>>Warning: Heavy Sarcasm Gee, I dunno, you could, I suppose, call them or something...
sure. Give it a shot. 800-795-100
Doh! (Jim Rome =+5)I hate to break it to you, but *CHOKE*. They don't have the pieholes to take the call on my rig. You're OUT.(/Jim Rome) ___ "I know kung-fu."
>>But what was the last revolutionary software product to come out first on the Mac platform? Sure, the hardware is much improved cost and feature-wise, but why bother with such poor software selection?
um.. because for the consumer, the only other alternative is Windows 98. ___ "I know kung-fu."
His products sell, his products' have inspired all of consumer electronics, over 90% of iMac owners are on the internet, and Apple's stock has travelled from $14 to over $70.
I'm still looking for why people are "scared" of him, why they don't "get" him, and feel compelled to bag on his goals.
Everything he's done at Apple has helped Apple and made better products and made everyone involved money.
Last time i checked, even people that use Linux would like to accomplish goals like that. ___ "I know kung-fu."
of course, i can't use my current USB hubs, my USB cables, or USB pass thrus (essentially, built in hubs) on any of my devices...
how exactly do you cram 480 mbps thru ports that can only support 12? Your monitor with 4 USB ports can't support USB 2.0. Your hub can't support USB 2.0. You have to buy all new hardware - including USB cables - to use USB 2.0. Your USB 1.0 devs will all have to be at the ends of your USB device tree.... If you plugged a USB 2.0 HD into your USB 1.0 hub - it will run at USB 1.0 speeds.
USB 2.0 is only to sell more USB 2.0 chipsets and to require you to keep buying faster and faster Intel CPUs.
get a grip. Get Firewire.
___ "I know kung-fu."
Stoopid - it doesn't need a fucking fan!
on
New iMac Rolled Out
·
· Score: 1
Does your superior PC's monitor have a fan? - No? Okay....
If i turned off your PIII, and just turned on your CD-ROM drive and your hard drive, would you need a fan? - No? okay.. you're still with me, i hope.
Then why, when i add a mere 5 watts to the equation - do you believe that i MUST HAVE A FAN?!?!?!?!
If you do the MATH instead of just saying "Well, shit, my PC would burn up without a fan..." you'll find that the iMac II (or is that iMac ][) will probably use less juice than a standard, unfanned 17" monitor.
And since the iMac can't be expanded internally, the power supply is geared to exACTLY how much DC it needs - not jacked up to 500W "just in case". Which, it turns out, is about the same as a standard 17" monitor.
As for convection cooling- this is how your monitor is cooled.... the vents at the top of the monitor? Right? See?? Go look at the top of your monitor..... okay? Back now?
(condescending tone)See that's how the iMac II's will keep themselves cool too! The hot air from the monitor and motherboard rises, causing a drop in pressure at the point of heat, to which there are vent holes at the bottom... where cooler air will enter.
Therefore, just like your 21" monitor with no fan which uses at least twice the juice of the iMac II, the iMac II will be just fine.
So if your 21" monitor doesn't need a fan - why would you assume that a machine which will suck less juice - and therefore, produce less heat - would need one?
is it just because all you who are whining about the lack of a fan are so brainwashed that you couldn't think of a way to accomplish something that hasn't been done in 15 years?
The original fanless macs (Macintosh, Macintosh Plus, etc.)had overheating problems because there were far too few vent holes at the top and bottom, and because the capacitors on the board that provided power to the computer were not of a good quality. They bled an unnecessary amount of heat.
I would wager that the power requirements for the new iMac's ar probably less than the original macs.
For those who still don't think the processor is going to be okay...the G3 and G4 chips use 11 watts of power at PEAK! At "typical" - they run at 4-6.
The PIII's START at 25.3 watts.. and cruise up to 35 watts at 600 Mhz.
so i'm sorry if you're not used to it, but the Macs simply will run cool enough without a fan - just like your monitor does.
sheesh. Get over it already. ___ "I know kung-fu."
>I think you meant AOL@NetHomeExciteCenterExplorer. > >If you need help understanding that, be sure to try the AOL@NetHomeExciteCenterExplorerAssistant.
shit. I meant AOL@NetHomeExciteCenterExplorerAssistantWizard. _ __ "I know kung-fu."
If you took out every Z80 at Disneyland (and i assume D-World), the entire place would come to a grinding halt.
My dad has been making homebrew computers to do the oddest of things there (gate coutners, ride controls, parade timing synchs, anamatronic computers, audio control systems, fireworks launchers, the list is practically endless) for 25 years.
They work, they are cheap, they do the job, they don't run Windows. The new rides that crash (software... not hardware) a lot that were done by contractors (ie, Indiana Jones, etc) come down all the time because of the contractors insistance on using "I just got out of ITT Technical Insitute where i learned Visual Basic and now write software for Disneyland" Windows because all these goofballs think that the solution to everything is a PC with a x86, a Windows front end, and a serial port.
My dad's Fireworks launcher - Mickey's Match - ran for well over 15 years and it just worked. No GPFs, no BSOD's... it just launched fireworks.
for a normal, reasonably priced ($300) DIN sized mp3 player for the car.
yeah yeah.. i KNOW that they make them already.. but for gozakes.. the damn things a) have a stupid control thing that needs to be cheesily velcro'd down b) cost $1000.
I've been down this route with my band for a demo tape, recording the instruments on my soundcard, using a multitrack app etc., and then the band went into a studio and recorded a 6-track EP; we could just about afford it. The audio quality was reasonable but not great.
The fact is that without access to expensive studio equipment it is extremely difficult to get a master recording at a high enough quality to sell. Getting a record deal makes this a lot easier as the record company pays for the studio (in exchange for most of your profit...) So, unless you're willing to sink pretty much everything you have into equipment and studio time, record companies still have a pretty big part to play for most bands.
yeah.. but how long until "Real Recording" studios don't cost as much as they do now?
Non-linear costs a zillion bucks because the systems are all old (in computer years, where 18 months is an eternity)
"Cheap, high quality" recording studios are _not_ far off. Someone just has to sit down and figure out a good business model, design a easily reproducable studio, and franchise it.
Today's studios have all this huge "big iron" behind the glass.. and i'm sorry, but soon, all those mixing boards and wires and cables and mics will all funnel into a tiny little graphite/white box with 4 handles and an Apple on the side via a firewire cable and will leave the studio thru the ethernet cable.
A backup of the entire recording session will leave on a $30 DVD-RAM so you can remix, re-record, whatever - wherever - whenever.
No, you can't do it all on one computer *now* with "real studio" quality, but you will within 2-8 years i guarandamntee you. Its like StarOffice 5.1.... no, its not as presentable as office 2000, but for the price difference, you shure can't bitch.
Record companies will either adapt, and go digital (production/distribution/sales), or they will die.
There's money to be made - and someone will soon take advantage of the fact that the big labels just don't get it.
In stunning news today, Apple Computer, Inc. announed that since its computers will not be using Intel chips, this may be the end of the line for Merced as we know it.
"I just don't see how Merced can survive" said one industry analyst. "I mean, if even ONE person doesn't have an Intel processor shoved up his ass, then that's one more person contributing to the demise of Intel!"
Sources at Apple, who refused to be named, said that "this all could have been avoided" if only Intel were gracious and forgiving enough to allow a non-Intel designed standard to have made it to market.
It is believed that IEEE 1394 is the standard the source was referring to.
"Does Apple even make real computers? How can you listen to the company that makes those Apple 2's anyway!" said John Kissass from Dataquest. "Really, i mean, if Apple" he chuckled, "says that the sky was some strange color, and Microsoft and Intel tell you the truth about our green sky, who are _you_ going to believe?"
It is not known if Intel is planning on closing its doors forever because of this staggaring announcementm suffice to say that even one person making up their own mind and not using Intel standards could spell the end of the WinTel reign, its possible that, somehow, Intel will make it through the day.
The problem that many of my detractors (who Should be Obvious to you by now). Is that They have more problems with, ( of course ) the subnet of my presentation ( table 1 ). Needles to say, Nevertheless. That they more than Likely do not comprehend ( of course ) the Fundamentals of the I'm a Fucking Retard Rule ( Needless to say, similar to my Octet rule ).
Never the less, it should be Obvious why I didn't ( or should i say, Couldn't ). Needless to say, pass the fucking Cisco exam because my head ( or never the less, what is on top of my head ) is so far.
Just imagine! Shoved up my ass, that this paper should be my addmitance paperwork out of computer ( or network ). Consutlting/IT Professional, and into scooping M&M's for Dary Queen.
if you read this hampsters paper all the way thru.. take off two points. Take off 3 if you printed it out to read it later.
Space Communications Protocol, what the author must have been talking about, first of all, is being headed by MITRE (the strap-on brain of DoD back east to help them with anything geek).
The main goal is to delelop a protocol that looks and feels to the user like TCP/IP, but handles the fact that the major reason for packet loss being.. well, lost or damaged packets, literally, out into space.
TCP/IP assumes that lostpackets are because of network congestion, and so a missing packet is requested to be retransmitted.. and this usualy does the trick.. since most terra-nets run on fiber or copper...
If you kept asking for retransmissions in space - you exasserbate the problem so that if the errors grow to only 10^-6, and you use plain ol TCP/IP, the overhead and loss drowns the network out.. and you get nothing.
10^-6 errors can be a good day around here in the space biz... so one of the major points of SCPS is to deal with high BERs differently than TCP/IP, the other, of course, is security (how can you get spy sat data to the ground and beam it with an RF signal that anyone can pick up?)
SCPS has standard ftp, and will encorporate http eventually.. but its not done yet AFAIK.
>>The sequel would (will?) be about the search team that went to find them. Much horror and hillarity ensues as they find out that the "witch" is actually a copy of MSFrontPage gone awry.
Would that make the 3rd movie Blair Service Pack 3?
the perl script was on HIS side... he could have done the same exact thing with a C++ program. Perl had 100% NOTHING to do with the piss poor security of the MLB site.
Slashdot Mirror
>>Warning: Heavy Sarcasm
Gee, I dunno, you could, I suppose, call them or something...
sure. Give it a shot. 800-795-100
Doh! (Jim Rome =+5)I hate to break it to you, but *CHOKE*. They don't have the pieholes to take the call on my rig. You're OUT.(/Jim Rome)
___
"I know kung-fu."
>>But what was the last revolutionary software product to come out first on the Mac platform? Sure, the hardware is much improved cost and feature-wise, but why bother with such poor software selection?
um.. because for the consumer, the only other alternative is Windows 98.
___
"I know kung-fu."
>>I doubted they could really be stupid enough to pull a stunt like that
really?
Not only did my G4/450 order get cancelled, i stupidly then ordered a G4/400 - i need a machine here, folks - this morning.
Now, i'm reading all over the place that they are not cancelling the orders, and are, reinstating them...
So now, either i'm getting no machine or two machines... i guess we'll just have to see what happens
___
"I know kung-fu."
His products sell, his products' have inspired all of consumer electronics, over 90% of iMac owners are on the internet, and Apple's stock has travelled from $14 to over $70.
I'm still looking for why people are "scared" of him, why they don't "get" him, and feel compelled to bag on his goals.
Everything he's done at Apple has helped Apple and made better products and made everyone involved money.
Last time i checked, even people that use Linux would like to accomplish goals like that.
___
"I know kung-fu."
off topic... but i laughed out loud
First posts rule..
Yeah.. yeah... first posts kick ass.
___
"I know kung-fu."
of course, i can't use my current USB hubs, my USB cables, or USB pass thrus (essentially, built in hubs) on any of my devices...
how exactly do you cram 480 mbps thru ports that can only support 12? Your monitor with 4 USB ports can't support USB 2.0. Your hub can't support USB 2.0. You have to buy all new hardware - including USB cables - to use USB 2.0. Your USB 1.0 devs will all have to be at the ends of your USB device tree.... If you plugged a USB 2.0 HD into your USB 1.0 hub - it will run at USB 1.0 speeds.
USB 2.0 is only to sell more USB 2.0 chipsets and to require you to keep buying faster and faster Intel CPUs.
get a grip. Get Firewire.
___
"I know kung-fu."
Does your superior PC's monitor have a fan? - No? Okay....
If i turned off your PIII, and just turned on your CD-ROM drive and your hard drive, would you need a fan? - No?
okay.. you're still with me, i hope.
Then why, when i add a mere 5 watts to the equation - do you believe that i MUST HAVE A FAN?!?!?!?!
If you do the MATH instead of just saying "Well, shit, my PC would burn up without a fan..." you'll find that the iMac II (or is that iMac ][) will probably use less juice than a standard, unfanned 17" monitor.
And since the iMac can't be expanded internally, the power supply is geared to exACTLY how much DC it needs - not jacked up to 500W "just in case". Which, it turns out, is about the same as a standard 17" monitor.
As for convection cooling- this is how your monitor is cooled.... the vents at the top of the monitor? Right? See?? Go look at the top of your monitor..... okay? Back now?
(condescending tone)See that's how the iMac II's will keep themselves cool too! The hot air from the monitor and motherboard rises, causing a drop in pressure at the point of heat, to which there are vent holes at the bottom... where cooler air will enter.
Therefore, just like your 21" monitor with no fan which uses at least twice the juice of the iMac II, the iMac II will be just fine.
So if your 21" monitor doesn't need a fan - why would you assume that a machine which will suck less juice - and therefore, produce less heat - would need one?
is it just because all you who are whining about the lack of a fan are so brainwashed that you couldn't think of a way to accomplish something that hasn't been done in 15 years?
The original fanless macs (Macintosh, Macintosh Plus, etc.)had overheating problems because there were far too few vent holes at the top and bottom, and because the capacitors on the board that provided power to the computer were not of a good quality. They bled an unnecessary amount of heat.
I would wager that the power requirements for the new iMac's ar probably less than the original macs.
For those who still don't think the processor is going to be okay...the G3 and G4 chips use 11 watts of power at PEAK! At "typical" - they run at 4-6.
The PIII's START at 25.3 watts.. and cruise up to 35 watts at 600 Mhz.
so i'm sorry if you're not used to it, but the Macs simply will run cool enough without a fan - just like your monitor does.
sheesh. Get over it already.
___
"I know kung-fu."
>I think you meant AOL@NetHomeExciteCenterExplorer.
_ __
>
>If you need help understanding that, be sure to try the AOL@NetHomeExciteCenterExplorerAssistant.
shit. I meant AOL@NetHomeExciteCenterExplorerAssistantWizard.
"I know kung-fu."
>Bill G. just purchased the AOLNetHomeExciteCenter, which will now be renamed MSNetHomeAOLExcenteritement
I think you meant AOL@NetHomeExciteCenterExplorer.
If you need help understanding that, be sure to try the AOL@NetHomeExciteCenterExplorerAssistant.
Just gimme a freakin static IP and some bandwidth and get the hell out of my way.
___
"I know kung-fu."
Someone saw the Avengers?
___
"I know kung-fu."
will buy the guy a decent computer to run Linux on and run a web site.
It won't pay for the same system if he wanted to install NT Server on it.
That's me.. always thinkin...
___
"I know kung-fu."
If you took out every Z80 at Disneyland (and i assume D-World), the entire place would come to a grinding halt.
My dad has been making homebrew computers to do the oddest of things there (gate coutners, ride controls, parade timing synchs, anamatronic computers, audio control systems, fireworks launchers, the list is practically endless) for 25 years.
They work, they are cheap, they do the job, they don't run Windows. The new rides that crash (software... not hardware) a lot that were done by contractors (ie, Indiana Jones, etc) come down all the time because of the contractors insistance on using "I just got out of ITT Technical Insitute where i learned Visual Basic and now write software for Disneyland" Windows because all these goofballs think that the solution to everything is a PC with a x86, a Windows front end, and a serial port.
My dad's Fireworks launcher - Mickey's Match - ran for well over 15 years and it just worked. No GPFs, no BSOD's... it just launched fireworks.
___
"I know kung-fu."
for a normal, reasonably priced ($300) DIN sized mp3 player for the car.
yeah yeah.. i KNOW that they make them already.. but for gozakes.. the damn things a) have a stupid control thing that needs to be cheesily velcro'd down b) cost $1000.
___
"I know kung-fu."
I've been down this route with my band for a demo tape, recording the instruments on my soundcard, using a multitrack app etc., and then the band went into a studio and recorded a 6-track EP; we could just about afford it. The audio quality was reasonable but not great.
The fact is that without access to expensive studio equipment it is extremely difficult to get a master recording at a high enough quality to sell. Getting a record deal makes this a lot easier as the record company pays for the studio (in exchange for most of your profit...) So, unless you're willing to sink pretty much everything you have into equipment and studio time, record companies still have a pretty big part to play for most bands.
yeah.. but how long until "Real Recording" studios don't cost as much as they do now?
Non-linear costs a zillion bucks because the systems are all old (in computer years, where 18 months is an eternity)
"Cheap, high quality" recording studios are _not_ far off. Someone just has to sit down and figure out a good business model, design a easily reproducable studio, and franchise it.
Today's studios have all this huge "big iron" behind the glass.. and i'm sorry, but soon, all those mixing boards and wires and cables and mics will all funnel into a tiny little graphite/white box with 4 handles and an Apple on the side via a firewire cable and will leave the studio thru the ethernet cable.
A backup of the entire recording session will leave on a $30 DVD-RAM so you can remix, re-record, whatever - wherever - whenever.
No, you can't do it all on one computer *now* with "real studio" quality, but you will within 2-8 years i guarandamntee you. Its like StarOffice 5.1.... no, its not as presentable as office 2000, but for the price difference, you shure can't bitch.
Record companies will either adapt, and go digital (production/distribution/sales), or they will die.
There's money to be made - and someone will soon take advantage of the fact that the big labels just don't get it.
and then no one can hack your Dreamcast.
Besides, where else will you plug in the hardware hack to allow you to play Jap games on the US system (and vise versa)
apple proprietary:
vga
usb
ata/66
scsi
1/8" headphone jack
1/8" microphone jack
RCA L/R/V jacks
S-VHS jack
CD-ROM
DVD-ROM
10/100 10bT Ethernet
IEEE 802.11 AirPort
RJ-11 V.90 modem
3 prong power cable
i think that being propietary is okay so long as you can use everyone else's stuff with yours.
copied from News.com
Dateline : Cupertino, CA
In stunning news today, Apple Computer, Inc. announed that since its computers will not be using Intel chips, this may be the end of the line for Merced as we know it.
"I just don't see how Merced can survive" said one industry analyst. "I mean, if even ONE person doesn't have an Intel processor shoved up his ass, then that's one more person contributing to the demise of Intel!"
Sources at Apple, who refused to be named, said that "this all could have been avoided" if only Intel were gracious and forgiving enough to allow a non-Intel designed standard to have made it to market.
It is believed that IEEE 1394 is the standard the source was referring to.
"Does Apple even make real computers? How can you listen to the company that makes those Apple 2's anyway!" said John Kissass from Dataquest. "Really, i mean, if Apple" he chuckled, "says that the sky was some strange color, and Microsoft and Intel tell you the truth about our green sky, who are _you_ going to believe?"
It is not known if Intel is planning on closing its doors forever because of this staggaring announcementm suffice to say that even one person making up their own mind and not using Intel standards could spell the end of the WinTel reign, its possible that, somehow, Intel will make it through the day.
exactly..
if you're going to muck up IPv4 addressing, then why not just do it the _Right Way_ and do IPv6?
Besides, we're just going to continue to see more and more firewalls and more and more NAT to solve the problem, anyway.
The problem that many of my detractors (who Should be Obvious to you by now). Is that They have more problems with, ( of course ) the subnet of my presentation ( table 1 ). Needles to say, Nevertheless. That they more than Likely do not comprehend ( of course ) the Fundamentals of the I'm a Fucking Retard Rule ( Needless to say, similar to my Octet rule ).
Never the less, it should be Obvious why I didn't ( or should i say, Couldn't ). Needless to say, pass the fucking Cisco exam because my head ( or never the less, what is on top of my head ) is so far.
Just imagine! Shoved up my ass, that this paper should be my addmitance paperwork out of computer ( or network ). Consutlting/IT Professional, and into scooping M&M's for Dary Queen.
if you read this hampsters paper all the way thru.. take off two points. Take off 3 if you printed it out to read it later.
Sigh... we need more military people in /.
Space Communications Protocol, what the author must have been talking about, first of all, is being headed by MITRE (the strap-on brain of DoD back east to help them with anything geek).
The main goal is to delelop a protocol that looks and feels to the user like TCP/IP, but handles the fact that the major reason for packet loss being.. well, lost or damaged packets, literally, out into space.
TCP/IP assumes that lostpackets are because of network congestion, and so a missing packet is requested to be retransmitted.. and this usualy does the trick.. since most terra-nets run on fiber or copper...
If you kept asking for retransmissions in space - you exasserbate the problem so that if the errors grow to only 10^-6, and you use plain ol TCP/IP, the overhead and loss drowns the network out.. and you get nothing.
10^-6 errors can be a good day around here in the space biz... so one of the major points of SCPS is to deal with high BERs differently than TCP/IP, the other, of course, is security (how can you get spy sat data to the ground and beam it with an RF signal that anyone can pick up?)
SCPS has standard ftp, and will encorporate http eventually.. but its not done yet AFAIK.
You can read all about it here...
http://bongo.jpl.nasa.gov/scps
>>The sequel would (will?) be about the search team that went to find them. Much horror and hillarity ensues as they find out that the "witch" is actually a copy of MSFrontPage gone awry.
Would that make the 3rd movie Blair Service Pack 3?
You should put some ice on that lip, Juanita.
so, how is this thing different than the external, heavy battery pack i bought from VST for my Powerbook 100 8 years ago? my guess is that it isn't.
#try not to be as incompetent as this guy was
i asked him why he left it so lame?
His answer "I was hungry and went to go eat."
Which, AFAICT, still got him more votes than anyone else.
hey mr. potato-head....
the perl script was on HIS side... he could have done the same exact thing with a C++ program. Perl had 100% NOTHING to do with the piss poor security of the MLB site.
# I Wish I knew.
I wish i DIDN'T.
-flm