Creative are actually pretty good about supporting their soundcards under Linux (http://opensource.creative.com/) with their EMU10K1 project. I have an Audigy running in Mandrake 9.0 and it sounds pretty good (not much difference to an Audigy Platinum EX I've got running in a Windoze PC - both run through a decent amp and good speakers). All it takes is a bit of compilation (of the driver) and a change to/etc/modules.conf. I even use an Audigy in a custom "suitcase PC" running Mandrake to do the occasional disco (line up a few tracks and head for the bar:-). It has been frustrating though that it's taken *sooo* long just to get to this point though...
Furthermore, I would guess that laptops specifically cannot directly use PowerLine signalling because they run off a low voltage power supply via a transformer and rectifier (or even worse, from a signal point of view, a triac voltage chopper), and are thus not connected to the mains in any way. If you're using it for any length of time, you'd need two power connections - one for the supply and one for the network, which kinda defeats the object. Wireless wins for me too!
That's true enough for existing versions of Flash. It would not be true of any Microsoft-based version of future releases. I guess they'd sooner turn it into some ActiveX-only control and re-write the language, which would completely stuff up any future cross-browser compatibility. As far as plugins go (speaking as a webmaster), I've never minded Flash too much: it can be neat, compact and you can *reasonably* guarantee that your target audience can play it. That would be blown away the second Micro$oft got their anti-Java mitts on it - it's clear from the article that they would want it to support.NET and Windows platforms exclusively.
Absolutely. I'm sure there are other, numerous, ways of utilising the properties of "hardware" to generate something far more random than a programming algorithm could ever achieve. And this is the paradox - why, when it is so straightforward (and cheap) to get true randomness from the unstable, analogue properties of simple electronic devices, do they not feature more commonly as a basic mobo component (whither the random number generator DIMM module?), in the way that, for example, there's *always* a system clock (or at least timer) available. Instead, more effort has been invested in trying to emulate randomness with increasingly complex software-based algorithms that can never be really random precisely because they are programs.
But what about determinism? At the moment, I'm pretty sure that computers can only do things based upon instructions, and cannot (yet) simply "make stuff up" out of nowhere. I'd agree to the extent that enough processor power allows for pretty good pseudo-randomness, but it's not the same thing as a truly random event (as it is surely imprisoned by the fact that it is *still* the result of pre-programmed, and thus deterministic, behaviour).
Lets face it: current computers and humans are both as bad as each other at randomness. The fact that computers have to "calculate" randomness is a bad sign in itself, and the humans that program these computers are almost utterly incapable of perceiving true randomness anyway. I'm waiting for the day when the national lottery comes up 1,2,3,4,5 with a bonus ball of 6. Society will crumble, public enquiries will be called for and conspiracy theorists will have something to bang on about for years. I think that barring the sudden development of Quantum x86 chips (at which point randomness becomes "real" and encryption becomes pretty much unbreakable), the only real solution for decent randomness must surely be TCP/IP seeding based on Lava Lamps
I think that a number of the posts here are missing an important point about the introduction of threading in Apache 2 (note: I claim no expert knowledge in the field of threads). Whilst it may be true that Linux' process model is so efficient that threads offer only marginal performance improvements (at the potential cost of less stability, etc) the same is not true of Windows. IIS has always appeared to run much faster on Windows than Apache ever has - a major factor that might be well be the only reason that IIS is still used (after all, IIS's complete lack of security should, if all things were even, mean that no sane sysadmin would even consider running IIS as a webserver). If version 2 allows Apache to run under Windows at the same, or better, performance as IIS (which I believe it does), then this should lead to an increased take up of Apache on this platform. At the same time, given that this doesn't really impact significantly on its performance on Linux (and arguably improves its scalability in large implementations), then what's the big deal? I think for this reason alone Apache 2 should be supported and encouraged to get the "critical mass" take-up it needs to flourish.
Listening to music over a couple of soup cans tied together with string is better than MP3 encoded at 128Kbps. At this sample rate, MP3 has always been a bit naff (which is one of the reasons my 3000+ MP3s are all my own encodings from my own stuff). I always encode at 192 or VBR (variable bit-rate) with a minimum of 160Kbps using LAME, and to be honest, think it sounds pretty darn good (Ok, it doesn't quite stand up to direct comparison with CD, but then it's only one-tenth the size and way more convenient). And yes, I *do* listen through a good HiFi. So can anyone tell me a) is there really much detectable difference (in terms of audio quality) between Ogg and a well-encoded, high bitrate MP3, and b) how the file sizes really compare, when one of my average 3-4 minute MP3s weighs in at 6-8MB?
Sadly, the confusion reigns at an even deeper level. The MIME-type for Flash is, er, application/x-shockwave-flash, and the file extension of the generated Flash file (as in what the end-user gets in their Flash player) is still.swf (ShockWave Flash). Hey ho - I guess they just didn't fancy registering a new type:-)
So the RIAA has the jaw-dropping temerity to accuse Yahoo! of "self-serving interest" (isn't that what business is all about anyway?). This is from the same organisation whose press-releases appear to suggest that CDs didn't appear until the 1990s, who even suggest that "turning music into a file is great" whilst trying to stamp out the ability of the rest of us to do so, and who wrote the book on "self-serving interest". Just what version of reality are these people partaking in? It's obviously not the same as the rest of us.
I say throw the whole thing out and start from scratch. PDF or something.
Hrmph. The day they start using PDF to create web content is the day I give up and go do something else for a living. Have you ever even *looked* at raw PDF? I wouldn't want to write *that* by hand. I'm sure that, given time, a stable xHTML that actually isn't "eXtensibled" that often, coupled with decent, global support for CSS1 and 2 would fairly well rule. CSS can do great things, particular when you have to re-use the same content over widely different platforms (from PC to 2.5/3G phone). It's just a real shame that nobody can agree on what, exactly, it is they feel like supporting.
The fact that IE appears to load faster is *everything* to do with one of the reasons the DoJ took M$ to task: because IE is heavily commingled with the OS, large chunks of it are *already running* (even after a reboot), so when you "launch" it, just a few components have to start. I guess you can echieve a similar effect with NS7 with its "quick launch" installation option...
So does all this make me the only webmaster in the world who actually does consider more than just M$ browsers? Since the first spawn popped out of the fetid womb of The Beast, I've tested stuff in all available mainstream browsers. Sites designed to only work on IE (which let's face it is sadly all-too-common) should be instantly wiped of the face of the World Wide Web. I get heartily sick of the bleating hordes who claim "it's too much work" to code cross-platform: stop using all this proprietary guff and we'll all get a better browsing experience.
Slashdot Mirror
Creative are actually pretty good about supporting their soundcards under Linux (http://opensource.creative.com/) with their EMU10K1 project. I have an Audigy running in Mandrake 9.0 and it sounds pretty good (not much difference to an Audigy Platinum EX I've got running in a Windoze PC - both run through a decent amp and good speakers). All it takes is a bit of compilation (of the driver) and a change to /etc/modules.conf. I even use an Audigy in a custom "suitcase PC" running Mandrake to do the occasional disco (line up a few tracks and head for the bar :-). It has been frustrating though that it's taken *sooo* long just to get to this point though...
Furthermore, I would guess that laptops specifically cannot directly use PowerLine signalling because they run off a low voltage power supply via a transformer and rectifier (or even worse, from a signal point of view, a triac voltage chopper), and are thus not connected to the mains in any way. If you're using it for any length of time, you'd need two power connections - one for the supply and one for the network, which kinda defeats the object. Wireless wins for me too!
That's true enough for existing versions of Flash. It would not be true of any Microsoft-based version of future releases. I guess they'd sooner turn it into some ActiveX-only control and re-write the language, which would completely stuff up any future cross-browser compatibility. As far as plugins go (speaking as a webmaster), I've never minded Flash too much: it can be neat, compact and you can *reasonably* guarantee that your target audience can play it. That would be blown away the second Micro$oft got their anti-Java mitts on it - it's clear from the article that they would want it to support .NET and Windows platforms exclusively.
Absolutely. I'm sure there are other, numerous, ways of utilising the properties of "hardware" to generate something far more random than a programming algorithm could ever achieve. And this is the paradox - why, when it is so straightforward (and cheap) to get true randomness from the unstable, analogue properties of simple electronic devices, do they not feature more commonly as a basic mobo component (whither the random number generator DIMM module?), in the way that, for example, there's *always* a system clock (or at least timer) available. Instead, more effort has been invested in trying to emulate randomness with increasingly complex software-based algorithms that can never be really random precisely because they are programs.
But what about determinism? At the moment, I'm pretty sure that computers can only do things based upon instructions, and cannot (yet) simply "make stuff up" out of nowhere. I'd agree to the extent that enough processor power allows for pretty good pseudo-randomness, but it's not the same thing as a truly random event (as it is surely imprisoned by the fact that it is *still* the result of pre-programmed, and thus deterministic, behaviour).
Lets face it: current computers and humans are both as bad as each other at randomness. The fact that computers have to "calculate" randomness is a bad sign in itself, and the humans that program these computers are almost utterly incapable of perceiving true randomness anyway. I'm waiting for the day when the national lottery comes up 1,2,3,4,5 with a bonus ball of 6. Society will crumble, public enquiries will be called for and conspiracy theorists will have something to bang on about for years. I think that barring the sudden development of Quantum x86 chips (at which point randomness becomes "real" and encryption becomes pretty much unbreakable), the only real solution for decent randomness must surely be TCP/IP seeding based on Lava Lamps
I think that a number of the posts here are missing an important point about the introduction of threading in Apache 2 (note: I claim no expert knowledge in the field of threads). Whilst it may be true that Linux' process model is so efficient that threads offer only marginal performance improvements (at the potential cost of less stability, etc) the same is not true of Windows. IIS has always appeared to run much faster on Windows than Apache ever has - a major factor that might be well be the only reason that IIS is still used (after all, IIS's complete lack of security should, if all things were even, mean that no sane sysadmin would even consider running IIS as a webserver). If version 2 allows Apache to run under Windows at the same, or better, performance as IIS (which I believe it does), then this should lead to an increased take up of Apache on this platform. At the same time, given that this doesn't really impact significantly on its performance on Linux (and arguably improves its scalability in large implementations), then what's the big deal? I think for this reason alone Apache 2 should be supported and encouraged to get the "critical mass" take-up it needs to flourish.
Listening to music over a couple of soup cans tied together with string is better than MP3 encoded at 128Kbps. At this sample rate, MP3 has always been a bit naff (which is one of the reasons my 3000+ MP3s are all my own encodings from my own stuff). I always encode at 192 or VBR (variable bit-rate) with a minimum of 160Kbps using LAME, and to be honest, think it sounds pretty darn good (Ok, it doesn't quite stand up to direct comparison with CD, but then it's only one-tenth the size and way more convenient). And yes, I *do* listen through a good HiFi. So can anyone tell me a) is there really much detectable difference (in terms of audio quality) between Ogg and a well-encoded, high bitrate MP3, and b) how the file sizes really compare, when one of my average 3-4 minute MP3s weighs in at 6-8MB?
Sadly, the confusion reigns at an even deeper level. The MIME-type for Flash is, er, application/x-shockwave-flash, and the file extension of the generated Flash file (as in what the end-user gets in their Flash player) is still .swf (ShockWave Flash). Hey ho - I guess they just didn't fancy registering a new type :-)
So the RIAA has the jaw-dropping temerity to accuse Yahoo! of "self-serving interest" (isn't that what business is all about anyway?). This is from the same organisation whose press-releases appear to suggest that CDs didn't appear until the 1990s, who even suggest that "turning music into a file is great" whilst trying to stamp out the ability of the rest of us to do so, and who wrote the book on "self-serving interest". Just what version of reality are these people partaking in? It's obviously not the same as the rest of us.
I say throw the whole thing out and start from scratch. PDF or something.
Hrmph. The day they start using PDF to create web content is the day I give up and go do something else for a living. Have you ever even *looked* at raw PDF? I wouldn't want to write *that* by hand. I'm sure that, given time, a stable xHTML that actually isn't "eXtensibled" that often, coupled with decent, global support for CSS1 and 2 would fairly well rule. CSS can do great things, particular when you have to re-use the same content over widely different platforms (from PC to 2.5/3G phone). It's just a real shame that nobody can agree on what, exactly, it is they feel like supporting.I must admint that IE loads faster
The fact that IE appears to load faster is *everything* to do with one of the reasons the DoJ took M$ to task: because IE is heavily commingled with the OS, large chunks of it are *already running* (even after a reboot), so when you "launch" it, just a few components have to start. I guess you can echieve a similar effect with NS7 with its "quick launch" installation option...So does all this make me the only webmaster in the world who actually does consider more than just M$ browsers? Since the first spawn popped out of the fetid womb of The Beast, I've tested stuff in all available mainstream browsers. Sites designed to only work on IE (which let's face it is sadly all-too-common) should be instantly wiped of the face of the World Wide Web. I get heartily sick of the bleating hordes who claim "it's too much work" to code cross-platform: stop using all this proprietary guff and we'll all get a better browsing experience.