Some states in that bunch have a history of liberty-mindedness, making it able to make use of existing population
Umm... Maybe 200 years ago. The current population of New England is the LEAST sympathetic to these guys libertarian ideals of any states in the union. With the possible exception being Hew Hampshire, otherwise it's the very heart of the high-tax welfare state quasi-socialist ideology these guys are trying to get away from.
Well this one is not really an error message. There was a multimedia company that had a promotional floppy (this was before CD's) that had this gag error message pop up on your mac (it's been a while so I might not get the wording exactly right)
"How would you like if I erased all your files?" with two buttons both of which said "OK". If you clicked on the button it would say "just kidding" if you clicked anywhere else it would call you a coward.
I'm convinced the reason behind it is that the typical Mac user is someone who is not very technical and was perhaps intimidated by using a computer, so when they figured out how to use their Mac they get a certain sense of pride and accomplishment which they in turn morph into zealotry.
Speaking as a Mac-zealot myself I can affirm that this is pretty much true. My only nit-pick is that the zeolotry doesn't have to do with any kind of *personal* pride of accomplishment - It is not that I feel proud that that *I* am somehow smart enough to figure out the computer. It is that the computer is smart enough that I don't have to - and given my experience with other computers I am profoundly grateful.
I would also suggest that MacUsers, at least the "Mac Pros" ARE often quite technically proficient, just that their proficiency is in fields other than computing. And they (I) would argue that is as it SHOULD be. A computer is a tool, a means to an end. The purpose of all computers in the end is NOT "computing" there is some end result that the computing is FOR. Some end result that the computer is completely irrelevant to. The mac was a good tool in that it allowed you to focus on end rather than the means. A designer could design, a musician could compose, an accountant could count all without becoming mired in learning the irrelevant (and to them profoundly uninteresting) intricacies of a complex tool.
Zeolotry on the part of mac users has diminished as wintel caught up in terms of usability. The Mac itself hasn't "won" but the "mac way" has. But back in the days of DOS and then Windows 3.x Apple had *earned* it's users enthusiasm. Much of the zeolotry came from seeing an "insanely great" (and it really was) computer struggling against a vastly inferior brand-name competitor. Imagine the zeolotry of Linux users if they had not only a technically superior but a MUCH more polished and useable desktop solution that was still ignored because it wasn't the right brand name.
The point is that the range on the TiPB is bad because the internal antenna is enclosed inside a metal Faraday cage
This may still be true, but I just did the "remove-battery - press-on-serial-number" trick mentioned elswhere in this discussion and to my astonishment IT WORKED. I am getting a good connection with my TiBook in a room where previously I got ZERO signal. I'm so pleased right now I'm going to have to leave this discussion altogether. Otherwise I'll be seriously tempted to reply to every single post singing the Hossannas of this little trick.
I just did this and it WORKS. In my basement office I get ZERO reception, maybe one bars flickers on for a second or two every few days (I use an ethernet cable when I'm down here). After doing this little trick I'm getting three bars and a workable connection (four bars if I adjust my position - I'll have to move my desk)
From the threads on Ars it looks like you could get even better reception if you could do the same thing to the antenna on the other side. It does seem (just playing around with it right now) that it favors the side with the battery. It seems I get better reception if I rotate the book so that the side with the battery (where I just adjusted the antenna) I get better reception than if the other side (with the DVD drive) is facing the base station.
No the journaling file system is keeping track of the file systems meta data - where a file exists on the disk. This is completely unrelated to what Siracusa has been complaining about.
Siracusa is complaining about the lack of richness in a file's metadata and the fact that some of the most important meta-data is stored messily and unnecessarily as part of another unrelated bit of meta-data (the file type being stored as part of the file name). His ideal would be files that stored a lot more useful metadata in a logical well designed and extensible way.
It is unlikely that what makes the Earth special us (that it supports human life naturally) will also make it special to aliens.
Many of the things that that allow the Earth to support human life may also be necessary to support any complex life. Furthermore they may be rather rare. We are on a rocky planet with an exceptionally stable atmosphere in an unlikely equalibrium between freezing away (like mars) or becoming a runaway greenhouse (like Venus) in the "habitable zone" of our solar system. There are very good arguments to be made that this "habitable zone" doesn't just apply to terrestrial life but to any conceivable complex life. Our insignificant planet may be a rather rare planet that is perfect for "terraforming" to suit the needs of our hypothetical ET. We have no reason to assume that the factor that prevented them from wiping themselves out (with the same technologies that make their star travel possible) would also prevent them from wiping an alien species out, especially one that was dramatically less advanced.
Here is another counter argument. Imagine it is not an explorer that comes across the tiny oasis with the interesting bugs but a construction crew. Perhaps they don't find the bugs very interesting. They're just paving a few systems to build a parking garage for a nearby ringworld. ET: "damn another intelligent species, the environmentalists are going to freak... quick... wipe out that little nest of them on the third rock out before that EPA guy shows up."
Perhaps they have developed an ethos or instinct that ensures they are not *self* destructive but that is no guarantee they are not *other* destructive or care that much about *others* at all.
But is the Drake Equation itself conservative enough? The rare earth hypothesis makes a credible argument for adding a whole lot of additional fractions on the right side of the equation making N (number of civilizations) vanishingly small. Or I suppose you could factor that all in to the Drake equation as part of R* (rate of formation of stars suitable for the development of life) making it a very very low number.
Something I've wondered in this case... why is it worse to shoot "old men and women and children" than it is to shoot anyone else?
Because there is a cultural taboo against victimising the weak and utterly defenseless. Sure, in the case of a sniper everyone is equally defenseless but the cultural values is ingrained and doesn't and is still particularly sympathizes with the weak. On the whole this is a good thing. Generally, young males ARE more capable of defending themselves, and generally young males are the ones that people need to be protected from. The culture places more value on those that are least able to stick up for themselves and engenders a protective impulse in those that are stronger and in the absense of that impulse more likely to be the ones doing the victimizing.
That being said I thought it was weird when the local police captain (or sheriff, whatever) after the shooting of the 13 year old that NOW the sniper had "crossed the line". To my ear it was a strange somehow offensive comment. It offended (my at least) cultural sensibilities. Sure we see killing a child as a particularly egregious crimem but it is going way too far to suggest that the sniper didn't "cross the line" until that point. This sniper "crossed the line" with the very first victim, perhaps you could say he crossed *another* line deserving even *more* reprehension when he added a child to his list of victims but the way it was stated was just a bit bizarre and offensive.
You are responding to a troll. A real honest-to-goodness "troll" that is just writing nonsense to "troll" for a reaction. Not someone (often mis-moderated as a "troll") who really believes the nonsense they write.
No that is not necessarily the case. Because the term "reasonable" is so squishy it can mean anything an activist lawyer and an accomodating jury want it to mean.
Southwest is not in the website business, they are in the air travel business. They have very reasonable accomodations for the disabled to access their services and information about their services - a call center. That accomodation may "suck" but it is accessible!! By your standard they already meet the requirement. BUT the requirement is just a vague "reasonable" standard defined by people that don't have to bear the costs. This guy thinks having the same information available for the blind on the web is required for Southwest's access to be "reasonable". You see there is no limit - there is always more that *could* be done and there will always be someone that sees that next step as *reasonable*. A company can never reach the point where they have done *enough* and the standard will be ever expanding because at the end of the day being disabled will still suck. Being blind will still be inconvenient and an extra hassle and wanting the world to revolve around you will always seem like a "reasonable" accomodation. Fortunately for individual companies it's like the old joke about not having to outswim a shark. You just have to stay ahead of the poor schmuck that's getting sued (THAT is the standard).
The thing that gets me about this whole issue is that in reality, a site almost has to spend MORE money to make a site non-accessible!!!
That is not necessarily true and even in that case it seems to me very scary that we want the government to get into what technologies web sites can or can't use. You don't like javascript & flash - fine. It would be better/nicer if all websites were compatible - true. But to require it via the law?
I'm a libertarian...
I would suggest you may need to rethink that label. Your position on this issue and more significantly you *reasons* for that position are diametrically opposed to the philosophy and politics that label represents. Not that I have a problem with that - I'm NOT a libertarian. But I can see the danger of vaguely worded laws that almost beg for ever changing, expanding legal requirements.
Sites that use only flash, or make important data require flash to access, are not a good thing.
Yes, it is stupid BUT is it the governments job to tell you what you can and can't use on your site?
This whole lawsuit is idiotic and I hope that not only does it get thrown out but that those bringing the suit are penalized in some way. First off as others have pointed out Southwest is not denying the blind anything - all the information and more is available via the call center.
Secondly, and this is the very un-PC side. I think it is nice, good and wonderful for people to go through extra effort to compensate for peoples disabilities. But I think we must be very careful with how far we mandate it. There is probably an infinite amount of effort, time and money you can go through to compensate for those lacked abilities (the "dis-" in "disability") to get ever decreasing returns. Look at this case: I'm sure Southwest can go (& may be required to go) far further than just putting text in the "alt" tags & getting rid of Flash. But no matter how much extra effort they put into the site it will still suck for the blind compared to the simple phone call that is already available.
Re:The one button + mods == three buttons fallacy
on
Flirting With Mac OS X
·
· Score: 2
Programs like GIMP use all three buttons alone AND in combination with the 'bucky bits.'
How do you fit all those buttons on your stylus? or alternatively: You use a MOUSE?!? for image manipulation? LOL... and you are arguing that one-button is "crippling". You are losing better than half of the functionality of any image manipulation program by using a mouse and you are complaining about one-button + 5 modifier keys being "crippling". Get yourself a pressure senstive tablet, when you use a mouse to edit images after that you will know the meaning of "crippling"
I'm not as familiar with GIMP but on Photoshop there are 12 different ways to modify a mouse click (when using the brush tool, it varies from tool to tool) I only use 8 or so to the point where they are firmly entrenched in my "muscle memory" With those 12 there are still a few modifier key combos that are unused. I'm willing to believe that you need & actually use 3 mouse buttons + 5 modifier keys in combination but I doubt that most people do.
Three buttons are vital to productive use of non-trivial GUI apps on a *NIX workstation
I'll concede that most mac people aren't talking about UNIX apps that expect a three-button mouse when they say one-button is enough. I'm sure GIMP (& others) do suffer from the transition. I will however defend the usuablity of a one-button mouse (plus the modifier keys) when the system and the software is originally designed with that in mind. I very much doubt that you are any more productive with GIMP designed for a three button mouse than I am with Photoshop designed for a one-button mouse (leaving aside the varying capabilities of the two programs) I can assure you quite confidently that with a stylus I am quite a bit more productive. If GIMP *really* is written to be almost unusable without three mouse-buttons I wonder how effective it can be when using a pressure sensitive tablet. Even if you can find a three-button model it would be awkward to use those buttons.
And the idiocy extends into the GUI portion as well. They ship a utility called "Disk Copy" that does everything EXCEPT copy a disk. This is intuitive?
Hmmm... perhaps I have a newer version of Disk Copy, never had a problem copying disks with it.
As for your assertion that we should be able to enter into some contracts like an NDA which would require non-disclosure, voluntarily limiting what is otherwise a right of freedom of speech.
Actually my point was that my employeer was limiting what was otherwise HIS right to privacy. Your view of fairness seems always to tilt to one party "the little guy" who should be prevented from losing any rights but you seem OK with it when the other party "the big guy" loses his rights.
But these contracts are never-the-less signing away rights.
Of course they are every contract ever written involved "signing away rights" that is the whole point! A contract is a promise to do (or not do) something you have a right not to do (or do) in return for which the other party makes their own similar promises. It is the entire point that you "lose" "rights" to the other person that you once had and vice versa. In the case of most licenses you generally don't "lose" any rights that weren't granted to you by the license anyway.
Where do we draw the line between acceptable concessions in contracts, and contracts which would essentually make one person a slave to another?
That is what legislatures and elections are for. The line is a debatable one - there is no "right" answer. Even the nature of the question is open to debate. Where is the line of "reasonable" concessions beyond which we won't allow people to "enslave" themselves? Where is the line of "reasonable" limitations the government can make on peoples private agreements? Taking either position to an extreme limits freedom in different ways. Personally I don't think the balance we have is really all that bad. Sure there are a lot of people bound by onerous, bad, contracts. But you can't legislate utopia. Laws sufficient to outlaw all bad contracts would also outlaw most legitimate contracts and severely limit our freedom to make private agreements of any sort. The government should act to curb the worst abuses and protect the ignorant & easily victimized. But beyond that it must treat us as adults responsible for our own well-being. Freedom is meaningless if we are straightjacketed for our own protection. In the end if you find the terms of a contract unaceptable simply don't agree. If an EULA or the GPL or the APSL have terms you find unacceptable you don't have to accept it. Sure you must forego the benefits the agreement would have brought you but your are not entitled to have other people labour for your benefit.
One example that worries me is standard EULA's which give copyright holders more rights than they have under the law
As I noted above ALL contracts grant the parties more rights than they held under the law. My employment contract entitles me to money from my employer - without that contract he owes me NOTHING under the law. The same contract entitles him to my labour and time - without that contract I owe him nothing under the law.
Let me outline a type of contract that is very similar to an EULA in this regard. Many artists want to sell their paintings BUT they also have a conflicting desire to keep them for museum shows of their collected works (admittedly only a problem for the very successful). How do they resolve this conflict? As it turns out most purchasers are more than willing to loan the paintings back for this purpose - it really strokes the ego to have a painting you own in a museum show "from the collection of Mr. & Mrs. Smith". So when they purchase the painting they sign an agreement that says the artist has a right (he did not otherwise have) to borrow the painting for X number of times per year for X amount of time for the purpose of putting it in shows. You have a problem with that to the point where you think it should be illegal. But why? The artist feels easier selling his painting. The purchaser doesn't mind at all even though it may involve future inconveniences. You have a problem with that but really it's none of your business.
You seem to be completely blind to the problems with the contractualization of law. Contract law must be superceded by real laws -- local, state, federal, and constitutional law.
Sure no problem with that.
In your world, I can write up a contract with someone that says I'm their slave...
Umm... In your zeal to refute me you apparantly neglected to read my post. Try again.
Is it any lesser a violation of one's rights, when one is murdered by a private citizen, as opposed to the government? Of course not.
Quite right. But one does not usually accuse a murderer of being "unconstitutional". Murder is bad, it is illegal, it violates your rights. Perhaps I'm being overly pedantic but I maintain that it is silly to call it "unconstitutional" unless it is the state that killed you without the due process guaranteed in the constitution. Please... words mean things. The word unconstitutional means something specific, It's not just a synonym for "bad" or even "violating my rights".
Firstly, the contract must be legal... For the same reasons, contracts which would require privacy-rigths violations should be invalid.
This is like saying it is illegal to invite a friend over to your house since by doing so YOU are violating your own privacy rights. Your right to privacy is a right you yourself may waive at will. Agreeing in a contract to waive your own privacy rights is not "illegal" in the same way that making a contract with someone else to videotape the goings on in the girls lockerroom would be. Can you see how one is a contract that violates a right to privacy but the other does not? Let me ask you this question. I recently signed an NDA, a company said that they would employ me & tell me their secrets if I agreed not to tell anyone else. Was that contract invalid because it violated my prospective employers right to privacy? Also in the past I signed a partnership agreement that gave each of us certain rights to know things about each other - was this contract void because it "violated" our right to privacy? Your position is that Yes, such agreements (which account for most contracts ultimately) all violate someone's privacy rights. That I cannot myself enter into an agreement that grants someone else a right to know something about me that would be priviliged absent the agreement.
The APSL is significantly less invasive than any loan agreement, partnership agreement, employment agreement or marriage proposal for that matter. Are all these other contracts void because they violate one or both parties "right to privacy"?
Secondly, all parties must be aware of what they're contracting into... EULA's should be voided on their face
First of the APSL is NOT an EULA. It is a license that is agreed to by each party in EXACTLY the same way the GPL is. Sure an idiot could download Linux or Darwin source without reading or understanding the license that grants them the right to edit & distribute it. But to suggest that as a result both licenses are therefore completely void seems an extreme and unworkable position.
Contracts must be static, or renegotiated between the two parties when one desires a change.
Again comletely irrelevant to the APSL. The relevant clause says that you are bound to the static license that you have agreed to, OR at your choice any subsequent version of the same license. (if you agreed to APSL 1.0 you are bound to it's terms or you can choose to be bound to the 1.1 or 1.2 - your choice. The subsequent changes only supercede the previous agreement IF YOU WANT THEM TO.
Fourthly, again regarding EULA's, they also attempt to state that the company may revoke the license at any time for any reason. Another invalid clause, as it would defaud the consumer out of what (s)he hs paid for.
Again irrelevant to the APSL which is only voided by a failure on your part to meet it's terms after 30 days of being notified that you are violating the terms
You seem to be carrying on an argument with someone other than myself about something other than the APSL. Of your four main points three are completely irrelevant and the other posits a view that the right to privacy is so sacrosanct that it cannot be *voluntarily* waived. Making business partnerships, joint ventures, employment, marriage, hospitality & intimacy "unconsitutional" because they reguire agreements that waive one or both parties right to privacy.
In short, I see a big problem with the contractualization of law (i.e., contracts superceding the law)
Then you are seeing a fantasy problem. Contracts do NOT supercede the law, those that do (as in your example of a murder contract) are legally invalid. It is your view of what the law allows and what it prohibits that seems a little bizarre. You can tell me about the evils of EULA's and for the most part I will agree with you. Some of those practices probably should be illegal, some should simply not be agreed to. Either way they are often outrageous. But that wasn't what we were talking about.
My left hand effectively became multi-modal again which requires considerable more thinking (read: slower) effort during production.
It only required more thinking because you weren't used to it. I've always been a mac guy so I have the same problem when I'm using a two-button or three-button mouse. I'm just not used to it so it requires thinking (read: slower). It took a while to get used to using a second button, I like it more for the scrollwhell than the second button which I only find adds much in limited situations (see below for what I mean)
A single button mouse might make sense for dinky little point and click word processing but all serious CAD and graphics software (and probably other serious industry-based software) provide much more power at the mouse hand.
My personal experience with a two-button mouse (that came with my wacom tablet) is the exact opposite. I find the two button mouse with a scroll wheel useful for the simple point & click stuff where you only need one modifier (the right click) and the scroll wheel is really useful. BUT when using a more complex app I find the measly addition of another button insufficient compared to a single mouse button plus the four modifier keys (and in some programs the spacebar). A total of 5 (or 6) "mouse" buttons that are used in combination to effect a potentially much larger number of varying kinds of mouse clicks. For instance in Photoshop using a brush here is the "lack of options" I suffer with:
I click to paint
control-click for contextual menus
shift+control click to bring up a DIFFERENT contextual menu (Aside from the scroll wheel my two-button mouse is out of tricks. Clicking with both buttons could add another one but Photoshop doesn't appear to use this potential)
control+option click to bring up YET ANOTHER contextual menu
option-click to sample a color
shift+option to bring up the multiple sample tool
command-click to move a layer
option+command-click to duplicate & move a layer
shift-click to constrain myself to 90% angles, or point-to-point straight lines
spacebar-click & drag to freely move my view of the image (more useful than the scroll whell which only moves up & down)
Command+spacebar click to zoom in Option+spacebar click to zoom out
control+spacebar for YET ONE MORE contextual menu.
I THINK that's about it. All this without having six buttons on my wacom's stylus;) There are a few of these I only rarely use, but a surprisingly large number of these different "mouse" clicks are firmly in my "muscle memory". Without sitting at the keyboard I couldn't tell you which keys I hit to modify the mouse click in a particular way. I just do it without thinking it's not slow at all and if I suffer from a lack of options... well there were a few modifier-key combinations as yet unused.
there are many clauses which could only be enforced by unconstitutional means.
First off a bit of semantics. The constitution is a document outlining how our goverment is consitituted (thus the name). A private individual or organization can do something unlawful but NOT something unconstitutional unless they are acting as an agent of the state. The government is bound by the constitution to respect certain rights (such as privacy) an individual or private organization is bound by laws that end up in a democratic system protecting those same rights (like trespassing laws). I can see your confusion since the bill of rights asserts a few general rights that are enshrined both in the constitution (binding the government) and in law (binding on those governed) but the practical application of those rights in the constitution is always limits on government action. Even the "right to privacy" is a "penumbra" a logical inference based on a practical prohibition on government power requiring to the government to get a warrent to make searches.
One clause says that no one can make a modification of the code under the APSL without publishing that code.
Actually this is not entirely true. You may make modifications for personal use, and for R&D within an organization WITHOUT publishing the code. You must publish only if you deploy within an organization (the clause you have a problem with) or distribute the code.
The only way to enforce this clause would be to vilate peoples privacy, break into their houses, spy on them, etc etc.
A couple of points, as a private individual you are free to make all sorts of agreements that violate your privacy. If a policeman breaks into your house that is an unconstitutional violation of you rights. If you invite a friend in for a cup of coffee it is NOT. The APSL has no enforcement clause outlining any right on the part of Apple to audit your use of their code But if it did your argument would be utterly void. YOU of your own free will agreed to invite them in, they are not violating your privacy anymore than a friend you invited home.
Secondly, of course you can agree to do things that the other party has few practical means of checking up on. You seem to imply that your word, your promise to do something is void unless there is some way for me to check up on you and force you to live up to it. Remind me not to enter any agreements with you.
Beside there are many ways that your secret violation of your agreement can come to their attention without them violating your privacy. In such a situation they grant you 30 days to comply with the agreement or it is voided leaving you with no right to use their code. Sure a small organization could probably secretly deploy a modified Darwin without Apple being likely to ever know it. I have a suspicion that while the terms of the agreement technically covers such a violation Apple is more concerned with much larger (an unlikely to successfully keep it secret) organization. If a fortune 500 company decides to deploy a modified Darwin it is quite likely that word would get back to Apple in some way that doesn't require Apple storm troopers breaking down doors in the middle of the night and Steve Jobs interogating their CEO's in a dingy cell illuminated by the harsh light of a single unshaded lightbulb. (Though with a few CEO's that is a singularly gratifying image.)
Finally, just about every other license has similar privacy "problems". The GPL protects an organizations privacy, they can use a modified version of linux for their own purposes within the company but can't sell or distribute it without making the source public. I'm sure there are many ways to figure out from a closed-source binary that it might contain GPL's code within it. Surely enough for you to have a "reasonable suspicion" that the closed-source program is violating the terms of the GPL. But I doubt you could PROVE it or ENFORCE the license in any way without "violating their privacy" in the same way Apple would in order to PROVE and ENFORCE the terms of their license. The GPL perhaps gives more occasion for reasonable suspicions to arise in the case of a violation but it is silly to suggest that such reasonable suspicion could never arrise under the APSL's "deployment" clause. I'd imagine that a closed-source binary could use open-sourced code and be modified sufficiently and purposefully so that few tell-tale clues would remain in the binary to suggest that it is (partly at least) the product of a broken GPL agreement. The fact that you may never know every instance where the agreement may have been broken doesn't make the terms of the agreement "invalid" never mind "unconsititional".
To carry the analogy further, Macs are like niche cars that can't use the same fuels, oils, or tires as "normal" cars.
There is *some* truth to that, but in many ways Macs ARE compatible with the industry standards. They use the same electricity, the same networking protocols, the same hardware & perhipherals. The only significant way they are NOT compatible is software.
But like Apple itself the software titles that sell into the mac market don't have to dominate the market to be worthwhile to develop - they just need to be profitable. I'd suggest that as long as the mac niche is a certain absolute size regardless of it's relative size compared to Wintel that it will be profitable and worthwhile for at least some software developers.
This is especially true if your software niche has needs that are distinct from the larger market. Apple may have only 2.5% of the computer market but they have a much higher (perhaps even dominating) marketshare in desktop publishing, digital video, digital audio etc. Apple is working to further dominate those niches by introducing Mac only software "killer apps" (or "tractor apps) for those niches with the purchase of FinalCut Pro from Macromedia, & the aquisition of Emagic, Prismo Graphics & Nothing Real etc. There are a lot of people (enough to make a tidy profit off of) that don't give a damn that the industry standard office software isn't available for their computer but would care very much if it can't run one of the industry standard video editors or compsitors. Sure it's a smaller market, but it's also a market that's willing to spend more for a single computer than most businesses would spend on an entire roomful of cubicle dwellers.
Apple is always on the hairy edge. If there were fewer Mac titles, they'd lose market share... etc.
I think in recent years they have pulled back a fair distance from this "hairy edge" and done so at a time when coming out with a new OS made it even "hairier" than usual. Just being profitable after years of losing money restored the confidence of many software makers. Having a plan for the future, ANY plan after years of aimless wandering did even more. Having that plan involve UNIX underpinnings did a world of good as well. As more existing Mac and UNIX users are attracted to OSX, more software is developed for it and it meets the needs of and attracts more users - lather, rinse, repeat. Things appear to be getting better, not worse in terms of software availablity (though Quark is pissing me off) and while marketshare is down Apple continues to be profitable in a down market when everyone aside from Dell is getting hammered.
The final print from a digital camera can be more than just a 1:1 pixel mapping due to a technique called interpolation were 'extra' pixels are added using a cunning algorythm that deduces the pixel color value and brighness from the surrounding pixels.
Interpolation is nice and all but it is nowhere near as good as the real thing. You can't interpolate details that you don't have - interpolated images are blurry and unsharp masking (& other sharpening techniques) will only go so far.
That means you can have a wall sized print from a 6MP camera - like film it will be grainy up close but acceptable from a typical viewing distance.
That depends on what is acceptable. Say we're talking about an 8'x10' image the 6MP original is giving you about 23dpi (before cropping the image) to start with & you can blow that up a bit with interpolation & sharpening before quality starts to noticably degrade. That might be acceptable for creating a wall sized image for a trade show booth but wouldn't be acceptable for a wall sized print at an artists gallery. Even at the trade show the print from a 13.8MP camera will be NOTICABLY better than one from a 6MP camera even to they guy in the aisle walking past the booth.
The quality difference between film and digital media (when using the best pro cameras and printers) is getting small now and many professional photographers are moving over to digital exclusively
These new monsters are part of that trend. Now more applications where digital DID involve a noticable sacrifice in quality won't.
Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa (and I probably got the latin wrong to) The F-111 bit got me confused. I was mistakenly assuming that the term "mission adaptive wing" in the original post was refering to the variable sweep of the F-111 wing. The "MAW" acronym seemed a credible name for that capability;) But of course it refers to exactly the kind of wing warping that the article refers to. It looks like the current test may be a little more advanced (as you would expect) probably the same research being taken a bit further.
How does Google decide what stories are published on the Google News homepage?
The headlines on the Google News homepage are selected entirely by a computer algorithm, based on many factors including how often and on what sites a story appears elsewhere on the web. This is very much in the tradition of Google's web search, which relies heavily on the collective judgment of web publishers to determine which sites offer the most valuable and relevant information. Google News relies in a similar fashion on the editorial judgment of online news organizations to determine which stories are most deserving of inclusion and prominence on the Google News page.
I'm guessing that the sources themselves are ranked in the usual manner. The same story from different sources are grouped and finally the placement of the story is determined by how many sources (weighted by their rank) ran it and how those sources positioned it themselves.
Slashdot Mirror
when questioned about a new state zoo, Helmes replied "We already have one, just put a fence around Chapel Hill."
Actually, that's pretty funny.
Some states in that bunch have a history of liberty-mindedness, making it able to make use of existing population
Umm... Maybe 200 years ago. The current population of New England is the LEAST sympathetic to these guys libertarian ideals of any states in the union. With the possible exception being Hew Hampshire, otherwise it's the very heart of the high-tax welfare state quasi-socialist ideology these guys are trying to get away from.
Well this one is not really an error message. There was a multimedia company that had a promotional floppy (this was before CD's) that had this gag error message pop up on your mac (it's been a while so I might not get the wording exactly right)
"How would you like if I erased all your files?" with two buttons both of which said "OK". If you clicked on the button it would say "just kidding" if you clicked anywhere else it would call you a coward.
I'm convinced the reason behind it is that the typical Mac user is someone who is not very technical and was perhaps intimidated by using a computer, so when they figured out how to use their Mac they get a certain sense of pride and accomplishment which they in turn morph into zealotry.
Speaking as a Mac-zealot myself I can affirm that this is pretty much true. My only nit-pick is that the zeolotry doesn't have to do with any kind of *personal* pride of accomplishment - It is not that I feel proud that that *I* am somehow smart enough to figure out the computer. It is that the computer is smart enough that I don't have to - and given my experience with other computers I am profoundly grateful.
I would also suggest that MacUsers, at least the "Mac Pros" ARE often quite technically proficient, just that their proficiency is in fields other than computing. And they (I) would argue that is as it SHOULD be. A computer is a tool, a means to an end. The purpose of all computers in the end is NOT "computing" there is some end result that the computing is FOR. Some end result that the computer is completely irrelevant to. The mac was a good tool in that it allowed you to focus on end rather than the means. A designer could design, a musician could compose, an accountant could count all without becoming mired in learning the irrelevant (and to them profoundly uninteresting) intricacies of a complex tool.
Zeolotry on the part of mac users has diminished as wintel caught up in terms of usability. The Mac itself hasn't "won" but the "mac way" has. But back in the days of DOS and then Windows 3.x Apple had *earned* it's users enthusiasm. Much of the zeolotry came from seeing an "insanely great" (and it really was) computer struggling against a vastly inferior brand-name competitor. Imagine the zeolotry of Linux users if they had not only a technically superior but a MUCH more polished and useable desktop solution that was still ignored because it wasn't the right brand name.
The point is that the range on the TiPB is bad because the internal antenna is enclosed inside a metal Faraday cage
This may still be true, but I just did the "remove-battery - press-on-serial-number" trick mentioned elswhere in this discussion and to my astonishment IT WORKED. I am getting a good connection with my TiBook in a room where previously I got ZERO signal. I'm so pleased right now I'm going to have to leave this discussion altogether. Otherwise I'll be seriously tempted to reply to every single post singing the Hossannas of this little trick.
I just did this and it WORKS. In my basement office I get ZERO reception, maybe one bars flickers on for a second or two every few days (I use an ethernet cable when I'm down here). After doing this little trick I'm getting three bars and a workable connection (four bars if I adjust my position - I'll have to move my desk)
From the threads on Ars it looks like you could get even better reception if you could do the same thing to the antenna on the other side. It does seem (just playing around with it right now) that it favors the side with the battery. It seems I get better reception if I rotate the book so that the side with the battery (where I just adjusted the antenna) I get better reception than if the other side (with the DVD drive) is facing the base station.
No the journaling file system is keeping track of the file systems meta data - where a file exists on the disk. This is completely unrelated to what Siracusa has been complaining about.
Siracusa is complaining about the lack of richness in a file's metadata and the fact that some of the most important meta-data is stored messily and unnecessarily as part of another unrelated bit of meta-data (the file type being stored as part of the file name). His ideal would be files that stored a lot more useful metadata in a logical well designed and extensible way.
Also in other news it turns out that most self-proclaimed "geeks" are just fat, unwashed slobs dying for infantile entertainment.
Hey! I'm NOT fat... I'm big-boned.
It is unlikely that what makes the Earth special us (that it supports human life naturally) will also make it special to aliens.
Many of the things that that allow the Earth to support human life may also be necessary to support any complex life. Furthermore they may be rather rare. We are on a rocky planet with an exceptionally stable atmosphere in an unlikely equalibrium between freezing away (like mars) or becoming a runaway greenhouse (like Venus) in the "habitable zone" of our solar system. There are very good arguments to be made that this "habitable zone" doesn't just apply to terrestrial life but to any conceivable complex life. Our insignificant planet may be a rather rare planet that is perfect for "terraforming" to suit the needs of our hypothetical ET. We have no reason to assume that the factor that prevented them from wiping themselves out (with the same technologies that make their star travel possible) would also prevent them from wiping an alien species out, especially one that was dramatically less advanced.
Here is another counter argument. Imagine it is not an explorer that comes across the tiny oasis with the interesting bugs but a construction crew. Perhaps they don't find the bugs very interesting. They're just paving a few systems to build a parking garage for a nearby ringworld. ET: "damn another intelligent species, the environmentalists are going to freak... quick... wipe out that little nest of them on the third rock out before that EPA guy shows up."
Perhaps they have developed an ethos or instinct that ensures they are not *self* destructive but that is no guarantee they are not *other* destructive or care that much about *others* at all.
But is the Drake Equation itself conservative enough? The rare earth hypothesis makes a credible argument for adding a whole lot of additional fractions on the right side of the equation making N (number of civilizations) vanishingly small. Or I suppose you could factor that all in to the Drake equation as part of R* (rate of formation of stars suitable for the development of life) making it a very very low number.
Something I've wondered in this case... why is it worse to shoot "old men and women and children" than it is to shoot anyone else?
Because there is a cultural taboo against victimising the weak and utterly defenseless. Sure, in the case of a sniper everyone is equally defenseless but the cultural values is ingrained and doesn't and is still particularly sympathizes with the weak. On the whole this is a good thing. Generally, young males ARE more capable of defending themselves, and generally young males are the ones that people need to be protected from. The culture places more value on those that are least able to stick up for themselves and engenders a protective impulse in those that are stronger and in the absense of that impulse more likely to be the ones doing the victimizing.
That being said I thought it was weird when the local police captain (or sheriff, whatever) after the shooting of the 13 year old that NOW the sniper had "crossed the line". To my ear it was a strange somehow offensive comment. It offended (my at least) cultural sensibilities. Sure we see killing a child as a particularly egregious crimem but it is going way too far to suggest that the sniper didn't "cross the line" until that point. This sniper "crossed the line" with the very first victim, perhaps you could say he crossed *another* line deserving even *more* reprehension when he added a child to his list of victims but the way it was stated was just a bit bizarre and offensive.
You are responding to a troll. A real honest-to-goodness "troll" that is just writing nonsense to "troll" for a reaction. Not someone (often mis-moderated as a "troll") who really believes the nonsense they write.
Remember, the site does not have to "not suck".
No that is not necessarily the case. Because the term "reasonable" is so squishy it can mean anything an activist lawyer and an accomodating jury want it to mean.
Southwest is not in the website business, they are in the air travel business. They have very reasonable accomodations for the disabled to access their services and information about their services - a call center. That accomodation may "suck" but it is accessible!! By your standard they already meet the requirement. BUT the requirement is just a vague "reasonable" standard defined by people that don't have to bear the costs. This guy thinks having the same information available for the blind on the web is required for Southwest's access to be "reasonable". You see there is no limit - there is always more that *could* be done and there will always be someone that sees that next step as *reasonable*. A company can never reach the point where they have done *enough* and the standard will be ever expanding because at the end of the day being disabled will still suck. Being blind will still be inconvenient and an extra hassle and wanting the world to revolve around you will always seem like a "reasonable" accomodation. Fortunately for individual companies it's like the old joke about not having to outswim a shark. You just have to stay ahead of the poor schmuck that's getting sued (THAT is the standard).
The thing that gets me about this whole issue is that in reality, a site almost has to spend MORE money to make a site non-accessible!!!
That is not necessarily true and even in that case it seems to me very scary that we want the government to get into what technologies web sites can or can't use. You don't like javascript & flash - fine. It would be better/nicer if all websites were compatible - true. But to require it via the law?
I'm a libertarian...
I would suggest you may need to rethink that label. Your position on this issue and more significantly you *reasons* for that position are diametrically opposed to the philosophy and politics that label represents. Not that I have a problem with that - I'm NOT a libertarian. But I can see the danger of vaguely worded laws that almost beg for ever changing, expanding legal requirements.
Sites that use only flash, or make important data require flash to access, are not a good thing.
Yes, it is stupid BUT is it the governments job to tell you what you can and can't use on your site?
This whole lawsuit is idiotic and I hope that not only does it get thrown out but that those bringing the suit are penalized in some way. First off as others have pointed out Southwest is not denying the blind anything - all the information and more is available via the call center.
Secondly, and this is the very un-PC side. I think it is nice, good and wonderful for people to go through extra effort to compensate for peoples disabilities. But I think we must be very careful with how far we mandate it. There is probably an infinite amount of effort, time and money you can go through to compensate for those lacked abilities (the "dis-" in "disability") to get ever decreasing returns. Look at this case: I'm sure Southwest can go (& may be required to go) far further than just putting text in the "alt" tags & getting rid of Flash. But no matter how much extra effort they put into the site it will still suck for the blind compared to the simple phone call that is already available.
Programs like GIMP use all three buttons alone AND in combination with the 'bucky bits.'
How do you fit all those buttons on your stylus? or alternatively: You use a MOUSE?!? for image manipulation? LOL... and you are arguing that one-button is "crippling". You are losing better than half of the functionality of any image manipulation program by using a mouse and you are complaining about one-button + 5 modifier keys being "crippling". Get yourself a pressure senstive tablet, when you use a mouse to edit images after that you will know the meaning of "crippling"
I'm not as familiar with GIMP but on Photoshop there are 12 different ways to modify a mouse click (when using the brush tool, it varies from tool to tool) I only use 8 or so to the point where they are firmly entrenched in my "muscle memory" With those 12 there are still a few modifier key combos that are unused. I'm willing to believe that you need & actually use 3 mouse buttons + 5 modifier keys in combination but I doubt that most people do.
Three buttons are vital to productive use of non-trivial GUI apps on a *NIX workstation
I'll concede that most mac people aren't talking about UNIX apps that expect a three-button mouse when they say one-button is enough. I'm sure GIMP (& others) do suffer from the transition. I will however defend the usuablity of a one-button mouse (plus the modifier keys) when the system and the software is originally designed with that in mind. I very much doubt that you are any more productive with GIMP designed for a three button mouse than I am with Photoshop designed for a one-button mouse (leaving aside the varying capabilities of the two programs) I can assure you quite confidently that with a stylus I am quite a bit more productive. If GIMP *really* is written to be almost unusable without three mouse-buttons I wonder how effective it can be when using a pressure sensitive tablet. Even if you can find a three-button model it would be awkward to use those buttons.
And the idiocy extends into the GUI portion as well. They ship a utility called "Disk Copy" that does everything EXCEPT copy a disk. This is intuitive?
Hmmm... perhaps I have a newer version of Disk Copy, never had a problem copying disks with it.
As for your assertion that we should be able to enter into some contracts like an NDA which would require non-disclosure, voluntarily limiting what is otherwise a right of freedom of speech.
Actually my point was that my employeer was limiting what was otherwise HIS right to privacy. Your view of fairness seems always to tilt to one party "the little guy" who should be prevented from losing any rights but you seem OK with it when the other party "the big guy" loses his rights.
But these contracts are never-the-less signing away rights.
Of course they are every contract ever written involved "signing away rights" that is the whole point! A contract is a promise to do (or not do) something you have a right not to do (or do) in return for which the other party makes their own similar promises. It is the entire point that you "lose" "rights" to the other person that you once had and vice versa. In the case of most licenses you generally don't "lose" any rights that weren't granted to you by the license anyway.
Where do we draw the line between acceptable concessions in contracts, and contracts which would essentually make one person a slave to another?
That is what legislatures and elections are for. The line is a debatable one - there is no "right" answer. Even the nature of the question is open to debate. Where is the line of "reasonable" concessions beyond which we won't allow people to "enslave" themselves? Where is the line of "reasonable" limitations the government can make on peoples private agreements? Taking either position to an extreme limits freedom in different ways. Personally I don't think the balance we have is really all that bad. Sure there are a lot of people bound by onerous, bad, contracts. But you can't legislate utopia. Laws sufficient to outlaw all bad contracts would also outlaw most legitimate contracts and severely limit our freedom to make private agreements of any sort. The government should act to curb the worst abuses and protect the ignorant & easily victimized. But beyond that it must treat us as adults responsible for our own well-being. Freedom is meaningless if we are straightjacketed for our own protection. In the end if you find the terms of a contract unaceptable simply don't agree. If an EULA or the GPL or the APSL have terms you find unacceptable you don't have to accept it. Sure you must forego the benefits the agreement would have brought you but your are not entitled to have other people labour for your benefit.
One example that worries me is standard EULA's which give copyright holders more rights than they have under the law
As I noted above ALL contracts grant the parties more rights than they held under the law. My employment contract entitles me to money from my employer - without that contract he owes me NOTHING under the law. The same contract entitles him to my labour and time - without that contract I owe him nothing under the law.
Let me outline a type of contract that is very similar to an EULA in this regard. Many artists want to sell their paintings BUT they also have a conflicting desire to keep them for museum shows of their collected works (admittedly only a problem for the very successful). How do they resolve this conflict? As it turns out most purchasers are more than willing to loan the paintings back for this purpose - it really strokes the ego to have a painting you own in a museum show "from the collection of Mr. & Mrs. Smith". So when they purchase the painting they sign an agreement that says the artist has a right (he did not otherwise have) to borrow the painting for X number of times per year for X amount of time for the purpose of putting it in shows. You have a problem with that to the point where you think it should be illegal. But why? The artist feels easier selling his painting. The purchaser doesn't mind at all even though it may involve future inconveniences. You have a problem with that but really it's none of your business.
You seem to be completely blind to the problems with the contractualization of law. Contract law must be superceded by real laws -- local, state, federal, and constitutional law.
Sure no problem with that.
In your world, I can write up a contract with someone that says I'm their slave...
Umm... In your zeal to refute me you apparantly neglected to read my post. Try again.
Is it any lesser a violation of one's rights, when one is murdered by a private citizen, as opposed to the government? Of course not.
Quite right. But one does not usually accuse a murderer of being "unconstitutional". Murder is bad, it is illegal, it violates your rights. Perhaps I'm being overly pedantic but I maintain that it is silly to call it "unconstitutional" unless it is the state that killed you without the due process guaranteed in the constitution. Please... words mean things. The word unconstitutional means something specific, It's not just a synonym for "bad" or even "violating my rights".
Firstly, the contract must be legal... For the same reasons, contracts which would require privacy-rigths violations should be invalid.
This is like saying it is illegal to invite a friend over to your house since by doing so YOU are violating your own privacy rights. Your right to privacy is a right you yourself may waive at will. Agreeing in a contract to waive your own privacy rights is not "illegal" in the same way that making a contract with someone else to videotape the goings on in the girls lockerroom would be. Can you see how one is a contract that violates a right to privacy but the other does not? Let me ask you this question. I recently signed an NDA, a company said that they would employ me & tell me their secrets if I agreed not to tell anyone else. Was that contract invalid because it violated my prospective employers right to privacy? Also in the past I signed a partnership agreement that gave each of us certain rights to know things about each other - was this contract void because it "violated" our right to privacy? Your position is that Yes, such agreements (which account for most contracts ultimately) all violate someone's privacy rights. That I cannot myself enter into an agreement that grants someone else a right to know something about me that would be priviliged absent the agreement.
The APSL is significantly less invasive than any loan agreement, partnership agreement, employment agreement or marriage proposal for that matter. Are all these other contracts void because they violate one or both parties "right to privacy"?
Secondly, all parties must be aware of what they're contracting into... EULA's should be voided on their face
First of the APSL is NOT an EULA. It is a license that is agreed to by each party in EXACTLY the same way the GPL is. Sure an idiot could download Linux or Darwin source without reading or understanding the license that grants them the right to edit & distribute it. But to suggest that as a result both licenses are therefore completely void seems an extreme and unworkable position.
Contracts must be static, or renegotiated between the two parties when one desires a change.
Again comletely irrelevant to the APSL. The relevant clause says that you are bound to the static license that you have agreed to, OR at your choice any subsequent version of the same license. (if you agreed to APSL 1.0 you are bound to it's terms or you can choose to be bound to the 1.1 or 1.2 - your choice. The subsequent changes only supercede the previous agreement IF YOU WANT THEM TO.
Fourthly, again regarding EULA's, they also attempt to state that the company may revoke the license at any time for any reason. Another invalid clause, as it would defaud the consumer out of what (s)he hs paid for.
Again irrelevant to the APSL which is only voided by a failure on your part to meet it's terms after 30 days of being notified that you are violating the terms
You seem to be carrying on an argument with someone other than myself about something other than the APSL. Of your four main points three are completely irrelevant and the other posits a view that the right to privacy is so sacrosanct that it cannot be *voluntarily* waived. Making business partnerships, joint ventures, employment, marriage, hospitality & intimacy "unconsitutional" because they reguire agreements that waive one or both parties right to privacy.
In short, I see a big problem with the contractualization of law (i.e., contracts superceding the law)
Then you are seeing a fantasy problem. Contracts do NOT supercede the law, those that do (as in your example of a murder contract) are legally invalid. It is your view of what the law allows and what it prohibits that seems a little bizarre. You can tell me about the evils of EULA's and for the most part I will agree with you. Some of those practices probably should be illegal, some should simply not be agreed to. Either way they are often outrageous. But that wasn't what we were talking about.
It only required more thinking because you weren't used to it. I've always been a mac guy so I have the same problem when I'm using a two-button or three-button mouse. I'm just not used to it so it requires thinking (read: slower). It took a while to get used to using a second button, I like it more for the scrollwhell than the second button which I only find adds much in limited situations (see below for what I mean)
A single button mouse might make sense for dinky little point and click word processing but all serious CAD and graphics software (and probably other serious industry-based software) provide much more power at the mouse hand.
My personal experience with a two-button mouse (that came with my wacom tablet) is the exact opposite. I find the two button mouse with a scroll wheel useful for the simple point & click stuff where you only need one modifier (the right click) and the scroll wheel is really useful. BUT when using a more complex app I find the measly addition of another button insufficient compared to a single mouse button plus the four modifier keys (and in some programs the spacebar). A total of 5 (or 6) "mouse" buttons that are used in combination to effect a potentially much larger number of varying kinds of mouse clicks. For instance in Photoshop using a brush here is the "lack of options" I suffer with:
- I click to paint
- control-click for contextual menus
- shift+control click to bring up a DIFFERENT contextual menu
- control+option click to bring up YET ANOTHER contextual menu
- option-click to sample a color
- shift+option to bring up the multiple sample tool
- command-click to move a layer
- option+command-click to duplicate & move a layer
- shift-click to constrain myself to 90% angles, or point-to-point straight lines
- spacebar-click & drag to freely move my view of the image (more useful than the scroll whell which only moves up & down)
- Command+spacebar click to zoom in
- control+spacebar for YET ONE MORE contextual menu.
I THINK that's about it. All this without having six buttons on my wacom's stylus(Aside from the scroll wheel my two-button mouse is out of tricks. Clicking with both buttons could add another one but Photoshop doesn't appear to use this potential)
Option+spacebar click to zoom out
there are many clauses which could only be enforced by unconstitutional means.
First off a bit of semantics. The constitution is a document outlining how our goverment is consitituted (thus the name). A private individual or organization can do something unlawful but NOT something unconstitutional unless they are acting as an agent of the state. The government is bound by the constitution to respect certain rights (such as privacy) an individual or private organization is bound by laws that end up in a democratic system protecting those same rights (like trespassing laws). I can see your confusion since the bill of rights asserts a few general rights that are enshrined both in the constitution (binding the government) and in law (binding on those governed) but the practical application of those rights in the constitution is always limits on government action. Even the "right to privacy" is a "penumbra" a logical inference based on a practical prohibition on government power requiring to the government to get a warrent to make searches.
One clause says that no one can make a modification of the code under the APSL without publishing that code.
Actually this is not entirely true. You may make modifications for personal use, and for R&D within an organization WITHOUT publishing the code. You must publish only if you deploy within an organization (the clause you have a problem with) or distribute the code.
The only way to enforce this clause would be to vilate peoples privacy, break into their houses, spy on them, etc etc.
A couple of points, as a private individual you are free to make all sorts of agreements that violate your privacy. If a policeman breaks into your house that is an unconstitutional violation of you rights. If you invite a friend in for a cup of coffee it is NOT. The APSL has no enforcement clause outlining any right on the part of Apple to audit your use of their code But if it did your argument would be utterly void. YOU of your own free will agreed to invite them in, they are not violating your privacy anymore than a friend you invited home.
Secondly, of course you can agree to do things that the other party has few practical means of checking up on. You seem to imply that your word, your promise to do something is void unless there is some way for me to check up on you and force you to live up to it. Remind me not to enter any agreements with you.
Beside there are many ways that your secret violation of your agreement can come to their attention without them violating your privacy. In such a situation they grant you 30 days to comply with the agreement or it is voided leaving you with no right to use their code. Sure a small organization could probably secretly deploy a modified Darwin without Apple being likely to ever know it. I have a suspicion that while the terms of the agreement technically covers such a violation Apple is more concerned with much larger (an unlikely to successfully keep it secret) organization. If a fortune 500 company decides to deploy a modified Darwin it is quite likely that word would get back to Apple in some way that doesn't require Apple storm troopers breaking down doors in the middle of the night and Steve Jobs interogating their CEO's in a dingy cell illuminated by the harsh light of a single unshaded lightbulb. (Though with a few CEO's that is a singularly gratifying image.)
Finally, just about every other license has similar privacy "problems". The GPL protects an organizations privacy, they can use a modified version of linux for their own purposes within the company but can't sell or distribute it without making the source public. I'm sure there are many ways to figure out from a closed-source binary that it might contain GPL's code within it. Surely enough for you to have a "reasonable suspicion" that the closed-source program is violating the terms of the GPL. But I doubt you could PROVE it or ENFORCE the license in any way without "violating their privacy" in the same way Apple would in order to PROVE and ENFORCE the terms of their license. The GPL perhaps gives more occasion for reasonable suspicions to arise in the case of a violation but it is silly to suggest that such reasonable suspicion could never arrise under the APSL's "deployment" clause. I'd imagine that a closed-source binary could use open-sourced code and be modified sufficiently and purposefully so that few tell-tale clues would remain in the binary to suggest that it is (partly at least) the product of a broken GPL agreement. The fact that you may never know every instance where the agreement may have been broken doesn't make the terms of the agreement "invalid" never mind "unconsititional".
...and many of the clauses in their license are completely unreasonable and probably unconstitutional
I can accept unreasonable, but "unconsitutional"? Such a bizarre statement severely undermines your credibility.
To carry the analogy further, Macs are like niche cars that can't use the same fuels, oils, or tires as "normal" cars.
There is *some* truth to that, but in many ways Macs ARE compatible with the industry standards. They use the same electricity, the same networking protocols, the same hardware & perhipherals. The only significant way they are NOT compatible is software.
But like Apple itself the software titles that sell into the mac market don't have to dominate the market to be worthwhile to develop - they just need to be profitable. I'd suggest that as long as the mac niche is a certain absolute size regardless of it's relative size compared to Wintel that it will be profitable and worthwhile for at least some software developers.
This is especially true if your software niche has needs that are distinct from the larger market. Apple may have only 2.5% of the computer market but they have a much higher (perhaps even dominating) marketshare in desktop publishing, digital video, digital audio etc. Apple is working to further dominate those niches by introducing Mac only software "killer apps" (or "tractor apps) for those niches with the purchase of FinalCut Pro from Macromedia, & the aquisition of Emagic, Prismo Graphics & Nothing Real etc. There are a lot of people (enough to make a tidy profit off of) that don't give a damn that the industry standard office software isn't available for their computer but would care very much if it can't run one of the industry standard video editors or compsitors. Sure it's a smaller market, but it's also a market that's willing to spend more for a single computer than most businesses would spend on an entire roomful of cubicle dwellers.
Apple is always on the hairy edge. If there were fewer Mac titles, they'd lose market share... etc.
I think in recent years they have pulled back a fair distance from this "hairy edge" and done so at a time when coming out with a new OS made it even "hairier" than usual. Just being profitable after years of losing money restored the confidence of many software makers. Having a plan for the future, ANY plan after years of aimless wandering did even more. Having that plan involve UNIX underpinnings did a world of good as well. As more existing Mac and UNIX users are attracted to OSX, more software is developed for it and it meets the needs of and attracts more users - lather, rinse, repeat. Things appear to be getting better, not worse in terms of software availablity (though Quark is pissing me off) and while marketshare is down Apple continues to be profitable in a down market when everyone aside from Dell is getting hammered.
The final print from a digital camera can be more than just a 1:1 pixel mapping due to a technique called interpolation were 'extra' pixels are added using a cunning algorythm that deduces the pixel color value and brighness from the surrounding pixels.
Interpolation is nice and all but it is nowhere near as good as the real thing. You can't interpolate details that you don't have - interpolated images are blurry and unsharp masking (& other sharpening techniques) will only go so far.
That means you can have a wall sized print from a 6MP camera - like film it will be grainy up close but acceptable from a typical viewing distance.
That depends on what is acceptable. Say we're talking about an 8'x10' image the 6MP original is giving you about 23dpi (before cropping the image) to start with & you can blow that up a bit with interpolation & sharpening before quality starts to noticably degrade. That might be acceptable for creating a wall sized image for a trade show booth but wouldn't be acceptable for a wall sized print at an artists gallery. Even at the trade show the print from a 13.8MP camera will be NOTICABLY better than one from a 6MP camera even to they guy in the aisle walking past the booth.
The quality difference between film and digital media (when using the best pro cameras and printers) is getting small now and many professional photographers are moving over to digital exclusively
These new monsters are part of that trend. Now more applications where digital DID involve a noticable sacrifice in quality won't.
Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa (and I probably got the latin wrong to) The F-111 bit got me confused. I was mistakenly assuming that the term "mission adaptive wing" in the original post was refering to the variable sweep of the F-111 wing. The "MAW" acronym seemed a credible name for that capability ;) But of course it refers to exactly the kind of wing warping that the article refers to. It looks like the current test may be a little more advanced (as you would expect) probably the same research being taken a bit further.
The most it says about the technology is this: I'm guessing that the sources themselves are ranked in the usual manner. The same story from different sources are grouped and finally the placement of the story is determined by how many sources (weighted by their rank) ran it and how those sources positioned it themselves.