The fact that he was shafted by Jobs, and doesn't lead a multi-millionaire lifestyle is testament to this. He did it for the love.
This is a really ignorant comment... i think you COULD make the arguement that job's shafted him (even more than once if you know your apple history) but wozniak came out of apple with a TON of money, hundreds of millions of dollars.
The problem was that he blew it all, literally. The guy decided to fund all sorts of things, namely a company trying to make a universal remote... but i believe the thing that sucked away most of his money was when he got it into his head that he could be a concert promoter, and lost his shirt.
When the GIMP (or comprable app) can use the photshop 5 keyboard shortcuts
Well, here is another stupid argument coming. Judging professional application by keyboard shortcut compatibility with other application. Is it trained monkey who is going to use it? So that once imprinted with some basic keyboard accords it cannot do anything else effectively? Oh my...
A few un-thought points do not invalidate his entire arguement, nor the rest of the ones he makes.
It always makes me disappointed when someone can't refute someone's key points, so they pick out the smallest things and go after them.
My company has spent a little over $1300 on Adobe products. Of course, I could never justify spending this much personally for what many consider to be 'essential' tools for web design and publishing. A great deal of this. I imagine that a great deal of this goes to fund Adobe's legal departement and executive management layer. We know for a fact that that all three of these flagship products could be replicated by OSS programmers with not a lot of difficulty. It would be a large project, but most of that art functionality is already in GIMP. The rest is spread around a few other art and publishing tools.
That's right. Adobe's hideously inflated prices go to support their vast corporate empire, and *not* to better their products. They could be doing better, but they're not.
*sigh* To preface this... i dont like adobe. I really, really dislike them... mostly because I have to pay them so much money also. But the issues you talk about aren't just relegated to adobe...
You know what? OSS companies COULD duplicate photoshop, given enough time and access to the code and the intricasies that have been built into photoshop for years and years.
The problem is, they probably would not have come =up= with photoshop in the first place, or at least it would be stuck at GIMP-levels.
The thing is, a corporation has the resources and infrastructure (ie apple, or IBM, or macromedia) so that when a customer says, "You know what, we want the stability of unix but with a consisttent and easy-to-use GUI..." the corporation has the capital to pay many engineers/coders to do research and development into the subject, and come up with solutions, and IMPLIMENT them. Orginal ideas.
Take a look at GIMP, or KDE or Gnome. Gimp is a cool product. But when you use it, it feels unfinished. It's unusable for higher-end print work, mostly because the people who are working on it don't have the resources to impliment that functionality, let alone spending the man hours getting it all to work. A corporation has the money (theoretically) to pay code monkees and project managers to get all those things in (even if you personally don't use them).
As for patents... come on, they're necessary. Everyone goes on about how they are there to protect the little guy, but that is mostly just a bi-product.
Patents are really just there because without them, companies and individuals would hold onto their secrets and methods of doing things, and after that company died, etc that technology would be lost. Take damascus steel... it disappeared for ages and couldn't be re-introduced because no one had any idea how it had been made, the process was too highly guarded a secret. Patents are a way for knowledge to not be lost forever, and to eventually enter the public domain. In exchange for that, the company/individual gets protection/exclusivity for awhile. It's just a good thing, even if some of the details are changing because our society has changed.
Photoshop has been around since the Dawn of Time by computer standards, and somehow it violates a Macromedia patent filed just 3 years ago. I'm using Photoshop 6 now, and as far as I can see, it does the same thing every other version has done,
*bzzzt* I doubt you have been using photoshop for all that long then (relative to the entire life of the product.
Photoshop is built upon a mammoth of legacy code, but there have been sweeping funcationality changes, even much of the interface has stayed the same.
A case in point would be the introduction of layers @ version 3.0, or all of the inter-changeability between its programs that came about in v5.5.
It could be something as simple as compression algorithms used (remember when the LZW compression format was bought and the company wanted to charge for it... ie, GIF)... or the specific way adobe is causing some functionality to come about.
If I were macromedia, and I'd spent $$$ coming up with a specific to a problem, and patent it... and I find out later that another company has grabbed that, put it into its code and is using it to compete against me... i would go after them.
If Microsoft had been found to have integrated certain functions using GNU code (yeah i know they are using BSD code, but hey the license allows it) then the slashdot community would be up in arms... because Microsoft would be using using others hard work and investments to compete against them.
It may well turn out to be a very frivilous patent, but to just assume so without waiting for the facts is the sign of a very closed mind.
Dear god, is anyone doing anything like this in Chicago?
Seattle has such cool stuff going on as far as wireless freenets and sharing connections... Seattle and Chicago have a lot in common neighborhood and they're very similar urban environments...
You really dont' know what you're talking about... photoshop and final cut pro are cool, but photoshop is often used for benchmarks.
New media is cool, but want to know what 75% of all photoshop work targets? Print work. For that you need quark. Illustrator. Freehand. The whole bit.
And yes, all those applications exist for windows. But know what? They don't work correctly. They come close, but not close enough for a production environment. I've seen 2 print shops get it into their heads that they should go all-PC and it was a disaster every single time.
there are just so many things built in to the OS that most people don't need (color sync being one) that people who use their macs to generate dough really truly need.
There is actually a reason for this... Apple sells quite a bit through its online store now, but many (if not most) of its systems are sold through 3rd party vendors such as clubmac, powermac, outpost, etc.
They have in the past specifically requested of apple that they keep the ram amounts fairly low, as it gives them incentives and packaging deals to try to move units. Ie, "oooh clubmac will give you 256megs free with every imac for $30 install fee!" If you check out you'll see what i mean.
I believe that for anything to really get somewhere, it needs engineers AND visionaries.
It's not popular, but I'll use apple as an example. Apple wouldn't have existed if not for Steve Wozniak. But it also would not have existed if not for Steve Jobs. Love him or hate him, what steve (and other visionaries) brings to the table is a focus... putting the pieces together of what they have and slowly working towards an endgame.
Don't believe for one second that MacOS X isn't heading somewhere. Even steve might not be completely sure, but I would be my left nut that he his subconscious is brewing on it... and it will cool- even if they dont have the market cap to have immediate effects, it will trickle down if it is cool enough.
Now, does linux have a steve jobs? This is a serious question, not trolling.
Linus doesn't seem to be it... i have great respect for the man, but I don't think even he considers himself a visionsary or has a vision of where he wants to see linux finally go. And no, don't give me a comment like "well thats the beauty of it, it is a never-ending process and who knows where it will go!".
Even Microsoft has a visonary, although they work from more of a backwards approach- "What are big future markets we can go into to solidy our position and keep large amounts of growth coming? Become a government? Great, we'll start by holding everyone's personal information." (joking)
So who is it? What is the vision for linux? I admit I don't know the alot of the social circle involved around linux, so I could be missing something.
But to me it looks like it is going to break, as there is no vision. Linus looks like he is looking at it from an engineering standpoint and saying "I am laying this foundation and you can do whatever the hell you want with it.", but there doesn't seem to be any vision.
Right now it is a great solution (if you have the skills) for small to medium sized servers, and marginally passible as a desktop system.
It looks like linus is engineering towards scalability for larger servers and solutions... is that the vision? And the guys trying to make it into a decent desktop are working against that? Are they at some point going to have to fork the code, so that someone with a vision can push it towards being the coolest consumer desktop around, and someone else can push it towards being the most scalable server solution?
Again, i'm not trolling... but I don't see anyone with a vision in the linux world, and i'm probably just ignorant of the people out there with them.:)
we are going to try and conquer Afghanistan is an idiot
Anyone who can encourage or justify any kind of Military operation is an idiot.
Violence and War is wrong in all cases; be they State sanctioned or acts from extremists...
Canadians for Proportional Representation: Please see votepr.org && fairvotecanada.com.
People like you love cop-outs... its scary to stand up to the guy taking your lunch money... you piss your pants just thinking about it. So instead you rationalize ways to make yourself seem BETTER than those who want to keep, and have thier children keep, their lunch money.
Total agression is bad. No one is talking about that here, if the USA was deciding to create colonies or something... we'd all be pissed.
What we're talking about is stopping these insane assholes before NOW, like we should have years ago before this ever happened. So our kids dont have to deal with anthrax being dropped in the water. So they don't setoff a nuke in the great lakes just so we'll get the fallout.
Pacifists are all well and great, if it's not them. If you walked in on someone killing your brother, or raping your sister, you'd kill the bastard trying to do it, or use some form of violence.
That said, Lord of Light can be taken as an exemplar of the sort of scifi that can hold up for a long time. The key is to avoid futurism;
I really agree with this- I read somewhere that "fantasy is easy, because you can make the rules up as you go along. If you need the character to be able to wield fire, make up a ring that does that, etc... but science fiction is so much harder because you have to be able to explain why the hell your character can wield fire."
All the sci fi I've read (probably not as much as 50% of the people here, but quite alot) that seemed dated was when the tech was the story (although it can still be a great read).
When i've read things like "the final encyclopedia" I could tell that parts might seem dated, but at the whole it is just a damn good story, with rich protagonists and the tech was used as a device to put them into situations for great story telling about character that would be difficult to do in a normal setting.
Ie, "the lord of the light" deals with issues of humanity, greed, power, hubris, and the sci fi aspect is there to just let that story happen, not take it over. The same with Dune.
I fondly recall reading the Amber chronicles, perhaps some of my most treasured books.
I always felt badly, because I have some friends who really enjoy them... but i could never get into the Amber Chronicles. I liked some of the images he would pop into my head, but it always seemed so... hokey?
Yes, I know they're old... and he often has a lot of "hokey" stuff in his books, stuff that just feels a little "off". But I just finished reading his last book, that he co-authored with someone else, "DonnerJack" and for some reason the hokey images worked (the mastadon sucking on power ups he picked from trees while riding on a giant copper war locomotive) and stuck in my head... the amber chronicles never did that for me.
I always felt guilty reading them, like if someone came up and laughed that i was reading a SCI-FI book, i wouldnt be able to explain why it was a valuable piece of work (like donnerjack, or lord of light).
ethical delimmas (speilberg/kubrik)
on
Lord of Light
·
· Score: 1
I like alot of Card's books... his three big series are what everyone seems to think about when it comes to him (ender's game, the one with the satelite orbiting the earth warping people's minds, and the alvin maker's series), but my two favorite books from him were "Lost Boys" which i actually somehow read for the first time on christmas eve (the book takes place over christmas) and it just freaked me out... and a short story he wrote, about a man who tried to kill this freakish baby looking thing in a toilet... and it starts following him, never stopping. To this day that story freaks me out.
To get more to my point though... when i would read his earlier work, I would be drawn to these fantastic ethical delimmas he would come up with, which would make the book stay in your mind. I was never really impressed with alot of his imagery and writing style until his later works, he just reminds me a LOT of speilberg sometimes, knowing just how to tap you for an emotional response, while zelazny would remind of kubrik (much more analytical, and making you work for your supper right from the start).
Is anyone else suprised that the G4 core seems so vanilla? The difficulty of making a 4 stage pipeline run at upwards of 733 MHZ on a.25 or.18 micron process is pretty amazing. I'm impressed.
That has been part of the problem with the existing G4's, and also one of their biggest benefits. I don't know how closely you've followed Mac tech, but god... the things were stuck at 500MHz for so, so long, it was pathetic. Because they couldn't get the clock speed up, Apple eventually had to add a second processor without raising the price at all (which was nice, but because of OS 9 not many apps could benefit).
Because the pipelines were so shallow, they were fast as hell but ramping them up was causing all kinds of problems, and the rumor is altivec just made it worse. Apparently just getting up to 733MHz wasnt very easy.
Moto wants cool, shallow pipelined chips for their embedded market and while this has been a boon to apple in some ways (you have g4 portables! imagine a pentium 4 portable) it is just annoying when you buy their systems and want the speed.
The rumor now is that apple has taken on alot of the design for the new g4's and g5's, to better suit their needs and not motorola's.
then I think you have to go up to the 733MHz or Dual 533MHz models.
Actually, the dual 533mhz are G4's. The currently shipping G4e's are the 667MHz and the 733MHz.
There was some talk when the 667 and 733's came out about current compilers not being geared towards really exploiting them.
The 667 i believe has been discontinued (the dual 533 was such a sweet buy in comparison) and the rumors are shortly the 733MHz will become the low end, with their being an 866 and a 933 (potentially).
Downtown NYC actually, and then again in downtown Chicago. I think it was only $7 in chicago.
how much do you think movies cost in big metropolitan areas now? I can remember visiting friends 10yrs ago in smaller areas and being happy it was like $5.75, then $6.25, then $6.50, now... the last smaller town i actually saw a movie in was south bend, indiana... and it cost $7.50 again there (kerasotes movies 16).
It won't really affect geeks, though. No one i know with a digital camera uses the manufacturers software, they just copy the pics from the card to the hard drive and then go to Photoshop.
Yeah, but what if you do this for a living? I use a high-end kodak, right now on the mac through photoshop, and kodak's software plugs in through its twain and aquire filters...
But I know alot of people who use the standalone application, especially on PC's and especially if they use Nikon's software, and this would suck if you were a company trying to make software that interacts with your hardware product.
Ie, you make a piece of mp3 software that comes with the portable player you are selling, and microsoft makes it extremely hard for users to get your software to come up instead of theirs. That will effect geeks eventually.
Around 1994 there was a screen saver type thing released for the mac called "barney blaster" that would have barney hopping around the screen singing till he is shot, stops singing and looks at you, then dies... then the cycle repeats.
I loved that damn thing, you could select how he would die (gut shot with blood, headshot with blood, cannonball, just a big "blast" graphic like he was exploding, etc...
Anyone else remember this or something similar for the PC?
I liked the first movie... didnt feel like I'd wasted my $7.50, but for some reason it didnt leave me burning to see a sequal the way "raiders" and "temple of doom" did...
You know... I would probably dig another indiana jones flick (not that i was seriously enthralled with the last installment, but at least the chinese kid wasn't there) but I'm finding myself missing eighties movies.:(
To explain... it just seems to me like in the 80's you had all these movies coming out, and the budgets, while big, weren't so astronomical that you had to guarantee a certain amount of mass acceptance to not have to file chapter 13.
I've heard stories that spielberg shot raiders in 23 days, and he budget couldnt have been THAT huge (if you think about it, there arent that many special effects or many locations).
Yes, I know we have things like "american pie" taking the place of "porkies" and "save the last dance" taking the place of sixteen candles... but can "dude where's my car" take the place of a "ferris buellers day off" or "raiders of the lost ark"?
I dont know, maybe I'm off base... but when I think back it just seemed like if you made $30 million the studio was happy, so instead of one movie with a $140 million budget (what the article quoted it would take to make indiana jones 4) why not FOUR movies at $35 million?
I want my Highlanders, Ferris Buellers, Evil Dead2's, Porky's, revenge of the nerds, last unicorns, the never ending stories, etc...
Sigh. Maybe in 10 years the internet and streaming movies will let studio's make lower budget movies that can be more experimental and not have to have a built in 80% target demographic.
Kudo's to you for at least backing up where you were coming from and explaining.
As for your 6100... god man, that thing is pushing the envelope.:) It goes both ways, apple has made some nasty things (some of the performas when apple tried to come down in price but keep some of their margins) but most are really well built machines (i have one friend still using her lc 475, and another is just now upgrading their performa 575).
I actually have a 6100/66, I'm sorry you've had problems with yours... mine has been really stable, although now I primarily just use it as part of a render farm and an email backup in case my main system goes psycho.
You might want to consider getting a used beige g3 (i just got a 266mhz g3 with a 4gig hd, 96megs of ram and a 17" monitor for $400) and imacs are cheap... I think you'd be surrpised at the quality and how they are put together.
I don't remember. Did the optical mouse first debut as an Apple product?
Of course not. You missed the whole point, or are trolling. My point about the optical mouse was that apple did something cool with it. Back then, no other manufacturer was including optical mice for with the system, especially not such a cool looking and working one (one button mouse aside).
Even the lowly imacs all received them, it was a big push for the technology.
Man it sounds like you copied this out of a Apple sales brochure.
No, I've just had a lot of experience with macs and pc's in different markets.
Can the Mac play half-life and run counter-strike? I use both mouse buttons while playing games - what about that?
Did you even read my post? I said, "those games are on the pc". Valve was a small company (thats why they used such an outdated engine) and doesnt have the resources to bring half life to the mac... but come to think of it, i think their publisher did, although you can only network with other macs.
As for using two mice... duh. Come on. All mac's have USB. Buy a cheap 2-button mouse, and it works. I use the microsoft intellimouse explorer, but also have a logitech and macally.
PC's are where it's at for hardcore and niche gaming, that's what i said. But for the casual user, most of what they will want is there (diablo, quake, unreal, myst3, etc, etc).
Similiar prephials on macs cost twice as much as they do on the PC
Um, no they dont. Give me an example? Macs and PC's use the same memory now, both use PCI, same hard drive, cd burners all plug in via firewire or usb or ata or external scsi, scanners are all usb or firewire or scsi, digital cameras are all usb or firewire, mice are all usb.... what exactly are you talking about?
repairing them is an absolute bitch. Few years back when I serviced macs it was not too uncommon to wait over a year (that meant the user had no computer for over a year) for simple parts like volume buttons, disk drives (superdrives), and other things like that
You're either trolling or living in the cold war. A few years is like 20 in computer years. First of all, those were the performa years. Those computers sucked. Lemons. Apple should be raked over the coals for those. But almost all mac parts now are also pc parts (memory, hard drive, etc) and anything that isnt is on the motherboard, and if that goes under warranty you're taken care of.
Depending on who you ask, this is either a blessing (commodity parts allow pc makers to make mac versions cheaply and apple doesnt have to invent the wheel every time) or a curse, in that maybe apple could do them better.
What you're saying had merit: a couple of years ago.
Slashdot Mirror
The fact that he was shafted by Jobs, and doesn't lead a multi-millionaire lifestyle is testament to this. He did it for the love.
This is a really ignorant comment... i think you COULD make the arguement that job's shafted him (even more than once if you know your apple history) but wozniak came out of apple with a TON of money, hundreds of millions of dollars.
The problem was that he blew it all, literally. The guy decided to fund all sorts of things, namely a company trying to make a universal remote... but i believe the thing that sucked away most of his money was when he got it into his head that he could be a concert promoter, and lost his shirt.
When the GIMP (or comprable app) can use the photshop 5 keyboard shortcuts
Well, here is another stupid argument coming. Judging professional application by keyboard shortcut compatibility with other application. Is it trained monkey who is going to use it? So that once imprinted with some basic keyboard accords it cannot do anything else effectively? Oh my...
A few un-thought points do not invalidate his entire arguement, nor the rest of the ones he makes.
It always makes me disappointed when someone can't refute someone's key points, so they pick out the smallest things and go after them.
My company has spent a little over $1300 on Adobe products. Of course, I could never justify spending this much personally for what many consider to be 'essential' tools for web design and publishing. A great deal of this. I imagine that a great deal of this goes to fund Adobe's legal departement and executive management layer. We know for a fact that that all three of these flagship products could be replicated by OSS programmers with not a lot of difficulty. It would be a large project, but most of that art functionality is already in GIMP. The rest is spread around a few other art and publishing tools.
That's right. Adobe's hideously inflated prices go to support their vast corporate empire, and *not* to better their products. They could be doing better, but they're not.
*sigh* To preface this... i dont like adobe. I really, really dislike them... mostly because I have to pay them so much money also. But the issues you talk about aren't just relegated to adobe...
You know what? OSS companies COULD duplicate photoshop, given enough time and access to the code and the intricasies that have been built into photoshop for years and years.
The problem is, they probably would not have come =up= with photoshop in the first place, or at least it would be stuck at GIMP-levels.
The thing is, a corporation has the resources and infrastructure (ie apple, or IBM, or macromedia) so that when a customer says, "You know what, we want the stability of unix but with a consisttent and easy-to-use GUI..." the corporation has the capital to pay many engineers/coders to do research and development into the subject, and come up with solutions, and IMPLIMENT them. Orginal ideas.
Take a look at GIMP, or KDE or Gnome. Gimp is a cool product. But when you use it, it feels unfinished. It's unusable for higher-end print work, mostly because the people who are working on it don't have the resources to impliment that functionality, let alone spending the man hours getting it all to work. A corporation has the money (theoretically) to pay code monkees and project managers to get all those things in (even if you personally don't use them).
As for patents... come on, they're necessary. Everyone goes on about how they are there to protect the little guy, but that is mostly just a bi-product.
Patents are really just there because without them, companies and individuals would hold onto their secrets and methods of doing things, and after that company died, etc that technology would be lost. Take damascus steel... it disappeared for ages and couldn't be re-introduced because no one had any idea how it had been made, the process was too highly guarded a secret. Patents are a way for knowledge to not be lost forever, and to eventually enter the public domain. In exchange for that, the company/individual gets protection/exclusivity for awhile. It's just a good thing, even if some of the details are changing because our society has changed.
Photoshop has been around since the Dawn of Time by computer standards, and somehow it violates a Macromedia patent filed just 3 years ago. I'm using Photoshop 6 now, and as far as I can see, it does the same thing every other version has done,
*bzzzt* I doubt you have been using photoshop for all that long then (relative to the entire life of the product.
Photoshop is built upon a mammoth of legacy code, but there have been sweeping funcationality changes, even much of the interface has stayed the same.
A case in point would be the introduction of layers @ version 3.0, or all of the inter-changeability between its programs that came about in v5.5.
It could be something as simple as compression algorithms used (remember when the LZW compression format was bought and the company wanted to charge for it... ie, GIF)... or the specific way adobe is causing some functionality to come about.
If I were macromedia, and I'd spent $$$ coming up with a specific to a problem, and patent it... and I find out later that another company has grabbed that, put it into its code and is using it to compete against me... i would go after them.
If Microsoft had been found to have integrated certain functions using GNU code (yeah i know they are using BSD code, but hey the license allows it) then the slashdot community would be up in arms... because Microsoft would be using using others hard work and investments to compete against them.
It may well turn out to be a very frivilous patent, but to just assume so without waiting for the facts is the sign of a very closed mind.
Dear god, is anyone doing anything like this in Chicago?
Seattle has such cool stuff going on as far as wireless freenets and sharing connections... Seattle and Chicago have a lot in common neighborhood and they're very similar urban environments...
You really dont' know what you're talking about... photoshop and final cut pro are cool, but photoshop is often used for benchmarks.
New media is cool, but want to know what 75% of all photoshop work targets? Print work. For that you need quark. Illustrator. Freehand. The whole bit.
And yes, all those applications exist for windows. But know what? They don't work correctly. They come close, but not close enough for a production environment. I've seen 2 print shops get it into their heads that they should go all-PC and it was a disaster every single time.
there are just so many things built in to the OS that most people don't need (color sync being one) that people who use their macs to generate dough really truly need.
There is actually a reason for this... Apple sells quite a bit through its online store now, but many (if not most) of its systems are sold through 3rd party vendors such as clubmac, powermac, outpost, etc.
They have in the past specifically requested of apple that they keep the ram amounts fairly low, as it gives them incentives and packaging deals to try to move units. Ie, "oooh clubmac will give you 256megs free with every imac for $30 install fee!" If you check out you'll see what i mean.
I believe that for anything to really get somewhere, it needs engineers AND visionaries.
:)
It's not popular, but I'll use apple as an example. Apple wouldn't have existed if not for Steve Wozniak. But it also would not have existed if not for Steve Jobs. Love him or hate him, what steve (and other visionaries) brings to the table is a focus... putting the pieces together of what they have and slowly working towards an endgame.
Don't believe for one second that MacOS X isn't heading somewhere. Even steve might not be completely sure, but I would be my left nut that he his subconscious is brewing on it... and it will cool- even if they dont have the market cap to have immediate effects, it will trickle down if it is cool enough.
Now, does linux have a steve jobs? This is a serious question, not trolling.
Linus doesn't seem to be it... i have great respect for the man, but I don't think even he considers himself a visionsary or has a vision of where he wants to see linux finally go. And no, don't give me a comment like "well thats the beauty of it, it is a never-ending process and who knows where it will go!".
Even Microsoft has a visonary, although they work from more of a backwards approach- "What are big future markets we can go into to solidy our position and keep large amounts of growth coming? Become a government? Great, we'll start by holding everyone's personal information." (joking)
So who is it? What is the vision for linux? I admit I don't know the alot of the social circle involved around linux, so I could be missing something.
But to me it looks like it is going to break, as there is no vision. Linus looks like he is looking at it from an engineering standpoint and saying "I am laying this foundation and you can do whatever the hell you want with it.", but there doesn't seem to be any vision.
Right now it is a great solution (if you have the skills) for small to medium sized servers, and marginally passible as a desktop system.
It looks like linus is engineering towards scalability for larger servers and solutions... is that the vision? And the guys trying to make it into a decent desktop are working against that? Are they at some point going to have to fork the code, so that someone with a vision can push it towards being the coolest consumer desktop around, and someone else can push it towards being the most scalable server solution?
Again, i'm not trolling... but I don't see anyone with a vision in the linux world, and i'm probably just ignorant of the people out there with them.
I'm really interested in something like this... does anyone know if there is something like a freenet going on in Chicago? Either wireless or not...
we are going to try and conquer Afghanistan is an idiot
Anyone who can encourage or justify any kind of Military operation is an idiot.
Violence and War is wrong in all cases; be they State sanctioned or acts from extremists...
Canadians for Proportional Representation: Please see votepr.org && fairvotecanada.com.
People like you love cop-outs... its scary to stand up to the guy taking your lunch money... you piss your pants just thinking about it. So instead you rationalize ways to make yourself seem BETTER than those who want to keep, and have thier children keep, their lunch money.
Total agression is bad. No one is talking about that here, if the USA was deciding to create colonies or something... we'd all be pissed.
What we're talking about is stopping these insane assholes before NOW, like we should have years ago before this ever happened. So our kids dont have to deal with anthrax being dropped in the water. So they don't setoff a nuke in the great lakes just so we'll get the fallout.
Pacifists are all well and great, if it's not them. If you walked in on someone killing your brother, or raping your sister, you'd kill the bastard trying to do it, or use some form of violence.
Actually he's telling the truth.
The iBook has video out (which support mirroring AND dual displays).
The iBook's LCD only supports 1024x768, but the card in it supports much higher... which you see if you hook it up to another monitor.
I'm just coming back to chicago from las vegas, and it has been awhile.... can anyone reccomend or give experiences with high speed net access here?
Basically looking at Metro Chicago (not suburbia), DSL, cable, and I've heard they are starting a new high-speed wireless thing from the sears tower?
Experiences, opinions, etc would be much appreciated.
That said, Lord of Light can be taken as an exemplar of the sort of scifi that can hold up for a long time. The key is to avoid futurism;
I really agree with this- I read somewhere that "fantasy is easy, because you can make the rules up as you go along. If you need the character to be able to wield fire, make up a ring that does that, etc... but science fiction is so much harder because you have to be able to explain why the hell your character can wield fire."
All the sci fi I've read (probably not as much as 50% of the people here, but quite alot) that seemed dated was when the tech was the story (although it can still be a great read).
When i've read things like "the final encyclopedia" I could tell that parts might seem dated, but at the whole it is just a damn good story, with rich protagonists and the tech was used as a device to put them into situations for great story telling about character that would be difficult to do in a normal setting.
Ie, "the lord of the light" deals with issues of humanity, greed, power, hubris, and the sci fi aspect is there to just let that story happen, not take it over. The same with Dune.
I fondly recall reading the Amber chronicles, perhaps some of my most treasured books.
I always felt badly, because I have some friends who really enjoy them... but i could never get into the Amber Chronicles. I liked some of the images he would pop into my head, but it always seemed so... hokey?
Yes, I know they're old... and he often has a lot of "hokey" stuff in his books, stuff that just feels a little "off". But I just finished reading his last book, that he co-authored with someone else, "DonnerJack" and for some reason the hokey images worked (the mastadon sucking on power ups he picked from trees while riding on a giant copper war locomotive) and stuck in my head... the amber chronicles never did that for me.
I always felt guilty reading them, like if someone came up and laughed that i was reading a SCI-FI book, i wouldnt be able to explain why it was a valuable piece of work (like donnerjack, or lord of light).
I like alot of Card's books... his three big series are what everyone seems to think about when it comes to him (ender's game, the one with the satelite orbiting the earth warping people's minds, and the alvin maker's series), but my two favorite books from him were "Lost Boys" which i actually somehow read for the first time on christmas eve (the book takes place over christmas) and it just freaked me out... and a short story he wrote, about a man who tried to kill this freakish baby looking thing in a toilet... and it starts following him, never stopping. To this day that story freaks me out.
To get more to my point though... when i would read his earlier work, I would be drawn to these fantastic ethical delimmas he would come up with, which would make the book stay in your mind. I was never really impressed with alot of his imagery and writing style until his later works, he just reminds me a LOT of speilberg sometimes, knowing just how to tap you for an emotional response, while zelazny would remind of kubrik (much more analytical, and making you work for your supper right from the start).
Is anyone else suprised that the G4 core seems so vanilla? The difficulty of making a 4 stage pipeline run at upwards of 733 MHZ on a .25 or .18 micron process is pretty amazing. I'm impressed.
That has been part of the problem with the existing G4's, and also one of their biggest benefits. I don't know how closely you've followed Mac tech, but god... the things were stuck at 500MHz for so, so long, it was pathetic. Because they couldn't get the clock speed up, Apple eventually had to add a second processor without raising the price at all (which was nice, but because of OS 9 not many apps could benefit).
Because the pipelines were so shallow, they were fast as hell but ramping them up was causing all kinds of problems, and the rumor is altivec just made it worse. Apparently just getting up to 733MHz wasnt very easy.
Moto wants cool, shallow pipelined chips for their embedded market and while this has been a boon to apple in some ways (you have g4 portables! imagine a pentium 4 portable) it is just annoying when you buy their systems and want the speed.
The rumor now is that apple has taken on alot of the design for the new g4's and g5's, to better suit their needs and not motorola's.
then I think you have to go up to the 733MHz or Dual 533MHz models.
Actually, the dual 533mhz are G4's. The currently shipping G4e's are the 667MHz and the 733MHz.
There was some talk when the 667 and 733's came out about current compilers not being geared towards really exploiting them.
The 667 i believe has been discontinued (the dual 533 was such a sweet buy in comparison) and the rumors are shortly the 733MHz will become the low end, with their being an 866 and a 933 (potentially).
Downtown NYC actually, and then again in downtown Chicago. I think it was only $7 in chicago.
how much do you think movies cost in big metropolitan areas now? I can remember visiting friends 10yrs ago in smaller areas and being happy it was like $5.75, then $6.25, then $6.50, now... the last smaller town i actually saw a movie in was south bend, indiana... and it cost $7.50 again there (kerasotes movies 16).
It won't really affect geeks, though. No one i know with a digital camera uses the manufacturers software, they just copy the pics from the card to the hard drive and then go to Photoshop.
Yeah, but what if you do this for a living? I use a high-end kodak, right now on the mac through photoshop, and kodak's software plugs in through its twain and aquire filters...
But I know alot of people who use the standalone application, especially on PC's and especially if they use Nikon's software, and this would suck if you were a company trying to make software that interacts with your hardware product.
Ie, you make a piece of mp3 software that comes with the portable player you are selling, and microsoft makes it extremely hard for users to get your software to come up instead of theirs. That will effect geeks eventually.
Around 1994 there was a screen saver type thing released for the mac called "barney blaster" that would have barney hopping around the screen singing till he is shot, stops singing and looks at you, then dies... then the cycle repeats.
I loved that damn thing, you could select how he would die (gut shot with blood, headshot with blood, cannonball, just a big "blast" graphic like he was exploding, etc...
Anyone else remember this or something similar for the PC?
I'll second your setiment...
I liked the first movie... didnt feel like I'd wasted my $7.50, but for some reason it didnt leave me burning to see a sequal the way "raiders" and "temple of doom" did...
wonder why?
You know... I would probably dig another indiana jones flick (not that i was seriously enthralled with the last installment, but at least the chinese kid wasn't there) but I'm finding myself missing eighties movies. :(
To explain... it just seems to me like in the 80's you had all these movies coming out, and the budgets, while big, weren't so astronomical that you had to guarantee a certain amount of mass acceptance to not have to file chapter 13.
I've heard stories that spielberg shot raiders in 23 days, and he budget couldnt have been THAT huge (if you think about it, there arent that many special effects or many locations).
Yes, I know we have things like "american pie" taking the place of "porkies" and "save the last dance" taking the place of sixteen candles... but can "dude where's my car" take the place of a "ferris buellers day off" or "raiders of the lost ark"?
I dont know, maybe I'm off base... but when I think back it just seemed like if you made $30 million the studio was happy, so instead of one movie with a $140 million budget (what the article quoted it would take to make indiana jones 4) why not FOUR movies at $35 million?
I want my Highlanders, Ferris Buellers, Evil Dead2's, Porky's, revenge of the nerds, last unicorns, the never ending stories, etc...
Sigh. Maybe in 10 years the internet and streaming movies will let studio's make lower budget movies that can be more experimental and not have to have a built in 80% target demographic.
Kudo's to you for at least backing up where you were coming from and explaining.
:) It goes both ways, apple has made some nasty things (some of the performas when apple tried to come down in price but keep some of their margins) but most are really well built machines (i have one friend still using her lc 475, and another is just now upgrading their performa 575).
As for your 6100... god man, that thing is pushing the envelope.
I actually have a 6100/66, I'm sorry you've had problems with yours... mine has been really stable, although now I primarily just use it as part of a render farm and an email backup in case my main system goes psycho.
You might want to consider getting a used beige g3 (i just got a 266mhz g3 with a 4gig hd, 96megs of ram and a 17" monitor for $400) and imacs are cheap... I think you'd be surrpised at the quality and how they are put together.
I don't remember. Did the optical mouse first debut as an Apple product?
Of course not. You missed the whole point, or are trolling. My point about the optical mouse was that apple did something cool with it. Back then, no other manufacturer was including optical mice for with the system, especially not such a cool looking and working one (one button mouse aside).
Even the lowly imacs all received them, it was a big push for the technology.
Man it sounds like you copied this out of a Apple sales brochure.
No, I've just had a lot of experience with macs and pc's in different markets.
Can the Mac play half-life and run counter-strike? I use both mouse buttons while playing games - what about that?
Did you even read my post? I said, "those games are on the pc". Valve was a small company (thats why they used such an outdated engine) and doesnt have the resources to bring half life to the mac... but come to think of it, i think their publisher did, although you can only network with other macs.
As for using two mice... duh. Come on. All mac's have USB. Buy a cheap 2-button mouse, and it works. I use the microsoft intellimouse explorer, but also have a logitech and macally.
PC's are where it's at for hardcore and niche gaming, that's what i said. But for the casual user, most of what they will want is there (diablo, quake, unreal, myst3, etc, etc).
Similiar prephials on macs cost twice as much as they do on the PC
Um, no they dont. Give me an example? Macs and PC's use the same memory now, both use PCI, same hard drive, cd burners all plug in via firewire or usb or ata or external scsi, scanners are all usb or firewire or scsi, digital cameras are all usb or firewire, mice are all usb.... what exactly are you talking about?
repairing them is an absolute bitch. Few years back when I serviced macs it was not too uncommon to wait over a year (that meant the user had no computer for over a year) for simple parts like volume buttons, disk drives (superdrives), and other things like that
You're either trolling or living in the cold war. A few years is like 20 in computer years. First of all, those were the performa years. Those computers sucked. Lemons. Apple should be raked over the coals for those. But almost all mac parts now are also pc parts (memory, hard drive, etc) and anything that isnt is on the motherboard, and if that goes under warranty you're taken care of.
Depending on who you ask, this is either a blessing (commodity parts allow pc makers to make mac versions cheaply and apple doesnt have to invent the wheel every time) or a curse, in that maybe apple could do them better.
What you're saying had merit: a couple of years ago.