well, maybe you could chain a bunch of them together via firewire for clustering? Another possibility is for quick data transfer or backup onto a firewire disk...
I partially solve this issue with the compact flourescents in my house by choosing lampshades with a warm characteristic like Japanese paper lanterns.
As most photographers follow, the "temperature" of the light is really what determines how "pretty" you consider it. Incandescent is way down the spectrum from flourescent. I don't really know where LED is, but I imagine it's closer to the latter than the former.
That's the first thing I thought too. Those things are just begging to have a sharp pencil tip shoved into them. Perhaps some aftermarket company can make a killing selling schools eMac "speaker protectors" -- snap on plastic grills that are difficult to pry off.
I guess this comes down to whether or not you, as a taxpayer, feel responsible for paying for what I would call "infrastructure". I feel OK that some of my tax dollars (in fact, probably a fair bit of my tax dollars) go to things that do not directly affect my life, but may benefit the lives of others. Apparently you don't.
Ok then, seeing as how you obviously distrust government (fair enough), how about tax incentives for contribution (time, money, etc) to open source software, esp. those projects that provide the "infrastructure" for an institution (i.e. OS, Office Suites, etc).
BTW, if industry were in change of the roads, they might be better roads, but they'd all be toll roads. No thanks.
I'll reiterate the conclusion an argument I used to have with a late friend. The government should fund something like GNU, but with 100x the developers (full time, paid). Eat its own dog food, and contribute to successful open source projects to create free, standardized (at a gov't level) alternatives to MS products. This may sound un-american to some, but in the long run it would (IMHO) work out for the best.
We may have 50 different car companies in selling in this country but they didn't build the roads.
I'm not a macromedia diehard, but I've generally used fireworks over ImageReady because the end product was so much better. Better HTML, better Javascript, better image compression.
I asked an Apple guy at Macworld whether or not the screen was the same unit as their 15" desktop lcd -- as far as he knew it is. My question was leading to a possible 17" iMac model (mark my words, it will come -- there's a reason that base is so heavy...). However, this also means that the screen is high-volume, and probably wouldn't be hugely expensive to replace should it fail.
There is no upside to "protecting" oil once the technology is there to produce/store/transport hydrogen cheaply.
How about these downsides:
Re-investment in transport mechanisms (what are you going to do with billion dollar oil tankers?).
Re-investment in drilling mechanisms, etc. (i.e. Oil Rigs).
Re-training of specialized engineers, geologists, etc.
In the long term I agree, but in the short term there is a subtantial industry investment in the simple extraction and transportation of oil which is going to be tough to throw away.
Re:do you fall over when the batteries run out?
on
This is IT?
·
· Score: 2
How can the gyros require no battery power? What keeps them moving, perpetual motion?
do you fall over when the batteries run out?
on
This is IT?
·
· Score: 1, Redundant
I've been using Oracle at work, and a small open-source project called DBXML for my personal projects. All of this using Java front ends.
For my small projects, using DBXML has been a joy. There are certain things for which using XML makes a lot more sense. Some data models just fit more naturally into hierarchcal structures, for example users and groups. If you have unique usernames, you can pull data on a user, then pull their group quite easily without the need for a reference table simply by pulling hte user's parent.
This isn't to say I think XML databases are the answer to everything. One of the largest problems I find so far is that it is that queries that are relatively easy in SQL can get a bit tedious is XPath. Also, as of yet there doesn't seem to be any truly standard query language. This is understandable, given how new the designs are, but it is a bit difficult to decide how to do things sometimes. Do you check in a document, or XUpdate it? Play with DBXML and you'll see what I'm talking about.
For those of you complaining about XML not being an efficient way of data storage because of the high memory cost of keeping documents in memory, bear in mind that there are more parsers out there than just DOM and its relatives. SAX is quite efficient, and even if you're using DOM it is entirely possible to pull fragments out of the document as you see fit; in fact XPath makes this quite easy.
I may be crazy, but I eventually see XML databases providing solid competition to standard RDBMS systems. I've seen complaints about performance -- I think much of this is lodged in the fact that a lot of these systems are not native XML databases -- they are RDBMSs with XML capabilities thrown on top. One way or another, it should be interestign to see how things pan out.
Cell phones are pretty efficient already, IMHO. My Nokia 6185 battery lasts plenty long for me.
Where this tech will find it's "killer app" is in the gas-guzzlers of the portable market -- the PDA/Cell-phones (as the article states), the color PDAs, and probably laptops eventually.
I just hope this doesn't create another disposable tech. The article said nothing about any environmental side effects.
As of right now I don't see too much of a conflict, considering the products that MacOSX is encroaching upon are mostly positioned at the desktop market, whereas BSD/Linux main strength is still primarily on the server end.
When BSD/Linux gets a stronger desktop following (I give it about two years), we could revisit your argument.
Not to sound troll-like, but my father and stepmother used to live in the building next to the world financial center, near the former WTC towers. They complained, and rightly so, of the venturi effects created by the structures. You could hear the howl of wind using the elevators in their building, yet it was eerily calm on the other side of the towers. So, you're more right than you think.
Perhaps this is flamebait, but you guys are kind of missing the point with your knee-jerk reactions.
First of all, large parts of takeoff and landing in modern airliners is *already* automated.
Second of all, air traffic control towers are *already* targets. Thank god nobody targeted those today, or we would have seen much worse.
The best suggestions i've heard all day are to seal the pilots off from the rest of the airplane (still doesn't fix the semtex problem), and to place plainclothes security on flights.
Anyone else actually have any decent ideas or are people more interested in James Bond-ian fantasies of Bloefeld controlling the plane with a joystick?
"As a sidenote, shouldn't there be a way for the ground control to override the controls of a hijacked plane?"
read: a hijacked plane. not *any* plane, but one that's already been hijacked. Reinforce the cockpit door and walls, add a system where the pilots could monitor the cabin via hidden video cameras, and where they could notify ground sources of their situation if necessary, and in case of breach, hand control of the aircraft over to ground control. However, this hand-off could only be initiated by the aircraft itself. The facial/fingerprint recognition is a good idea as well.
This way a hijack would need to be two-pronged. It would have to attack the plane, but also take hte ground control. Exponentially harder to coordinate.
As another poster already mentioned, 90% of the systems are already in place. Autopilot is used all the time during takeoff and landing.
One other failsafe possibility. Install a safety mechanism to handover control of air traffic from one tower to another in case of attack. For those of you who never saw "pushing tin" or any documentaries on air traffic control, skilled terrorists could probably do 10x the damage they did today if they had targeted the towers at laguardia, newark, and JFK all at once, and directed the aircraft to fly into eachother.
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.mackido.com/Hardware/G4.html http://www.apple.com/g4/
well, maybe you could chain a bunch of them together via firewire for clustering? Another possibility is for quick data transfer or backup onto a firewire disk...
but yeah, i don't really get it either.
It would be morapprpriate :) to count mora(e)?
o mm ents.html
http://www.kith.org/logos/words/lower2/hhaiku.c
Oh well, no modding power for me this time :)
I partially solve this issue with the compact flourescents in my house by choosing lampshades with a warm characteristic like Japanese paper lanterns.
As most photographers follow, the "temperature" of the light is really what determines how "pretty" you consider it. Incandescent is way down the spectrum from flourescent. I don't really know where LED is, but I imagine it's closer to the latter than the former.
That's the first thing I thought too. Those things are just begging to have a sharp pencil tip shoved into them. Perhaps some aftermarket company can make a killing selling schools eMac "speaker protectors" -- snap on plastic grills that are difficult to pry off.
I guess this comes down to whether or not you, as a taxpayer, feel responsible for paying for what I would call "infrastructure". I feel OK that some of my tax dollars (in fact, probably a fair bit of my tax dollars) go to things that do not directly affect my life, but may benefit the lives of others. Apparently you don't.
I guess we're just of different philosophies.
Ok then, seeing as how you obviously distrust government (fair enough), how about tax incentives for contribution (time, money, etc) to open source software, esp. those projects that provide the "infrastructure" for an institution (i.e. OS, Office Suites, etc).
BTW, if industry were in change of the roads, they might be better roads, but they'd all be toll roads. No thanks.
I'll reiterate the conclusion an argument I used to have with a late friend. The government should fund something like GNU, but with 100x the developers (full time, paid). Eat its own dog food, and contribute to successful open source projects to create free, standardized (at a gov't level) alternatives to MS products. This may sound un-american to some, but in the long run it would (IMHO) work out for the best.
We may have 50 different car companies in selling in this country but they didn't build the roads.
I'm not a macromedia diehard, but I've generally used fireworks over ImageReady because the end product was so much better. Better HTML, better Javascript, better image compression.
Btw, if you ask nicely, they'll give you a tour of the innards. It's warm down there
I asked an Apple guy at Macworld whether or not the screen was the same unit as their 15" desktop lcd -- as far as he knew it is. My question was leading to a possible 17" iMac model (mark my words, it will come -- there's a reason that base is so heavy...). However, this also means that the screen is high-volume, and probably wouldn't be hugely expensive to replace should it fail.
How about these downsides:
In the long term I agree, but in the short term there is a subtantial industry investment in the simple extraction and transportation of oil which is going to be tough to throw away.
How can the gyros require no battery power? What keeps them moving, perpetual motion?
Just wondering...
Not to mention Apache Cocoon.
For my small projects, using DBXML has been a joy. There are certain things for which using XML makes a lot more sense. Some data models just fit more naturally into hierarchcal structures, for example users and groups. If you have unique usernames, you can pull data on a user, then pull their group quite easily without the need for a reference table simply by pulling hte user's parent.
This isn't to say I think XML databases are the answer to everything. One of the largest problems I find so far is that it is that queries that are relatively easy in SQL can get a bit tedious is XPath. Also, as of yet there doesn't seem to be any truly standard query language. This is understandable, given how new the designs are, but it is a bit difficult to decide how to do things sometimes. Do you check in a document, or XUpdate it? Play with DBXML and you'll see what I'm talking about.
For those of you complaining about XML not being an efficient way of data storage because of the high memory cost of keeping documents in memory, bear in mind that there are more parsers out there than just DOM and its relatives. SAX is quite efficient, and even if you're using DOM it is entirely possible to pull fragments out of the document as you see fit; in fact XPath makes this quite easy.
I may be crazy, but I eventually see XML databases providing solid competition to standard RDBMS systems. I've seen complaints about performance -- I think much of this is lodged in the fact that a lot of these systems are not native XML databases -- they are RDBMSs with XML capabilities thrown on top. One way or another, it should be interestign to see how things pan out.
End rant.
Cell phones are pretty efficient already, IMHO. My Nokia 6185 battery lasts plenty long for me.
Where this tech will find it's "killer app" is in the gas-guzzlers of the portable market -- the PDA/Cell-phones (as the article states), the color PDAs, and probably laptops eventually.
I just hope this doesn't create another disposable tech. The article said nothing about any environmental side effects.
As of right now I don't see too much of a conflict, considering the products that MacOSX is encroaching upon are mostly positioned at the desktop market, whereas BSD/Linux main strength is still primarily on the server end.
When BSD/Linux gets a stronger desktop following (I give it about two years), we could revisit your argument.
http://www.utias.utoronto.ca/lowsped.htm
look under "Ornithopters" heading.
Not to sound troll-like, but my father and stepmother used to live in the building next to the world financial center, near the former WTC towers. They complained, and rightly so, of the venturi effects created by the structures. You could hear the howl of wind using the elevators in their building, yet it was eerily calm on the other side of the towers. So, you're more right than you think.
Perhaps this is flamebait, but you guys are kind of missing the point with your knee-jerk reactions.
First of all, large parts of takeoff and landing in modern airliners is *already* automated.
Second of all, air traffic control towers are *already* targets. Thank god nobody targeted those today, or we would have seen much worse.
The best suggestions i've heard all day are to seal the pilots off from the rest of the airplane (still doesn't fix the semtex problem), and to place plainclothes security on flights.
Anyone else actually have any decent ideas or are people more interested in James Bond-ian fantasies of Bloefeld controlling the plane with a joystick?
You're not really adding much functionality that isn't already in place in modern airliners. Just protocol.
good point.
but, a plane is an excellent weapon and easy prey(as has most unfortunately been demonstrated today). they will be targeted again.
what other types of attacks (besides car-bombs) should be be worrying about? EMP?
Maybe I should clarify...
"As a sidenote, shouldn't there be a way for the ground control to override the controls of a hijacked plane?"
read: a hijacked plane. not *any* plane, but one that's already been hijacked. Reinforce the cockpit door and walls, add a system where the pilots could monitor the cabin via hidden video cameras, and where they could notify ground sources of their situation if necessary, and in case of breach, hand control of the aircraft over to ground control. However, this hand-off could only be initiated by the aircraft itself. The facial/fingerprint recognition is a good idea as well.
This way a hijack would need to be two-pronged. It would have to attack the plane, but also take hte ground control. Exponentially harder to coordinate.
As another poster already mentioned, 90% of the systems are already in place. Autopilot is used all the time during takeoff and landing.
One other failsafe possibility. Install a safety mechanism to handover control of air traffic from one tower to another in case of attack. For those of you who never saw "pushing tin" or any documentaries on air traffic control, skilled terrorists could probably do 10x the damage they did today if they had targeted the towers at laguardia, newark, and JFK all at once, and directed the aircraft to fly into eachother.
But i'm sure you've all seen Die Hard 2...
Good point.
I guess the other alternative is to make airline cockpits damn near impossible to get into during flight, without adding too much weight to the plane.
If they can do it for the tellers at the local burger king, they can do it for airline pilots.