IMO they didn't hit parity with Netscape until version 3. Had any other company tried this, they would have been out of business by that time. No other company could have gotten their sub-standard browser on so many machines for that long, plus weathered the cash drain.
So, yes MS eventually had a better browser, but they did it by using anti-competitive practices to dry-up cash flow and use (thereby slowing development) of what was a better browser. Again, all MO.
Call me crazy, but I thought the best way to respond to the RIAA's new tactic is exactly this. We know spam works because a small percentage of people respond. What would happen if even a small percentage of people who got this message gave a nice. long reply.
Given the trouble the RIAA has keeping their web site up, it could be fun.
Sounds pretty much like any benchmark. The only way to really know which solution is faster/better/just-as-good-as-xyz, is to sit down with your own hardware, doing things the way you want to do them, and do the comparison yourself.
The good part in this scenario is you don't have to spend thousands of dollars to do the comparison. If you already own a CD, pop it into your computer, encode using any bitrates/codecs you want to campare, and give it a listen. Go with the cheapest/smallest you find that sounds as good as the original.
With regard to the dream about uncompressed audio, I'd be willing to pay more for a CD-quality download. That doesn't mean it has to be uncompressed audio, just use a lossless scheme. Maybe you only get 2:1 compression, but even that would help. Just adjust the cost accordingly.
Analog playback is lossy too. Every step of the way. Every transducer, every amplification step, every wire, every connection. Even the speakers and environment. (Yes, CDs suffer the same problems once in analog).
Not to mention the fact that analog recordings suffer loss from wear.
Which, IMO, is what they should have been doing from day 1 and all they should be allowed to do. Go after the people who are illegally trading music (the actual criminals), not the software developers or the ISPs.
Nah, it'd be easier for them to just get the copyright on both silence and the absence of silence (which describes much of the work they've been putting up for sale lately).
Somebody has to make the hardware to support Hypertransport, don't they?
Wouldn't it make as much sense for Apple to source this out to AMD as to do it themselves?
With regard to the 6.4 GB/s bus on the PPC 970, you're going to need hardware support to bridge this bus with hypertransport (or whatever else you use). Wouldn't that also be a place where AMD could help out?
I'd think more along the line of the PPC processor IBM was rumored to have in the works back in the 601 days that included an X86 compatible core on die (was that the 610?).
At least one form of GM food was formed by splicing bacterial genes into corn (bacteria, despite what you may have been taught in high school, are NOT considered plants).
There are no speicific genes for intelligence. There are several genes (to date) which have been linked to higher intelligence, but that's as far as it goes. They may just be markers that have followed along an "intelligent" branch of the genetic tree and have no direct effect on intelligence. Keep in mind the proteins encoded by these genes may have several roles/functins. Beefing up one may incapacitate another.
Think about it. Say there is a single gene that encodes intelligence, how will you modify it? We don't have anyone I'm aware of to use as a model for how it should be modified.
Say we do find that modification in the fictional intelligence gene, what's to say that modification doesn't also cause sever mental illness. You end up with a highly-intelligent, non-functional "human".
The forms of gene therapy being developed now do not affect the germ line, only the somatic cells.
For example, using viral carriers to introduce working copies of CFTR (when mutated causes cystic fibrosis) into cells lining the airway of the lungs does nothing to change the mutant copy of the CFTR gene in the recipients sperm or egg.
till we have scientists filled with hubris rushing to produce almost certainly defective clones.
Taken as a whole, I'd say its the scientists who are the most conservative when it comes to genetic manipulation. They're the ones who understand its an experimental field and understand that experiments, even the best though-out ones, don't always work as planned -that's why we call them experiments.
First, some basic genetics. It rare for a single gene (protein) to have a single function, and its rare for a given trait, say height or intelligence, to be governed by a single gene.
Also consider that we all know there are trade-offs and optimizations that have to take place in engineering, including genetic engineering.
So let's say you find a gene where one form predisposes the person to have a higher intelligence (say a more sensitive neurotransmitter receptor). So you put that form into a bunch of test babies and see what happens.
Maybe nothing happens.
Maybe they have an IQ that's 20 points higher on average than the general population.
Maybe the also show an increased incidence of manic depression, or epilepsy, or....
Back to the drawing board, lets try again. We found a gene we can modify to give a child super-strength.
Cool!
Funny how so many of them are completely debilitated by pulled or torn ligaments and tendons, and the occasional broken bone that couldn't handle the extra stess imposed by the super-muscles.
So much for super strength, they end up super cripples.
I'm trying to make a couple points here. First, it will take several generations just to test any given genetic manipulation, more to figure out how the requisite panel of genes will have to be modified to give an overall superior human.
Second, you can't just modify one gene and make an overall better human. There are trade-offs and unexpected consequences. Just because you have the parts manual doesn't mean you know how things work.
The one area where genetic manipulation can pretty much be guaranteed to be productive is in curing genetic diseases, where we know the gene, and we can change it back to "normal".
As for "Frankenbabies", any of you want to volunteer your kids for testing?
Slashdot Mirror
In MS's case, they had the better browser.
IMO they didn't hit parity with Netscape until version 3. Had any other company tried this, they would have been out of business by that time. No other company could have gotten their sub-standard browser on so many machines for that long, plus weathered the cash drain.
So, yes MS eventually had a better browser, but they did it by using anti-competitive practices to dry-up cash flow and use (thereby slowing development) of what was a better browser. Again, all MO.
Call me crazy, but I thought the best way to respond to the RIAA's new tactic is exactly this. We know spam works because a small percentage of people respond. What would happen if even a small percentage of people who got this message gave a nice. long reply.
Given the trouble the RIAA has keeping their web site up, it could be fun.
Sounds pretty much like any benchmark. The only way to really know which solution is faster/better/just-as-good-as-xyz, is to sit down with your own hardware, doing things the way you want to do them, and do the comparison yourself.
The good part in this scenario is you don't have to spend thousands of dollars to do the comparison. If you already own a CD, pop it into your computer, encode using any bitrates/codecs you want to campare, and give it a listen. Go with the cheapest/smallest you find that sounds as good as the original.
No, you can pretty much do anything you want with the AAC file, just like any mp3 file.
Are you referring to some of the restrictions placed in iTunes? That's a different story, but more than reasonable IMO.
Why buy when you can get it free?
Because you can't get it for free...
Unless your time is free.
And your bandwidth is free.
And your conscience is free.
And your lawyer is free.
With regard to the dream about uncompressed audio, I'd be willing to pay more for a CD-quality download. That doesn't mean it has to be uncompressed audio, just use a lossless scheme. Maybe you only get 2:1 compression, but even that would help. Just adjust the cost accordingly.
Huh?
That's sounds like complaining that Xerox is diminishing your fair use rights because the photocopies you make aren't perfect.
What can you do with any other AAC file that you can't do with Apple's?
I think that has something to do with karma, but I'm not sure what.
I must have picked the wrong major, because I don't remember having hours of free time to do nothing but scour the net for free music.
Analog playback is lossy too. Every step of the way. Every transducer, every amplification step, every wire, every connection. Even the speakers and environment. (Yes, CDs suffer the same problems once in analog).
Not to mention the fact that analog recordings suffer loss from wear.
And of course if you're running Classic on OS X you can still play all those old 68k apps.
One wonders how the older x86 apps will fare in comparitson 5 years from now.
Which, IMO, is what they should have been doing from day 1 and all they should be allowed to do. Go after the people who are illegally trading music (the actual criminals), not the software developers or the ISPs.
Nah, it'd be easier for them to just get the copyright on both silence and the absence of silence (which describes much of the work they've been putting up for sale lately).
The reported shelf life for CD-R is anywhere from 10-100 years depending on the type of dye and who you want to believe.
My understanding was that for tape it is only 5-10 years, but that could very well be out-dated. What is the current shelf life for magnetic tape?
Instead of using the Linux kernal, wouldn't it make more sense to use Darwin? Its the core of OS X, runs on X86 hardware and is open-source.
Somebody has to make the hardware to support Hypertransport, don't they?
Wouldn't it make as much sense for Apple to source this out to AMD as to do it themselves?
With regard to the 6.4 GB/s bus on the PPC 970, you're going to need hardware support to bridge this bus with hypertransport (or whatever else you use). Wouldn't that also be a place where AMD could help out?
I was thinking if Linux can be successful as a server OS, why not a Darwin Server running on am Apple made PC?
I can think of a hundred arguments against this, but it makes as much sense (to me) as half the stuff I've read so far.
A bit out of my league in this area, but if they wanted a better server CPU, why not go for the much more compatible Power4?
For example, the quiet release of X11 is perfectly logical without any of this.
Not to mention the fact that its still a beta (currently at public beta 3).
Maybe the time to announce it is when you're ready to go with a final release? -Sorry, forgot what decade I was in.
I'd think more along the line of the PPC processor IBM was rumored to have in the works back in the 601 days that included an X86 compatible core on die (was that the 610?).
That would be cool.
At least one form of GM food was formed by splicing bacterial genes into corn (bacteria, despite what you may have been taught in high school, are NOT considered plants).
Ahh! But at least its all natural!
There are no speicific genes for intelligence. There are several genes (to date) which have been linked to higher intelligence, but that's as far as it goes. They may just be markers that have followed along an "intelligent" branch of the genetic tree and have no direct effect on intelligence. Keep in mind the proteins encoded by these genes may have several roles/functins. Beefing up one may incapacitate another.
Think about it. Say there is a single gene that encodes intelligence, how will you modify it? We don't have anyone I'm aware of to use as a model for how it should be modified.
Say we do find that modification in the fictional intelligence gene, what's to say that modification doesn't also cause sever mental illness. You end up with a highly-intelligent, non-functional "human".
Depends.
The forms of gene therapy being developed now do not affect the germ line, only the somatic cells.
For example, using viral carriers to introduce working copies of CFTR (when mutated causes cystic fibrosis) into cells lining the airway of the lungs does nothing to change the mutant copy of the CFTR gene in the recipients sperm or egg.
till we have scientists filled with hubris rushing to produce almost certainly defective clones.
Taken as a whole, I'd say its the scientists who are the most conservative when it comes to genetic manipulation. They're the ones who understand its an experimental field and understand that experiments, even the best though-out ones, don't always work as planned -that's why we call them experiments.
Lets take a step back a do a reality check.
First, some basic genetics. It rare for a single gene (protein) to have a single function, and its rare for a given trait, say height or intelligence, to be governed by a single gene.
Also consider that we all know there are trade-offs and optimizations that have to take place in engineering, including genetic engineering.
So let's say you find a gene where one form predisposes the person to have a higher intelligence (say a more sensitive neurotransmitter receptor). So you put that form into a bunch of test babies and see what happens.
Maybe nothing happens.
Maybe they have an IQ that's 20 points higher on average than the general population.
Maybe the also show an increased incidence of manic depression, or epilepsy, or....
Back to the drawing board, lets try again. We found a gene we can modify to give a child super-strength.
Cool!
Funny how so many of them are completely debilitated by pulled or torn ligaments and tendons, and the occasional broken bone that couldn't handle the extra stess imposed by the super-muscles.
So much for super strength, they end up super cripples.
I'm trying to make a couple points here. First, it will take several generations just to test any given genetic manipulation, more to figure out how the requisite panel of genes will have to be modified to give an overall superior human.
Second, you can't just modify one gene and make an overall better human. There are trade-offs and unexpected consequences. Just because you have the parts manual doesn't mean you know how things work.
The one area where genetic manipulation can pretty much be guaranteed to be productive is in curing genetic diseases, where we know the gene, and we can change it back to "normal".
As for "Frankenbabies", any of you want to volunteer your kids for testing?