For those of you who haven't kept up with the Stryker, it's the latest blundering troop transport hardware that was originally a good idea, but got turned into a scary pile of US soldier killing metal.
- Designed to be transportable by a C-130, but can't.
- Designed for the modern urban battlefield, but too big to make a U-turn on even the widest streets.
- Designed to face the weapons of our enemies, but the armor cannot withstand Rocket Propelled Grenades (a hugely prolific weapon in Iraq and Afganistan, even now).
To top it all off, the light tank varient of the Stryker (which the entire Stryker Brigade concept relies upon for support) cannot fire it's weapon if infantry troops are within 200' (the muzzle blast will fry them due to the huge compensator needed) and the cannon cannot be fired off to the side of the vehicle, or the recoil will knock it over. What a great piece of equipment!
Not to hijack the thread, but this is just another attempt for General Dynamics to get some good press out of a complete piece of shit program that is endangering the lives of the grunts who are forced to work with it.
I can't imagine being dumb enough to use a school issued computer, on a school run network to do anything even remotly wrong. That would be in defiance of the #1 rule any military academy cadet should know, the very rule to end all rules: Don't Get Caught.
Think about it; military schools are places where they punish you harshly for dumb shit, like not having the back of your belt buckle shined or having your underwear folded 4" across instead of 6". It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that breaking a real law in such an environment is going to be met with harsh consequences... no matter how dumb that law is.
I am an industrial designer who lives/works in the SF area, and Apple has their own, in house, very hardcore industrial design team and model shops. As a matter of fact, they are rather well known for being Steve Jobs' favorite Apple employees.
Like any good internal design team however, Apple does work with outside ID firms for new ideas, collaboration on projects and outsourcing of small projects. That being said however, every computer or significant piece of hardware is currently designed in house, exclusivly and with a great amount of security.
Well, I happen to think 401(k) holders are a substantial part of the problem, and probably the most hypocritical parties involved in the current state of corporate America.
How do you like it when:
A company sells you a crap product, and you can't return it?
A company's customer support line has a 45 minute hold time?
A company doesn't even publish their support number online?
A company voids your product warranty for a bogus reason?
A company pays off politicians to get a piece of unconstitutional
legislation passed?
A company plays a culpable part in someone's death because of lax product testing?
A company pollutes the environment?
Nobody likes any of these things, probably not even the executives who run the companies that execute strategies involving the above. But do you know why, in part these things happen? Because shareholders (that's you and your 401(k)) demand absolute maximization of shareholder value.
I think that's wrong and very greedy, and I happen to be an entrepreneur. I refuse to be involved in an organization that puts $$$ in front of everything else and I refuse to be involved in a publicly traded company.
My notion that Apple is 'one of the best companies' is more about my personal notion of what makes a great company instead of what Wall Street considers to be a great company.
In my experience, Wall Street tends to reward all the wrong things. Hell, 2 out of the 3 companies you mentioned (Microsoft and GE) are damn near downright evil cancers on this society's existence. I don't need to defend that statement in regards to Microsoft here on Slashdot, but GE makes nuclear reactors, WMD components, guns (I have a t-shirt with a picture of a GAU-8A cannon from an A-10 Warthog on it with the tag line - "GE We Bring Good Things To Life"). GE is the poster child for the multinational conglomerate.
I mean, don't you think that there is something funky going on when a company provides both health care and manufacturers guns and nuclear reactors?
Of course, to Wall Street, that doesn't matter one iota. They make money, lots of it, world be dammed, and that's all the stock market cares about.
I like companies like Apple, BMW and Bang & Olufsen because they are small companies that have a laser focus on making great products, they treat their customers/employees well and operate very responsibly in an economic environment were making profits at all costs is all the rage. Their secret is quite simple: focus on the higher end of the market, stay small and be happy as a profitable nitch player.
150 years ago, companies like those would be par for the course, but today, I am an arrogant prick because I purchase their products.
I think Crigley is on to something here, but I don't know if he is exactly right. I think that good companies are ran like dictatorships and by individuals with an almost fanatical control over the entire business process.
Take Apple. Love or hate Steve Jobs, Apple tends to work as a company from the consumor point of view because everything has been thought of. From the Australian stone floors in the bathroom of Apple Retail Stores, to the brand dress on boxes and the look of OS X... everything works together.*
(*Note: Not to say that it all works perfectly, but for the most part, it does work)
Compare Apple to one of those companies that are ran by comitte. I would say Direct TV is a great example. They are in the middle of an access card swap and my DirectTV/TiVo has a banner on the screen telling me to 'Replace your access card now.' Only one problem, I haven't received it in the mail yet, and I can't clear the banner off the screen without replacing the access card.
I called customer service and was told that my card was mailed out on Oct 11, but they couldn't clear the banner off my screen at all. This, to me, is a symptom of a company being run by a bunch of suit wearing monkies-
Security Manager - "How are we going to make sure our moronic customers don't just throw the new access cards away?"
UI Manager - "Simple, we just annoy them with a big message across all their TV screens that won't go away until they replace the card."
Security Manager - "Great! But what if they don't have the card yet?"
UI Manager - "Fuck Em! It'll show up SOMEDAY."
As such, I have called customer support every hour, on the hour and asked them to clear the screen.
I am sure they probably planned on making a few, but there is no point in mass producing a product before you have even tested it. After you test the final package however, mass production would be relatively easy.
The thing I don't get is why all these people are killing/kidnapping over this stupid device when they can just go call up the machinists/engineers and have them crank out another rocket belt. Heck, all you need are the CAD/CAM files... I have a Kitamura 3Xi CNC machine, I'll be happy to build them a few.
Double Clicking opens up this program. This program is called [foo]. It does [bar].
You mean if I want this computer to do something I have to open a "program"? Why? Why can't it just do what I want it to do?
Actually, as an open source noob, I have to say that the whole 'program Foo' that does 'Bar' is probably the most danuting aspect of the whole community to me.
So many Open Source programs have the dumbest, most unintuitive names ever. Gnome? What the hell is that supposed to do with a GUI? Evolution? Evolution of what? Even Apache... what does a famous tribe of indiginous American peoples have to do with serving web pages?
At least if you call your shiny new advanced ground attack helecopter "Apache", you can draw some comparative to the native tribe's famous warfighting abilities.
I think the whole silly OSS naming problem is indicative of the community's general lack of concern for making useable software. For the most part, OSS fosters a community of like minded individuals who have a passion for tinkering, which is a great thing. Unfortunatly, this same passion and focuse tends to alienate those of us who aren't quite as talented with the command line or aren't willing to invest a huge chunk of time in trying to figure out lots of technical minusha to simply get our computers to work.
Is it just me, or is there a big conspiracy out there between most automakers about 'Alternative' powered vehicles to make them as fugly as possible? I think it works something like this:
1) Create groundbreaking alternative powered, low/zero emission vehicle.
2) Make that vehicle as ugly as present automotive styling will possibly allow.
3) When asked by congress/consumor groups/environmentalists why it is that these low emissions vehicles are not more predomonate on our roads say, "Well, we make really good electric cars, but consumors aren't buying them, so it's not our fault."
4) Continue making gas guzzling SUVs with insane profit margins.
Just like veggitarians railing against the evils of industrial meat production, low emission vehicle pundents forget a simple fact- America has a 50 year old, unwavering love affair with the gas powered automobile. From garage tinkering to weekend track events, NOPI competitions, car shows, drag strips and urban crusing zones, the car is not just 'Practical' transportation, it is a fetish.
The only way LEV/ZEV cars are going to work is if they better virtually every aspect of the modern automobile. That's practicality, performance, visceral appeal, style, safety and comfort. While it might be fast, would you be caught dead in this ugly bloody thing? I wouldn't.
It's a US$49,000 car with the SMG II transmission. You are, of course, forgiven if you are refering to other currency. In the US, while an M3 is expensive, most of the people I know who own them work very hard in fairly regular jobs and purchased their M3's as a sort of 'Attainable,' 'Practical,' 'Dream Car.' Performance/$$$, the M3 is a lot better then almost every other high performance sports car.
life of the clutch (torque converter)
The SMG has no torque converter. Like on F1 cars, the SMG is a stardard manual gearbox fitted with computer controled actuators that do the same work your hand and left foot would do in a standard manual transmission. The clutch part #s for the manual and SMG M3s are the same.
Fun but, for $141,000 I want a damn 5-speed.
The standard transmission version comes with a 6 speed. The M3 CSL version (which will cost around US$150K, if it's even offered in the US) is only equipped with an SMG however.
Hey, you computer guys get to nit-pick technical details about obscure hardware, can't a car guy do the same?
As a hardcore BMW geek, I am really glad to see the M3 and it's very cool SMGII transmission make it to the front page of Slashdot. For more info, check out:
I wouldn't call Launch Control an easter egg however. If you explore the BMW Flash presentation, they mention it. While BMW North America said it would be disabled on US cars, as soon as the M3 SMG came over, the first (privilaged lucky bastard) owners tried it out and it worked.
I have a new 325Ci (5 speed) and a previous genneration M3 race car that I built up from a crashed car and used parts. My only regret is that many people view Bimmers as yuppie mobiles, when in fact, they are amazing to drive, very technically advanced and probably the best overall vehicles on the road. Oh well... that feeling goes away when I am at the track or on an empty road.
If it's just standard NTSC video, like what comes out of a Mini DV camera, then a $2000 PowerBook G4 will be able to work with it easily. Apple (and many FinalCutPro users sites) will be happy to tell you stories of directors doing rough cuts of projects on the 'flight home' from the shoot.
Now, if it's HDTV were talking about, that's a whole different ballgame. The really exciting HDTV format, 1080p/30 has a data rate of something like 121.5MB/sec, compared to 3.7MB/sec for MiniDV/NTSC. Working with this kind of video requires massive, fast SCSI hard drives configured in a RAID array, a huge monitor to see the output in full-rez (at least 1920x1080) and lots of horsepower if you want to work with video that has been compressed down for broadcast.
Then again, while such workstations can be had for around $10,000 (check out Boxx Technology), HD1080 has a look that rivals 35mm film at a fraction of the cost. Think about it, 1 minute of recan (i.e. the stuff big studios don't use and sell to independent film dealers) 35mm stock costs around $36, and processing can run up to 3x the cost of the original film stock. So basically, you can own an HD editing system for the same cost as about an hour of 35mm film. Not really that bad a deal when you consider that both the new Star Wars films were shot in HD...
I think that your wrong in saying that revising the Newton would be a futile attempt at filling a void that other companies have since occoupied. Apple doesn't fill voids; they create elegant and useable solutions for markets where others have hacked together crap products. Look at the iPod- was it the first MP3 player? No. Was it the first HD based MP3 player? No. Was the MP3 player market a void before Apple came along? No. Has the iPod been a raving success? Yes.
In many ways, I think the current handheld market is the same. Palm passes off the fact that their handhelds are using 10 year old technologies as 'Elegance' while the Pocket PC features typical Microsoft bloat. In the end, I am personally not satasfied with either of these products because I don't think they are the epitome of what a handheld could be.
Let's all face it, what people want out of a handheld computer is relatively simple- it is an extension of the desktop computer. Palm has got this much right. The problem with a Palm however is that the desktop experience has changed from where it was in 1995- people listen to music with their desktop, they play videos, they talk in IMs, surf the web and get email. Palm simply hasn't got the horsepower to keep up.
Apple, on the other hand, does. Between OS X, Apple's core technologies and the iApps, they have the resources and technologies to truly extend the modern desktop computing experience to the mobile market. The two technology barriers that do exist for Apple (handheld hardware and wireless connectivity) can easily be acquired from other companies (with whom Apple currently has relationships- StrongARM, Motorola, Erricson and Nokia).
Imagine an elegantly designed handheld computer running a stripped down version of OS X. At home, it uses AirPort and Bluetooth to run as a LAN mobile extension of your desktop machine, letting you view video from your desktop or play MP3s away from your office.
On the road, an always on cellular modem talks to your desktop computer over a secured broadband connection. Mail that arrives in your Mail.app is now with you wherever you go. You can view and update your iCal calender or Address book from anywhere (and those iCal changes can be updated on the web at your.mac personal web site for all to see). Need to grab a file in your Home directory to give to someone? You just grab it of of your desktop and Bluetooth/IR/802.11B it to someone else.
Need to make a call? Your handheld could act as a wireless IP phone extention to your home telephone and answering machine (with your desktop Mac's modem plugged into the POTS line at home). No more having to hand out a mobile+home telephone number to someone or check two voice mail boxes. Need to reboot that home machine? No problem, open up Terminal.app and go for it.
I would buy such a device in a heartbeat and I think a lot of other people would too. I wouldn't think an Apple handheld like the one above would fill a void; it would show people what a mobile computer could really do.
Current image sensor technology simply can't offer the same resolution as film at a rate of 12,000fps. Off the top of my head, the closest image sensor I can think of is from Silicon Imaging. Their CMOS camera head can do 2056x32 images at 700fps (or so), and to even aproach the quality of film, you would need to shoot HD (1920x1080).
As any/. reader knows however, it's only a matter of time before silicon catches up with whatever it's chasing.
There are plenty of reasons to want a Palm over a 'Smart' cell phone-
Screen Size
I have an Erricson 68i, and it's cool, but the tiny screen isn't something I really want to read email on. Of course, people say 'Well, it's just for quick mobile messages' but the people sending me email don't know that.
Lots of Applications
Ever browse through the list of applications out there for Palms? People have developed applications for almost any need, from graphing calculators on par with TI-85s to databases that help Landing Signal Officers on aircraft carriers grade landings.
Better Text Input
I am not a Japanese schoolgirl, so I can't type 80wpm with my thumbs on a cell phone...
Better Sync with my Computer (OS X)
Most of the 'Smart' cell phones only offer Windows sync software that works with Outlook.
I think the only product that really gets the CellPhone/PDA hybrid right is the Treo, but I refuse to pay/live with Handspring's very plasticky build quality that feels like a toy.
First off, I think Good Eats is an amazing show and I think (read: hope) technology makes more shows like Good Eats possible. That being said, here is my question...
How do you think digital video and digital cable/satellite will combine to change television?
I think many will agree that the secret of Good Eats is that is has been driven by a single person's vision (Alton even went to culinary school with the express intent of making this show). When both the cost and process of creating high quality video gets to the point where anybody can do it, and we have 1000 channels of TV to fill, will more individuals step up and bring their passions to TV the same way Alton did?
Apparently, IMAX digitizes the 35mm film at some disgustingly high resolution (which they do not specify). According to them, this is the hardest part of the process.
After that, they do all sorts of voodoo to clean the image up utilizing a number of 'proprietary, patent pending technologies'. The images are also digitally brightened up (of which, I am sure more 'proprietary, patent pending technologies' are used).
Finally, they are transferred to the 70mm IMAX film and projected through IMAX's proprietary projectors. This technique only works for flat IMAX screens (not the domes or 3D).
On the IMAX site, they also note that some theaters also have regular 35mm projectors and have been showing standard films. I suspect this is what you saw, and IMAX notes that this wouldn't provide the 'true, proprietary and fully patented IMAX Experience(R)'.
I wold link to the web site, but it has a funky design that does not lend itself well to linking...
I was just wondering, but how is it that TiVO seems not to acquire the wrath of the MPAA and television studios?
They have a fast forward feature, but unlike ReplayTV, they don't have an instant 30 second skip button. Does that make all the difference?
1) These servers benefit education customers (one of Apple's biggest markets) by offering an easily configured, bulletproof server that is quit literally plug and play for their current (Mac) based infastructure. OS X includes many network computing features out of the box (network boot up, storage, etc... all based on NetInfo).
2) This is a two part answer:
A) The AlteVec processor in the G4 is mostly utilized by graphics apps such as Photoshop because desktop publishing/graphic design is a market saturated with Macs. The AlteVec (a vector processing unit) provides significant performance gains for any piece of software written for it. Blast is a great example of a non graphics app that has been rigged to use the AlteVec, and the performance gains are (by the word of both Apple and Genentic) very significant.
B) Graphics cards handle screen rendering, for applications such as video games. For hardcore scene rendering or video compositing (where the final product might end up on film or print) the processor does the work. This is why outfits like Pixar and Digital Domain have huge rendering farms of servers.
I am a bit of a car nut, and I know of a couple of cases where telemetry data has been used against car owners:
On the 1995 M3, BMW noticed all sorts of warranty claims coming in about blown motors (like the first 2 cars in the country, within a week of delivery). They eventually traced the problem to people missing shifts, going from 4th to 3rd as an example, under heavy accelleration (that IS why you bought an M3 after all). The very smooth gearbox (I can shift into 1st in my M3 at 80mph without a problem) combined with soft transmission mounts meant that missing a shift was VERY easy, in some cases, there is NO WAY to tell you put the selector in the wrong slot.
In 1996, BMW switched their cars from Bosch to Siemens electronics, and put a telltale feature on the motor management system. If the car went over the redline, it would set a fault with the RPM saved in memory. A few M3 owners have sued their BMW delaers with claims that they didn't over rev the engine but dealers denied warranty coverage and a few of those cases have been true. One way to tell if a dealer is trying to stick you is to look for a printout of the RPM fault, if the number is not divisible by 256, they are making it up.
Another example was the case of a hit and run driver in a Caddy SUV (the Navigator monstrosity I think). The police responded to OnStar's call, the system on the Navigator having called in after the airbag was deployed. Of course, with GPS, it gave OnStar gave the cops the exact location of the accident (but not updated information of where the driver had gone). The cops followed the nice trail of coolent and parts to the Navigator driver's home and arrested him...
Wait, so you process/approve a visa extension and it takes 6-7 MONTHS to print that extension out and fire it off in the mail? How on earth is that humanly possible?
The real kicker here is that the INS outsourced the printing and sending of that paperwork to a private company. Proof that government procurement goes to the lowest bidder.
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/con gress/ 2003_rpt/stryker_reality_of_war.pdf
Highlights?
- Designed to be transportable by a C-130, but can't.
- Designed for the modern urban battlefield, but too big to make a U-turn on even the widest streets.
- Designed to face the weapons of our enemies, but the armor cannot withstand Rocket Propelled Grenades (a hugely prolific weapon in Iraq and Afganistan, even now).
To top it all off, the light tank varient of the Stryker (which the entire Stryker Brigade concept relies upon for support) cannot fire it's weapon if infantry troops are within 200' (the muzzle blast will fry them due to the huge compensator needed) and the cannon cannot be fired off to the side of the vehicle, or the recoil will knock it over. What a great piece of equipment!
Not to hijack the thread, but this is just another attempt for General Dynamics to get some good press out of a complete piece of shit program that is endangering the lives of the grunts who are forced to work with it.
Think about it; military schools are places where they punish you harshly for dumb shit, like not having the back of your belt buckle shined or having your underwear folded 4" across instead of 6". It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that breaking a real law in such an environment is going to be met with harsh consequences... no matter how dumb that law is.
Hell, they can't even build a car...
I am an industrial designer who lives/works in the SF area, and Apple has their own, in house, very hardcore industrial design team and model shops. As a matter of fact, they are rather well known for being Steve Jobs' favorite Apple employees.
Like any good internal design team however, Apple does work with outside ID firms for new ideas, collaboration on projects and outsourcing of small projects. That being said however, every computer or significant piece of hardware is currently designed in house, exclusivly and with a great amount of security.
How do you like it when:
A company sells you a crap product, and you can't return it?
A company's customer support line has a 45 minute hold time?
A company doesn't even publish their support number online?
A company voids your product warranty for a bogus reason?
A company pays off politicians to get a piece of unconstitutional legislation passed?
A company plays a culpable part in someone's death because of lax product testing?
A company pollutes the environment?
Nobody likes any of these things, probably not even the executives who run the companies that execute strategies involving the above. But do you know why, in part these things happen? Because shareholders (that's you and your 401(k)) demand absolute maximization of shareholder value.
I think that's wrong and very greedy, and I happen to be an entrepreneur. I refuse to be involved in an organization that puts $$$ in front of everything else and I refuse to be involved in a publicly traded company.
In my experience, Wall Street tends to reward all the wrong things. Hell, 2 out of the 3 companies you mentioned (Microsoft and GE) are damn near downright evil cancers on this society's existence. I don't need to defend that statement in regards to Microsoft here on Slashdot, but GE makes nuclear reactors, WMD components, guns (I have a t-shirt with a picture of a GAU-8A cannon from an A-10 Warthog on it with the tag line - "GE We Bring Good Things To Life"). GE is the poster child for the multinational conglomerate.
I mean, don't you think that there is something funky going on when a company provides both health care and manufacturers guns and nuclear reactors?
Of course, to Wall Street, that doesn't matter one iota. They make money, lots of it, world be dammed, and that's all the stock market cares about.
I like companies like Apple, BMW and Bang & Olufsen because they are small companies that have a laser focus on making great products, they treat their customers/employees well and operate very responsibly in an economic environment were making profits at all costs is all the rage. Their secret is quite simple: focus on the higher end of the market, stay small and be happy as a profitable nitch player.
150 years ago, companies like those would be par for the course, but today, I am an arrogant prick because I purchase their products.
Take Apple. Love or hate Steve Jobs, Apple tends to work as a company from the consumor point of view because everything has been thought of. From the Australian stone floors in the bathroom of Apple Retail Stores, to the brand dress on boxes and the look of OS X... everything works together.*
(*Note: Not to say that it all works perfectly, but for the most part, it does work)
Compare Apple to one of those companies that are ran by comitte. I would say Direct TV is a great example. They are in the middle of an access card swap and my DirectTV/TiVo has a banner on the screen telling me to 'Replace your access card now.' Only one problem, I haven't received it in the mail yet, and I can't clear the banner off the screen without replacing the access card.
I called customer service and was told that my card was mailed out on Oct 11, but they couldn't clear the banner off my screen at all. This, to me, is a symptom of a company being run by a bunch of suit wearing monkies-
Security Manager - "How are we going to make sure our moronic customers don't just throw the new access cards away?"
UI Manager - "Simple, we just annoy them with a big message across all their TV screens that won't go away until they replace the card."
Security Manager - "Great! But what if they don't have the card yet?"
UI Manager - "Fuck Em! It'll show up SOMEDAY."
As such, I have called customer support every hour, on the hour and asked them to clear the screen.
They are pretty small batteries, better set Reason to Frappe and not Liquify...
The thing I don't get is why all these people are killing/kidnapping over this stupid device when they can just go call up the machinists/engineers and have them crank out another rocket belt. Heck, all you need are the CAD/CAM files... I have a Kitamura 3Xi CNC machine, I'll be happy to build them a few.
You mean if I want this computer to do something I have to open a "program"? Why? Why can't it just do what I want it to do?
Actually, as an open source noob, I have to say that the whole 'program Foo' that does 'Bar' is probably the most danuting aspect of the whole community to me.
So many Open Source programs have the dumbest, most unintuitive names ever. Gnome? What the hell is that supposed to do with a GUI? Evolution? Evolution of what? Even Apache... what does a famous tribe of indiginous American peoples have to do with serving web pages?
At least if you call your shiny new advanced ground attack helecopter "Apache", you can draw some comparative to the native tribe's famous warfighting abilities.
I think the whole silly OSS naming problem is indicative of the community's general lack of concern for making useable software. For the most part, OSS fosters a community of like minded individuals who have a passion for tinkering, which is a great thing. Unfortunatly, this same passion and focuse tends to alienate those of us who aren't quite as talented with the command line or aren't willing to invest a huge chunk of time in trying to figure out lots of technical minusha to simply get our computers to work.
1) Create groundbreaking alternative powered, low/zero emission vehicle.
2) Make that vehicle as ugly as present automotive styling will possibly allow.
3) When asked by congress/consumor groups/environmentalists why it is that these low emissions vehicles are not more predomonate on our roads say, "Well, we make really good electric cars, but consumors aren't buying them, so it's not our fault."
4) Continue making gas guzzling SUVs with insane profit margins.
Just like veggitarians railing against the evils of industrial meat production, low emission vehicle pundents forget a simple fact- America has a 50 year old, unwavering love affair with the gas powered automobile. From garage tinkering to weekend track events, NOPI competitions, car shows, drag strips and urban crusing zones, the car is not just 'Practical' transportation, it is a fetish.
The only way LEV/ZEV cars are going to work is if they better virtually every aspect of the modern automobile. That's practicality, performance, visceral appeal, style, safety and comfort. While it might be fast, would you be caught dead in this ugly bloody thing? I wouldn't.
It's a US$49,000 car with the SMG II transmission. You are, of course, forgiven if you are refering to other currency. In the US, while an M3 is expensive, most of the people I know who own them work very hard in fairly regular jobs and purchased their M3's as a sort of 'Attainable,' 'Practical,' 'Dream Car.' Performance/$$$, the M3 is a lot better then almost every other high performance sports car.
life of the clutch (torque converter)
The SMG has no torque converter. Like on F1 cars, the SMG is a stardard manual gearbox fitted with computer controled actuators that do the same work your hand and left foot would do in a standard manual transmission. The clutch part #s for the manual and SMG M3s are the same.
Fun but, for $141,000 I want a damn 5-speed.
The standard transmission version comes with a 6 speed. The M3 CSL version (which will cost around US$150K, if it's even offered in the US) is only equipped with an SMG however.
Hey, you computer guys get to nit-pick technical details about obscure hardware, can't a car guy do the same?
As a hardcore BMW geek, I am really glad to see the M3 and it's very cool SMGII transmission make it to the front page of Slashdot. For more info, check out:
BMW's Flash SMGII Transmission Presentation
The Unofficial BMW E46 FAQ
I wouldn't call Launch Control an easter egg however. If you explore the BMW Flash presentation, they mention it. While BMW North America said it would be disabled on US cars, as soon as the M3 SMG came over, the first (privilaged lucky bastard) owners tried it out and it worked.
I have a new 325Ci (5 speed) and a previous genneration M3 race car that I built up from a crashed car and used parts. My only regret is that many people view Bimmers as yuppie mobiles, when in fact, they are amazing to drive, very technically advanced and probably the best overall vehicles on the road. Oh well... that feeling goes away when I am at the track or on an empty road.
Freude am Fahren
That way, you could upgrade to a 'Super Drive' and still have compatability with iDVD and DVD Studio Pro.
They know how old he is, they know who his sister and girlfriend are and they know how he died, but his name? Nope, not a mention.
Something about technology being dehumanizing?
If it's just standard NTSC video, like what comes out of a Mini DV camera, then a $2000 PowerBook G4 will be able to work with it easily. Apple (and many FinalCutPro users sites) will be happy to tell you stories of directors doing rough cuts of projects on the 'flight home' from the shoot.
Now, if it's HDTV were talking about, that's a whole different ballgame. The really exciting HDTV format, 1080p/30 has a data rate of something like 121.5MB/sec, compared to 3.7MB/sec for MiniDV/NTSC. Working with this kind of video requires massive, fast SCSI hard drives configured in a RAID array, a huge monitor to see the output in full-rez (at least 1920x1080) and lots of horsepower if you want to work with video that has been compressed down for broadcast.
Then again, while such workstations can be had for around $10,000 (check out Boxx Technology), HD1080 has a look that rivals 35mm film at a fraction of the cost. Think about it, 1 minute of recan (i.e. the stuff big studios don't use and sell to independent film dealers) 35mm stock costs around $36, and processing can run up to 3x the cost of the original film stock. So basically, you can own an HD editing system for the same cost as about an hour of 35mm film. Not really that bad a deal when you consider that both the new Star Wars films were shot in HD...
In many ways, I think the current handheld market is the same. Palm passes off the fact that their handhelds are using 10 year old technologies as 'Elegance' while the Pocket PC features typical Microsoft bloat. In the end, I am personally not satasfied with either of these products because I don't think they are the epitome of what a handheld could be.
Let's all face it, what people want out of a handheld computer is relatively simple- it is an extension of the desktop computer. Palm has got this much right. The problem with a Palm however is that the desktop experience has changed from where it was in 1995- people listen to music with their desktop, they play videos, they talk in IMs, surf the web and get email. Palm simply hasn't got the horsepower to keep up.
Apple, on the other hand, does. Between OS X, Apple's core technologies and the iApps, they have the resources and technologies to truly extend the modern desktop computing experience to the mobile market. The two technology barriers that do exist for Apple (handheld hardware and wireless connectivity) can easily be acquired from other companies (with whom Apple currently has relationships- StrongARM, Motorola, Erricson and Nokia).
Imagine an elegantly designed handheld computer running a stripped down version of OS X. At home, it uses AirPort and Bluetooth to run as a LAN mobile extension of your desktop machine, letting you view video from your desktop or play MP3s away from your office.
On the road, an always on cellular modem talks to your desktop computer over a secured broadband connection. Mail that arrives in your Mail.app is now with you wherever you go. You can view and update your iCal calender or Address book from anywhere (and those iCal changes can be updated on the web at your .mac personal web site for all to see). Need to grab a file in your Home directory to give to someone? You just grab it of of your desktop and Bluetooth/IR/802.11B it to someone else.
Need to make a call? Your handheld could act as a wireless IP phone extention to your home telephone and answering machine (with your desktop Mac's modem plugged into the POTS line at home). No more having to hand out a mobile+home telephone number to someone or check two voice mail boxes. Need to reboot that home machine? No problem, open up Terminal.app and go for it.
I would buy such a device in a heartbeat and I think a lot of other people would too. I wouldn't think an Apple handheld like the one above would fill a void; it would show people what a mobile computer could really do.
As any /. reader knows however, it's only a matter of time before silicon catches up with whatever it's chasing.
Screen Size
I have an Erricson 68i, and it's cool, but the tiny screen isn't something I really want to read email on. Of course, people say 'Well, it's just for quick mobile messages' but the people sending me email don't know that.
Lots of Applications
Ever browse through the list of applications out there for Palms? People have developed applications for almost any need, from graphing calculators on par with TI-85s to databases that help Landing Signal Officers on aircraft carriers grade landings.
Better Text Input
I am not a Japanese schoolgirl, so I can't type 80wpm with my thumbs on a cell phone...
Better Sync with my Computer (OS X)
Most of the 'Smart' cell phones only offer Windows sync software that works with Outlook.
I think the only product that really gets the CellPhone/PDA hybrid right is the Treo, but I refuse to pay/live with Handspring's very plasticky build quality that feels like a toy.
How do you think digital video and digital cable/satellite will combine to change television?
I think many will agree that the secret of Good Eats is that is has been driven by a single person's vision (Alton even went to culinary school with the express intent of making this show). When both the cost and process of creating high quality video gets to the point where anybody can do it, and we have 1000 channels of TV to fill, will more individuals step up and bring their passions to TV the same way Alton did?
From the IMAX web site...
Apparently, IMAX digitizes the 35mm film at some disgustingly high resolution (which they do not specify). According to them, this is the hardest part of the process.
After that, they do all sorts of voodoo to clean the image up utilizing a number of 'proprietary, patent pending technologies'. The images are also digitally brightened up (of which, I am sure more 'proprietary, patent pending technologies' are used).
Finally, they are transferred to the 70mm IMAX film and projected through IMAX's proprietary projectors. This technique only works for flat IMAX screens (not the domes or 3D).
On the IMAX site, they also note that some theaters also have regular 35mm projectors and have been showing standard films. I suspect this is what you saw, and IMAX notes that this wouldn't provide the 'true, proprietary and fully patented IMAX Experience(R)'.
I wold link to the web site, but it has a funky design that does not lend itself well to linking...
I was just wondering, but how is it that TiVO seems not to acquire the wrath of the MPAA and television studios?
They have a fast forward feature, but unlike ReplayTV, they don't have an instant 30 second skip button. Does that make all the difference?
To answer your questions:
1) These servers benefit education customers (one of Apple's biggest markets) by offering an easily configured, bulletproof server that is quit literally plug and play for their current (Mac) based infastructure. OS X includes many network computing features out of the box (network boot up, storage, etc... all based on NetInfo).
2) This is a two part answer:
A) The AlteVec processor in the G4 is mostly utilized by graphics apps such as Photoshop because desktop publishing/graphic design is a market saturated with Macs. The AlteVec (a vector processing unit) provides significant performance gains for any piece of software written for it. Blast is a great example of a non graphics app that has been rigged to use the AlteVec, and the performance gains are (by the word of both Apple and Genentic) very significant.
B) Graphics cards handle screen rendering, for applications such as video games. For hardcore scene rendering or video compositing (where the final product might end up on film or print) the processor does the work. This is why outfits like Pixar and Digital Domain have huge rendering farms of servers.
I am a bit of a car nut, and I know of a couple of cases where telemetry data has been used against car owners:
On the 1995 M3, BMW noticed all sorts of warranty claims coming in about blown motors (like the first 2 cars in the country, within a week of delivery). They eventually traced the problem to people missing shifts, going from 4th to 3rd as an example, under heavy accelleration (that IS why you bought an M3 after all). The very smooth gearbox (I can shift into 1st in my M3 at 80mph without a problem) combined with soft transmission mounts meant that missing a shift was VERY easy, in some cases, there is NO WAY to tell you put the selector in the wrong slot.
In 1996, BMW switched their cars from Bosch to Siemens electronics, and put a telltale feature on the motor management system. If the car went over the redline, it would set a fault with the RPM saved in memory. A few M3 owners have sued their BMW delaers with claims that they didn't over rev the engine but dealers denied warranty coverage and a few of those cases have been true. One way to tell if a dealer is trying to stick you is to look for a printout of the RPM fault, if the number is not divisible by 256, they are making it up.
Another example was the case of a hit and run driver in a Caddy SUV (the Navigator monstrosity I think). The police responded to OnStar's call, the system on the Navigator having called in after the airbag was deployed. Of course, with GPS, it gave OnStar gave the cops the exact location of the accident (but not updated information of where the driver had gone). The cops followed the nice trail of coolent and parts to the Navigator driver's home and arrested him...
Wait, so you process/approve a visa extension and it takes 6-7 MONTHS to print that extension out and fire it off in the mail? How on earth is that humanly possible?
The real kicker here is that the INS outsourced the printing and sending of that paperwork to a private company. Proof that government procurement goes to the lowest bidder.