While it comes as no surprise that the appeals court overturned
this decision, it is also largely irrelevant. The Microsoft of
today is not the Microsoft of the beginning of this trial. They
have grown more powerful and spread even further.
This is thr problem with dealing with tech issues in the legal
system. The trials take so long (just wait until the appeal on
the appeal is done etc etc etc) that the issues are no longer
relevant by the time the decision is handed down. The industry
changes too drastically too quickly. This started over MS' integration
of IE with Windows 98. At this point, there are very few valid
competitors to IE for Win9X/2K/Me/XP and thus it doesn't really
matter. Furthermore, invasive features such as Smart Tags make
it irrelevant whether or not the browser is integrated. Even the
browser itself becomes an anti-competitive tactic-leading uneducated
users to MS-oriented information.
I don't know what the solution to the Microsoft problem is,
or what the solution to the problem of the ineffectiveness of
the courts in dealing with tech issues is, but I don't think the
current setup is of any use.
For more info go to http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/0106/13.connex ion.shtml
this goes (a little) more in-depth about how it works-what satellite technology is used etc. Well worth a read
I read quite some time ago about a setup some guy made that was even cooler than this. he modified his Nassan Pathfinder byy putinng a Powerbook G3 in the back. He then rigged up a touch-screen in the front dash which would display his list of MP3s, and reconfigured the CD player controls Nissan puts on the steering wheel to control his MP3 player on the Powerbook. THe front controls talked to the trunk-mounted Powerbook via IR, and for the coûp de grâce, he set the whole thing up with an Airport card (wireless 802.11 networking) so that he could download songs from Napster while sitting in his driveway. Now that is cool. The article on how he did it is at http://24.7.157.64/Home.html, although it didn't work last time I checked.
heh heh oops. My bad. I read it as 780km, but when typing I read the previous post which said 36000km and got discrtacted and ended up lopping a few zeros off. Duh. Anyway, my point is still valid. And mathematically, 780km @3.0x10^8m/s=0.0026s=2.6ms. For a 2-way trip, that's 5.2ms which is quite a respectable ping (depending on what happens on the ground and processing time of course)
I'm not positive, but as I recall, Iridium uses some trickery to keep the satellites in lower orbit than most comm satellites. My first year physics course tells me that they would have to be at a set height for true geosynchronous orbit, but like I say, I seem to remember they were lower, which would (tehoretically) lower the ping time.
Ah HA!!! I found it. Go to http://www.iridium.com and click on the "how it works-an interactive presentation." link. this launches a little Java applet. Click on satellites and it informs you that the satellites are only 360km above the ground (450 miles for you imperial types). This (understandably) drastically reduces the ping time
You missed his point. What Whovian meant (I think) was that the previous author was mistaken in calling GraphicConverter "free". he was just correcting an error
That may be true for companies that just design the cases. If, however, you are for example Compaq or Dell, you're building your own system, so you know what will go inside of it. Any company that designs both the case and the computer within should be able to make a fanless computer.
The G4 chip, though no Athlon or P4, is pretty hot and large. that said, Apple was still able to cram it into an 8" cube with no fan whatsoever (unless you get an ATI Radeon which has its own fan).
Still, the trouble is once you start adding on cards. The G4 cube and the iMac each have two RAM slots and no expansion cards (excluding the AGP slot in the cube). A computer with four PCI slots filled with cards might need a fan regardless of the design. But if anyone could do it, I'm sure Apple can. My G4 tower has a fan, but is so quiet I can't hear it if my external CD-burner's on.
There are several differences between Comp Sci and Comp Eng. I am currently a Comp Eng student.
Basically, computer science deal almost exclusively with the software side of a computer. Writing programs, algorythms, web site management (to some degree) etc. Primarily writing software. A lot of math as well.
Computer engineers work on a broader scope. They apply computer technology to a problem. Though computer engineers usually program as well, typically not as well or extensively as comp sci students. However, we also learn about robotics, systems integration, and using the computer as part of a whole.
Whereas a comp sci student will write a program, a computer engineer will integrate a computer into an airplane control system, or will write the interface for a computer-controlled robotic arm. We work more with hardware, and creating a solutiong for a specific problem.
ERTW
Slashdot Mirror
While it comes as no surprise that the appeals court overturned this decision, it is also largely irrelevant. The Microsoft of today is not the Microsoft of the beginning of this trial. They have grown more powerful and spread even further.
This is thr problem with dealing with tech issues in the legal system. The trials take so long (just wait until the appeal on the appeal is done etc etc etc) that the issues are no longer relevant by the time the decision is handed down. The industry changes too drastically too quickly. This started over MS' integration of IE with Windows 98. At this point, there are very few valid competitors to IE for Win9X/2K/Me/XP and thus it doesn't really matter. Furthermore, invasive features such as Smart Tags make it irrelevant whether or not the browser is integrated. Even the browser itself becomes an anti-competitive tactic-leading uneducated users to MS-oriented information.
I don't know what the solution to the Microsoft problem is, or what the solution to the problem of the ineffectiveness of the courts in dealing with tech issues is, but I don't think the current setup is of any use.
For more info go to http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/0106/13.connex ion.shtml
this goes (a little) more in-depth about how it works-what satellite technology is used etc. Well worth a read
I read quite some time ago about a setup some guy made that was even cooler than this. he modified his Nassan Pathfinder byy putinng a Powerbook G3 in the back. He then rigged up a touch-screen in the front dash which would display his list of MP3s, and reconfigured the CD player controls Nissan puts on the steering wheel to control his MP3 player on the Powerbook. THe front controls talked to the trunk-mounted Powerbook via IR, and for the coûp de grâce, he set the whole thing up with an Airport card (wireless 802.11 networking) so that he could download songs from Napster while sitting in his driveway. Now that is cool. The article on how he did it is at http://24.7.157.64/Home.html, although it didn't work last time I checked.
heh heh oops. My bad. I read it as 780km, but when typing I read the previous post which said 36000km and got discrtacted and ended up lopping a few zeros off. Duh. Anyway, my point is still valid. And mathematically, 780km @3.0x10^8m/s=0.0026s=2.6ms. For a 2-way trip, that's 5.2ms which is quite a respectable ping (depending on what happens on the ground and processing time of course)
I'm not positive, but as I recall, Iridium uses some trickery to keep the satellites in lower orbit than most comm satellites. My first year physics course tells me that they would have to be at a set height for true geosynchronous orbit, but like I say, I seem to remember they were lower, which would (tehoretically) lower the ping time. Ah HA!!! I found it. Go to http://www.iridium.com and click on the "how it works-an interactive presentation." link. this launches a little Java applet. Click on satellites and it informs you that the satellites are only 360km above the ground (450 miles for you imperial types). This (understandably) drastically reduces the ping time
You missed his point. What Whovian meant (I think) was that the previous author was mistaken in calling GraphicConverter "free". he was just correcting an error
That may be true for companies that just design the cases. If, however, you are for example Compaq or Dell, you're building your own system, so you know what will go inside of it. Any company that designs both the case and the computer within should be able to make a fanless computer. The G4 chip, though no Athlon or P4, is pretty hot and large. that said, Apple was still able to cram it into an 8" cube with no fan whatsoever (unless you get an ATI Radeon which has its own fan). Still, the trouble is once you start adding on cards. The G4 cube and the iMac each have two RAM slots and no expansion cards (excluding the AGP slot in the cube). A computer with four PCI slots filled with cards might need a fan regardless of the design. But if anyone could do it, I'm sure Apple can. My G4 tower has a fan, but is so quiet I can't hear it if my external CD-burner's on.
There are several differences between Comp Sci and Comp Eng. I am currently a Comp Eng student. Basically, computer science deal almost exclusively with the software side of a computer. Writing programs, algorythms, web site management (to some degree) etc. Primarily writing software. A lot of math as well. Computer engineers work on a broader scope. They apply computer technology to a problem. Though computer engineers usually program as well, typically not as well or extensively as comp sci students. However, we also learn about robotics, systems integration, and using the computer as part of a whole. Whereas a comp sci student will write a program, a computer engineer will integrate a computer into an airplane control system, or will write the interface for a computer-controlled robotic arm. We work more with hardware, and creating a solutiong for a specific problem. ERTW