As we all remember from our Introduction to Modern Physics courses, a "quantum" is the SMALLEST increment allowed by nature. Not really something to write home about.
If you wish to allude to the largest physical structures, the proper adjective is "cosmic". Perhaps that sounded just a little too groovy - even for Apple.
The computer industry may be at the same historic cusp that faced the automobile industry in 1931 when, for the first time, General Motors surpassed Ford in sales. Ford had built it empire upon the Model T - a utilitarian car for the masses. However, through the 1920's, Ford had saturated much of the untapped demand from first-time auto buyers. By the early 1930's, most new car purchases were to people who already owned cars and were looking for something new and exciting. In the late 20's, GM had captured the imagination of the public when Lawrence Fisher, head of the Cadillac division under GM president Alfred P. Sloan Jr., hired Harley Earl to design the 1928 LaSalle. His daring designs were exceptionally well received and soon he was designing all of the GM car lines. The "model year" was born and, with it, "planned obsolescence". Ford never regained the sales lead and the auto industry has never been the same - and has never forsaken the paramount need for style.
This is a very similar situation to that faced by the computer industry today. Much of the pent-up demand for computers has been exhausted and second- and third-time computer buyers are looking for something new and captivating. In a marketplace where most computers are sufficient for the needs for most users, the only distinguishing features are ease-of-use/consistency/dependability and, gasp, style. Some may argue, but it has been widely noted that Apple provides superior ease-of-use and consistency, if not dependability, by controlling the whole widget. And few would argue that Apple is the company most aggressively testing the style envelope in the PC industry.
The marketplace for the utilitarian PCs may be drawing to a close. Although I am sure users yearn for the greater reliability JonKatz describes, I doubt they will find it from the "truly successful" companies he describes. And in an age where many new computer buyers think in terms of "hot rods" rather than "toasters", style may indeed be king. Hold onto your hats, the age of the computer "model years" may be just around the corner - and Apple may well be leading the pack.
I wasn't really arguing about the right or wrong of corporate control of ICANN. I was more trying to address what I perceive as weaknesses in ICANN's plan to provide more public (read non-corporate) input to the directors-at-large selection process. As I see it, the proposed changes move the process further, rather than closer, to that goal.
That said, I am somewhat disturbed by your brutally frank advocacy of a purely marketized selection process. Taken to its logical extreme, organizations need only pony up the dough to obtain representation proportional to their "taxation". I am sure I can think of an organization or two, perhaps in the Pacific Northwest, who would be glad to spend whatever it takes to obtain near-exclusive control of ICANN. I am also pretty sure that very few of us would be happy with the results.
Finally, as to your proposition to "[g]ive the control to he/she that pays the bills": rest assured that, ultimately, it is always the public that pays the bills. Otherwise, corporations would not be interested in the first place.
Ultimately, the problem is that ICANN is getting too cozy with the corporations that dominate the web.
As mentioned in the article, the problem with the last "public" election was that it suffered from massive fraud by people opening throwaway email accounts to vote with.
Certainly a "one domain = one vote" scheme would heavily favor corporations which regularly buy blocks of domains to protect their trademark turf.
However, even a "one domain owner = one vote" scheme would be unfair to the public. While they might be limited to a single vote for the majority of their domains, only big corporations (think M$) have the money to rig the elections by purchasing domains through shell organizations (think The Association for Competitive Technology).
At least when the primary mechanism for ICANN voting fraud was free, the public could still compete with the corporations.
I feel that his Gaia trilogy was instrumental in establishing the potential of women as strong action characters leading to such delightful film roles such as Sigourney Weaver in the Alien films and Linda Hamilton in T2.
However, it is his examination of bioengineering in his "ten world" novels such as the "Ophiuchus Hotline" that will surely secure his legacy.
I am sure that by this point in the thread, many of these authors will be redundant. Here goes anyway (single author per genre, living only, pretty arbitrary)...
Science Fiction: Neal Stephenson - I know/. just loves this guy but I had to add my $0.02 - especially since he didn't make it into the original message.
Fantasy: George Martin - If you haven't read his Song of Ice & Fire books, run (don't walk) to your bookstore right now! He stands almost alone in this god-forsaken genre for snappy dialog and compelling character development.
Satire: Kurt Vonnegut - "I've got doctorates in pig shit, horse shit and chicken shit. If you need me, I'll be out back shoveling my thesis."
Farce: Tom Robbins - Consistently brilliant... and hilarious.
Thrillers: Tom Clancy - Now if they'd just stop ruining his books with crappy films.
Popular Science (non-fiction): James Gleick - His "Chaos" is a terrific read.
Physics (non-fiction): J.D. Jackson - You're not a super-geek until you've grokked the fullness of "Classical Electrodynamics"!
Computer Science (non-fiction): Donald Knuth - See Jackson in physics above. Replace "Classical Electrodynamics" with "Art of Computer Programming I - Algorithms".
History (non-fiction): Alvin Josephy - His "Patriot Chiefs" is one of the most interesting books I've ever read.
Cuisine (non-fiction): Julia Child - duh!
Sorry about the limited selection of genres... I can't read 'em all;-)
I think a better question is when will nanotechnology fall into the "right hands"?
Consider the fact that all of the technologies discussed in the article with any sort of near-term feasibility fall more appropriately under the far more venerable rubric of "materials science" than "nanotechnology".
If we are worried about the "microscopic terrors" of Drexler's "machine phase" matter, I think we're getting a little ahead of ourselves. Knowledgable critics question not only when but if we will ever be able to develop such technology (c.f. "Of Chemistry, Love and Nanobots", Richard Smalley, SciAm 9/01).
After all, we have more than our hands full keeping 50+ year old weapons (nuclear, chemical, biological) out of the hands of terrorists. I think it is a little premature to be worrying about weapons that may be decades away from development by even the world's most tecnologically advanced nations - if ever.
MegaCineCorp has announced the list of films showing the highly anticipated "teaser trailer" for the upcoming Hype Wars Episode N - Send in the Clones.
Studio spokesman, Rip Ewoff, was quoted as saying "after we milk those freeks for two full-price tickets, it should be just about time for them to get into line for the premeire".
MegaCineCorp President, Ernesto Palpatine, could not be reached for comment.
This thing is just begging to be hacked. Its capability to be used as a data drive indicates that it is probably using a standard file system. With 5GB of disk space and 32MB of memory (and FIreWire), this device could be pretty capable. Judging from Apple's current mood, I wouldn't be suprised if the OS was a stripped down BSD. How long before we see non-music apps for this baby? I bet a direct interface for downloading pictures from your digital camera is not far away. An PIM would be nice but seriously hampered by the limited input controls. What else could be done?
I hope that the next generation includes a color screen. Not only would a visualizer be nice but I'd love to see a MAME port;-)
The unique advantage of embryonic stem cells is their capacity to differentiate into any type of cell in the body. This opens the possibility of developing novel cellular therapies - especially for tissues that cannot normally repair or replace themselves (such as the brain or spine).
However, wouldn't these replacement cells be subject to immunological rejection if they were not genetically matched to the host? If so, the most beneficial embryonic stem cells might be those that are genetically matched to their host - i.e. stem cells from CLONE embryos.
Federal funding for stem cell research will allow the technology of stem cell therapies to be developed with existing cell lines. But when it comes to clinical use, these therapies may ultimately encourage human cloning as a source of genetically compatible stem cells. As long as this harvesting is privately funded, it does not violate the announced restrictions yet clearly reaps the benefits of publically funded research. This could be a slippery slope indeed.
Ideologically it would seem more natural for Bush to oppose stem cell research as his father did with fetal tissue research. On the other hand, the biomedical lobby is powerful and generous. One might interpret the President's decision as an attempt to mollify his pro-life constituency while leaving the door open for one of his deep-pocketed patrons. If so, did he step out onto the slippery slope of the human cloning debate accidentally or on purpose?
It could still be closed
on
OS X on x86?
·
· Score: 1
As many others have correctly pointed out, Apple is (or at least views itself as) a hardware company. They would never port OS X to Intel in a way that would allow J. Random Slacker to run it on a standard PC.
However, Apple could certainly build a Mac around an Intel processor. They would need to build their own chipset but they already do that (and may be working on a chipset to work with Intel processors right now). The motivation for such a move would most likely be to close the much discussed, little understood "MHz gap".
Under such a strategy, they could avoid rampant cannibalization of their hardware sales by commodity PCs. It is unlikely at this stage of the game that any player would/could reverse engineer the "Mac on Intel" chipset - both for practical and legal reasons. This would also allow Apple to maintain all their legacy technologies, firewire/airport/etc, and avoid sinking into the mire of endless PC driver support. Finally, a move to Intel might facilitate the PC binary compatibility layer that Apple has long been rumored to be working on in secret.
In short, Intel Macs - maybe... MacOS PCs - not likely.
Since the early days of VCRs, the Courts have upheld the individual's right to record broadcast programming for the purposes of time shifting under fair use. However, content that arrives in a non-ephemeral medium, such as tape or disk, seems to be allowed to incorporate copy-protection because there is no need to duplicate for fair use. This appears to be the rationale behind technologies such as Macrovision which prevents DVD to VHS duplication.
As we are all painfully aware, content providers have recently been fighting tooth and nail to stop any form of duplication, fair use or otherwise. Although people of good conscience can argue about the fairness of music swapping services such as Napster, recording of broadcast programming for private time shifted use is clearly within the already accepted bounds of case law (IANAL).
Therefore, content providers have shifted the debate to the 'perfection' of digital-to-digital duplication. Since a D->D copy is exactly identical to the original, natural controls on duplication such as generational degredation disappear. Content providers argue that the removal of this barrier will cast the world into a miasma of unbridled piracy which, in turn, will stifle creative pursuits, destroy the global economy and perhaps send the Earth hurtling into the Sun.
Such arguments have been used to incorporate copy-once protection into consumer grade DAT devices and appears to be the motivation for this new round of copy protection efforts. (It is interesting to note that Macrovision protects against a form of copying that already includes generation degradation, however a sense of irony is not a strength of the MPAA/RIAA.) The motivation of content providers is, not surprisingly, to implement as much copy protection as they can and then to let the Courts push them back a little later. IMHO, the important issue is to keep the quality of duplication out of the debate over the limits of fair use. This may lead to a copy-once scheme similar to DAT but that would represent a compromise between the rights of content owners and users. As some smartypants once remarked, we must give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's.
Mmmm, hi-fi. Early last year I set up an outrageous home theater for myself (I'm outraged I tell you) for not too much money and it's a deal at twice the price. I consider myself a bit of a geek (Ph.D. in Physics, currently working as a signal processing engineer for a major university) so I like to think that I have some clue. I took a little time to describe my decision making process carefully to help you on your journey. I apologize in advance for the long message but hopefully it is both instructive and interesting. Even with my nerd pedigree, I certainly could not have figured this all out by myself (mad props to my man Dr. Blount). As other have pointed out, there are many good resources on the net and many good audiophile books and magazines. Just ignore the hype and remember that it doesn't have to cost a fortune - if you can't HEAR the difference, you shouldn't SPEND the difference.
'Nuff said, here's what I've got...
2 NHT SuperOnes for the front stereo channels
2 NHT SuperOne XUs for the rear surround channels
1 NHT VS-1.4 for the center channel
1 NHT SuperSub for the subwoofer
Onkyo Integra DTR-6 Home Theater Receiver
Pioneer DV-333 DVD player
Sega Dreamcast
Sharp SVHS VCR
Philips Magnavox TS3260 32" Television
Total Cost: Speakers ~$1600, Receiver ~$700, DVD ~$250, TV ~$600 (if I remember correctly;-)
As numerous others have already pointed out, plan to spend the bulk of your money on speakers as they have the greatest single impact on sound quality. Although some people mix and match speaker brands in a 5.1 system, I think it is best to go with a single brand because the speakers will often be better matched sonically. Nothing is more distracting than a single speaker, your center channel for example, sticking out like a sore thumb. I chose the NHTs for a variety of reasons. Foremost, I like the sound. NHT is very well respected even at the highest end of the audiophile spectrum and they have a good reputation for building solid products that last. NHT prides itself on very low phase noise in their speakers which produces more accurate imaging - especially important in a 5.1 system. Another reason for choosing the NHTs is that they have a very nice selection of speakers at several price points with similar characteristics thereby providing a simple upgrade path. I personally plan on replacing the front stereo channels in the near future with the next tier VT-1.4s and moving the SuperOnes to my bedroom system (more on that later). I chose the SuperOnes over the less expensive SuperZeroes because of their better bass extension - I didn't want to be overly reliant on my subwoofer for bass and, because of low frequency room modes, more spatially distributed bass sounds better to me. I chose the SuperOne XUs for the rear channel because their stiffer resin enclosures sound cleaner when mounted directly on the rear wall (the front channels are mounted on stands about 18" away from the front wall). I chose the slightly better VS-1.4 for the center channel, over the SuperCenter, because I find that I need extra clarity in the center channel to understand speech - this was the only speaker I chose to go the the higher tier 1.4 series at this time. I went with the entry-level SuperSub because, in my apartment, I don't need any more bass power and the dual 6" drivers produce bass extension (almost) below what I can hear. In retrospect, this is the only purchase I am not ecstatic with because the amplifier in the subwoofer burned out in the first 6 months I had the system. Although it was replaced free of charge under the standard 5 year warranty, it was a hassle. Aside from that, everything has performed magnificently and I couldn't be happier.
I chose to go with an integrated receiver, rather than components, mainly because of cost. Ultimately, I'd like to have each function in its own box because of the upgrade flexibility it provides but it just wasn't possible at the time. However, the DTR-6's I/O allows a very flexible upgrade path to get me to my ultimate goal (more later). Integra is Onkyo's audiophile line and is essentially the same in design as the top of their consumer line but with hand-matched components - and it really does sound better. It provides 85W/channel (5.1) into 8 ohms which is more than enough in my space (although the SuperOnes can take up to 150W and the subwoofer has its own integrated amplifier). It provides inputs for all the usual devices - CD, DVD, tape, phono (w/ ext. pre-amp) as well as 4 general purpose AV inputs which I use for my cable tuner (pass through my TV), VCR and Dreamcast (sounds great through the stereo - Soul Calibur rocks!). I am setting up an MP3 jukebox for the fourth channel. I use the Toslink connector (optical digital) for the audio from my DVD (which I also use for CDs) but rely of the receiver to do the digital decoding (DTS, Dolby Digital & 24bit/96kHz PCM). I think it sounds better but I can't be sure if its due to better DACs or to a cleaner signal path between the decoder and the pre-amp/amp - let your ears be your guide! A nice feature of the receiver is that you can set the phase (in units of distance) and gain (in dB) for each channel independently which make balancing a breeze (most good receivers will support this). I try to use the S-video connectors whenever possible - only the Dreamcast doesn't support it. The DVD player supports component (not to be confused with composite) video, which is nice, but my TV doesn't support it. The receiver also has a couple of nice features that facilitate my upgrade plans down the line. First, there is a second set of outputs (B channel) so that when I upgrade my front channels, I can move my current fronts down to my bedroom and drive them with the same receiver (there's even a remote control extender for the receiver). Second, there is a full set of pre-amp outputs so I can add a separate amplifier (like a sweet 5 channel Bryston or maybe 5 McIntosh monoblocks). The next step up in Integra home theater receivers, the DTR-7, also has an amplifier input which I would have liked because then I can run the pre-amp out to my subwoofer and run the line level signal just past the subwoofers crossover filter back to the amp input on the receiver. This gives you better control over the system's bass response. Unfortunately, the DTR-7 is THX certified which makes it significantly more expensive. I don't have anything against THX, in fact it's awesome, but the certification process is quite expensive and drives up the price of the component. Oftentimes, manufacturers will sell 2 receivers which are essentially the same except one is THX certified and, therefore, significantly more expensive - the DTR-6 & 7 are perfect examples of this.
The rest of the system is pretty mundane. I didn't sweat the DVD player too much because I knew I was going to use it only as a transport so all I needed to do was make sure it has sufficiently low jitter on its digital output (it does). The VCR was a gift so it is pretty vanilla - which is okay because I can't get too excited about VHS (even SVHS). The Dreamcast is cool and it admirably filled the void while the world waited (waits) for the PS2 vaporware to condense. The TV is nice but nothing special. I just wanted something that had multiple S-video inputs, dark blacks & a good color decoder (most consumer grade TVs have a lot of red "push"). I would have liked to get a flat screen CRT like the Sony Vega but I couldn't justify the price while I wait (impatiently) for HDTV to get its act together. So, in a sense, the TV is kind of a stopgap measure. As I mentioned earlier, I am putting together an MP3 jukebox for the system. I am assembling the PC myself in a rackmount chassis that I will mount in a small black laminate rack (8 or 12 U) along with an AC line conditioner for the whole system and a UPS for the PC. I am currently having a hard time finding the right sound card though. I only want to use a card with a low jitter optical (Toslink) digital out so I can use my receiver for decoding but I'd like it to also support wavetable synthesis so I can hear MIDI from games without needing another soundcard as well. The consumer grade cards like those from Turtle Beach support DTS & MIDI on separate digital outputs while the pro grade cards like those from Digital Audio Labs don't support MIDI at all. I am open to suggestions. Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
On a final note, setup and accessories are not to be overlooked. Buy nice 12 gauge speaker wire which can run you on the order of $100 to wire a medium size room (damn, those rear channels are far away). I don't feel the need for anything fancier than that. You'll also need a special cable for the powered subwoofer (another ~$30). I recommend getting wire yokes (like dual bananas) for the end of the speaker wire as they speed disassembly & reassembly of the system if, for example, you move. Some purists may argue that this degrades the sound but I can't hear it (not to say that it isn't there). I also find a test DVD and a sound meter very helpful for calibration. I have the AVIA calibration disk (~$20) which is nice as it includes a full suite of audio test tones and video patterns. Watch out for the Plughe (sp?) disks as they use blacker-than-black in some of their video tests which not all DVD players support. The sound meter is an el cheapo model from Radio Shack (~$35) but gets the job done (and the AVIA disk explains how to use it properly). It would be nice to use an oscilloscope and an arbitrary waveform generator for calibration (prohibitively expensive unless you can borrow them from work) but it's just too much of a burden considering you'll need to recalibrate several times in the first year as your speakers break in and it really doesn't pay off unless you have a multichannel equalizer in your system. On the issue of speaker "break-in", plan on playing music constantly on the system for at least the first 24-72 hours (no I'm serious, it really does help). Last, but not least, plan to work on your setting up your system for at least one whole day (it took me two) and make sure that you have at least a case of beer on hand (it took me two). With a little care, your system will sound as good, if not considerably better, than your local movie theater - and without the bad projectionists, whiney brats and sticky floors (YMMV). In fact, I NEVER go to the cinema any more because it is always such a disappointment (and I like near one of those space-age gigaplexes). For pure chewing satisfaction, I recommend using Netflix for online DVD rental - fixed fee, rent all you want, no late fees (check it out).
Good luck! Soon you too can have the rowdiest home theater in the universe!
This would be a great way to open the development market for console game. All we would need is a kernel port and drivers for the custom hardware. Then any ubergeek could write console games without needing an (ultra)expensive development system. Dreamcast & Playstation2 are the obvious choices but is Microsoft unwittingly building a potential Linux "thin client" with the X-Box?
Both Iapetus & Cliff ask, in effect, why does Apple even bother trying to block rumors of upcoming product announcements.
The most obvious reason is that Steve Jobs is so thin-skinned that he will unleash the hounds on any mortal who dares to steal any of his precious thunder.
However, this is only partly correct. The primary reason is actually quite reasonable and pragmatic.
In Apple's darkest days, leaks were so rampant that the company's roll-out plans were often known 2 and sometimes 3 full product generations in advance. Now, even though the Mac faithful will purchase/upgrade regardless of what is released, the foreknowledge of what key new features are upcoming and when they will be released prompted many to wait. By the time that those products were released, new vistas had become visible on the horizon, thereby prompting even more waiting.
By keeping upcoming releases close to the vest, Apple encourages the "no better time to buy than the present" mentality that keeps the revenues rolling in. Furthermore, the sooner Apple can get consumers to purchase, the sooner they can get them to upgrade/replace. Anything that encourages waiting, such as product leaks, dilutes the revenue stream and lengthens the interval between purchases.
Although this explains Apple's cultural oppposition to leaks (esp. long-term), it doesn't really explain the extreme reaction to leaking a product that was scheduled for release in just weeks. I think that explanation requires returning to the jealous thunder god theory;)
Checking the Linux Kernel Version History reveals that v.1.0 was released on 13 March 1994. I think that we can be forgiving enough to accept "around 1995" and "five or six years" as reasonably close to the mark. I certainly don't think that this error is so egregious as to invalidate whatever point the original article's author is trying to make.
Slashdot Mirror
How about the first line ...
..."
"With a quantum increase in processing power
As we all remember from our Introduction to Modern Physics courses, a "quantum" is the SMALLEST increment allowed by nature. Not really something to write home about.
If you wish to allude to the largest physical structures, the proper adjective is "cosmic". Perhaps that sounded just a little too groovy - even for Apple.
The computer industry may be at the same historic cusp that faced the automobile industry in 1931 when, for the first time, General Motors surpassed Ford in sales. Ford had built it empire upon the Model T - a utilitarian car for the masses. However, through the 1920's, Ford had saturated much of the untapped demand from first-time auto buyers. By the early 1930's, most new car purchases were to people who already owned cars and were looking for something new and exciting. In the late 20's, GM had captured the imagination of the public when Lawrence Fisher, head of the Cadillac division under GM president Alfred P. Sloan Jr., hired Harley Earl to design the 1928 LaSalle. His daring designs were exceptionally well received and soon he was designing all of the GM car lines. The "model year" was born and, with it, "planned obsolescence". Ford never regained the sales lead and the auto industry has never been the same - and has never forsaken the paramount need for style.
/ history/, esp. chapter 6)
This is a very similar situation to that faced by the computer industry today. Much of the pent-up demand for computers has been exhausted and second- and third-time computer buyers are looking for something new and captivating. In a marketplace where most computers are sufficient for the needs for most users, the only distinguishing features are ease-of-use/consistency/dependability and, gasp, style. Some may argue, but it has been widely noted that Apple provides superior ease-of-use and consistency, if not dependability, by controlling the whole widget. And few would argue that Apple is the company most aggressively testing the style envelope in the PC industry.
The marketplace for the utilitarian PCs may be drawing to a close. Although I am sure users yearn for the greater reliability JonKatz describes, I doubt they will find it from the "truly successful" companies he describes. And in an age where many new computer buyers think in terms of "hot rods" rather than "toasters", style may indeed be king. Hold onto your hats, the age of the computer "model years" may be just around the corner - and Apple may well be leading the pack.
(for more automobile history, see http://www.theautochannel.com/mania/industry.orig
Here are some pictures of the Jonathan and some other interesting Apple prototypes.
Wow, at $400 a pop, that's $50M in revenue from the iPod alone!
Love 'em or hate 'em, Apple only seems to be gaining momentum in a market where other PC makers are struggling to survive.
I wasn't really arguing about the right or wrong of corporate control of ICANN. I was more trying to address what I perceive as weaknesses in ICANN's plan to provide more public (read non-corporate) input to the directors-at-large selection process. As I see it, the proposed changes move the process further, rather than closer, to that goal.
That said, I am somewhat disturbed by your brutally frank advocacy of a purely marketized selection process. Taken to its logical extreme, organizations need only pony up the dough to obtain representation proportional to their "taxation". I am sure I can think of an organization or two, perhaps in the Pacific Northwest, who would be glad to spend whatever it takes to obtain near-exclusive control of ICANN. I am also pretty sure that very few of us would be happy with the results.
Finally, as to your proposition to "[g]ive the control to he/she that pays the bills": rest assured that, ultimately, it is always the public that pays the bills. Otherwise, corporations would not be interested in the first place.
Ultimately, the problem is that ICANN is getting too cozy with the corporations that dominate the web.
As mentioned in the article, the problem with the last "public" election was that it suffered from massive fraud by people opening throwaway email accounts to vote with.
Certainly a "one domain = one vote" scheme would heavily favor corporations which regularly buy blocks of domains to protect their trademark turf.
However, even a "one domain owner = one vote" scheme would be unfair to the public. While they might be limited to a single vote for the majority of their domains, only big corporations (think M$) have the money to rig the elections by purchasing domains through shell organizations (think The Association for Competitive Technology).
At least when the primary mechanism for ICANN voting fraud was free, the public could still compete with the corporations.
Tough room.
Potato!
Could I get a Pork Chop to go with that?
I totally forgot about him.
;-)
I feel that his Gaia trilogy was instrumental in establishing the potential of women as strong action characters leading to such delightful film roles such as Sigourney Weaver in the Alien films and Linda Hamilton in T2.
However, it is his examination of bioengineering in his "ten world" novels such as the "Ophiuchus Hotline" that will surely secure his legacy.
Plus, "Millenium" is super-cool
I am sure that by this point in the thread, many of these authors will be redundant. Here goes anyway (single author per genre, living only, pretty arbitrary) ...
/. just loves this guy but I had to add my $0.02 - especially since he didn't make it into the original message.
... and hilarious.
... I can't read 'em all ;-)
Science Fiction: Neal Stephenson - I know
Fantasy: George Martin - If you haven't read his Song of Ice & Fire books, run (don't walk) to your bookstore right now! He stands almost alone in this god-forsaken genre for snappy dialog and compelling character development.
Satire: Kurt Vonnegut - "I've got doctorates in pig shit, horse shit and chicken shit. If you need me, I'll be out back shoveling my thesis."
Farce: Tom Robbins - Consistently brilliant
Thrillers: Tom Clancy - Now if they'd just stop ruining his books with crappy films.
Popular Science (non-fiction): James Gleick - His "Chaos" is a terrific read.
Physics (non-fiction): J.D. Jackson - You're not a super-geek until you've grokked the fullness of "Classical Electrodynamics"!
Computer Science (non-fiction): Donald Knuth - See Jackson in physics above. Replace "Classical Electrodynamics" with "Art of Computer Programming I - Algorithms".
History (non-fiction): Alvin Josephy - His "Patriot Chiefs" is one of the most interesting books I've ever read.
Cuisine (non-fiction): Julia Child - duh!
Sorry about the limited selection of genres
I think a better question is when will nanotechnology fall into the "right hands"?
Consider the fact that all of the technologies discussed in the article with any sort of near-term feasibility fall more appropriately under the far more venerable rubric of "materials science" than "nanotechnology".
If we are worried about the "microscopic terrors" of Drexler's "machine phase" matter, I think we're getting a little ahead of ourselves. Knowledgable critics question not only when but if we will ever be able to develop such technology (c.f. "Of Chemistry, Love and Nanobots", Richard Smalley, SciAm 9/01).
After all, we have more than our hands full keeping 50+ year old weapons (nuclear, chemical, biological) out of the hands of terrorists. I think it is a little premature to be worrying about weapons that may be decades away from development by even the world's most tecnologically advanced nations - if ever.
Pork Chops!
That's my wrist you just slapped!
MegaCineCorp has announced the list of films showing the highly anticipated "teaser trailer" for the upcoming Hype Wars Episode N - Send in the Clones.
Studio spokesman, Rip Ewoff, was quoted as saying "after we milk those freeks for two full-price tickets, it should be just about time for them to get into line for the premeire".
MegaCineCorp President, Ernesto Palpatine, could not be reached for comment.
This thing is just begging to be hacked. Its capability to be used as a data drive indicates that it is probably using a standard file system. With 5GB of disk space and 32MB of memory (and FIreWire), this device could be pretty capable. Judging from Apple's current mood, I wouldn't be suprised if the OS was a stripped down BSD. How long before we see non-music apps for this baby? I bet a direct interface for downloading pictures from your digital camera is not far away. An PIM would be nice but seriously hampered by the limited input controls. What else could be done?
;-)
I hope that the next generation includes a color screen. Not only would a visualizer be nice but I'd love to see a MAME port
The unique advantage of embryonic stem cells is their capacity to differentiate into any type of cell in the body. This opens the possibility of developing novel cellular therapies - especially for tissues that cannot normally repair or replace themselves (such as the brain or spine).
However, wouldn't these replacement cells be subject to immunological rejection if they were not genetically matched to the host? If so, the most beneficial embryonic stem cells might be those that are genetically matched to their host - i.e. stem cells from CLONE embryos.
Federal funding for stem cell research will allow the technology of stem cell therapies to be developed with existing cell lines. But when it comes to clinical use, these therapies may ultimately encourage human cloning as a source of genetically compatible stem cells. As long as this harvesting is privately funded, it does not violate the announced restrictions yet clearly reaps the benefits of publically funded research. This could be a slippery slope indeed.
Ideologically it would seem more natural for Bush to oppose stem cell research as his father did with fetal tissue research. On the other hand, the biomedical lobby is powerful and generous. One might interpret the President's decision as an attempt to mollify his pro-life constituency while leaving the door open for one of his deep-pocketed patrons. If so, did he step out onto the slippery slope of the human cloning debate accidentally or on purpose?
A fool and his money were lucky to get together in the first place.
Imagine a Beowulf cluster of these ;-P
As many others have correctly pointed out, Apple is (or at least views itself as) a hardware company. They would never port OS X to Intel in a way that would allow J. Random Slacker to run it on a standard PC.
... MacOS PCs - not likely.
However, Apple could certainly build a Mac around an Intel processor. They would need to build their own chipset but they already do that (and may be working on a chipset to work with Intel processors right now). The motivation for such a move would most likely be to close the much discussed, little understood "MHz gap".
Under such a strategy, they could avoid rampant cannibalization of their hardware sales by commodity PCs. It is unlikely at this stage of the game that any player would/could reverse engineer the "Mac on Intel" chipset - both for practical and legal reasons. This would also allow Apple to maintain all their legacy technologies, firewire/airport/etc, and avoid sinking into the mire of endless PC driver support. Finally, a move to Intel might facilitate the PC binary compatibility layer that Apple has long been rumored to be working on in secret.
In short, Intel Macs - maybe
Since the early days of VCRs, the Courts have upheld the individual's right to record broadcast programming for the purposes of time shifting under fair use. However, content that arrives in a non-ephemeral medium, such as tape or disk, seems to be allowed to incorporate copy-protection because there is no need to duplicate for fair use. This appears to be the rationale behind technologies such as Macrovision which prevents DVD to VHS duplication.
As we are all painfully aware, content providers have recently been fighting tooth and nail to stop any form of duplication, fair use or otherwise. Although people of good conscience can argue about the fairness of music swapping services such as Napster, recording of broadcast programming for private time shifted use is clearly within the already accepted bounds of case law (IANAL).
Therefore, content providers have shifted the debate to the 'perfection' of digital-to-digital duplication. Since a D->D copy is exactly identical to the original, natural controls on duplication such as generational degredation disappear. Content providers argue that the removal of this barrier will cast the world into a miasma of unbridled piracy which, in turn, will stifle creative pursuits, destroy the global economy and perhaps send the Earth hurtling into the Sun.
Such arguments have been used to incorporate copy-once protection into consumer grade DAT devices and appears to be the motivation for this new round of copy protection efforts. (It is interesting to note that Macrovision protects against a form of copying that already includes generation degradation, however a sense of irony is not a strength of the MPAA/RIAA.) The motivation of content providers is, not surprisingly, to implement as much copy protection as they can and then to let the Courts push them back a little later. IMHO, the important issue is to keep the quality of duplication out of the debate over the limits of fair use. This may lead to a copy-once scheme similar to DAT but that would represent a compromise between the rights of content owners and users. As some smartypants once remarked, we must give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's.
Mmmm, hi-fi. Early last year I set up an outrageous home theater for myself (I'm outraged I tell you) for not too much money and it's a deal at twice the price. I consider myself a bit of a geek (Ph.D. in Physics, currently working as a signal processing engineer for a major university) so I like to think that I have some clue. I took a little time to describe my decision making process carefully to help you on your journey. I apologize in advance for the long message but hopefully it is both instructive and interesting. Even with my nerd pedigree, I certainly could not have figured this all out by myself (mad props to my man Dr. Blount). As other have pointed out, there are many good resources on the net and many good audiophile books and magazines. Just ignore the hype and remember that it doesn't have to cost a fortune - if you can't HEAR the difference, you shouldn't SPEND the difference.
...
;-)
'Nuff said, here's what I've got
2 NHT SuperOnes for the front stereo channels
2 NHT SuperOne XUs for the rear surround channels
1 NHT VS-1.4 for the center channel
1 NHT SuperSub for the subwoofer
Onkyo Integra DTR-6 Home Theater Receiver
Pioneer DV-333 DVD player
Sega Dreamcast
Sharp SVHS VCR
Philips Magnavox TS3260 32" Television
Total Cost: Speakers ~$1600, Receiver ~$700, DVD ~$250, TV ~$600 (if I remember correctly
As numerous others have already pointed out, plan to spend the bulk of your money on speakers as they have the greatest single impact on sound quality. Although some people mix and match speaker brands in a 5.1 system, I think it is best to go with a single brand because the speakers will often be better matched sonically. Nothing is more distracting than a single speaker, your center channel for example, sticking out like a sore thumb. I chose the NHTs for a variety of reasons. Foremost, I like the sound. NHT is very well respected even at the highest end of the audiophile spectrum and they have a good reputation for building solid products that last. NHT prides itself on very low phase noise in their speakers which produces more accurate imaging - especially important in a 5.1 system. Another reason for choosing the NHTs is that they have a very nice selection of speakers at several price points with similar characteristics thereby providing a simple upgrade path. I personally plan on replacing the front stereo channels in the near future with the next tier VT-1.4s and moving the SuperOnes to my bedroom system (more on that later). I chose the SuperOnes over the less expensive SuperZeroes because of their better bass extension - I didn't want to be overly reliant on my subwoofer for bass and, because of low frequency room modes, more spatially distributed bass sounds better to me. I chose the SuperOne XUs for the rear channel because their stiffer resin enclosures sound cleaner when mounted directly on the rear wall (the front channels are mounted on stands about 18" away from the front wall). I chose the slightly better VS-1.4 for the center channel, over the SuperCenter, because I find that I need extra clarity in the center channel to understand speech - this was the only speaker I chose to go the the higher tier 1.4 series at this time. I went with the entry-level SuperSub because, in my apartment, I don't need any more bass power and the dual 6" drivers produce bass extension (almost) below what I can hear. In retrospect, this is the only purchase I am not ecstatic with because the amplifier in the subwoofer burned out in the first 6 months I had the system. Although it was replaced free of charge under the standard 5 year warranty, it was a hassle. Aside from that, everything has performed magnificently and I couldn't be happier.
I chose to go with an integrated receiver, rather than components, mainly because of cost. Ultimately, I'd like to have each function in its own box because of the upgrade flexibility it provides but it just wasn't possible at the time. However, the DTR-6's I/O allows a very flexible upgrade path to get me to my ultimate goal (more later). Integra is Onkyo's audiophile line and is essentially the same in design as the top of their consumer line but with hand-matched components - and it really does sound better. It provides 85W/channel (5.1) into 8 ohms which is more than enough in my space (although the SuperOnes can take up to 150W and the subwoofer has its own integrated amplifier). It provides inputs for all the usual devices - CD, DVD, tape, phono (w/ ext. pre-amp) as well as 4 general purpose AV inputs which I use for my cable tuner (pass through my TV), VCR and Dreamcast (sounds great through the stereo - Soul Calibur rocks!). I am setting up an MP3 jukebox for the fourth channel. I use the Toslink connector (optical digital) for the audio from my DVD (which I also use for CDs) but rely of the receiver to do the digital decoding (DTS, Dolby Digital & 24bit/96kHz PCM). I think it sounds better but I can't be sure if its due to better DACs or to a cleaner signal path between the decoder and the pre-amp/amp - let your ears be your guide! A nice feature of the receiver is that you can set the phase (in units of distance) and gain (in dB) for each channel independently which make balancing a breeze (most good receivers will support this). I try to use the S-video connectors whenever possible - only the Dreamcast doesn't support it. The DVD player supports component (not to be confused with composite) video, which is nice, but my TV doesn't support it. The receiver also has a couple of nice features that facilitate my upgrade plans down the line. First, there is a second set of outputs (B channel) so that when I upgrade my front channels, I can move my current fronts down to my bedroom and drive them with the same receiver (there's even a remote control extender for the receiver). Second, there is a full set of pre-amp outputs so I can add a separate amplifier (like a sweet 5 channel Bryston or maybe 5 McIntosh monoblocks). The next step up in Integra home theater receivers, the DTR-7, also has an amplifier input which I would have liked because then I can run the pre-amp out to my subwoofer and run the line level signal just past the subwoofers crossover filter back to the amp input on the receiver. This gives you better control over the system's bass response. Unfortunately, the DTR-7 is THX certified which makes it significantly more expensive. I don't have anything against THX, in fact it's awesome, but the certification process is quite expensive and drives up the price of the component. Oftentimes, manufacturers will sell 2 receivers which are essentially the same except one is THX certified and, therefore, significantly more expensive - the DTR-6 & 7 are perfect examples of this.
The rest of the system is pretty mundane. I didn't sweat the DVD player too much because I knew I was going to use it only as a transport so all I needed to do was make sure it has sufficiently low jitter on its digital output (it does). The VCR was a gift so it is pretty vanilla - which is okay because I can't get too excited about VHS (even SVHS). The Dreamcast is cool and it admirably filled the void while the world waited (waits) for the PS2 vaporware to condense. The TV is nice but nothing special. I just wanted something that had multiple S-video inputs, dark blacks & a good color decoder (most consumer grade TVs have a lot of red "push"). I would have liked to get a flat screen CRT like the Sony Vega but I couldn't justify the price while I wait (impatiently) for HDTV to get its act together. So, in a sense, the TV is kind of a stopgap measure. As I mentioned earlier, I am putting together an MP3 jukebox for the system. I am assembling the PC myself in a rackmount chassis that I will mount in a small black laminate rack (8 or 12 U) along with an AC line conditioner for the whole system and a UPS for the PC. I am currently having a hard time finding the right sound card though. I only want to use a card with a low jitter optical (Toslink) digital out so I can use my receiver for decoding but I'd like it to also support wavetable synthesis so I can hear MIDI from games without needing another soundcard as well. The consumer grade cards like those from Turtle Beach support DTS & MIDI on separate digital outputs while the pro grade cards like those from Digital Audio Labs don't support MIDI at all. I am open to suggestions. Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
On a final note, setup and accessories are not to be overlooked. Buy nice 12 gauge speaker wire which can run you on the order of $100 to wire a medium size room (damn, those rear channels are far away). I don't feel the need for anything fancier than that. You'll also need a special cable for the powered subwoofer (another ~$30). I recommend getting wire yokes (like dual bananas) for the end of the speaker wire as they speed disassembly & reassembly of the system if, for example, you move. Some purists may argue that this degrades the sound but I can't hear it (not to say that it isn't there). I also find a test DVD and a sound meter very helpful for calibration. I have the AVIA calibration disk (~$20) which is nice as it includes a full suite of audio test tones and video patterns. Watch out for the Plughe (sp?) disks as they use blacker-than-black in some of their video tests which not all DVD players support. The sound meter is an el cheapo model from Radio Shack (~$35) but gets the job done (and the AVIA disk explains how to use it properly). It would be nice to use an oscilloscope and an arbitrary waveform generator for calibration (prohibitively expensive unless you can borrow them from work) but it's just too much of a burden considering you'll need to recalibrate several times in the first year as your speakers break in and it really doesn't pay off unless you have a multichannel equalizer in your system. On the issue of speaker "break-in", plan on playing music constantly on the system for at least the first 24-72 hours (no I'm serious, it really does help). Last, but not least, plan to work on your setting up your system for at least one whole day (it took me two) and make sure that you have at least a case of beer on hand (it took me two). With a little care, your system will sound as good, if not considerably better, than your local movie theater - and without the bad projectionists, whiney brats and sticky floors (YMMV). In fact, I NEVER go to the cinema any more because it is always such a disappointment (and I like near one of those space-age gigaplexes). For pure chewing satisfaction, I recommend using Netflix for online DVD rental - fixed fee, rent all you want, no late fees (check it out).
Good luck! Soon you too can have the rowdiest home theater in the universe!
This would be a great way to open the development market for console game. All we would need is a kernel port and drivers for the custom hardware. Then any ubergeek could write console games without needing an (ultra)expensive development system. Dreamcast & Playstation2 are the obvious choices but is Microsoft unwittingly building a potential Linux "thin client" with the X-Box?
I think I just crashed my pants!
Both Iapetus & Cliff ask, in effect, why does Apple even bother trying to block rumors of upcoming product announcements.
;)
The most obvious reason is that Steve Jobs is so thin-skinned that he will unleash the hounds on any mortal who dares to steal any of his precious thunder.
However, this is only partly correct. The primary reason is actually quite reasonable and pragmatic.
In Apple's darkest days, leaks were so rampant that the company's roll-out plans were often known 2 and sometimes 3 full product generations in advance. Now, even though the Mac faithful will purchase/upgrade regardless of what is released, the foreknowledge of what key new features are upcoming and when they will be released prompted many to wait. By the time that those products were released, new vistas had become visible on the horizon, thereby prompting even more waiting.
By keeping upcoming releases close to the vest, Apple encourages the "no better time to buy than the present" mentality that keeps the revenues rolling in. Furthermore, the sooner Apple can get consumers to purchase, the sooner they can get them to upgrade/replace. Anything that encourages waiting, such as product leaks, dilutes the revenue stream and lengthens the interval between purchases.
Although this explains Apple's cultural oppposition to leaks (esp. long-term), it doesn't really explain the extreme reaction to leaking a product that was scheduled for release in just weeks. I think that explanation requires returning to the jealous thunder god theory
Checking the Linux Kernel Version History reveals that v.1.0 was released on 13 March 1994. I think that we can be forgiving enough to accept "around 1995" and "five or six years" as reasonably close to the mark. I certainly don't think that this error is so egregious as to invalidate whatever point the original article's author is trying to make.