TFA is wrong. they sell it as a $150 install add on, or you can do it yourself for $125.
And, as I keep pointing out whenever I hear this "bundling is great when Apple does it" argument: the whole point is I don't want half of the crap that a mac makes me pay for, anyways.
Well this comes down to philosophy. On most mac's i've owned there's been some feature I did not use. e.g. PC card, or a scsi port or bluetooth. that's true.
But what I have noticed is too things. First, developers can target more fully featured software because they can assume high level features will be installed. For example, who can foreget the old nightmare days if configuring soundcards or interupts on PCs and the difficulty of finding software that worked with your card. Macs all had (somewhat) high end sound cards from very early days and the driver's for them in the OS distro. So developers could assume they existed.
As a result even though I might not actually need some cheerful toon in some piece of software I bought, the developer just threw it in because they could have no fear it would work.
As a result, I actually tend to use the extras mac includes more often simply because software I buy happens for one purpose takes advantage of them.
The other thing I notice is that while I might not have used firewire on the first mac I bought I definitely started using it on later macs. And bought firewire disks. But then I noticed that my new hardware was backwards compatible with my old macs.
nice... this meant my macs had longer service lifetime because I was not going and trying to find comaptiblilty extensions and drivers. the old macs had them.
In the long run, specing at the high end and getting bundles that are quite cheap for what they include, seems to pay off even if you don't use all the features right away.
the only place where ala-carte specing seems to really pay off is on racks of servers or fleets of comuters (for say an office). There dropping something you know you won't need can save a few dollars.
the computer this compares to is the imac not the powermac. on that basis: faster CPU: 1.8-2 Ghz versus 2.2 Hhz more memory in base model: 1Gb versus 2 bigger hard drive in base mode: 80gb versus 200gb
I note that places like mac-mall already slightly discount the price of macs and give memory upgrades so the memory comparison is irrelevant.
what you give up: size: the mac is teeny weenie. this thing is a full sized box
quiet: this is not really known, but it's a fair guess that you don't get a quiet fan on a budget machine.
other costly items: software: buy a copy of leopard $125 other missing: bluetooth and wifi. not clear on GB ethernet or firewire.
thus this thing is not very welcome in the living room, nor even on your desktop. since it will go under the desk this means lots of coords and down on your knees crawling under the desk.
The main drawback is no software update. which is of course what you really are paying for when you buy the OS. having all your apple apps staying secure automatically is peace of mind. Their website says that software update will occasionaly be unsafe to use. One can bet this will quickly become defacto true.
other things: no apple support. this is really good service. if you have computer problems apple is very good to you.
$399 + 125, does not really seem like much of a bargain.
conversely this sort of shows that the "apple tax" may be a myth.
To what extend does this contain real physics as opposed to "game" physics. Cuda maps to linear algebra fairly well but most phyics is second order (either algebraically or as differential equations). Are they actually trying to implement those or are they just making things that "look right" but really don't obey physics.
I recall that in the original Toy Story there is only one place they used "real physics". When the jump rope is thrown off the balcony (for the army men to descend), they used real physics to model it's tangled fall. But thye later sent it was not a good idea to use the real physics. Not only was it harder but it didn't really look right and could not be easily tweaked. So all the rest is pretend physics.
Were talking budget. not ultra portable. the comparison point is therefore a macbook not an air.
good luck with your Suse system when you need to run MS Office for compatibility reasons, or Photoshop or basically any app found in the bussiness world.
If you are a student, then yeah, time have no value, to use suse.
I use Linux too. But I use it on my servers and the laptops that have to work with servers. but I don't use it on my bussiness or personal laptops.
The question was about "budget" laptop. What people fail to figure when asking that question is how much of the bugdet includes the time they have to waste configuring it or delousing it.
In my experience, if youre not using a mac either 1) your time has no value or y 2) you have some specific reason you need to use another OS. 2b) you have some specific hardware issue 3) you are deploying a fleet of these where cost per unit matters and sysadmin can be pooled.
That's not snobbery, it's just that saving $200 on a laptop means nothing to most people for whom time is money or a lost report is worth more than $200.
If you can use the nice mac-apps as well, then figure those in the purchase.
The fonts in mac Leopard have gone from being pure shades of grey or pigment to polychomatic blends. Your eye reads them as a single color but the blend has a much less jagged appearance.
Standing across the room and looking at the blow ups on that page I linked to two things are apparent. 1) you can't see the colors and 2) the color one looks more uniform (look at the upper part of the C) and more bold (look at the leg and curve of the R).
My guess is this. You can have more bold if you use colors because if two letters are adjacent in grey then a dark grey bold would bleed together but on these letters red is on the left and blue on the right so dark red and dark blue still have a contrast.
In the eye the ganglia are set up to sharpen edges of contrasting regions. So my guess is that this principle works for the cones as well as the rods meaning that the contrast between the red and blue separation is enhanced even if they have the same grey level.
While you joke about red on yellow, I personally use a three color font system that is brown stokes infilled with a pale orange sitting on a white background. It's very legible as you can see in this example here
That leapfrog trades a lot of features to gain that security. Since Firefox doesn't sacrifice features... well, yeah, it really IS better. Well duh, thanks for restating my point. The point is Apple and MS can run firefox too.
You forgot to factor in the $10,000 cash prize. And you forgot the prospect for employment. Hack a mac and you put it on your resume, hack a PC and no one cares or worse thinks your are a script kiddie.
More to the point, what you can't measure here is the real world vulnerability. I cringe at keeping my Linux machines up-to-date and protected. I rely on firewalls not themachines. With the machines, which are production machines, it's huge roll of the dice to try to apply a patch and descend into dependency hell and discover over the next week which parts of your production got broken and which need compat libs and so on. With my fleet of macs, I don't hesistate to software update (well actually, unless the vulnerability is rampant I wait a week cause even apple screws the pooch. But just a week, and then you know it's safe.)
SO in the real world macs are highly patched. MS can be and it's only a wee bit harder. (And when they fuck up (SP1) they go big, but it's mainly a function of your hardware.) Linux requires real expertise and knowledge of how your specific magic mixture of packages will be affected.
Ownership (no pun) was the key to understanding this. I real contest would have let the winner (the first to hack in) keep one of the computers they did not break. The contest doesn't measure much when the competitors target the one they want to win: the sexiest machine so they attack it.
Instead if they had a choice they would attack the weakest machine and you'd see people voting with their feet as to which machine was the weakest. An actually measurement.
instead you got a beauty contest. Which apple apparently won.
Just tired it. They have a guest page with pre-loaded photos for you to "edit". this ain't photoshop. this is "picassa" or "iphoto" in terms of what you can do to a photo. change the exposure, white balance, rotator... yawn.
it's slow even on a fast connection. the pictures are grainy when you are editing them. and it basically is painful.
What were they thinking? I guess it is excellent for a web app photo editor. Much better than what you get on say kodak photo or flickr. But crap why bother when you can use picassa or iphoto then upload.
So I wonder if this will be some high level granularity or some true kernel level modularity like Apples quasi-mach kernel. Or even go all the way to a Objective-C message passing interface at the code level.
It's interesting to note that Apple's OS is ultra-modular at the lowest levels but is sold monolithically. Apple has always done well by specing out it's hardware and software at a maximum consistent level for every machine. Thus developers could assume that firewire exists or this or that OS feature exists. etc...
Rubbish. this sort of impossibility twaddle is easily discredited. For example, tall buildings or arched/suspended bridges could not be erected without a scaffold or crane. But once erected those are removed. Just because there is no evidence to be found that they were there does not mean the buildings sprung into existence fully formed.
Same with sophisticated organisms.
Recently Behe's claim that the flagella motor protein could not have evolved because it's inoperable without one of it's many parts and thus has no function was shown to be wrong. SPikes used by some bacteria to penetrate others turn out to be almost identical to the motor protein assembly but with a few proteins removed. it's not a motor it's a syringe.
Bombadier beetle. Oxidative enzymes and fizzy action are good ways to digest something in your mouth cavity. It would be no surprise if the bombadier's enzymes were developed for digestion and then later recruited for defense. Many animals regurgitate or spray digestive juices as defensive or offensive weapons. Even single celled organisms secrete highly indesructable proteases to destroy the competition. Others, like the Spike bearing ones have cannons they can shoot this from. If single celled organisms can evolve this its not a stretch to imagine a beetle pulling it off.
Giraffe. Many animals, like diving douplhins, seals, whales pull off similar stunts at orders of magnitude greater pressure differentials. Thus not only had such mechanisms evolved while we were all sea-bred creatures, and vestigal mechanisms potentialially latent in our DNA, but the specific machanism in Giraffes is not the only way to skin the pressure cat. For example, airplane pilots who work at High-Gs know that clenching muscles can prevent vaso-dialiation consequently fainting. It's not hard to imagine that early long necked creatures could survive without this adaptation, and the means to re-evolve it was possible in DNA
Woodpeckers: this one can be dismissed. There are lots of birds that eat tree bugs by whatever means they can dig them out. trees come in all denisities. You don't need to evolve to be a wood pecker in one go.
Rapid Canyon formation. I happen to live on the base of a caldera. My house is perched 200 feet over a straight drop to the steep walled canyon bottom. This was carved by a combination of massive floods and slow erosion. Simmilar examples abound around the area. But the origin of the massive floods is well known too. The caldera would periodically block it's outflows and then fill with water. when these dams burst torential fllods would scour the soft volcanic ash and aleufial sands into canons that would harden to rock. Similar stories can be said about the hells canyon area.
I've seen it happen in a small way in my own life time when forest fires glazed the mountain soils turning run-off trickles into 40 mile per hour flash floods digging 10 foot channels.
You really need to not assume the first silliness someone pours in your brain is the truth.
Rubbish. this sort of impossibility twaddle is easily discredited. For example, tall buildings or arched/suspended bridges could not be erected without a scaffold or crane. But once erected those are removed. Just because there is no evidence to be found that they were there does not mean the buildings sprung into existence fully formed.
Same with sophisticated organisms.
Recently Behe's claim that the flagella motor protein could not have evolved because it's inoperable without one of it's many parts and thus has no function was shown to be wrong. SPikes used by some bacteria to penetrate others turn out to be almost identical to the motor protein assembly but with a few proteins removed. it's not a motor it's a syringe.
The first responder to your post got it right I think.
It's been said the evolution of all non-unix applications expand until they can do e-mail.
In this case let's look at the capabilities of the app in question. To actually function it needs an internet enabled application, capable of displaying text, images, hypertext, and acting on clicks to links by fetching new pages. It maintains a backward forward history. Permits bookmarks and drag and drop weblocs. It plays music, and video. It can gather feeds and display them.
Wait which app was describing? Safari or Itunes?
The point is they are all the same. I'd bet that in some debug mode, itunes is safari. The only substantial difference between itunes and safari is that Itunes permenantly stores the music, can stream music, and can burn/convert music.
SO essentially safari is within itunes entirely. It would not surprise me if there was not already some secret debug mode preference setting that exposed a complete set of browser window controlls instead of only using the itms URL.
on windows rather than a mac, the situation is probably even more extreme since while on a mac those simmilarities could be factored out either to the OS or to libraries that come with the OS, on windows Apple reimplements the entire webkit/quicktime ecosystem rather than using the Windows navtive functionality.
----
That said I would agree that if we were talking about different applications that were not so coupled then I could see why this would be verging on bundling. For example, If i updated itunes and it also installed a Word processor or Quicken program, I'd say wait a second.
----
I also note however that for Web2.0 apps like google apps. When you go to the site you find that they have indeed given you new apps you did not ask for.
Here's something I've wondered about. It seems to me one could make a highly difficult media if media included a small write-once track somewhere. So I wonder why the manufacturers don't do this. Sure it would not have been possible to retrofit DVDs given the installed base but why not Something that was being designed from scratch with the hindsight of DVD, that is blue ray.
The write-once track would not have to contain much data and so it could be quite a sub-optimal density that might be writable with modest changes to the lower power read-laser, and not require expensive added components. Or probably even better some sort of electrically addressable (eprom-like) chip on the disk.
This would permit various modes of protection. For example, each disk could be given unique information during manufacturing. Or if that proved to be too slow for some reason, then the disk could be modified by the first player to play it.
I think this could be used either
1) produce media that if you figured out a security code for one disk, would not work on another copy of the same disk.
2) or produce media that could be locked to a single player
Not that I really want to see this, but given that this seems possible I wonder why it not done.
-----
Also does anyone know if the new crack is a "master-key" kind of crack or a "player-key" kind of crack that they can if they want de-activate.
---
The should call it Deep Shark Nine.
I think this is all about being able to go back to the "pretty" coiffured models and the sexy hijinks and away for the ragged, poorly bathed cylons.
Because it's more informative to say the way they did? The queen mary 2 has an awesome cooling source (the ocean) making it thousands of times more efficient than a fan, but I'm not bolting the EQ2 to my cpu.
On the same day they announce the "best invention since the heat pipe", someone announces a better heat pipe---the room temperature super conductor! back to back articles annihilate.
Slashdot Mirror
If TFA is right, the $399 includes Leopard.
TFA is wrong. they sell it as a $150 install add on, or you can do it yourself for $125.And, as I keep pointing out whenever I hear this "bundling is great when Apple does it" argument: the whole point is I don't want half of the crap that a mac makes me pay for, anyways.
Well this comes down to philosophy. On most mac's i've owned there's been some feature I did not use. e.g. PC card, or a scsi port or bluetooth. that's true.But what I have noticed is too things. First, developers can target more fully featured software because they can assume high level features will be installed. For example, who can foreget the old nightmare days if configuring soundcards or interupts on PCs and the difficulty of finding software that worked with your card. Macs all had (somewhat) high end sound cards from very early days and the driver's for them in the OS distro. So developers could assume they existed.
As a result even though I might not actually need some cheerful toon in some piece of software I bought, the developer just threw it in because they could have no fear it would work.
As a result, I actually tend to use the extras mac includes more often simply because software I buy happens for one purpose takes advantage of them.
The other thing I notice is that while I might not have used firewire on the first mac I bought I definitely started using it on later macs. And bought firewire disks. But then I noticed that my new hardware was backwards compatible with my old macs.
nice... this meant my macs had longer service lifetime because I was not going and trying to find comaptiblilty extensions and drivers. the old macs had them.
In the long run, specing at the high end and getting bundles that are quite cheap for what they include, seems to pay off even if you don't use all the features right away.
the only place where ala-carte specing seems to really pay off is on racks of servers or fleets of comuters (for say an office). There dropping something you know you won't need can save a few dollars.
the computer this compares to is the imac not the powermac. on that basis:
faster CPU: 1.8-2 Ghz versus 2.2 Hhz
more memory in base model: 1Gb versus 2
bigger hard drive in base mode: 80gb versus 200gb
I note that places like mac-mall already slightly discount the price of macs and give memory upgrades so the memory comparison is irrelevant.
what you give up:
size: the mac is teeny weenie. this thing is a full sized box
quiet: this is not really known, but it's a fair guess that you don't get a quiet fan on a budget machine.
other costly items:
software: buy a copy of leopard $125
other missing: bluetooth and wifi. not clear on GB ethernet or firewire.
thus this thing is not very welcome in the living room, nor even on your desktop. since it will go under the desk this means lots of coords and down on your knees crawling under the desk.
The main drawback is no software update. which is of course what you really are paying for when you buy the OS. having all your apple apps staying secure automatically is peace of mind. Their website says that software update will occasionaly be unsafe to use. One can bet this will quickly become defacto true.
other things: no apple support. this is really good service. if you have computer problems apple is very good to you.
$399 + 125, does not really seem like much of a bargain.
conversely this sort of shows that the "apple tax" may be a myth.
To what extend does this contain real physics as opposed to "game" physics. Cuda maps to linear algebra fairly well but most phyics is second order (either algebraically or as differential equations). Are they actually trying to implement those or are they just making things that "look right" but really don't obey physics.
I recall that in the original Toy Story there is only one place they used "real physics". When the jump rope is thrown off the balcony (for the army men to descend), they used real physics to model it's tangled fall. But thye later sent it was not a good idea to use the real physics. Not only was it harder but it didn't really look right and could not be easily tweaked. So all the rest is pretend physics.
7 seconds! ha!. I knew minutes ago you would post a reply to this. Prove me wrong. I dare you. (I knew that too)
Were talking budget. not ultra portable. the comparison point is therefore a macbook not an air.
good luck with your Suse system when you need to run MS Office for compatibility reasons, or Photoshop or basically any app found in the bussiness world.
If you are a student, then yeah, time have no value, to use suse.
I use Linux too. But I use it on my servers and the laptops that have to work with servers. but I don't use it on my bussiness or personal laptops.
The question was about "budget" laptop. What people fail to figure when asking that question is how much of the bugdet includes the time they have to waste configuring it or delousing it.
In my experience, if youre not using a mac either
1) your time has no value or y
2) you have some specific reason you need to use another OS.
2b) you have some specific hardware issue
3) you are deploying a fleet of these where cost per unit matters and sysadmin can be pooled.
That's not snobbery, it's just that saving $200 on a laptop means nothing to most people for whom time is money or a lost report is worth more than $200.
If you can use the nice mac-apps as well, then figure those in the purchase.
The fonts in mac Leopard have gone from being pure shades of grey or pigment to polychomatic blends. Your eye reads them as a single color but the blend has a much less jagged appearance.
You can see an example here
Standing across the room and looking at the blow ups on that page I linked to two things are apparent. 1) you can't see the colors and 2) the color one looks more uniform (look at the upper part of the C) and more bold (look at the leg and curve of the R).
My guess is this. You can have more bold if you use colors because if two letters are adjacent in grey then a dark grey bold would bleed together but on these letters red is on the left and blue on the right so dark red and dark blue still have a contrast.
In the eye the ganglia are set up to sharpen edges of contrasting regions. So my guess is that this principle works for the cones as well as the rods meaning that the contrast between the red and blue separation is enhanced even if they have the same grey level.
While you joke about red on yellow, I personally use a three color font system that is brown stokes infilled with a pale orange sitting on a white background. It's very legible as you can see in this example here
Getting a dose of drugs reduces the craving...for a while. Addicts are more relaxed than I am after their dose of heroin
I note that Windows and Mac can run firefox too. The ONLY reason that ubuntu won is because it can't run Safari, or IE.
My kid's pretend Leap-frog computer also can't run a browser or even connect to the internet. Clearly it is much safer than ubuntu.
More to the point, what you can't measure here is the real world vulnerability. I cringe at keeping my Linux machines up-to-date and protected. I rely on firewalls not themachines. With the machines, which are production machines, it's huge roll of the dice to try to apply a patch and descend into dependency hell and discover over the next week which parts of your production got broken and which need compat libs and so on. With my fleet of macs, I don't hesistate to software update (well actually, unless the vulnerability is rampant I wait a week cause even apple screws the pooch. But just a week, and then you know it's safe.)
SO in the real world macs are highly patched. MS can be and it's only a wee bit harder. (And when they fuck up (SP1) they go big, but it's mainly a function of your hardware.) Linux requires real expertise and knowledge of how your specific magic mixture of packages will be affected.
Ownership (no pun) was the key to understanding this. I real contest would have let the winner (the first to hack in) keep one of the computers they did not break. The contest doesn't measure much when the competitors target the one they want to win: the sexiest machine so they attack it.
Instead if they had a choice they would attack the weakest machine and you'd see people voting with their feet as to which machine was the weakest. An actually measurement.
instead you got a beauty contest. Which apple apparently won.
Just tired it. They have a guest page with pre-loaded photos for you to "edit". this ain't photoshop. this is "picassa" or "iphoto" in terms of what you can do to a photo. change the exposure, white balance, rotator... yawn.
it's slow even on a fast connection. the pictures are grainy when you are editing them. and it basically is painful.
What were they thinking? I guess it is excellent for a web app photo editor. Much better than what you get on say kodak photo or flickr. But crap why bother when you can use picassa or iphoto then upload.
a total steaming turd.
So I wonder if this will be some high level granularity or some true kernel level modularity like Apples quasi-mach kernel. Or even go all the way to a Objective-C message passing interface at the code level.
It's interesting to note that Apple's OS is ultra-modular at the lowest levels but is sold monolithically. Apple has always done well by specing out it's hardware and software at a maximum consistent level for every machine. Thus developers could assume that firewire exists or this or that OS feature exists. etc...
awful web page.
Rubbish.
this sort of impossibility twaddle is easily discredited. For example, tall buildings or arched/suspended bridges could not be erected without a scaffold or crane. But once erected those are removed. Just because there is no evidence to be found that they were there does not mean the buildings sprung into existence fully formed.
Same with sophisticated organisms.
Recently Behe's claim that the flagella motor protein could not have evolved because it's inoperable without one of it's many parts and thus has no function was shown to be wrong. SPikes used by some bacteria to penetrate others turn out to be almost identical to the motor protein assembly but with a few proteins removed. it's not a motor it's a syringe.
Bombadier beetle.
Oxidative enzymes and fizzy action are good ways to digest something in your mouth cavity. It would be no surprise if the bombadier's enzymes were developed for digestion and then later recruited for defense. Many animals regurgitate or spray digestive juices as defensive or offensive weapons. Even single celled organisms secrete highly indesructable proteases to destroy the competition. Others, like the Spike bearing ones have cannons they can shoot this from. If single celled organisms can evolve this its not a stretch to imagine a beetle pulling it off.
Giraffe.
Many animals, like diving douplhins, seals, whales pull off similar stunts at orders of magnitude greater pressure differentials. Thus not only had such mechanisms evolved while we were all sea-bred creatures, and vestigal mechanisms potentialially latent in our DNA, but the specific machanism in Giraffes is not the only way to skin the pressure cat. For example, airplane pilots who work at High-Gs know that clenching muscles can prevent vaso-dialiation consequently fainting. It's not hard to imagine that early long necked creatures could survive without this adaptation, and the means to re-evolve it was possible in DNA
Woodpeckers:
this one can be dismissed. There are lots of birds that eat tree bugs by whatever means they can dig them out. trees come in all denisities. You don't need to evolve to be a wood pecker in one go.
Rapid Canyon formation.
I happen to live on the base of a caldera. My house is perched 200 feet over a straight drop to the steep walled canyon bottom. This was carved by a combination of massive floods and slow erosion. Simmilar examples abound around the area. But the origin of the massive floods is well known too. The caldera would periodically block it's outflows and then fill with water. when these dams burst torential fllods would scour the soft volcanic ash and aleufial sands into canons that would harden to rock. Similar stories can be said about the hells canyon area.
I've seen it happen in a small way in my own life time when forest fires glazed the mountain soils turning run-off trickles into 40 mile per hour flash floods digging 10 foot channels.
You really need to not assume the first silliness someone pours in your brain is the truth.
Rubbish.
this sort of impossibility twaddle is easily discredited. For example, tall buildings or arched/suspended bridges could not be erected without a scaffold or crane. But once erected those are removed. Just because there is no evidence to be found that they were there does not mean the buildings sprung into existence fully formed.
Same with sophisticated organisms.
Recently Behe's claim that the flagella motor protein could not have evolved because it's inoperable without one of it's many parts and thus has no function was shown to be wrong. SPikes used by some bacteria to penetrate others turn out to be almost identical to the motor protein assembly but with a few proteins removed. it's not a motor it's a syringe.
The first responder to your post got it right I think.
It was created around the time Adam was riding his dinosaur.
Uh they were destroying drives with e-mail from 2005. No way was this an accident.
It's been said the evolution of all non-unix applications expand until they can do e-mail.
In this case let's look at the capabilities of the app in question. To actually function it needs an internet enabled application, capable of displaying text, images, hypertext, and acting on clicks to links by fetching new pages. It maintains a backward forward history. Permits bookmarks and drag and drop weblocs. It plays music, and video. It can gather feeds and display them.
Wait which app was describing? Safari or Itunes?
The point is they are all the same. I'd bet that in some debug mode, itunes is safari. The only substantial difference between itunes and safari is that Itunes permenantly stores the music, can stream music, and can burn/convert music.
SO essentially safari is within itunes entirely. It would not surprise me if there was not already some secret debug mode preference setting that exposed a complete set of browser window controlls instead of only using the itms URL.
on windows rather than a mac, the situation is probably even more extreme since while on a mac those simmilarities could be factored out either to the OS or to libraries that come with the OS, on windows Apple reimplements the entire webkit/quicktime ecosystem rather than using the Windows navtive functionality.
----
That said I would agree that if we were talking about different applications that were not so coupled then I could see why this would be verging on bundling. For example, If i updated itunes and it also installed a Word processor or Quicken program, I'd say wait a second.
----
I also note however that for Web2.0 apps like google apps. When you go to the site you find that they have indeed given you new apps you did not ask for.
Here's something I've wondered about. It seems to me one could make a highly difficult media if media included a small write-once track somewhere. So I wonder why the manufacturers don't do this. Sure it would not have been possible to retrofit DVDs given the installed base but why not Something that was being designed from scratch with the hindsight of DVD, that is blue ray. The write-once track would not have to contain much data and so it could be quite a sub-optimal density that might be writable with modest changes to the lower power read-laser, and not require expensive added components. Or probably even better some sort of electrically addressable (eprom-like) chip on the disk. This would permit various modes of protection. For example, each disk could be given unique information during manufacturing. Or if that proved to be too slow for some reason, then the disk could be modified by the first player to play it. I think this could be used either 1) produce media that if you figured out a security code for one disk, would not work on another copy of the same disk. 2) or produce media that could be locked to a single player Not that I really want to see this, but given that this seems possible I wonder why it not done. ----- Also does anyone know if the new crack is a "master-key" kind of crack or a "player-key" kind of crack that they can if they want de-activate. ---
The should call it Deep Shark Nine. I think this is all about being able to go back to the "pretty" coiffured models and the sexy hijinks and away for the ragged, poorly bathed cylons.
Because it's more informative to say the way they did? The queen mary 2 has an awesome cooling source (the ocean) making it thousands of times more efficient than a fan, but I'm not bolting the EQ2 to my cpu.
On the same day they announce the "best invention since the heat pipe", someone announces a better heat pipe---the room temperature super conductor! back to back articles annihilate.