Is there any chance you could put a rough map of the property and building online somewhere? People can probably give you a better idea of some strategies to use if they know the shape of the property, where the buildings are, etc. Also, if you can, diagram any terrain issues (hills, ravines, etc).
Also -- are you adverse to running some cabling outdoors if necessary?
The buildings are probably your first priority, particularily the main house. This is because you really have two main obstacles to your wireless range: walls inside the buildings, and overall distance.
The best way to deal with the walls is by giving each building in which you know you'll need acccess its own access point. Personally, for this sort of use I'm also a fan of Apple's Airport Express, as it's a small box which plugs directly into the wall (think of it as a slim wall wart). It's small, out of the way, with no power cables or wall mounting to worry about. How you connect these to your main network depends on the distance from the main house: if they're close enough that you can get a wireless signal from the house, go with WDS and use them as wireless repeaters (with the added benefit that, if you find you need to, you can just unplug one and take it with you to a different location, plug it in and continue using it). Or if a wireless signal isn't feasible (some back-lot shed), run cabling to it to extend your signal. As an added benefit, if you use an Airport Express in either of these manners, you can plug a stereo system into them to permit you to broadcast iTunes playlists to any location you want to.
A good powered access point with an external, roof-mounted antenna is probably best for the house -- but again, a lot of this really depends on how the property is set up, which is why a map, even a rough one, is helpful in such situations.
Without a map, as very generic advice, go for a distributed set-up that uses a mix of wired and wireless (WDS) connectivity to your main router.
Or, for those of us in Canada, it will be on the CBC main network on Tuesday, May 10th.
So far, I've been good: because the BBC broadcasts the episodes ten days before we see them here in Canada, I could download and watch them rather than wait the ten days -- but other than the initial leaked episode ("Rose"), I've waited for the local broadcasts on CBC.
I just hope they decide to release the DVD boxed set here in Canada as well.
And what's up with Planet of the Doctor anyhow? The CBC site still claims that it will start "in early April". Well guess what guys -- early April has come and long gone.
Search: OS/2 had an integrated search facility built into the WorkPlace Shell which could search through file metadata (Extended Attributes). It didn't have a snazzy name - it was only known by the name of the button... "Find".
Actually, closer to the mark would have been IBM's Bloodhound technology, which did make it into an add-on product for OS/2 back in the mid 1990's. Unfortunately, you'll have to find some old issues of OS/2 Magazine and/or OS/2 Professional magazine to find out anything about it.
Scripting: OS/2 had advanced scripting capabilties - in the form of the REXX language. Again, no snazzy name. It just did it - and it was trivial to integrate REXX support into applications.
While it's true that REXX had much the same application-level support that AppleScript has, Automator and AppleScript take it a step further. First off, AppleScript has the ability to interrogate applications for their capabilities and commands (REXX doesn't). Furthermore, when Apple talks about "scripting", they are not talking about having a scripting language, but an application ("Automator") which allows drag-and-drop connections to create these scripts (without creating heavyweight applications). Watcom's VX-REXX and IBM's Dr. Dialog on OS/2 could build heavyweight applications using REXX scrripting, but as they couldn't interrrogate applications for their REXX capabilities or commands, they couldn't readily integrate third-party application hooks in the way that Automator can.
So for everyone who is going on about how blah blah OS had a scripting language since ages past: you don't get it. Apple has had a scripting language built into Mac OS for ages as well. The difference now is that mere mortals can build scripts to do useful tasks withough having to write a single line of code, and that third party applications can hook into this functionality without any significant additional effort, with Automator being able to learn about their capabilities automatically.
Built-in RSS support: RSS didn't exist in 1992. But OS/2 did ship with NewsReader...
Admittedly, this doesn't excite me a whole lot at the moment, in part because I run Firefox instead of Safari. However, again closer to the mark is that IBM did ship a free news ticker software package which could aggregate news from a variety of sources. The difference was that it wasn't based on XML, and wasn't as ubiquitous as RSS is today.
Integrated Instant Messaging/Video Chat: Well - the closest thing I can think of is a little IBM EWS utility called Sticky/2 - which is like networked post-it notes...
Not even close. What was closer, however, was Person to Person/2, which did ship with OS/2 WARP v3, and which did permit some of these sorts of collaberation, along with a virtual whiteboard which was fun to play around with.
Mind you, the 4-way videoconferencing and 10-way audio conferencing built into the new iChat is goingg to blow away anything you could have ever done back in the OS/2 heyday. It's not completely OS/2's fault per-se: faster computers, better bandwidth, and better codec technologies are vastly beyond where we were in 1995 -- IMO, such features were only a matter of time (which isn't to say I'm not looking forward to a 4-way viddeo iChat next week -- I've already organized one with some other iChat/iSight users I know:) ).
The cool things that Apple is doing with OS X reminds me quite a bit of some of the cool things IBM used to do with OS/2, with the difference being that Apple is much more vested in their efforts (IBM was, at times, far too timid -- they'd put a feature in in a half-assed manner, and then when nobody used it often simple dropped it or stopped improing it).
Either way, Mac OS X is an amazing OS for any refugee from the OS/2 world.
I know I'm avoiding installing SP2. After all, I have no idea what it would do if I installed it on any of my Linux or Mac OS X boxes here (nevermind my single lonely OS/2 machine)!
I mean, it could actually cause me to waste hard drive space on those machines, and I need that space for pr0n!
I think most people would probably just use a DVI extension cable and get their USB and FireWire from elsewhere. Otherwise you'd need an extension to Apple's cable which would probably be pretty expensive.
Well, doesn't the PC side of the cable break out into seperate DVI, USB and Firewire plugs? If that is the case, you should be able to go from the Apple specific cable to a bundle of the three seperate cables for the rest of the run.
Then again, I don't own a Cinema display, so I suppose I could be mistaken about that (although a 20" model to go with my 12" PowerBook is on my shopping list:) ).
Most of my peripherals are external hard drives which (obviously) don't need to be in the same room and in fact should be banished in this scenerio thanks to their own noise problems.
True, but if you have an iPod dock, iSight, and/or an external removable media drive, you'll probably want them within arms reach of the monitor for the sake of convienence.
If you want a silent computer, you don't want to be in the same room as the optical drive, either:-).
Well, at least when it's running. It won't make any sound when you're not using it.
Sounds like a good idea to use Bluetooth if it's not bad at getting through walls. I've noticed that in my house AirPort signals have a pretty hard time getting through walls, although oddly enough they will get through the ceiling to the second floor very easily. Strange.
Bluetooth runs off the same frequency as 802.11b/g, so you may in fact encounter similar issues. However, I've foud that I can quite easily use both the Apple Bluetooth keyboard and mouse I have here through the walls in my home (not that I typically do this, as I'm running a PowerBook, and using the keyboard and mouse without being able to see the screen is somewhat pointless (although when I first got them both, I did sit in another room typing lines of text to see if it would work, and it did:) ).
I can't wait until next month when my copy arrives:)
I don't know about in the UK, but here in Canada Apple's website is advertising that if you order online (which I did:) ), Tiger will arrive at your shipping address on the day of the release (April 29th).
So I won't even have to wait until next month! I'll be getting it this month. Woo hoo!
Are there any drawbacks with my own proposed solution to run some long keyboard/monitor cables and put the computer in another room?
I wouldn't even bother with long keyboard or mouse cables -- Bluetooth has an effective range of 10m, which should be more than enough to put the machine on the other side of a wall. Then you only need to run a single monitor cable.
The only downside I can think of is needing to go around the corner to put a CD/DVD in the drive. This can be mitigated by using a Firewire or USB CD/DVD drive, plugged into the Cinema display's USB/Firewire ports. As you know (but others reading this may not), the Firewire, USB, and Video are all contained in a single cable for the Cinema displays (although you may need to use seperate cables once you reach the Cinema Displayc cable length -- is there an all-in-one extension cable for this monitor?)
I'm a dual G5 owner, admittedly of the previous 2.0ghz dual processor model, and I happen to own a display card capable of driving the 30" display.
It may be capable of driving the 30" display, but is it doing so?
GPUs can put out a lot of heat (indeed, on my PowerBook the GPU on it is the biggest single source of heat, particularily if I'm playing a 3D game or anything really graphics intensive). When you're running them at extremely high resolutions, and running TWO of them, they're going to pump out heat (indeed, because each display requires dual-link DVI, it's effectively the same as running FOUR displays, all off one video card).
This is why I think this guy is an idiot. I'm willing to bet that his PowerMac noice problem would have disappeared if he were running just that 20" display shown on his desktop. The problem is it's the driving of those two huge monitors at very high resolutions which is generating the heat that needs to be dissapated!. Moving them off a PowerMac and into a PC is only going to transfer the problem from one machine to another -- in effect, he's keeping the very problem he's trying to remove, and is chucking out the part that is working correctly!
I'm somewhat interested, however -- the guy is trying for a silent PC, but is driving what are effectively four displays off a single card. The PowerMac is designed to handle this thermal load. IIRC, the guy claims the PC is fanless. Will it be able to handle the thermal load with this configuration for very long, or is he just going to fry an otherwise perfectly good computer? It would look good on him somewhat -- he mangled two $3000 dollar monitors to get them to plug into his PC to try to have a quieter machine -- it would be a sort of twisted irony if it caused the PC to suffer from thermal damage/failure alongside him just creating a noisy PC.
My previous quote "With great power comes great fan noise" is intended to be funny, but if you want to be pushing the boundries of what modern technology can achieve, you're going to have to deal with the thermal issues, and will have to live with some of their drawbacks. Trying to pretend that thermal issues don't exist by putting a heat pump in a fanless box is just idiocy, and the guy clearly diserves to learn a very, very expensive lesson.
So, it indeed looks like you can have one monitor attached per mini
There is only one problem in this case -- you can't drive a 30" Cinema Display off a Mac mini, due to the need for the dual-link DVI out. You can only drive a 30" Cinema Display off a PowerMac.
User decides to ditch the Mac because the fans are too noisy.
User slices up the connectors of two perfectly good, $3000 Apple Cinema 30" displays to get them to plug into some no-name video card with an nVidia chipset on their "silent" PC,
User complains of the fan noise now coming from the PC video cards.
What a complete and total git. And this gets posted to/. for what reason?
(Remember: with great power comes great fan noise).
Are you doing anything to customize your spam filters?
I'm using Apple's Mail.app, which uses a different algorithm for creating its own spam filters which appears to be slightly better than Thunderbird's filtering. But I do have a few extra rules set-up which help:
If a message is from someone in my address book, it is automatically not spam,
If the Content-Type header is set to Chinese (GB2312) or Cyrillic (Windows-1251), the message is spam (this list grows as I receive spam in non-English character sets),
If a message is from a mailing list I subscribe to, it's not only not spam, but it gets automatically moved to the appropriate folder,
Messages which are addressed to my full-name are presumed to be not spam,
I have it set to trust the junk mail headers provided by my ISP.
While not really filtering-related, a few other things I've enabled are:
Remote graphics and objects are never loaded automatically. Graphics with encoded IDs in their URLs can be used to track whether or not you have viewed a message. If I can identify the person the message is from, I'll press the "Load Graphics" button. If not, it gets flagged as spam (assuming it didn't automatically get flagged as such, which is what usually happens),
I'd estimate that I get at least 1000 spam messages per week. The number that actually show up in my InBox in that time frame is probably less than 10, and the number of false-positives I've had in the past year can be counted on one hand.
I'd prefer to not ever get any spam again -- I'm on a laptop, and when I'm outside WiFi range, I get my mail through GPRS, and a ton of spam can make that really slow (and potentially more expensive if it takes me over my monthly data limit). But good filtering does make spam quite a bit easily to deal with.
When you get back from holiday to find "Downloading email 5 of 4702, 106 minutes remaining", client-side filters just don't help any more.
Just to clear something up, as I think a few people are potentially confused: I'm not claiming that spam isn't a problem anymore because filters are getting better. I'm merely claiming that better filters may be part of the reason why this survey shows that people are becoming more tolerant of it.
We're getting to a point in time where a very large number of e-mail users aren't running an e-mail client, but who are using Hotmail, Gmail, Yahoo Mail, or a similar service. Indeed, it seems these days whenever I run into an Internet user who isn't terribly technically-savvy, that person has a Hotmail or Yahoo Mail account. In cases such as these, they don't even have to sit around and download the spam messages.
Now personally I'm with you: I run an e-mail client that connects to POP3/IMAP servers to get my messages. Due to business use we're probably still in the majority, but a lot of "average consumers" these days are using web mail, many of which provide automatic filtering AND which don't require you to download a pile of messages.
Perhaps part of the reason is that many e-mail clients have better filtering mechanisms in them now than in previous years. With clients like Apple's Mail and Thunderbird, spam filtering can get quite accurate. I get as much spam as ever (if not more), but I rarely see any of it. The filters appear to do their job quite nicely.
We may not be getting less spam, but the tools to help deal with it have been improving, and are being made available to more and more e-mail users.
Have you tried getting a rebate for OS X? Buying a Mac, to run Linux, in order to avoid buying a Windows-based PC, to run Linux, because you don't want to pay the Microsoft Tax... that's just trading one tax for another.
Shhh! If you don't tell them it's OS X, maybe they won't know the difference!:).
I prefer Mac OS X. Mac OS X is what Linux wants to be when it grows up, IMO. But recommending a Powerbook with an un-refundable OS pre-installed in order to avoid buying a ThinkPad with a pre-installed OS doesn't make any sense.
A good source to get a laptop without Microsoft Windows is here. As an added bonus, these systems will run Linux quite readily (although you'll have to install it yourself).
A good source to get a laptop without Microsoft Windows is . As an added bonus, these systems will run Linux quite readily (although you'll have to install it yourself).
British Troops burned the white house (canada wasnt a country in the war of 1812, still a british territory).
no, im not a history geek....
And boy, does it show.
At the time of the War of 1812, there were two territories with the name "Canada" in them -- Upper Canada, and Lower Canada. People who lived in those territories were known as "Canadians" (or, in the case of Lower Canada, "les Canadiens").
A group can be a people with having a nation. Ever hear of the Kurds? The Palestinians? The Welsh?
There was a Canada before Confederation, and the people who lived there were Canadians. Yes, they were British subjects (although their loyalties to the British crown certain varied -- Native Canadians and French Canadians also participated in the War, but generally held no special loyalty to the crown), but there is nothing preventing anyone from calling them "Canadians", and being perfectly understandable and correct when they do so.
People just LOVE camera phones these days, and by not putting standard connectors on, consumers are forced to pay outrageous prices for data servece, where if they had a USB cable, they could just mount it as a drive and drag the JPEGs right off the phone.
Companies goals are to make money, not please the customer.
The problem with your analysis is that the people who make the phones are not the people who are charging the data fees.
There are a lot of phones out there which can interface with a computer. I Have a Sony Ericsson T610, with built-in Bluetooth. I have an Apple PowerBook, also with built-in Bluetooth. I not only put MIDI files and themes I've created onto the phone anytime I like, I also transfer photos and make GPRS Internet connections from my PowerBook through the phone via Bluetooth, and it costs me nothing (well, the GPRS service costs me -- but the connection between the computer and the phone doesn't cost a cent). According to the documentation, this phone also supports USB, but I don't see the point considering how convienent Bluetooth is.
There are lots of phone out there which support USB and Bluetooth, so I think your analysis is poor. It may be that some service providers only offer phones that benefit their bottom line, but if you go with a provider which uses standards like GSM and GPRS, and uses SIM cards, and buy whatever phone you like.
Now think about programmers. Each one is expected to have his own specialties which he brings to the job with him. There's no sending them off to be trained as the need arises. Oh, the customer has required that we develop this next application in Java. Damn, better hire some more Java people and lay off some of the C# coders.
There should be a happy medium somewhere. Learning a new language and API set is a big piece of work, and trying to learn it while working on a project you're intending to sell, or are contracted to sell, isn't a good idea if you don't have at least a few people with experience in that language to fix things to guide newbie developers when things start to go awry. If your company has done nothing but Ada development, and suddenly wants to move to Java, but nobody has any Java experience, you're going to lose a lot of time and money on mistakes. It's better to bring in at least a few people with Java experience to help everyone get up to speed than to just send your developers on a course and hope they come back experts (because the latter isn't going to happen in a short-term course).
Still, learning new language is a bit of an extreme, and there are a lot of inbetween spots where more companies should be sending their developers out for educational purposes. Technical conferences, for example, can introduce new concepts and ideas to developers, especially those which have a more scientific bent. I had the privledge of chairing a workshop at CASCON 2001, and it was a fantastic experience -- the conference was presenting a lot of academic work in a variety of areas in computer science. It should be par for the course that companies send their developers to such events, as it's an excellent way to introduce them to concepts they may not otherwise be exposed to, and get them thinking now about some of the ideas and technologies which your company may be implementing 5 years down the road.
A huge market barrier is that consumers won't take the chance because they're not confident they will find gas stations that supply this stuff (not to mention all the other alternatives that have been around for a while).
I didn't see anywhere in TFA where they were suggesting they use grass as fuel for cars and trucks. Indeed, as they ar etalking about pellitized grass, how do you propose you run a car off it in the first place? Where would the ash byproduct go?
Fuels are used for a whole lot more than running vehicles. This sort of technology is vastly better suited to heating, or perhaps electrical generation. But running your car off it? Come on -- April 1st was yesterday:).
Men are good at certain things, Women are good at certain things. Regardless of "Equal Oppurtunities" etc. Men and Women are fundamentally different, see that's why there are different words for them.:P
It is because of this attitude, gental readers, that we don't have more women involved in computer programmming in general, and FLOSS in specific.
Yaz.
Re:So I pay a levy to make a copy, but I can't...
on
Canada Says No To DMCA
·
· Score: 2, Informative
So does this mean that all the protected CD's we get from the US we can now be sued for ripping? How does this make sense?
It makes perfect sense, vis:
Moreover, the FAQ makes clear that "the circumvention of a TPM applied to copyright material will only be illegal if it is carried out with the objective of infringing copyright.
The concept of "Private Copying" (which is the term used in Canadian Copyright Act C-42) is not a copyright infringement. What you want to look at is Part VIII, ss 80, namely:
80. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the act of reproducing all or any substantial part of
(a) a musical work embodied in a sound recording,
(b) a performer's performance of a musical work embodied in a sound recording, or
(c) a sound recording in which a musical work, or a performer's performance of a musical work, is embodied
onto an audio recording medium for the private use of the person who makes the copy does not constitute an infringement of the copyright in the musical work, the performer's performance or the sound recording.
Limitation
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the act described in that subsection is done for the purpose of doing any of the following in relation to any of the things referred to in paragraphs (1)(a) to (c):
(a) selling or renting out, or by way of trade exposing or offering for sale or rental;
(b) distributing, whether or not for the purpose of trade;
(c) communicating to the public by telecommunication; or
(d) performing, or causing to be performed, in public.
As such, if you defeat a copyright protection mechanism for the purpose of making a private copy, you'll be okay, as that copy won't be an infringing copy.
(For the record, IANAL -- I'm just a guy who has read over the Copyright Act on numerous occasions:) ).
I must be missing something, but what reason could a nationalized television station possibly have to generate buzz?
The purpose of advertising and hyping TV shows isn't just to attract viewers in the locales where it's going to be broadcast. One thing any TV production company tries to do in order to raise more funds is to sell the rights to broadcast their shows to other TV networks. There is some serious money to be made in selling the rights to reboardcast a show in this manner -- and every TV network out there takes any opportunity they can get to sell such rights to international broadcast "partners".
I'm sure the BBC was very happy to sell the rights to rebroadcast Dr. Who to the CBC here in Canada (it starts here April 5th), and would be excited to do so for the NBC in the US, or ABC in Australia (for example). And one way to do so is to show these companies that there is a pent-up demand for their shows in their broadcast area, by generating "buzz".
Slashdot Mirror
Is there any chance you could put a rough map of the property and building online somewhere? People can probably give you a better idea of some strategies to use if they know the shape of the property, where the buildings are, etc. Also, if you can, diagram any terrain issues (hills, ravines, etc).
Also -- are you adverse to running some cabling outdoors if necessary?
The buildings are probably your first priority, particularily the main house. This is because you really have two main obstacles to your wireless range: walls inside the buildings, and overall distance.
The best way to deal with the walls is by giving each building in which you know you'll need acccess its own access point. Personally, for this sort of use I'm also a fan of Apple's Airport Express, as it's a small box which plugs directly into the wall (think of it as a slim wall wart). It's small, out of the way, with no power cables or wall mounting to worry about. How you connect these to your main network depends on the distance from the main house: if they're close enough that you can get a wireless signal from the house, go with WDS and use them as wireless repeaters (with the added benefit that, if you find you need to, you can just unplug one and take it with you to a different location, plug it in and continue using it). Or if a wireless signal isn't feasible (some back-lot shed), run cabling to it to extend your signal. As an added benefit, if you use an Airport Express in either of these manners, you can plug a stereo system into them to permit you to broadcast iTunes playlists to any location you want to.
A good powered access point with an external, roof-mounted antenna is probably best for the house -- but again, a lot of this really depends on how the property is set up, which is why a map, even a rough one, is helpful in such situations.
Without a map, as very generic advice, go for a distributed set-up that uses a mix of wired and wireless (WDS) connectivity to your main router.
Yaz.
Or, for those of us in Canada, it will be on the CBC main network on Tuesday, May 10th.
So far, I've been good: because the BBC broadcasts the episodes ten days before we see them here in Canada, I could download and watch them rather than wait the ten days -- but other than the initial leaked episode ("Rose"), I've waited for the local broadcasts on CBC.
I just hope they decide to release the DVD boxed set here in Canada as well.
And what's up with Planet of the Doctor anyhow? The CBC site still claims that it will start "in early April". Well guess what guys -- early April has come and long gone.
Yaz.
Actually, closer to the mark would have been IBM's Bloodhound technology, which did make it into an add-on product for OS/2 back in the mid 1990's. Unfortunately, you'll have to find some old issues of OS/2 Magazine and/or OS/2 Professional magazine to find out anything about it.
While it's true that REXX had much the same application-level support that AppleScript has, Automator and AppleScript take it a step further. First off, AppleScript has the ability to interrogate applications for their capabilities and commands (REXX doesn't). Furthermore, when Apple talks about "scripting", they are not talking about having a scripting language, but an application ("Automator") which allows drag-and-drop connections to create these scripts (without creating heavyweight applications). Watcom's VX-REXX and IBM's Dr. Dialog on OS/2 could build heavyweight applications using REXX scrripting, but as they couldn't interrrogate applications for their REXX capabilities or commands, they couldn't readily integrate third-party application hooks in the way that Automator can.
So for everyone who is going on about how blah blah OS had a scripting language since ages past: you don't get it. Apple has had a scripting language built into Mac OS for ages as well. The difference now is that mere mortals can build scripts to do useful tasks withough having to write a single line of code, and that third party applications can hook into this functionality without any significant additional effort, with Automator being able to learn about their capabilities automatically.
Admittedly, this doesn't excite me a whole lot at the moment, in part because I run Firefox instead of Safari. However, again closer to the mark is that IBM did ship a free news ticker software package which could aggregate news from a variety of sources. The difference was that it wasn't based on XML, and wasn't as ubiquitous as RSS is today.
Not even close. What was closer, however, was Person to Person/2, which did ship with OS/2 WARP v3, and which did permit some of these sorts of collaberation, along with a virtual whiteboard which was fun to play around with.
Mind you, the 4-way videoconferencing and 10-way audio conferencing built into the new iChat is goingg to blow away anything you could have ever done back in the OS/2 heyday. It's not completely OS/2's fault per-se: faster computers, better bandwidth, and better codec technologies are vastly beyond where we were in 1995 -- IMO, such features were only a matter of time (which isn't to say I'm not looking forward to a 4-way viddeo iChat next week -- I've already organized one with some other iChat/iSight users I know :) ).
The cool things that Apple is doing with OS X reminds me quite a bit of some of the cool things IBM used to do with OS/2, with the difference being that Apple is much more vested in their efforts (IBM was, at times, far too timid -- they'd put a feature in in a half-assed manner, and then when nobody used it often simple dropped it or stopped improing it).
Either way, Mac OS X is an amazing OS for any refugee from the OS/2 world.
Yaz.
I know I'm avoiding installing SP2. After all, I have no idea what it would do if I installed it on any of my Linux or Mac OS X boxes here (nevermind my single lonely OS/2 machine)!
I mean, it could actually cause me to waste hard drive space on those machines, and I need that space for pr0n!
Yaz.
Well, doesn't the PC side of the cable break out into seperate DVI, USB and Firewire plugs? If that is the case, you should be able to go from the Apple specific cable to a bundle of the three seperate cables for the rest of the run.
Then again, I don't own a Cinema display, so I suppose I could be mistaken about that (although a 20" model to go with my 12" PowerBook is on my shopping list :) ).
True, but if you have an iPod dock, iSight, and/or an external removable media drive, you'll probably want them within arms reach of the monitor for the sake of convienence.
Well, at least when it's running. It won't make any sound when you're not using it.
Bluetooth runs off the same frequency as 802.11b/g, so you may in fact encounter similar issues. However, I've foud that I can quite easily use both the Apple Bluetooth keyboard and mouse I have here through the walls in my home (not that I typically do this, as I'm running a PowerBook, and using the keyboard and mouse without being able to see the screen is somewhat pointless (although when I first got them both, I did sit in another room typing lines of text to see if it would work, and it did :) ).
Yaz.
I don't know about in the UK, but here in Canada Apple's website is advertising that if you order online (which I did :) ), Tiger will arrive at your shipping address on the day of the release (April 29th).
So I won't even have to wait until next month! I'll be getting it this month. Woo hoo!
Yaz.
I wouldn't even bother with long keyboard or mouse cables -- Bluetooth has an effective range of 10m, which should be more than enough to put the machine on the other side of a wall. Then you only need to run a single monitor cable.
The only downside I can think of is needing to go around the corner to put a CD/DVD in the drive. This can be mitigated by using a Firewire or USB CD/DVD drive, plugged into the Cinema display's USB/Firewire ports. As you know (but others reading this may not), the Firewire, USB, and Video are all contained in a single cable for the Cinema displays (although you may need to use seperate cables once you reach the Cinema Displayc cable length -- is there an all-in-one extension cable for this monitor?)
Yaz.
It may be capable of driving the 30" display, but is it doing so?
GPUs can put out a lot of heat (indeed, on my PowerBook the GPU on it is the biggest single source of heat, particularily if I'm playing a 3D game or anything really graphics intensive). When you're running them at extremely high resolutions, and running TWO of them, they're going to pump out heat (indeed, because each display requires dual-link DVI, it's effectively the same as running FOUR displays, all off one video card).
This is why I think this guy is an idiot. I'm willing to bet that his PowerMac noice problem would have disappeared if he were running just that 20" display shown on his desktop. The problem is it's the driving of those two huge monitors at very high resolutions which is generating the heat that needs to be dissapated!. Moving them off a PowerMac and into a PC is only going to transfer the problem from one machine to another -- in effect, he's keeping the very problem he's trying to remove, and is chucking out the part that is working correctly!
I'm somewhat interested, however -- the guy is trying for a silent PC, but is driving what are effectively four displays off a single card. The PowerMac is designed to handle this thermal load. IIRC, the guy claims the PC is fanless. Will it be able to handle the thermal load with this configuration for very long, or is he just going to fry an otherwise perfectly good computer? It would look good on him somewhat -- he mangled two $3000 dollar monitors to get them to plug into his PC to try to have a quieter machine -- it would be a sort of twisted irony if it caused the PC to suffer from thermal damage/failure alongside him just creating a noisy PC.
My previous quote "With great power comes great fan noise" is intended to be funny, but if you want to be pushing the boundries of what modern technology can achieve, you're going to have to deal with the thermal issues, and will have to live with some of their drawbacks. Trying to pretend that thermal issues don't exist by putting a heat pump in a fanless box is just idiocy, and the guy clearly diserves to learn a very, very expensive lesson.
Yaz.
There is only one problem in this case -- you can't drive a 30" Cinema Display off a Mac mini, due to the need for the dual-link DVI out. You can only drive a 30" Cinema Display off a PowerMac.
Yaz.
What a complete and total git. And this gets posted to /. for what reason?
(Remember: with great power comes great fan noise).
Yaz.
I'm using Apple's Mail.app, which uses a different algorithm for creating its own spam filters which appears to be slightly better than Thunderbird's filtering. But I do have a few extra rules set-up which help:
While not really filtering-related, a few other things I've enabled are:
I'd estimate that I get at least 1000 spam messages per week. The number that actually show up in my InBox in that time frame is probably less than 10, and the number of false-positives I've had in the past year can be counted on one hand.
I'd prefer to not ever get any spam again -- I'm on a laptop, and when I'm outside WiFi range, I get my mail through GPRS, and a ton of spam can make that really slow (and potentially more expensive if it takes me over my monthly data limit). But good filtering does make spam quite a bit easily to deal with.
Yaz.
Just to clear something up, as I think a few people are potentially confused: I'm not claiming that spam isn't a problem anymore because filters are getting better. I'm merely claiming that better filters may be part of the reason why this survey shows that people are becoming more tolerant of it.
We're getting to a point in time where a very large number of e-mail users aren't running an e-mail client, but who are using Hotmail, Gmail, Yahoo Mail, or a similar service. Indeed, it seems these days whenever I run into an Internet user who isn't terribly technically-savvy, that person has a Hotmail or Yahoo Mail account. In cases such as these, they don't even have to sit around and download the spam messages.
Now personally I'm with you: I run an e-mail client that connects to POP3/IMAP servers to get my messages. Due to business use we're probably still in the majority, but a lot of "average consumers" these days are using web mail, many of which provide automatic filtering AND which don't require you to download a pile of messages.
Yaz.
Perhaps part of the reason is that many e-mail clients have better filtering mechanisms in them now than in previous years. With clients like Apple's Mail and Thunderbird, spam filtering can get quite accurate. I get as much spam as ever (if not more), but I rarely see any of it. The filters appear to do their job quite nicely.
We may not be getting less spam, but the tools to help deal with it have been improving, and are being made available to more and more e-mail users.
Yaz.
Yes, no, and I don't remember :).
The HTML fixed version is here.
Yaz.
Shhh! If you don't tell them it's OS X, maybe they won't know the difference! :).
It was a joke. Laugh :).
Yaz.
You wouldn't be saying that if you saw her sing in the Star Wars Holiday Special (::shudder::). And that's when she was still young to boot.
Yaz.
PS: Thanks for bringing up that memory, jerk! :)
(Repost -- fixed my bad HTML. Sorry!).
A good source to get a laptop without Microsoft Windows is here. As an added bonus, these systems will run Linux quite readily (although you'll have to install it yourself).
Yaz.
A good source to get a laptop without Microsoft Windows is . As an added bonus, these systems will run Linux quite readily (although you'll have to install it yourself).
Yaz.
And boy, does it show.
At the time of the War of 1812, there were two territories with the name "Canada" in them -- Upper Canada, and Lower Canada. People who lived in those territories were known as "Canadians" (or, in the case of Lower Canada, "les Canadiens").
A group can be a people with having a nation. Ever hear of the Kurds? The Palestinians? The Welsh?
There was a Canada before Confederation, and the people who lived there were Canadians. Yes, they were British subjects (although their loyalties to the British crown certain varied -- Native Canadians and French Canadians also participated in the War, but generally held no special loyalty to the crown), but there is nothing preventing anyone from calling them "Canadians", and being perfectly understandable and correct when they do so.
Yaz.
The problem with your analysis is that the people who make the phones are not the people who are charging the data fees.
There are a lot of phones out there which can interface with a computer. I Have a Sony Ericsson T610, with built-in Bluetooth. I have an Apple PowerBook, also with built-in Bluetooth. I not only put MIDI files and themes I've created onto the phone anytime I like, I also transfer photos and make GPRS Internet connections from my PowerBook through the phone via Bluetooth, and it costs me nothing (well, the GPRS service costs me -- but the connection between the computer and the phone doesn't cost a cent). According to the documentation, this phone also supports USB, but I don't see the point considering how convienent Bluetooth is.
There are lots of phone out there which support USB and Bluetooth, so I think your analysis is poor. It may be that some service providers only offer phones that benefit their bottom line, but if you go with a provider which uses standards like GSM and GPRS, and uses SIM cards, and buy whatever phone you like.
Yaz.
There should be a happy medium somewhere. Learning a new language and API set is a big piece of work, and trying to learn it while working on a project you're intending to sell, or are contracted to sell, isn't a good idea if you don't have at least a few people with experience in that language to fix things to guide newbie developers when things start to go awry. If your company has done nothing but Ada development, and suddenly wants to move to Java, but nobody has any Java experience, you're going to lose a lot of time and money on mistakes. It's better to bring in at least a few people with Java experience to help everyone get up to speed than to just send your developers on a course and hope they come back experts (because the latter isn't going to happen in a short-term course).
Still, learning new language is a bit of an extreme, and there are a lot of inbetween spots where more companies should be sending their developers out for educational purposes. Technical conferences, for example, can introduce new concepts and ideas to developers, especially those which have a more scientific bent. I had the privledge of chairing a workshop at CASCON 2001, and it was a fantastic experience -- the conference was presenting a lot of academic work in a variety of areas in computer science. It should be par for the course that companies send their developers to such events, as it's an excellent way to introduce them to concepts they may not otherwise be exposed to, and get them thinking now about some of the ideas and technologies which your company may be implementing 5 years down the road.
Yaz.
I didn't see anywhere in TFA where they were suggesting they use grass as fuel for cars and trucks. Indeed, as they ar etalking about pellitized grass, how do you propose you run a car off it in the first place? Where would the ash byproduct go?
Fuels are used for a whole lot more than running vehicles. This sort of technology is vastly better suited to heating, or perhaps electrical generation. But running your car off it? Come on -- April 1st was yesterday :).
Yaz.
It is because of this attitude, gental readers, that we don't have more women involved in computer programmming in general, and FLOSS in specific.
Yaz.
It makes perfect sense, vis:
The concept of "Private Copying" (which is the term used in Canadian Copyright Act C-42) is not a copyright infringement. What you want to look at is Part VIII, ss 80, namely:
As such, if you defeat a copyright protection mechanism for the purpose of making a private copy, you'll be okay, as that copy won't be an infringing copy.
(For the record, IANAL -- I'm just a guy who has read over the Copyright Act on numerous occasions :) ).
Yaz.
The purpose of advertising and hyping TV shows isn't just to attract viewers in the locales where it's going to be broadcast. One thing any TV production company tries to do in order to raise more funds is to sell the rights to broadcast their shows to other TV networks. There is some serious money to be made in selling the rights to reboardcast a show in this manner -- and every TV network out there takes any opportunity they can get to sell such rights to international broadcast "partners".
I'm sure the BBC was very happy to sell the rights to rebroadcast Dr. Who to the CBC here in Canada (it starts here April 5th), and would be excited to do so for the NBC in the US, or ABC in Australia (for example). And one way to do so is to show these companies that there is a pent-up demand for their shows in their broadcast area, by generating "buzz".
Yaz.