...insert completely offtopic and irrelevant DeLay comments here, instead of acknowledging that the current House of Representatives Majority Leader, a legislator with significant power, has publicly pledged the necessary funding for NASA's Mars and Moon missions.
Note: the funding NASA has received over the last couple of decades is equivalent to the funding it received during the Apollo program in adjusted dollars, so it's not like NASA is the equivalent of the hapless panhandler many slashdotters make it out to be.
Further, for those who support NASA's fundamental mission of space exploration, we must also acknowledge the US Air Force Space Command's renewed role to protect free access to space, including planning for contingencies that may require us to protect our assets in space from other nations. You had better believe, regardless of any perceived sensibilities, that other nations may lay claim to, e.g., areas of the moon, areas in close proximity to earth, etc. If anyone is forced to be a steward of free access, I'll be blunt and say I'd rather it be us.
Again, I don't think that a privacy policy needs to specifically state anything about being retroactive in order to apply to potentially ongoing violations the policy in its current form, even if you argue that it's old information, that it happened before the privacy policy, etc.
Also, I did some quick checks, and it appears there are some non-trolls on the list, e.g. User:Perrak.--Eloquence* 19:28, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
Given that you've found at least one non-troll on the list, I think the privacy concerns mentioned on Slashdot have been well validated. It's not just theoretical, it's real. I'm just astonished to find out that something like this happened here, and I'm more than a little bothered by the fact that everyone seems to keep apologizing for this dangerous recklessness on our (Wikipedians) part. Typogfk 19:44, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
The discussion is academic at this point, but most reasonable people would likely agree that ongoing violations of privacy policy should not get "grandfathered in", as it were, when a privacy policy goes into effect or changes. Sure, you can't change the past, but this isn't the past: this is the present, and the page, which itself is the manifestation of the privacy violation, still exists. If anything, it would be a responsible statement on the part of Wikimedia to remove the page, in light of the privacy policy it can be argued to clearly violate.
If your response is that the page is almost a year old, and therefore any privacy concerns for possibly innocent users are almost certainly now moot, wouldn't it also be true that the information on the page is now also so old that it should simply be removed? What is the purpose of the page's continuing existence if it is so old that its very age is used as a defense against possible privacy violations?
Please note that I understand the annoyance and burden of the trolls; that is currently beside the point of this discussion.
If you have no problem with Wiki{p,m}edia violating its own privacy policy, regardless of when it was created, and regardless whether the users are trolls/sockpuppets, etc., knock yourself out.
1. The fact that the list was made prior is irrelevant, because as soon as any privacy policy containing that excerpt regarding passwords was even marginally in effect, an egregious violation of said policy should be remedied. Are you telling me that every continuing violation of the privacy policy should be allowed to continue, simply because it existed before the privacy policy...?
2. I know exactly what the impetus was, as I stated specifically numerous times in my post. That still doesn't excuse overly broad and public dragnets that will invariably catch some innocent people at the same time.
To be clear, this isn't a case of Wikipedia "leaking" passwords or allowing some kind of exploit via technical means; this is Tim Starling deciding to specifically and literally publish a list of usernames that share the same password, ostensibly for the purpose of revealing trolls and flooders with multiple accounts.
From the looks of a few of the lists (RickK, RíckK, RìckK, RiÄkK, RïckK, RiÄkK; Mäximus Rex, Maximus Rex, MaximusRex; JíangSlumDawg, JiangFlungDung; LlortTheehtTroll, LlörtTheehtTröll; The Two Trolls,The Fellowship of the Troll,The Return of the Troll,The Trolls of Navarone,Troll Silent, Troll Deep,The Trolling Stones, RangelaND Visa CONtroll), it would appear that some of these are indeed obvious duplicate accounts (whether or not they're "trolls" is, I imagine, beside the point).
But it seems that he also caught a bunch of innocent folks who just happen to share the same password, not beyond the realm of comprehension for a password used for an "online" non-financial, non-critical site on a service with thousands of users. The submission makes it seem like Wikipedia knew about some kind of "exploit" and did nothing; rather, it seems like Wikipedia is content to let potential, and indeed confirmed in one case as admitted on the page, abuse of innocent users' privacy continue in the name of exposing possible (admittedly annoying) trolls. (That's my own take on the situation, anyway.)
Many aspects of the Wikimedia projects community interactions depend on the reputation and respect that is built up through a history of valued contributions. User passwords are the only guarantee of the integrity of a user's edit history. All users are encouraged to select strong passwords and to never share them. No one shall knowingly expose the password of another user to public release either directly or indirectly.
It appears that, in this case, Wikimedia itself is implicitly "knowingly" releasing passwords to the public. One of the many problems with a community site for which there is no central responsible authority. Anyone who hasn't yet would do themselves well to read the summary of the issue linked in the submission.
I'm more than well aware of Windows NT's legacy of support for other architectures. I have a Motorola Viper (predecessor to the StarMax 6000 that never shipped), a full CHRP-compliant PowerPC platform capable of running Windows NT 4.
I'm not at all talking about "Windows" running on PowerPC. In fact, the OS running on Xbox 360 is hardly what one would call "Windows" (though it is a now-distant Windows 2000 derivative).
I'm talking about the import of the story that *Microsoft*, a company virtually wed to x86 for all intents, whether it be by choice or by convenience, for over two decades, is now using PowerPC. And not only is it using PowerPC, it is using Apple Power Mac G5s to design, develop, and demo software for Xbox 360. As I said, no, I don't expect Microsoft to develop its own PowerPC motherboard and platform just to do Xbox 360 development. What I *am* saying is that it is at least marginally surprising or at the very least deliciously ironic that Microsoft is using Apple computers at the premier electronic entertainment expo of the year to demonstrate its multi-billion dollar new console less than 2 quarters from ship. And no, these days, R&D and manufacturing isn't *that* "just-in-time". It's pretty startling, actually, that they don't have a shitload of final or near-final test Xbox 360s, and that they're still doing everything with Power Macs.
As for your last statement, that has been true for over 4 years now, so that is *not at all* a new development by any stretch, nor a "first" in any way, unless you're talking on a timeline that includes the last 4 years. It's also completely unsurprising that Apple would be talking to Intel about chips, since it is a large chip vendor with a number of communications and embedded offerings. Apple already uses an Intel communications chip in Xserve RAID. Intel 10Gbps NICs are used in Macs. And Steve Jobs said two years ago that Mac OS X is designed to be portable, and that it never hurts to have options. I find Apple talking to Intel about chips absolutely uninteresting. However, I am a bit surprised that no one cares Microsoft is using Power Macs for Xbox 360 development - and *demos*! - this late in the game. Further, it does prove that the PowerPC is a worthy platform to people who have been trashing it against Intel and/or AMD variously for years.
That wasn't really anywhere near the point I was trying to make, but ok.
And your quote is what the Microsoft spokesperson said, not what C|Net said. The "very specific hardware" is the fucking G5 processor, the goddamned heart of the Mac. No, I'm not saying they should have built their own reference platform and OS just to do Xbox 360 R&D, but this is a Big Deal, even if only for the irony.
And yes, it is "shocking" that all development, R&D, and demos for Microsoft's premier next generation gaming console are running on Apples. It's not just "coincidence" and dumb happenstance that Apple is using the PowerPC 970, and Microsoft is using a variant thereof: it's a damned good processor. And yes, to echo your first statement, if the offerings from AMD and Intel are so fucking great (and much cheaper in all quantities than the PowerPC, I might add), then why is Microsoft not using it in Xbox, especially given that Microsoft has been almost synonymous with x86, hardware wise, for over two decades? It is most certainly a big deal: it shows that the PowerPC architecture is *so good* for some tasks that even Microsoft itself uses it, even when cheaper and supposedly "better" (e.g., Intel/AMD, at least as trumpeted by others) architectures - indeed, ones its been using and programming for since its beginnings - are available. (Note: I'm not saying that Intel and AMD "sucks" or anything like that; in fact, I'm saying quite the opposite: that PowerPC *doesn't* suck, and if people won't accept other benchmarks from PowerPC and POWER over the years, certainly something as big this this proves it. After all, everyone says it's "games" that drive the performance in computing; if that's true, it appears that all of the next generation consoles have turned to one place: PowerPC.)
And then, a *rumor* that Apple *might* use an Intel chip in something - not even a processor, mind you - comes to light, and everyone from CNN to the New York Times to the Wall Street Journal to FOX News goes apeshit, but Microsoft is using Apple Power Mac G5's you can actually see in their fucking booth at E3, and you don't think it's newsworthy?
Yes, exactly...I was just talking with one of my colleagues about this. Granted the OS and hardware on all of these consoles will be proprietary, but the fact that the general architecture is PowerPC/POWER, it's got to be at least marginally easier to take some of the titles to Apple hardware running Mac OS X. Right now, there are game SDKs that make it easier for developers to bring cames to PC, GameCube, Xbox, PS2, etc., and I'd think that with all of the consoles going PowerPC architecture and running proprietary OSes anyway, one would hope that some developers - or maybe even a Mac game porting house - would at least say "hey, it should be a minimal investment to bring these games to Mac". Sure, the market is small, but it's kind of one of those circular catch-22's here: the market is small because no one services it.
...that ALL Xbox 360 gameplay demos were actually run on Apple Power Mac G5s.
Seems like they'd have prototypes at least stable enough to demo at the premier gaming and entertainment show of the year for something that's supposed to ship in less than a couple quarters...
In fact, I can't believe that TIME and all of the huge mainstream coverage that Xbox 360 has gotten hasn't mentioned this. All many of the articles say is that the Xbox 360 is using "a processor from IBM", something likely to not raise most anyone's eyebrows.
But to not mention that Microsoft's multi-billion dollar entry into the next generation of console gaming, heavily watched by many investors and financial sectors, uses the processor family that *Macs* have used since 1994, and most closely related to Apple's current computers, so closely, in fact, that their own Xbox 360 development and demos runs directly on Power Macs? I mean, yeah, I realize that Microsoft or anyone using the best processor architecture for a particular application isn't news; but Microsoft using *Macs* to develop AND demo their next generation console isn't worth a mention to anyone but C|Net?
"Blogebrity: The Magazine. Coming soon to newsstands near you" (No, really, they're marginally serious. At least they're seriously floating the idea. And no, I don't really fucking care if they don't really intend to sell real paper magazines at real newsstands.)
"Isn't it about time that someone talked about bloggers?"
"Because, isn't it time that bloggers got some attention?"
don't know how widespread this problem is, but the "direct calling" idea is no longer an option in some locations. Sad, really.
It's not sad at all.
Municipalities are devoting resources to a system that is centralized, centrally managed, has special capabilities (coupled with equipment in specific dispatch centers) to determine location quickly, with trained operators working in an environment best suited to routing an emergency call for help to the appropriate emergency agency as quickly as possible in an expeditious fashion without superfluous or panicked information, all serviced by a simple 3 digit number that works anywhere, that everyone is trained to call in the case of an emergency from the time they can talk, that works from all conventional landlines, payphones, and cellphones.
There's nothing sad about it.
The only sad thing is that VoIP providers didn't work hard enough to remedy this situation before they were forced to do so. Even with all the complexities, and even with the possibility of the equipment physically moving, E911 should have been a FUCKING GIVEN on this equipment, period. And yes, I realize the import of what I'm saying. But there are a LOT better ways to have dealt with this than what VoIP providers have done so far.
But instead, VoIP providers gave a shameful half-assed attempt at a critical emergency service. Sad, really.
"They" (Apple) weren't supposed to fix anything having to do with VPN clients in 10.4.1.
Making VPN clients work with 10.4.x is completely up to the vendors, and all vendors have had all the information and everything they have fundamentally needed, from a developer standpoint, to make their clients work with Tiger since *last June*.
There is absolutely no reason all of the VPN client vendors shouldn't have had their clients out on April 29 alongside Tiger. Any feigned surprise on their part, or finger pointing at Apple, is completely bullshit. Yes, Tiger changed how things work which "broke" the old clients. But they've also had almost a year to fix it.
It's completely full. There is no more room, and, if space were no issue, Apple would most certainly have used a 3.5" drive, if only for reasons of specifications (larger drive for the money) and cost.
Yes, it's true that since the Mac mini uses a 2.5" laptop hard drive by default, which is why the disk performance is relatively poor. This is why you can achieve greater performance with a 3.5" drive coupled with a FireWire enclosure. But many of the FireWire enclosures out there are what I would call, well, damned ugly. And huge. Way more huge than they need to be. And way too ugly and clunky to go with a computer like the Mac mini, unless you bought it completely for price and could care less about appearances.
Enter miniMate: a FireWire 400/USB 2.0 hub with integrated Ultra ATA 3.5" disk bay with up to a 400GB 7200RPM disk, all in an enclosure aesthetically designed exactly like the form factor of the Mac mini (except a bit shorter):
First of all, Mac OS X 10.4 has been complete since March 28. So while it wasn't released until April 29, Mac OS X 10.4.1 has been in development for over six weeks.
Second, Mac OS X 10.4.1 completely fixes the the widget auto-installation issue by adding widgets to the items that Safari prompts for before a download is complete. You will now receive a notice:
"(file) is an application. Are you sure you want to download the application (file)?"
...including when Safari is in its default state, i.e., "Open 'safe' files after downloading" is enabled. This issue is now completely mitigated, as no item can be downloaded or installed without the user's express knowledge and permission. Therefore, this issue is now closed.
Mirror of the flying snake "takeoff" and "gliding" videos.
(The author has also stated "You may use this video footage for non-publishing purposes without permission" on his web page. Not sure how much load it can handle, so I figured I'd mirror it. The author's page has more information and commentary; these are just the raw videos. They're very small, so there's a good chance his server could have handled it just fine.)
The reason you only got "a couple listings" is because Iridium is pretty much the only game in town, and there's pretty much only one pager. There weren't exactly a lot of devices made for this market. It's no small feat to operate a global voice/data satellite network. There are only a "couple" of other providers (geared more toward government, military, and enterprise, and without "pager" offerings): InMarSat and GlobalStar, for example.
The Motorola 9501 for Iridium is, as I said, essentially the only satellite pager:
Of course, you may be interested in a satellite handset, not strictly a "pager", than can also get email and numeric messages. Keep in mind, though, that all of these satellite devices are subject to normal satellite requirements, e.g., line of sight to the sky. Yes, sometimes they'll "kind of" work in vehicles, wooded areas, etc., and you will get confirmed delivery of messages once you're again in range, but these things aren't exactly set up to work in houses and buildings. You may have no choice but to have a conventional cell phone/pager AND a satellite device for when you're remote, and have your automated systems and/or people try both devices.
For others in a similar boat, but not quite as remote as the submitter, you may also consider a conventional 2-way or 1.5-way nationwide pager, which provides delivery confirmation and re-attempts if you're temporarily out of range. But if you know you're going to be out of range for a while, you pretty much restricted to something like one of the satellite solutions. Consider a mobile phone. Most providers' digital networks offer email service, numeric "paging", and even true TAP/IXO paging. Just look into a provider that covers your area(s).
A bit of history on Iridium: Iridium was the satellite phone service launched by Motorola on Sept 23, 1998, when the last satellite of its global constellation was in place. Handset prices (over $3000) and airtime fees (several dollars per minute), as well as attempting to market to ordinary folks doomed the service from the beginning. Motorola decided to end the Iridium service on March 17, 2000, at 11:59pm. After billions were spent on the 66 satellites, and the $1 million per month that it cost Motorola for Boeing operate the satellites, Motorola initiated plans to deorbit and destroy the constellation. Various investor groups attempted to save Iridium, and the Defense Department even provided $72 million to keep the satellites operational (in the face of concerns of debris from the deorbited satellites actually hitting someone on earth, which NASA pinned at 1 in 250). In any event, Iridium Satellite LLC successfully purchased the assets of the $7 billion Motorola Iridium program in November 2000 for a mere $25 million:
The new Iridium, launched in March 2001, attempts to fix the shortcomings of the original by expanding beyond satellite voice telephone service, into data, video, realtime monitoring, and special applications in markets such as mining, oil/gas, m
Slashdot Mirror
...insert completely offtopic and irrelevant DeLay comments here, instead of acknowledging that the current House of Representatives Majority Leader, a legislator with significant power, has publicly pledged the necessary funding for NASA's Mars and Moon missions.
Note: the funding NASA has received over the last couple of decades is equivalent to the funding it received during the Apollo program in adjusted dollars, so it's not like NASA is the equivalent of the hapless panhandler many slashdotters make it out to be.
Further, for those who support NASA's fundamental mission of space exploration, we must also acknowledge the US Air Force Space Command's renewed role to protect free access to space, including planning for contingencies that may require us to protect our assets in space from other nations. You had better believe, regardless of any perceived sensibilities, that other nations may lay claim to, e.g., areas of the moon, areas in close proximity to earth, etc. If anyone is forced to be a steward of free access, I'll be blunt and say I'd rather it be us.
Again, I don't think that a privacy policy needs to specifically state anything about being retroactive in order to apply to potentially ongoing violations the policy in its current form, even if you argue that it's old information, that it happened before the privacy policy, etc.
;-)
Front page slashdot story? No, definitely not.
Further, from here:
Also, I did some quick checks, and it appears there are some non-trolls on the list, e.g. User:Perrak.--Eloquence* 19:28, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
Given that you've found at least one non-troll on the list, I think the privacy concerns mentioned on Slashdot have been well validated. It's not just theoretical, it's real. I'm just astonished to find out that something like this happened here, and I'm more than a little bothered by the fact that everyone seems to keep apologizing for this dangerous recklessness on our (Wikipedians) part. Typogfk 19:44, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
The discussion is academic at this point, but most reasonable people would likely agree that ongoing violations of privacy policy should not get "grandfathered in", as it were, when a privacy policy goes into effect or changes. Sure, you can't change the past, but this isn't the past: this is the present, and the page, which itself is the manifestation of the privacy violation, still exists. If anything, it would be a responsible statement on the part of Wikimedia to remove the page, in light of the privacy policy it can be argued to clearly violate.
If your response is that the page is almost a year old, and therefore any privacy concerns for possibly innocent users are almost certainly now moot, wouldn't it also be true that the information on the page is now also so old that it should simply be removed? What is the purpose of the page's continuing existence if it is so old that its very age is used as a defense against possible privacy violations?
Please note that I understand the annoyance and burden of the trolls; that is currently beside the point of this discussion.
If you have no problem with Wiki{p,m}edia violating its own privacy policy, regardless of when it was created, and regardless whether the users are trolls/sockpuppets, etc., knock yourself out.
1. The fact that the list was made prior is irrelevant, because as soon as any privacy policy containing that excerpt regarding passwords was even marginally in effect, an egregious violation of said policy should be remedied. Are you telling me that every continuing violation of the privacy policy should be allowed to continue, simply because it existed before the privacy policy...?
2. I know exactly what the impetus was, as I stated specifically numerous times in my post. That still doesn't excuse overly broad and public dragnets that will invariably catch some innocent people at the same time.
To be clear, this isn't a case of Wikipedia "leaking" passwords or allowing some kind of exploit via technical means; this is Tim Starling deciding to specifically and literally publish a list of usernames that share the same password, ostensibly for the purpose of revealing trolls and flooders with multiple accounts.
From the looks of a few of the lists (RickK, RíckK, RìckK, RiÄkK, RïckK, RiÄkK; Mäximus Rex, Maximus Rex, MaximusRex; JíangSlumDawg, JiangFlungDung; LlortTheehtTroll, LlörtTheehtTröll; The Two Trolls,The Fellowship of the Troll,The Return of the Troll,The Trolls of Navarone,Troll Silent, Troll Deep,The Trolling Stones, RangelaND Visa CONtroll), it would appear that some of these are indeed obvious duplicate accounts (whether or not they're "trolls" is, I imagine, beside the point).
But it seems that he also caught a bunch of innocent folks who just happen to share the same password, not beyond the realm of comprehension for a password used for an "online" non-financial, non-critical site on a service with thousands of users. The submission makes it seem like Wikipedia knew about some kind of "exploit" and did nothing; rather, it seems like Wikipedia is content to let potential, and indeed confirmed in one case as admitted on the page, abuse of innocent users' privacy continue in the name of exposing possible (admittedly annoying) trolls. (That's my own take on the situation, anyway.)
Interestingly, Wikimedia's (draft?) Privacy Policy says:
Many aspects of the Wikimedia projects community interactions depend on the reputation and respect that is built up through a history of valued contributions. User passwords are the only guarantee of the integrity of a user's edit history. All users are encouraged to select strong passwords and to never share them. No one shall knowingly expose the password of another user to public release either directly or indirectly.
It appears that, in this case, Wikimedia itself is implicitly "knowingly" releasing passwords to the public. One of the many problems with a community site for which there is no central responsible authority. Anyone who hasn't yet would do themselves well to read the summary of the issue linked in the submission.
...ATI's forthcoming R520, with hardware H.264 codec support.
Imagine a Mac mini or laptop with that chipset...it will enable HD playback on a lot of hardware that wouldn't otherwise support it.
I'm more than well aware of Windows NT's legacy of support for other architectures. I have a Motorola Viper (predecessor to the StarMax 6000 that never shipped), a full CHRP-compliant PowerPC platform capable of running Windows NT 4.
I'm not at all talking about "Windows" running on PowerPC. In fact, the OS running on Xbox 360 is hardly what one would call "Windows" (though it is a now-distant Windows 2000 derivative).
I'm talking about the import of the story that *Microsoft*, a company virtually wed to x86 for all intents, whether it be by choice or by convenience, for over two decades, is now using PowerPC. And not only is it using PowerPC, it is using Apple Power Mac G5s to design, develop, and demo software for Xbox 360. As I said, no, I don't expect Microsoft to develop its own PowerPC motherboard and platform just to do Xbox 360 development. What I *am* saying is that it is at least marginally surprising or at the very least deliciously ironic that Microsoft is using Apple computers at the premier electronic entertainment expo of the year to demonstrate its multi-billion dollar new console less than 2 quarters from ship. And no, these days, R&D and manufacturing isn't *that* "just-in-time". It's pretty startling, actually, that they don't have a shitload of final or near-final test Xbox 360s, and that they're still doing everything with Power Macs.
As for your last statement, that has been true for over 4 years now, so that is *not at all* a new development by any stretch, nor a "first" in any way, unless you're talking on a timeline that includes the last 4 years. It's also completely unsurprising that Apple would be talking to Intel about chips, since it is a large chip vendor with a number of communications and embedded offerings. Apple already uses an Intel communications chip in Xserve RAID. Intel 10Gbps NICs are used in Macs. And Steve Jobs said two years ago that Mac OS X is designed to be portable, and that it never hurts to have options. I find Apple talking to Intel about chips absolutely uninteresting. However, I am a bit surprised that no one cares Microsoft is using Power Macs for Xbox 360 development - and *demos*! - this late in the game. Further, it does prove that the PowerPC is a worthy platform to people who have been trashing it against Intel and/or AMD variously for years.
...
That wasn't really anywhere near the point I was trying to make, but ok.
And your quote is what the Microsoft spokesperson said, not what C|Net said. The "very specific hardware" is the fucking G5 processor, the goddamned heart of the Mac. No, I'm not saying they should have built their own reference platform and OS just to do Xbox 360 R&D, but this is a Big Deal, even if only for the irony.
And yes, it is "shocking" that all development, R&D, and demos for Microsoft's premier next generation gaming console are running on Apples. It's not just "coincidence" and dumb happenstance that Apple is using the PowerPC 970, and Microsoft is using a variant thereof: it's a damned good processor. And yes, to echo your first statement, if the offerings from AMD and Intel are so fucking great (and much cheaper in all quantities than the PowerPC, I might add), then why is Microsoft not using it in Xbox, especially given that Microsoft has been almost synonymous with x86, hardware wise, for over two decades? It is most certainly a big deal: it shows that the PowerPC architecture is *so good* for some tasks that even Microsoft itself uses it, even when cheaper and supposedly "better" (e.g., Intel/AMD, at least as trumpeted by others) architectures - indeed, ones its been using and programming for since its beginnings - are available. (Note: I'm not saying that Intel and AMD "sucks" or anything like that; in fact, I'm saying quite the opposite: that PowerPC *doesn't* suck, and if people won't accept other benchmarks from PowerPC and POWER over the years, certainly something as big this this proves it. After all, everyone says it's "games" that drive the performance in computing; if that's true, it appears that all of the next generation consoles have turned to one place: PowerPC.)
And then, a *rumor* that Apple *might* use an Intel chip in something - not even a processor, mind you - comes to light, and everyone from CNN to the New York Times to the Wall Street Journal to FOX News goes apeshit, but Microsoft is using Apple Power Mac G5's you can actually see in their fucking booth at E3, and you don't think it's newsworthy?
Sorry, gonna have to disagree there.
Yes, exactly...I was just talking with one of my colleagues about this. Granted the OS and hardware on all of these consoles will be proprietary, but the fact that the general architecture is PowerPC/POWER, it's got to be at least marginally easier to take some of the titles to Apple hardware running Mac OS X. Right now, there are game SDKs that make it easier for developers to bring cames to PC, GameCube, Xbox, PS2, etc., and I'd think that with all of the consoles going PowerPC architecture and running proprietary OSes anyway, one would hope that some developers - or maybe even a Mac game porting house - would at least say "hey, it should be a minimal investment to bring these games to Mac". Sure, the market is small, but it's kind of one of those circular catch-22's here: the market is small because no one services it.
...that ALL Xbox 360 gameplay demos were actually run on Apple Power Mac G5s.
Seems like they'd have prototypes at least stable enough to demo at the premier gaming and entertainment show of the year for something that's supposed to ship in less than a couple quarters...
In fact, I can't believe that TIME and all of the huge mainstream coverage that Xbox 360 has gotten hasn't mentioned this. All many of the articles say is that the Xbox 360 is using "a processor from IBM", something likely to not raise most anyone's eyebrows.
But to not mention that Microsoft's multi-billion dollar entry into the next generation of console gaming, heavily watched by many investors and financial sectors, uses the processor family that *Macs* have used since 1994, and most closely related to Apple's current computers, so closely, in fact, that their own Xbox 360 development and demos runs directly on Power Macs? I mean, yeah, I realize that Microsoft or anyone using the best processor architecture for a particular application isn't news; but Microsoft using *Macs* to develop AND demo their next generation console isn't worth a mention to anyone but C|Net?
When, how, and under what circumstances is it ok for copyright owners to protect their content?
"Blogebrity: The Magazine. Coming soon to newsstands near you" (No, really, they're marginally serious. At least they're seriously floating the idea. And no, I don't really fucking care if they don't really intend to sell real paper magazines at real newsstands.)
"Isn't it about time that someone talked about bloggers?"
"Because, isn't it time that bloggers got some attention?"
(Actual quotes from the site.)
Jesus Christ.
Give me a fucking break.
No, that's not incorrect at all.
If we worried about machines getting portscanned here, we'd need a whole new department dedicated to nothing but worrying about portscanning.
And that includes machines that appear to be portscanned individually.
don't know how widespread this problem is, but the "direct calling" idea is no longer an option in some locations. Sad, really.
It's not sad at all.
Municipalities are devoting resources to a system that is centralized, centrally managed, has special capabilities (coupled with equipment in specific dispatch centers) to determine location quickly, with trained operators working in an environment best suited to routing an emergency call for help to the appropriate emergency agency as quickly as possible in an expeditious fashion without superfluous or panicked information, all serviced by a simple 3 digit number that works anywhere, that everyone is trained to call in the case of an emergency from the time they can talk, that works from all conventional landlines, payphones, and cellphones.
There's nothing sad about it.
The only sad thing is that VoIP providers didn't work hard enough to remedy this situation before they were forced to do so. Even with all the complexities, and even with the possibility of the equipment physically moving, E911 should have been a FUCKING GIVEN on this equipment, period. And yes, I realize the import of what I'm saying. But there are a LOT better ways to have dealt with this than what VoIP providers have done so far.
But instead, VoIP providers gave a shameful half-assed attempt at a critical emergency service. Sad, really.
"They" (Apple) weren't supposed to fix anything having to do with VPN clients in 10.4.1.
Making VPN clients work with 10.4.x is completely up to the vendors, and all vendors have had all the information and everything they have fundamentally needed, from a developer standpoint, to make their clients work with Tiger since *last June*.
There is absolutely no reason all of the VPN client vendors shouldn't have had their clients out on April 29 alongside Tiger. Any feigned surprise on their part, or finger pointing at Apple, is completely bullshit. Yes, Tiger changed how things work which "broke" the old clients. But they've also had almost a year to fix it.
Have you seen the inside of the Mac mini?
It's completely full. There is no more room, and, if space were no issue, Apple would most certainly have used a 3.5" drive, if only for reasons of specifications (larger drive for the money) and cost.
...and no vested interest of any kind in anything relating to it, and didn't submit the story.
But thanks for your concern!
Can you buy two of those and run them in RAID-1?
Absolutely.
With Disk Utility, it's just a matter of dragging the disks into a RAID set, and you're done.
Yes, it's true that since the Mac mini uses a 2.5" laptop hard drive by default, which is why the disk performance is relatively poor. This is why you can achieve greater performance with a 3.5" drive coupled with a FireWire enclosure. But many of the FireWire enclosures out there are what I would call, well, damned ugly. And huge. Way more huge than they need to be. And way too ugly and clunky to go with a computer like the Mac mini, unless you bought it completely for price and could care less about appearances.
Enter miniMate: a FireWire 400/USB 2.0 hub with integrated Ultra ATA 3.5" disk bay with up to a 400GB 7200RPM disk, all in an enclosure aesthetically designed exactly like the form factor of the Mac mini (except a bit shorter):
http://www.micronet.com/General/minimate.asp
Second, Mac OS X 10.4.1 completely fixes the the widget auto-installation issue by adding widgets to the items that Safari prompts for before a download is complete. You will now receive a notice:
"(file) is an application. Are you sure you want to download the application (file)?"
...including when Safari is in its default state, i.e., "Open 'safe' files after downloading" is enabled. This issue is now completely mitigated, as no item can be downloaded or installed without the user's express knowledge and permission. Therefore, this issue is now closed.
Mirror of the flying snake "takeoff" and "gliding" videos.
(The author has also stated "You may use this video footage for non-publishing purposes without permission" on his web page. Not sure how much load it can handle, so I figured I'd mirror it. The author's page has more information and commentary; these are just the raw videos. They're very small, so there's a good chance his server could have handled it just fine.)
...to refer people to more information on Bose-Einstein condensates (BEC):
BEC wikipedia page
BEC home page at Colorado
BEC at NIST
What is a BEC?
The reason you only got "a couple listings" is because Iridium is pretty much the only game in town, and there's pretty much only one pager. There weren't exactly a lot of devices made for this market. It's no small feat to operate a global voice/data satellite network. There are only a "couple" of other providers (geared more toward government, military, and enterprise, and without "pager" offerings): InMarSat and GlobalStar, for example.
The Motorola 9501 for Iridium is, as I said, essentially the only satellite pager:
http://www.iridium.com/product/iri_product-detail. asp?productid=445
http://shop.infosat.com/pagers/
http://www.infosat.com/services/iridium/motorola_9 501_pager.htm
http://www.satwest.com/satellite_pagers_mi9501.htm l
More...
Of course, you may be interested in a satellite handset, not strictly a "pager", than can also get email and numeric messages. Keep in mind, though, that all of these satellite devices are subject to normal satellite requirements, e.g., line of sight to the sky. Yes, sometimes they'll "kind of" work in vehicles, wooded areas, etc., and you will get confirmed delivery of messages once you're again in range, but these things aren't exactly set up to work in houses and buildings. You may have no choice but to have a conventional cell phone/pager AND a satellite device for when you're remote, and have your automated systems and/or people try both devices.
For others in a similar boat, but not quite as remote as the submitter, you may also consider a conventional 2-way or 1.5-way nationwide pager, which provides delivery confirmation and re-attempts if you're temporarily out of range. But if you know you're going to be out of range for a while, you pretty much restricted to something like one of the satellite solutions. Consider a mobile phone. Most providers' digital networks offer email service, numeric "paging", and even true TAP/IXO paging. Just look into a provider that covers your area(s).
A bit of history on Iridium: Iridium was the satellite phone service launched by Motorola on Sept 23, 1998, when the last satellite of its global constellation was in place. Handset prices (over $3000) and airtime fees (several dollars per minute), as well as attempting to market to ordinary folks doomed the service from the beginning. Motorola decided to end the Iridium service on March 17, 2000, at 11:59pm. After billions were spent on the 66 satellites, and the $1 million per month that it cost Motorola for Boeing operate the satellites, Motorola initiated plans to deorbit and destroy the constellation. Various investor groups attempted to save Iridium, and the Defense Department even provided $72 million to keep the satellites operational (in the face of concerns of debris from the deorbited satellites actually hitting someone on earth, which NASA pinned at 1 in 250). In any event, Iridium Satellite LLC successfully purchased the assets of the $7 billion Motorola Iridium program in November 2000 for a mere $25 million:
http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0011/16iridium/
http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0103/29iridium/
The new Iridium, launched in March 2001, attempts to fix the shortcomings of the original by expanding beyond satellite voice telephone service, into data, video, realtime monitoring, and special applications in markets such as mining, oil/gas, m