In case you missed it. A 17" CRT monitor is roughly equal to a 15" LCD. Look at the "viewable area" on your average 17" monitor. The viewable area on a 15" LCD monitor is 15". So apple gave users a '17" display'.
But yes, I'm sure that eventually Apple will make an iMac with a 17" LCD. The previous iMac would have gotten too big with a 17" CRT.
I'm betting that the imac is why there wasn't a speed bump of the Powerbook G4.
The iMac is quite small and has to deal with heat/space constraints just like a laptop. It uses so-dimms for example. It's not a hard stretch to see that it most likely uses the same G4's that would go into a Powerbook G4.
Now, imagine trying to pump out the iMacs and the Powerbook G4 at the same time. Motorola probably couldn't keep up the volume yet.
I imagine that MacWorld Tokoyo will see the release of 700 and 800 Mhz Powerbook G4s (or maybe even faster if Moto delivers).
Now the non-release of any speed bumped Professional desktop machines is the best evidence that Apple is going to move to the G5 next and do so soon. I mean, if they weren't going to the G5 soon, Apple would have announced minor speed/feature bumps in the Professional line to make them look better vs. the new imacs. Which would you buy: an $1800 800 Mhz G4/256MB/60GB/Superdrive + 15" TFT or a $1700 733 Mhz G4/128MB/40GB/CDRW + no monitor? The 867Mhz tower looks even worse.
The only reasons you'd choose a tower are if you know that you need a larger monitor, dual monitors or you are adding some PCI card. Possibly you might need 1.5GB of memory instead of 1GB. Otherwise, the imac looks like a killer deal.
Apple already makes the best mouse...one button mouse that is. No other one button mouse comes close, and no other mouse comes close either for the "one button" features (tracking, click, etc).
Problem is that most people these days want 2+ buttons and a scroll wheel.
Still, I know people who use and like two button mice and still use the Apple mouse since it's much easier on your hand. If you are a mac user you're already trained to use modifier keys anyway, so you can live w/o the extra buttons. And yes, there _are_ mac users who know what to do with extra mouse buttons!
Gandalf was almost chosen as the leader of the council. I'll quote from my copy of FOTR:
Galadriel: "It was I who first summoned the White Council. And if my designs had not gone amiss, it would have been governed by Gandalf the Grey, and then mayhap things would have gone otherwise."
This was one of the things that I didn't like about the move. Saruman is depicted as being more powerful than Gandalf which I never took as the case. I took them of equal power but focused on different areas of study and philosophy.
Saruman was also openly saying "we must join with Sauron" which he never says in the book. To be fair, it's obvious that he's going to double cross Sauron in the movie. In the movie, it's side with Sauron. In the book, Gandalf sums up Saruman by saing "it's either submit to Sauron or to yourself."
But, I will say I'm _very_ impressed with the overall portrayal of Gandalf. He looks and acts like I'd imagined him. Though I would have liked to have seen more of him laughing, as that's a key difference between him and Saruman and the way they both act. But that side of Gandalf is shown, so other than the fact that he gets his ass kicked by Saruman I love Sir Ian's and Jackson's work. (in the book, they don't ever directly fight, Saurman seems to use the threat of physical force to bar Gandalf's escape).
I suggest that you look at this from a different angle. The CIA would equate to MS. If MS finds a vulnerability they don't tell anyone. We hope MS will fix the problem in the next release. I hope the government fixes any vulnerabilities they find (though there have been several reports to the contrary).
On the other hand, if a reporter discovers some huge security flaw. Should they be allowed to report it? An ethical reporter would notify the agency in charge before publishing. This would give the agency a head start to fix the problem. Just like most people who find security flaws contact the vendor before announcing the bug (unless it's found "in the wild" as in crackers are already using the exploit).
There are certain cases where a reporter probably should sit on the story, but most likely if a reporter can find out, so can the "bad guys". It's probably far better for the government to fess up and fix the problem (or be aware that the problem exists).
The former director of the Dept. of Transportation kept trying to get security tightened at airports before eventually resigning over the issue. No one wanted to spend the $$ to increase Airport security. In this case disclosure didn't help.
There are probably dozens of cases like this. If it's hard to get things fixed when the problem is published, think how hard it is to get them fixed if no one knows.
It's fair to say that if this were a commercial app, it won't be Linux only or wouldn't have been developed for Linux, rather it would have been targeted towards the Mac or Windows ("where the money is").
So it's most likely an open source program.
Now, if this program is so killer, it won't take long before it's ported to Mac OS X and Windows XP. This will negate any competitive advantage that Linux gets from the app.
The iPod doesn't really have copy protection. Instead, it's just simplistic: it designates one computer as the master and will only copy files from it. It's supposed to get music from your Mac, not supply it with music. Sure Apple could have enabled iPod to iPod transfers, etc, etc. But that's adding flashy features that aren't needed to launch the product, and they mar the simplicity that's the hallmark of the iPod.
The iPod can be mounted as a FireWire HD. I'm sure that files transfered to the iPod via iTunes can be copied off like any other file. So if you really want to geek it up, just flop to HD mode and copy away.
What I wonder is the format of the drive. FAT32? HFS? HFS+? OS 9/X can read all of them. OTH, Linux only has "pre-alpha" HFS+ support (but can read HFS). If the FW drive is FAT32 then in Firewire disk mode it could be used by any computer with Firewire. Once you know where to put files so the iPod can read them as music, it should be easy to manually copy them over.
Apple's FAQ says that you can put a system on the drive and boot from it, though Apple does not support it.
Wait a minute. Months before Apple's target was "around the end of summer". In July it was targeted "in September".
Sure they missed "end of summer" (by one week). I n the software industry slipping only one week is almost a miracle.
Now, as for the later date: "in September". You're mad because they said "in September" and actually finished and shipped the product "in September"? Me, I was just overjoyed that:
a) Apple met their target.
b) OS X.1 is as nice as it was and not some half-baked upgrade shipped out the door to meet an artificial deadline.
You might claim that the previous verions of OS X were half-baked. I claim that Apple warned everyone well in advance what each version would be like, and why it was released "incomplete".
Last year when the beta was released (compare 10.1 to OS X Public Beta, then compare a year's worth of improvement in other OSs.), Apple warned that OS X.0 wouldn't be for everyone and it'd take "a year" from it's initial release to get there. We still have about 6 months left on that clock and 10.1 pretty much delivers (just need applications now). If OS X.2 is as much better than X.1 as it is from X (or as X was from Public Beta), then it'll be stunning.
For one, there is no reason to binhex a pdf or a MS Word Doc. Neither file type dies if it looses its resource fork, which is the entire purpose of Binhex in the first place. It's not a compression scheme like [g]zip or compress, it's used to gather up a resource fork and a data fork and do the bin to ascii conversion so they can be passed around like text files in email and usenet. BinHex files are larger than the original file.
With modern browsers, it's not needed at all for web downloads. Macbinary works just fine (a simple flattening of both forks into one binary file). Unlike binhex it's only slightly bigger than the original file.
There is no reason to "add functionality" just in case someone else does something really boneheaded, like binhex a PDF. Why make a file 1/8 larger and inaccessible to most people not on a mac? It's easy to de-binhex and several programs to do so exist for other operating systems but most people don't have them installed. And, judging from some of the comments, most people don't know what binhex is in the first place.
Mac OS 9 already has a nice way to map mimetype/extensions/mac types to the app that should open them. The standard settings are perfectly fine for a large number of internet files, which should never be binhexed.
OS X doesn't have the same functionality in it's internet panel (but should). The individual browsers re-implement it. I guess Apple had too many things on the plate getting Mac OS X out the door.
It is not Stuffit. It's Internet Explorer de-binhexing and executing the coded app all on it's own. Since you mention Stuffit, I'm not sure you understand what is going on as Stuffit does not have this behavior (nor is it involved).
It's not a feature of OS X (or the OS's fault in any way). I never noticed the beta-IE (used in OS 10.0[0-4] doing this, and I used it throughout. I rarely booted into OS 9 when OS X came out, and I used the beta fairly extensively as well.
IE is auto-decoding a binhex, then if it's an application, automatically executing it. No other version of IE does this. No other mac internet app does either. Others will auto-decode files for you, but leave it to you to launch them.
Sure, you can turn off the binhex pref, but without the added "feature" it is not a security risk to simply de-binhex a file (probably less dangerous than uu-decoding). Even a savvy user who perused every setting wouldn't know to uncheck "automatically decode binhex" to turn off a feature that's so stupid one wonders why someone would bother coding it (automatically running dl'd apps).
Now Stuffit has it's own security risk. By default, it will auto-mount any disk image it decodes. A disk image can be set to automatically launch an app when loaded. Hence, Stuffit can be made to do what IE is doing in a roundabout way. Personally, I think this "feature" should be turned off for disk images as well.
I use the slowest G4, and I've not noticed Stuffit being a hog, though it is annoying. It ripped through the 189 MB dev tool installer in a few seconds.
IE has other problems as well. It will reset my Internet prefs (usually just the dl folder, but sometimes it will set itself as the default web app). Just use Omniweb, and you get a nice spell checker to spell check your posts (I know I need it).
CCTVs in public places aren't placed there to infringe on the constitutional rights of you or anyone else. They can't do that because the Constitution doesn't protect your right to be invisible in a public place.
You are looking at the Constitution the wrong way. It's not a list of all rights, merely a list of some rights. Just because a right is not mentioned, doesn't mean that you don't have it.
On the other hand, it is a full listing of the powers of the federal government. If the Constitution doesn't specifically give it the power to do something, then it doesn't have the right to do it.
Read the 9th and 10th Amendments for more info.
In this case though, I fear you are correct. Since a cop could stand out on the street with a mugshots looking, they can place a camera there to to the same thing. I would say that the camera should be in plain sight and clearly marked though (as is the cop looking). This seems to be on the edge of legal though. It would probably be illegal if they used sensors beyond normal human perception (infrared, radar, etc). Makes me wonder if augmented memory would be considered beyond normal perception.
Slashdot Mirror
In case you missed it. A 17" CRT monitor is roughly equal to a 15" LCD. Look at the "viewable area" on your average 17" monitor. The viewable area on a 15" LCD monitor is 15". So apple gave users a '17" display'.
But yes, I'm sure that eventually Apple will make an iMac with a 17" LCD. The previous iMac would have gotten too big with a 17" CRT.
I'm betting that the imac is why there wasn't a speed bump of the Powerbook G4.
The iMac is quite small and has to deal with heat/space constraints just like a laptop. It uses so-dimms for example. It's not a hard stretch to see that it most likely uses the same G4's that would go into a Powerbook G4.
Now, imagine trying to pump out the iMacs and the Powerbook G4 at the same time. Motorola probably couldn't keep up the volume yet.
I imagine that MacWorld Tokoyo will see the release of 700 and 800 Mhz Powerbook G4s (or maybe even faster if Moto delivers).
Now the non-release of any speed bumped Professional desktop machines is the best evidence that Apple is going to move to the G5 next and do so soon. I mean, if they weren't going to the G5 soon, Apple would have announced minor speed/feature bumps in the Professional line to make them look better vs. the new imacs. Which would you buy: an $1800 800 Mhz G4/256MB/60GB/Superdrive + 15" TFT or a $1700 733 Mhz G4/128MB/40GB/CDRW + no monitor? The 867Mhz tower looks even worse.
The only reasons you'd choose a tower are if you know that you need a larger monitor, dual monitors or you are adding some PCI card. Possibly you might need 1.5GB of memory instead of 1GB. Otherwise, the imac looks like a killer deal.
Apple already makes the best mouse...one button mouse that is. No other one button mouse comes close, and no other mouse comes close either for the "one button" features (tracking, click, etc).
Problem is that most people these days want 2+ buttons and a scroll wheel.
Still, I know people who use and like two button mice and still use the Apple mouse since it's much easier on your hand. If you are a mac user you're already trained to use modifier keys anyway, so you can live w/o the extra buttons. And yes, there _are_ mac users who know what to do with extra mouse buttons!
Gandalf was almost chosen as the leader of the council. I'll quote from my copy of FOTR:
Galadriel: "It was I who first summoned the White Council. And if my designs had not gone amiss, it would have been governed by Gandalf the Grey, and then mayhap things would have gone otherwise."
This was one of the things that I didn't like about the move. Saruman is depicted as being more powerful than Gandalf which I never took as the case. I took them of equal power but focused on different areas of study and philosophy.
Saruman was also openly saying "we must join with Sauron" which he never says in the book. To be fair, it's obvious that he's going to double cross Sauron in the movie. In the movie, it's side with Sauron. In the book, Gandalf sums up Saruman by saing "it's either submit to Sauron or to yourself."
But, I will say I'm _very_ impressed with the overall portrayal of Gandalf. He looks and acts like I'd imagined him. Though I would have liked to have seen more of him laughing, as that's a key difference between him and Saruman and the way they both act. But that side of Gandalf is shown, so other than the fact that he gets his ass kicked by Saruman I love Sir Ian's and Jackson's work. (in the book, they don't ever directly fight, Saurman seems to use the threat of physical force to bar Gandalf's escape).
I suggest that you look at this from a different angle. The CIA would equate to MS. If MS finds a vulnerability they don't tell anyone. We hope MS will fix the problem in the next release. I hope the government fixes any vulnerabilities they find (though there have been several reports to the contrary).
On the other hand, if a reporter discovers some huge security flaw. Should they be allowed to report it? An ethical reporter would notify the agency in charge before publishing. This would give the agency a head start to fix the problem. Just like most people who find security flaws contact the vendor before announcing the bug (unless it's found "in the wild" as in crackers are already using the exploit).
There are certain cases where a reporter probably should sit on the story, but most likely if a reporter can find out, so can the "bad guys". It's probably far better for the government to fess up and fix the problem (or be aware that the problem exists).
The former director of the Dept. of Transportation kept trying to get security tightened at airports before eventually resigning over the issue. No one wanted to spend the $$ to increase Airport security. In this case disclosure didn't help.
There are probably dozens of cases like this. If it's hard to get things fixed when the problem is published, think how hard it is to get them fixed if no one knows.
Open Source prevents a problem to this.
Posit: Someone develops a Linux killer app.
It's fair to say that if this were a commercial app, it won't be Linux only or wouldn't have been developed for Linux, rather it would have been targeted towards the Mac or Windows ("where the money is").
So it's most likely an open source program.
Now, if this program is so killer, it won't take long before it's ported to Mac OS X and Windows XP. This will negate any competitive advantage that Linux gets from the app.
The iPod doesn't really have copy protection. Instead, it's just simplistic: it designates one computer as the master and will only copy files from it. It's supposed to get music from your Mac, not supply it with music. Sure Apple could have enabled iPod to iPod transfers, etc, etc. But that's adding flashy features that aren't needed to launch the product, and they mar the simplicity that's the hallmark of the iPod.
The iPod can be mounted as a FireWire HD. I'm sure that files transfered to the iPod via iTunes can be copied off like any other file. So if you really want to geek it up, just flop to HD mode and copy away.
What I wonder is the format of the drive. FAT32? HFS? HFS+? OS 9/X can read all of them. OTH, Linux only has "pre-alpha" HFS+ support (but can read HFS). If the FW drive is FAT32 then in Firewire disk mode it could be used by any computer with Firewire. Once you know where to put files so the iPod can read them as music, it should be easy to manually copy them over.
Apple's FAQ says that you can put a system on the drive and boot from it, though Apple does not support it.
Wait a minute. Months before Apple's target was "around the end of summer". In July it was targeted "in September".
Sure they missed "end of summer" (by one week). I n the software industry slipping only one week is almost a miracle.
Now, as for the later date: "in September". You're mad because they said "in September" and actually finished and shipped the product "in September"? Me, I was just overjoyed that:
a) Apple met their target.
b) OS X.1 is as nice as it was and not some half-baked upgrade shipped out the door to meet an artificial deadline.
You might claim that the previous verions of OS X were half-baked. I claim that Apple warned everyone well in advance what each version would be like, and why it was released "incomplete".
Last year when the beta was released (compare 10.1 to OS X Public Beta, then compare a year's worth of improvement in other OSs.), Apple warned that OS X.0 wouldn't be for everyone and it'd take "a year" from it's initial release to get there. We still have about 6 months left on that clock and 10.1 pretty much delivers (just need applications now). If OS X.2 is as much better than X.1 as it is from X (or as X was from Public Beta), then it'll be stunning.
Mac apps do not do this now, nor should they.
For one, there is no reason to binhex a pdf or a MS Word Doc. Neither file type dies if it looses its resource fork, which is the entire purpose of Binhex in the first place. It's not a compression scheme like [g]zip or compress, it's used to gather up a resource fork and a data fork and do the bin to ascii conversion so they can be passed around like text files in email and usenet. BinHex files are larger than the original file.
With modern browsers, it's not needed at all for web downloads. Macbinary works just fine (a simple flattening of both forks into one binary file). Unlike binhex it's only slightly bigger than the original file.
There is no reason to "add functionality" just in case someone else does something really boneheaded, like binhex a PDF. Why make a file 1/8 larger and inaccessible to most people not on a mac? It's easy to de-binhex and several programs to do so exist for other operating systems but most people don't have them installed. And, judging from some of the comments, most people don't know what binhex is in the first place.
Mac OS 9 already has a nice way to map mimetype/extensions/mac types to the app that should open them. The standard settings are perfectly fine for a large number of internet files, which should never be binhexed.
OS X doesn't have the same functionality in it's internet panel (but should). The individual browsers re-implement it. I guess Apple had too many things on the plate getting Mac OS X out the door.
It is not Stuffit. It's Internet Explorer de-binhexing and executing the coded app all on it's own. Since you mention Stuffit, I'm not sure you understand what is going on as Stuffit does not have this behavior (nor is it involved).
It's not a feature of OS X (or the OS's fault in any way). I never noticed the beta-IE (used in OS 10.0[0-4] doing this, and I used it throughout. I rarely booted into OS 9 when OS X came out, and I used the beta fairly extensively as well.
IE is auto-decoding a binhex, then if it's an application, automatically executing it. No other version of IE does this. No other mac internet app does either. Others will auto-decode files for you, but leave it to you to launch them.
Sure, you can turn off the binhex pref, but without the added "feature" it is not a security risk to simply de-binhex a file (probably less dangerous than uu-decoding). Even a savvy user who perused every setting wouldn't know to uncheck "automatically decode binhex" to turn off a feature that's so stupid one wonders why someone would bother coding it (automatically running dl'd apps).
Now Stuffit has it's own security risk. By default, it will auto-mount any disk image it decodes. A disk image can be set to automatically launch an app when loaded. Hence, Stuffit can be made to do what IE is doing in a roundabout way. Personally, I think this "feature" should be turned off for disk images as well.
I use the slowest G4, and I've not noticed Stuffit being a hog, though it is annoying. It ripped through the 189 MB dev tool installer in a few seconds.
IE has other problems as well. It will reset my Internet prefs (usually just the dl folder, but sometimes it will set itself as the default web app). Just use Omniweb, and you get a nice spell checker to spell check your posts (I know I need it).
On the other hand, it is a full listing of the powers of the federal government. If the Constitution doesn't specifically give it the power to do something, then it doesn't have the right to do it.
Read the 9th and 10th Amendments for more info.
In this case though, I fear you are correct. Since a cop could stand out on the street with a mugshots looking, they can place a camera there to to the same thing. I would say that the camera should be in plain sight and clearly marked though (as is the cop looking). This seems to be on the edge of legal though. It would probably be illegal if they used sensors beyond normal human perception (infrared, radar, etc). Makes me wonder if augmented memory would be considered beyond normal perception.