Apple switched to OS X because of Cocoa - set of APIs that don't depend on PPC chips. If an app's written in cocoa, it's easily portable via chipset. Remember, OS X is very much based on NeXT, and that used to run on x86
Once the transition to Cocoa is complete, Apple is going to drop PPC, start selling x86 boxes with their design prowess, and open up OS X. Bundle Star Office to compete with MS Office.
You mark my words - 12 months from now, MS is in for a rude shock.
Intel chips do have something similar to AltiVec, although I don't know how comparable they are. I'd be willing to bet a 2ghz P4 could probably womp a 800mhz G4 at vector math anyway, these days, so it's really a non-issue.
go take a look at the rc5 benchmarks (i'm on a dialup, and I don't have the link handy, but I'm sure google can help). It's vice versa - an 800mhz G4 womps all the P4s out there.
If you read the stuff, the makers of the OQO were from Apple. They kinda left the company to develop this lil piece of hardware. It'll be interesting to see if the device is as intuitive as a mac.
Without meaning to troll - it's running Windows XP, so I don't know how it can be any more intuitive than any other XP device.
sidenote:
2002-06-23 16:31:28 Fully functional portable PC the size of a PDA (articles,tech) (rejected) -- crap.
We need a more transparent article submission/rejection system. The current one sucks.
75 years ago it was legal to buy a Thompson machine gun in the United States. Some people bought them because it was a neat toy, and they never used them for anything illegal. Others bought them for gangland hits and armed robery.
The actions of the second group caused the people in the first group to have their toys taken away from them.
The actions of people engaging in blatant copyright infringement are are doing the same thing to people who are doing legitimate fair use as the gangsters did to gun collectors 75 years ago. They are fucking it up for everybody.
Since a computer is as incapable of determining leagal use as the Thompson was incapable of determining legal use, the computer's ability to copy material is likely to suffer the same fate as the Thompson.
75 years ago it was legal to buy an automobile in the United States. Some people bought them because they were a useful means of transportation, and never used them for anything illegal. Others bought them for gangland drive-bys and getaway cars in armed robbery.
Despite the actions of the second group, the people in the first group continue to be able to use their automobiles.
And there's the rub. Whilst a Thompson might be a "neat toy", the primary purpose of a machine gun is to shoot things. In a lot of circumstances, shooting things (or threatening to) is a very big breach of the law. On the other hand, whilst cars (and computers) can be used for illegal purposes, they are a tool whose primary function isn't the death and destruction of living organisms.
Computers are for this reason much closer to the car examples. However, your assertion that you can take away a computers ability to copy material is not quite so easy - it's like saying "well, we need to take away a car's ability to be used in drive by shootings". Because whilst allowing me to make a copy for myself (one for the car, for eg) and making a copy for my friends, are as far as the computer is concerned, the same actions. One is legal, the other is not.
Toast will either revert back to its old "unrestricted" form or die in the ass as some cool new app takes over.
The customers are more important then the shareholders. Whithout customers, what good is a company? Maximize shareholder value after you've done everything necissary to keep the customers happy.
sorry bud, but this is not true. Let me extend your argument... sell your products for $0, you keep customers happy but shareholders won't be.
You sell a product at $x to a consumer, and other than the service, your transaction with the consumer is complete. If they don't like it, they walk away. If they do like it, they buy. Simple. Customer happy. But the reason the company exists, the reason it sells the products, is for profit. Profit for the owners - the shareholders.
That's the reason a company exists. Keeping customers happy is just one way of making money. And that's what counts, in the final analysis.
It has nothing to do with population density. It's about infrastructure. In a relatively small country, like Finland for instance, the amount of cell towers and communication relays is vastly reduced by the small size of the country.
sorry, but that's simply not true. It ALL comes down to population density.
Say Finland only had one person in it. May be a small country, but suddenly it's very expensive to roll out advanced cell phone infrastructure throughout the country for just one person.
It's why the services offered in cities (I think some big US cities had Richochet, the wireless internet service) are always going to be superior to those in less populated country areas.
We have the same problem in Australia; most of our population is distributed down the eastern seaboard. Most new competitors will generally only target that, and leave the rest without. The reason? The investment won't generate a halfway decent return, because there's not the population density to support the necessary infrastructure development.
From our point of view, this is self-perpetuating because people move away from other regions to where the services are located; meaning it's even less economically viable for country and other regions. And so the cycle continues.
But it all boils down to one thing - having the population density to support the investment. It may appear to you as size of the area you're trying to roll out infrastructure in, but that's only part of the equation.
But my complaint is for one, QuickTime refuses to do fullscreen.
Don't know about yours, but my version does - Movie menu, Full Screen.
Additionally, QuickTime has *NO* keyboard controls, mouse only,
Don't know about yours, but my version does - space to play pause, command up/down to change volume, arrow keys to step
These two tie together into the philosophy behind the UI design, that the user is too stupid to use anything but the mouse and that controls can never be allowed to be hidden and must always appear in the same context no matter how the viewer views the movie.
sorry, but that simply is not true. If you really want me to, I can take a picture of a full screen trailer I've got sitting here on my HD.
If I want to watch and fully appreciate a video, I don't want anything else on the screen detracting from the experience. At the very least I would want all other applications hidden and the on screen controls smaller and unobtrusive (WMP comes close in the XP version, but too obtrusive).
I'm more inclined to believe that MS is screwing around with the APIs so that QT and Real can't get hold of what they need, as opposed to Apple not trying. I know Apple's UI design is excellent, and on my computer it's doing exactly what you're describing.
My preference is of course full screen with only keyboard control. Real's player sucks, but not as much as QuickTime player. WMP is better than both in terms of interface, but Xine has all beat in terms of interface from the flexibility and keyboard controls.
I cannot comment on Xine, have not used it. In no way shape or form would I agree with your comment about WMP or Real being better than QT. QT has by far the more intuitive interface, that looks better, it has a better set of codecs, and it is way more flexible. Which is why it's included not only on web movies/previews, but also on AudioCD extras.
The point is that the people at apple need to get their heads out of their asses and realize that media playback is different from other applications and do something different besides giving it a neato-skin and further messing it up by making it act like a handheld device rather than a computer application (i.e. the Volume control in QuicTime 4 which was fixed in 5)
I think Apple would know a thing or two about media playback on computers. They created it.
And they will redefine it again with MPEG 4, whether you like it or not.
Kubrick never had any marbles to lose in the first place. I've watched 2001 and I'm not going to waste my time with any more of his muck.
I don't care what people say or how many people say, the guy's a nutjob. Apes + psychedelic colours + a baby in a bubble in staring at the earth does not a movie make.
Certainly not a genius. Maybe a comic genius. Not any other sort.
You live in a fantasy world. The U.N. has never tried to stop anyone from killing anyone. Can you say "Somolia". How about "Bosnia". There are lots of other examples. Trying reading a little more than the N.Y. Times and other world ignorant newspapers.
Yeah, it's off topic. Mod me down. I'm at the kharma cap anyway.
Allow me to bite.
If the UN just arbitrarily went in to places like Somalia and Bosnia, it would cease being an International peace keeper and would start to become more like the US - ie we go in when we think we're right and apply our cultural values onto working out who's right and who's wrong.
Well, that's nice buddy, but I don't want you and your Govt barging in using your NY Times "good vs evil" moralisms to work out who to kill and who not to.
If you think the UN has never stopped people killing eachother, I suggest you look up on google a little about the Balkans conflict or even better yet, East Timor.
Just because they don't go in guns blazing (ie Afghanistan) then walk out when they've finished blowing things up, it doesn't mean they're not effective world peacekeepers. But they're subject to a variety of different opinions from different member countries and they take those and the cultural subtleties into account before they go in and tread on everyone's toes
Traps have a tendency not to be picky, so while allowing them could deter a few crimes, I think the average trap would be more likely to catch someone without criminal intent.
and while I know this may seem OT, that is the argument I'd take against the second amendment. Allowing people to arm themselves may deter a few crimes, the average gun is more likely to end up being shot at someone who has no criminal intent.
And for my second generalisation of the night, my bet is that it's all the 2nd amendment freaks who are arguing to allow the RIAA and MPAA to "arm" themselves to fight against the "infringers".
While the technology may be good in and of itself, the only player capable of playing back current files royally, *ROYALLY* sucks. I hate QuickTime player with a passion, even real has a better player design, even though their core technology sucks.
yeah, well if you think Real is better than QT you don't know your mothers tit from her ass. The QT codecs and application design in QT are vastly superior to that of Real - Real is clogged with buttons that do god knows what. QT, everything is self explanatory.
QT is using an industry standard codec for v6 - MPEG4, adopted by a number of different vendors in opposition to MS.
Now, while Apple may not bother to release QT for Linux, it doesn't mean QT is shit. Apple, unlike MS, does not have unlimited resources. Linux's strength is in the corporate arena (rolling out thousands of free OS installations that are easily customisable and securable) and possibly in the server market for people who want a server put together quickly, cheaply. So Apple choose to ignore that OS, because by and large (with the exception of all the/. nerds) it doesn't align with their target customers. I think it's sensible business.
Their sensible business does not detract from the fact that QT6 is the best player with the best codec and the best server technology on the market.
"The idea that Bill Gates has appeared like a knight in shining armor to lead all customers out of a mire of technological chaos neatly ignores the fact that it was he, who by peddling second-rate technology, led them into it in the first place." -- Douglas Adams
...by those who haven't seen it. Most desperately, petrifyingly boring film I've ever seen. The movie spends ten or fifteen minutes just showing a guy driving home. Just driving. You think I'm exaggerating.
sounds like 2001: A Space Odyssey. That spent 10-15 mins with some apes playing round a big black pillar.
but that was nothing compared to the psychedelic swirls followed by the baby in the bubble looking at earth.
In the 60s and the early 70s, substitute the words "science-fiction" with "drug fucked director"
Bullet hole through plastic window will star the window but not shatter it. If it does take out the entire window, the aircraft pressurization system can easily keep up with the loss. A modern jetliner can lose several windows and not have more than a gentle depressurizaton. Loud? Yes. Need to descend promptly? Yes. Catastrophic? No.
There could be a variety of factors that in concert with smashing the glass could result in catastrophe. It's happened before; you lose the glass, the pressure throughout the plane concentrates on that one point of the plane's hull, all trying to equalise through that one point. You can (and it has happened) lose entire sheets of the plane. That's what I meant when I referred to the bullet holes throughout the hull having an effect. The bullet holes in themselves won't do the panels in, but the pressure all working at that one point may. The stress that's put on those panels (when it's equally distributed) is large enough without trying to focus it on one or two panels.
And maybe the fuel isn't as explosive as in the movies, but all you need is the right mixture [ntsb.gov] and a spark would be catastrophic.
What you say is true. Given the right mixture of air and fuel vapor in a fuel tank and an ignition source in the right place, the vapor would surely ignite, probably rupturing the tank and bringing down the aircraft. I won't assert that there's no risk involved in gunfire aboard an aircraft. I don't know how to assess the likelihood of:
1. the right mixture being present in a fuel tank, AND
not difficult. Any slightly used load of fuel has to have the vapours in there to fill the volume of the tank as the fuel decreases.
2. events aboard the aircraft become extreme enough that a law-abiding citizen who's already sufficiently trusted as to be issued a concealed-carry permit decides that using a firearm is necessary to resolve the situation, AND
After S11 I don't think it would take much encouragement for a person to feel threatened enough to produce and use a weapon.
Regardless, how's this "trust" work? Who's sufficiently trust-worthy? All citizens (minus criminals) get to carry them - how does the Govt know who's trustworthy or not? Those terrorists hadn't committed any crimes in the US before they boarded those planes - would they have been "trustworthy"? And what's to say you couldn't get some nutter Branch Davidian-style wackos, US citizens with gun permits, on the plane?
3. one or more shots are fired which either miss their target or overpenetrate, AND
with your average law abiding citizen firing on a plane, it's unlikely a terrorist would just stand there waiting to be shot at. Chances are bullets would miss. Rare is the shooting where every bullet hit its intended target.
4. out of all the possible paths to take, one or more of those bullets travels through the space where the fuel/air mixture is just right, AND
or hits something else mission critical. On a plane, there are quite a few things like that. Also, those panels or the windows?
Then you have a depressurised aircraft that has to descend and has armed people on board.
5. the bullet collides with another piece of hard metal in that volume of space and a spark ensues.
the fuel tank is metal, a spark is most likely to occur from penetration.
Adding firearms to your query? Yes, it'd change the number of hits. 500,000 hits is an indication of how many websites mention "air rage" or similar words. Might or might not be a good indicator of how often it occurs.
Also, based on observed history, I'd guess that people who have applied for and been issued concealed-carry permits are among the least likely to loose control under stress. Remember, the predicted carnage in the streets just did not happen.
I don't want to get into statistics on who shoots who. I do know that the US has one of the highest gunshot fatality rates in the western world. This is because they allow people to carry firearms. You extend this to the sky, more people will die. The google Air rage was used as an example of the problem that people seem to have when flying. They're in an unnatural confined space for a long period of time, that is known to cause abnormal behaviour and plays with people's physiology (jet lag). People lose their temper. When the guy in the seat in front of me has too much to drink and loses his temper, I'd rather be safe in the knowledge that he isn't carrying a.44 magnum. In fact, I'd much rather take the risk of terrorists than have any Joe Blow being able to carry guns on the planes.
US congress has denied the right to pilots, and there's a reason. It's too damn dangerous. And these are for the people that are supposed to be the most responsible on the plane, and also the people who are most used to the environment.
So far, we have not managed to achieve this. Weapons or things that can be used as weapons continue to get through airport security. I think it is important to realize that the terrorists ARE GOING TO GET THROUGH SECURITY. Security can't be so tight that they absolutely cannot get through. They *will* manage it.
yes, terrorist gets through security with box cutters (or not even that any more), or terrorist gets through security carrying legal firearm. What's more, he doesn't even have to hijack the plane to cause terror; he waits until takeoff, sits in his seat a bit behind the cabin and then peppers it with bullets. What do you think the result of that would be? Terror? I think so.
No, it is not. We are not talking about city streets, we are not talking about shootouts between rival street gang members (who don't fly much), we are not talking about liquor store robberies gone bad, and we are not talking about 240-pound drunken wifebeaters advancing on 90-pound scared-out-of-their-wits wives who have managed to buy a weapon to finally put an end to the horror. We are not talking about anything even similar to those things. As terrible as those things are, using that emotional leverage to cloud the issue here is... well, let's just be kind and call it "muddy thinking."
I'm sorry, but if you have guns in the skies and you have the potential for these people to fly then you have that potential situation there. What happens if two rival gang members saw eachother on an airplane? What's to stop them shooting at eachother if they're armed?
We are talking about dissuading a few highly-motivated terrorists who are considering a plan to take over an airliner that was, up until now, considered a "soft" target. We're talking about how to harden that target in a way that will cause them to consider the plan unworkable. Whatever method we choose must be affordable, and it must be actually possible to do, and must not bring with it other unacceptable consequences.
Airliners ceased becoming soft targets the morning of September 11. No group of passengers and crew would passively allow their aircraft to be taken over - but should the terrorists be able to legally carry guns on to the plane, that situation might change dramatically. And what's to say that your law-abiding citizens carry guns on every flight? Or that they even know the plane's been hijacked? I walk up to the cabin and point a gun in the pilots face, say "fly this way, don't tell anyone."
Your plan is flawed, and what's more, extremely dangerous.
I am not an idiot, and neither are most of the other people who submit postings to slashdot. No need to be insulting.
Yes, they are great, big firebombs. I want us to find a way to make sure that they NEVER NEVER NEVER get used again by terrorists the way they were on September 11.
I didn't mean to be insulting, but I can't understand how you can continue to propogate this view! Allowing people (any people) to carry guns into a situation like that is only asking for trouble. If the terrorists aren't carrying firearms, I'll put $50 down now that no crew & group of passengers will allow a plane to be successfully hijacked for the next 5 years at least. Nobody would willingly sit through it, risking the fact that they end up slammed into the side of a skyscraper.
Ten was Peal Jam's best effort ever, and all the albums rank higher and higher on the suck-o-meter.
Play is the same way. It's a breakout album that was perfect, and 18 is a copy of it. Plus I purchased another Moby' album from his earlier work in an effort to listen to more of his music and found that it was low on the scale of good music.
I have 40GB of MP3s at my home. They are all of the CDs that I purchase. I buy music I like. After previewing pieces of it on CDNOW.com it went into the 'OK if I get it as a gift but I'm not buying it' list.
It seems I am the only one who enjoys the derivative works. Binaural hit the spot for me, and while 18 isn't Play, it's still great music.
It took a while for me to warm to, but it's definitely got some good stuff on it. Smooth music:)
A bullet piercing a fuel tank wouldn't bring down the plane. The tanks are filled with jet fuel, not gasoline. Jet fuel is more like kerosene -- burns well if vaporized, but does not explode as easily as it appears to in movies. Bullet hole in fuel tank == slow fuel leak.
Also, bullet hole in aircraft hull == slow air leak, not sudden decompression.
bullet hole through window? bullet hole through old half-dead panel on a 10 year old plane filled with stress fractures?
And maybe the fuel isn't as explosive as in the movies, but all you need is the right mixture and a spark would be catastrophic.
Sounds like the dire predictions of "blood in the streets" in various states before the passage of concealed carry laws. Needless to say, the predicted shootouts and insane violence did not come to pass in any of those places.
Based on observed history over the last several decades, people who have permits to carry concealed weapons are just about the safest people to travel with.
If we were to allow concealed-carry permit holders to travel with their weapons, the terrorists will have no way of knowing who's armed on a given flight.
Not really so wacky.
Yes, wacky. People stuck in confined space - absolutely no way of getting out. Add alcohol, strangers (who people may or may not get along with), etc.
Air rage returns about 500 000 hits on google. Imagine adding firearms to that. The consequences would be disastrous.
I'm sorry, the bigger the weapons the greater the risk. It's much, much more sensible preventing anybody from carrying weapons than letting everyone on a confined space with that many people. Imagine if every shoot out that turned bad in a city street in the US instantly resulted in 400 people dying? That's what you're proposing. In case you hadn't realised after S11, every one of those B747s etc is a big bomb with wings.
1. put armed soldiers on every flight. you want to secure the air traffic, soldiers will get the job done.
of all your ideas, this is the least stupid... but despite all the movies you may have seen, bullets fired from guns in planes do generally breach the plane's hull. Now, you might kill the terrorist, but it kinda defeats the purpose if a bullet ruptures the fuel tanks.
2. here's a wacky one... let passengers carry guns on the planes. guns, knives, whatever. who's going to try to overtake the controls of a plane when there is a good possibility that others on the plane have guns and will use them against you. you can take firearms on a grayhound bus, or an amtrack train, why not the airlines?
You got one bit right - wacky. 'Fess up... you're trolling, right?
I mean, c'mon, how often have you heard about the passenger whose had just that little bit too much to drink, and decided to get into a big fight with the poor bastard sitting beside him?
Now, add firearms, knives, etc to the fray.
"In other news today, a Boeing 747 has crashed in the Pacific Ocean after a drunken passenger went crazy with a firearm. The FCC released the last recording from the captain of the plane: "SOS! That damn REM guitarist has got a gun this time!"
3. remove access from the cockpit to the cabin. why does the pilot need to get into the back of hte plane, and conversly, why do passengers (or coffee deliverers) need direct access to the controls?
well, after one long haul flight, bags not being the poor bastard having to fly in that cesspit!
I don't think any terrorist will try using planes as a weapon again for a long time. The greater risk now is loonies going for copycats (that kid in Florida, for eg)
While this does a nice job of crunching numbers, how do they know that their algorithms are any good at doing what they do? Or are they trying to simulate things that aren't continuously kicked around by chaos theory?
This is an extremely insightful comment.
What's being suggested here is akin to this - sure, they've got the most powerful car in the world, but to get from LA to New York, you've got to head east. Heading North won't help much, no matter how powerful your car is.
This is what gets me about all these global warming "earth is going to heat up and cool down and rain and drought and..." predictions. How can they be sure they're even in the ballpark?
One variable out, they could throw their predictions out by a massive amount. Their simplifications to allow for the computer to do predictions may not take into account the nuances and subtleties of the real world.
That's why, in many instances, I look at these computers with perhaps more cynicism than most other people. They're great for testing theories, and for allowing scientists to compute algorithms that they possibly otherwise wouldn't be able to do. But just because it's come out of a billion $$$ computer, doesn't mean it's a golden egg.
It's like that old saying that came out when word processors were first invented - shit in, shit out. Just because it's been through a fancy (or expensive) machine it doesn't make the outcome any more valid.
I say don't tell anyone. Let them enjoy the remaining moments of their life in an ignorant bliss. No point letting their last remaining days on Earth be spent in complete and utter panic. They are dead either way.
Ladies and gentlemen, it is my pleasure to introduce Mr Richard Nixon...
if you care to read any news on it, you can see that the reason to shutdown netcafes is for safety and license inspection, it has nothing to do with squeezing free of speech and human right.
No personal offense in what I'm about to say: but that's utter bullshit!
Let me offer you an equivalent - there's a fire in a New York city bakery. The Mayor of New York city, (who happens to be a fitness freak and has a moral dilemna with pastry) says "This is an utter tragedy. In response, we're going to shut down all bakeries so that New Yorkers don't have to run the risk of being stuck in a fire in a bakery ever again."
The problem here is not the fire - it's what the internet offers these people. He's using the fire as an excuse to further restrict free speech - not protect the citizens.
Slashdot Mirror
you got it.
Apple switched to OS X because of Cocoa - set of APIs that don't depend on PPC chips. If an app's written in cocoa, it's easily portable via chipset. Remember, OS X is very much based on NeXT, and that used to run on x86
Once the transition to Cocoa is complete, Apple is going to drop PPC, start selling x86 boxes with their design prowess, and open up OS X. Bundle Star Office to compete with MS Office.
You mark my words - 12 months from now, MS is in for a rude shock.
-- james
-- james
-- james
you Unix people should understand the importance of case sensitivity!
:)
try typing eMacs, or iCal, into your unix terminal... it won't work, will it?
-- james
and while we're at it, what's this "may" business? the article doesn't say anything about "may"! :)
-- james
Despite the actions of the second group, the people in the first group continue to be able to use their automobiles.
And there's the rub. Whilst a Thompson might be a "neat toy", the primary purpose of a machine gun is to shoot things. In a lot of circumstances, shooting things (or threatening to) is a very big breach of the law. On the other hand, whilst cars (and computers) can be used for illegal purposes, they are a tool whose primary function isn't the death and destruction of living organisms.
Computers are for this reason much closer to the car examples. However, your assertion that you can take away a computers ability to copy material is not quite so easy - it's like saying "well, we need to take away a car's ability to be used in drive by shootings". Because whilst allowing me to make a copy for myself (one for the car, for eg) and making a copy for my friends, are as far as the computer is concerned, the same actions. One is legal, the other is not.
Toast will either revert back to its old "unrestricted" form or die in the ass as some cool new app takes over.
-- james
You sell a product at $x to a consumer, and other than the service, your transaction with the consumer is complete. If they don't like it, they walk away. If they do like it, they buy. Simple. Customer happy. But the reason the company exists, the reason it sells the products, is for profit. Profit for the owners - the shareholders.
That's the reason a company exists. Keeping customers happy is just one way of making money. And that's what counts, in the final analysis.
-- james
that the non-MS everyman OS already exists - MacOS X. Running *nix, runs Office, easy to use, and MS free.
Apple GUI on BSD really, really rocks
-- james
sorry, but that's simply not true. It ALL comes down to population density.
Say Finland only had one person in it. May be a small country, but suddenly it's very expensive to roll out advanced cell phone infrastructure throughout the country for just one person.
It's why the services offered in cities (I think some big US cities had Richochet, the wireless internet service) are always going to be superior to those in less populated country areas.
We have the same problem in Australia; most of our population is distributed down the eastern seaboard. Most new competitors will generally only target that, and leave the rest without. The reason? The investment won't generate a halfway decent return, because there's not the population density to support the necessary infrastructure development.
From our point of view, this is self-perpetuating because people move away from other regions to where the services are located; meaning it's even less economically viable for country and other regions. And so the cycle continues.
But it all boils down to one thing - having the population density to support the investment. It may appear to you as size of the area you're trying to roll out infrastructure in, but that's only part of the equation.
-- james
Don't know about yours, but my version does - Movie menu, Full Screen.
Don't know about yours, but my version does - space to play pause, command up/down to change volume, arrow keys to step
sorry, but that simply is not true. If you really want me to, I can take a picture of a full screen trailer I've got sitting here on my HD.
I'm more inclined to believe that MS is screwing around with the APIs so that QT and Real can't get hold of what they need, as opposed to Apple not trying. I know Apple's UI design is excellent, and on my computer it's doing exactly what you're describing.
I cannot comment on Xine, have not used it. In no way shape or form would I agree with your comment about WMP or Real being better than QT. QT has by far the more intuitive interface, that looks better, it has a better set of codecs, and it is way more flexible. Which is why it's included not only on web movies/previews, but also on AudioCD extras.
I think Apple would know a thing or two about media playback on computers. They created it.
And they will redefine it again with MPEG 4, whether you like it or not.
-- james
No, but one fucking big troll just farted.
-- james
Kubrick never had any marbles to lose in the first place. I've watched 2001 and I'm not going to waste my time with any more of his muck.
I don't care what people say or how many people say, the guy's a nutjob. Apes + psychedelic colours + a baby in a bubble in staring at the earth does not a movie make.
Certainly not a genius. Maybe a comic genius. Not any other sort.
-- james
Allow me to bite.
If the UN just arbitrarily went in to places like Somalia and Bosnia, it would cease being an International peace keeper and would start to become more like the US - ie we go in when we think we're right and apply our cultural values onto working out who's right and who's wrong.
Well, that's nice buddy, but I don't want you and your Govt barging in using your NY Times "good vs evil" moralisms to work out who to kill and who not to.
If you think the UN has never stopped people killing eachother, I suggest you look up on google a little about the Balkans conflict or even better yet, East Timor.
Just because they don't go in guns blazing (ie Afghanistan) then walk out when they've finished blowing things up, it doesn't mean they're not effective world peacekeepers. But they're subject to a variety of different opinions from different member countries and they take those and the cultural subtleties into account before they go in and tread on everyone's toes
-- james
and while I know this may seem OT, that is the argument I'd take against the second amendment. Allowing people to arm themselves may deter a few crimes, the average gun is more likely to end up being shot at someone who has no criminal intent.
And for my second generalisation of the night, my bet is that it's all the 2nd amendment freaks who are arguing to allow the RIAA and MPAA to "arm" themselves to fight against the "infringers".
-- james
ps hehe trolling is fun
yeah, well if you think Real is better than QT you don't know your mothers tit from her ass. The QT codecs and application design in QT are vastly superior to that of Real - Real is clogged with buttons that do god knows what. QT, everything is self explanatory.
QT is using an industry standard codec for v6 - MPEG4, adopted by a number of different vendors in opposition to MS.
Now, while Apple may not bother to release QT for Linux, it doesn't mean QT is shit. Apple, unlike MS, does not have unlimited resources. Linux's strength is in the corporate arena (rolling out thousands of free OS installations that are easily customisable and securable) and possibly in the server market for people who want a server put together quickly, cheaply. So Apple choose to ignore that OS, because by and large (with the exception of all the
Their sensible business does not detract from the fact that QT6 is the best player with the best codec and the best server technology on the market.
-- james
sounds like 2001: A Space Odyssey. That spent 10-15 mins with some apes playing round a big black pillar.
but that was nothing compared to the psychedelic swirls followed by the baby in the bubble looking at earth.
In the 60s and the early 70s, substitute the words "science-fiction" with "drug fucked director"
-- james
There could be a variety of factors that in concert with smashing the glass could result in catastrophe. It's happened before; you lose the glass, the pressure throughout the plane concentrates on that one point of the plane's hull, all trying to equalise through that one point. You can (and it has happened) lose entire sheets of the plane. That's what I meant when I referred to the bullet holes throughout the hull having an effect. The bullet holes in themselves won't do the panels in, but the pressure all working at that one point may. The stress that's put on those panels (when it's equally distributed) is large enough without trying to focus it on one or two panels.
not difficult. Any slightly used load of fuel has to have the vapours in there to fill the volume of the tank as the fuel decreases.
After S11 I don't think it would take much encouragement for a person to feel threatened enough to produce and use a weapon.
Regardless, how's this "trust" work? Who's sufficiently trust-worthy? All citizens (minus criminals) get to carry them - how does the Govt know who's trustworthy or not? Those terrorists hadn't committed any crimes in the US before they boarded those planes - would they have been "trustworthy"? And what's to say you couldn't get some nutter Branch Davidian-style wackos, US citizens with gun permits, on the plane?
with your average law abiding citizen firing on a plane, it's unlikely a terrorist would just stand there waiting to be shot at. Chances are bullets would miss. Rare is the shooting where every bullet hit its intended target.
or hits something else mission critical. On a plane, there are quite a few things like that. Also, those panels or the windows?
Then you have a depressurised aircraft that has to descend and has armed people on board.
the fuel tank is metal, a spark is most likely to occur from penetration.
I don't want to get into statistics on who shoots who. I do know that the US has one of the highest gunshot fatality rates in the western world. This is because they allow people to carry firearms. You extend this to the sky, more people will die. The google Air rage was used as an example of the problem that people seem to have when flying. They're in an unnatural confined space for a long period of time, that is known to cause abnormal behaviour and plays with people's physiology (jet lag). People lose their temper. When the guy in the seat in front of me has too much to drink and loses his temper, I'd rather be safe in the knowledge that he isn't carrying a
US congress has denied the right to pilots, and there's a reason. It's too damn dangerous. And these are for the people that are supposed to be the most responsible on the plane, and also the people who are most used to the environment.
yes, terrorist gets through security with box cutters (or not even that any more), or terrorist gets through security carrying legal firearm. What's more, he doesn't even have to hijack the plane to cause terror; he waits until takeoff, sits in his seat a bit behind the cabin and then peppers it with bullets. What do you think the result of that would be? Terror? I think so.
I'm sorry, but if you have guns in the skies and you have the potential for these people to fly then you have that potential situation there. What happens if two rival gang members saw eachother on an airplane? What's to stop them shooting at eachother if they're armed?
Airliners ceased becoming soft targets the morning of September 11. No group of passengers and crew would passively allow their aircraft to be taken over - but should the terrorists be able to legally carry guns on to the plane, that situation might change dramatically. And what's to say that your law-abiding citizens carry guns on every flight? Or that they even know the plane's been hijacked? I walk up to the cabin and point a gun in the pilots face, say "fly this way, don't tell anyone."
Your plan is flawed, and what's more, extremely dangerous.
I didn't mean to be insulting, but I can't understand how you can continue to propogate this view! Allowing people (any people) to carry guns into a situation like that is only asking for trouble. If the terrorists aren't carrying firearms, I'll put $50 down now that no crew & group of passengers will allow a plane to be successfully hijacked for the next 5 years at least. Nobody would willingly sit through it, risking the fact that they end up slammed into the side of a skyscraper.
-- james
It seems I am the only one who enjoys the derivative works. Binaural hit the spot for me, and while 18 isn't Play, it's still great music.
It took a while for me to warm to, but it's definitely got some good stuff on it. Smooth music
-- james
bullet hole through window? bullet hole through old half-dead panel on a 10 year old plane filled with stress fractures?
And maybe the fuel isn't as explosive as in the movies, but all you need is the right mixture and a spark would be catastrophic.
Yes, wacky. People stuck in confined space - absolutely no way of getting out. Add alcohol, strangers (who people may or may not get along with), etc.
Air rage returns about 500 000 hits on google. Imagine adding firearms to that. The consequences would be disastrous.
I'm sorry, the bigger the weapons the greater the risk. It's much, much more sensible preventing anybody from carrying weapons than letting everyone on a confined space with that many people. Imagine if every shoot out that turned bad in a city street in the US instantly resulted in 400 people dying? That's what you're proposing. In case you hadn't realised after S11, every one of those B747s etc is a big bomb with wings.
It's madness. Sheer madness.
-- james
of all your ideas, this is the least stupid... but despite all the movies you may have seen, bullets fired from guns in planes do generally breach the plane's hull. Now, you might kill the terrorist, but it kinda defeats the purpose if a bullet ruptures the fuel tanks.
You got one bit right - wacky. 'Fess up... you're trolling, right?
I mean, c'mon, how often have you heard about the passenger whose had just that little bit too much to drink, and decided to get into a big fight with the poor bastard sitting beside him?
Now, add firearms, knives, etc to the fray.
"In other news today, a Boeing 747 has crashed in the Pacific Ocean after a drunken passenger went crazy with a firearm. The FCC released the last recording from the captain of the plane: "SOS! That damn REM guitarist has got a gun this time!"
well, after one long haul flight, bags not being the poor bastard having to fly in that cesspit!
I don't think any terrorist will try using planes as a weapon again for a long time. The greater risk now is loonies going for copycats (that kid in Florida, for eg)
-- james
This is an extremely insightful comment.
What's being suggested here is akin to this - sure, they've got the most powerful car in the world, but to get from LA to New York, you've got to head east. Heading North won't help much, no matter how powerful your car is.
This is what gets me about all these global warming "earth is going to heat up and cool down and rain and drought and..." predictions. How can they be sure they're even in the ballpark?
One variable out, they could throw their predictions out by a massive amount. Their simplifications to allow for the computer to do predictions may not take into account the nuances and subtleties of the real world.
That's why, in many instances, I look at these computers with perhaps more cynicism than most other people. They're great for testing theories, and for allowing scientists to compute algorithms that they possibly otherwise wouldn't be able to do. But just because it's come out of a billion $$$ computer, doesn't mean it's a golden egg.
It's like that old saying that came out when word processors were first invented - shit in, shit out. Just because it's been through a fancy (or expensive) machine it doesn't make the outcome any more valid.
-- james
but I couldn't find anything about the PowerMac G4?
:)
-- james
ps humour, not troll/flamebait
Ladies and gentlemen, it is my pleasure to introduce Mr Richard Nixon...
-- james
No personal offense in what I'm about to say: but that's utter bullshit!
Let me offer you an equivalent - there's a fire in a New York city bakery. The Mayor of New York city, (who happens to be a fitness freak and has a moral dilemna with pastry) says "This is an utter tragedy. In response, we're going to shut down all bakeries so that New Yorkers don't have to run the risk of being stuck in a fire in a bakery ever again."
The problem here is not the fire - it's what the internet offers these people. He's using the fire as an excuse to further restrict free speech - not protect the citizens.
-- james