(You can put Linux or a *BSD on a Mac Mini, if you wanted too.)
Anyway, good point. Another thing they are good for is compute nodes: For the price, they have a lot of CPU/GPU processing power, so running distributed programs on them isn't a bad idea. Especially if it is during 'down-time' when you wouldn't be playing games anyway.
Not that I'd want to build a cluster out of them: You could probably build something better for about the same amount of money by picking something designed for what you want to do, but it does give upcoming geeks a chance to play with that type of setup on their own.
As long as it is not sold as being made by someone who it wasn't made by, there's nothing wrong with that. If they can make a compatable lens, there is nothing to stop them from selling it, at whatever price they can get people to buy it for.
They just can't say they are Nikon/Canon and sell it.
It is the job of the victimized party to press charges so that the perpetrators can be punished. In some cases, we define the 'victimized party' as society as a whole, so the government can press charges.
Regardless, if no one were to press charges, you can violate any law on the books without penalty. Only once charges are filed can the court start to prosecute you.
Although YouTube is legally obligated to remove infringing material when notified, some copyright holders have expressed irritation at the notion that they need to police YouTube themselves.
As opposed to the print world, or the spoken world, where... They need to find and notify the authorities of copyright infringement.
I understand the feeling that 'I shouldn't need to do this' that brings up that statement. But it has always been the copyright holder's problem to identify infractions. YouTube is no different in that regard, besides that it brings a lot of creations together in one place.
I'd say the simplest is just to make a few small holes in the cloak. If they are small enough they will be overlooked. Attach a small camera to the hole, and you've got a good chance of a wide field of view with a dust-mote sized hole.
Why should he form his own party? He's already said he favors the Libertarian party, he can just join them.
The problem is that in the USA, anyone who is not a Democrat or a Rebulican is considered a joke candidate, regardless of the issues, or their qualifications, or anything else. It doesn't matter if he forms his own or joins another: If he's not a member of the 'approved' parties, he won't get more than a handful of votes.
They are not dense. They are very intelegent, and work hard at doing their jobs.
Which is getting elected. That is what they are paid for, that is what counts.
The important part of a politician's job is gathering votes. Not ruling a country. We are supposed to only give votes to those who we think will do a good job of ruling, but the measured quantity in a politician's life is the number of votes they get.
It is not that they are not smart. It is that they have learned that applying smarts to ruling a country does not get them as many votes as applying smarts to getting votes does. I'm not sure how to change that, but that is the root problem.
Nope, Apple isn't doing it, and neither is anyone else. And they won't, not like you are describing, and here's why: Someone needs to be in charge of the memory, the disks, and all the rest. That's the whole point of the OS. Therefore, only one OS can run on a computer at a time.
You could get around that with some fancy firmware to save the state to some storage device and load it up again, but it really isn't worth it. Virtualization does a better job for most of what you would want to do: Have a base OS, and run programs on top of it that pretend to be the hardware to other OS's. Done well, you don't loose much speed, and all the programs can run at once.
And if you want full speed, just dual-boot. It's a lot simpler than the setup you describe, and the only disadvantage is that you can't leave things 'suspended' in mid-run.
Why in the heck are you trying to connect a CNC machine to an iMac? Especially when the iMacs first came out? If you wanted to connect to a Mac, the PowerMac G3 had serial ports, and was their professional machine at the time.
Oh, and I have actually connected a console cable through a USB converter. It didn't work well, but I could do what I needed.
The iMac was/is a consumer machine. USB did not make connecting consumer devieces appreaciably harder when it was introduced, and makes it much easier now.
I still have one, that gets used regularly.;) (Though it is the 'bondi-green' color instead of orange.)
They were decent computers, and the design has many nice aspects. It's biggest probablem actually is that it doesn't fit in standard laptop bags. It is also bigger and (slightly) heavier than it needs to be. Still, it was a decent experiment. In many cases it is actually more portable than a standard laptop. (It has a built-in carry handle which helps quite a bit...)
You are talking component design, more than industrial design. Industral design is how it all fits together, and what the end result looks like. Apple still has a very distictive look.
But I agree with you on the fact that Apple's previous unquieness on components wasn't truely a strength. It was on occassion when the components were truely superior, but overall they were behind as much as they were ahead, and the uniqeness had it's own disadvantages.
Actually, we can see exactly what would have happened in that case, since it had been going on: USB would have been included, but no one would ever have used it because they didn't know about it.
The iMac was not the first computer with USB. USB had been out, and standard, on PCs for years. The iMac just got USB noticed.
And there were quickly cheap third-party solutions to connect ADB and serial devices to USB ports.
(Yes, perhaps the situation has changed, but never mind. Apple only has two unique things at this point: their industrial design, and their GUI. They are competing on both with everyone else. Get over it.)
Yeah, but it's in a proprietary encrypted format which is unreadable without specialized equipment. (That has all been reverse-engineered to read the format: the original creator refuses to open their toolkit.)
Any 'math professor' that says 'suppose you want to...' to someone needs to turn in their math badge. A real mathematician knows this is all a game, and you are just playing with numbers. Anyone who thinks there is a practical reason for this stuff is an outsider. Math is to show how clever and interesting logic can be. That's the point. If they say that line, either they are reaching outside what they know, or they aren't math people at heart.
Which isn't to say your advice is bad. It's very good. It's just that in my experience anyone who is trying to tell you what problems you can solve with this isn't concentrating on the math theory. For an EE major, that's probably fine. They need the problem-solving skills that math gives them, but those can be learned separate from the theory. (Well, for most people. I fall into the camp of people who need the theory, and can work out the skills from there. I was unfortunate in college to only have engineers teaching math, after having an excellent math teacher in high school. I learned I needed the opposite advice from yours, and there wasn't anyone available to help me...)
If you read that page (as well as others on the same system which I've seen linked here) you'll notice they mention the round is cannon-launched. Sure it looks different; it has different design requirements. But it is launched by the same gun in the same fashion, and follows a largely ballistic trajetory.
A quick Google search turns up several pages of results; I'll let you decide waht is useful.
Yes, it depends on the calculations prior to firing it. But those calculations can be based on a laser targeting system, and minor course corrections can be done in mid-flight by airfoils.
If you are going to send one, it's probably better to send a more standard one, where you can reduce the radar and sonic profile. If it's night, paint it black. If it's day, put white lights on the bottom. It'll be far stealthier overall. It won't be hand-carry-able, but while this plane itself is hand-launch-able, you have to have quite a bit of equipment to run it. Might as well put that back at base, and run your UAVs from there.
Slashdot Mirror
(You can put Linux or a *BSD on a Mac Mini, if you wanted too.)
Anyway, good point. Another thing they are good for is compute nodes: For the price, they have a lot of CPU/GPU processing power, so running distributed programs on them isn't a bad idea. Especially if it is during 'down-time' when you wouldn't be playing games anyway.
Not that I'd want to build a cluster out of them: You could probably build something better for about the same amount of money by picking something designed for what you want to do, but it does give upcoming geeks a chance to play with that type of setup on their own.
So... The 'upgrade' to XP Pro costs $179.99. Tiger costs $129.00. Hmm.
I submit that every copy of OS X sold at retail is already under 'upgrade pricing'. Therefore they don't bother to label it that way.
As long as it is not sold as being made by someone who it wasn't made by, there's nothing wrong with that. If they can make a compatable lens, there is nothing to stop them from selling it, at whatever price they can get people to buy it for.
They just can't say they are Nikon/Canon and sell it.
It is the job of the victimized party to press charges so that the perpetrators can be punished. In some cases, we define the 'victimized party' as society as a whole, so the government can press charges.
Regardless, if no one were to press charges, you can violate any law on the books without penalty. Only once charges are filed can the court start to prosecute you.
As opposed to the print world, or the spoken world, where... They need to find and notify the authorities of copyright infringement.
I understand the feeling that 'I shouldn't need to do this' that brings up that statement. But it has always been the copyright holder's problem to identify infractions. YouTube is no different in that regard, besides that it brings a lot of creations together in one place.
I'd say the simplest is just to make a few small holes in the cloak. If they are small enough they will be overlooked. Attach a small camera to the hole, and you've got a good chance of a wide field of view with a dust-mote sized hole.
It needs more than one vote. It needs more than everyone I know's vote. The question is how to get that number of votes applied to the problem.
Mine is. But that is not enough.
Why should he form his own party? He's already said he favors the Libertarian party, he can just join them.
The problem is that in the USA, anyone who is not a Democrat or a Rebulican is considered a joke candidate, regardless of the issues, or their qualifications, or anything else. It doesn't matter if he forms his own or joins another: If he's not a member of the 'approved' parties, he won't get more than a handful of votes.
They are not dense. They are very intelegent, and work hard at doing their jobs.
Which is getting elected. That is what they are paid for, that is what counts.
The important part of a politician's job is gathering votes. Not ruling a country. We are supposed to only give votes to those who we think will do a good job of ruling, but the measured quantity in a politician's life is the number of votes they get.
It is not that they are not smart. It is that they have learned that applying smarts to ruling a country does not get them as many votes as applying smarts to getting votes does. I'm not sure how to change that, but that is the root problem.
Nope, Apple isn't doing it, and neither is anyone else. And they won't, not like you are describing, and here's why: Someone needs to be in charge of the memory, the disks, and all the rest. That's the whole point of the OS. Therefore, only one OS can run on a computer at a time.
You could get around that with some fancy firmware to save the state to some storage device and load it up again, but it really isn't worth it. Virtualization does a better job for most of what you would want to do: Have a base OS, and run programs on top of it that pretend to be the hardware to other OS's. Done well, you don't loose much speed, and all the programs can run at once.
And if you want full speed, just dual-boot. It's a lot simpler than the setup you describe, and the only disadvantage is that you can't leave things 'suspended' in mid-run.
Why in the heck are you trying to connect a CNC machine to an iMac? Especially when the iMacs first came out? If you wanted to connect to a Mac, the PowerMac G3 had serial ports, and was their professional machine at the time.
Oh, and I have actually connected a console cable through a USB converter. It didn't work well, but I could do what I needed.
The iMac was/is a consumer machine. USB did not make connecting consumer devieces appreaciably harder when it was introduced, and makes it much easier now.
I still have one, that gets used regularly. ;) (Though it is the 'bondi-green' color instead of orange.)
They were decent computers, and the design has many nice aspects. It's biggest probablem actually is that it doesn't fit in standard laptop bags. It is also bigger and (slightly) heavier than it needs to be. Still, it was a decent experiment. In many cases it is actually more portable than a standard laptop. (It has a built-in carry handle which helps quite a bit...)
You are talking component design, more than industrial design. Industral design is how it all fits together, and what the end result looks like. Apple still has a very distictive look.
But I agree with you on the fact that Apple's previous unquieness on components wasn't truely a strength. It was on occassion when the components were truely superior, but overall they were behind as much as they were ahead, and the uniqeness had it's own disadvantages.
Actually, we can see exactly what would have happened in that case, since it had been going on: USB would have been included, but no one would ever have used it because they didn't know about it.
The iMac was not the first computer with USB. USB had been out, and standard, on PCs for years. The iMac just got USB noticed.
And there were quickly cheap third-party solutions to connect ADB and serial devices to USB ports.
Apple tried that, mid-90's.
It didn't help. And it hurt Apple's sales.
(Yes, perhaps the situation has changed, but never mind. Apple only has two unique things at this point: their industrial design, and their GUI. They are competing on both with everyone else. Get over it.)
I meant Slashdot article, not the article the Slashdot article refers to... (Since, after all, we all know no one reads those, right? ;) )
Anyway, thanks for the correction.
The article means mass, not weight: A star's weight is effetively zero, as it is in a microgravity environment. It's mass is trillions of kilograms.
Sorry, just needed to be pendantic for a moment.
Yeah, but it's in a proprietary encrypted format which is unreadable without specialized equipment. (That has all been reverse-engineered to read the format: the original creator refuses to open their toolkit.)
It's the width of the tubes that matter, since the current is all the same speed inside them. ;)
On Mars, that'd get you a real killer tan...
Any 'math professor' that says 'suppose you want to...' to someone needs to turn in their math badge. A real mathematician knows this is all a game, and you are just playing with numbers. Anyone who thinks there is a practical reason for this stuff is an outsider. Math is to show how clever and interesting logic can be. That's the point. If they say that line, either they are reaching outside what they know, or they aren't math people at heart.
Which isn't to say your advice is bad. It's very good. It's just that in my experience anyone who is trying to tell you what problems you can solve with this isn't concentrating on the math theory. For an EE major, that's probably fine. They need the problem-solving skills that math gives them, but those can be learned separate from the theory. (Well, for most people. I fall into the camp of people who need the theory, and can work out the skills from there. I was unfortunate in college to only have engineers teaching math, after having an excellent math teacher in high school. I learned I needed the opposite advice from yours, and there wasn't anyone available to help me...)
In this case, probably to keep you from buying the book.
If you read that page (as well as others on the same system which I've seen linked here) you'll notice they mention the round is cannon-launched. Sure it looks different; it has different design requirements. But it is launched by the same gun in the same fashion, and follows a largely ballistic trajetory.
A quick Google search turns up several pages of results; I'll let you decide waht is useful.
Yes, it depends on the calculations prior to firing it. But those calculations can be based on a laser targeting system, and minor course corrections can be done in mid-flight by airfoils.
If you are going to send one, it's probably better to send a more standard one, where you can reduce the radar and sonic profile. If it's night, paint it black. If it's day, put white lights on the bottom. It'll be far stealthier overall. It won't be hand-carry-able, but while this plane itself is hand-launch-able, you have to have quite a bit of equipment to run it. Might as well put that back at base, and run your UAVs from there.