That's exactly what I thought! I remember back in 1993-94 when my wife was at UIowa, hanging out at the IDS (Iowa Driving Simulator, as it was then called, back before it turned into NADS and got shiny new digs a few years later), watching her drive a Taurus around a simulated Iowa City (generated by an Evans and Sutherland CT-6) and crash into a simulated Quick Trip convenience store. The big current facility looks even more fun.
as a LOT of people would pay $5 for a high-quality version of a TV episode even when they could go and find the bittorrents.
$5 is a bit steep for my tastes, but I agree. Finding torrents does not mean winding up with the media you want, in a format you can use, without glitches, in a reasonable amount of time, and having the file 100% there.:(
One friend indicated that things refused to work in plaintext-password mode, but once he turned on encrypted passwords, they worked fine.
I'm not sure whether he had to turn on the encrypted passwords at the Mac end or the PC end, but I seem to recall thinking "gosh, imagine that, doing something the secure way."
Of course, given the usual course of things, it will instead be deployed at JFK's formerly-TWA terminal, assigned facial recognition tasks, and immediately declare everyone to be among the 10-most-wanted terrorists. I can't wait.
Yep! The orbit of the satellite needs to be known pretty well before they're willing to name it -- just to make sure it IS a satellite, and isn't going to A) fly off into space or B) crash into the planet after a few more orbits.:)
As many posters have pointed out, ID takes a conclusion... and try to find evidence to support it... This is not the scientific method and thus not science.
Eh... if "conclusion" means "statement of fact" (which I suppose it does in the ID case) then you're right. But scientists regularly reach conclusions (called hypothesis) and then try to find evidence to support them.
(And in physics and cosmology, if the evidence that's found doesn't quite fit, we just decide there must be some other mysterious thing causing the results... like planet X, or aether, or dark energy! *grin*)
I'm flattered that you think me so young and inexperienced. In actuality, before KHTML was even on the scene, I had already had multiple jobs that involved large amounts of "maintenance programming."
A maintenance programmer's input is code written by someone else years - or in one case decades - before, in some horrible paleolithic language (Fortran-4 machine converted to Fortran-77, anyone?), typically with no sense of "structure" and nothing useful in the way of internal documentation.
The job? Figure out what the code is doing, fix it (adding structure, etc.), document it, and then maintain and improve it for however long.
Yes, the codebases were, in all cases, way over 10000 lines. And no, we didn't have the niceties of CVS and so on.
So yes, I know full well how difficult this sort of thing is.
And if the government were to support or favor any religion they would have established a de facto official religion. Therefore it is impossible to be compliant with that law without a seperation of church and state.
All true. But if "intelligent design" consists of the belief that the Universe was designed and/or created by a supreme being of some sort... which religion does that favor? Many, probably most, if not all, religions have creation mythology, and creation myths tend to involve supreme beings.
Yes, I'm sure the folks in the state that brought us Senator Santorum probably have a particular supreme being in mind, but I think it should be quite possible to present a non-deity-specific version of "intelligent design" which would not endorse or advocate for any specific religion, and thus not violate the establishment clause.
As was suggested by Pad-Lok (and confirmed by me) there'll be plenty of things watching with a bit more resolution... just from further away. Maybe not all of the instrumentation will be imaging-related - I wouldn't be surprised to see some spectrography done too - but I know there'll be some imaging involved.
But they're not providing any help at all in making their changes useful to the KHTML team. So, there's no "collaboration" at all from Apple's side.
So, let me see if I've got this straight.
The KHTML team wrote a bunch of code. It worked, for the most part, but there were numerous areas in which it could be improved regarding standards support and whatever else.
Apple got the code, improved it, and gave the improved version back.
The KHTML team (or at least this particular member of it) is now whining because they can't understand their own code after someone else has made (presumably minor) improvements to it?
WTF? Are we dealing with C-happy Linux hackers here, or first-year CS students? The tone I'm getting is one of "please have your programmer, who you're paying, go over these changes you made, with us, one by one, and explain what you did and how you did it, since it's suddenly all Greek to us."
Personally, I have no expectation of KHTML somehow magically feature-matching Safari, given that Safari developers are paid to work on it full-time, don't have to worry about cross-platform compatibility, and so on. I don't personally know anybody who expects every feature that appears in Safari to quickly make its way into KHTML, but then again, I try to associate with non-delusional sorts.:)
Yep. Which of course makes it pretty difficult for TigerDirect.
"Yes, your honor, Apple had the audacity to the word "Tiger" in the four-word name of this product, when we were already using the word "Tiger" in our two-word name!"
Mmhmm. Right. That'll fly... sue anyone who uses any word in any name that you use in your name.
Pogue raving is no suprise either - heck, he writes Mac books.
Funny you should mention Turrott, though - he apparently gave Tiger a 4/5 rating and has some "Tiger feature of the day" thing going on some site of his. And he claims to have taken a PowerBook with him to WinHEC.:)
Heck, even beleagured companies that are going to die any day now, honest - like Apple - have billions of dollars just sitting in the bank in case they decide to buy something.
For values of "something" that exclude Real, obviously.
Like the necessary ingredients to get in the record books for "world's largest smores."
(Why yes, I have been awake too long, why do you ask?)
I was a little disappointed by the utter lack of an OS X client, but I fired up Virtual PC and Windows XP SP2 (finally! something to use XP for other than running Windows Update!:) and went to check it out. The signup screen indicated that I get 25 "listens" per month. I wonder what a "listen" is... that doesn't sound quite like a "download.":(
No, this is not the same SCO. From my hazy, it's 2:30 AM memory:
The Santa Cruz Operation was, by somewhere in the late '90s or so, not doing so well. Strangely, people seemed interested in this newfangled "Linux" thing. So SCO got borged by Caldera. I forget whether Caldera was already part of the Canopy group at that point, or became a part of it later, but bits of Caldera went into what's now called The SCO Group and what's now called... Tarantella, if I recall.
Okay, then, I guess we don't have to worry about it.:D
In an optical system such as a terrestrial cassegrain telescope, where the light passes through the Earth's atmosphere, hits a primary mirror, is reflected to a secondary mirror, then through a hole in the center of the primary mirror to, say, a CCD, there are optical limits (defined by physics that I don't know) beyond which the detail of distant objects cannot be resolved. The results of all this are what's known as "seeing."
For example, I know that on an exceptionally good night, the 2.2-meter telescope I operate can get down almost to 0.3 arcseconds seeing in some bands (on a less good night, it's more like 0.7 arcseconds). I know that the difference between 0.3 and 0.7 is due to conditions - temperature, humidity, wind, etc. - but I've been told that somewhere around 0.3 is the actual limit of the optics themselves.
Of course, if the instrument is designed so that it has a square field of view that's, say, 600 arcseconds on each side, and has a 1024x1024 sensor, anything below around.7-arcsecond seeing results in a sharper image than the sensor can represent. On the flip side, if it's a 2048x2048 sensor, anything worse than around.3-arcsecond seeing results in pixelation of the image to some extent.
I had thought that the diffraction limit was part of the optical limits, but I guess that must be diffraction by the atmosphere or something, since the particular light paths I'm thinking of don't involve any lenses. As a lowly operator, I don't understand the optics math.:(
(Still hoping this will somehow lead to a better, lighter, cheaper Takahashi refractor under the Christmas tree for me, though!:)
Windows NT 3-4 ran on the Alpha and MIPS, yes. I know. I have that OS media, though I lack the CPUs.
Windows Server 200x ran on IA64 (FSVO "ran").
That said, in terms of versions of Windows that Joe User might actually have, running on hardware that Joe User might actually have... this is big news.
(Especially if you look at Windows on previous 64-bit platforms, as a percentage of total installed base...)
Slashdot Mirror
That's exactly what I thought! I remember back in 1993-94 when my wife was at UIowa, hanging out at the IDS (Iowa Driving Simulator, as it was then called, back before it turned into NADS and got shiny new digs a few years later), watching her drive a Taurus around a simulated Iowa City (generated by an Evans and Sutherland CT-6) and crash into a simulated Quick Trip convenience store. The big current facility looks even more fun.
...the cybernetic monkey spanks you.
One friend indicated that things refused to work in plaintext-password mode, but once he turned on encrypted passwords, they worked fine.
I'm not sure whether he had to turn on the encrypted passwords at the Mac end or the PC end, but I seem to recall thinking "gosh, imagine that, doing something the secure way."
Of course, given the usual course of things, it will instead be deployed at JFK's formerly-TWA terminal, assigned facial recognition tasks, and immediately declare everyone to be among the 10-most-wanted terrorists. I can't wait.
Yep! The orbit of the satellite needs to be known pretty well before they're willing to name it -- just to make sure it IS a satellite, and isn't going to A) fly off into space or B) crash into the planet after a few more orbits. :)
In the case of dark matter and dark energy, I think the conclusion fits the lack of evidence. ;)
(And in physics and cosmology, if the evidence that's found doesn't quite fit, we just decide there must be some other mysterious thing causing the results... like planet X, or aether, or dark energy! *grin*)
I'm flattered that you think me so young and inexperienced. In actuality, before KHTML was even on the scene, I had already had multiple jobs that involved large amounts of "maintenance programming."
A maintenance programmer's input is code written by someone else years - or in one case decades - before, in some horrible paleolithic language (Fortran-4 machine converted to Fortran-77, anyone?), typically with no sense of "structure" and nothing useful in the way of internal documentation.
The job? Figure out what the code is doing, fix it (adding structure, etc.), document it, and then maintain and improve it for however long.
Yes, the codebases were, in all cases, way over 10000 lines. And no, we didn't have the niceties of CVS and so on.
So yes, I know full well how difficult this sort of thing is.
Yes, I'm sure the folks in the state that brought us Senator Santorum probably have a particular supreme being in mind, but I think it should be quite possible to present a non-deity-specific version of "intelligent design" which would not endorse or advocate for any specific religion, and thus not violate the establishment clause.
As was suggested by Pad-Lok (and confirmed by me) there'll be plenty of things watching with a bit more resolution... just from further away. Maybe not all of the instrumentation will be imaging-related - I wouldn't be surprised to see some spectrography done too - but I know there'll be some imaging involved.
Alas, I think someone else gets to operate that night on the one I run, so I guess I'll just go hang out and watch.
But they're not providing any help at all in making their changes useful to the KHTML team. So, there's no "collaboration" at all from Apple's side.
:)
So, let me see if I've got this straight.
The KHTML team wrote a bunch of code. It worked, for the most part, but there were numerous areas in which it could be improved regarding standards support and whatever else.
Apple got the code, improved it, and gave the improved version back.
The KHTML team (or at least this particular member of it) is now whining because they can't understand their own code after someone else has made (presumably minor) improvements to it?
WTF? Are we dealing with C-happy Linux hackers here, or first-year CS students? The tone I'm getting is one of "please have your programmer, who you're paying, go over these changes you made, with us, one by one, and explain what you did and how you did it, since it's suddenly all Greek to us."
Personally, I have no expectation of KHTML somehow magically feature-matching Safari, given that Safari developers are paid to work on it full-time, don't have to worry about cross-platform compatibility, and so on. I don't personally know anybody who expects every feature that appears in Safari to quickly make its way into KHTML, but then again, I try to associate with non-delusional sorts.
Yep. Which of course makes it pretty difficult for TigerDirect.
"Yes, your honor, Apple had the audacity to the word "Tiger" in the four-word name of this product, when we were already using the word "Tiger" in our two-word name!"
Mmhmm. Right. That'll fly... sue anyone who uses any word in any name that you use in your name.
Pogue raving is no suprise either - heck, he writes Mac books.
:)
Funny you should mention Turrott, though - he apparently gave Tiger a 4/5 rating and has some "Tiger feature of the day" thing going on some site of his. And he claims to have taken a PowerBook with him to WinHEC.
Heck, even beleagured companies that are going to die any day now, honest - like Apple - have billions of dollars just sitting in the bank in case they decide to buy something.
For values of "something" that exclude Real, obviously.
Like the necessary ingredients to get in the record books for "world's largest smores."
(Why yes, I have been awake too long, why do you ask?)
You need a credit card because Apple is selling you those songs.
:)
Admittedly, they're selling them for $0.00 plus tax, but they're selling them, you get a receipt, and all that.
But I don't know how they split the $0.00 up between Apple, the labels, etc. I bet the artist gets screwed, though, and gets $0.00 out of it.
I was a little disappointed by the utter lack of an OS X client, but I fired up Virtual PC and Windows XP SP2 (finally! something to use XP for other than running Windows Update! :) and went to check it out. The signup screen indicated that I get 25 "listens" per month. I wonder what a "listen" is... that doesn't sound quite like a "download." :(
No, this is not the same SCO. From my hazy, it's 2:30 AM memory:
The Santa Cruz Operation was, by somewhere in the late '90s or so, not doing so well. Strangely, people seemed interested in this newfangled "Linux" thing. So SCO got borged by Caldera. I forget whether Caldera was already part of the Canopy group at that point, or became a part of it later, but bits of Caldera went into what's now called The SCO Group and what's now called... Tarantella, if I recall.
Okay, then, I guess we don't have to worry about it. :D
.7-arcsecond seeing results in a sharper image than the sensor can represent. On the flip side, if it's a 2048x2048 sensor, anything worse than around .3-arcsecond seeing results in pixelation of the image to some extent.
:(
:)
In an optical system such as a terrestrial cassegrain telescope, where the light passes through the Earth's atmosphere, hits a primary mirror, is reflected to a secondary mirror, then through a hole in the center of the primary mirror to, say, a CCD, there are optical limits (defined by physics that I don't know) beyond which the detail of distant objects cannot be resolved. The results of all this are what's known as "seeing."
For example, I know that on an exceptionally good night, the 2.2-meter telescope I operate can get down almost to 0.3 arcseconds seeing in some bands (on a less good night, it's more like 0.7 arcseconds). I know that the difference between 0.3 and 0.7 is due to conditions - temperature, humidity, wind, etc. - but I've been told that somewhere around 0.3 is the actual limit of the optics themselves.
Of course, if the instrument is designed so that it has a square field of view that's, say, 600 arcseconds on each side, and has a 1024x1024 sensor, anything below around
I had thought that the diffraction limit was part of the optical limits, but I guess that must be diffraction by the atmosphere or something, since the particular light paths I'm thinking of don't involve any lenses. As a lowly operator, I don't understand the optics math.
(Still hoping this will somehow lead to a better, lighter, cheaper Takahashi refractor under the Christmas tree for me, though!
I don't suppose they'll find a way to apply this to mirrors, too?
:)
Though if it's just lenses, we might still see some very nice next-generation refracting telescopes.
Apple: Microsoft is copying the features we're shipping!
Microsoft: Apple is copying the features we haven't shipped!
Agreed. There were probably 64-bit CPUs out there before Linux existed. :)
Cool. PAE must really come in handy on all those x86 boxen with room for 64GB of RAM. But there seem to be a few catches.
Windows NT 3-4 ran on the Alpha and MIPS, yes. I know. I have that OS media, though I lack the CPUs.
Windows Server 200x ran on IA64 (FSVO "ran").
That said, in terms of versions of Windows that Joe User might actually have, running on hardware that Joe User might actually have... this is big news.
(Especially if you look at Windows on previous 64-bit platforms, as a percentage of total installed base...)
That said, I do, technically, sit corrected.