under their Guidlines for Using Apple Trademarks and Copyrights provided by a poster further down the thread, they couldn't stop them from advertising as "MacOS Compatible" provided it wasn't part of, or more prominent than, the product name.
Maybe you should have actually read all of my comment. I was talking about manufacturers making clones without licenses from Apple. Since the BIOS is open now, clone makers don't need a license from Apple to put a copy of it in their machine.
his is directly contrary to my experiences with Macs. The last Mac I used was a G3 running OS 8, so things may have changed since then, but it was REALLY bad. Hard locks all the time, I'm talking 4-5 times a day, and this thing locked up so hard that even the power switch wouldn't work and I had to crawl under the desk and unplug the thing from the wall. A reset switch would have been nice, but I never found one. Not even a switch on the PSU like most of the Current ATX ones have. The only other computer I used at the time was an Acer P-120 running Windows 95A (by all accounts the buggiest OS ever produced). It only crashed on me about once a week (usually Netscape, but that's a whole different gripe), and only hard locked to the point where I had to hit the reset switch twice in 2 years.
OS 8 sucked, which is why Apple updated to 8.1 as quickly as possible. They did the same thing with System 7/7.1, 7.5/7.5.3, 8.5/8.6, and most recently, 9.0/9.0.4. Apple has a history of putting out buggy system software with new technology in it, and then quickly replacing it with a much more stable version of that same technology. And BTW, every recent Mac could be hard shutdown by holding the power button in for 5-10 seconds.
I'll admit that ease and power were once the domain of Apple, but they lost the usability crown years ago to an OS that could display multiple toolbars at the same time (Windows), and they gave up their last hold on the power crown when they switched from SCSI to IDE (sorry, but the G4 just doesn't keep up for anything other than Photoshop).
Show me an ATX case that can be opened in 2 secs with full access to all swapable components like my G4 can, and I'll let you have the ease of use crown on the hardware front. Show me that you can install and uninstall the majority of Windows programs by draging them to the hard drive or trash, and I'll let you have the ease of use crown on the OS front.
And BTW, the placement of the menu bar at the top of a window instead of the top of the screen is one of the worst UI flaws in Windows. You can't use both of the at the same time, so why do you need to display them both? And putting a menu bar at the top of the window like that requires more time and precision to use it than when it is against the side of the screen. Its the difference between a height of 40 pixels and an (effective) infinite height.
You have this exactly backwards. One has to have a monopoly before one can abuse it, and Microsoft didn't spring forth whole from the computer industry like Athena from Zeus' head.
You must not know your computer history very well. Microsoft effectively did start off with a monopoly. Or rather they inherited one from IBM through an incredibly stupid business decision on their part. They then used this monopoly they got to jack around companies like Stac Electronics (which made Stacker) and DRI (which made DR-DOS), and to promote their new graphical shell Windows, which they later combined with MS-DOS to make it a true OS in a final effort to prevent DR-DOS from gaining market share.
While there are other OS's you can install on a mac, the only company that has the right to produce Mac hardware is Apple. That sounds pretty exclusive to me.
Now that the BIOS is completely open, it wouldn't be too hard for a clone manufacturer to start making Apple compatibles. Simply because no one does does not make Apple hardware propietary.
My impression from the Scientific American article a couple months back was that the 2nd laser allowed the ultracold sodium gas atoms to convert the photon to a wobble in the spin rather than raising electrons to higher energy levels. This spin wobble then traveled as a wave through the gas. When the second laser was shut off, the spin no longer traveled, and was kept in place. After the second laser was turned back on, the wave traveled again. Only once the wave exited the gas, was it reconverted to a photon.
However, I don't know whether or not they are using a similiar method for the solid crystal, or whether I got the wrong impression at all from the first article. As I said, I am not a quantum physicist.
Yes, it should. All New World Macs (ones with the Mac OS ROM on the hd instead of in firmware) will have this ability. All Macs that have been inroduced after the first iMac are New World.
No, this won't work. WINE Is Not an Emulator. It is just an implementation of the Windows API. It will only run on x86 systems. I guess it could run on a PPC system with a re-compile, but it would only run Windows PPC binaries, in other words, nothing. WINE is similiar to something on PPC Linux called MOL, or Mac On Linux. It is an implementation of the classic Mac API. But again, it will only run on PPC architecture.
For an iBook, you don't need YABootLoader. Open Firmware has a bootloader in the boot rom. All you have to do is hold down option during boot up. It will bring up a graphical menu of all the viable "kernels" (for the lack of a better term).
I assume you live in either Russia or (what used to be) East Germany. Either way, you didn't see communism. Communism has never been put into practice as a economic model for an entire country. The "War Communism" that Lenin put into effect during the Russian Revolution, and Stalin then perpetuated was not commmunism at all. Communism is giving all your money and property to each other, not to the state.
Lets also not forget Kraftwerk who basically pioneered modern electronic music.
Not really. Morton Subotnick and Karlheinz Stockhausen were doing electronica music with analog synthesizers 15-20 years before Kraftwerk. Subotnick's "Silver Apples of the Moon" is one of my favorites.
communism/socialism is at least logical; those with much should give to those who have little or cannot care for themselves
That's not logical. Productive, working people are suckers under such a system. In a Communist East German light bulb factory, for instance, the workers shipped a fair quantity of rocks in light-buld packaging. Why? Because it was easier and they got paid anyway. Until the whole system ate itself.
This of course assumes that the workers do not enjoy working. This is already not true in some cases, and can be not true in all cases through appropriate pyschological and sociological conditioning. Or alternatively, workers in menial and unenjoyable jobs can be replaced with machines. Either way, communism is a viable economic model, and maximizes the happiness of the population, which should be the goal of any governmental/ecomonic system.
1Kbps is 1024bps. 56kbps is 57344 bytes per second, about 5K per second. A 128Kbps is really 13K per second of bandwidth. A 768K is 78K per second of bandwidth. A Megabyte is 1024K not 1000K
1Kbps is 1000 bps. The communications industry follows the standard SI prefixes.
And bandwidth should be measured in Hz, KHz, and MHz, not bps, Kbps, and Mbps. Bandwidth is the width of a frequency band, i.e. the difference between the highest frequency of the band and the lowest.
Megabyte is very precise - it means 2e30 which is ~1e6.
A megabyte is 2*10^30?! News to me. (n)e(x) means n*10^x, not n^x. And to top it off, you use the syntax in one way for 2e30 and the other way for 1e6 right after that! I'm only nitpicking because this thread is about precision.
Disclaimer: All three of my parents (father, mother, and stepmother), as well as two of my grandparents, have been teachers. So you might say I am kind of biased.
For $30,000, you can get one teacher or 20 computers...do the math.
One teacher is worth infinitely more than 20 computers. COMPUTERS ARE NOT TEACHERS, period. And I find it sad that $30,000 can get you one teacher anyway, teachers are paid way too little.
As for your earthquake example, your science teacher could have done a simulation of that same process with a couple seismograph readings, and a class set of compasses and maps. This would have saved tons of money, or at least freed up the computer lab for some other class that actually needed it.
You're right, ritalin works almost exactly like amphetamine or caffiene or any other related stimulant. However, you will find that if you give a stimulant to a normal person, he/she will start acting like Cuthalion's friend when he was off the drugs. But if you give a stimulant like ritalin to a person with ADD or ADHD, it will actually calm him/her down. This indicates there is a chemical difference between normal people and people with ADHD.
However, this does not mean that giving them drugs is the right thing to do. All it does is create a dependency which may or may not be necessary. It is a much more responsible thing (IMHO) to recommend they take Ritalin only sparingly, and at least attempt to overcome their neurological problem by themselves. This approach would give them the opportunity to learn behaviors that would help them when they don't have access to Ritalin, and ultimately be much more beneficial to them than just relying on drugs to fix their problem.
Actually its Maxwell's Laws of Electromagentism that state the speed of light must be a constant. It also provides a mechanism to calculate the speed of light. In fact this was how we discovered light was electromagetic radiation, because the speed predicted for em radiation matched the observed speed of light so precisely.
Slashdot Mirror
Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. Learn a little basic chemistry.
Although that may be true, the ban on cell phones is due to the fact that airplane-tower communications are all done in AM, and are therefore quite susceptible to EMI, especially if it is close by.
My cable TV company ordered me not to install an FM splitter on my own -- if not done by a "trained technician" (snicker), it might cause airplanes to fall out of the sky. Many gas stations now ban people from talking on their cells while fueling, because somebody told someone that they'd heard somewhere that a gas station was destroyed when sparks from a cell ignited the fumes. (Think about it, what has more circuitry, a cell phone or a car?)
I think you mean an RF splitter, and yes, a splitter not properly installed can give off more EMI than is allowed by the FCC, and part of the reason for the FCC rules is to prevent interference with airplane communications.
Although a cell phone causing a spark that ignites a gas station is dubious, I could see a cell phone ban in gas stations due to the inattentiveness caused by them. Someone somewhere probably drove off with the gas nozzle still in his tank, ripped it off, and caused an explosion because he/she was talking on his cell phone and not paying attention.
So even though the reasons have been exagerated, there is a grain of truth to them. And yes, a cell phone has far more circuitry in it than a car, if you mean length of conductive material. Cars certainly have more power running through them though.
How could you install a cell site in an airplane? Cell sites are where the call from a cell phone gets transfered to a land trunk.
How is methanol green? Oxidation of methanol produces carbon dioxide just like standard power production. Granted it is somewhat more efficient, but it is not any more "green" than the alternative.
Except, of course, uncopyrightable material, such as math problems as they were dealing with in this case.
Compatibility: Developers may use Apple, Macintosh, iMac, or any other Apple word mark (but not the Apple Logo or other Apple-owned graphic symbol/logo) in a referential phrase on packaging, promotional/advertising materials to describe that the third party product is compatible with the referenced Apple product or technology, provided they comply with the following requirements.
a. The Apple word mark is not part of the product name.
b. The Apple word mark is used in a referential phrase such as "runs on," "for use with," "for," or "compatible with."
c. The Apple word mark appears less prominent than the product name.
d. The product is in fact compatible with, or otherwise works with, the referenced Apple product.
e. The reference to Apple does not create a sense of endorsement, sponsorship, or false association with Apple or Apple products or services.
f. The use does not show Apple or its products in a false or derogatory light.
The relevant paragraph of that document is this:
Compatibility: Developers may use Apple, Macintosh, iMac, or any other Apple word mark (but not the Apple Logo or other Apple-owned graphic symbol/logo) in a referential phrase on packaging, promotional/advertising materials to describe that the third party product is compatible with the referenced Apple product or technology, provided they comply with the following requirements. a. The Apple word mark is not part of the product name. b. The Apple word mark is used in a referential phrase such as "runs on," "for use with," "for," or "compatible with." c. The Apple word mark appears less prominent than the product name. d. The product is in fact compatible with, or otherwise works with, the referenced Apple product. e. The reference to Apple does not create a sense of endorsement, sponsorship, or false association with Apple or Apple products or services. f. The use does not show Apple or its products in a false or derogatory light.
You can call any computer you want a "Mac compatible" provided its true, and the claim is less prominent than the name of the product in advertising.
Maybe not every one, but this one certainly was. There are several internal memos used as evidence in Caldera vs. Microsoft that point to this fact.
Silly me, I didn't notice that the poster who provided the link was the same poster who I was replying to.
Sued over what? Apple wouldn't have a leg to stand on. When Apple was allowing clones, the BIOS wasn't open, and you did require a licensed copy of the Mac ROM to manufacture a clone. You don't anymore. Therefore, Apple can't stop a clone manufacturer from making a clone, and under their Guidlines for Using Apple Trademarks and Copyrights provided by a poster further down the thread, they couldn't stop them from advertising as "MacOS Compatible" provided it wasn't part of, or more prominent than, the product name.
Maybe you should have actually read all of my comment. I was talking about manufacturers making clones without licenses from Apple. Since the BIOS is open now, clone makers don't need a license from Apple to put a copy of it in their machine.
OS 8 sucked, which is why Apple updated to 8.1 as quickly as possible. They did the same thing with System 7/7.1, 7.5/7.5.3, 8.5/8.6, and most recently, 9.0/9.0.4. Apple has a history of putting out buggy system software with new technology in it, and then quickly replacing it with a much more stable version of that same technology. And BTW, every recent Mac could be hard shutdown by holding the power button in for 5-10 seconds.
I'll admit that ease and power were once the domain of Apple, but they lost the usability crown years ago to an OS that could display multiple toolbars at the same time (Windows), and they gave up their last hold on the power crown when they switched from SCSI to IDE (sorry, but the G4 just doesn't keep up for anything other than Photoshop).
Show me an ATX case that can be opened in 2 secs with full access to all swapable components like my G4 can, and I'll let you have the ease of use crown on the hardware front. Show me that you can install and uninstall the majority of Windows programs by draging them to the hard drive or trash, and I'll let you have the ease of use crown on the OS front.
And BTW, the placement of the menu bar at the top of a window instead of the top of the screen is one of the worst UI flaws in Windows. You can't use both of the at the same time, so why do you need to display them both? And putting a menu bar at the top of the window like that requires more time and precision to use it than when it is against the side of the screen. Its the difference between a height of 40 pixels and an (effective) infinite height.
You have this exactly backwards. One has to have a monopoly before one can abuse it, and Microsoft didn't spring forth whole from the computer industry like Athena from Zeus' head.
You must not know your computer history very well. Microsoft effectively did start off with a monopoly. Or rather they inherited one from IBM through an incredibly stupid business decision on their part. They then used this monopoly they got to jack around companies like Stac Electronics (which made Stacker) and DRI (which made DR-DOS), and to promote their new graphical shell Windows, which they later combined with MS-DOS to make it a true OS in a final effort to prevent DR-DOS from gaining market share.
Now that the BIOS is completely open, it wouldn't be too hard for a clone manufacturer to start making Apple compatibles. Simply because no one does does not make Apple hardware propietary.
My impression from the Scientific American article a couple months back was that the 2nd laser allowed the ultracold sodium gas atoms to convert the photon to a wobble in the spin rather than raising electrons to higher energy levels. This spin wobble then traveled as a wave through the gas. When the second laser was shut off, the spin no longer traveled, and was kept in place. After the second laser was turned back on, the wave traveled again. Only once the wave exited the gas, was it reconverted to a photon.
However, I don't know whether or not they are using a similiar method for the solid crystal, or whether I got the wrong impression at all from the first article. As I said, I am not a quantum physicist.
Yes, it should. All New World Macs (ones with the Mac OS ROM on the hd instead of in firmware) will have this ability. All Macs that have been inroduced after the first iMac are New World.
No, this won't work. WINE Is Not an Emulator. It is just an implementation of the Windows API. It will only run on x86 systems. I guess it could run on a PPC system with a re-compile, but it would only run Windows PPC binaries, in other words, nothing. WINE is similiar to something on PPC Linux called MOL, or Mac On Linux. It is an implementation of the classic Mac API. But again, it will only run on PPC architecture.
For an iBook, you don't need YABootLoader. Open Firmware has a bootloader in the boot rom. All you have to do is hold down option during boot up. It will bring up a graphical menu of all the viable "kernels" (for the lack of a better term).
I assume you live in either Russia or (what used to be) East Germany. Either way, you didn't see communism. Communism has never been put into practice as a economic model for an entire country. The "War Communism" that Lenin put into effect during the Russian Revolution, and Stalin then perpetuated was not commmunism at all. Communism is giving all your money and property to each other, not to the state.
Not really. Morton Subotnick and Karlheinz Stockhausen were doing electronica music with analog synthesizers 15-20 years before Kraftwerk. Subotnick's "Silver Apples of the Moon" is one of my favorites.
That's not logical. Productive, working people are suckers under such a system. In a Communist East German light bulb factory, for instance, the workers shipped a fair quantity of rocks in light-buld packaging. Why? Because it was easier and they got paid anyway. Until the whole system ate itself.
This of course assumes that the workers do not enjoy working. This is already not true in some cases, and can be not true in all cases through appropriate pyschological and sociological conditioning. Or alternatively, workers in menial and unenjoyable jobs can be replaced with machines. Either way, communism is a viable economic model, and maximizes the happiness of the population, which should be the goal of any governmental/ecomonic system.
1Kbps is 1000 bps. The communications industry follows the standard SI prefixes.
And bandwidth should be measured in Hz, KHz, and MHz, not bps, Kbps, and Mbps. Bandwidth is the width of a frequency band, i.e. the difference between the highest frequency of the band and the lowest.
A megabyte is 2*10^30?! News to me. (n)e(x) means n*10^x, not n^x. And to top it off, you use the syntax in one way for 2e30 and the other way for 1e6 right after that! I'm only nitpicking because this thread is about precision.
For $30,000, you can get one teacher or 20 computers...do the math.
One teacher is worth infinitely more than 20 computers. COMPUTERS ARE NOT TEACHERS, period. And I find it sad that $30,000 can get you one teacher anyway, teachers are paid way too little.
As for your earthquake example, your science teacher could have done a simulation of that same process with a couple seismograph readings, and a class set of compasses and maps. This would have saved tons of money, or at least freed up the computer lab for some other class that actually needed it.
However, this does not mean that giving them drugs is the right thing to do. All it does is create a dependency which may or may not be necessary. It is a much more responsible thing (IMHO) to recommend they take Ritalin only sparingly, and at least attempt to overcome their neurological problem by themselves. This approach would give them the opportunity to learn behaviors that would help them when they don't have access to Ritalin, and ultimately be much more beneficial to them than just relying on drugs to fix their problem.
Actually its Maxwell's Laws of Electromagentism that state the speed of light must be a constant. It also provides a mechanism to calculate the speed of light. In fact this was how we discovered light was electromagetic radiation, because the speed predicted for em radiation matched the observed speed of light so precisely.