That's not true at all, I don't think I've seen a usb camera that *couldn't* do 640x480.
I don't understand why iChat *forces* you to stream at 640x480.. why couldn't I chat with 4 people at once and have each one at 320x200? it'd take the same amount of bandwidth... and be much more useful.
Having 640x480 available is nice, but requiring it is stupid.
Give me a break. If they would have compared Gnomemeeting, it would have been trounced. Why? Because this wasn't an article geared toward people who like--or even know/how/--to compile programs and configure things from the command-line.
Shut up troll. Obviously you can't read: How can I compile GnomeMeeting?
In some cases ease of use simply blows features away, and human communication is one of them.
Both Gnome Meeting and Yahoo Instant Messanger allow you to talk with more than one person at once. iChat AV doesn't.
I'd say that's a very key part of "human communication". My wife uses Yahoo IM video conferencing to talk with her mom (in one state) and her father (stationed in another country) at the same time.. she couldn't do this with iChat AV.
Another thing that should be noted is iChatAV requires at least a 600mhz machine in order to send video. While GnomeMeeting and others run on much less powerful hardware.
I got my email confirmation immediately. This was at 1am MST friday morning.
That brings up a good point, however, you have to click on a link in the email within 72 hours, but what happens if their servers are down and they don't send the email within 72 hours?
I feel safe knowing that homeland security uses cutting edge technologies like Soundex* to protect its citizens. Truly this dept has brought the best and brightest together to help in this our time of need.
*Soundex - Screwing up the U.S. census since 1890.
Perhaps, but maybe he was mislabelling things? Perhaps he found a way to extract energy from his surroundings?
I seem to remember someone demonstrating a jet engine that could burn the oxygen in the air without any fuel once it got to a certain speed. The jet would then continue to move without any fuel.
It's not a perpetual motion device, since it uses air as fuel.. but it could be mistaken for one.
Why would I have to? It's a civil case. All I have to do is to convince the court that the balance of probability is that you facilitated the duplication.
Perhaps you missed that article a few days ago, but the FBI is going to be doing all the copy infringement law enforcement now.
Tell me again, if you will, what the base of the defense will be for the illegal file trader who "stands up" to the RIAA? That they made SURE that all the people who downloaded music from them owned copies of the music?
I could win by stating that it wasn't me that was sharing the music, but evil hackers... or a virus. You can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a hacker isn't using my computer to download music.
This isn't a test of how good a compiler you can write, this is a test of how well the processor performs.
You're right, they should do the test over again, this time using the exact same GCC on both systems. Hmm... it seems that OSX won't even run the binary... Intel wins!
The fact is, there will always be differences in the compiler, unless of course, they were both x86 systems, or both PPC systems. The very architecture means that compilers must be fundamentally different.
But I think the NAGWare compiler is a more vallid comparison than intel's compiler because most real-world computing is done with NAGWare because it fully implements the F95 spec and is more portable.
But do most people use the NAGWare 30 trial version?
The Intel tests were run on the 30 trial version, but the OSX tests weren't. Plus NAGWare on OSX was compiled with gcc 2.95.2, while NAGWare on Linux was compiled with egcs 2.91.66. EGCS! My god how old is that piece of crap?
Slashdot Mirror
USB cameras lack the quality.
That's not true at all, I don't think I've seen a usb camera that *couldn't* do 640x480.
I don't understand why iChat *forces* you to stream at 640x480.. why couldn't I chat with 4 people at once and have each one at 320x200? it'd take the same amount of bandwidth... and be much more useful.
Having 640x480 available is nice, but requiring it is stupid.
true, but I can't imagine how useful iChatAV is in an office environment. You can't do conferencing. You can only talk with one person at a time.
Go to Apple or MS's sites, and you see nothing of the sort.
Might be due to the general lack of source code for Apple and MS products.
GnomeMeeting comes with any distro that includes Gnome2.. that includes SuSE and Redhat. You don't have to do anything special to install or use it.
ah, well, unfortunately, no. It seems they invented their own protocol.. it's definately not h323.
Give me a break. If they would have compared Gnomemeeting, it would have been trounced. Why? Because this wasn't an article geared toward people who like--or even know
Shut up troll. Obviously you can't read:
How can I compile GnomeMeeting?
Simply use the binaries from your distribution
In some cases ease of use simply blows features away, and human communication is one of them.
Both Gnome Meeting and Yahoo Instant Messanger allow you to talk with more than one person at once. iChat AV doesn't.
I'd say that's a very key part of "human communication". My wife uses Yahoo IM video conferencing to talk with her mom (in one state) and her father (stationed in another country) at the same time.. she couldn't do this with iChat AV.
do you? and don't say gnomemeeting :P
maybe something that will work with apples iChat AV?
iChat AV is proprietary and just came out, why would you expect anything other than other iChat AV clients to work with it?
Another thing that should be noted is iChatAV requires at least a 600mhz machine in order to send video. While GnomeMeeting and others run on much less powerful hardware.
You're helping the government compile a list that anyone but 'protected telemarketers' can call.
And who are they going to ask for when I answer the phone? They don't know my name.
I got my email confirmation immediately. This was at 1am MST friday morning.
That brings up a good point, however, you have to click on a link in the email within 72 hours, but what happens if their servers are down and they don't send the email within 72 hours?
Turns out he was just using a VCR and hiding a cable in the power cord.
That's what always cracked me up. What did his investors say after they saw his demonstration?
"Wow, your streaming video solution is amazing, but how do I adjust the tracking?"
I feel safe knowing that homeland security uses cutting edge technologies like Soundex* to protect its citizens. Truly this dept has brought the best and brightest together to help in this our time of need.
*Soundex - Screwing up the U.S. census since 1890.
Perpetual motion is proven impossible.
Perhaps, but maybe he was mislabelling things? Perhaps he found a way to extract energy from his surroundings?
I seem to remember someone demonstrating a jet engine that could burn the oxygen in the air without any fuel once it got to a certain speed. The jet would then continue to move without any fuel.
It's not a perpetual motion device, since it uses air as fuel.. but it could be mistaken for one.
I use linux, and I know for a fact that there aren't any buffer overflows in linu\026\073\065\0121\073\043\032\013
[root@localhost]#
Why would I have to? It's a civil case. All I have to do is to convince the court that the balance of probability is that you facilitated the duplication.
Perhaps you missed that article a few days ago, but the FBI is going to be doing all the copy infringement law enforcement now.
Tell me again, if you will, what the base of the defense will be for the illegal file trader who "stands up" to the RIAA? That they made SURE that all the people who downloaded music from them owned copies of the music?
I could win by stating that it wasn't me that was sharing the music, but evil hackers... or a virus. You can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a hacker isn't using my computer to download music.
What morals are those? That theft is perfectly acceptable?
Oh man, I wish it was theft! Then I'd download every eminem mp3 I could find and delete them!
HA HA HA! You can't get eminem music anywhere, I've stolen it ALL!!
I'd read the article, but I have 25,000 lines of VHDL to write today.
Do they all have to be different?
for (i=0;i<25000;i++) printf("...\n");
Forgive my scepticism, but looking at the picture this seems awfully similar to two adjacent screens.
You fool! You're giving away all our trade secrets!
His nomenclature assumes that the center piece is equivalent to a 'full sized' display, and the two 'wings' are half-sized, and on either side.
Help prevent desktop spillage. Get 4 times the protection with wings!
But if the compiler is the same, you're testing just the processor, right?
If the compiler were the same, apple would have had one hell of a time getting the x86 binary created by said compiler to run on their hardware.
The compilers are not the same.
This isn't a test of how good a compiler you can write, this is a test of how well the processor performs.
You're right, they should do the test over again, this time using the exact same GCC on both systems. Hmm... it seems that OSX won't even run the binary... Intel wins!
The fact is, there will always be differences in the compiler, unless of course, they were both x86 systems, or both PPC systems. The very architecture means that compilers must be fundamentally different.
But I think the NAGWare compiler is a more vallid comparison than intel's compiler because most real-world computing is done with NAGWare because it fully implements the F95 spec and is more portable.
But do most people use the NAGWare 30 trial version?
The Intel tests were run on the 30 trial version, but the OSX tests weren't. Plus NAGWare on OSX was compiled with gcc 2.95.2, while NAGWare on Linux was compiled with egcs 2.91.66. EGCS! My god how old is that piece of crap?
Apple blew the Dell away with Photoshop, PDF viewing, and Mathematica.
I think the point is that Apple crippled the Dell, turning off Hyperthreading for example. So you can't even trust the Photoshop benchmarks.
I thought everyone copied from Xerox.
You mean everyone xeroxed Xerox?