The real proof is too hard to explain in words, but by fiddling with pictures you should be able to show that unless your shape has curved sides, you can always find some distance across it that is less than the maximum distance across the corresponding hole.
You're mixing up two definitions of diameter here. In general English usage, the diameter is measured on a line that goes trough the centre. But in that case, the diameter of an equiliteral triangle would be its altitude, which clearly doesn't have much to do with our manhole problem. What we need here is the generalised diameter, which is the greatest distance between any two points on the border of the shape. So you're imprecise when you say "find some distance across", since that distance wouldn't necessarily be a diameter. What you actually wanted to say is that polygons don't have a constant diameter. Proving this is hard to explain in a few words indeed. However, you didn't want to prove that. You only wanted to prove that the assumption that a shape can be inscribed inside a cirle with the same diameter is wrong. You showed a perfectly good counterexample to that assumption, so you're already done! Only thing you forgot is define diameter first.
Believe it or not, some of us actually buy music instead of download it from filesharing services.
Why wouldn't I believe that? I was the one who said it would not be a good idea to use an iPod (or similar) as primary storage of your music collection and that it would be better to also have it on CDs. I know that many people disagree and like to have all their data on HDs, because nowadays they're so cheap and big and hardly ever fail. I still don't like the idea, though, because if the HD fails (or both HDs in case you mirrored your data at least), you lose a lot. So, yes, I assume you don't have a 'backup rip', I find it nicer to have the backup on another CD. I wouldn't really consider files with lossy compression real backups.
What's more, I listen to a lot of music from 'net labels', which you couldn't even buy on CD if you wanted. Many of these files are.ogg and.mp3, but that doesn't mean thye were aquired illegally.
Anyway, all I said in the section you quoted was that MP3-players are not meant to store your entire music collection, and you obviously agree, so that's fine. (As the poster who wrote the first reply to my comment pointed out, it could be nice if portable players could hold a copy of your entire collection, for the sake of always having it at hand. But with reasonably fast net access becoming more and more ubiquitous [if that's how you spell it], hardly anyone will want to actually physically carry tens or even hundreds of gigabytes around all the time once those drives are small and power efficient enough.)
It is amazing how fast I filled up my own iPod with 5 Gigs of sound.
That's nothing remarkable, it's got FireWire, it's meant to be filled up fast, see? The iPod it meant to be a peripheral for your Mac/PC, one on which you put music for your next week in the office or your vacation. When you're back, you can fill it with something else. It's not meant to store your entire music collection; it would be silly to do that, because you could loose your entire collection after dropping it on the floor just once, or if it accidentially comes near a strong magnet or it's stolen or... you get the idea.
On the other hand, 2 GB really isn't that big. At a reasonably high quality bit rate, it stores music for, what, 50 hours? More than enough for a weekend trip, but for a vacation of two weeks, hmm... rather give me 5 GB.
Using a technique similar to that employed in 3D movies - the speakers target each ear individually the way colored 3D glasses target each eye - 3D audio promises to deliver 360 directional sound. It does this by mimicking how the ears distingish sound to create that fore to aft perception.
This is a superb comparison, I've been looking for years for such an analogy. Technology that simulates surround sound in a stereo setup, like this, works about as good as coloured glasses work for viewing stereoscopic colour footage: you get an idea of the desired effect, but it's way off the real thing.
Humans (and other animals as well) use several different clues to localise spatial sound, let's have a look at them: Firstly, there's the time difference: signals that are off center arrive earlier at one ear and later at the other. We can't consciously perceive such minimal time intervals, but out brain is hardwired to perceive the difference between the two signals. Electronic circuits can fake this effect, as long as the listener doesn't move eir head. Secondly, the sound is filtered by the head and the auricles, again differently for each ear if the source is off center and differently for sounds that come from different directions in general. Electronic circuits (and also microphones mounted inside artificial heads) can approximate this effect, but each individual has a different head and different ears and would require a recording tailored to em specifically for this to work perfectly. There actually is equipment that tailors spatial sounds to one headphone wearing individual after having measured eir head's characteristics with little microphones places inside eir auditory canals, near the ear drums. This works rather well, but again can't compensate for movements of the head. If you want to use speakers instead of headphones, the situation is much, much worse. And thirdly, that head movement I mentioned twice above: humans actually do that on purpose and unconsciously twist and tilt their heads around a little when localising sounds, thus making use of the slight changes in the filtering that occurs because of the head and the auricles. So far, there's no technique that takes that into account.
As you can see, that expensive new hardware that Dolby is rolling out now, the Pro Logic II Virtual Speaker encoder, absolutely cannot produce the same effect as any ordinary 4.1, 5.1 or 6.1 setup. It may spice up a movie you watch on your TV, but you wouldn't even rely on that when you're playing Quake and want to hear enemies coming from behind. And that's expensive, high end stuff. A 'surround sound simulator' in a lowly MP3 player delivers even less. I haven't tried the one mentioned above, but I guess there's no way it could make music sound 'more immersive' or '3d-like'.
What's even worse, we're talking about music here. The best way to play music back is, without the slightest doubt, exactly the way it is intended to sound, the way it was recorded onto the CD or whatever medium. All those fancy DSP functions you find in all kinds of (mediocre) stereo equipment are nothing but useless features that exist for the sole purpose to have more features than the competition; it's pure dupery. You can alter sound by adding reverb or applying weird equalisation or whatnot, but arguing this alteration would be an improvement to each and every track is very, very stupid; don't fall for that.
The three-dimensional shape you'd think of when you read 'sphere' actually is called a '2d sphere', because the surface has two dimensions (e.g. longitude and latitude). The Poincaré conjecture is about '3d spheres'. You can describe their topology and their properties in general (e.g. all points on the surface are equidistant from the centre), but you can't really explain what they _look_ like, since you can't _look_ in four dimensions and you don't have a brain suited for processing four-dimentsional visuals. You could, however, view projections of '3d spheres' (the proper term is 3-sphere, IIRC) into 3-dimensional space, or view 3-dimensional 'slices' of them. I guess these slices would be '2d spheres' in various sizes.
Like some other posters have pointed out, I don't think this can be put into plain english - I was poking fun at the thought of someone even trying!
I disagree strongly. I don't want to flame or be rude or anything, but the mere thought of a scientific subject matter which can be explained and tought to students, yet can't be put into plain english, is sureally stupid. As I pointed out above, properly used technical terms give a lot of information in few words, but that only works because they first have to be defined in a less concise language. As these definitions are semantically equivalent, you can substitute them for every occurrence of the respective terms. You can continue substituting lower level, simpler terms until your text is composed of a very basic vocabulary. For example, you could translate it to the 3500 word defining vocabulary of the Oxford dictionary, which is evidently sufficient to define the whole English language. You see, everthing can be 'put into plain English'.
Of course, a difficult subject matter would still be difficult, and there would be still many who simply couldn't understand it. But that doesn't mean that something that can be understood by most NY Times readers shouldn't be put in words most NY Times readers are familiar with (like 'squeeze' or 'sphere'), as opposed to terms like 'manifold' or 'homeomorphic'. Why should this be something to poke fun at?
It's so simple when you put it in plain english...
The 'plain English' version, despite being much longer, is not a perfect translation. It mentions 'a set of sphere-like properties', without defining which properties are included in that set.
On the other hand, 'simply connected' is both shorter and more precise, but most people don't know what it means. However, you can look up very fine definitions at Mathworld or the Wikipedia.
Now, can someone tell me what practical applications there might be of this? Or is it strictly an abstract concept?
The conjecture itself is something fairly abstract, but it's widely considered the most important unsolved problem in topology and has so far induced a long list of false claims and proofs, some of which have led to a better understanding of low-dimensional topology. Solving the problem would further increase knowledge about topology and many fields of research in mathematics, geometry, physics etc. would benefit from that.
[The Poincaré] conjecture is that every simply connected compact 3-manifold without boundary is homeomorphic to a 3-sphere.
Loosely speaking, this means that every 3-dimensional object that has a set of sphere-like properties can be stretched or squeezed until it is a 3-sphere without breaking it. Note that a 3-sphere consists of all those points in 4-dimensional space R4 that have a distance of 1 from the origin.
When the first seasons of Friends were made (how many years ago was that?), no one had DVD or HDTV in mind. I guess they used the exact same camers they've standing around in their studios for recording talk shows and news broadcasts. The series was produced for the TV (unlike X-Men, for example), so it's almost foolish to expect the quality to be any better than standard TV quality.
Then, how do you transfer your CD to MP3 player??? [in a country with EUCD legislation in place]
Most probably you'd do that the usual way, with the minor difference that this action now makes you a criminal. I suppose if you used analog line-out/line-in, you'd be okay in terms of the law.
You're saying they're a huge deal that makes Trinitrons completely unsuitable for a class of tasks for which they are actually the de-facto standard.
Wrong. I say that while Trinitrons are very fine monitors for a class of tasks (for which they are widely used indeed), it is exactly that class of tasks where their wires tend to get in the way.
Sorry, but I definitely haven't [kept noticing them]
You quoted me out of context there. I said they kept annoying me when I did a few special things (like putting indvidual pixels) and for that reason it was impossible to get used to and not notice them. Common sense suggests this would happen again and again if I used a Trinitron regularly.
But I don't think it's reasonable to tell people a typically trivial drawback is a huge problem that overides more significant advantages.
Surey, typically that drawback is trivial, but the advantages also aren't that significant. A few years ago, everyone had to have Trinitrons, all the SGI workstations came with them. And as they're rather good devices that last quite a while, they're still around. But nowadays an ordinary Iiyama VisionMaster can be just as good, in fact there are many graphics designers who think they surpass Trinitrons after having used Sony Trinitrons for years. There hardly are general differences in contrast, sharpness and overall quality between aperture grilles and shadow masks, as the avarage differences between any two models from within one group are far greater.
So, my point is: If you can have a nice monitor without annoying lines, why put up with them? The may not be a hughe problem, but they also aren't a huge blessing.
I'm just picturing you standing back a yard or two with you hand on the end of a really long brush. Exercising some really fine control I'm sure.
That's way too exaggerated. But it is common to stand back a metre from the canvas when painting a portrait, for example, so the painter can keep both the canvas and the model in focus more easily. For doing finer detail he would grip the brush handle closer to the hair, but it's also often held at its end.
I never really used the Gimp. I tried it out a few years ago, and your comparison to a fisher-price screwdriver actually describes the look-and-feel of it (back then) very well. I and everyone I know use Photoshop.
However, meanwhile I've seen quite nice artwork that was made with the Gimp, so I guess you can work with it professionally indeed. And I considered it good/. etiquette to mention a free alternative to Photoshop:-) It may not be your favourite pixel manipulator, but I think it's mature enough for serious graphics design and absolutely not software only used by clueless amateurs who don't know what they're talking about.
The lines are much smaller than a pixel, and you will not notice them after the first day. (Well, except when someone who has never used a Trinitron for more than a day posts a stupid comment about them on slashdot, and you look for them.)
Yes, of course you get used to the lines and quickly stop consciously thinking about them. You also get used to rims of spectacles in your field of view, or to having only one leg; that doesn't make it desireable, though.
So you're saying that when you're dealing with single-pixel details in Photoshop, running your monitor at resolutions Trinitron users are likely to, you don't ZOOM IN?
I zoom in when I paint single pixels, but when I check the result, as the viewer sees it, of course I don't. That's why many brushes are so long, so you can work at the distance at which your picture will be viewed. And if you do that a lot, the lines keep getting in your way, so there's no getting used to them. You definitely will keep noticing them after the first day. Maybe you'll start scrolling the relevant portions away from the lines so automatically that you don't notice it any longer, but that's as bad to me as non-flats are to you. Personal preferences are, well, personal, you see? That's no reason to address me like a clueless moron.
10 hours a day. Right. Do you expect to go blind from eyestrain this week or next?
I lied. I don't really stare at my monitor all the time, I mostly look at it in a way that's no more straining than looking out of the window.
I disagree. Games and web browsing are where the lines are most noticable.
Could you provide any reasoning to back up that claim? I agree that everyone will notice the lines in an adventure game where you spend lots of time scrutinising hardly animated scenes; but I wouldn't find them very annoying there, just as I notice how huge pixels are when you play a 1985 game on a 20" monitor, but then I forget about it as it doesn't really annoy me. On the other hand, in a fast-paced first person shooter, where you have to spot everything that moves and quickly decide wheter to shoot at it, you'd hardly notice the lines at all.
And when you're just browsing, the lines also don't really get in your way.
... and you can generally scroll the image around if you're dealing with a particular part that happens to fall under one of the guide wires.
That's what annoys me, having to scroll the image just because of the stupid line. Maybe you do that automatically after a while, without even noticing it; just as you pick up your mouse when it hits the edge of the table and re-center it. As you said, "to each his own", that's probably the smartest comment on that.
I did find them massively annoying whenever I had to use a Trinitron monitor, but I've been avoiding those for a while now. Maybe the lines were thicker two or three years ago? I guess it also depends very much on personal preferences how annoying exactly you find the lines. Other people might be annoyed much more by a screen that is not perfectly flat; a property on which I don't insist.
By the way, how much thinner as a pixel they are exactly depends on your resolution; I usually use the highest resolution available when working with graphics.
I assure you, all graphic designers who work professionally as a designer, use trinitron screens.
I assure you, a very good friend of mine works professionally as a designer (no, she even works professionally as a designer) and uses the same brand as I do, just a higher end model. Trinitrons have some very fine properties, but that doesn't mean Trinitron is the only technology that's able to achieve those properties.
Anyway, may I ask you how exactly the fact that I mentioned the gimp shows I know naught of which I speak?
Aren't those the ones with those massively annoying black lines across the picture? Advocates say you stop noticing the lines after a while, but this is definitely wrong if you deal a lot with small details or even single pixels, e.g. if you use Photoshop/Gimp, design web sites, or something like that. You keep noticing the lines, they get in your way and annoy you. Ironically, most of these applications really benefit from a superior sharpness, which Trinitron monitors allegedly have. In situations in which you'll really forget about the lines, like playing games or casual web browsing, cheaper solutions are just as acceptable.
Personally, I buy a little more expensive, higher-quality monitors (I need at least 1600x1200 pixels and stare at them 10 hours a day on average), and there are very nice non-Trinitron ones (I'm very happy with my Iiyama).
Germany is a democratic nation, which decided [...] what is acceptable (porn on TV at 23:00) and what not [...]
If you define pornpgraphy as something with the primary intent to sexually arouse people, this is true. But let's not give people a false impression. I receive 30+ German stations and watch some of them a lot, but I haven't seen people actually having sex a single time in about 15 years. They only show 'erotic films', a.k.a. 'soft porn', where actors pretend to have sex or to masturbate, but you hardly ever see primary sexual organs and you never see them in action. Maybe it's different on pay-TV.
I played the first part of the series and had a brief look at the second one. I don't know about the second, but in the first the soldiers were changed into androids for the German market. The only change in the actual game was that the blood was removed and they made a different sound when a tank drove over them. Apart from that, the descriptions in the manual (which was translated anyway) were changed. That way, they avoided landing on the index. Silly.
The same ministry liked Unreal more than Quake because you shouldn't shoot everything that moves, there are friendly creatures that help you if you let them. I heard rumours the 'Nali' were mainly introduced to make the game available in Germany.
The really bad part (for me, personally) of the story is that to about every publisher, the German and Austrian markets are the same, because the localisation is identical. This goes so far that Amazon.at is apparently Amazon.de with the last two letters changed, nothing else. As a result, Quake 3 Arena, for example, was available in all the stores, because there is no such index in Austria, but once it was sold out, you couldn't just get it from Amazon. They don't have it.
In the end, I ordered one from France. Please excuse me now, I have to put on my armure de combat, take my lance-roquettes and enter l'arena eternal.
Dvorak says, "Pixar announced that it would become an Intel shop". IIRC, Pixar didn't want to throw out Macs, but replace their old heavy SGI metal with clusters of PC boxen, saying they're powerful enough now and much cheaper. Does anyone know better/more about that?
When I read, "Apple will announce its Intel initiative by showing a transition machine that uses both the Intel and Motorola processors. [...] This will be a high- end machine optimized to run Photoshop.", I thought now he's finally gone mad. Sure, we've seen high-end workstations that have x86 procrssors on add-on boards for cross-compiling, debugging and whatnot. That was cheap David processors in Goliath machines. But putting two expensive processors in a Mac to make it even more expensive? While degrading performance at the same time, since Photoshop perfectly supports the current dual processors? He can't be seriously meaning to use both processors at once, one for the new MacOS, the other for legacy Mac applications, and both for updated applications?
And how does teaming up with Intel fit in with the anti-MS attitude?
Tell them what you need them to do by when (set reasonable expectations, not impossibilities), tell them what their assets and resources are, and then leave them the hell alone to work.
This can be horribly overdone. I once had a boss who didn't come into my office to see how things are going a single time in months. He didn't reply to e-mails most of the time, so I had to ambush him in the hallway if I needed a desicion from him, to which he usually replied 'do what you want, I'm sure you'll make it right'. The problem with that wasn't that I was unable to work on my own, but that I had the feeling that no one was interested in my output and that it didn't matter wheter I did anything right.
The software (and hardware) market is full of so many highly-qualified people [...] If they're not [happy], they can either leave or get fired, and it will be easy to replace them [...]
Are you kidding? In software development that requires highly qualified people, it is never easy to replace them. It can take months to dive into a new codebase; every day spent on grokking a new project means less constructive work done on it. Sure, you can fire employees all the time and look for cheaper ones, which you treat as lowly development machines that are worth less than the computers they work on. But don't expect them to stay so long that they even get the chance to get any productive work done.
Slashdot Mirror
What's more, I listen to a lot of music from 'net labels', which you couldn't even buy on CD if you wanted. Many of these files are
Anyway, all I said in the section you quoted was that MP3-players are not meant to store your entire music collection, and you obviously agree, so that's fine. (As the poster who wrote the first reply to my comment pointed out, it could be nice if portable players could hold a copy of your entire collection, for the sake of always having it at hand. But with reasonably fast net access becoming more and more ubiquitous [if that's how you spell it], hardly anyone will want to actually physically carry tens or even hundreds of gigabytes around all the time once those drives are small and power efficient enough.)
On the other hand, 2 GB really isn't that big. At a reasonably high quality bit rate, it stores music for, what, 50 hours? More than enough for a weekend trip, but for a vacation of two weeks, hmm... rather give me 5 GB.
Humans (and other animals as well) use several different clues to localise spatial sound, let's have a look at them: Firstly, there's the time difference: signals that are off center arrive earlier at one ear and later at the other. We can't consciously perceive such minimal time intervals, but out brain is hardwired to perceive the difference between the two signals. Electronic circuits can fake this effect, as long as the listener doesn't move eir head. Secondly, the sound is filtered by the head and the auricles, again differently for each ear if the source is off center and differently for sounds that come from different directions in general. Electronic circuits (and also microphones mounted inside artificial heads) can approximate this effect, but each individual has a different head and different ears and would require a recording tailored to em specifically for this to work perfectly. There actually is equipment that tailors spatial sounds to one headphone wearing individual after having measured eir head's characteristics with little microphones places inside eir auditory canals, near the ear drums. This works rather well, but again can't compensate for movements of the head. If you want to use speakers instead of headphones, the situation is much, much worse. And thirdly, that head movement I mentioned twice above: humans actually do that on purpose and unconsciously twist and tilt their heads around a little when localising sounds, thus making use of the slight changes in the filtering that occurs because of the head and the auricles. So far, there's no technique that takes that into account.
As you can see, that expensive new hardware that Dolby is rolling out now, the Pro Logic II Virtual Speaker encoder, absolutely cannot produce the same effect as any ordinary 4.1, 5.1 or 6.1 setup. It may spice up a movie you watch on your TV, but you wouldn't even rely on that when you're playing Quake and want to hear enemies coming from behind. And that's expensive, high end stuff. A 'surround sound simulator' in a lowly MP3 player delivers even less. I haven't tried the one mentioned above, but I guess there's no way it could make music sound 'more immersive' or '3d-like'.
What's even worse, we're talking about music here. The best way to play music back is, without the slightest doubt, exactly the way it is intended to sound, the way it was recorded onto the CD or whatever medium. All those fancy DSP functions you find in all kinds of (mediocre) stereo equipment are nothing but useless features that exist for the sole purpose to have more features than the competition; it's pure dupery. You can alter sound by adding reverb or applying weird equalisation or whatnot, but arguing this alteration would be an improvement to each and every track is very, very stupid; don't fall for that.
The three-dimensional shape you'd think of when you read 'sphere' actually is called a '2d sphere', because the surface has two dimensions (e.g. longitude and latitude). The Poincaré conjecture is about '3d spheres'. You can describe their topology and their properties in general (e.g. all points on the surface are equidistant from the centre), but you can't really explain what they _look_ like, since you can't _look_ in four dimensions and you don't have a brain suited for processing four-dimentsional visuals. You could, however, view projections of '3d spheres' (the proper term is 3-sphere, IIRC) into 3-dimensional space, or view 3-dimensional 'slices' of them. I guess these slices would be '2d spheres' in various sizes.
Of course, a difficult subject matter would still be difficult, and there would be still many who simply couldn't understand it. But that doesn't mean that something that can be understood by most NY Times readers shouldn't be put in words most NY Times readers are familiar with (like 'squeeze' or 'sphere'), as opposed to terms like 'manifold' or 'homeomorphic'. Why should this be something to poke fun at?
On the other hand, 'simply connected' is both shorter and more precise, but most people don't know what it means. However, you can look up very fine definitions at Mathworld or the Wikipedia.
When the first seasons of Friends were made (how many years ago was that?), no one had DVD or HDTV in mind. I guess they used the exact same camers they've standing around in their studios for recording talk shows and news broadcasts. The series was produced for the TV (unlike X-Men, for example), so it's almost foolish to expect the quality to be any better than standard TV quality.
So, my point is: If you can have a nice monitor without annoying lines, why put up with them? The may not be a hughe problem, but they also aren't a huge blessing.That's way too exaggerated. But it is common to stand back a metre from the canvas when painting a portrait, for example, so the painter can keep both the canvas and the model in focus more easily. For doing finer detail he would grip the brush handle closer to the hair, but it's also often held at its end.
I never really used the Gimp. I tried it out a few years ago, and your comparison to a fisher-price screwdriver actually describes the look-and-feel of it (back then) very well. I and everyone I know use Photoshop. However, meanwhile I've seen quite nice artwork that was made with the Gimp, so I guess you can work with it professionally indeed. And I considered it good /. etiquette to mention a free alternative to Photoshop :-) It may not be your favourite pixel manipulator, but I think it's mature enough for serious graphics design and absolutely not software only used by clueless amateurs who don't know what they're talking about.
And when you're just browsing, the lines also don't really get in your way. That's what annoys me, having to scroll the image just because of the stupid line. Maybe you do that automatically after a while, without even noticing it; just as you pick up your mouse when it hits the edge of the table and re-center it. As you said, "to each his own", that's probably the smartest comment on that.
I did find them massively annoying whenever I had to use a Trinitron monitor, but I've been avoiding those for a while now. Maybe the lines were thicker two or three years ago? I guess it also depends very much on personal preferences how annoying exactly you find the lines. Other people might be annoyed much more by a screen that is not perfectly flat; a property on which I don't insist.
By the way, how much thinner as a pixel they are exactly depends on your resolution; I usually use the highest resolution available when working with graphics.
Anyway, may I ask you how exactly the fact that I mentioned the gimp shows I know naught of which I speak?
Aren't those the ones with those massively annoying black lines across the picture? Advocates say you stop noticing the lines after a while, but this is definitely wrong if you deal a lot with small details or even single pixels, e.g. if you use Photoshop/Gimp, design web sites, or something like that. You keep noticing the lines, they get in your way and annoy you. Ironically, most of these applications really benefit from a superior sharpness, which Trinitron monitors allegedly have. In situations in which you'll really forget about the lines, like playing games or casual web browsing, cheaper solutions are just as acceptable.
Personally, I buy a little more expensive, higher-quality monitors (I need at least 1600x1200 pixels and stare at them 10 hours a day on average), and there are very nice non-Trinitron ones (I'm very happy with my Iiyama).
I played the first part of the series and had a brief look at the second one. I don't know about the second, but in the first the soldiers were changed into androids for the German market. The only change in the actual game was that the blood was removed and they made a different sound when a tank drove over them. Apart from that, the descriptions in the manual (which was translated anyway) were changed. That way, they avoided landing on the index. Silly.
The same ministry liked Unreal more than Quake because you shouldn't shoot everything that moves, there are friendly creatures that help you if you let them. I heard rumours the 'Nali' were mainly introduced to make the game available in Germany.
The really bad part (for me, personally) of the story is that to about every publisher, the German and Austrian markets are the same, because the localisation is identical. This goes so far that Amazon.at is apparently Amazon.de with the last two letters changed, nothing else. As a result, Quake 3 Arena, for example, was available in all the stores, because there is no such index in Austria, but once it was sold out, you couldn't just get it from Amazon. They don't have it.
In the end, I ordered one from France. Please excuse me now, I have to put on my armure de combat, take my lance-roquettes and enter l'arena eternal.
Dvorak says, "Pixar announced that it would become an Intel shop". IIRC, Pixar didn't want to throw out Macs, but replace their old heavy SGI metal with clusters of PC boxen, saying they're powerful enough now and much cheaper. Does anyone know better/more about that?
When I read, "Apple will announce its Intel initiative by showing a transition machine that uses both the Intel and Motorola processors. [...] This will be a high- end machine optimized to run Photoshop.", I thought now he's finally gone mad. Sure, we've seen high-end workstations that have x86 procrssors on add-on boards for cross-compiling, debugging and whatnot. That was cheap David processors in Goliath machines. But putting two expensive processors in a Mac to make it even more expensive? While degrading performance at the same time, since Photoshop perfectly supports the current dual processors? He can't be seriously meaning to use both processors at once, one for the new MacOS, the other for legacy Mac applications, and both for updated applications?
And how does teaming up with Intel fit in with the anti-MS attitude?