A very popular (and apparently only) PVR for Mac OS X users is EyeTV. This true PVR connects to a powered USB port. Connect your TV or VCR from the cable or RCA phono inputs and go. You get delayed Live TV, the ability to record any show within the standard 2-125 non-digital world, where it can be saved indefinitely, or burned as a QuickTime movie, VCD, or DVD, and it's inexpensive. ($200). They just announced new versions that accept the DV3 over-the-air digital standard (no idea how that works) and use FireWire for better performance.
Not PC compatible, sorry. However, someone with a bit of ingenuity in Linux could probably adapt code for it--OS X works as a BSD, for all intents and purposes.
Alternatively, products from Eskape Labs (a subsidary of Hauppauge) make some other devices that can record like their PC counterparts, but not in a true PVR method.
It sounds like you're getting into ideology, here. I'm not really discussing why Big Business is Bad, but why OSS hasn't moved much farther than where it is now.
You noted that governments and companies notice OSS. But if you went to any typical home (where there are many, many more dollars that could buy a computer product) and asked them what OSS is, what would you think they'd say?
I agree with you, the lack of centralized leadership is a strength for OSS. But it's also a disadvantage. The very face of Bill Gates generates more buzz and pleasant teeth-knashing than a penguin.
We could use a talking penguin in ads right now, promoting a Linux distro, for instance, as a viable alternative, and with a cheap price to boot, with support. Where can Joe User (not Joe Manager or Administrator--they may have gotten the whiff of OSS and found it not stinketh) go get a cool Linux box and feel the same comfort (?) they have in buying a PC with Windows, or even Mac OS?
OSS, for all its strengths, lacks a commercial leadership.
That may sound like an oxymoron, given what OSS is. However, look at the successes in the personal computer world, and who they are led by. Bless ol' Linus, but is he really the leader of all of the Linux community? I'm afraid not. Linux is a distributed OS, with no leaders. Red Hat has come closest to this concept, but is not a popular brand name (yet).
OSS needs a common identity that ties all its parts together into something that can be recognized by the Joe and Jane Users they try to sway. I don't know if that should be a commercial company, or an not-for-profit, but if OSS wants to see itself as a true alternative to MS, it has to look like an alternative in the business and home computing worlds.
Oh, and the writer of the article was quite right in that Windows users aren't tolerant of trash talk, but can and will listen to why an alternative is better. Some Macintosh users work that way and get others to make the move, and so should the OSS community.
In the world today, there are two operating system camps:
The Microsoft Windows family. And everything else.
"Everything else" are UNIX family and clone operating systems, including Linux, Mac OS X, IRIX, Solaris, BSD, and more.
Windows is built by one company, and based on an operating system model that was flawed from the start.
The UNIX operating system was built with security in mind and has one advantage--there are far, far more experienced users, programmers and administrators who seek to better and strengthen the OS from malicious attacks than there are crackers experienced enough to attempt to compromise it.
Count the number of Windows-based viruses, trojans, and other malware, and then try to find a number for UNIX-based attacks.
Sooner or later, some malware will arrive that does the Unthinkable on a Windows box. A nearby Mac OS X and Linux box will likely go untouched. Watch managerial heads turn. Watch for the shift.
Microsoft could make this so easy and profitable for themselves by taking a Linux distribution (it's free), branding it "Windows LX" or whatever--and rewriting their software so that it compiles and works with every single UNIX that wants to use it. Talk about profit. Talk about security. (To some, talk about competition.)
A single-user architecture and flawed structure like Windows has doesn't have a lot of life. It merely has a lot of copies sold. Once damage from malware shows how unprofitable it is to use Wiindows in that sense, a shift may come. In some places, it has already begun.
Only Apple creates both hardware and software necessary for a no-hassle music experience. The iPod and iTunes are meant to work as a unit. For Apple to get iTunes working in a hodge-podge of an operating system such as Windows is a testament to Apple's desire to make the music experience consistant on both platforms.
Apple is out to sell iPods. Microsoft and all other companies that get into selling music online will see nothing but losses because they, nor Apple, receive any significant funds in selling music, but do get profit from selling the players.
Expect MS to pick an existing MP3 player (either by acquisition or endorsement) for their WMA player. However, Microsoft has shown their DMA attempts to be far more restrictive than Apple's. Limitations, as well as the predictable issues that WMA causes for some in configuration and use, may doom their online music attempt before it begins.
The original Mac OS and its last major update, Mac OS 9, have superficial changes, visually. As most Mac aficionados know, Mac OS 9 was a fast, strong OS.
Now, move to Mac OS X. As with the first versions of the original Mac OS, Apple spent a couple of years refining the OS, adding fundamentals while also improving speed and basic functions.
Panther is the first evolution of Mac OS X, where the updates concentrate far less on OS development and more attention on OS speed, features, and easier foundations for developers to make apps.
Mac OS X 10.3 is a great step in the right direction, especially given that Apple appears to be listening to both UNIX pro as well as graphics pro and home user alike. Enterprise users as well as home users will find a lot to use in Mac OS X. I personally want to use the improved Active Directory components to see how well I can make a Mac OS X a member of a Windows domain. THAT will show how compatible such a configuration can be to some naysayers in my workplace.
Mac OS systems may comprise about 3% of the yearly sold amount of personal computers. That's market share.
However, Mac OS systems do NOT comprise 3% of the total installed base of all computers. A more likely number of Mac OS systems in use is around 20-25%, if not a little larger.
An installed base of 3% could not possibly support the software sales for Mac developers, particularly games and business applications. It's just not possible. Try not repeating what you hear unless you understand it.
Steve Jobs is mercurial and all that, but he can read the public well lately.
What should be interesting is not iTunes playback on Windows, or even the Music Store, but the wizardry Apple had to do to make iTunes burn CDs as its Mac counterpart. Consider: While Apple makes iTunes to work with drives that it knows are present in Macintosh systems, it has to consider the myriad of CD and DVD burners out in the PC world. Hell, even dedicated PC burning software goes nuts on PCs, sometimes.
I'm thinking it leverages XP and 2000's advanced features for that sort of thing (thus the system requirements). I'll have to do some experimentation.
Even if the Windows version attracts only 5% of the user base, it's still going to rock Apple's world (and its revenues).
I would expect more cross-platform marketing and products. If Apple can't sell you a Mac, well, they'll get you a free taste of something else.
Give mod points to this man for his excellent facts and insight.
Article /.ed, But If Memory Serves
on
The Return of Apollo?
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Very shortly after the Columbia accident, a handful of old veteran astronauts, including Buzz Aldrin (likely the smartest engineer of the original astronaut groups) and John Young (first pilot of Columbia and the only astronaut from the original groups to fly Gemini, Apollo, and the Shuttle) were consultants to determine if Apollo technology could be used for a low budget to-and-fro human transport, as well as a rescue vehicle that could be mated as lifeboats to the International Space Station.
This, I thought, was a great idea. After the Apollo 1 fire of 1967, the Command Module (CM) was drastically redesigned for safety and was a winning design throughout the program. It especially showed its toughness during Apollo 13. The CM was completely powered down after the accident, and, 3 days later, was restarted on its reentry batteries (with a tiny bit of juice from the Lunar Module), and no electrical shorts occurred despite the heavy condensation in the spacecraft.
The Apollo CM design is tried and true. I prefer it as a lifepod, and NASA should reconsider the viablity of a combined vehicle that launches (with an orbiter atop) like a heavy plane to high altitude, where it serves as the launcher for the orbiter, which can use conventional and disposable boosters for the return trip. I still believe that glider vehicles make more sense and provide more abort options. Consider that Columbia and her sisters still have more ways to bail or return than a typical airliner.
No aerodynamic vehicle can survive with a damaged wing, in any case, which is why a CM-style rescue vehicle and parachutes are appealing. I just don't like the use of old ballistics like the Atlas (which have a nice record of exploding). Man-rating rockets like these is a pain in the ass.
The earliest macro virus, concept (1995), ran rampant on both Macs and PCs (despite the fact that MS Office 4 for Mac was a Piece of Sh*t) before Office had macro detectors.
Since then, almost all macro viruses in Word and Excel documents create havoc only on Windows operating systems because the viruses make procedural and path calls that work only on Windows, such as going to a directory path on C: drive, or activating a function that requires the full Visual Basic or ActiveX functionality found in Windows but stunted or non-existant in the Mac version of Office.
The Mac version of Office screams bloody murder when it detects macros and warns the user. If a modern macro virus is let to run on a Mac OS system, it fails to run or runs only to a point.
A point that should be made throughout all this virus hoopla is that while Macintosh users are generally immune from any direct attack from PC viruses, a Macintosh user can be a "typhoid Mary" style carrier by passing along a virus from an email or infected file. Also, due the SOBIG virus and BLASTER, everyone, including Macs, suffer from the Internet slowdowns that affect the servers that manage it, as well as intranet slowdowns in businesses.
Witness what happens when two countries share their knowledge: The International Space Station. The US couldn't easily build it alone financially or scientifically without the years of experience and some finances from Russia, which had made space dwellings old hat.
Imagine China doing a similar share. You could almost hear another block from their wall going down.
And if you think that's pipe dreams--remember that the ISS is international property. No one ever saw the old USSR and US really cooperating in space, of all places.
What's very interesting about the User Agent option in this Debug menu is that it automatically chooses which agent to use. Currently Safari can indicate itself as:
Mozilla 1.1 Netscape 7.0 Netscape 6.2.2 Netscape 4.79 Mac MSIE 5.2.2 Windows MSIE 6.0 Konqueror 3
I'm not sure how it does this trick, but it is a good feature, and may take the guesswork for a user in determining how to make a page work. Hopefully this option will still work when Safari arrives in its first final release.
Since we know that IE loved to make its own standards, which causes other browsers to choke or have the site reject them because they aren't using IE, I'm more worried that Mac users may lose a browser that had a fighting chance of accessing pages made by the MS webmaster drones (that is, a webmaster that does not assume non-MS users will access the site and uses proprietary code in the page that only IE/Windows understands).
The good thing is that Apple's new web browser team is very ferocious in adding features. The first thing many screamed about when Safari came out was tabs, and now, they're there, along with other features. Apple could take a lesson from the Omni Group and its browser OmniWeb, which had a preference that could make the browser say to sites that it was IE/Windows, IE/Mac, or other browser to fake it out and allow access. From there, Apple should add preferences to give Safari as many IE compatibility elements as possible--better, add them as options that the browser can sense when you go to pages that use IE/Windows features that normally aren't compatible. The user can opt to switch on these features from a modal dialog that appears on downloading the page to make things work a bit better.
The waning of IE/Mac isn't good for people like myself who try to make Macs fit better in the enterprise. PC/Windows users aren't used to choice in the browser world, so IE is their only browser, and Netscape is now a rarity in business circles. Many business-related pages are created with the various MS tools, and many webmasters are unaware that there is a Mac version of IE, much less the fact that it works much like its Windows counterpart. This change will mean that techs will have to educate the webmasters of Safari's differences to get business pages to work--not that such explanations get lots of results anyway.
The positive news is that Safari generally holds its own in compatibility more than any other browser, and has even shown more compatible than IE/Mac in some of my trials at work, which I why I use it almost exclusively today. Will the loss of IE/Mac throw Mac users back in a web-access Stone Age? Probably not, but you never know what some whacked out ideas have to be added as features in some feature MS webmastering tool that work only for IE/Windows.
Re:Why Politicians Are Shortsighted Idiots
on
Shuttle Politics
·
· Score: 1
I agree, absolutely. There are tradeoffs to everything.
For instance, what if NASA continued to paint the ETs insulation white as they did for the first two or so flights? That saved about 500 LB of weight, but could the paint had helped the ET foam from breaking off and striking the orbiter?
It is rocket science, indeed. I believe protecting the orbiter is more important than the weight saving. What good is weight saving if the orbiter arrives in orbit with no way to return safely? So, sacrifice some of the payload capacity for some measure of protection. The alternative is increased chance of vehicle failure.
Perhaps a full aeroshell underneath would be too weighty, but partial covers over leading edges and places where heat simply must not pierce would improve safety, IMO.
Why Politicians Are Shortsighted Idiots
on
Shuttle Politics
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Let's look at basic facts of manned American flights to date.
Project Mercury: 6 flights, no deaths. Project Gemini: 12 flights, no deaths, 1 abort. Project Apollo: 18 flights (including Apollo-Soyuz). 3 fatalities (non-launch-related), 1 abort (in-flight, no injuries) Project Skylab: 3 flights, no aborts.
So, by the end of 1975, Americans have flown into space only 39 times. Thirty-nine. Barely enough to tempt fate, it seems.
Space Transportation System: 113 missions, 14 fatalities (in-flight).
Everyone knows that spaceflight is still very dangerous. In the case of a Shuttle, the odds just caught up. That's not a failure.
In the Challenger disaster, NASA and its contractors failed, as they did with Apollo 1, to use their imagination properly to see the real numbers as real chances for catastrophe.
In the Columbia accident, NASA didn't go the extra mile in determining damage on the orbiter, but all other decision making appeared on-target, IMHO. Not that there were many options that they could have presented to the astronauts to save orbiter and crew.
The main problem with the Shuttle right now is to protect the critical tiles. Ice will always form on the orbiter's ET and all flights have returned with some ding damage from ice. Foam falling from the ET was obviously too much damage for Columbia to withstand.
I propose an aeroshell that fits under the orbiter body where it mounts to the ET. It would be integral to the ET, and cover the RCC and underbody of the orbiter, including part of the nose. The only change in flight that would be required is for the orbiter or the ET to be given thrusters that push the ET forward (or orbiter to aft) to clear the aeroshell that covers the leading edges and nose.
That, and perhaps we can rig a harness where we can place inept Congressmen under the STS exhaust to show them how things really work.
I agree, but it's implementation that may fall apart. Currently the PC architecture is virtually open. Any one company that defines the standard--well, doesn't that make it NOT a standard? I'm unclear where the new features introduced make it too different from the PC mainstream to make using anything but MS software practical and current PC hardware incompatible.
It's just the inertia of the PC industry that may kill this. If that weren't the case, the Mac would have a larger scope than this since it has much or all of the hardware elements that Microsoft is attempting.
Microsoft hasn't the strongest track record in the hardware area, save maybe their optical mice (most excellent for gaming).
Making a PC more "Mac-like" would create a computer that undermines the reason for the success of a PC: commodity.
While Apple's boxes aren't particularly special or different from PCs in basic parts (RAM, power supply, hard drives), the three core differences: processor, motherboard, and bootware, define what that box is and how it interacts.
Now, a PC bought today can still, in all likelihood, run MS-DOS 6.2, 3.3, Windows 3.1, or Windows 95. That is because the PC architecture hasn't really changed to the extent that operating systems and hardware are markedly different, speed improvements and interface additions notwithstanding. A PC has always been extensible, but such a new box may find it hard to get third-parties to make their hardware work.
If Microsoft were to build a Mac-like PC, they would need to make or use a smarter boot firmware. Bye-bye to the typical BIOS we know and love. That action alone would require various Linux distros to rewrite themselves for the new firmware. OK--not a biggie. Linux users did that for the Mac version of Linux. Next, the motherboard would need changes to make it smarter and work with the firmware. That's a lot of OS changes I presume, although IANAP.
Plug and play devices are still a laugh, and it would be the one thing I hope a plan would fix. Microsoft tried to dictate hardware changes during Windows 95's intro, and most of it was for the best. But even today, Windows takes several minutes to determine what the hell you have in your box. A Mac never goes through this process--at least not in a way that you are aware of. Plug and play on a Mac just works.
I don't know. I get it, but it seems that they are fighting a larger animal--the inertia of the marketplace and a desire to stay and do what they are doing. New stuff is shunned unless it looks like a gold mine. And this isn't golden, IMO.
My statement isn't silly at all. NIH has been, in my experience, attributed more to hardware and software adoption to industry standards.
Microsoft prefers to make its own standards in software or twist the ones they adapt to fit their needs, making the result a technology that is theirs and unextensible by contract or design.
Simply buying a product for their use or licensing it doesn't release MS from the results of how they use it. For instance, Microsoft licensed Java, and turned it into a joke on its operating system by twisting its functionality. Unfortunately, that is a MS developer style. Current trends indicate they are resisting change more than adapting to it as they have very successfully and profitably done in the past.
Not Invented Here thinking kept Apple, for instance, from cloning themselves at a key time. They couldn't see that extending things beyond themselves would work well for their business plan. NIH kept Apple from changing their hardware model to something more in line with PCs to make them less expensive to produce.
Microsoft, from how I see it, doesn't see the benefits of a significant UNIX move in both their OS and apps, and I don't mean modest apps, but popular mainstream versions of their popular tools, such as Office. This path may be a bad move for them, but time will tell if my speculation is right or wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
A very popular (and apparently only) PVR for Mac OS X users is EyeTV. This true PVR connects to a powered USB port. Connect your TV or VCR from the cable or RCA phono inputs and go. You get delayed Live TV, the ability to record any show within the standard 2-125 non-digital world, where it can be saved indefinitely, or burned as a QuickTime movie, VCD, or DVD, and it's inexpensive. ($200). They just announced new versions that accept the DV3 over-the-air digital standard (no idea how that works) and use FireWire for better performance.
Not PC compatible, sorry. However, someone with a bit of ingenuity in Linux could probably adapt code for it--OS X works as a BSD, for all intents and purposes.
Alternatively, products from Eskape Labs (a subsidary of Hauppauge) make some other devices that can record like their PC counterparts, but not in a true PVR method.
Hello!
You got laid off!
Goodbye.
%$##@!
It sounds like you're getting into ideology, here. I'm not really discussing why Big Business is Bad, but why OSS hasn't moved much farther than where it is now.
You noted that governments and companies notice OSS. But if you went to any typical home (where there are many, many more dollars that could buy a computer product) and asked them what OSS is, what would you think they'd say?
I agree with you, the lack of centralized leadership is a strength for OSS. But it's also a disadvantage. The very face of Bill Gates generates more buzz and pleasant teeth-knashing than a penguin.
We could use a talking penguin in ads right now, promoting a Linux distro, for instance, as a viable alternative, and with a cheap price to boot, with support. Where can Joe User (not Joe Manager or Administrator--they may have gotten the whiff of OSS and found it not stinketh) go get a cool Linux box and feel the same comfort (?) they have in buying a PC with Windows, or even Mac OS?
Yep.
Just had an image of the "too many cooks" thought, versus a Captain Kirk leading the charge as he always does...
OSS, for all its strengths, lacks a commercial leadership.
That may sound like an oxymoron, given what OSS is. However, look at the successes in the personal computer world, and who they are led by. Bless ol' Linus, but is he really the leader of all of the Linux community? I'm afraid not. Linux is a distributed OS, with no leaders. Red Hat has come closest to this concept, but is not a popular brand name (yet).
OSS needs a common identity that ties all its parts together into something that can be recognized by the Joe and Jane Users they try to sway. I don't know if that should be a commercial company, or an not-for-profit, but if OSS wants to see itself as a true alternative to MS, it has to look like an alternative in the business and home computing worlds.
Oh, and the writer of the article was quite right in that Windows users aren't tolerant of trash talk, but can and will listen to why an alternative is better. Some Macintosh users work that way and get others to make the move, and so should the OSS community.
Fuzz:
Points taken.
UNIX was made in 1969 or so, correct?
Windows showed up in 1989 or so, I think.
Damn if I don't have a fact checker.
In the world today, there are two operating system camps:
The Microsoft Windows family.
And everything else.
"Everything else" are UNIX family and clone operating systems, including Linux, Mac OS X, IRIX, Solaris, BSD, and more.
Windows is built by one company, and based on an operating system model that was flawed from the start.
The UNIX operating system was built with security in mind and has one advantage--there are far, far more experienced users, programmers and administrators who seek to better and strengthen the OS from malicious attacks than there are crackers experienced enough to attempt to compromise it.
Count the number of Windows-based viruses, trojans, and other malware, and then try to find a number for UNIX-based attacks.
Sooner or later, some malware will arrive that does the Unthinkable on a Windows box. A nearby Mac OS X and Linux box will likely go untouched. Watch managerial heads turn. Watch for the shift.
Microsoft could make this so easy and profitable for themselves by taking a Linux distribution (it's free), branding it "Windows LX" or whatever--and rewriting their software so that it compiles and works with every single UNIX that wants to use it. Talk about profit. Talk about security. (To some, talk about competition.)
A single-user architecture and flawed structure like Windows has doesn't have a lot of life. It merely has a lot of copies sold. Once damage from malware shows how unprofitable it is to use Wiindows in that sense, a shift may come. In some places, it has already begun.
Only Apple creates both hardware and software necessary for a no-hassle music experience. The iPod and iTunes are meant to work as a unit. For Apple to get iTunes working in a hodge-podge of an operating system such as Windows is a testament to Apple's desire to make the music experience consistant on both platforms.
Apple is out to sell iPods. Microsoft and all other companies that get into selling music online will see nothing but losses because they, nor Apple, receive any significant funds in selling music, but do get profit from selling the players.
Expect MS to pick an existing MP3 player (either by acquisition or endorsement) for their WMA player. However, Microsoft has shown their DMA attempts to be far more restrictive than Apple's. Limitations, as well as the predictable issues that WMA causes for some in configuration and use, may doom their online music attempt before it begins.
The original Mac OS and its last major update, Mac OS 9, have superficial changes, visually. As most Mac aficionados know, Mac OS 9 was a fast, strong OS.
Now, move to Mac OS X. As with the first versions of the original Mac OS, Apple spent a couple of years refining the OS, adding fundamentals while also improving speed and basic functions.
Panther is the first evolution of Mac OS X, where the updates concentrate far less on OS development and more attention on OS speed, features, and easier foundations for developers to make apps.
Mac OS X 10.3 is a great step in the right direction, especially given that Apple appears to be listening to both UNIX pro as well as graphics pro and home user alike. Enterprise users as well as home users will find a lot to use in Mac OS X. I personally want to use the improved Active Directory components to see how well I can make a Mac OS X a member of a Windows domain. THAT will show how compatible such a configuration can be to some naysayers in my workplace.
Mac OS systems may comprise about 3% of the yearly sold amount of personal computers. That's market share.
However, Mac OS systems do NOT comprise 3% of the total installed base of all computers. A more likely number of Mac OS systems in use is around 20-25%, if not a little larger.
An installed base of 3% could not possibly support the software sales for Mac developers, particularly games and business applications. It's just not possible. Try not repeating what you hear unless you understand it.
Steve Jobs is mercurial and all that, but he can read the public well lately.
What should be interesting is not iTunes playback on Windows, or even the Music Store, but the wizardry Apple had to do to make iTunes burn CDs as its Mac counterpart. Consider: While Apple makes iTunes to work with drives that it knows are present in Macintosh systems, it has to consider the myriad of CD and DVD burners out in the PC world. Hell, even dedicated PC burning software goes nuts on PCs, sometimes.
I'm thinking it leverages XP and 2000's advanced features for that sort of thing (thus the system requirements). I'll have to do some experimentation.
Even if the Windows version attracts only 5% of the user base, it's still going to rock Apple's world (and its revenues).
I would expect more cross-platform marketing and products. If Apple can't sell you a Mac, well, they'll get you a free taste of something else.
Give mod points to this man for his excellent facts and insight.
Very shortly after the Columbia accident, a handful of old veteran astronauts, including Buzz Aldrin (likely the smartest engineer of the original astronaut groups) and John Young (first pilot of Columbia and the only astronaut from the original groups to fly Gemini, Apollo, and the Shuttle) were consultants to determine if Apollo technology could be used for a low budget to-and-fro human transport, as well as a rescue vehicle that could be mated as lifeboats to the International Space Station.
This, I thought, was a great idea. After the Apollo 1 fire of 1967, the Command Module (CM) was drastically redesigned for safety and was a winning design throughout the program. It especially showed its toughness during Apollo 13. The CM was completely powered down after the accident, and, 3 days later, was restarted on its reentry batteries (with a tiny bit of juice from the Lunar Module), and no electrical shorts occurred despite the heavy condensation in the spacecraft.
The Apollo CM design is tried and true. I prefer it as a lifepod, and NASA should reconsider the viablity of a combined vehicle that launches (with an orbiter atop) like a heavy plane to high altitude, where it serves as the launcher for the orbiter, which can use conventional and disposable boosters for the return trip. I still believe that glider vehicles make more sense and provide more abort options. Consider that Columbia and her sisters still have more ways to bail or return than a typical airliner.
No aerodynamic vehicle can survive with a damaged wing, in any case, which is why a CM-style rescue vehicle and parachutes are appealing. I just don't like the use of old ballistics like the Atlas (which have a nice record of exploding). Man-rating rockets like these is a pain in the ass.
...and no popcorn...!
WTF is it with this machine I bought that doesn't give me my popcorn when I give it kernels?!
Ah, forget it. I'll go back to closing and opening Windows and see if it's more likely I'll get some fresh air in the house.
True, but only to a point.
The earliest macro virus, concept (1995), ran rampant on both Macs and PCs (despite the fact that MS Office 4 for Mac was a Piece of Sh*t) before Office had macro detectors.
Since then, almost all macro viruses in Word and Excel documents create havoc only on Windows operating systems because the viruses make procedural and path calls that work only on Windows, such as going to a directory path on C: drive, or activating a function that requires the full Visual Basic or ActiveX functionality found in Windows but stunted or non-existant in the Mac version of Office.
The Mac version of Office screams bloody murder when it detects macros and warns the user. If a modern macro virus is let to run on a Mac OS system, it fails to run or runs only to a point.
A point that should be made throughout all this virus hoopla is that while Macintosh users are generally immune from any direct attack from PC viruses, a Macintosh user can be a "typhoid Mary" style carrier by passing along a virus from an email or infected file. Also, due the SOBIG virus and BLASTER, everyone, including Macs, suffer from the Internet slowdowns that affect the servers that manage it, as well as intranet slowdowns in businesses.
Great. NASA found Z'ha'dum --the last place we should send explorers!
What you said.
Witness what happens when two countries share their knowledge: The International Space Station. The US couldn't easily build it alone financially or scientifically without the years of experience and some finances from Russia, which had made space dwellings old hat.
Imagine China doing a similar share. You could almost hear another block from their wall going down.
And if you think that's pipe dreams--remember that the ISS is international property. No one ever saw the old USSR and US really cooperating in space, of all places.
Impressive find!
What's very interesting about the User Agent option in this Debug menu is that it automatically chooses which agent to use. Currently Safari can indicate itself as:
Mozilla 1.1
Netscape 7.0
Netscape 6.2.2
Netscape 4.79
Mac MSIE 5.2.2
Windows MSIE 6.0
Konqueror 3
I'm not sure how it does this trick, but it is a good feature, and may take the guesswork for a user in determining how to make a page work. Hopefully this option will still work when Safari arrives in its first final release.
Since we know that IE loved to make its own standards, which causes other browsers to choke or have the site reject them because they aren't using IE, I'm more worried that Mac users may lose a browser that had a fighting chance of accessing pages made by the MS webmaster drones (that is, a webmaster that does not assume non-MS users will access the site and uses proprietary code in the page that only IE/Windows understands).
The good thing is that Apple's new web browser team is very ferocious in adding features. The first thing many screamed about when Safari came out was tabs, and now, they're there, along with other features. Apple could take a lesson from the Omni Group and its browser OmniWeb, which had a preference that could make the browser say to sites that it was IE/Windows, IE/Mac, or other browser to fake it out and allow access. From there, Apple should add preferences to give Safari as many IE compatibility elements as possible--better, add them as options that the browser can sense when you go to pages that use IE/Windows features that normally aren't compatible. The user can opt to switch on these features from a modal dialog that appears on downloading the page to make things work a bit better.
The waning of IE/Mac isn't good for people like myself who try to make Macs fit better in the enterprise. PC/Windows users aren't used to choice in the browser world, so IE is their only browser, and Netscape is now a rarity in business circles. Many business-related pages are created with the various MS tools, and many webmasters are unaware that there is a Mac version of IE, much less the fact that it works much like its Windows counterpart. This change will mean that techs will have to educate the webmasters of Safari's differences to get business pages to work--not that such explanations get lots of results anyway.
The positive news is that Safari generally holds its own in compatibility more than any other browser, and has even shown more compatible than IE/Mac in some of my trials at work, which I why I use it almost exclusively today. Will the loss of IE/Mac throw Mac users back in a web-access Stone Age? Probably not, but you never know what some whacked out ideas have to be added as features in some feature MS webmastering tool that work only for IE/Windows.
I agree, absolutely. There are tradeoffs to everything.
For instance, what if NASA continued to paint the ETs insulation white as they did for the first two or so flights? That saved about 500 LB of weight, but could the paint had helped the ET foam from breaking off and striking the orbiter?
It is rocket science, indeed. I believe protecting the orbiter is more important than the weight saving. What good is weight saving if the orbiter arrives in orbit with no way to return safely? So, sacrifice some of the payload capacity for some measure of protection. The alternative is increased chance of vehicle failure.
Perhaps a full aeroshell underneath would be too weighty, but partial covers over leading edges and places where heat simply must not pierce would improve safety, IMO.
Let's look at basic facts of manned American flights to date.
Project Mercury: 6 flights, no deaths.
Project Gemini: 12 flights, no deaths, 1 abort.
Project Apollo: 18 flights (including Apollo-Soyuz). 3 fatalities (non-launch-related), 1 abort (in-flight, no injuries)
Project Skylab: 3 flights, no aborts.
So, by the end of 1975, Americans have flown into space only 39 times. Thirty-nine. Barely enough to tempt fate, it seems.
Space Transportation System: 113 missions, 14 fatalities (in-flight).
Everyone knows that spaceflight is still very dangerous. In the case of a Shuttle, the odds just caught up. That's not a failure.
In the Challenger disaster, NASA and its contractors failed, as they did with Apollo 1, to use their imagination properly to see the real numbers as real chances for catastrophe.
In the Columbia accident, NASA didn't go the extra mile in determining damage on the orbiter, but all other decision making appeared on-target, IMHO. Not that there were many options that they could have presented to the astronauts to save orbiter and crew.
The main problem with the Shuttle right now is to protect the critical tiles. Ice will always form on the orbiter's ET and all flights have returned with some ding damage from ice. Foam falling from the ET was obviously too much damage for Columbia to withstand.
I propose an aeroshell that fits under the orbiter body where it mounts to the ET. It would be integral to the ET, and cover the RCC and underbody of the orbiter, including part of the nose. The only change in flight that would be required is for the orbiter or the ET to be given thrusters that push the ET forward (or orbiter to aft) to clear the aeroshell that covers the leading edges and nose.
That, and perhaps we can rig a harness where we can place inept Congressmen under the STS exhaust to show them how things really work.
I agree, but it's implementation that may fall apart. Currently the PC architecture is virtually open. Any one company that defines the standard--well, doesn't that make it NOT a standard? I'm unclear where the new features introduced make it too different from the PC mainstream to make using anything but MS software practical and current PC hardware incompatible.
It's just the inertia of the PC industry that may kill this. If that weren't the case, the Mac would have a larger scope than this since it has much or all of the hardware elements that Microsoft is attempting.
Microsoft hasn't the strongest track record in the hardware area, save maybe their optical mice (most excellent for gaming).
Making a PC more "Mac-like" would create a computer that undermines the reason for the success of a PC: commodity.
While Apple's boxes aren't particularly special or different from PCs in basic parts (RAM, power supply, hard drives), the three core differences: processor, motherboard, and bootware, define what that box is and how it interacts.
Now, a PC bought today can still, in all likelihood, run MS-DOS 6.2, 3.3, Windows 3.1, or Windows 95. That is because the PC architecture hasn't really changed to the extent that operating systems and hardware are markedly different, speed improvements and interface additions notwithstanding. A PC has always been extensible, but such a new box may find it hard to get third-parties to make their hardware work.
If Microsoft were to build a Mac-like PC, they would need to make or use a smarter boot firmware. Bye-bye to the typical BIOS we know and love. That action alone would require various Linux distros to rewrite themselves for the new firmware. OK--not a biggie. Linux users did that for the Mac version of Linux. Next, the motherboard would need changes to make it smarter and work with the firmware. That's a lot of OS changes I presume, although IANAP.
Plug and play devices are still a laugh, and it would be the one thing I hope a plan would fix. Microsoft tried to dictate hardware changes during Windows 95's intro, and most of it was for the best. But even today, Windows takes several minutes to determine what the hell you have in your box. A Mac never goes through this process--at least not in a way that you are aware of. Plug and play on a Mac just works.
I don't know. I get it, but it seems that they are fighting a larger animal--the inertia of the marketplace and a desire to stay and do what they are doing. New stuff is shunned unless it looks like a gold mine. And this isn't golden, IMO.
If we could give you a +6, we would.
That is priceless and well written. Expect lots of people to steal it, like music!
My statement isn't silly at all. NIH has been, in my experience, attributed more to hardware and software adoption to industry standards.
Microsoft prefers to make its own standards in software or twist the ones they adapt to fit their needs, making the result a technology that is theirs and unextensible by contract or design.
Simply buying a product for their use or licensing it doesn't release MS from the results of how they use it. For instance, Microsoft licensed Java, and turned it into a joke on its operating system by twisting its functionality. Unfortunately, that is a MS developer style. Current trends indicate they are resisting change more than adapting to it as they have very successfully and profitably done in the past.
Not Invented Here thinking kept Apple, for instance, from cloning themselves at a key time. They couldn't see that extending things beyond themselves would work well for their business plan. NIH kept Apple from changing their hardware model to something more in line with PCs to make them less expensive to produce.
Microsoft, from how I see it, doesn't see the benefits of a significant UNIX move in both their OS and apps, and I don't mean modest apps, but popular mainstream versions of their popular tools, such as Office. This path may be a bad move for them, but time will tell if my speculation is right or wrong.