Visual exam shows the Ti PBG4 has the following ports:
1 firewire
2 USB
1 VGA
1 SVideo
1 PCMCIA slot (behind a very spiffy grill, and the release button looks like it was lathed from Ti.)
All except the PCMCIA card are protected by a 1 to 2 mm Li hinged door.
Bulk friendly hosting... While i've not looked at Media3's AUP, I'd like to think that a "hand's off" policy under other circumstances (they won't kill your MP3's or your Unreal T. server) would be lauded. If the AUPmakes provisions for shutting down a site based on violations of applicable law (and that's a fuzzy area), and it's *enforced*, their business should be allowed to continue. Basically, I think MAPS, to which I subscribe, is not using enough discretion to prevent Media3's non bulk distributing customers from being affected by other clients.
Nmap... Love the tool, use it freqently to check network security. But, note the argument has been made that it is a "Script kiddie" tool and for that reason, folks want to make it and other tools illegal, by international treaty.
As for legit uses of bulk software (Millions Vol. 6, say) not sure. I think it'd be interesting, from an administrative standpoint, to see what the main domains listed are... Do AOL/Hotmail/Yahoo e-mail users fall prey to name guessing schemes to be included in such a product? Are they careless about posting their address in forums and in the clear on webpages? In essence, use the tools the spammers use to limit your own vulnerability...
I had to chuckle at points throughout the article. I spoke with Joe Hayes at Media3, and he told me that the company does not tolerate websites which promote themselves through spam. Of course not! But software to spam the customers of other ISPs, well that's just fine!
So, and I'm drawing some conclusions here, Napster should have been shut down because they provide a service that enables distribution in methods that the rightful copyright holder has not agreed to?
Censorware blocking of nmap's site is legit because it (conceivably) could be put to evil uses. At least, that's what I think you're suggesting here.
The point is, while I don't know where you stand on the issue, it's hypocritical to proclaim freedom for one favored product that can be used within the realm of the law and say another product under different circumstances (but with a potential legal use) isn't worth the same protection. Even if we disagree with their philosophy.
Can it really be that hard to target the biggest freakin object in our solar system??
We can point the jets at the sun all we want, but there's still that whole gravity thing to contend with. It's how objects either stay in orbit or fall back to earth.
It would take a lot more ooompf to get Mir to the sun than it would be to push it past critical orbit decay. Consider, getting to the sun would require competing not only with our gravity, but the moon's, venus' and likely Jupiter's. It's not just point it at the sun and let fly. Gravity has a nifty way of making satelites slingshot around larger bodies.
So what would we need? A booster to get it out of Earth orbit with enough juice left over for something of that mass to navigate though the solar system without orbiting something else. Not trivial. And probably more that $40 million and much riskier than the current plan.
how do you distinguish the good from the bad? In the specific case of sports coverage, does the fact that you can create a fan site with Front Page give you the right to press credentials? Why not?
Speaking strictly for myself, but in the context of working for an online operation that occasionally covers NBA basketball...
We've been given second-tier status for a few reasons. Allow me to speculate:
In addition to myself or our online sports producer, my company generally sends two beat reporters, one columnist, one or two reporters, and a few times, a third reporter on general assignment to cover non-game related news (fan/player human interest). Now, most of those folks occupy prime space with the radio and TV broadcasting crew on press row. The rest of us get first row balconey seats. Why the unequitable treatment? Well, for one thing, the bulk of my company's coverage is in print. My material is transitionary only (until we update with print in the morning). My organization gets a few choice spots. So, I sit elsewhere.
But why do the other online folks sit with me?
For one, we compete with NBA.com for viewership/readership. It's not a problem in regards to game-day access to players or the game itself. But, at least to me, we're not being given the choice seats with the competition in mind. Secondly, I don't think college or professional athletics fully takes online sports journalism seriously. Why? Because we're not Espn, TNT or NBC? Currently ESPN has a sweatheart deal to put NBA.com together. NBC and TNT own the broadcast rights. TV gets the prime access because that's where the cooperative revenue comes from.
Outside of the big players, there really isn't an solitary online crew that can easily prove they aren't just a fan with FrontPage. It will take a while to get in the door. Until then, we need to show up consistently, file consistently and pay our dues. We need to build our credibility, something ESPN, NBC, TNT and my employer's print side has already done. My online collegues have a ways to go.
Ultimately, we need to do such good work that it raises the attention of the teams we cover. It needs to be better and faster than other mediums. They need to take their own notice of what's good and what's crap. And that's hard. We can't tell them. Everyone needs to discover it for themselves. It's only when that happens will our access equal what others get.
As for the Olympics, you'll notice that NBC got preferential treatment across the board. No online only operations since that would compete directly with NBCOlympics.com. No simultanious US TV coverage, since that would abridge NBC's exclusive broadcast rights. When the Track and Field Trials were in town, the local NBC affiliate couldn't get all they wanted because it was reserved for the network.,
My point: online Journalism has a ways to travel yet. I'm very happy to travel the path. Yes, I bitch about inequity. But the hard work of convincing others of our quality is our burden. Until then, we do the best work we can possibly deliver. It's the only way these "slights" in favor of the established players will change.
Am I missing something here? Buy an ipaq for $50 more and get less? I don't think so.
OK, I shell out $500 for an iPaq. What do I get? While the MS-ness is nice for some (I'm not dissing it, it serves a purpose), I lose flexibility. Instead of being able to exchange e-cards with 70 percent of folks at a trade show, I'd be stuck handing out/taking paper cards. The battery life is much shorter. OTOH, I could spend $179 or less and get a Handspring Visor or Palm m100 that can share data vith any other visor, Palm III series, Palm V series or Palm VII. Plus, the platform is capable of synching on multiple platforms (Mac OS, Windows, Linux...). Disagree all you like, but to me that's far and away more important that seeing a windows logo on my PDA.
An OS strictly for PDA's? That is a BAD idea. What happened if every single desktop machine was running linux, every small-medium server running NT, every *LARGE* server running HPOS or some other strange OS and all our PDA's were running PalmOS? All this diversity can't be good for the average people, there are too many things to learn.
I don't think you give people enough credit. Secondly, I think you're my point too far, I'm not talking desktop attributes, just handhelds. Third I don't think Linux would be where you'd start with for desktop's. By your argument, Windows would be. Fourth, why argue against diversity when the alternative is the mediocrity of oneness? What I'm saying is that the Palm OS UI works *better* than the Windows metaphor in a handheld device. Also, WinCE is a poor choice if you want to argue consistency. Each manufacturer gets to customize their implimentation of WinCE to fit the device. Not that it's bad, but it certainly doesn't make for cross-device cohesiveness.
If (a disturbing thought) the whole world was running windows, there would be no problems with compatability.
Surely, you jest.
You shouldn't have said this. This is exactly what the Palm's are becoming, the Prism a prime example. So in theory Palm's are no better.
Ah, but then I get the choice between a Palm m100, Palm IIIxe, Handspring Visor and a Handspring Prism? I should clarify. It's not that I don't think the kitchen sink should be included in any devices. I think experimenting with wireless modems and GPS devices is pretty sweet. But, for the college student I was two years ago, all I really needed was the ability I got in a Palm III and what I could now get in an m100. Small form factor, relatively inexpensive and impliments the core functions of the PDA well. No kitchen sink.
Yes. Lots of people are running windows on their desktops... and its not *just* this that makes it better. Its a hell of a lot more powerful and capable of a lot more, for just $50 more. Why wouldn't you buy one?
Well, for one thing, we're saying $50 more. $50 more than what? My Palm IIIxe was $220. The windows thing is, to me, a non-factor. SW exists on both sides making various bits compatible with Excel, Word and Outlook. Better yet, I'm not tied to those models w/ a Palm. I have a wider choice of what I want to sync my data with across three platforms.
More powerful? I can see where some would need it, but then, I think they'd be better served by a laptop (VAIO comes to mind). Do you edit Powerpoint presentations from a PDA? (the actual merits of powerpoint presentations being a separate argument).
Finally, why wouldn't I buy one? On top of what I've presented, I use Mac OS X and Linux. The iPaq is compatible with neither.
The improvement is where you find it. Having owned three Palm III series devices and about to acquire a Vx, I can tell you there've been several improvements along the way.
Palm IIIx: mo memory and a better screen than the III, making things like remote inventory control and AvantGo much more reasonable.
Palm IIIe: new, inexpensive pricepoint
Palm V: made handhelds less geek devices and more a high style replacement for exec's Franklin planners. This form factor has done more to advance Palm's in my organization than anything else.
Palm VII: Wireless net support.
OmniSky for Palm V: Suddenly my dept. manager is asking what the limitations of what the wireless web are. The answer: I don't know yet, but I'll have fun finding out.
So, while they function in the same fashion as your III, they've all been welcome changes and really improved the platform w/o compromising what makes it great: small size, excellent battery life.
won't kill Palm/Handspring for the same reason the Mac OS, BeOS and OS/2 have never killed Windows. Volume, volume, volume. Why buy an iPaq when there aren't nearly as many applications available, isn't cross platform and comes from a company who's focus is not on that market (as opposed to Palm and Handspring)?
Now, I suppose you could make the argument that lack of a user base and support shouldn't really matter. Witness Linux prior to the 2.2 kernel. However, in the case of the iPaq, you're paying more and somehow ending up with less. WinCE was an attempt to scale down windows, not an attempt to make a fast, versitile OS strictly for handheld devices. It's not to say WinCE is w/o it's merits (PocketOffice?), but that in the grander scheme, they're less important.
Aside from forcing a destop/Start menu metaphor into real-estate that doesn't support the idea, WinCE device makers made the error of trying to include the kitchen sink in their devices. It has MP3's (one or two initially, big whoop)! It's color (but the battery life kills you)! It has larger screen real estate (and no longer fits in your front pants pocket)!
Also, where are the sub $170 WinCE devices?
Finally, whether I choose a Palm or Handspring, the sw is compatible (HW compatibility was/is/will be an issue). It can be exchanged easily and with a wide group of people. In this light, is the iPaq really worth spending $50 more?
I'll type slowly so you can keep up with the rest of us.
If the allegation is not substantiated (that means proof, if you're curious), there is no valid claim. I'm not ignoring the point. I merely asking that before wild allegations are thrown about, someone actually provide some evidence (that proof thing again, go fig.) that what's being alleged actually has some basis in reality.
In the meantime, you really aren't a convicing argument for that whole 'calm thing'. Just so you know. Have another Krispy Kreme to settle those cravings.
Method for creating a new universe from a singularity
Abstract:
A method for starting a new UNIVERSE from a singularity which will cause apparent irregular expansion and development into astronomic bodies and features such as PULSARS, QUASARS, GALAXIES, GALAXY CLUSTERS, NEBULA, NOVA, SUPERNOVA, STARS (SINGULAR and BINARY), STAR SYSTEMS, PLANETS, MOONS, COMETS, ASTEROIDS, BLACK HOLES radiating energy for an indefinite period of TIME then possibly expiring due to absolute conversion of MATTER to HEAT and/or constriction into a similar singularity.
Using a galactic singularity (a point of infintismally small size, w/o immediately measurable dimension or mass) to manufacture a UNIVERSE (application 1). The UNIVERSE is created by gathering all known matter into a singularity. Then, the singularity is explosively destroyed, spreading all gathered matter in all directions at a near infinite variety of velocities. Lighter matter is cast farther away from the singularity.
This UNIVERSE will also define physical limitations and expectations as it grows. Currently, said UNIVERSE may or may not reach an outer limit of expansion. Further, the UNIVERSE may, at some future point, return to a state of singularity.
As the universe expands, energy radiation (radio, infrared, light, ultraviolet and other 'cosmic' transmissions) will vary from point to point. As matter travels away from a stationary point (though all matter in this universe travels along a variety of axis) said radiations will appear to be lower in frequency. As matter approaches, it will appear to be higher in frequency. This is, within the realms of the present point of observation (the collective derivative work PLANET, separately documented) is the LOW/HIGH SHIFTY THINGY EFFECT (application 1, addendum BS).
As the UNIVERSE expands and (potentially) contracts, matter distribution is likely to be unevenly distributed as observed from any single stationary point. This however, is not likely to be a case, and an intentional design consideration (a.k.a BUG, sub derivative of derivative work PLANET). Energy from other portions of the UNIVERSE has been limited to appox. 299,792 KILOMETERS per SECOND (sub works of DISTANCE and TIME, both derivative of both PLANET and UNIVERSE) in the visible light spectrum. Other energy radiations have WAVELENGTH (1, addendum DA) variances, but are currently speed constant.
Said energy transmissions will carry meaningful data about other portions of the UNIVERSE, including, but not limited to PULSARS, QUASARS, GALAXIES, GALAXY CLUSTERS, NEBULA, NOVA, SUPERNOVA, STARS (SINGULAR and BINARY), STAR SYSTEMS, PLANETS, MOONS, COMETS, ASTEROIDS, BLACK HOLES (applications 4-16 respective) and other particulate matter LIGHT and DARK (applications 2 and 3). Finally, the UNIVERSE exists largely by converting matter into HEAT. It is a design consideration that said UNIVERSE may cease operation after all matter has been converted to HEAT.
A DINING FACILITY (application 13, addendum ADAMS) may or may not exist near the point at which the UNIVERSE (potentially) returns to singularity.
I have no idea if this is odd or not, but I spent the better part of one semester taking notes by hand then later transcribing them on my 'puter. The way I figured, I retained more by 1) seeing the material twice in a short span of time 2) being able to fill in details I might not have fully written down the first time 3) actually be able to read and understand what I wrote three months down the line.
Well, my instructor gets wind and asks to *buy* a copy of my notes as a way of checking what material was being considered important and understood by the student vs. his own impressions. Yes, he was a very good instructor. One of my favorites.
No! And thank goodness. Out here in CA, we like the Ninth Circuit Court. They have one of them nasty liberal tendencies to toss out laws that restrict the first amendment.
I don't think anyone's suggesting he didn't say it. But what I think many Mac users are submitting for consideration is that:
1) It wasn't the wisest thing to promise.
2) There's a really good reason why Gil is no longer CEO of Apple. He wasn't cutting the mustard.
3) Rather than hold to a promise with a crappy OS, improve what you have as much as you can (OS 8.6/9) for those who might be left behind with the new OS you are really going to bank your company's future on (OS X).
Personally, I'll add the following: since the OS X strategy was announced (not rhapsody), Apple has been very consistent about what hardware would and would not be officially supported. G3s and G4s yes, 604 PCI systems, maybe. Everything else, um, it's dated and it's time to upgrade.
It's not Apple's agreement with IBM, it's IBM's agreement with Motorola that's holding things up.
IBM chose not to include Altivec with their version of the G4 initially, then later licensed it from Motorola after Apple screamed for more chip volume and Motorola couldn't keep up with demand for a 500 MHz chip.
Come July/August, Motorola is still having severe yeild problems with their manufacturing process. IBM OTOH, has, if both you and I recall correctly, a much better yeild of higher MHz G4's. I'm sure Apple would love to have them, but IBM's agreement probably stipulates they can't speed bump Motorola.
So, until Motorola pulls their manufacturing process out of the doldrums, we're stuck for a bit. See the archives at MacOSRumors for some completely unsubstantiated background. BTW, this post assumes they *aren't* fabricating their site.
tcsh, ugghhh. 'Course, my main reason for not liking it is because I already have my pref's set in bash and i simply port my config files from boxen to boxen (so far, 3 linux boxes and OpenBSD).
What's weird is that my understanding is that as late as DP3, Apple was distributing multiple shells (bash, tcsh, ksh, zsh). I'd be a little curious as to why they stopped. I suppose they could argue so folks don't mess things up. But then, why did they ship Terminal.app as part of the default install?
So, until I get a compiler, I guess i'm SOL. Of course, the question I have is whether or not MacOS X supports a ports tree? IIRC, that pretty much delivers the binary, yes?
That said, I signed myself up as an online developer through ADC so I could get access to the dev tools they'll be releasing for Mac OS X shortly. If I don't fsck my system up by pulling from Darwin CVS first.
I am SO not thrilled with the damage I just put on my card. However, three things are keeping me from really getting upset over it.
1. The system's been through four developer releases already. Plus, it's built on BSD, which if my brief OpenBSD experience is at all indicitive, it should be pretty stable.
2. I paid retail for RedHat 6, essentially so I could get the manual that goes with it. Some say *that* was beta quality stuff... Turned out allright.
3. My employer's getting the expense report this morning. I mean, hey, I'm testing this for them.
Well, I'd imagine Apple is being fairly pragmatic. That while they have a loyal, frenzied user base (of which I am one), which follows the rumors sites religiously, there are er, some issues.
some users are blockheads (no, not cube users, blockheads)
Some times, keyboard shortcuts and a black terminal line is enough to make some users cry for their mothers
some users don't know or barely hear the fact that this is BETA and coo and go "pretty!"
that those same users, when the BETA doesn't quite work with everything (including that same pirated copy of Photoshop 4 ALL mac users have 'cept me) they are going to bitch a cacophany that will heard far and wide.
with this knowledge, Apple's going to hold back the unwashed (but not smelly, cuz our poo don't stink) masses
Hence, Apple's playing the scare card and saying "Don't look directly at the CD, it'll blind you unless you're willing to fork over 1.5 GB of HD space, 128 megs of ram, your first AND second born, etc, etc, ad nauseum, MIGHT CAUSE DATA LOSS don't operate Air Traffic Control system or Nuclear Power Facilities, blah blah blah.
Fact is, there will likely be some hairy moments coming out in the next coupla weeks (or, whenever they ship the things). Best leave it to the professionals who:
Will read the user documentation
understand they is a good liklihood of some sort of breakage.
Realize they're helping upgrade the standard for an end-user operating system
Can get themselves out of the trouble they get themselves into
And, of course, broadcast media are more powerful for their one-way nature. If the Internet were that great at gaining exposure for ideas, you can be sure that advertisers would be shelling out millions to get their 30 second spot up on Yahoo. AFAIK, this hasn't happened yet
Actually, the Net is fantastic for getting ideas exposed. So long as you choose to be exposed to areas of the net that expose new ideas (yes, it's circular, it's meant to be). And actually, I doubt you'll see millions for the 30 second spot on Yahoo. The beauty of this is that it doesn't have to be 30 seconds. It doesn't have to be full page. It can be whatever it wants (or needs) to be to a target audience.
Sure, Yahoo gets a lot of eyeballs, but how many of them are the eyeballs *you* want to sell to?
As for the content filtering mechanism of the Net, you are absolutely correct. But don't think for a second this is a bad thing. I happen to think I'm *more* informed now than I was in the past. It's simply a matter of what I choose to expose myself, and what those exposures leave to. Anyone can live in a vacuum. I actually think it's harder to maintain a firm wall on your preferred views on the Net than, say, Talk Radio.
As for breadth of opinion, I find the Net to be far vaster than what is available to me on Network broadcasts, or indeed, from my own employer. They have concerns with presenting what is a *balance* of coverage at the expense of everything but what they know has a resonable response from their audience.
The Net knows no limitations. A newspaper is limited by the costs of production and distribution offset by what people are willing to pay in for advertising and in subscriptions. Network news is limited by ratings tied to advertising dollars, which generally limits most stations to 2 hours of news per night, with at least an hour of that, largely repetition.
Now, it could be argued the Net is also subject to economic forces. I'll agree, but suggest that economics is not nearly the limitation online as it is off. Anyone can put a site online with no capital investment. It would be very difficult to get a minority view expressed offline without spending money. Now, whether or not anyone will see that viewpoint is another matter. But it is out there, and very feasible for me to see it.
So what does this all come down to? Largely a matter of choices and who makes them. Offline, a group of learned editors make decisions based on what's been covered previously, how it could affect the audience, and also (rightly or wrongly) their perception of knowledge among themselves, the reporter and the audience about a particular subject.
The Net need not have any of these restrictions. Thus, the experience is (and will be) largely what we make of it ourselves, not what we are currently limited to by others.
The key, i believe, is to let the medium live as it evolves, without adjustment or compensation to make it more acceptible to the status quo. The key is forcing the status quo to catch up.
Slashdot Mirror
Uh, there's no floppy drive. I had my grubby hands on one for a little while today. and there's no room for one... And yes, that screen is very sveet.
There is, however, a Type III PC card on the left side.
Visual exam shows the Ti PBG4 has the following ports:
1 firewire
2 USB
1 VGA
1 SVideo
1 PCMCIA slot (behind a very spiffy grill, and the release button looks like it was lathed from Ti.)
All except the PCMCIA card are protected by a 1 to 2 mm Li hinged door.
Add to that the XHML/CSS compliant version/>
Nmap... Love the tool, use it freqently to check network security. But, note the argument has been made that it is a "Script kiddie" tool and for that reason, folks want to make it and other tools illegal, by international treaty.
As for legit uses of bulk software (Millions Vol. 6, say) not sure. I think it'd be interesting, from an administrative standpoint, to see what the main domains listed are... Do AOL/Hotmail/Yahoo e-mail users fall prey to name guessing schemes to be included in such a product? Are they careless about posting their address in forums and in the clear on webpages? In essence, use the tools the spammers use to limit your own vulnerability...
So, and I'm drawing some conclusions here, Napster should have been shut down because they provide a service that enables distribution in methods that the rightful copyright holder has not agreed to?
Censorware blocking of nmap's site is legit because it (conceivably) could be put to evil uses. At least, that's what I think you're suggesting here.
The point is, while I don't know where you stand on the issue, it's hypocritical to proclaim freedom for one favored product that can be used within the realm of the law and say another product under different circumstances (but with a potential legal use) isn't worth the same protection. Even if we disagree with their philosophy.
We can point the jets at the sun all we want, but there's still that whole gravity thing to contend with. It's how objects either stay in orbit or fall back to earth.
It would take a lot more ooompf to get Mir to the sun than it would be to push it past critical orbit decay. Consider, getting to the sun would require competing not only with our gravity, but the moon's, venus' and likely Jupiter's. It's not just point it at the sun and let fly. Gravity has a nifty way of making satelites slingshot around larger bodies.
So what would we need? A booster to get it out of Earth orbit with enough juice left over for something of that mass to navigate though the solar system without orbiting something else. Not trivial. And probably more that $40 million and much riskier than the current plan.
Speaking strictly for myself, but in the context of working for an online operation that occasionally covers NBA basketball...
We've been given second-tier status for a few reasons. Allow me to speculate:
In addition to myself or our online sports producer, my company generally sends two beat reporters, one columnist, one or two reporters, and a few times, a third reporter on general assignment to cover non-game related news (fan/player human interest). Now, most of those folks occupy prime space with the radio and TV broadcasting crew on press row. The rest of us get first row balconey seats. Why the unequitable treatment? Well, for one thing, the bulk of my company's coverage is in print. My material is transitionary only (until we update with print in the morning). My organization gets a few choice spots. So, I sit elsewhere.
But why do the other online folks sit with me?
For one, we compete with NBA.com for viewership/readership. It's not a problem in regards to game-day access to players or the game itself. But, at least to me, we're not being given the choice seats with the competition in mind. Secondly, I don't think college or professional athletics fully takes online sports journalism seriously. Why? Because we're not Espn, TNT or NBC? Currently ESPN has a sweatheart deal to put NBA.com together. NBC and TNT own the broadcast rights. TV gets the prime access because that's where the cooperative revenue comes from.
Outside of the big players, there really isn't an solitary online crew that can easily prove they aren't just a fan with FrontPage. It will take a while to get in the door. Until then, we need to show up consistently, file consistently and pay our dues. We need to build our credibility, something ESPN, NBC, TNT and my employer's print side has already done. My online collegues have a ways to go.
Ultimately, we need to do such good work that it raises the attention of the teams we cover. It needs to be better and faster than other mediums. They need to take their own notice of what's good and what's crap. And that's hard. We can't tell them. Everyone needs to discover it for themselves. It's only when that happens will our access equal what others get.
As for the Olympics, you'll notice that NBC got preferential treatment across the board. No online only operations since that would compete directly with NBCOlympics.com. No simultanious US TV coverage, since that would abridge NBC's exclusive broadcast rights. When the Track and Field Trials were in town, the local NBC affiliate couldn't get all they wanted because it was reserved for the network.,
My point: online Journalism has a ways to travel yet. I'm very happy to travel the path. Yes, I bitch about inequity. But the hard work of convincing others of our quality is our burden. Until then, we do the best work we can possibly deliver. It's the only way these "slights" in favor of the established players will change.
Uh, I as a Mac person, did not say that. Nor did he speak for the community.
OK, I shell out $500 for an iPaq. What do I get? While the MS-ness is nice for some (I'm not dissing it, it serves a purpose), I lose flexibility. Instead of being able to exchange e-cards with 70 percent of folks at a trade show, I'd be stuck handing out/taking paper cards. The battery life is much shorter. OTOH, I could spend $179 or less and get a Handspring Visor or Palm m100 that can share data vith any other visor, Palm III series, Palm V series or Palm VII. Plus, the platform is capable of synching on multiple platforms (Mac OS, Windows, Linux...). Disagree all you like, but to me that's far and away more important that seeing a windows logo on my PDA.
An OS strictly for PDA's? That is a BAD idea. What happened if every single desktop machine was running linux, every small-medium server running NT, every *LARGE* server running HPOS or some other strange OS and all our PDA's were running PalmOS? All this diversity can't be good for the average people, there are too many things to learn.
I don't think you give people enough credit. Secondly, I think you're my point too far, I'm not talking desktop attributes, just handhelds. Third I don't think Linux would be where you'd start with for desktop's. By your argument, Windows would be. Fourth, why argue against diversity when the alternative is the mediocrity of oneness? What I'm saying is that the Palm OS UI works *better* than the Windows metaphor in a handheld device. Also, WinCE is a poor choice if you want to argue consistency. Each manufacturer gets to customize their implimentation of WinCE to fit the device. Not that it's bad, but it certainly doesn't make for cross-device cohesiveness.
If (a disturbing thought) the whole world was running windows, there would be no problems with compatability.
Surely, you jest.
You shouldn't have said this. This is exactly what the Palm's are becoming, the Prism a prime example. So in theory Palm's are no better.
Ah, but then I get the choice between a Palm m100, Palm IIIxe, Handspring Visor and a Handspring Prism? I should clarify. It's not that I don't think the kitchen sink should be included in any devices. I think experimenting with wireless modems and GPS devices is pretty sweet. But, for the college student I was two years ago, all I really needed was the ability I got in a Palm III and what I could now get in an m100. Small form factor, relatively inexpensive and impliments the core functions of the PDA well. No kitchen sink.
Yes. Lots of people are running windows on their desktops... and its not *just* this that makes it better. Its a hell of a lot more powerful and capable of a lot more, for just $50 more. Why wouldn't you buy one?
Well, for one thing, we're saying $50 more. $50 more than what? My Palm IIIxe was $220. The windows thing is, to me, a non-factor. SW exists on both sides making various bits compatible with Excel, Word and Outlook. Better yet, I'm not tied to those models w/ a Palm. I have a wider choice of what I want to sync my data with across three platforms.
More powerful? I can see where some would need it, but then, I think they'd be better served by a laptop (VAIO comes to mind). Do you edit Powerpoint presentations from a PDA? (the actual merits of powerpoint presentations being a separate argument).
Finally, why wouldn't I buy one? On top of what I've presented, I use Mac OS X and Linux. The iPaq is compatible with neither.
Now, I suppose you could make the argument that lack of a user base and support shouldn't really matter. Witness Linux prior to the 2.2 kernel. However, in the case of the iPaq, you're paying more and somehow ending up with less. WinCE was an attempt to scale down windows, not an attempt to make a fast, versitile OS strictly for handheld devices. It's not to say WinCE is w/o it's merits (PocketOffice?), but that in the grander scheme, they're less important.
Aside from forcing a destop/Start menu metaphor into real-estate that doesn't support the idea, WinCE device makers made the error of trying to include the kitchen sink in their devices. It has MP3's (one or two initially, big whoop)! It's color (but the battery life kills you)! It has larger screen real estate (and no longer fits in your front pants pocket)!
Also, where are the sub $170 WinCE devices?
Finally, whether I choose a Palm or Handspring, the sw is compatible (HW compatibility was/is/will be an issue). It can be exchanged easily and with a wide group of people. In this light, is the iPaq really worth spending $50 more?
In fact, I typically have to offer the "Extra Hot" incantation to bring them back into compliance.
If the allegation is not substantiated (that means proof, if you're curious), there is no valid claim. I'm not ignoring the point. I merely asking that before wild allegations are thrown about, someone actually provide some evidence (that proof thing again, go fig.) that what's being alleged actually has some basis in reality.
In the meantime, you really aren't a convicing argument for that whole 'calm thing'. Just so you know. Have another Krispy Kreme to settle those cravings.
Method for creating a new universe from a singularity
Abstract:
A method for starting a new UNIVERSE from a singularity which will cause apparent irregular expansion and development into astronomic bodies and features such as PULSARS, QUASARS, GALAXIES, GALAXY CLUSTERS, NEBULA, NOVA, SUPERNOVA, STARS (SINGULAR and BINARY), STAR SYSTEMS, PLANETS, MOONS, COMETS, ASTEROIDS, BLACK HOLES radiating energy for an indefinite period of TIME then possibly expiring due to absolute conversion of MATTER to HEAT and/or constriction into a similar singularity.
Using a galactic singularity (a point of infintismally small size, w/o immediately measurable dimension or mass) to manufacture a UNIVERSE (application 1). The UNIVERSE is created by gathering all known matter into a singularity. Then, the singularity is explosively destroyed, spreading all gathered matter in all directions at a near infinite variety of velocities. Lighter matter is cast farther away from the singularity.
This UNIVERSE will also define physical limitations and expectations as it grows. Currently, said UNIVERSE may or may not reach an outer limit of expansion. Further, the UNIVERSE may, at some future point, return to a state of singularity.
As the universe expands, energy radiation (radio, infrared, light, ultraviolet and other 'cosmic' transmissions) will vary from point to point. As matter travels away from a stationary point (though all matter in this universe travels along a variety of axis) said radiations will appear to be lower in frequency. As matter approaches, it will appear to be higher in frequency. This is, within the realms of the present point of observation (the collective derivative work PLANET, separately documented) is the LOW/HIGH SHIFTY THINGY EFFECT (application 1, addendum BS).
As the UNIVERSE expands and (potentially) contracts, matter distribution is likely to be unevenly distributed as observed from any single stationary point. This however, is not likely to be a case, and an intentional design consideration (a.k.a BUG, sub derivative of derivative work PLANET). Energy from other portions of the UNIVERSE has been limited to appox. 299,792 KILOMETERS per SECOND (sub works of DISTANCE and TIME, both derivative of both PLANET and UNIVERSE) in the visible light spectrum. Other energy radiations have WAVELENGTH (1, addendum DA) variances, but are currently speed constant.
Said energy transmissions will carry meaningful data about other portions of the UNIVERSE, including, but not limited to PULSARS, QUASARS, GALAXIES, GALAXY CLUSTERS, NEBULA, NOVA, SUPERNOVA, STARS (SINGULAR and BINARY), STAR SYSTEMS, PLANETS, MOONS, COMETS, ASTEROIDS, BLACK HOLES (applications 4-16 respective) and other particulate matter LIGHT and DARK (applications 2 and 3). Finally, the UNIVERSE exists largely by converting matter into HEAT. It is a design consideration that said UNIVERSE may cease operation after all matter has been converted to HEAT.
A DINING FACILITY (application 13, addendum ADAMS) may or may not exist near the point at which the UNIVERSE (potentially) returns to singularity.
Well, my instructor gets wind and asks to *buy* a copy of my notes as a way of checking what material was being considered important and understood by the student vs. his own impressions. Yes, he was a very good instructor. One of my favorites.
No! And thank goodness. Out here in CA, we like the Ninth Circuit Court. They have one of them nasty liberal tendencies to toss out laws that restrict the first amendment.
Without that proof, it appears like other arguments, rather vaperous.
Hey, don't you belong in Belgium?
1) It wasn't the wisest thing to promise.
2) There's a really good reason why Gil is no longer CEO of Apple. He wasn't cutting the mustard.
3) Rather than hold to a promise with a crappy OS, improve what you have as much as you can (OS 8.6/9) for those who might be left behind with the new OS you are really going to bank your company's future on (OS X).
Personally, I'll add the following: since the OS X strategy was announced (not rhapsody), Apple has been very consistent about what hardware would and would not be officially supported. G3s and G4s yes, 604 PCI systems, maybe. Everything else, um, it's dated and it's time to upgrade.
IBM chose not to include Altivec with their version of the G4 initially, then later licensed it from Motorola after Apple screamed for more chip volume and Motorola couldn't keep up with demand for a 500 MHz chip.
Come July/August, Motorola is still having severe yeild problems with their manufacturing process. IBM OTOH, has, if both you and I recall correctly, a much better yeild of higher MHz G4's. I'm sure Apple would love to have them, but IBM's agreement probably stipulates they can't speed bump Motorola.
So, until Motorola pulls their manufacturing process out of the doldrums, we're stuck for a bit. See the archives at MacOSRumors for some completely unsubstantiated background. BTW, this post assumes they *aren't* fabricating their site.
What's weird is that my understanding is that as late as DP3, Apple was distributing multiple shells (bash, tcsh, ksh, zsh). I'd be a little curious as to why they stopped. I suppose they could argue so folks don't mess things up. But then, why did they ship Terminal.app as part of the default install?
So, until I get a compiler, I guess i'm SOL. Of course, the question I have is whether or not MacOS X supports a ports tree? IIRC, that pretty much delivers the binary, yes?
That said, I signed myself up as an online developer through ADC so I could get access to the dev tools they'll be releasing for Mac OS X shortly. If I don't fsck my system up by pulling from Darwin CVS first.
1. The system's been through four developer releases already. Plus, it's built on BSD, which if my brief OpenBSD experience is at all indicitive, it should be pretty stable.
2. I paid retail for RedHat 6, essentially so I could get the manual that goes with it. Some say *that* was beta quality stuff... Turned out allright.
3. My employer's getting the expense report this morning. I mean, hey, I'm testing this for them.
- some users are blockheads (no, not cube users, blockheads)
- Some times, keyboard shortcuts and a black terminal line is enough to make some users cry for their mothers
- some users don't know or barely hear the fact that this is BETA and coo and go "pretty!"
- that those same users, when the BETA doesn't quite work with everything (including that same pirated copy of Photoshop 4 ALL mac users have 'cept me) they are going to bitch a cacophany that will heard far and wide.
- with this knowledge, Apple's going to hold back the unwashed (but not smelly, cuz our poo don't stink) masses
Hence, Apple's playing the scare card and saying "Don't look directly at the CD, it'll blind you unless you're willing to fork over 1.5 GB of HD space, 128 megs of ram, your first AND second born, etc, etc, ad nauseum, MIGHT CAUSE DATA LOSS don't operate Air Traffic Control system or Nuclear Power Facilities, blah blah blah.Fact is, there will likely be some hairy moments coming out in the next coupla weeks (or, whenever they ship the things). Best leave it to the professionals who:
- Will read the user documentation
- understand they is a good liklihood of some sort of breakage.
- Realize they're helping upgrade the standard for an end-user operating system
- Can get themselves out of the trouble they get themselves into
Dig?Sure, Yahoo gets a lot of eyeballs, but how many of them are the eyeballs *you* want to sell to?
As for the content filtering mechanism of the Net, you are absolutely correct. But don't think for a second this is a bad thing. I happen to think I'm *more* informed now than I was in the past. It's simply a matter of what I choose to expose myself, and what those exposures leave to. Anyone can live in a vacuum. I actually think it's harder to maintain a firm wall on your preferred views on the Net than, say, Talk Radio.
As for breadth of opinion, I find the Net to be far vaster than what is available to me on Network broadcasts, or indeed, from my own employer. They have concerns with presenting what is a *balance* of coverage at the expense of everything but what they know has a resonable response from their audience.
The Net knows no limitations. A newspaper is limited by the costs of production and distribution offset by what people are willing to pay in for advertising and in subscriptions. Network news is limited by ratings tied to advertising dollars, which generally limits most stations to 2 hours of news per night, with at least an hour of that, largely repetition.
Now, it could be argued the Net is also subject to economic forces. I'll agree, but suggest that economics is not nearly the limitation online as it is off. Anyone can put a site online with no capital investment. It would be very difficult to get a minority view expressed offline without spending money. Now, whether or not anyone will see that viewpoint is another matter. But it is out there, and very feasible for me to see it.
So what does this all come down to? Largely a matter of choices and who makes them. Offline, a group of learned editors make decisions based on what's been covered previously, how it could affect the audience, and also (rightly or wrongly) their perception of knowledge among themselves, the reporter and the audience about a particular subject.
The Net need not have any of these restrictions. Thus, the experience is (and will be) largely what we make of it ourselves, not what we are currently limited to by others.
The key, i believe, is to let the medium live as it evolves, without adjustment or compensation to make it more acceptible to the status quo. The key is forcing the status quo to catch up.
She's confusing enough to understand. Now this!