This is ever so slightly off-topic, but why is it that whenever eBooks are mentioned, there's a clamor of people shouting "the paper based book is better becase x y z"?
The arival of almost every other new media since the invention of the printing press, has been heralded as marking the end of the printed word. This hasn't happened in the past and I expect the same will be true of the eBook when it matures.
Historically new media have complimented rather than replaced existing ones. eBooks and Monograph literature both have strengths and weaknesses, and there's plenty of room for both to co-exist.
Just to bring myself back on topic a little, professionally speaking (as a librarian) it would be helpful if the eBook industry were standardised to a single open format. I expect it's more likely that we'll see progressive waves of competing formats develop as the technology improves. Perhaps the Open eBook initiative could better expend its energies ensuring that all eBook formats allow for data to be exported and reformatted in some way? so that materials aren't lost as formats become obsolete...
Not much progress ever since that pissing contest ended, hm?
Oh I don't know, it's debatable wether either the Shuttle fleet or Mir could really be said to be part of the 'contest' since both took development in such utterly different directions.
I'm as disapointed as you that we (humans) are making such slow progress as we are, but I see plenty of examples that co-operation can drive that progress just as well as competition can... here's hoping we'll see the two driving forces ballanced better in future, it might just speed things up a little.
2: The "Space Race" was little more than a cold war pissing contest, and It ended decades ago.
3: The ESA is already very much "a player" in space: for one thing it's the market leader in commercial satelite launches, and for another it's one of the few agencies with an active launch vehicle development programme (unlike NASA for example).
Most european countries just purchase American or Russian military vehicles and weapons anyway.
Pretty sweeping unsupported statement that, you might want to look at EADS before making any more blind assumptions there... That said I think you're missing the point.
The first space race might have been driven by the military, but if there is to be a second race between ESA and NASA I imagine it'll most likely be driven more by developments in civil aerospace.
Arianespace are hardly a minor global player, neither are Airbus. While admitedly they've yet to show a direct interest in space flight, they are part of EADS and given Boeing's development, it's unimaginable that Airbus hasn't got it's eye on space at some point in the future...
As it stands the ESA have already been working with NASA and the remnants of the old soviet space agency (calling it "Russian" is confusing, since Russia is in Europe) and I expect that they'll continue doing just that, the Space Station is after all an International venture, not just an American thing.
Race or not, this news seems to suggest that (as happened with civil aviation technology in the later years of last century,) Europe might be about to take the dominant role in Space technology now... maybe. Should be interesting anyway, and anything that drives us forward globally has to be a good thing.
um, it seems you're forgetting something: as yet iTMS is only available to US based Mac users, a teeny tiny proportion of global computer users.
Once Apple rolls out the international, and Windows versions of the service (and you can bet they WILL be released in that order) takings look set to rocket.
Funny if it were true: since you can't play the AAC files on anything except iTunes 4, this'd be worse for e-looters, er, I mean file-sharers, than that Madonna thing...
um... anyone who's been paying attention. Apple's been pretty consistently reporting profit for years now, and remarkably little of that has gone out of the company.
Money goes in, but doesn't come out - simple math that one. They're sitting on some huge cash reserves.
Perhaps this is a sign of the shape of things to come from Cupertino? providing the 'spokes' to their own 'digital hub' might be the next phase of the company's revival... anyway it looks like good news for all (Mac-heads and non-Mac-heads) on the DRM front if Apple get their (affirmedly anti-DRM) mitts on a major record label.
I dimly remember that Vodafone tried something like this when number-portability was first brought in here (UK) but I could be wrong, it's quite a while ago now...
panic ye not American slashdotters: the idea of your government upholding uncompetitive tripe like this would be as unthinkable in a free market economy as, say, a head of state without a popular mandate in a democracy...;)
seriously though, some telcos might kick and scream but it'll go through all the same.
no idea if this has anything to do with military use, (or if the military ever issued tangerine iBooks to recruits...) but I work in what is arguably the next toughest user-environment: secondary education, and can tell you first hand that the old iBooks are *way* tougher than the new ones.
but classics take up so little space! not to mention being design classics;) turn it into a fishtank or something.
here at work (a Mac-only school) most of the old Classics have been recycled into anything from doorstops to picture frames and they look kinda cool, though it's worth pointing out that until this summer at least one was still in active service running the video notice board in the main lobby (that job is now handled by an old powerbook)
Apple are unlikely to eliminate the iBook line, though you can probably expect to see G4 iBooks before long (certainly once the desktop PowerMacs move to whatever they end up branding the G5 - most likely IBM's 970 I think)
In the same announcement as the introduction for these 12"ers and the new 17" PowerBooks, Jobs mentioned that Apple are moving their focus increasingly toward portables - if anything I'd expect their "consumer" end range to expand in a similar way to their "Pro" stuff, possibly even introducing an "eBook" (an economical and robust low-end laptop offering) before long...
as for the 15" with the new specs - they're certainly on their way as soon as the old TiBooks clear the distribution channels.
aesthetics are highly subjective, personally I think the smart is kinda cute, though I wouldn't drive one as I commute across a mountain range and need something a tad bigger - that said here in Edinburgh (where I work) there are hundreds of the little things, and the cold (air temp lows recently reached to about -10C I understand) doesn't seem to be an issue.
it's all a matter of finding the right car for the job: too many people drive machines designed for the wilds of michigan in cities where they're unnecessary, wasteful and a damned nuisance - these wee puppies on the other hand work great in the city, but like you I'd be wary of taking one anywhere that a rock to the bonnet (hood) would be an issue.
fyi I *never* listen to Dixon's salesmen, the (wrong) impression that Sky+ is TiVo based came from Sky service engineers *shrugs* that'll teach me to a) listen to service engineers and b) post/. on a Friday!;)
so, new question: is the service side of TiVo in the UK likely to be affected by this in any way? TiVo say no, but then again they would wouldn't they?
I am indeed confused - but by the fact that Sky engineers refered to the hardware specifically as being that used in Sky+, I should know better than to listen to service engineers!;)
Sky+ *is* TiVo in the UK, I'm pretty certain that this is why they're pulling the standalone Hardware sales (after all as someone else pointed out, they make no profit from the sale of licenced hardware, the profit is in the subscription service)
The Sky+ on-screen branding is different, and the hardware is integrated into your decoder box but it's exactly the same system, and (afaik) the subscription support is farmed out by Sky to TiVo.
I have a standalone TiVo branded unit hooked into my sky box (which was bought back when we had cable) and whenever we have Sky engineers out they comment that it's the same system, most are interested in how the non-integrated version compares (the answer is that it's very good but occasionally fluffs channel changes which Sky+ doesn't.)
For those of you not in the UK, Sky are the dominant multichannel TV providers (think Microsoft if it helps) with the two cable co.s trailing ever further behind in market share (last time I looked I think they collectively had about something like 20% and falling) Telewest (one of the two cable co.s) actually altered the software in many of their set-top boxes to make it incompatible with ToVo about 18months ago (which is one thing that promted me to switch) so really the only UK TiVo market is Sky customers, who are all still able to upgrade to Sky+ aka integrated-TiVo.
While it does rather worryingly smack of on impending media-monopoly in the UKs PVR sector, TiVo's announcement is most emphatically NOT a sign that they're flagging in the UK - quite the reverse: back-door TiVo sales through Sky+ are healthy and on the increase.
I think the main reason we haven't seen a wireless iPod yet is speed: the iPod's built in Firewire gets 400m/s while you're lucky to sqeeze 10m/s out of 802.11b (Airport) believe me this makes a BIG difference: I keep my iTunes library on a fileserver which (as yet) has no Firewire, so I sync the iPod with my PowerBook (usually connected via Airport)
Transfering the volumes of data that the iPod does over 802.11b sucks: it can take hours to sync up, whereas when the music was stored locally I'd be ready to go in minutes if not seconds (needless to say a Firewire card is on its way for the server!)
Hopefully now that Apple have adopted 802.11g (Airport Extreme) we might see the option for a wireless iPod soon, though it'd still be pretty slow compared to the cabled version, especially if they also update the Pod's Firewire hardware to the new 800m/s version.
hmm. what a curious standpoint, you're argument seems to be that because the Space Elevator wouldn't be a spectacular and dramatic (read: life-threateningly dangerous, and unnecesarily costly) way into space it's somehow invalid.
Sure the tech isn't ready *right now*, but has that ever been a reason not to invest in developing a new soloution to a problem?
The elevator approach would realise the shuttle-programme's original aim of making travel into orbit and back a routine and mundane matter so that we as a civilisation can get on with the important business of expanding into space. Sure it wouldn't be as exciting as the shuttle, but the possibilities it could open up would more than compensate for the loss of this vicarious thrill, and most importantly, it'd be a damned site less likely to kill the people using it.
I talk from experience; Mac OS X won't run on my (back then) expensive PowerMac despite Apple's promises at the time
Out of curiosity which PowerMac are you talking about and from back when? I run Jaguar (aka OS X v.10.2.x) on (among other things) a five year old Biege PowerMac G3, and I know of people running it (unsupported) on even older systems
how many OSes are there out there that you can run the latest version of on Hardware that's half a decade out of date?
if you're on the level, LowEndMac is a great resource for this, they've got bag-loads of content on running older systems and pointers/links for where to find good deals on used systems.
happy hunting!
take another look at the article: it doesn't talk about RAW conversions in general, but a specific optimised soloution which (by making best use of the stregths of the CPU in the Mac) runs rings around the PC at a quarter the number of cycles per second... There's no "maybe" about it, this App *is* better for handling RAW files, and it's better because it's running on a processor with appropriate stregths, but under normal un-optimised conditions you'll find that all the extra horsepower in your wintel box makes it that much faster.
under normal circumstances, if speed is your determining factor, it makes sense to go with a PC over a Mac until either the new IBM PPC chip matures for desktops, or Motarola extract the proverbial digit and make up the lost ground... either way (as others have already pointed out) for many of us raw speed isn't the determining factor...
mate, if the bulk of your Mac experience is limited to 8.6 do yourself a favour and find an excuse to play with OS X for a few weeks.
Before I bought my powerbook last year my only experience with Macs was classic (7.5.5 through 8.6) and I wouldn't have gone near 'em with a barge pole let alone blown two grand on a new Apple Laptop, an afternoon with OS X changed all that, and this was back before Jaguar.
seriously, give the modern Mac a real test-drive your inner geek will love you for it:)
Slashdot Mirror
This is ever so slightly off-topic, but why is it that whenever eBooks are mentioned, there's a clamor of people shouting "the paper based book is better becase x y z"?
The arival of almost every other new media since the invention of the printing press, has been heralded as marking the end of the printed word. This hasn't happened in the past and I expect the same will be true of the eBook when it matures.
Historically new media have complimented rather than replaced existing ones. eBooks and Monograph literature both have strengths and weaknesses, and there's plenty of room for both to co-exist.
Just to bring myself back on topic a little, professionally speaking (as a librarian) it would be helpful if the eBook industry were standardised to a single open format. I expect it's more likely that we'll see progressive waves of competing formats develop as the technology improves. Perhaps the Open eBook initiative could better expend its energies ensuring that all eBook formats allow for data to be exported and reformatted in some way? so that materials aren't lost as formats become obsolete...
actually I meant it was causing confusion for others - check a few other posts and you might see what I mean.
As for the rest, please don't lecture me about "wrapping my head around" stuff that for all you can tell I already know much more of than you. Thanks.
Not much progress ever since that pissing contest ended, hm?
Oh I don't know, it's debatable wether either the Shuttle fleet or Mir could really be said to be part of the 'contest' since both took development in such utterly different directions.
I'm as disapointed as you that we (humans) are making such slow progress as we are, but I see plenty of examples that co-operation can drive that progress just as well as competition can... here's hoping we'll see the two driving forces ballanced better in future, it might just speed things up a little.
1: I think you mean perspective not prospective
2: The "Space Race" was little more than a cold war pissing contest, and It ended decades ago.
3: The ESA is already very much "a player" in space: for one thing it's the market leader in commercial satelite launches, and for another it's one of the few agencies with an active launch vehicle development programme (unlike NASA for example).
Most european countries just purchase American or Russian military vehicles and weapons anyway.
Pretty sweeping unsupported statement that, you might want to look at EADS before making any more blind assumptions there... That said I think you're missing the point.
The first space race might have been driven by the military, but if there is to be a second race between ESA and NASA I imagine it'll most likely be driven more by developments in civil aerospace.
Arianespace are hardly a minor global player, neither are Airbus. While admitedly they've yet to show a direct interest in space flight, they are part of EADS and given Boeing's development, it's unimaginable that Airbus hasn't got it's eye on space at some point in the future...
As it stands the ESA have already been working with NASA and the remnants of the old soviet space agency (calling it "Russian" is confusing, since Russia is in Europe) and I expect that they'll continue doing just that, the Space Station is after all an International venture, not just an American thing.
Race or not, this news seems to suggest that (as happened with civil aviation technology in the later years of last century,) Europe might be about to take the dominant role in Space technology now... maybe. Should be interesting anyway, and anything that drives us forward globally has to be a good thing.
short answer: no.
um, it seems you're forgetting something: as yet iTMS is only available to US based Mac users, a teeny tiny proportion of global computer users.
Once Apple rolls out the international, and Windows versions of the service (and you can bet they WILL be released in that order) takings look set to rocket.
Offerings on P2P networks have almost tripled!
Funny if it were true: since you can't play the AAC files on anything except iTunes 4, this'd be worse for e-looters, er, I mean file-sharers, than that Madonna thing...
Who knew Apple even had that kind of cash?
um... anyone who's been paying attention. Apple's been pretty consistently reporting profit for years now, and remarkably little of that has gone out of the company.
Money goes in, but doesn't come out - simple math that one. They're sitting on some huge cash reserves.
Perhaps this is a sign of the shape of things to come from Cupertino? providing the 'spokes' to their own 'digital hub' might be the next phase of the company's revival... anyway it looks like good news for all (Mac-heads and non-Mac-heads) on the DRM front if Apple get their (affirmedly anti-DRM) mitts on a major record label.
I dimly remember that Vodafone tried something like this when number-portability was first brought in here (UK) but I could be wrong, it's quite a while ago now...
;)
panic ye not American slashdotters: the idea of your government upholding uncompetitive tripe like this would be as unthinkable in a free market economy as, say, a head of state without a popular mandate in a democracy...
seriously though, some telcos might kick and scream but it'll go through all the same.
no idea if this has anything to do with military use, (or if the military ever issued tangerine iBooks to recruits...) but I work in what is arguably the next toughest user-environment: secondary education, and can tell you first hand that the old iBooks are *way* tougher than the new ones.
but classics take up so little space! not to mention being design classics ;) turn it into a fishtank or something.
here at work (a Mac-only school) most of the old Classics have been recycled into anything from doorstops to picture frames and they look kinda cool, though it's worth pointing out that until this summer at least one was still in active service running the video notice board in the main lobby (that job is now handled by an old powerbook)
Apple are unlikely to eliminate the iBook line, though you can probably expect to see G4 iBooks before long (certainly once the desktop PowerMacs move to whatever they end up branding the G5 - most likely IBM's 970 I think)
In the same announcement as the introduction for these 12"ers and the new 17" PowerBooks, Jobs mentioned that Apple are moving their focus increasingly toward portables - if anything I'd expect their "consumer" end range to expand in a similar way to their "Pro" stuff, possibly even introducing an "eBook" (an economical and robust low-end laptop offering) before long...
as for the 15" with the new specs - they're certainly on their way as soon as the old TiBooks clear the distribution channels.
aesthetics are highly subjective, personally I think the smart is kinda cute, though I wouldn't drive one as I commute across a mountain range and need something a tad bigger - that said here in Edinburgh (where I work) there are hundreds of the little things, and the cold (air temp lows recently reached to about -10C I understand) doesn't seem to be an issue.
it's all a matter of finding the right car for the job: too many people drive machines designed for the wilds of michigan in cities where they're unnecessary, wasteful and a damned nuisance - these wee puppies on the other hand work great in the city, but like you I'd be wary of taking one anywhere that a rock to the bonnet (hood) would be an issue.
fyi I *never* listen to Dixon's salesmen, the (wrong) impression that Sky+ is TiVo based came from Sky service engineers *shrugs* that'll teach me to a) listen to service engineers and b) post /. on a Friday! ;)
so, new question: is the service side of TiVo in the UK likely to be affected by this in any way? TiVo say no, but then again they would wouldn't they?
I am indeed confused - but by the fact that Sky engineers refered to the hardware specifically as being that used in Sky+, I should know better than to listen to service engineers! ;)
Sky+ *is* TiVo - the technology in your integrated box is licenced from TiVo, it's not a rival, it's the SAME THING with a different brand.
Sky+ *is* TiVo in the UK, I'm pretty certain that this is why they're pulling the standalone Hardware sales (after all as someone else pointed out, they make no profit from the sale of licenced hardware, the profit is in the subscription service)
The Sky+ on-screen branding is different, and the hardware is integrated into your decoder box but it's exactly the same system, and (afaik) the subscription support is farmed out by Sky to TiVo.
I have a standalone TiVo branded unit hooked into my sky box (which was bought back when we had cable) and whenever we have Sky engineers out they comment that it's the same system, most are interested in how the non-integrated version compares (the answer is that it's very good but occasionally fluffs channel changes which Sky+ doesn't.)
For those of you not in the UK, Sky are the dominant multichannel TV providers (think Microsoft if it helps) with the two cable co.s trailing ever further behind in market share (last time I looked I think they collectively had about something like 20% and falling) Telewest (one of the two cable co.s) actually altered the software in many of their set-top boxes to make it incompatible with ToVo about 18months ago (which is one thing that promted me to switch) so really the only UK TiVo market is Sky customers, who are all still able to upgrade to Sky+ aka integrated-TiVo.
While it does rather worryingly smack of on impending media-monopoly in the UKs PVR sector, TiVo's announcement is most emphatically NOT a sign that they're flagging in the UK - quite the reverse: back-door TiVo sales through Sky+ are healthy and on the increase.
I think the main reason we haven't seen a wireless iPod yet is speed: the iPod's built in Firewire gets 400m/s while you're lucky to sqeeze 10m/s out of 802.11b (Airport) believe me this makes a BIG difference: I keep my iTunes library on a fileserver which (as yet) has no Firewire, so I sync the iPod with my PowerBook (usually connected via Airport)
Transfering the volumes of data that the iPod does over 802.11b sucks: it can take hours to sync up, whereas when the music was stored locally I'd be ready to go in minutes if not seconds (needless to say a Firewire card is on its way for the server!)
Hopefully now that Apple have adopted 802.11g (Airport Extreme) we might see the option for a wireless iPod soon, though it'd still be pretty slow compared to the cabled version, especially if they also update the Pod's Firewire hardware to the new 800m/s version.
hmm. what a curious standpoint, you're argument seems to be that because the Space Elevator wouldn't be a spectacular and dramatic (read: life-threateningly dangerous, and unnecesarily costly) way into space it's somehow invalid.
Sure the tech isn't ready *right now*, but has that ever been a reason not to invest in developing a new soloution to a problem?
The elevator approach would realise the shuttle-programme's original aim of making travel into orbit and back a routine and mundane matter so that we as a civilisation can get on with the important business of expanding into space. Sure it wouldn't be as exciting as the shuttle, but the possibilities it could open up would more than compensate for the loss of this vicarious thrill, and most importantly, it'd be a damned site less likely to kill the people using it.
I talk from experience; Mac OS X won't run on my (back then) expensive PowerMac despite Apple's promises at the time
Out of curiosity which PowerMac are you talking about and from back when? I run Jaguar (aka OS X v.10.2.x) on (among other things) a five year old Biege PowerMac G3, and I know of people running it (unsupported) on even older systems
how many OSes are there out there that you can run the latest version of on Hardware that's half a decade out of date?
if you're on the level, LowEndMac is a great resource for this, they've got bag-loads of content on running older systems and pointers/links for where to find good deals on used systems. happy hunting!
take another look at the article: it doesn't talk about RAW conversions in general, but a specific optimised soloution which (by making best use of the stregths of the CPU in the Mac) runs rings around the PC at a quarter the number of cycles per second... There's no "maybe" about it, this App *is* better for handling RAW files, and it's better because it's running on a processor with appropriate stregths, but under normal un-optimised conditions you'll find that all the extra horsepower in your wintel box makes it that much faster.
under normal circumstances, if speed is your determining factor, it makes sense to go with a PC over a Mac until either the new IBM PPC chip matures for desktops, or Motarola extract the proverbial digit and make up the lost ground... either way (as others have already pointed out) for many of us raw speed isn't the determining factor...
mate, if the bulk of your Mac experience is limited to 8.6 do yourself a favour and find an excuse to play with OS X for a few weeks.
:)
Before I bought my powerbook last year my only experience with Macs was classic (7.5.5 through 8.6) and I wouldn't have gone near 'em with a barge pole let alone blown two grand on a new Apple Laptop, an afternoon with OS X changed all that, and this was back before Jaguar.
seriously, give the modern Mac a real test-drive your inner geek will love you for it
same could be said of any /. post that doesn't match your specific interest set.
/.ers so that's why it's here, if you're not interested I suggest you read something else.
point is that it's tech related and of interest to plenty of