Bug fixes have been free for some time. That's what 10.1.x was. This is completely consistant with Apple's Numbering/Release methods. Consider:
System 7. 7.0.1 was free bug fix. System 7.1 was another release. System 7.5 was a relase, but 7.5.1 - 7.5.5 were free updates. System 7.6 was a pay version, but 7.6.1 was a free update.
MacOS 8, 8.1, 8.5, 8.6 were all sold, while 8.0.1, 8.5.1, 8.6.1 were are free updates. MacOS 9 and 9.1 were sold (9.2 is included with 10) and 9.0.1 was a free update.
When X came out, 10.0 was updated through 10.0.4. 10.1 was updated to 10.1.5. This is the way Apple has been doing it for years.
Microsoft does it, too. We paid for Win2k (NT 5), and we paid for XP (NT 5.1). Windows 3.1 -> Win 3.11 was a paid upgrade.
The only issues I have are the poor fools (myself included) that bought MacOS X beta (~$40), then MacOS X (~$130) then the 10.1 upgrade (~$10 shipping) and now 10.2 is a kick in the teeth.
There's always a bottleneck somewhere. It's been the drives, the bus, the expansion slots, the network, the ram...
Our biggest issue right now (in my mind, anyway) is physical media. Sure, ATA 133 is burstable to 133, but who actually thinks they'll get 133 for any length of time. If you Cause Win98 to hang at the End Task screen, the buffer on the drive might fill up and you could get maybe a half-second of 133.
The only way to get great speeds out of media is RAID striping or other such technologies.
Don't know if the cluster they have set up uses much (decentralized) storage, but the network has got to be huge.
Curved back seats so the passengers can talk more easily
Centered drivers for more even weight distribution
Central AC/heating systems
Trunks underneath the passenger compartment
Modular car design - pop in a trunk or a backseat, whichever you need.
There could even be a huge potential market for body rental. As mentioned, instead of renting a pickup, just make your vehicle a pickup... rent the sportscar for that date or the full-size sedan for the business trip. The van for your vacation, or the pickup for your new furniture.
Mac OS X is not going by any means going to ever hold a huge percentage of desktop and server systems.
Whether it happens or not, don't be so sure as to say "never". Plenty of people said we would never have 1000 Mhz processors, and that we would never need more than 16MB of RAM. Xerox execs once said business users would never use something called a "mouse".
There have been thousands of nevers. In 1901, Wilbur Wright said "Man will never fly in a thousand years."
Now, again, I'm not saying that Apple is poised to take over a massive market share. But with their BSD underpinnings, their easy-to-use software, and their increasing compatibility with Windows, Apple could do very well. Jaguar is supposed to be able to natively browse Windows Workgroups/Domains and establish Windows VPN sessions. Now if only Microsoft made Access for Mac, I would be set.
Free unices, inexpensive, user-supported, fast, stable, and powerful as they can be, are still missing the one thing that draws people to Macintosh, and has for years: A comfortable, consistant interface to do everything in.
Just as a minor sidenote: that's MacOS X 10.0 and MacOS X 10.1
The X can be interpreted as a letter or a Roman Numeral (meant as a numeral, however), but the version numbers didn't reset. OS X is v10.x, just as Windows XP is NT 5.1
If IP becomes a utility - then Customs will probably gain control over a huge quantity of international bandwidth...
Public Utility has one very negative effect: Incompleteness. Companies (usually) attempt to reduce the number of workers/amount of work by improving the reliability and self-healing nature of their systems. Public works are interested in providing the service, but also continuing to provide jobs. Take the Dept. of Transportation...
The DOT is constantly repairing, replacing, reconstructing roads. In high-traffic areas, they try to do a very good job and ensure that the road lasts for some time (you don't like to tie up huge numbers of people with construction). In lower traffic areas, the roads are given far less care during building (I do not expect secondary roads to receive the same amount of maintenance/care as primary roads). If more effort was taken during building, the secondary roads would last much longer, age better, and ultimately be a much better investment. But low-maintenance roads don't require as many workers. They don't spend the budget, ensuring you will get the same amount of money next year (I won't even start on that travesty of good sense).
In short, public works provide decent service, but they sacrifice quality of continuum... Fiber wouldn't be run when copper would do... Sure an OC-3 is slower, but the equipment is cheaper, and if we buy several of them, we will eventually have the same bandwidth.
Spending less money each year and more money overall may be fine for buying a new car, but not for buying a new Internet.
Not quite. The second has been cleaned up some. The contrast and levels appear to have been played with to give a better image. You'll also notice some blurring next to "Oslo" on the first image, and it is Photoshopped out in the second, but there are still the telltale signs - the color difference in the casing around the bottom right of "Oslo".
Energy consumption can be dealt with in terms of nuclear propulsion. We've done it before in space - not sure the ramifications of using it in near-earth orbit, though.
I know that a large quantity of what's up there has solar power - I'm not versed well enough to know if we can easily convert solar power into movement (I imagine we can, though). If solar could be used it would cut huge amounts of money off the project. Of course, it the Debris Collection Satellite might have to sit and charge for a while to be prepared to chase debris.
Right now we track much of our orbital debris with radar, but we lose decent resolution around 10 cm. Tracking from a satellite could be much better, as we don't have to account for weather and variables, like birds (hopefully;). This would allow us to determine what's up there.
The hard part is getting everyone to tell whoever is doing the cleanup what needs to stay up there. Multiple countries, companies, all would have to either provide the location of their equipment to not have it damaged/destroyed, or make a massive effort to have it all change orbit so we could clear an orbit at a time.
I like the theorum of throwing things back into the atmosphere, but I think it would be better to collect it, say, at the ISS, and attempt some sort of salvage. There is millions of dollars in technology floating around up there unused, so why not save on launch costs if some of it can be reclaimed?
Of course, collecting technology with the untent to re-use it would be even more expensive...
What's orbiting in our near-Earth space environment? Orbital debris in the near-Earth space environment is made up of micrometeoroids and man-made debris. The man-made debris or space junk consists mainly of fragmented rocket bodies and spacecraft parts created by 40 years of space exploration. These objects number in the millions and orbit the earth at hypervelocities averaging 10 km/s (22,000 mi/h).
From the White Sands Hypervelocity Impact Test Facility. The Orbital Debris article is the source.
My crazy thought was something akin to satellites with "butterfly nets". Even at 200m/sec, that's still a completely acheivable speed - you just have to apply energy to the problem. You have a satellite cruise out there and capture debris, coming up from behind it so as not to be damaged by high-speed impact; then drop it into the atmosphere over the ocean, where most (if not all) of it will burn up.
The satellite could use a fairly simple capture process, and could be refueled and prepared for it's next round by shuttle or at ISS.
The mirror is made of smaller mirrors - a single 100 meter mirror wouldn't be able to support it's own size and would break/warp.
would be made of 1,500 hexagonal segments and would use some of the clever computer techniques - active and adaptive optics - that further improve resolution.
The larger an object is in orbit, the more likely it is to be damaged by random chance and debris. We really need to clean up earth orbits before we start putting more stuff up there.
Should we have more space-based telescopes? Absolutely. But for now, it's much cheaper and safer to have large telescopes down here, even if they do have to account for atmospheric distortion.
Slashdot Mirror
Bug fixes have been free for some time. That's what 10.1.x was. This is completely consistant with Apple's Numbering/Release methods. Consider:
System 7. 7.0.1 was free bug fix. System 7.1 was another release. System 7.5 was a relase, but 7.5.1 - 7.5.5 were free updates. System 7.6 was a pay version, but 7.6.1 was a free update.
MacOS 8, 8.1, 8.5, 8.6 were all sold, while 8.0.1, 8.5.1, 8.6.1 were are free updates. MacOS 9 and 9.1 were sold (9.2 is included with 10) and 9.0.1 was a free update.
When X came out, 10.0 was updated through 10.0.4. 10.1 was updated to 10.1.5. This is the way Apple has been doing it for years.
Microsoft does it, too. We paid for Win2k (NT 5), and we paid for XP (NT 5.1). Windows 3.1 -> Win 3.11 was a paid upgrade.
The only issues I have are the poor fools (myself included) that bought MacOS X beta (~$40), then MacOS X (~$130) then the 10.1 upgrade (~$10 shipping) and now 10.2 is a kick in the teeth.
With the raw graphics processing power of the PlayStation 2 and the availability of PS2/Linux, I wonder if they have any plan to add 'em in...
There's always a bottleneck somewhere. It's been the drives, the bus, the expansion slots, the network, the ram...
Our biggest issue right now (in my mind, anyway) is physical media. Sure, ATA 133 is burstable to 133, but who actually thinks they'll get 133 for any length of time. If you Cause Win98 to hang at the End Task screen, the buffer on the drive might fill up and you could get maybe a half-second of 133.
The only way to get great speeds out of media is RAID striping or other such technologies.
Don't know if the cluster they have set up uses much (decentralized) storage, but the network has got to be huge.
Maybe they use channel bonding? ;)
Think of it - everything can be changed.
There could even be a huge potential market for body rental. As mentioned, instead of renting a pickup, just make your vehicle a pickup... rent the sportscar for that date or the full-size sedan for the business trip. The van for your vacation, or the pickup for your new furniture.
--
Can't talk anymore... Too busy scheming...
Better than people grasping for FP with:
FP!!!!
FP, I think!
Haha - FP!!!!
Haven't seen the new Suburban commercials?
Suburban's been around since 1935 - a testament to the "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" mentality.
Fortunately, God has come forward with "prior art" on the carbon atom, but declined to testify, citing the immediate death of any present.
But Linux advocates generally don't say: "Come to Linux. It just works."
Whether it happens or not, don't be so sure as to say "never". Plenty of people said we would never have 1000 Mhz processors, and that we would never need more than 16MB of RAM. Xerox execs once said business users would never use something called a "mouse".
There have been thousands of nevers. In 1901, Wilbur Wright said "Man will never fly in a thousand years."
Now, again, I'm not saying that Apple is poised to take over a massive market share. But with their BSD underpinnings, their easy-to-use software, and their increasing compatibility with Windows, Apple could do very well. Jaguar is supposed to be able to natively browse Windows Workgroups/Domains and establish Windows VPN sessions. Now if only Microsoft made Access for Mac, I would be set.
Free unices, inexpensive, user-supported, fast, stable, and powerful as they can be, are still missing the one thing that draws people to Macintosh, and has for years: A comfortable, consistant interface to do everything in.
Just as a minor sidenote: that's MacOS X 10.0 and MacOS X 10.1
The X can be interpreted as a letter or a Roman Numeral (meant as a numeral, however), but the version numbers didn't reset. OS X is v10.x, just as Windows XP is NT 5.1
--
Not trying to be rude, just informative.
Maybe I am missing something, but if Office v.X is a Carbon app, it should work in 9. That is the point of Carbon...
Classic is OS 9.2-, Carbon is OS 9/X, Cocoa is OS X.
Can you toss out a source out so I can catch up on some reading?
If IP becomes a utility - then Customs will probably gain control over a huge quantity of international bandwidth...
Public Utility has one very negative effect: Incompleteness. Companies (usually) attempt to reduce the number of workers/amount of work by improving the reliability and self-healing nature of their systems. Public works are interested in providing the service, but also continuing to provide jobs. Take the Dept. of Transportation...
The DOT is constantly repairing, replacing, reconstructing roads. In high-traffic areas, they try to do a very good job and ensure that the road lasts for some time (you don't like to tie up huge numbers of people with construction). In lower traffic areas, the roads are given far less care during building (I do not expect secondary roads to receive the same amount of maintenance/care as primary roads). If more effort was taken during building, the secondary roads would last much longer, age better, and ultimately be a much better investment. But low-maintenance roads don't require as many workers. They don't spend the budget, ensuring you will get the same amount of money next year (I won't even start on that travesty of good sense).
In short, public works provide decent service, but they sacrifice quality of continuum... Fiber wouldn't be run when copper would do... Sure an OC-3 is slower, but the equipment is cheaper, and if we buy several of them, we will eventually have the same bandwidth.
Spending less money each year and more money overall may be fine for buying a new car, but not for buying a new Internet.
Dammit - gotta wake up before posting.
Not quite. The second has been cleaned up some. The contrast and levels appear to have been played with to give a better image. You'll also notice some blurring next to "Oslo" on the first image, and it is Photoshopped out in the second, but there are still the telltale signs - the color difference in the casing around the bottom right of "Oslo".
I wonder what it used to say.
<ul>?
In our world of Microsoft Word formatted documents, I think the underline in painfully overused. Bold, italic... These are the tools of emphasis.
--
Many times I've wondered how much there is to know.
Energy consumption can be dealt with in terms of nuclear propulsion. We've done it before in space - not sure the ramifications of using it in near-earth orbit, though.
I know that a large quantity of what's up there has solar power - I'm not versed well enough to know if we can easily convert solar power into movement (I imagine we can, though). If solar could be used it would cut huge amounts of money off the project. Of course, it the Debris Collection Satellite might have to sit and charge for a while to be prepared to chase debris.
Right now we track much of our orbital debris with radar, but we lose decent resolution around 10 cm. Tracking from a satellite could be much better, as we don't have to account for weather and variables, like birds (hopefully ;). This would allow us to determine what's up there.
The hard part is getting everyone to tell whoever is doing the cleanup what needs to stay up there. Multiple countries, companies, all would have to either provide the location of their equipment to not have it damaged/destroyed, or make a massive effort to have it all change orbit so we could clear an orbit at a time.
I like the theorum of throwing things back into the atmosphere, but I think it would be better to collect it, say, at the ISS, and attempt some sort of salvage. There is millions of dollars in technology floating around up there unused, so why not save on launch costs if some of it can be reclaimed?
Of course, collecting technology with the untent to re-use it would be even more expensive...
--
Curiouser and Curiouser...
I believe you have my stapler.
Umm, yeahhhhhh...
3dfx tried this before they went under. They made a few really powerful cards. They molex connectors on the card to power the fans.
I would expect much greater things from ATI. If the power/price combo is right, nVidia may have to consider the dual as well.
Sorry about that. Here is a Funcitonal Link.
Notes from NASA:
What's orbiting in our near-Earth space environment?
Orbital debris in the near-Earth space environment is made up of micrometeoroids and man-made debris. The man-made debris or space junk consists mainly of fragmented rocket bodies and spacecraft parts created by 40 years of space exploration. These objects number in the millions and orbit the earth at hypervelocities averaging 10 km/s (22,000 mi/h).
From the White Sands Hypervelocity Impact Test Facility. The Orbital Debris article is the source.
So maybe I did oversimplify.
Nice system
Abit VP6 motherboard with dual 1.0GHz Pentium 3 processors
1 GB of PC133 SDRAM
GeForce 256
1x20GB Maxtor boot drive plus 2x40GB Maxtor storage drives in RAID 1, all hot-swappable
CD-ROM, Sound, & Network
Here's a picture of the completed box.
My crazy thought was something akin to satellites with "butterfly nets". Even at 200m/sec, that's still a completely acheivable speed - you just have to apply energy to the problem. You have a satellite cruise out there and capture debris, coming up from behind it so as not to be damaged by high-speed impact; then drop it into the atmosphere over the ocean, where most (if not all) of it will burn up.
The satellite could use a fairly simple capture process, and could be refueled and prepared for it's next round by shuttle or at ISS.
But maybe I'm oversimplifying.
The mirror is made of smaller mirrors - a single 100 meter mirror wouldn't be able to support it's own size and would break/warp.
The larger an object is in orbit, the more likely it is to be damaged by random chance and debris. We really need to clean up earth orbits before we start putting more stuff up there.
Should we have more space-based telescopes? Absolutely. But for now, it's much cheaper and safer to have large telescopes down here, even if they do have to account for atmospheric distortion.