The US (via satellites) tracks all launches around the world and pays particular attention to launches that are large enough to possibly be intercontinental ballistic missiles. You wouldn't want to launch your expensive moon capsule from somewhere in Kazakhstan (sp?) and only *then* start trying to convince the US not to shoot it down (or go into full panic mode)... eh?
Ignoring the fact that this came from an AC, I'll just say that unless the attack is planned (which isn't the point of the thread at all), it is highly unlikely that a random UWB device will generate "useable" input data to TCAS that would create an erroneous RA. So yes, that would suck, but its highly unlikely. Considering TCAS doesn't work off radar or any other proximity sensing technology, it is wholly based on data transmitted from other TCAS enabled systems and TRUSTS that the information provided by these systems is legit. Its very unlikely that the necessary data to constitute a valid TCAS data packet would come in from UWB "noise" - I know this, I worked on the code that parses out the TCAS data and determines if its valid or not. Not to mention the CRCs and such that get applied to the data packets.
Now, as for flying conditions that require instruments - yes, these occur and to take into account these situations, careful thought ought to be applied. As for circling over the ocean for three hours, I imagine that the GPS driven FMC would keep the plane on course just fine, UWB jamming or not. And either way, I imagine the pilot will notice unusual course deviations, if the FMC system is indeed telling the Autopilot incorrect information. Most flight paths are straight - circling over the ocean wouldn't constitute a "normal" flight path, would it? Didn't think so.
Either way, my statement about the FCC regulating UWB emitting devices stands - if the only thing that needs to be worried about is "malicious" UWB devices, that can be addressed differently.
Actually, wrong. As a software engineer who has worked on those very fly-by-wire systems, it is actually a fact that the pilot of a 'hi-tech' aircraft such as a 777 or 767-400ER (both very much fly-by-wire), can still fly the aircraft if all electronic systems were compromised, excluding mechanical systems such as hydraulics and such (i.e. if its physically possible to fly the plane, provided the proper inputs from the PFD, ND, EICAS, FMC, etc. systems - then the pilot can fly the plane *without* these inputs).
I basically had a senior engineer (and pilot) tell me, during one conversation, that with two pieces of tape stuck to the windshield, the pilot would be able to fly the plane.
Now, I'm not saying that this banning of all electronic devices, UWB or not is good or bad - I'm specifically responding to the claim that the pilot would be unable to fly the plane (successfully!) if the fly-by-wire systems failed. Such a scenario (being wholly dependent on the computers) would likely not receive approval from the FAA, btw.
Incidentally, if I may be allowed to weigh in on the topic at hand, it appears that the main threat of these UWB devices is that they override the signals being received by certain electronics in the plane, specifically the TCAS (traffic collision avoidance system), which receives transponders signals from nearby planes and provides information to the ND (navigational display) to map the location of an aircraft and its threat level (based on altitude, flight path and proximity). In this particular instance, the only sheilding that would be of any benefit would be sheilding the passenger cabin from everything. This, however, would be exceedingly difficult since antennae are located everywhere and *most* of the material currently used in the aircraft (including the windows, the floor, etc.) would need to be replaced with material that shields these signals. Never mind the retrofitting that would be necessary, such a solution is entirely intractable.
I'm not certain what the best solution for something like this is, but it would seem to me that the FCC isn't properly doing its job if its allowing devices to be created that cause interference outside of their immediate area. It should be the responsibility of the UWB emitting device manufacturer to ensure that within a radius of a foot or so from the device, the signal strength is inconsequential (e.g. below a threshold set by the FCC which is dictated by the minimum signal strength a TCAS system requires to register a "valid" signal). Obviously this doesn't protect against rogue devices, but that's not entirely hopeless: if a pilot notices his TCAS is malfunctioning, he'll likely declare an emergency situation or at the very least, turn back to his home airport (if its closest) and inform ATC (air traffic control) of his condition. ATC will then take it upon themselves to keep the sky clear around this aircraft and inform nearby aircrafts of the situation (not *really* necessary since their TCAS will still work since the afflicted system is still broadcasting TCAS information, it just can't receive it properly).
In the meantime, the pilot will announce on the PA that this situation is in progress, the flight attendants will check for any electronic devices - if this check fails, the plane will land and the ground crew will scan for the origin of the device and then track what person it belongs to, who can expect fines or other punishment for interfering with the airline.
Not entirely an unmanageable situation, you see. I find it very unlikely that someone will be able to universally kill TCAS around an airport and even so, TCAS is a last-ditch solution that prevents collisions. ATC's job is to prevent a situation from developing in which TCAS would even be used! Remember, not every aircraft in an airspace has TCAS - not by a long shot. A good deal of aircraft, both commercial and private, large and small, do not have TCAS systems! Obviously we still make do with the current situation!!
As other's have noted - you cannot sell your copy of iDVD because you did not PURCHASE your copy of iDVD. It came bundled with the computer. Not only that, but exactly how much would you sell iDVD for? Apple isn't selling it separately as a standalone product, so what price would YOU set for the standalone iDVD? You can see that this gets illegal pretty darn quick. At the very least, the waters are murky.
The quick fact of the matter is quite simple: Apple has produced a piece of software that masters DVDs better than anything else out there, at the consumer level. Its easy to use, it works, its painless. You want to use it? Buy a Mac that comes with it - easy-peasy. Don't have a Mac that comes with it? Upgrade.
Invoking first sale for a piece of software that comes with your hardware is ludicrous. If I purchase a CD-R with Adaptec Easy CD Creator, but I already have Easy CD Creator or some other software to burn CDs, or I'm running Linux - whatever - I can't turn around and sell Adaptec Easy CD Creator because I never purchased it. In theory, I could turn around and GIVE it to someone. However, using this case for Apple + iDVD is ludicrous because there aren't hardly ANY people that are just giving away iDVD because they aren't using it, to people who have other DVD burners. iDVD is available on warez servers and that's it. There's no eBay auctions going on for legit copies of iDVD or anything. This is Apple saying: don't encourage the pirating of our software!
One final note: Apple also wishes to ensure some quality of the user experience. They feel confident that they can ensure this by bundling iDVD with a Superdrive equipped Mac. However, as there are a great many DVD burners out there - Apple doesn't want its reputation tarnished by folks saying "This supposedly great iDVD app doesn't even work right with my burner - it just creates junk, even though I downloaded the patch for it." Maybe this would happen, maybe not - who knows? In any case, its Apple's decision to protect their reputation.
I've seen a lot of posts referencing the list of MP3 licensees, but I don't see any clear indication of if this list is comprised of companies that have licensed ENCODING MP3s or DECODING MP3s (the latter being the "new" feature of the license). Obviously Apple & MS will have licensed encoding MP3s, as that's been around a while and both companies have products that rip CDs to MP3s.
You do realize you get a student discount that might help offset your cost, right? And that purchasing memory for the iMac somewhere other than Apple is less expensive than buying it directly from them, right? Same as buying memory for a Dell FROM Dell v. somewhere like Crucial (or any of the number of places on pricewatch.com).
Now, add to that your time, which you won't spend studying, coding, or improving yourself, but instead will spend building your system. Add to that, the fact that you have no system warranty (and probably very little warranty on individual parts - your hard drive probably has the most substantial warranty) and the iMac comes with a 1yr warranty that (to my knowledge) includes parts AND labor. If you're in the dorm and your campus' network switches/hubs aren't protected from power surges, good luck:)
Never mind that Apple's not marketing its top-of-the-line systems to college students... ever heard of the iBook? If all you're doing is CS work (coding, etc.) what do you need an iMac for? For that matter, what do you need a G4 processor for? Granted - its nice to have, but Apple's in the business of makin' money, not giving away "nice to have" hardware, same as Dell + Gateway.
Bottom line: don't look to Apple for low-end hardware, it just isn't gonna happen. If you *really* want to experience OS X and you're looking for the bare-minimum entrance requirements, look on eBay or go to the Apple store and grab on original iMac (CRT) w/ a G3 processor clocked at 600MHz. I do all my work (as a software engineer & web developer) on a 400MHz iMac DV that's over 2 yrs old and runs Jaguar just fine. I've raided my Linux server for an 8x4x32 CD-RW which I've popped into an external Firewire enclosure and I've purchased a new 2.5" 40GB harddrive which I popped into a bus-powered firewire enclosure. All-in-all, I've spent about $300 since buying the iMac and I'm set.
Sure, I'd love to be able to use Quartz Extreme and Altivec - but it isn't necessary for what I do. Photoshop, Imageready, Dreamweaver, Codewarrior, BBEdit, XFree86, SciTE, etc. - all run just fine. Startup times are acceptable, often quite snappy, especially for Moz/IE/Mail.app.
After reading through most of the FAQ, it would appear that the co-op has a very good relationship with the Oppedahl & Larson LLP law firm. I would posit that of key importance in this venture is not acquiring the routing gear, the microwave tower gear, the DSLAMs or DSL modems, but rather getting one of your volunteers to be an attorney! Getting Qwest to allow the co-op to rent subloops would have cost a considerable amount of money in attorney fees, if a law firm were not a board member of the co-op (and the location of the T1+microwave gear;)).
I remember what it cost to incorporate my business, to enter into a lease for an office space, to agree to terms for insurance for the office space, etc. Thousands of dollars, easily. And we went with a local law firm, recommended by another small business - so we weren't getting shafted, at least not relatively so.
Just a note, but next time you're looking at PC chip prices, make a note of the amount of L3 cache you're getting, not just the MHz/GHz. The new G4s have 1MB of L3 cache and the 1.25GHz chips will have 2MB, I believe. Last I checked, the only Intel processors with that size of L3 cache are Xeon's - most of the Xeons I've seen are pretty pricey. I think you can get your hands on a 700MHz Xeon w/ 1MB L3 cache for about $1300 or so, a 1.6GHz will set you back about $3700, though. Now, we're only talking the actual processor. Next, grab a decent motherboard. By the time you've finished, I imagine you've spent more than the $1699 that a dual-867MHz G4 system costs, even if you throw in the 15" flat-panel display.
While I can see an argument trying to get people away from Java, I cannot possibly agree with going to Lisp. Lisp is anything but a rapid deployment environment, which is typically the case: get as much functionality in as little time as possible.
Now, I've used Lisp (and Tcl, which seems to be very "functional" and less procedural) and Java, PHP and Perl and each has their spot. However, a large financial institution has a large library of existing EJB code (most likely) and other Java/JSP infrastructure. Switching this to Lisp is not an intelligent suggestion.
Never mind that one main reason to use Java/EJB/etc. is because of the pre-coded tools available to deploy. With a little "glue" you can use pre-existing solutions, which speed your time to deployment and ease your maintenance/support time and cost. I've yet to see any offerings in this arena based on Lisp!
I don't think most people are still trotting out that Lisp is slow - its just not the right tool for the job, in this case! Maybe its a decent alternative to Perl or PHP, but certainly not to J2EE and EJB!
That's fine, I guess - up to you. Just making the comment that the reviewers (and others) have indicated that ATi has "learned their lesson" and started releasing good drivers.
According to this article (did you read it?) the drivers recently released by ATi are anything but pitiful. They're apparently stable and solid, so feast your eyes on a new card if that's what was holding you back!
This article (did you read it?) doesn't have anything to do with security through exclusivity. The "signal" is encoded in the chaotic "noise" that occurs in a light "circle" and that noise is subtracted from the total received communication at the receiving end to come up with the "signal" again. The researchers have come up with what I would call a type of quantum interference encryption using light (instead of quantum particles). The encryption exists in the chaos of the system rendering the signal received by an eaves dropper useless.
Someone will land in jail, iff the DMCA's criminal statutes are brought into play, not its civil statutes. What happened with the Russian was a criminal trial - that would the US gov't. v. programmer. What Felten et al (i.e. their employers) fear is not the criminal portions but the civil portions. That can cost big, big, big money. So, yes - this journalist is right, nobody was going to land in jail - but wrong in saying that for that reason, there's no reason to fear the DMCA.
Not really, you'd have to have n! qubits, if I understand QC to some extent. Factoring composites of primes is done in something like O(2^n) time. As the number of bits in the encoding of the primes increases, you only need to add more qubits. n! doesn't work that way... factorial != exponential, not by a long shot:)
I distinctly recall hearing that one of the reasons Apple decided to use a PDF based display instead of a PS based display (ala NeXTStep) was for licensing reasons.
Yep, that's my understanding of it. PDF is a truly open spec, whereas PS only seems to be. This is probably because you cannot *print* a PDF directly (i.e., no PDF printerss exist). So, Adobe gets licensing from printer manufacturers that want to provide Postscript capabilities in their printer. You need a Postscript compiler/interpreter within the firmware of the printer to be able to print Postscript documents... and I imagine that if printer company X wants to say "our printer is a postscript printer" they'll have to pay Adobe!
Yes, I believe this is a limitation of the OS X windowing model. The largest limitation of this that I've run into is that when I'm running XFree86 alongside Aqua, all my XF86 applications appear on the same desktop, as Space.app controls the XF86 window manager as "one" application (OroborOSX).
Even so, its quite useful... I'll often have Moz, Dreamweaver, Imageready, terminal, BBEdit, etc. all on different desktopss and that reduces clutter quite a bit.
Not to support the troll or anything, but, far as I know, if you're going to implement PS, you typically need to pay Adobe a licensing fee, even though the spec is open. This is partially why Apple went with a PDF-based display engine instead of a PS-based display engine, from what I've heard.
I also believe that this is part of the reason why Ghostscript has different types of licensing, though its been a while since I've checked into that. I do know, however, if you want to be 100% compatible with Adobe PS (and use their compatibility logo to say so), you'll be paying some kickback to Adobe.
Easy there. As you've stated, third party extensions will help ease your pain. Contrary to what you've stated, however, most of these aren't "hacks" - e.g. the implementation of virtual desktops are as valid an implementation of virtual desktops as in any Linux WM.
For those looking for Virtual Desktops in OS X, look no further than Space.app, a GPL'd application that provides multiple desktops (configurable) and hotkeys to switch between 'em (also configurable). The concept of a "sticky" space is also supported.
As for easing the clutter on the desktop, if virtual desktops alone don't do it for you, check out Windowshade X - this brings back the functionality of being able to double-click on the title bar of a window and collapse the window to just the title bar, as in OS 9 (and most Linux WMs).
If you don't like the dock, get rid of it! As for the widgets, you'll be happy to know that the various buttons in OS X have been on Weight Watchers during Jaguar's development.. check out any of the screen caps at Think Secret to see the new buttons before Aug. 24th - while they aren't quite like the Java buttons, they are quite a bit slimmer and make the interface look quite a bit less like candy and more like a professional workstation.
Probably not quite... in theory, this will likely bring much higher quality rendering to XFree86, but in reality, it'll be a year or two before we see the fruits of their labor and even then, Quartz will still be more mature. But, don't compare Apples to Oranges... Apple has quite a few engineers working on the Quartz component of OS X, comparitively, the only folks actively developing this are Keith and another guy... big difference, right?
XRender is usually enabled by default in recent builds of a XFree86 (4.2.x would be a good place to start). You can tell relatively easily if you have XRender and anti-aliased fonts by doing something like:
$ xterm -fa Courier -fs 14
This should launch xterm with AA fonts (Courier at size 14). If your xterm doesn't understand the switches, then your version of XFree86 isn't recent enough.
GTK 1.2 doesn't support AA fonts, far as I know... I believe some patches/hacks were out there, but officially, you'll need GTK2 to get AA fonts. Qt does support AA fonts via the XRender extension - if you have that xterm thing working alright, you should be able to load the KDE control panel and in the Fonts section turn on AA to get AA fonts in all Qt/KDE apps.
The information on these things is out there if you search the mailing lists. By now, someone may even have put together a simple Howto.
Btw - it is possible to get AA fonts in Moz as well... this used to be pretty difficult (a few months ago), but a lot has progressed on this front. I'd recommend some Google searches and some searches in bugzilla.mozilla.org for AA fonts. KeithP helped a whole lot in getting Moz going with AA fonts using Xrender/Xft - I believe this is what he's referring to when he stated previously that he got sidetracked for a year doing client-side font things, amongst other things, too, I'm sure.
Search the threads for a post by keithp - he talks about the fact that they intend to port the necessary Qt libs to Xr/Xc, once its progressed enough to support the necessary primitives. GTK+ 2.0 apparently already has a sophisticated rendering engine, so Keith didn't know how things would pan out there.
Just my $0.02, but on my iMac (400MHz G3, ATI Rage 128 w/ 8MB) - OS X 10.1.5 has a relatively snappy interface. On 10.2, dev release, its even better (I'm never going back). I cannot take advantage of QE, so this points to some definite improvements on the part of Apple, in various subsystems, including Quartz. I also run OS X on an older iBook (tangerine, 366MHz, 384MB RAM, unknown graphics card - probably similar to the iMac). With that, if I'm running XF86 alongside Aqua, things start slowin' down a bit, but otherwise, its just fine.
Slashdot Mirror
The US (via satellites) tracks all launches around the world and pays particular attention to launches that are large enough to possibly be intercontinental ballistic missiles. You wouldn't want to launch your expensive moon capsule from somewhere in Kazakhstan (sp?) and only *then* start trying to convince the US not to shoot it down (or go into full panic mode) ... eh?
Ignoring the fact that this came from an AC, I'll just say that unless the attack is planned (which isn't the point of the thread at all), it is highly unlikely that a random UWB device will generate "useable" input data to TCAS that would create an erroneous RA. So yes, that would suck, but its highly unlikely. Considering TCAS doesn't work off radar or any other proximity sensing technology, it is wholly based on data transmitted from other TCAS enabled systems and TRUSTS that the information provided by these systems is legit. Its very unlikely that the necessary data to constitute a valid TCAS data packet would come in from UWB "noise" - I know this, I worked on the code that parses out the TCAS data and determines if its valid or not. Not to mention the CRCs and such that get applied to the data packets.
Now, as for flying conditions that require instruments - yes, these occur and to take into account these situations, careful thought ought to be applied. As for circling over the ocean for three hours, I imagine that the GPS driven FMC would keep the plane on course just fine, UWB jamming or not. And either way, I imagine the pilot will notice unusual course deviations, if the FMC system is indeed telling the Autopilot incorrect information. Most flight paths are straight - circling over the ocean wouldn't constitute a "normal" flight path, would it? Didn't think so.
Either way, my statement about the FCC regulating UWB emitting devices stands - if the only thing that needs to be worried about is "malicious" UWB devices, that can be addressed differently.
Actually, wrong. As a software engineer who has worked on those very fly-by-wire systems, it is actually a fact that the pilot of a 'hi-tech' aircraft such as a 777 or 767-400ER (both very much fly-by-wire), can still fly the aircraft if all electronic systems were compromised, excluding mechanical systems such as hydraulics and such (i.e. if its physically possible to fly the plane, provided the proper inputs from the PFD, ND, EICAS, FMC, etc. systems - then the pilot can fly the plane *without* these inputs).
I basically had a senior engineer (and pilot) tell me, during one conversation, that with two pieces of tape stuck to the windshield, the pilot would be able to fly the plane.
Now, I'm not saying that this banning of all electronic devices, UWB or not is good or bad - I'm specifically responding to the claim that the pilot would be unable to fly the plane (successfully!) if the fly-by-wire systems failed. Such a scenario (being wholly dependent on the computers) would likely not receive approval from the FAA, btw.
Incidentally, if I may be allowed to weigh in on the topic at hand, it appears that the main threat of these UWB devices is that they override the signals being received by certain electronics in the plane, specifically the TCAS (traffic collision avoidance system), which receives transponders signals from nearby planes and provides information to the ND (navigational display) to map the location of an aircraft and its threat level (based on altitude, flight path and proximity). In this particular instance, the only sheilding that would be of any benefit would be sheilding the passenger cabin from everything. This, however, would be exceedingly difficult since antennae are located everywhere and *most* of the material currently used in the aircraft (including the windows, the floor, etc.) would need to be replaced with material that shields these signals. Never mind the retrofitting that would be necessary, such a solution is entirely intractable.
I'm not certain what the best solution for something like this is, but it would seem to me that the FCC isn't properly doing its job if its allowing devices to be created that cause interference outside of their immediate area. It should be the responsibility of the UWB emitting device manufacturer to ensure that within a radius of a foot or so from the device, the signal strength is inconsequential (e.g. below a threshold set by the FCC which is dictated by the minimum signal strength a TCAS system requires to register a "valid" signal). Obviously this doesn't protect against rogue devices, but that's not entirely hopeless: if a pilot notices his TCAS is malfunctioning, he'll likely declare an emergency situation or at the very least, turn back to his home airport (if its closest) and inform ATC (air traffic control) of his condition. ATC will then take it upon themselves to keep the sky clear around this aircraft and inform nearby aircrafts of the situation (not *really* necessary since their TCAS will still work since the afflicted system is still broadcasting TCAS information, it just can't receive it properly).
In the meantime, the pilot will announce on the PA that this situation is in progress, the flight attendants will check for any electronic devices - if this check fails, the plane will land and the ground crew will scan for the origin of the device and then track what person it belongs to, who can expect fines or other punishment for interfering with the airline.
Not entirely an unmanageable situation, you see. I find it very unlikely that someone will be able to universally kill TCAS around an airport and even so, TCAS is a last-ditch solution that prevents collisions. ATC's job is to prevent a situation from developing in which TCAS would even be used! Remember, not every aircraft in an airspace has TCAS - not by a long shot. A good deal of aircraft, both commercial and private, large and small, do not have TCAS systems! Obviously we still make do with the current situation!!
Hope this clears some confusion up!
Cheers.
As other's have noted - you cannot sell your copy of iDVD because you did not PURCHASE your copy of iDVD. It came bundled with the computer. Not only that, but exactly how much would you sell iDVD for? Apple isn't selling it separately as a standalone product, so what price would YOU set for the standalone iDVD? You can see that this gets illegal pretty darn quick. At the very least, the waters are murky.
The quick fact of the matter is quite simple: Apple has produced a piece of software that masters DVDs better than anything else out there, at the consumer level. Its easy to use, it works, its painless. You want to use it? Buy a Mac that comes with it - easy-peasy. Don't have a Mac that comes with it? Upgrade.
Invoking first sale for a piece of software that comes with your hardware is ludicrous. If I purchase a CD-R with Adaptec Easy CD Creator, but I already have Easy CD Creator or some other software to burn CDs, or I'm running Linux - whatever - I can't turn around and sell Adaptec Easy CD Creator because I never purchased it. In theory, I could turn around and GIVE it to someone. However, using this case for Apple + iDVD is ludicrous because there aren't hardly ANY people that are just giving away iDVD because they aren't using it, to people who have other DVD burners. iDVD is available on warez servers and that's it. There's no eBay auctions going on for legit copies of iDVD or anything. This is Apple saying: don't encourage the pirating of our software!
One final note: Apple also wishes to ensure some quality of the user experience. They feel confident that they can ensure this by bundling iDVD with a Superdrive equipped Mac. However, as there are a great many DVD burners out there - Apple doesn't want its reputation tarnished by folks saying "This supposedly great iDVD app doesn't even work right with my burner - it just creates junk, even though I downloaded the patch for it." Maybe this would happen, maybe not - who knows? In any case, its Apple's decision to protect their reputation.
Can anyone clarify?
You do realize you get a student discount that might help offset your cost, right? And that purchasing memory for the iMac somewhere other than Apple is less expensive than buying it directly from them, right? Same as buying memory for a Dell FROM Dell v. somewhere like Crucial (or any of the number of places on pricewatch.com).
:)
... ever heard of the iBook? If all you're doing is CS work (coding, etc.) what do you need an iMac for? For that matter, what do you need a G4 processor for? Granted - its nice to have, but Apple's in the business of makin' money, not giving away "nice to have" hardware, same as Dell + Gateway.
Now, add to that your time, which you won't spend studying, coding, or improving yourself, but instead will spend building your system. Add to that, the fact that you have no system warranty (and probably very little warranty on individual parts - your hard drive probably has the most substantial warranty) and the iMac comes with a 1yr warranty that (to my knowledge) includes parts AND labor. If you're in the dorm and your campus' network switches/hubs aren't protected from power surges, good luck
Never mind that Apple's not marketing its top-of-the-line systems to college students
Bottom line: don't look to Apple for low-end hardware, it just isn't gonna happen. If you *really* want to experience OS X and you're looking for the bare-minimum entrance requirements, look on eBay or go to the Apple store and grab on original iMac (CRT) w/ a G3 processor clocked at 600MHz. I do all my work (as a software engineer & web developer) on a 400MHz iMac DV that's over 2 yrs old and runs Jaguar just fine. I've raided my Linux server for an 8x4x32 CD-RW which I've popped into an external Firewire enclosure and I've purchased a new 2.5" 40GB harddrive which I popped into a bus-powered firewire enclosure. All-in-all, I've spent about $300 since buying the iMac and I'm set.
Sure, I'd love to be able to use Quartz Extreme and Altivec - but it isn't necessary for what I do. Photoshop, Imageready, Dreamweaver, Codewarrior, BBEdit, XFree86, SciTE, etc. - all run just fine. Startup times are acceptable, often quite snappy, especially for Moz/IE/Mail.app.
To each their own, I guess.
That is indeed a good thing. Wish that would be extendable to the rest of the nation :)
Well, kudos to all of you - having read all the information linked from the FAQ, you folks fought the good battle and so far, have won!
After reading through most of the FAQ, it would appear that the co-op has a very good relationship with the Oppedahl & Larson LLP law firm. I would posit that of key importance in this venture is not acquiring the routing gear, the microwave tower gear, the DSLAMs or DSL modems, but rather getting one of your volunteers to be an attorney! Getting Qwest to allow the co-op to rent subloops would have cost a considerable amount of money in attorney fees, if a law firm were not a board member of the co-op (and the location of the T1+microwave gear ;)).
I remember what it cost to incorporate my business, to enter into a lease for an office space, to agree to terms for insurance for the office space, etc. Thousands of dollars, easily. And we went with a local law firm, recommended by another small business - so we weren't getting shafted, at least not relatively so.
Cheers.
Just a note, but next time you're looking at PC chip prices, make a note of the amount of L3 cache you're getting, not just the MHz/GHz. The new G4s have 1MB of L3 cache and the 1.25GHz chips will have 2MB, I believe. Last I checked, the only Intel processors with that size of L3 cache are Xeon's - most of the Xeons I've seen are pretty pricey. I think you can get your hands on a 700MHz Xeon w/ 1MB L3 cache for about $1300 or so, a 1.6GHz will set you back about $3700, though. Now, we're only talking the actual processor. Next, grab a decent motherboard. By the time you've finished, I imagine you've spent more than the $1699 that a dual-867MHz G4 system costs, even if you throw in the 15" flat-panel display.
Cheers!
While I can see an argument trying to get people away from Java, I cannot possibly agree with going to Lisp. Lisp is anything but a rapid deployment environment, which is typically the case: get as much functionality in as little time as possible.
Now, I've used Lisp (and Tcl, which seems to be very "functional" and less procedural) and Java, PHP and Perl and each has their spot. However, a large financial institution has a large library of existing EJB code (most likely) and other Java/JSP infrastructure. Switching this to Lisp is not an intelligent suggestion.
Never mind that one main reason to use Java/EJB/etc. is because of the pre-coded tools available to deploy. With a little "glue" you can use pre-existing solutions, which speed your time to deployment and ease your maintenance/support time and cost. I've yet to see any offerings in this arena based on Lisp!
I don't think most people are still trotting out that Lisp is slow - its just not the right tool for the job, in this case! Maybe its a decent alternative to Perl or PHP, but certainly not to J2EE and EJB!
That's fine, I guess - up to you. Just making the comment that the reviewers (and others) have indicated that ATi has "learned their lesson" and started releasing good drivers.
According to this article (did you read it?) the drivers recently released by ATi are anything but pitiful. They're apparently stable and solid, so feast your eyes on a new card if that's what was holding you back!
This article (did you read it?) doesn't have anything to do with security through exclusivity. The "signal" is encoded in the chaotic "noise" that occurs in a light "circle" and that noise is subtracted from the total received communication at the receiving end to come up with the "signal" again. The researchers have come up with what I would call a type of quantum interference encryption using light (instead of quantum particles). The encryption exists in the chaos of the system rendering the signal received by an eaves dropper useless.
Someone will land in jail, iff the DMCA's criminal statutes are brought into play, not its civil statutes. What happened with the Russian was a criminal trial - that would the US gov't. v. programmer. What Felten et al (i.e. their employers) fear is not the criminal portions but the civil portions. That can cost big, big, big money. So, yes - this journalist is right, nobody was going to land in jail - but wrong in saying that for that reason, there's no reason to fear the DMCA.
Not really, you'd have to have n! qubits, if I understand QC to some extent. Factoring composites of primes is done in something like O(2^n) time. As the number of bits in the encoding of the primes increases, you only need to add more qubits. n! doesn't work that way ... factorial != exponential, not by a long shot :)
I distinctly recall hearing that one of the reasons Apple decided to use a PDF based display instead of a PS based display (ala NeXTStep) was for licensing reasons.
Yep, that's my understanding of it. PDF is a truly open spec, whereas PS only seems to be. This is probably because you cannot *print* a PDF directly (i.e., no PDF printerss exist). So, Adobe gets licensing from printer manufacturers that want to provide Postscript capabilities in their printer. You need a Postscript compiler/interpreter within the firmware of the printer to be able to print Postscript documents ... and I imagine that if printer company X wants to say "our printer is a postscript printer" they'll have to pay Adobe!
Yes, I believe this is a limitation of the OS X windowing model. The largest limitation of this that I've run into is that when I'm running XFree86 alongside Aqua, all my XF86 applications appear on the same desktop, as Space.app controls the XF86 window manager as "one" application (OroborOSX).
... I'll often have Moz, Dreamweaver, Imageready, terminal, BBEdit, etc. all on different desktopss and that reduces clutter quite a bit.
Even so, its quite useful
Not to support the troll or anything, but, far as I know, if you're going to implement PS, you typically need to pay Adobe a licensing fee, even though the spec is open. This is partially why Apple went with a PDF-based display engine instead of a PS-based display engine, from what I've heard.
I also believe that this is part of the reason why Ghostscript has different types of licensing, though its been a while since I've checked into that. I do know, however, if you want to be 100% compatible with Adobe PS (and use their compatibility logo to say so), you'll be paying some kickback to Adobe.
Cheers.
For those looking for Virtual Desktops in OS X, look no further than Space.app, a GPL'd application that provides multiple desktops (configurable) and hotkeys to switch between 'em (also configurable). The concept of a "sticky" space is also supported.
As for easing the clutter on the desktop, if virtual desktops alone don't do it for you, check out Windowshade X - this brings back the functionality of being able to double-click on the title bar of a window and collapse the window to just the title bar, as in OS 9 (and most Linux WMs).
If you don't like the dock, get rid of it! As for the widgets, you'll be happy to know that the various buttons in OS X have been on Weight Watchers during Jaguar's development .. check out any of the screen caps at Think Secret to see the new buttons before Aug. 24th - while they aren't quite like the Java buttons, they are quite a bit slimmer and make the interface look quite a bit less like candy and more like a professional workstation.
Cheers!
Probably not quite ... in theory, this will likely bring much higher quality rendering to XFree86, but in reality, it'll be a year or two before we see the fruits of their labor and even then, Quartz will still be more mature. But, don't compare Apples to Oranges ... Apple has quite a few engineers working on the Quartz component of OS X, comparitively, the only folks actively developing this are Keith and another guy ... big difference, right?
XRender is usually enabled by default in recent builds of a XFree86 (4.2.x would be a good place to start). You can tell relatively easily if you have XRender and anti-aliased fonts by doing something like:
... I believe some patches/hacks were out there, but officially, you'll need GTK2 to get AA fonts. Qt does support AA fonts via the XRender extension - if you have that xterm thing working alright, you should be able to load the KDE control panel and in the Fonts section turn on AA to get AA fonts in all Qt/KDE apps.
... this used to be pretty difficult (a few months ago), but a lot has progressed on this front. I'd recommend some Google searches and some searches in bugzilla.mozilla.org for AA fonts. KeithP helped a whole lot in getting Moz going with AA fonts using Xrender/Xft - I believe this is what he's referring to when he stated previously that he got sidetracked for a year doing client-side font things, amongst other things, too, I'm sure.
$ xterm -fa Courier -fs 14
This should launch xterm with AA fonts (Courier at size 14). If your xterm doesn't understand the switches, then your version of XFree86 isn't recent enough.
GTK 1.2 doesn't support AA fonts, far as I know
The information on these things is out there if you search the mailing lists. By now, someone may even have put together a simple Howto.
Btw - it is possible to get AA fonts in Moz as well
Cheers.
Search the threads for a post by keithp - he talks about the fact that they intend to port the necessary Qt libs to Xr/Xc, once its progressed enough to support the necessary primitives. GTK+ 2.0 apparently already has a sophisticated rendering engine, so Keith didn't know how things would pan out there.
Cheers.
Just my $0.02, but on my iMac (400MHz G3, ATI Rage 128 w/ 8MB) - OS X 10.1.5 has a relatively snappy interface. On 10.2, dev release, its even better (I'm never going back). I cannot take advantage of QE, so this points to some definite improvements on the part of Apple, in various subsystems, including Quartz. I also run OS X on an older iBook (tangerine, 366MHz, 384MB RAM, unknown graphics card - probably similar to the iMac). With that, if I'm running XF86 alongside Aqua, things start slowin' down a bit, but otherwise, its just fine.
Cheers!
Well, I guess in our society, then, something has gone seriously wrong :)