How could a glorified x86 chip with a broken/inefficient instruction set possibly be better than a chip with a new from-scratch architecture.
Well you have the x86 with basically all the market forces behind it driving huge R&D budgets...that's how the x86 managed to slam the MIPS, SPARC, POWER, and pretty much all the other RISC chips. It doesn't matter that you are basically sticking solid rockets onto a large not-so-aerodyanic brick. It flys.
That's the past. Now in the present we have the same market forces behind the x86, and a stunningly bizzare new creature called the IA64, which may not be the poster child for "broken/inefficient", but is clearly a great one for "will drive compiler writers over the brink into the spinning abyss of madness". It is definitly stunningly hard to write things for, that's for sure. More so in most cases then figuring what "RISCops" your x86 instructions are broken into, and where they are shoved, how long that takes, and what a better set would be.
Intel will send you the IA64 instruction set manuals for free. Go take a peak...if your mind is strong. Or you don't mind a bit of gibbering.
Is that MS's or Apple's fault for changing your time on you w/o your permission?
Well in Apple's case at least it might be your fault for not going to "Date and Time" panel and either unchecking "Use a network time server", or pointing at a NTP server that keeps your kinda time (yes OSX uses real NTP, and yes, they let you choose any NTP server you like).
Or much better...for not changing the timezone files so you live 7 hours and 50 minutes ahead of GMT not 8 hours...
Not that this in any way diminishes your other six arguments, but...
...a good photographer has composition as second nature. Read the accounts of the people who covered the Sep11 attack. The were moving through streets of paniced people. Breathing choking air. Frequently crying both from the acrid fumes and the knolage of the loss of life (or fear of it).
They also took stunningly well composed pictures. A cross framed by a shattered window. A white devistated landscape with an upthrust shard of a building "just so" to make a good composition. All of it. Plus I'm sure they were manually adjusting the exposure, because those scenes were not 18% grey...but that's another matter.
So I would beleve that we got good composition of a brutal act too. As for the rest of it? Well, all valid arguments I think.
recent generations of color papers (Kodak Edge 8 et al) have much better long-term image stability -- on the order of 50-100 years
Really? That's nice. Do you know which are the new ones vs. the old?
Kodachrome 64 is still available, as is 200. Both are pro films; consumer K-14 is dead.
Er....your are right about PKR (ISO 64 Kodachrome), but PKL (ISO 200 Kodachrome) is discontinued, according to Kodak! Bummer. K64 and K100 are both listed as consumer films as well. Maybe the announcement last year about the end of K64 was a bit premature? Or maybe like some of Agfa's speciality films they will do "one more batch" until the final order is too small?
Now SSH does prevent this, because you can still forge TCP/IP headers and guess ISNs, but you can't fake the encryption without knowing the password (and if you knew that, you'd just log in normally.)
SSH V1 in some modes did not prevent this (well, the unencrypted mode for sure didn't!). The DES mode at least could be forced to resync if you sent a lot of data...maybe 2^40 bits. This attack was actually succesfully used and somewhat publisized about 2 years ago...maybe 3. It only worked because the fellow who was attacked went away on a confrence and left an ssh session up and the attackers had 4 days to pump laots of data across. Definilty not a "low hanging fruit" attack!
I don't really know if SSH V2 prevents it, I have not really looked closley at the V2 protocal (unlike V1 where I wrote a Java client). Maybe someday...maybe when I need to learn another new language...
Probably would be unwise to use a lossy-format like JPEG or PNG.
Most digital cameras produce JPG images only, or by default. The ones that produce non-JPGs normally produce a propritary format, or a propriatary format in a TIFF wrapper. Some do make "regular" TIFFs.
So taking the JPG from the camera and slapping it on a CD won''t give you more loss. Converting it to FROON2020 in 18 years will not be more lossy then converting it to a pixel map now, and FROON2020 in 18 years.
PNG also happens to be 100% lossless. That is to say, the input pixels will be the same as the output pixels. No rounding loss unlike the rarely implmented "lossless JPEG". If you give it the wrong gama when making the JPG, you can see some differences...but that's it...and fixed by giving it the right gamma later anway. Same for the white point (and gamma and white point are both optional).
Since PNG is also a well documented format, it might be a pretty good one...it is a bit complex though, and not as popular as JPEG, or many other things. So even if you leave the format document on CD with the images (a good idea!) it may take some programming work to reconstruct it later!
Every time you convert to a new format, you would loose a little more.
Only if the new format is lossey. You can go from PNG to Adobe PhotoShop and back all day long and not lose a thing.
I'm not really sure what the ideal format would be, but it's definatly something loseless.
I'm not sure either...but given that storage isn't free and I can shoot upwards of 1G of images in a day (if I go somewhere intresting!), I'm kind of fond of lossy JPEG at about 1M a pop rather then lossless formats at 3M and up (3Mpixel D-SLR...if I had one of the new fancy 6Mpixel ones, the choice would be even more clear!). I can also shoot about 3 frames a second JPEG but only one frame a second RAW, and while that mostly doesn't matter, it is a huge difference if I'm capturing something landing in water, or taking off, or charging towards me.
If the image starts lossless though...I would lean towards PNG. Over BMP even because my camera produces about 12 bits of color information per pixel (12 bits of R, G, or B...not 12 of each, or a mix of all three). To capture that you can't use an 8 bit per channel format! PNG does support 16 bits per channel. BMP does not.
Digital photos themselves do not fade, only their prints do.
Well you did say:
send my digtals to Kodak and get them back on photo paper
I was pointing out that those fade. As for the media the "digital image" is stored on, well dye based CDs fade. Magnetic field baised disks also fade. The problem is they seldom give you warning. One day you can read hte images, the next day you get a message from the driver that there are bad blocks. Very very rarely will you get a sucessful read and some sort of indication that "oh, that was hard...time to re-burn on new media!" which I think is a big drawback of digital storage of images.
On the plus side, a jacket of CD-ROMs holds a lot more images then my folders of slides. Plus even my "sort of good" digital images can be stored in multipl places. My good slides remain one-of-a-kind items because it is costly to dupe a slide, and it is also lossy. Worse yet my negitaves from print film! I have no idea which box has my great print negitaves! Sure I can put the B&W ones on my light table and find them, but I'm lost in the world of inverse color!
How exactly does a digital photo "fade"? [...] But I send my digtals to Kodak and get them back on photo paper just like you'd get giving film to the Walmart processor.
Pretty much the same way "analog" photos do. The sun, exposure to "bad crap" in the air, crap from people's fingers. Oh, and not being in the stop bath long enough. Not being in rinse long enough. Print one of your digital photos, wait 10 years, and do it again, you will see a big difference. Wait 30 years, and you won't even need to print a new one, the old one will be very visabably faded.
That is for color. Black and white lasts a lot longer.
For high end, the Phaser series that Xerox acquired from Tektronix were always the best
I would say around the high end for photo prints are things like the Fuji Frontear. Found in many photofinishers, like Ritz/Wolf in the USA. They vary in size from "large copy machine" to "won't fit ina normal size room. The paper is in light tight containers. It takes very little time to make a print, but about five minutes before it drys enough to come out of the machine.
Normally they are used to scan a 35mm roll, and print it, but they can take CDs of images, CF cards, act as an FTP server, or other things depending on what the shop has payed for.
If your original had enough resolution, it will look like a photograph, right down to being on the overly glossy paper 1 hour shops use, and the oversaturated stuff too. Still, it tends to be kind of cheap per print, and easy to find. And only around $300,000 if you want your own. Or maybe $70,000, I can never remember.
There is a step up from that though. The Fuji tops out at 20x16 prints. Kodak makes or resells a "laser jet", which makes prints up to 8 feet wide, and a few 100 feet long. You need a light tight room because the paper has to be loaded in the dark.
Both the Kodak and Fuji use more or less normal RC-type photo paper, and expose it with a laser (or array of lasers). Prints are exactly as durable as 35mm prints. Which is to say "much more then ink jet prints, but less then most people think".
Even if somehow you think these prints are less durable then the "old way", remember that the is exactly how a lot of 35mm prints are made now!
digital copies are great, but the archival properties of photographic processes ensure that they will make your pictures last far longer than whatever current technology you will need to convert from in 3 years.
Er....maybe. Most color prints unless sealed under glass don't age well. Maybe ten to twenty years. Better then most inkjet prints, but still not great. The negitaves last longer...normally.
Some negitaves, like the non-C41 color that Seattle Filmworks either sells, or use to sell dies very very quickly. Like in 3 years or so unless you put them in the freazer and are careful not to lot them get too humid.
Even good negitaves, like the thought to be archival Fuji slides from the 70's are starting to suck. Bad.
Yet the priceless collection of Greene's work--nearly 250,000 images, 3,000 just of Monroe--was literally fading from sight until his son, Joshua, found a way to digitally restore the vanishing images.
Be careful of how archival you think reguar photos are. Sure you see a lot of old photos, but those are mostly silver haldide black and white which has much better archival properties then the dye baised C-41 and E-6 that almost all color stuff is these days.
The only arcival color process is Kodachrome...and Kodachrome is rapidly vanishing. I think all pro speeds have been discontinued, and the mature speeds are going. Either that, or at least all pro speeds below ISO 100 are gone. No more Kodachrome 25. Of corse that's because not many people have a taste for that color palette anymore, perfering Fuji's Velvia or Provia, or Kodak's E100SW. Plus Fuji is stealing basically the entire slide market from Kodak...and pro slide shooters are slowly converting to digital SLRs anyway.
Now that doesn't mean JPGs on a CD are going to automagically last 100 years either...but it is not as hard to think that if you recopy them every 5 years or so they will last...and if you stick the source code of something that converts JPG to a bitmap, and some documentation on the current C language...and JPG...maybe in 100 years it can be reconstructed even:-)
(Ok, given the current popularity of JPG, it is hard to imagine you won't be able to open JPGs in a specilty program in 100 years! Still, help the historians out...include file format documents!)
The propriatary RAW formats will be hard to open in just a few years though I think. So convert them to PNG...and make at least two CD's, on differnet dye types! Keep 'em out of the sun. Heck, keep one at home, one at work, and one at your parents house. A family alblum is the kind of thing relitaves love to be off site back up for.
If you have film...keep it in a cool dry palce. Inspect it yearly. Think about getting a high quality scanner and spending time on the best shots. Just remeber though, film brings out more detail then any print...and a scanner can capture more detail then prints, but affordable scanners won't capture as much as the film has (I wouldn't print anything a Nikon 4000 has scanned at much more then 8x10...but you can print a very good 35mm picture *much* *much* *much* larger then that). After you scan, take care of the print, there will be a better scanner in a few years.
Medimum and large format film folks? Your on your own...but you knew that already, didn't you?
iTunes updates usually also update the core CD/DVD burning libraries as well as the kernel extensions that support the drives. This is why iTunes requires a reboot. The original poster did say '...as long as the kernel or core libraries aren't updated'.
I like to think I was answering the underlying question "why should any update require me to go save all the places my web browser is on, save up drafts fo email I'm writing, remember all the stuff I was in the middle of...and reboot". (of corse it would be nice if my web browser and other apps could just be told to "re-open the way you are now!")
Even upgrading a shared library shouldn't really require a reboot. Install the one with the newer version number, if the old one has the same major delete it. If anything is currently running that was using it, it will be kept around until they all exit. The only real problem is if they talk to an external device that needs locking, and the locking method changed. Even then one could use something like fstat to find the apps running it and request that those apps and only those apps be closed before the install completes.
Sure, it's work...and nothing else tries as hard as it could...but it could really be done. One could get to the point where only a kernel change needs a reboot. Then we can work on the hard stuff:-)
Just like updating iTunes (an MP3 player) shouldn't need a reboot...except iTunes did require the reboot, and ssh didn't. Or half a dozen other past updates that shouldn't require a reboot, but did. I would say "I hope this is a good sign for the future", but somehow I susspect it just happend to work out this way rather then be a plan.
You're always free to purchase the business package which lets you run servers.
Ummmm, no, not you can't. I can buy cable IP access and 1 to 5 IP addresses. I can't buy any busniess service at all. Which is a shame because I would pay about 4x as much, which is what my DSL provider was getting before they went under, and is about what all the other DSL providers charge...except they can't reach my home!
I don't even really want a lot of bandwidth...just to be able to ssh back home and check things, to play sounds to amuse my dog, and to irratate my wife, and to handle my own e-mail so when the next ISP goes Tango Uniform I don't have to care. Of corse having them cleverly have their cable modems crash once a day or so really puts a damper on that...anyone know where to get a good serial or ethernet controled power strip?
Nicely enough, this does not require a reboot to get working. Downloads and killed off the old sshd (and one would assume Apache if I had a web server on my laptop!).
If anything, MS helped the Dreamcast by providing them with a CE-based OS for developers to port games to it. Unfortunately, though, Sega couldn't afford to keep producing Dreamcast consoles. They'z expensive.
Very very few of the CE games were any good. Rogue Spear may have been the only one. So apparently the developers you get from having WINCE are not so hot. All the good ganes seemed to use the Sega OS. Not that it really matters unless Sega had to pay a lot for the CE licence. If they were smart though there is only a CE payment on the CE using games...of corse MS would want a payment per unit shipped, CE or not.
I think Sega killed their consoles more or less just because they couldn't design a PS2 level system with the moeny they had left, and in the time needed. I doubt they killed the DC because they were too costly, if so, why did they let the price drop to $100 or so? But, yeah, I don't see how MS had much influence on killing the DC.
"And then it isn't compiled from source like/usr/ports on your machine."
Right. Instead, it was configured and packaged by someone who is an expert on that particular software. Of course, I could use 'apt-get source' to get the expert's package built on my system.
The implication there is that the built-from-source port is not configured by an expert. I don't know how debian does it, but FreeBSD's ports are expertly configured (at least if an expert exists). They do however allow one to fetch the source, apply the expert's 'patches' (frequently just config changes)...and then if you want apply your own judgment before doing the build and install. Maybe you really do know more then the expert. Maybe your needs are different. Or, maybe the world has changed since the expert configured the port and package.
For example aome new and untrusted security feature might be left disabled because it is new and untrusted...but the world changes and there is a known attack that the untrusted thing is the only known defense against...
Re:Linux for desktop, *BSD for servers?
on
FreeBSD 4.6
·
· Score: 1
I read that, and my first thought was "Man, that's a lot of Suns..."
Er, yeah... I think it was around 150 to 200 Sun 3 machines, and one Sun 2. Later maybe 30 to 60 MIPS machines, maybe as many as 200 more SPARCs, the threat of 100s of RTs, which turned out to be...12 or so? 20 or 30 VAXStations which we turned into X terminls, so they don't count. It was a decade ago, I don't remember all the numbers! It was also a good crash corse in going from a "mere power user" to a network wide admin. Right on the cutting edge of Kerb 4, learned perl as it went from perl 3 to perl 4...and watched the PCs slowly catch up to the low end workstations.
Re:Linux for desktop, *BSD for servers?
on
FreeBSD 4.6
·
· Score: 3, Informative
However, since Linux got most of the hype, most *nix desktop stuff especially from commercial side like game companies is targeted for it. So it makes sense to use it on the desktop. Just keep your data on the servers;)
I have about 15 years of experiance with BSD systems (I'm counting SunOS 3, SunOS 4, and AOS as BSD systems). That kind of made my shy away from Linux systems and their vaguely Sys5 flavor...but not forever. About a year ago I bought a machine to run Linux on. I used it as a desktop on and off for about 11 months, and then finally put FreeBSD on it. Now my only Linux is my TiVo (and...um...my emergency backup TiVo).
All of the desktop stuff I ever ran under Linux was already running on my older FreeBSD machines, and I never really liked the Linux package managment.
That's not to say Linux is crap, or FreeBSD is a better desktop machine...just that FreeBSD makes a fine desktop, and if you are talking about yourself, supporting one is easier then supporting both. I would say to everyone else out there that has only run BSD systems, give Linux a whirl sometime. The things I didn't like about it are definitly not the things I thought I would dislike. And to those of you that never gave BSD a shot? Go for it.
(besides if you want a real desktop Unix...we all know OSX is the way to go... plus, finally full hardware support for laptop Unix! and a sub-second unsusspend from sleep...)
More experienced administrators: do you support this kind of dualism?
I use to do Unix support for a University. We went from only having 68000 Suns to having SPARCs, DEC-MIPS, IBM RTs, and some other things while I was there (i.e. one of to four or five). Adding support for the second one is a giant pain...but if you do it right adding the next three isn't bad.
Simply upgrade the source code in/usr/src (I recommend using CVSUP), then type "make buildworld && make installworld" while in/usr/src.
Er....do not forget to run mergemaster before you reboot. It will help you adjust anything in/etc that needs changing without destroying everything you had altered before. Or better yet, as the previous poster suggests, read the upgrade part of the handbook.
some overpaid designer's faux brushed metal skin cluttering up the window
Rumor has it in OS X 10.2 the "metal look" is available to 3rd parties (boo!), and can apparently be disabled as well (yeah!). I may not be looking forward to iChat, but I am looking forward to a metal-less iTunes!
It's interesting to think about how future colonists will view Earth, especially the first generation of humans not born on the home planet.
It it also the theme of many many SF stories. From Isaac Asamov's "The Marstion Way", to many C. J. Cherryh's works, and even some of Larry Niven's Known Space...
My guess is that many of the same tensions that pushed the 13 Colonies against England in 1776, as well as countless similar political situations before and since will come to bear again.
Maybe, but the ability to communicate and send physical items (weapons of war, or carrots) might be seriously different. If it takes 40 minutes to send a letter, but six months to send men with guns things may well go differently from a historic war where it took both the same amount of time to be sent. If we are talking interstellar distances and no FTL transport we can't even send men with guns. We send the great grandchildren of men with guns, and they may be utterly uninterested in fighting on the behalf of long dead people! They might not even care to leave the ship!
The issue of sovereignty over space will be more or less moot to Earthbound nations. They will go into space, eventually find something they like, gain self-sufficiency, and eventually lose interest in restrictive relationships with Earth.
If they are close enough to trade goods there will be ties, if they can't, it is less likely. Of corse they might still want movies, TV shows, and kernel updates. Not sure what they could give us, but maybe they will make their own movies...(and the desire for all of those things will dim as the cultures drift apart...except for kernel updates, not even spacers want to run an out of date kernel!)
Apple don't make huge amounts of money from it anyway, why do you think they charge for the player, something unheard of in other media formats
You only pay for the "pro" version of the player which is heard of in other formats ("Real" for example). Apple doesn't charge an arm and a leg for the streaming server (they may not charge for it at all in many cases!).
As far as I can tell they made the most money off of QT by buying stock in Akami:-) one would assume that unless they sold that stock though they ended up not making out so well...
All most people use QuickTime for is playing movie trailors and the occasional "enhanced" CD. To me, that isn't worth any money, especially as the alternatives work just as well for nothing.
The only content that I have seen that needs the "for pay" QT is the larger movie trailers. Everything else has been available with the free one. Heck, with a little work you can force feed iMovie the streams and not only play but edit them....
I have seen QT used for other things though, on the Mac it is pretty easy to put QT stuff in your own programs, so animated elements are frequently QT working for you. Even stills sometimes...
Well there is the mention of 'a customized version of 4.4 BSD-Lite2 kernel'. It's not immediately obvious how to transplant a monolithic kernel to run on top of Mach, but I guess we should take Apple's word for it that you really are running a BSD system
MACH does some VM stuff, and a little IPC, but the BSD is pretty much a full one. Don't take my word for it though, or Apple's. Go bloody download Darwin and look!
Slashdot Mirror
Well you have the x86 with basically all the market forces behind it driving huge R&D budgets...that's how the x86 managed to slam the MIPS, SPARC, POWER, and pretty much all the other RISC chips. It doesn't matter that you are basically sticking solid rockets onto a large not-so-aerodyanic brick. It flys.
That's the past. Now in the present we have the same market forces behind the x86, and a stunningly bizzare new creature called the IA64, which may not be the poster child for "broken/inefficient", but is clearly a great one for "will drive compiler writers over the brink into the spinning abyss of madness". It is definitly stunningly hard to write things for, that's for sure. More so in most cases then figuring what "RISCops" your x86 instructions are broken into, and where they are shoved, how long that takes, and what a better set would be.
Intel will send you the IA64 instruction set manuals for free. Go take a peak...if your mind is strong. Or you don't mind a bit of gibbering.
Well in Apple's case at least it might be your fault for not going to "Date and Time" panel and either unchecking "Use a network time server", or pointing at a NTP server that keeps your kinda time (yes OSX uses real NTP, and yes, they let you choose any NTP server you like).
Or much better...for not changing the timezone files so you live 7 hours and 50 minutes ahead of GMT not 8 hours...
Not that this in any way diminishes your other six arguments, but...
They also took stunningly well composed pictures. A cross framed by a shattered window. A white devistated landscape with an upthrust shard of a building "just so" to make a good composition. All of it. Plus I'm sure they were manually adjusting the exposure, because those scenes were not 18% grey...but that's another matter.
So I would beleve that we got good composition of a brutal act too. As for the rest of it? Well, all valid arguments I think.
Really? That's nice. Do you know which are the new ones vs. the old?
Er....your are right about PKR (ISO 64 Kodachrome), but PKL (ISO 200 Kodachrome) is discontinued, according to Kodak! Bummer. K64 and K100 are both listed as consumer films as well. Maybe the announcement last year about the end of K64 was a bit premature? Or maybe like some of Agfa's speciality films they will do "one more batch" until the final order is too small?
SSH V1 in some modes did not prevent this (well, the unencrypted mode for sure didn't!). The DES mode at least could be forced to resync if you sent a lot of data...maybe 2^40 bits. This attack was actually succesfully used and somewhat publisized about 2 years ago...maybe 3. It only worked because the fellow who was attacked went away on a confrence and left an ssh session up and the attackers had 4 days to pump laots of data across. Definilty not a "low hanging fruit" attack!
I don't really know if SSH V2 prevents it, I have not really looked closley at the V2 protocal (unlike V1 where I wrote a Java client). Maybe someday...maybe when I need to learn another new language...
Most digital cameras produce JPG images only, or by default. The ones that produce non-JPGs normally produce a propritary format, or a propriatary format in a TIFF wrapper. Some do make "regular" TIFFs.
So taking the JPG from the camera and slapping it on a CD won''t give you more loss. Converting it to FROON2020 in 18 years will not be more lossy then converting it to a pixel map now, and FROON2020 in 18 years.
PNG also happens to be 100% lossless. That is to say, the input pixels will be the same as the output pixels. No rounding loss unlike the rarely implmented "lossless JPEG". If you give it the wrong gama when making the JPG, you can see some differences...but that's it...and fixed by giving it the right gamma later anway. Same for the white point (and gamma and white point are both optional).
Since PNG is also a well documented format, it might be a pretty good one...it is a bit complex though, and not as popular as JPEG, or many other things. So even if you leave the format document on CD with the images (a good idea!) it may take some programming work to reconstruct it later!
Only if the new format is lossey. You can go from PNG to Adobe PhotoShop and back all day long and not lose a thing.
I'm not sure either...but given that storage isn't free and I can shoot upwards of 1G of images in a day (if I go somewhere intresting!), I'm kind of fond of lossy JPEG at about 1M a pop rather then lossless formats at 3M and up (3Mpixel D-SLR...if I had one of the new fancy 6Mpixel ones, the choice would be even more clear!). I can also shoot about 3 frames a second JPEG but only one frame a second RAW, and while that mostly doesn't matter, it is a huge difference if I'm capturing something landing in water, or taking off, or charging towards me.
If the image starts lossless though...I would lean towards PNG. Over BMP even because my camera produces about 12 bits of color information per pixel (12 bits of R, G, or B...not 12 of each, or a mix of all three). To capture that you can't use an 8 bit per channel format! PNG does support 16 bits per channel. BMP does not.
Well you did say:
I was pointing out that those fade. As for the media the "digital image" is stored on, well dye based CDs fade. Magnetic field baised disks also fade. The problem is they seldom give you warning. One day you can read hte images, the next day you get a message from the driver that there are bad blocks. Very very rarely will you get a sucessful read and some sort of indication that "oh, that was hard...time to re-burn on new media!" which I think is a big drawback of digital storage of images.
On the plus side, a jacket of CD-ROMs holds a lot more images then my folders of slides. Plus even my "sort of good" digital images can be stored in multipl places. My good slides remain one-of-a-kind items because it is costly to dupe a slide, and it is also lossy. Worse yet my negitaves from print film! I have no idea which box has my great print negitaves! Sure I can put the B&W ones on my light table and find them, but I'm lost in the world of inverse color!
Pretty much the same way "analog" photos do. The sun, exposure to "bad crap" in the air, crap from people's fingers. Oh, and not being in the stop bath long enough. Not being in rinse long enough. Print one of your digital photos, wait 10 years, and do it again, you will see a big difference. Wait 30 years, and you won't even need to print a new one, the old one will be very visabably faded.
That is for color. Black and white lasts a lot longer.
I would say around the high end for photo prints are things like the Fuji Frontear. Found in many photofinishers, like Ritz/Wolf in the USA. They vary in size from "large copy machine" to "won't fit ina normal size room. The paper is in light tight containers. It takes very little time to make a print, but about five minutes before it drys enough to come out of the machine.
Normally they are used to scan a 35mm roll, and print it, but they can take CDs of images, CF cards, act as an FTP server, or other things depending on what the shop has payed for.
If your original had enough resolution, it will look like a photograph, right down to being on the overly glossy paper 1 hour shops use, and the oversaturated stuff too. Still, it tends to be kind of cheap per print, and easy to find. And only around $300,000 if you want your own. Or maybe $70,000, I can never remember.
There is a step up from that though. The Fuji tops out at 20x16 prints. Kodak makes or resells a "laser jet", which makes prints up to 8 feet wide, and a few 100 feet long. You need a light tight room because the paper has to be loaded in the dark.
Both the Kodak and Fuji use more or less normal RC-type photo paper, and expose it with a laser (or array of lasers). Prints are exactly as durable as 35mm prints. Which is to say "much more then ink jet prints, but less then most people think".
Even if somehow you think these prints are less durable then the "old way", remember that the is exactly how a lot of 35mm prints are made now!
Er....maybe. Most color prints unless sealed under glass don't age well. Maybe ten to twenty years. Better then most inkjet prints, but still not great. The negitaves last longer...normally.
Some negitaves, like the non-C41 color that Seattle Filmworks either sells, or use to sell dies very very quickly. Like in 3 years or so unless you put them in the freazer and are careful not to lot them get too humid.
Even good negitaves, like the thought to be archival Fuji slides from the 70's are starting to suck. Bad.
Quoting from some Apple propaganda:
Be careful of how archival you think reguar photos are. Sure you see a lot of old photos, but those are mostly silver haldide black and white which has much better archival properties then the dye baised C-41 and E-6 that almost all color stuff is these days.
The only arcival color process is Kodachrome...and Kodachrome is rapidly vanishing. I think all pro speeds have been discontinued, and the mature speeds are going. Either that, or at least all pro speeds below ISO 100 are gone. No more Kodachrome 25. Of corse that's because not many people have a taste for that color palette anymore, perfering Fuji's Velvia or Provia, or Kodak's E100SW. Plus Fuji is stealing basically the entire slide market from Kodak...and pro slide shooters are slowly converting to digital SLRs anyway.
Now that doesn't mean JPGs on a CD are going to automagically last 100 years either...but it is not as hard to think that if you recopy them every 5 years or so they will last...and if you stick the source code of something that converts JPG to a bitmap, and some documentation on the current C language...and JPG...maybe in 100 years it can be reconstructed even :-)
(Ok, given the current popularity of JPG, it is hard to imagine you won't be able to open JPGs in a specilty program in 100 years! Still, help the historians out...include file format documents!)
The propriatary RAW formats will be hard to open in just a few years though I think. So convert them to PNG...and make at least two CD's, on differnet dye types! Keep 'em out of the sun. Heck, keep one at home, one at work, and one at your parents house. A family alblum is the kind of thing relitaves love to be off site back up for.
If you have film...keep it in a cool dry palce. Inspect it yearly. Think about getting a high quality scanner and spending time on the best shots. Just remeber though, film brings out more detail then any print...and a scanner can capture more detail then prints, but affordable scanners won't capture as much as the film has (I wouldn't print anything a Nikon 4000 has scanned at much more then 8x10...but you can print a very good 35mm picture *much* *much* *much* larger then that). After you scan, take care of the print, there will be a better scanner in a few years.
Medimum and large format film folks? Your on your own...but you knew that already, didn't you?
Er, plus the Atari Jag...which made release of BattleSphere that much more amazing...
I like to think I was answering the underlying question "why should any update require me to go save all the places my web browser is on, save up drafts fo email I'm writing, remember all the stuff I was in the middle of...and reboot". (of corse it would be nice if my web browser and other apps could just be told to "re-open the way you are now!")
Even upgrading a shared library shouldn't really require a reboot. Install the one with the newer version number, if the old one has the same major delete it. If anything is currently running that was using it, it will be kept around until they all exit. The only real problem is if they talk to an external device that needs locking, and the locking method changed. Even then one could use something like fstat to find the apps running it and request that those apps and only those apps be closed before the install completes.
Sure, it's work...and nothing else tries as hard as it could...but it could really be done. One could get to the point where only a kernel change needs a reboot. Then we can work on the hard stuff :-)
Just like updating iTunes (an MP3 player) shouldn't need a reboot...except iTunes did require the reboot, and ssh didn't. Or half a dozen other past updates that shouldn't require a reboot, but did. I would say "I hope this is a good sign for the future", but somehow I susspect it just happend to work out this way rather then be a plan.
Ummmm, no, not you can't. I can buy cable IP access and 1 to 5 IP addresses. I can't buy any busniess service at all. Which is a shame because I would pay about 4x as much, which is what my DSL provider was getting before they went under, and is about what all the other DSL providers charge...except they can't reach my home!
I don't even really want a lot of bandwidth...just to be able to ssh back home and check things, to play sounds to amuse my dog, and to irratate my wife, and to handle my own e-mail so when the next ISP goes Tango Uniform I don't have to care. Of corse having them cleverly have their cable modems crash once a day or so really puts a damper on that...anyone know where to get a good serial or ethernet controled power strip?
Nicely enough, this does not require a reboot to get working. Downloads and killed off the old sshd (and one would assume Apache if I had a web server on my laptop!).
Very very few of the CE games were any good. Rogue Spear may have been the only one. So apparently the developers you get from having WINCE are not so hot. All the good ganes seemed to use the Sega OS. Not that it really matters unless Sega had to pay a lot for the CE licence. If they were smart though there is only a CE payment on the CE using games...of corse MS would want a payment per unit shipped, CE or not.
I think Sega killed their consoles more or less just because they couldn't design a PS2 level system with the moeny they had left, and in the time needed. I doubt they killed the DC because they were too costly, if so, why did they let the price drop to $100 or so? But, yeah, I don't see how MS had much influence on killing the DC.
The implication there is that the built-from-source port is not configured by an expert. I don't know how debian does it, but FreeBSD's ports are expertly configured (at least if an expert exists). They do however allow one to fetch the source, apply the expert's 'patches' (frequently just config changes)...and then if you want apply your own judgment before doing the build and install. Maybe you really do know more then the expert. Maybe your needs are different. Or, maybe the world has changed since the expert configured the port and package.
For example aome new and untrusted security feature might be left disabled because it is new and untrusted...but the world changes and there is a known attack that the untrusted thing is the only known defense against...
Er, yeah... I think it was around 150 to 200 Sun 3 machines, and one Sun 2. Later maybe 30 to 60 MIPS machines, maybe as many as 200 more SPARCs, the threat of 100s of RTs, which turned out to be...12 or so? 20 or 30 VAXStations which we turned into X terminls, so they don't count. It was a decade ago, I don't remember all the numbers! It was also a good crash corse in going from a "mere power user" to a network wide admin. Right on the cutting edge of Kerb 4, learned perl as it went from perl 3 to perl 4...and watched the PCs slowly catch up to the low end workstations.
I have about 15 years of experiance with BSD systems (I'm counting SunOS 3, SunOS 4, and AOS as BSD systems). That kind of made my shy away from Linux systems and their vaguely Sys5 flavor...but not forever. About a year ago I bought a machine to run Linux on. I used it as a desktop on and off for about 11 months, and then finally put FreeBSD on it. Now my only Linux is my TiVo (and...um...my emergency backup TiVo).
All of the desktop stuff I ever ran under Linux was already running on my older FreeBSD machines, and I never really liked the Linux package managment.
That's not to say Linux is crap, or FreeBSD is a better desktop machine...just that FreeBSD makes a fine desktop, and if you are talking about yourself, supporting one is easier then supporting both. I would say to everyone else out there that has only run BSD systems, give Linux a whirl sometime. The things I didn't like about it are definitly not the things I thought I would dislike. And to those of you that never gave BSD a shot? Go for it.
(besides if you want a real desktop Unix...we all know OSX is the way to go... plus, finally full hardware support for laptop Unix! and a sub-second unsusspend from sleep...)
I use to do Unix support for a University. We went from only having 68000 Suns to having SPARCs, DEC-MIPS, IBM RTs, and some other things while I was there (i.e. one of to four or five). Adding support for the second one is a giant pain...but if you do it right adding the next three isn't bad.
Er....do not forget to run mergemaster before you reboot. It will help you adjust anything in /etc that needs changing without destroying everything you had altered before. Or better yet, as the previous poster suggests, read the upgrade part of the handbook.
Rumor has it in OS X 10.2 the "metal look" is available to 3rd parties (boo!), and can apparently be disabled as well (yeah!). I may not be looking forward to iChat, but I am looking forward to a metal-less iTunes!
It it also the theme of many many SF stories. From Isaac Asamov's "The Marstion Way", to many C. J. Cherryh's works, and even some of Larry Niven's Known Space...
Maybe, but the ability to communicate and send physical items (weapons of war, or carrots) might be seriously different. If it takes 40 minutes to send a letter, but six months to send men with guns things may well go differently from a historic war where it took both the same amount of time to be sent. If we are talking interstellar distances and no FTL transport we can't even send men with guns. We send the great grandchildren of men with guns, and they may be utterly uninterested in fighting on the behalf of long dead people! They might not even care to leave the ship!
If they are close enough to trade goods there will be ties, if they can't, it is less likely. Of corse they might still want movies, TV shows, and kernel updates. Not sure what they could give us, but maybe they will make their own movies...(and the desire for all of those things will dim as the cultures drift apart...except for kernel updates, not even spacers want to run an out of date kernel!)
You only pay for the "pro" version of the player which is heard of in other formats ("Real" for example). Apple doesn't charge an arm and a leg for the streaming server (they may not charge for it at all in many cases!).
As far as I can tell they made the most money off of QT by buying stock in Akami :-) one would assume that unless they sold that stock though they ended up not making out so well...
The only content that I have seen that needs the "for pay" QT is the larger movie trailers. Everything else has been available with the free one. Heck, with a little work you can force feed iMovie the streams and not only play but edit them....
I have seen QT used for other things though, on the Mac it is pretty easy to put QT stuff in your own programs, so animated elements are frequently QT working for you. Even stills sometimes...
MACH does some VM stuff, and a little IPC, but the BSD is pretty much a full one. Don't take my word for it though, or Apple's. Go bloody download Darwin and look!
FreeBSD, NetBSD, basically any OS that wants to be a bootable CD is going to come as an ISO...