This article from the register show's how the new Intel Macs are only 1/4 faster (rather then 2-4 times faster as Jobs claimed) then their powerpc equivilants.
Full report here. Ouch! Iphoto is actually slower for some operations.
Slightly more ontopic - I've been reading that the mere presence of the fat binaried itunes on a powerpc mac can cause the disk utility not to run - stripping intel code from the binary fixes the problem.
I get 54Mbps on WiFi now. That's more than fast enough for VoIP.
Throughput is not the only requirements for VOIP.
From the article:
Another technology called Space Time Block Coding (STBC) will reduce signal dropout by using multiple antennas for redundancy.
This technology in particular is key to enhancing the VoIP user experience.
The article also mentions power management improvements (for devices running on batteries - like cell phones), longer range and better collision management.
Together, these would make a significant difference to VOIP - even if Mbps were lower.
Re:I don't think many people too Gibson seriously.
on
WMF Flaw not a Backdoor
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Sorry if I don't care about your rules for what I may and may not reply, but that the wine group did implement it says a whole lot of how difficult it was to spot.
My point was that the wine people's goal was to reimplement. Not audit.
MS's goal over the last 5 years was to audit. You would think they would have looked particularly hard at code with roots in Windows 3.1 (which, as Russinovich pointed out is a common source of poor API design)
Their goal was to reimplement the API, sure, but you can bet your ass that they would have reported it if they saw it. And they did, despite it being right under their noses. Even Russinovich makes this point (but I guess you didn't really read TFA anyway, did you?). Forgive me if I trust his judgement a little more than yours.
Well, forgive me if I don't trust some MS shill posting anonymously on slashdot, especially when they say:
That doesn't say anything bad about wine coders, who, as we all know, are pretty good coders, but it does about the subtlety of the issue. Yes, MS deserves some blame. But let's keep things in proportion -- this was a tricky little bug. [emphasis mine]
MS deserves some blame? Who else should we blame? The wine group? Mark? Steve Gibson? Slashdotters?
Microsft deserves all the blame for this - they're responsible for the bad design, the bad implementation and the lax audit. Suggesting they only deserve a portion of the blame shows your bias.
I don't think many people too Gibson seriously...
on
WMF Flaw not a Backdoor
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
At least not many people I know.
I think the real question about this WMF vulnerability is how on earth could it have survived five years under the new security aware, code auditting regime that we supposedly have at Microsoft?
(Please don't reply that the wine people implemented it too - their goal reimplement the windows API, not audit it for security)
The point is not whether or not atheists have the right to be married. The point is: Why is the government at all interested in whether or not they're married?
Well, yes I kinda agree, but I was replying to:
"It's something that properly belongs in the domain of religion"
The answer has something to do with taxation which may or may not be legal depending upon how vehemently you feel like arguing it and what you feel the rightful powers of the government are.
I'm not sure about taxation - I think gay (and athiest) people who get married are just interested in having the same marriage rights & responsibilities as straight people (from the government - not the church).
If you're interested in seperating the state & marriage - just go and lobby for it, its really only tangentially related to gay/athiest marriage.
Personally, I think marriage is none of the governments business. It's something that properly belongs in the domain of religion and something the government should have nothing to do with.
Do you think athiests have the right to get married?
Well I am lucky enough to be living in the Netherlands (I am not dutch however) and here are three rights I have that you don't.
1) Marry a person of the same geneder. 2) Smoke marijuana in the privacy of a coffeeshop or my own home. 3) Protection from unscrupulous software patents (OK, this one isn't really a right.)
No other country has a many people wanting to move there. I don't see boat loads of immigrants going to UK, Italy, France, Russia or anywhere in Africa or South America.
You do see boat loads of immigrants to the UK, Italy and France - they're going there because they're rich countries with good economies where they can make money.
Exactly the same reason people go to the US.
Oh - and the country who takes the highest portion of refugees is Iran (for gods sake) - so I wouldn't go around equating peoples movement into a country with its freedom.
on topic: ACLU- A place that people went and sang Christmas Carols to attack them. A group of people who were hurt by Chrismas Carols sung outside thier offices. They did not sue against Clinton and Echelon/Carnivore. They are a tool of the wackiest lefties. If they do good work it is by accident or as a by product of other goals.
Thats not on topic. Thats a flame. How about you provide some evidence for those statements?
I notice every other right wing blog is making these claims here's a good example quoting it:
If the ACLU or The New York Times, which is breaking the story, were shocked by the Clinton administration's politically-motivated spying on innocent and often prominent American citizens, there is no easily discovered record of the same.[emphasis mine]
Meh, Its not that big a deal that its a dupe methinks.... there's been a lot more time for people to analyse this news.
For instance, this article in the register makes this interesting point:
Digital radio is simply an MPEG stream, and contextualizing digital streams, and injecting advertisements into them is Google's core competency - and not some untethered spacewalk into the unknown. And while creative agencies are certainly looking at the growth of paid web search with some trepidation, Google has shown no inclination to get very "creative" itself. It's as much a recognition that the phenomenal growth in paid web classified advertising can't, as Google has itself long predicted, be sustained.
Two points there:
1) Google's foray into traditional radio could simply be to facilitate its digital radio.
2) Google's growth cannot be sustained in a single market.
Neither of these were discussed too much in yesterday's comments.
I think you've missed his point. This is a common industry practice used for just about every piece of hardware and software on the market. To single Steve Jobs out for this practice rather than accepting it as the "norm" shows a distinct anti-Mac bias.
Horse crap. Common industry practice or not, I think most slashdotters will call bullshit to these sort of claims whether it comes from Steve Ballmer, Steve Jobs or Linus Torvalds.
It's hard to be deceitful when it comes to something as nebulous as benchmarks
Well I don't know about that - seems pretty easy to be deceitful and called for it if you ask me.
To be fair, Steve's statements were absolutely 100% accurate (assuming the figures are accurate , which I expect them to be). For that benchmark, the intel machine is 2x-3x faster. [emphasis mine]
You've really just shown your bias haven't you? Absolutely 100% accurate, oh, unless they're not accurate.
Steve Jobs may not have been lying, but he was most certainly being deliberately deceitful.
I don't see such a huge moral gap between the two.
Call me culturally insensitive but, why not simply translate speech to text?
Because signing is the native 'tongue' for most deaf people - and it is easier for them to communicate using sign language (over text) - just as its easier for you to understand speech (over text).
Basically - the same reason that some British TV (and undoubtedly many other channels around the world) have a signer translating the news rather then scrolling text.
Good lord! I imagine the Japanese language with its 1945+ character alphabet is hard enough to learn; learning Japanese sign language must really suck.
The relationship between a language & sign language does not work like that.
A common misconception is that sign languages are somehow dependent on oral languages, that is, that they are oral language spelled out in gesture, or that they were invented by hearing people
and
On the whole, deaf sign languages are independent of oral languages and follow their own paths of developmental. For example, British Sign Language and American Sign Language are quite different and mutually unintelligible, even though the hearing people of Britain and America share the same oral language.
You know what would really spoil those deaf kids is, instead of a robot doing sign language, a robot that shows images or words based on what a speaker says.
That doesn't really sound like a robot, but speech recognition software connected to a teleprompter (or monitor)
I agree--the guys who develop the GUI portion of FireFox don't have good taste,
Wildly Incorrect.
or at least not the same aesthetic sense as people who use and enjoy the Mac.
Correct.
Firefox is cross platform, and OS X is not one of its primary targets. Just as quicktime stands out like a sore thumb on non-OS X platforms, firefox will not integrate well with OS X.
This does mean however that either the designers of quicktime or firefox lack good taste.
If by "popular" you mean the government attempts to force people to use their state-sponsored Linux distro to reduce dependence on American software, only to find that people respond by formatting their hard disks and installing pirate copies of Windows.
Nope, they don't mean popular by that - noone forces anyone to use it. Frankly i'm astounded that you think the Chinese peole would not want to use a local distro with better support for Chinese Characters & popular applications.
There are plenty of reasons to dislike the Chinese Government - no need to go round making up new ones.
It's kinda fitting really. I probably wouldn't want to use Linux anymore if the government were trying to force it on me. Especially if it were the Chinese government.
Well thanks for sharuing your thoughts with us. Care to let us know why you believe people are being forced to use Red Flag?
I'm sure its not because of some sort of irrational anti-chinese bias you have, so please provide links.
Supposedly, if you need an accurate timebase, you are supposed to just use GPS (which gives the exact time) instead of relying on a complicated clock protocol.
Unless your data center is inside a shielded room / underground / in the center of your building.
It is great that NTP is so widely distributed. It is typical that at the moment the old technology is finally working, there is an altogether better solution.
Its not a better solution - its a better solution in some cases.
NTP has the massive advantage of working anywhere you have a network connection and not requiring expensive hardware (GPS hardware you can attach to a PC & match the reliability of NTP is not your yum-cha $75 GPS unit)
Now, the part of OS X that you wanted open sourced wasn't Cocoa, it was Aqua
1) I specifically said that I was not asking Apple to open anything.
2) I stated that OSX was a great system, but was not 'linux with lots of polish' because it lacked one of the things that made linux great - access to the source.
3) Embedded was an an example of what you can do with access to the source.
Anyway, the original post, to which you replied rudely, by the way,
I think you need to read the entire thread - the post you refer to was not the original post, but a reply to a posting of mine. I called the poster Captain Obvious (I presume this is the bit you meant was rude) because his reply was both obvious and not particularly relevant to the thread.
simply stated a belief that Apple's GUI (not just their widget toolkit) was too high-overhead for an embedded device.
You (like C.O.) missed the point, if you had access to the GUI source along with Darwin you could use the parts you liked. Expose, Quartz, Cocoa, whatever. Surely its not all so heavyweight that some of it wouldn't be useful?
your statement that the source to OS X is not available is not entirely correct,
No, it is entirely correct. The source to Mac OS X is not available. Darwin + GTK + X is not OS X.
The rest of your post I generally agree with (allthough I'm not really sure why you wrote it) - Yup, cocoa is pretty cool & it would be nice if it was cross platform.
Again, I'll reiterate that I am not asking Apple to open-source OS X - simply stating that OSX is not simply 'linux with lots of polish' because it lacked one of the things that made linux great - access to the source.
Slashdot Mirror
It's genuine.
Was a bit in the news last year on the 10th anniversary.
The comments on this adblog post have a little more info.
And its bloody depressing that this image is linking to crap you don't want to look at 10+ years on....
This article from the register show's how the new Intel Macs are only 1/4 faster (rather then 2-4 times faster as Jobs claimed) then their powerpc equivilants.
Full report here. Ouch! Iphoto is actually slower for some operations.
Slightly more ontopic - I've been reading that the mere presence of the fat binaried itunes on a powerpc mac can cause the disk utility not to run - stripping intel code from the binary fixes the problem.
Throughput is not the only requirements for VOIP.
From the article:The article also mentions power management improvements (for devices running on batteries - like cell phones), longer range and better collision management.
Together, these would make a significant difference to VOIP - even if Mbps were lower.
Sorry if I don't care about your rules for what I may and may not reply, but that the wine group did implement it says a whole lot of how difficult it was to spot.
My point was that the wine people's goal was to reimplement. Not audit.
MS's goal over the last 5 years was to audit. You would think they would have looked particularly hard at code with roots in Windows 3.1 (which, as Russinovich pointed out is a common source of poor API design)
Their goal was to reimplement the API, sure, but you can bet your ass that they would have reported it if they saw it. And they did, despite it being right under their noses. Even Russinovich makes this point (but I guess you didn't really read TFA anyway, did you?). Forgive me if I trust his judgement a little more than yours.
Well, forgive me if I don't trust some MS shill posting anonymously on slashdot, especially when they say:
That doesn't say anything bad about wine coders, who, as we all know, are pretty good coders, but it does about the subtlety of the issue. Yes, MS deserves some blame. But let's keep things in proportion -- this was a tricky little bug. [emphasis mine]
MS deserves some blame? Who else should we blame? The wine group? Mark? Steve Gibson? Slashdotters?
Microsft deserves all the blame for this - they're responsible for the bad design, the bad implementation and the lax audit. Suggesting they only deserve a portion of the blame shows your bias.
At least not many people I know.
I think the real question about this WMF vulnerability is how on earth could it have survived five years under the new security aware, code auditting regime that we supposedly have at Microsoft?
(Please don't reply that the wine people implemented it too - their goal reimplement the windows API, not audit it for security)
Here's an interview with Richard Stallman discussing Linus's decision to include DRM in the linux kernel.
And here's a post from linus on the kernel mailing list (thread "flame linus to a crisp") talking about DRM in the linux kernel.
So there you go GPLed DRM.
Well, yes I kinda agree, but I was replying to:
The answer has something to do with taxation which may or may not be legal depending upon how vehemently you feel like arguing it and what you feel the rightful powers of the government are.
I'm not sure about taxation - I think gay (and athiest) people who get married are just interested in having the same marriage rights & responsibilities as straight people (from the government - not the church).
If you're interested in seperating the state & marriage - just go and lobby for it, its really only tangentially related to gay/athiest marriage.
Personally, I think marriage is none of the governments business. It's something that properly belongs in the domain of religion and something the government should have nothing to do with.
Do you think athiests have the right to get married?
Lets just have Haliburton run the Armed Forces, and Citibank run the US Mint.
....
:-(
And don't forget AT&T to run the telecommications and Enron to run the energy infrastructure
oh.... crap
Well I am lucky enough to be living in the Netherlands (I am not dutch however) and here are three rights I have that you don't.
1) Marry a person of the same geneder.
2) Smoke marijuana in the privacy of a coffeeshop or my own home.
3) Protection from unscrupulous software patents (OK, this one isn't really a right.)
No other country has a many people wanting to move there. I don't see boat loads of immigrants going to UK, Italy, France, Russia or anywhere in Africa or South America.
You do see boat loads of immigrants to the UK, Italy and France - they're going there because they're rich countries with good economies where they can make money.
Exactly the same reason people go to the US.
Oh - and the country who takes the highest portion of refugees is Iran (for gods sake) - so I wouldn't go around equating peoples movement into a country with its freedom.
on topic: ACLU- A place that people went and sang Christmas Carols to attack them. A group of people who were hurt by Chrismas Carols sung outside thier offices. They did not sue against Clinton and Echelon/Carnivore. They are a tool of the wackiest lefties. If they do good work it is by accident or as a by product of other goals.
Thats not on topic. Thats a flame. How about you provide some evidence for those statements?
I notice every other right wing blog is making these claims here's a good example quoting it:No easily discovered records huh?
I guess they didn't bother using google to search the ACLU site
Well - as long as you're happy with the new US motto:
For instance, this article in the register makes this interesting point:Two points there:
1) Google's foray into traditional radio could simply be to facilitate its digital radio.
2) Google's growth cannot be sustained in a single market.
Neither of these were discussed too much in yesterday's comments.
C'mon!
Bad enough to have a dupe article - we don't need dupe comments too
When I was 8, I got a computer for Christmas. My granny said to me, "Ask it who the Prime Minister is!"
;-)
Hmmmmn,
If only there was some way to connect your computer to the rest of the world's computers and somehow query them to find out who the prime minister is.
Hey! Thats a great idea - I'm off to patent it
I think you've missed his point. This is a common industry practice used for just about every piece of hardware and software on the market. To single Steve Jobs out for this practice rather than accepting it as the "norm" shows a distinct anti-Mac bias.
Horse crap. Common industry practice or not, I think most slashdotters will call bullshit to these sort of claims whether it comes from Steve Ballmer, Steve Jobs or Linus Torvalds.
It's hard to be deceitful when it comes to something as nebulous as benchmarks
Well I don't know about that - seems pretty easy to be deceitful and called for it if you ask me.
To be fair, Steve's statements were absolutely 100% accurate (assuming the figures are accurate , which I expect them to be). For that benchmark, the intel machine is 2x-3x faster. [emphasis mine]
You've really just shown your bias haven't you? Absolutely 100% accurate, oh, unless they're not accurate.
Steve Jobs may not have been lying, but he was most certainly being deliberately deceitful.
I don't see such a huge moral gap between the two.
Call me culturally insensitive but, why not simply translate speech to text?
Because signing is the native 'tongue' for most deaf people - and it is easier for them to communicate using sign language (over text) - just as its easier for you to understand speech (over text).
Basically - the same reason that some British TV (and undoubtedly many other channels around the world) have a signer translating the news rather then scrolling text.
The relationship between a language & sign language does not work like that.
From the wikipedia sign language page and You know what would really spoil those deaf kids is, instead of a robot doing sign language, a robot that shows images or words based on what a speaker says.
That doesn't really sound like a robot, but speech recognition software connected to a teleprompter (or monitor)
That's because we are better than you , Better lovers , Smarter , better built and more charisma ..
;-)
Don't forget better at punctuation.
Oh - and as for your 'Smarter' claim, have a look at this report about an iPod school.
Indeed, the WINE people did reimplement it, complete with the vulnerability.
;-)
Yep - the WINE people are reimplementing the windows API bug-for-bug
I agree--the guys who develop the GUI portion of FireFox don't have good taste,
Wildly Incorrect.
or at least not the same aesthetic sense as people who use and enjoy the Mac.
Correct.
Firefox is cross platform, and OS X is not one of its primary targets. Just as quicktime stands out like a sore thumb on non-OS X platforms, firefox will not integrate well with OS X.
This does mean however that either the designers of quicktime or firefox lack good taste.
If by "popular" you mean the government attempts to force people to use their state-sponsored Linux distro to reduce dependence on American software, only to find that people respond by formatting their hard disks and installing pirate copies of Windows.
Nope, they don't mean popular by that - noone forces anyone to use it. Frankly i'm astounded that you think the Chinese peole would not want to use a local distro with better support for Chinese Characters & popular applications.
There are plenty of reasons to dislike the Chinese Government - no need to go round making up new ones.
It's kinda fitting really. I probably wouldn't want to use Linux anymore if the government were trying to force it on me. Especially if it were the Chinese government.
Well thanks for sharuing your thoughts with us. Care to let us know why you believe people are being forced to use Red Flag?
I'm sure its not because of some sort of irrational anti-chinese bias you have, so please provide links.
Supposedly, if you need an accurate timebase, you are supposed to just use GPS (which gives the exact time) instead of relying on a complicated clock protocol.
Unless your data center is inside a shielded room / underground / in the center of your building.
It is great that NTP is so widely distributed. It is typical that at the moment the old technology is finally working, there is an altogether better solution.
Its not a better solution - its a better solution in some cases.
NTP has the massive advantage of working anywhere you have a network connection and not requiring expensive hardware (GPS hardware you can attach to a PC & match the reliability of NTP is not your yum-cha $75 GPS unit)
Now, the part of OS X that you wanted open sourced wasn't Cocoa, it was Aqua
1) I specifically said that I was not asking Apple to open anything.
2) I stated that OSX was a great system, but was not 'linux with lots of polish' because it lacked one of the things that made linux great - access to the source.
3) Embedded was an an example of what you can do with access to the source.
Anyway, the original post, to which you replied rudely, by the way,
I think you need to read the entire thread - the post you refer to was not the original post, but a reply to a posting of mine. I called the poster Captain Obvious (I presume this is the bit you meant was rude) because his reply was both obvious and not particularly relevant to the thread.
simply stated a belief that Apple's GUI (not just their widget toolkit) was too high-overhead for an embedded device.
You (like C.O.) missed the point, if you had access to the GUI source along with Darwin you could use the parts you liked. Expose, Quartz, Cocoa, whatever. Surely its not all so heavyweight that some of it wouldn't be useful?
your statement that the source to OS X is not available is not entirely correct,
No, it is entirely correct. The source to Mac OS X is not available. Darwin + GTK + X is not OS X.
The rest of your post I generally agree with (allthough I'm not really sure why you wrote it) - Yup, cocoa is pretty cool & it would be nice if it was cross platform.
Again, I'll reiterate that I am not asking Apple to open-source OS X - simply stating that OSX is not simply 'linux with lots of polish' because it lacked one of the things that made linux great - access to the source.
Sure you could. Like all those fast, light, embedded versions of Gnome people are running on their cell phones....
I never mentioned phones - I mentioned embedded systems. However, just to humour you, here is a video of a cell phone running gtk.
I don't think I'm the one that doesn't get it.
I'm afraid you are. I specifically mentioned libraries, yet you used gnome as your example.