I've never heard of Bell "running out" of phone lines (save you wanting more than they already ran to your house).
They do run out of copper pairs. There is a fixed amount of copper buried. Around here at least if they run out of lines to yours house they do quote prices to running a new pair from the closest pedastool, normally a few bucks a foot. If you happen to be ordering a T1 they tend to pay for that part themselves (so if you are ordering a T1, max out your voice lines for the month, and get some extra wires for free).
I don't know if they give a price if they have run out of space in the pedistool. It would surely be pretty costly... I know it happens since I have used the last pair at the current place, and also in the one three places ago.
I doubt they run out of circuit from a CO, but it might happen. I've never heard of it happening though.
P.S. price caps don't always cause shortages. If I cap the price of dog food to $85 a pound, it won't really change things since very few people will pay that for dog food (I won't, I'll feed my dog people food first). If the price cap is lower then the market value of the good, then it will cause a shortage.
Or something like that (like it is more closly tied with cost of production + distribution, but market value tends to that anyway unless...). I'm not an econ major by a long shot.
There are other ways of avoiding a shortage. Like outlawing secondary use. In the USSR it was illegal to feed bread to livestock. If it was allowed farmers would buy bread rather then grain since grain costs more. It must have mostly worked since there wasn't a lot of famine reports (except, I think, in the 30s, and that was for other reasons)
One can also try to enforce a price cap only for the first X units, like C$21 a month for one voice line, but market value for the rest of them, that limits the potential for shortage. Of corse for things more portable then phone lines if the market value of the thing is well above the "first one" price, lots of people who wouldn't normally buy one will get it and sell it on ebay (or to friends, or whatever). So that isn't perfect, but it helps.
So I would guess given the lack of wide spread shortage of voice lines that C$21 a line isn't below market value. Beats me what price would cause people to rush out and buy 15 voice lines for multi-link PPP, but that price would likely cause a shortage.
Now, since the way of the Mac in the OS X world will essentially be FreeBSD
Not really, there is a compatibility layer on top of Mach so you can use FreeBSD device drivers and file systems, but that isn't the only driver interface. They have another one (Kext? I forget the name) that lets you use a fairly large subset of C++ to write your drivers.
It is possible that they might do a USB device (rather then ethernet), and end up making a OS X driver that can't be ported to FreeBSD trivially because it is C++ code.
Or they don't port it because they are bastards, and don't release the source for the same reason.:-)
At least one satalite IP service uses USB devices, and has no BSD support (a 3rd party supports the older USB device, and is working on the newer one).
As far as prices go, I think there's also good news in that cable companies are feeling intense pressure from the dish. In the long run, I think they're on the losing end of the battle as far as broadcast programming is concerned, but probably in better shape for internet access until everything goes wireless. In the mean time, they really will need the market share, and I don't think they'll have time to get especially greedy.
I'm not so sure they want market share more then the money from the increased prices, look at what they charge for the same thing dish charges... but I would be happy to be surprised. As long as I can get multiple fixed IP addresses from them...
I'll probably find out soon, since my home ISP is switching from Northpoint to Covad, and I'm not sure what they will do if (when?) covad falls...
As for support of anything but Wintel, I think you might end up being a bit surprised. Mac owners are pretty "boutiquey" people (i.e., they've got the cash) and whine loudly when things don't go their way. (I know; I'm one of them.:-))
I am too (I bought a PowerBook to run OS X on), I'm being pessimistic.
How well is OpenGL supported by the video card drivers? If it is slower or buggier then DirectX then people won't be so thrilled to use it. Remember non windows boxes are less then 10% of the market (Apple had 5% at the start of the year, I doubt Apple+Apple's growth+Linux+BSDs can top 10% -- if the PS2 or GameCube use OpenGL my 10% guess is wrong though).
Plus DirectX handles input, and some non-graphical output. And I think sound. As far as I know OpenGL only does drawing.
OpenGL is what Apple recommends using for 3D game on their platform (at least under OS X), but they have their own APIs for sound and input, and hopefully force feedback (and one would hope that to the extent that DirectX "got it right" Apple copied it). So OpenGL isn't dead, unfonturely it give MS an even bigger reason to fight it.
I think DSL is a great technology, but who would have thought we'd be looking to cable TV companies for relief from monopoly?
More importantly, who thinks cable internet access is going to stay priced low after the DSL providers all fold? (or have any provision for having more then one IP address, or support anything other then Wintel, and if your lucky Mac...)
Gassee won't be seeing much of the ten million, if any. In order to get the backing to go public, you sell your soul to VC's.
That depends on how well known you are, how profitable you are before you take money, and how self financed you are (and how much money you take). Some places give 95% or more of the ownership to the VCs, some more like 60%. I expect a very few places may give even less.
If what they were doing meant so much to them, they should have sold to Apple.
On the other hand they had, what, two more years to dream the big dream. Two more years without an external beucracy crushing them... that had to be worth something. Not $109mil to me, but it might be worth $109mil if I already had, say, $15mil!
Don't think of money as little green bills. Think of money as freedom. Once you have enough money, you have the freedom to buy geeky toys out the wazoo, you have the freedom to sit at home and just work on the programming projects you love, because your income is assured. You have the freedom to financially help projects that satisfy your geekiness.
I think the point was once you have (say) $10,000,000 you won't get much more freedom from the next $190,000,000. For $10,000,000 you can buy all the geek toys you want (well, not many supercomputers, but other then that...). You have to start collecting art or buying real estate to dispose of that kind of money.
Plus, as a CEO he doesn't want to buy a ton of geek toys and code. He wants to do the CEO equivalent of codeing -- building a successful company.
OS X isn't even feature finished yet, still a 1.0 product and you're already treating it as a failed and failed again experiment. Why? Just because *some* of the big apps aren't out yet?
Yes, it is early to condemn OS X. However, I wouldn't say it is only some big apps that are missing. I run OS X on my laptop (best laptop Unix around), but I can't think of a single big app that runs there. Unless you think MSIE is a "big app" (I don't, and I like OmniWeb more anyway).
A whole lot were demo'ed at the last MacWorld, but as far as I know they are pretty much all waiting for OS X 10.1 (next month). The only exception might be Quicken, which is taking orders now, but I'm not sure when it ships.
although most run just fine under Classic since you say this isn't about Aqua
Other then some of Apple's own stuff (DVD player, iTunes, iMovie) everything I have run under Classic worked. And iTunes and iMovie have been released of OS X anyway. It is funny that the venders own Apps always seem to be the ones that are the hardest to get running under emulation? (Apples under OSX, Microsoft's under WINE)...
They've been about dumbing down computers so that "the rest of us" can use them.
Get one of Tog's books and see how hard it really is. Even something as simple as getting someone to tell the Apple II demo program if there is a color or black and white display takes a lot of work. And his books make it an amusing story.
Scores no points with me. If the users want a CRT, Apple should sell them one. Why is it visionary to try to force your customers to pay more money for a smaller display?
Why? It would just cost more then everyone else's monitors. It isn't like you can't use 3rd party monitors. As far as I know the old monitors were relabeled monitors from elsewhere. I always assumed they gave up on CRTs because they couldn't sell them cheaply enough to be profitable, the "LCDs are cool" thing is just a ruse:-)
What about in the case of DSL? You PAY for a certain ammount of bandwidth and Have every right to use 100% of it!
Actually you pay for a lot less then that bandwidth costs your ISP, they like all other flat rate consumer/small business ISPs make assumptions about the amount of idle bandwidth and buy far less bandwidth out of their colo/POP/HUB then their customers buy into it. Much higher prices are charged to folks who buy the right to resell the connections because the ISP needs to allocate more bandwidth out of their colo/POP/HUB.
You do (probably) have the right to use all the bits you can push up and down the line, but (probably) no resale rights. Who knows what counts as a resale though.
Is it a resale if I don't charge money (say it is my home DSL connection, and a friend comes over with a laptop...or someone I don't know parks in my driveway)? What if I don't charge money for bandwidth, but I'm selling coffee? What if I'm not selling coffee, but merely the right to come onto my property, where 802.11 just happens to be set up?
Anyway if "freenets" become popular, and get charged the same amount "normal" home DSL connections are charged, it will have to push up the prices for "normal" home DSL connections (assuming the current prices don't have much profit margin -- which seems likely given the number of bankruptcies in that area)
And mind you, this is all coming from his own peronsal line. I don't know many people who would just go ahead and give away bandwidth to anyone for the hell of it. Regardless, for this kind of thing to happen everywhere would constitute either a huge non-profit organization with lots of funds, or government sponsoring...
At least under some OSes you can use something like ipfw's queue command to put all of the WiFi traffic on a lower priority queue so it will only use the bandwidth you are not using. For that to be most effective you need to set that at the far end of the connection as well, but even if you don't you can kludge it by feeding all incoming traffic through a dummynet pipe with slightly less bandwidth then the real thing and again favoring the non WiFi traffic. That will get TCP (and TCP like things) enough drops to back off.
Using different priority queues is nice because the full bandwidth (or very close to it) will be available for WiFi when you aren't using the link yourself. If your OS doesn't support priority traffic queues you may be able to use fixed size traffic shaping.
This of corse does raise the fixed cost a little, unless you are already doing NATing and the NAT box can do your traffic shaping.
I would rather avoid the government sponsoring since it will either take spending from things that deserve it more, or raise taxes (or both). Plus whenever the government sponsors something it thinks it has the right or even responsibility to regulate it...
So while not completely bullet-proof, the possibility is certainly there that one machine visible to the Internet got infected and spread the infection to other machines on the network which are not visible to the Internet.
So that second machine is totally safe, as long as there is no security problem on the first machine that lets anyone in to it (root.exe anyone?)... in other words better reformat 'em both.
The "hidden" machines may have a lower chance of having be altered, but since they are probably more important (otherwise why hide them?) that should make one want to be even more careful with them.
That's kind of a pain (and at least the IA64 can be forced to do percise exceptions). Debugging something that the compiler has software pipelined will be a giant pain. Your source code will look like a simple loop, but the machine state will show you in the several times (i=7, 8, 9, 10 all at once...but not quite as far into the loop for some values).
I don't think an understanding of the algorithms always requires an assembly language presentation. These days most of the algorithms will be implemented in higher-level languages anyway. It's just his style to present them that way.
I think it would be hard to learn how co-routines work in anything much higher level then assembly. Also things like how to design a runtime so that nested functions see their enclosing scope's locals, and things like that...
But yes, I don't think finding a shortest path in a graph gains from being presented in assembly vs. Modula-3 or something.
I disagree. If the publishers released their books in plaintext or HTML, the effects would be disastrous.
Really? Ever been to Fiction Wise? They have a ton of stuff, mostly SF short stories, but some novels. Mostly oldish (5+ years), some not.
It's in your choice of plain text, PDF, PalmDoc, and some others. You can even download any book you have bought as many times as you like (in case you want to change formats, or deleted your old copy).
I found a number of Kage Baker stories I had never read, and a few Larry Niven stories I decided I should own in electronic form. I payed real money.
I haven't noticed the collapse of the publishing industry. Not even the SF shorts part of it. But maybe I haven't been watching?
I don't suppose you'd consider a HOW-TO or an FAQ on how you added the codec to your mp3 player? I certainly don't know how to do this:) Maybe a download?
Sure, I use w3juke and the author nicely added ogg support, so it "just works".
Disclaimer#1: I'm the author, so I may have an over inflated opinion of how nice I am.
Disclaimer#2: w3juke plays it's music by feeding a stream into an external program (mpg123, ogg123, vox, or whatever you setup in your conf file for a given MIME type, or file extension), so it was pretty easy to add ogg support.
Disclaimer#3: the tar-ball version is pretty good, but there were some minor changes to make it compile out of the box on Linux that are only in CVS. Likely there will be another tarball soon. for now if you use Linux, check it out of the CVS tree.
Disclaimer#4: the screenshots are old, it look better now:-)
Then we can also see Robocop 3 with the original Frank Miller script - rated X for violence.
The Criterion edition has all (many?) of the cut/edited scenes. Plus directors commentary on why the MPAA said to cut it, and why he thinks it makes the movie worse (in many cases seeming more violent). It is one of the first DVDs I bought.
Incorrectly. It does not support 24 bit transparency mapped PNG, which is the only useful format option that gives quality exceeding GIF.
Due to the lossless compression method, the file sizes are typically 3x larger than an equal dimensioned JPG at equivalent quality setting.
Are you saying the 8bit palleted PNGs are bigger then GIFs? Those are the only ones you should be comparing for byte size with GIF, otherwise you are storing far more info in the PNG and expecting it to be smaller! 24bit PNG is comparable to TIFF (well the raw and lossless TIFF), not really JPG (unless you are looking at the rarely implemented lossless JPG).
PNG is not a valid alternative to GIF in terms of bandwidth, quality, or multilayering technique for web sites. I've done everything possible to move in the direction of PNG on two of my domains, and eventually went back to GIF for file size. When 24 bit PNG with alpha mapping is properly supported, all that will change.
I guess you;ll have to wait for the old Netscape to die. At least Mozilla, IE5+, and all the other (less popular) browsers I have tried recently (mostly on Mac OSX) seem to support PNG quite well.
Good point. However, it misses something: food and drink are often comfort products, and sound files are not. Sound codecs can be judged almost rationally. You can compare output waveforms to the original, you can get 'golden ears', etc. and have a meaningful comparison.
No, you can't compare the waveforms to the original and declare the closest to be the winner. The goal is to get something that sounds the closest to the original, which is not the same as getting the closest waveform (unless one waveform matches). For example you can can omit frequencies that are masked by other frequencies, or alter the timings of others in complex ways and most people won't hear the difference.
The right test is double blind and to include the sound sample form all codecs plus the original (so you can discard anybody that claims codec X is clearly better then the original, since they aren't listening for reproduction, but for something else, like more bass, or volume or who knows).
MP3's that sound as good as the original will sound bad to dogs, because we made assumptions about the sound processing people do. they may sound even worse to aliens, then again they'll already be pissed we only do two channels (or 5.1) so their 28 ears will be useless (well, most of them...).
doesn't translate into slower MTUs and non always-on connection (If they run PPPoE, do you honestly believe they're leaving the link up with that assigned IP?)
The only PPPoE setup I had anything to do with didn't down the link unless the other end failed to return the link state pings. So the connection was up unless your end gets turned off for a while (like say a laptop being suspended for 10 minutes).
DHCP works fine and in the context of what you're describing, anyone could set up their routers and DHCP system with minimal effort to achieve the same task and have to expend only as much effort as you would with the PPPoE solution (most likely less, if you think about it).
I don't think so, and nobody mentioned any such way during PPPoE's working group stage, or at the IETF before it became a RFC. Nobody has drafted a working document since either.
Minimal effort, some hosts that don't want to be on the global internet, some that do. Bonus points if you can get more then one DHCP-DSL connection to work at once.
Would you like to do it now? Your going to have to add another machine in most cases to filter out the DHCP replies you don't want, and to route between the two sets of IP addresses (outside and inside), or assume you can already do that (hosts that support ethernet IP aliases can, many hosts can't -- some like OSX should, but won't).
Now, you can argue that PPPoE solves problems that don't need to be solved, but you sure can't argue that DHCP solves those problems. PPPoE was written (at least in part) by three very smart and very lazy people. They would have done the simpler task of nothing at all if DHCP would have worked.
Multiple PPPoE providers? On the same Ethernet? You won't see that sort of thing happening with DSL- the system's not set up that way. You're given this segment that ties into an ATM cloud that shuttles your traffic, no matter whether or not you're a bridging or a PPPoE customer, to its specified destination.
You are quite wrong. It was tested in the lab down the hall from my office.
The DSL "modems" in question (they either had copper in their name, or rocket, or both) forwarded all PPPoE negotiation packets to the far end, and any PPPoE packets that were for a session established through them. However I guess some DSL "modems" could forward all packets (well, no more then 10% of them with a 1Mbit DSL pipe and a 10Mbit ethernet), or all PPPoE ethertypes regardless of session ID, which probably violates the RFC. I do know for sure that at least one gets it right.
with DHCP, you can get more than one IP per DSL connection. All you have to do is hook your modem up to a hub, then plug multiple computers into the hub. When you turn each one on, it'll request an IP from the DHCP server, and the server will assign one.
Most DSL hardware I've had contact with (RedBacks for example) add a circuit ID to the DHCP request when they forward it (this was a working group draft three years ago, I expect it is in an RFC now). If you make your DHCP server limit the number of addresses given to any circuit ID that problem goes away. The DHCP server I wrote for (large-ISP-name-withheld) did that. That server could also force an IP address change every X hours.
If a customer wants all of that 1.54 MB/s to himself, then he needs to buy a T1.
I don't know of any ISP that doesn't oversubscribe T1's as well (as in 1000Mbits of T1's into the HUB, only 45Mbits of T3 out to other hubs -- except with far higher numbers on both sides nowadays). They just end to have something like a 2x to 5x oversubscription on T1s, but 100x or more on DSL.
What would be nice is if people would just calm down a little about the PPPoE thing, and give a valid reason why it's bad
Immature implementations (this will go away over time).
Two byte smaller MTU (the cost of being able to have more then one connection)
The rest of the reasons seem to be a pile of crap, or blaming PPPoE for how it is used rather then how it was designed, or what it can do (specifically fixed vs. dynamic IP addresses, the ISP can do either, just like the can with DHCP).
That is independent of PPPoE. PPPoE servers can be configured to give a static set of addresses. DHCP can be configure to not give preference to the most recently assigned address, and to not renew leases (I think a one hour minimum is needed to be complint with the RFC). I know, I've written just such a DHCP server (and it used RADIUS out the back end to verify service). Your points 3, 4, 5, and 6 are covered here as well.
Yeah, dynamic IP addresses do suck, at least when you actually want static ones. Having name service from someone who can switch your addresses at the drop of a hat only reduces the pain, you still lose connections that were active, and you still have a harder time setting filters. Don't blame PPPoE for that though, it can be set for static addresses if the provider wants.
I don't know why some DSL companies (*cough Verizon cough*) think that this is a good idea over normal DHCP.
Because it doesn't get in the way of an existing DHCP network. Really. It shouldn't get in the way of existing PPPoE networks, but since many PPPoE stacks are set to accept any server, I expect they actually will by default.
So imagine you have a bunch of machines at home set up to use DHCP, some of them would like to reach the global internet, others don't (say, your printers), and all of them would like to be pointed at your local printers, and your local nameservers. You can do that with DHCP. Unless you get a DSL connection from someone who insists on sending DHCP replies out that point everyone at the global net, and don't set printers, and set the wrong nameservers, and...
Plus you can use two (or more) PPPoE providers on the same ethernet, which is very hard to do with DHCP-based DSL.
The down side is stacks didn't evolve as fast as thought (in part because someone dumb in management at one of the companies that wrote the RFC didn't allow the implementations to be shared freely). It also has an MTU slightly (2 bytes?) smaller then straight ethernet, which was needed to allow multiple sessions on the same ethernet.
If I want to do anything the least bit complex I would fr rather have PPPoE. If I don't want to think at all DHCP is a slight edge.
It seems odd that so many slashdot readers want the not-thinking solution, but I guess DHCP is the older protocol, and it almost solves the problem, so hey, everyone's got it in their heads that it is better.
Think about it this way, it does a job DHCP can't quite do, basically the same job L2TP does, but with 150 pages less RFC (then L2TP). The PPPoE RFC is also shorter then DHCP, but I wouldn't expect that to be a big deal because a modern system will need both, but can get away with skiping L2TP because PPPoE exists.
Your CD player is a Mac (say on an airplane, or in your dorm room). You put this thing in, iTunes fires up, and automagically makes an MP3 and starts playing it. Pop, there go your speakers.
You only like one or two tracks of the CD, you take it and a few other CDs you only like a few tracks on, pop'em in your computer, select them, pop a blank in the burner and make a mix CD for your car. Go for a drive and Pop, there go your car speakers.
You make a legal backup copy (as far as I know that's protected by fair use), later after you accidentally leave the CD out and put your coffee on it you go to the backup...Pop, no more speakers.
You decide the CD has good jogging music so you move it to the tiny lightweight no skip CD paler, and Pop, no earphones...
There are lots of fair and legal ways to use MP3's. Interfering with them may not be illegal, but I expect damaging equipment is.
Slashdot Mirror
They do run out of copper pairs. There is a fixed amount of copper buried. Around here at least if they run out of lines to yours house they do quote prices to running a new pair from the closest pedastool, normally a few bucks a foot. If you happen to be ordering a T1 they tend to pay for that part themselves (so if you are ordering a T1, max out your voice lines for the month, and get some extra wires for free).
I don't know if they give a price if they have run out of space in the pedistool. It would surely be pretty costly... I know it happens since I have used the last pair at the current place, and also in the one three places ago.
I doubt they run out of circuit from a CO, but it might happen. I've never heard of it happening though.
P.S. price caps don't always cause shortages. If I cap the price of dog food to $85 a pound, it won't really change things since very few people will pay that for dog food (I won't, I'll feed my dog people food first). If the price cap is lower then the market value of the good, then it will cause a shortage.
Or something like that (like it is more closly tied with cost of production + distribution, but market value tends to that anyway unless...). I'm not an econ major by a long shot.
There are other ways of avoiding a shortage. Like outlawing secondary use. In the USSR it was illegal to feed bread to livestock. If it was allowed farmers would buy bread rather then grain since grain costs more. It must have mostly worked since there wasn't a lot of famine reports (except, I think, in the 30s, and that was for other reasons)
One can also try to enforce a price cap only for the first X units, like C$21 a month for one voice line, but market value for the rest of them, that limits the potential for shortage. Of corse for things more portable then phone lines if the market value of the thing is well above the "first one" price, lots of people who wouldn't normally buy one will get it and sell it on ebay (or to friends, or whatever). So that isn't perfect, but it helps.
So I would guess given the lack of wide spread shortage of voice lines that C$21 a line isn't below market value. Beats me what price would cause people to rush out and buy 15 voice lines for multi-link PPP, but that price would likely cause a shortage.
Yeah, because you really just can't run bandwidth intensive applications like vi with only 5 to 10 Mbits/sec.
Not really, there is a compatibility layer on top of Mach so you can use FreeBSD device drivers and file systems, but that isn't the only driver interface. They have another one (Kext? I forget the name) that lets you use a fairly large subset of C++ to write your drivers.
It is possible that they might do a USB device (rather then ethernet), and end up making a OS X driver that can't be ported to FreeBSD trivially because it is C++ code.
Or they don't port it because they are bastards, and don't release the source for the same reason. :-)
At least one satalite IP service uses USB devices, and has no BSD support (a 3rd party supports the older USB device, and is working on the newer one).
I'm not so sure they want market share more then the money from the increased prices, look at what they charge for the same thing dish charges... but I would be happy to be surprised. As long as I can get multiple fixed IP addresses from them...
I'll probably find out soon, since my home ISP is switching from Northpoint to Covad, and I'm not sure what they will do if (when?) covad falls...
I am too (I bought a PowerBook to run OS X on), I'm being pessimistic.
How well is OpenGL supported by the video card drivers? If it is slower or buggier then DirectX then people won't be so thrilled to use it. Remember non windows boxes are less then 10% of the market (Apple had 5% at the start of the year, I doubt Apple+Apple's growth+Linux+BSDs can top 10% -- if the PS2 or GameCube use OpenGL my 10% guess is wrong though).
Plus DirectX handles input, and some non-graphical output. And I think sound. As far as I know OpenGL only does drawing.
OpenGL is what Apple recommends using for 3D game on their platform (at least under OS X), but they have their own APIs for sound and input, and hopefully force feedback (and one would hope that to the extent that DirectX "got it right" Apple copied it). So OpenGL isn't dead, unfonturely it give MS an even bigger reason to fight it.
More importantly, who thinks cable internet access is going to stay priced low after the DSL providers all fold? (or have any provision for having more then one IP address, or support anything other then Wintel, and if your lucky Mac...)
That depends on how well known you are, how profitable you are before you take money, and how self financed you are (and how much money you take). Some places give 95% or more of the ownership to the VCs, some more like 60%. I expect a very few places may give even less.
On the other hand they had, what, two more years to dream the big dream. Two more years without an external beucracy crushing them... that had to be worth something. Not $109mil to me, but it might be worth $109mil if I already had, say, $15mil!
I think the point was once you have (say) $10,000,000 you won't get much more freedom from the next $190,000,000. For $10,000,000 you can buy all the geek toys you want (well, not many supercomputers, but other then that...). You have to start collecting art or buying real estate to dispose of that kind of money.
Plus, as a CEO he doesn't want to buy a ton of geek toys and code. He wants to do the CEO equivalent of codeing -- building a successful company.
Yes, it is early to condemn OS X. However, I wouldn't say it is only some big apps that are missing. I run OS X on my laptop (best laptop Unix around), but I can't think of a single big app that runs there. Unless you think MSIE is a "big app" (I don't, and I like OmniWeb more anyway).
A whole lot were demo'ed at the last MacWorld, but as far as I know they are pretty much all waiting for OS X 10.1 (next month). The only exception might be Quicken, which is taking orders now, but I'm not sure when it ships.
Other then some of Apple's own stuff (DVD player, iTunes, iMovie) everything I have run under Classic worked. And iTunes and iMovie have been released of OS X anyway. It is funny that the venders own Apps always seem to be the ones that are the hardest to get running under emulation? (Apples under OSX, Microsoft's under WINE)...
Get one of Tog's books and see how hard it really is. Even something as simple as getting someone to tell the Apple II demo program if there is a color or black and white display takes a lot of work. And his books make it an amusing story.
Why? It would just cost more then everyone else's monitors. It isn't like you can't use 3rd party monitors. As far as I know the old monitors were relabeled monitors from elsewhere. I always assumed they gave up on CRTs because they couldn't sell them cheaply enough to be profitable, the "LCDs are cool" thing is just a ruse :-)
Actually you pay for a lot less then that bandwidth costs your ISP, they like all other flat rate consumer/small business ISPs make assumptions about the amount of idle bandwidth and buy far less bandwidth out of their colo/POP/HUB then their customers buy into it. Much higher prices are charged to folks who buy the right to resell the connections because the ISP needs to allocate more bandwidth out of their colo/POP/HUB.
You do (probably) have the right to use all the bits you can push up and down the line, but (probably) no resale rights. Who knows what counts as a resale though.
Is it a resale if I don't charge money (say it is my home DSL connection, and a friend comes over with a laptop...or someone I don't know parks in my driveway)? What if I don't charge money for bandwidth, but I'm selling coffee? What if I'm not selling coffee, but merely the right to come onto my property, where 802.11 just happens to be set up?
Anyway if "freenets" become popular, and get charged the same amount "normal" home DSL connections are charged, it will have to push up the prices for "normal" home DSL connections (assuming the current prices don't have much profit margin -- which seems likely given the number of bankruptcies in that area)
At least under some OSes you can use something like ipfw's queue command to put all of the WiFi traffic on a lower priority queue so it will only use the bandwidth you are not using. For that to be most effective you need to set that at the far end of the connection as well, but even if you don't you can kludge it by feeding all incoming traffic through a dummynet pipe with slightly less bandwidth then the real thing and again favoring the non WiFi traffic. That will get TCP (and TCP like things) enough drops to back off.
Using different priority queues is nice because the full bandwidth (or very close to it) will be available for WiFi when you aren't using the link yourself. If your OS doesn't support priority traffic queues you may be able to use fixed size traffic shaping.
This of corse does raise the fixed cost a little, unless you are already doing NATing and the NAT box can do your traffic shaping.
I would rather avoid the government sponsoring since it will either take spending from things that deserve it more, or raise taxes (or both). Plus whenever the government sponsors something it thinks it has the right or even responsibility to regulate it...
So that second machine is totally safe, as long as there is no security problem on the first machine that lets anyone in to it (root.exe anyone?)... in other words better reformat 'em both.
The "hidden" machines may have a lower chance of having be altered, but since they are probably more important (otherwise why hide them?) that should make one want to be even more careful with them.
That's kind of a pain (and at least the IA64 can be forced to do percise exceptions). Debugging something that the compiler has software pipelined will be a giant pain. Your source code will look like a simple loop, but the machine state will show you in the several times (i=7, 8, 9, 10 all at once...but not quite as far into the loop for some values).
I think it would be hard to learn how co-routines work in anything much higher level then assembly. Also things like how to design a runtime so that nested functions see their enclosing scope's locals, and things like that...
But yes, I don't think finding a shortest path in a graph gains from being presented in assembly vs. Modula-3 or something.
Really? Ever been to Fiction Wise? They have a ton of stuff, mostly SF short stories, but some novels. Mostly oldish (5+ years), some not.
It's in your choice of plain text, PDF, PalmDoc, and some others. You can even download any book you have bought as many times as you like (in case you want to change formats, or deleted your old copy).
I found a number of Kage Baker stories I had never read, and a few Larry Niven stories I decided I should own in electronic form. I payed real money.
I haven't noticed the collapse of the publishing industry. Not even the SF shorts part of it. But maybe I haven't been watching?
Sure, I use w3juke and the author nicely added ogg support, so it "just works".
Disclaimer#1: I'm the author, so I may have an over inflated opinion of how nice I am.
Disclaimer#2: w3juke plays it's music by feeding a stream into an external program (mpg123, ogg123, vox, or whatever you setup in your conf file for a given MIME type, or file extension), so it was pretty easy to add ogg support.
Disclaimer#3: the tar-ball version is pretty good, but there were some minor changes to make it compile out of the box on Linux that are only in CVS. Likely there will be another tarball soon. for now if you use Linux, check it out of the CVS tree.
Disclaimer#4: the screenshots are old, it look better now :-)
The Criterion edition has all (many?) of the cut/edited scenes. Plus directors commentary on why the MPAA said to cut it, and why he thinks it makes the movie worse (in many cases seeming more violent). It is one of the first DVDs I bought.
Are you saying the 8bit palleted PNGs are bigger then GIFs? Those are the only ones you should be comparing for byte size with GIF, otherwise you are storing far more info in the PNG and expecting it to be smaller! 24bit PNG is comparable to TIFF (well the raw and lossless TIFF), not really JPG (unless you are looking at the rarely implemented lossless JPG).
I guess you;ll have to wait for the old Netscape to die. At least Mozilla, IE5+, and all the other (less popular) browsers I have tried recently (mostly on Mac OSX) seem to support PNG quite well.
No, you can't compare the waveforms to the original and declare the closest to be the winner. The goal is to get something that sounds the closest to the original, which is not the same as getting the closest waveform (unless one waveform matches). For example you can can omit frequencies that are masked by other frequencies, or alter the timings of others in complex ways and most people won't hear the difference.
The right test is double blind and to include the sound sample form all codecs plus the original (so you can discard anybody that claims codec X is clearly better then the original, since they aren't listening for reproduction, but for something else, like more bass, or volume or who knows).
MP3's that sound as good as the original will sound bad to dogs, because we made assumptions about the sound processing people do. they may sound even worse to aliens, then again they'll already be pissed we only do two channels (or 5.1) so their 28 ears will be useless (well, most of them...).
The only PPPoE setup I had anything to do with didn't down the link unless the other end failed to return the link state pings. So the connection was up unless your end gets turned off for a while (like say a laptop being suspended for 10 minutes).
I don't think so, and nobody mentioned any such way during PPPoE's working group stage, or at the IETF before it became a RFC. Nobody has drafted a working document since either.
Minimal effort, some hosts that don't want to be on the global internet, some that do. Bonus points if you can get more then one DHCP-DSL connection to work at once.
Would you like to do it now? Your going to have to add another machine in most cases to filter out the DHCP replies you don't want, and to route between the two sets of IP addresses (outside and inside), or assume you can already do that (hosts that support ethernet IP aliases can, many hosts can't -- some like OSX should, but won't).
Now, you can argue that PPPoE solves problems that don't need to be solved, but you sure can't argue that DHCP solves those problems. PPPoE was written (at least in part) by three very smart and very lazy people. They would have done the simpler task of nothing at all if DHCP would have worked.
You are quite wrong. It was tested in the lab down the hall from my office.
The DSL "modems" in question (they either had copper in their name, or rocket, or both) forwarded all PPPoE negotiation packets to the far end, and any PPPoE packets that were for a session established through them. However I guess some DSL "modems" could forward all packets (well, no more then 10% of them with a 1Mbit DSL pipe and a 10Mbit ethernet), or all PPPoE ethertypes regardless of session ID, which probably violates the RFC. I do know for sure that at least one gets it right.
Most DSL hardware I've had contact with (RedBacks for example) add a circuit ID to the DHCP request when they forward it (this was a working group draft three years ago, I expect it is in an RFC now). If you make your DHCP server limit the number of addresses given to any circuit ID that problem goes away. The DHCP server I wrote for (large-ISP-name-withheld) did that. That server could also force an IP address change every X hours.
I don't know of any ISP that doesn't oversubscribe T1's as well (as in 1000Mbits of T1's into the HUB, only 45Mbits of T3 out to other hubs -- except with far higher numbers on both sides nowadays). They just end to have something like a 2x to 5x oversubscription on T1s, but 100x or more on DSL.
Immature implementations (this will go away over time).
Two byte smaller MTU (the cost of being able to have more then one connection)
The rest of the reasons seem to be a pile of crap, or blaming PPPoE for how it is used rather then how it was designed, or what it can do (specifically fixed vs. dynamic IP addresses, the ISP can do either, just like the can with DHCP).
Why would it be unable to use PPPoE?
That is independent of PPPoE. PPPoE servers can be configured to give a static set of addresses. DHCP can be configure to not give preference to the most recently assigned address, and to not renew leases (I think a one hour minimum is needed to be complint with the RFC). I know, I've written just such a DHCP server (and it used RADIUS out the back end to verify service). Your points 3, 4, 5, and 6 are covered here as well.
Yeah, dynamic IP addresses do suck, at least when you actually want static ones. Having name service from someone who can switch your addresses at the drop of a hat only reduces the pain, you still lose connections that were active, and you still have a harder time setting filters. Don't blame PPPoE for that though, it can be set for static addresses if the provider wants.
Because it doesn't get in the way of an existing DHCP network. Really. It shouldn't get in the way of existing PPPoE networks, but since many PPPoE stacks are set to accept any server, I expect they actually will by default.
So imagine you have a bunch of machines at home set up to use DHCP, some of them would like to reach the global internet, others don't (say, your printers), and all of them would like to be pointed at your local printers, and your local nameservers. You can do that with DHCP. Unless you get a DSL connection from someone who insists on sending DHCP replies out that point everyone at the global net, and don't set printers, and set the wrong nameservers, and...
Plus you can use two (or more) PPPoE providers on the same ethernet, which is very hard to do with DHCP-based DSL.
The down side is stacks didn't evolve as fast as thought (in part because someone dumb in management at one of the companies that wrote the RFC didn't allow the implementations to be shared freely). It also has an MTU slightly (2 bytes?) smaller then straight ethernet, which was needed to allow multiple sessions on the same ethernet.
If I want to do anything the least bit complex I would fr rather have PPPoE. If I don't want to think at all DHCP is a slight edge.
It seems odd that so many slashdot readers want the not-thinking solution, but I guess DHCP is the older protocol, and it almost solves the problem, so hey, everyone's got it in their heads that it is better.
Think about it this way, it does a job DHCP can't quite do, basically the same job L2TP does, but with 150 pages less RFC (then L2TP). The PPPoE RFC is also shorter then DHCP, but I wouldn't expect that to be a big deal because a modern system will need both, but can get away with skiping L2TP because PPPoE exists.
Bull. The problem can be any of the following:
There are lots of fair and legal ways to use MP3's. Interfering with them may not be illegal, but I expect damaging equipment is.