Languages are OSS for your brain. Anyone is free to contribute to them, expand them, specialize them toward some particular purpose and those changes are given freely back to the community. The community then automatically decides if those changes were beneficial or not and either adopts them or doesn't. For the english language alone there are dozens of distributions available that are all more or less interoperable. If your distro does something a little different than someone else's that doesn't mean either is right or wrong. Differences are bound to pop up, some exist for a reason, others are basically arbitrary. As someone who uses the distro you're criticizing, I'll just say that the alternative spelling you've suggested seems a little awkward to pronounce while the one we use flows easily.
Anyway, my point is that you are free to contribute to English or any other human language as much as you want but you must remember that you don't own any of them even if one of them happens to be named after your nationality.
Well, just for the record, I am an Apple guy all the way. But I am so because they are consistently the best choice when it comes to the OS. I like QuickTime as an architecture but the built in codecs are not so hot. I prefer my media in open, unrestricted formats that I can use where and when I want. There are some pretty good ones out there but I'm definitely not going to complain if someone wants to develop another one. Besides, as has been pointed out by several others, this is a next generation codec. Saying we should be happy with what we have now rather than get excited over what's coming next is moronic and very odd coming from a Mac fanatic as it is completely opposite to what most of us feel Apple stands for.
Well, one of the main points of this codec is that will be useable on all platforms. Windows, Mac OS, and Linux are mentioned in the article but as it's going to be OSS and royalty free, there's no reason for it not to have implementations on other platforms as well. I periodically hear that Amiga is making a comeback...
Don't expect WMP, Real, or even our beloved QuickTime to ship with support for it but do expect plugins to be readily available. Anyway, all of those players suck (although QuickTime sucks less) compared to MPlayer (and VLC is OK too) and I would expect it to come with support built in.
It really sounds like some Apple people have come to this forum to talk up QuickTime just because Apple makes it even though it's clearly got certain issues that make it less than ideal for what the BBC wants to do. No offense to Apple or QuickTime but this project is a really really good thing.
Someone with more technical expertise than I needs to explain the difference here between a codec (like Sorenson or MPEG4), an architecture (like Quicktime), and an application (like the QuickTime player).
What they are doing has everything to do with the comments about Windows Media and Real because a royalty free codec is a direct threat to the Windows Media and Real codecs and when broadcasters choose it over them (and they will), MS and Real will lose a major source of revenue.
Deciding which programming to keep and which to drop comes down to a lot more than just "ratings" but it seems most people just don't get it. If two shows have equivalent ratings but one costs half as much to produce as the other, which do you think they'll keep?
I can't imaging Farscape's ratings were very far below SG1's, maybe even about the same but just watch five minutes of each show and it's clear which one cost more to produce. Farscape had a much larger cast, way way way more intricate costumes/special effects, and a much better (higher paid?) team of writers. Doesn't anyone notice that every planet SG1 goes to looks like the woods outside of Vancouver BC?
Then you've got John Edward... No writers, no special effects, maybe they even scam his audience into paying to come see the live show. This is what few people seem to notice about "reality" television. It's not on TV because more people actually want to watch it, it's there because it has higher profit margins.
But, in this case, are we really "giving up" any liberties? Are we really "increasing police powers?" Isn't this just a case of extending the existing powers of the police to the next technological level? I mean, if police already have the right to wiretap a standard phone line and VoIP is just the successor to old fashioned telephony, then isn't denying them the ability to wiretap VoIP basically like taking a capability of theirs away?
Now, there may be a good argument for taking away the right to use wiretapping altogether and if there is, let's hear about that. But saying that they can wiretap one form of communication but not another seems a little weird.
Are we going to see a point where the convergence turns to over taking, and end-user CPU's need to be faster than a lot of corporate stuff?
I think we will actually. If I understand your meaning correctly when you say "corporate stuff" I'm thinking web, file, email servers and so on. Like you said, 3 year old machines are fine for most of that stuff now and will continue to be for some time. On the other hand, the end user is going to be requiring more and more power and not just for games or pretty interface animations. Apple and Microsoft have both been talking about the idea of the PC as a digital hub (well, I don't think MS uses that term exactly because it may be a Steve-ism) for a while. As it becomes a hub for more and more devices it's going to need more power. Loading an iPod with songs is trivial. Manipulating digital photos is a bit tougher. Beyond that you get into editing video and burning DVDs. Encoding and Decoding video. Music creation software. Maybe it won't be long before we see easy to use, prosumer quality 3D animation software...
We've seen a lot of things that used to require very expensive, specialized equipment make their way into the consumer space in the past few years. It's not too hard to guess where that trend may go next. One thing is for sure, it will continue to require more and more powerful processors. Not everyone will need all that power every day but when you get back from that European vacation and you want to do something cool with all the video you shot, you'll be glad it's there.
Kind of silly if you ask me. I'm not crazy about John Kerry but calling his record "monstrous" based on the incidents in that story is pure hyperbole. Yeah, the Patriot Act was a huge mistake, but not Kerry's alone by a long shot and as, the article states, he's trying to fix it to some degree with SAFE. The bits about his stance on encryption and "wiretapping" of VoIP are not the horrible violations of civil liberties they're being passed off as. These things would require a court order and therefore give law enforcement no new powers, just keep them on the same level as they've always been as technology marches forward.
Like I said, I'm not Kerry's biggest fan, but in a two party system is it really fair to say "Kerry's Monstrous Record on Civil Liberties" without saying "Is only 1/10 as Monstrous as that of the Bush Administration"?
Are you kidding? You weren't even close! That is seriously the the worst FP attempt I've ever seen. You, sir, are a miserable failure and will never amount to anything as long as you live.
No one would expect this sort of tech to be perfected in the first generation, that's what monkeys are for. I, for one, won't be implanting anything in my brain that hasn't thoroughly been tested on monkeys first.
Look, humans already are virtual file systems. The technology being discussed here is really just a way of bridging two otherwise incompatible protocols.
1. There is a lot of goodwill towards them at the moment, however that's a hard thing to capitalize on. However getting more open source projects developed for OSX should help get a lot of people of the fence about switching. One of the main reasons people are afraid to switch is because they'd have to buy all their software again, if there are viable open source alternatives to most of them then that eliminates a major hurdle. That being said, OSX is already very open source friendly.
2. It's been frequently rumored that Apple has always maintained x86 code for OSX just in case. Remember, a big chunk of OSX was ported FROM x86 to begin with. But be careful how you throw that word "platform" around. It's possible that one day Apple might ship boxes containing x86 chips but they will certainly not be the same "platform" that is shipped by the likes of Dell, Gateway, etc. An Apple with x86 chips in it would still be an Apple. You wouldn't be able to install Windows on it and you wouldn't be able to install OSX on a Dell.
3. Keeping the iPod #1 is certainly one of the key things Apple must do to hold onto its mindshare, grow its marketshare, and remain as profitable as it has been recently. It doesn't look like the iPod will really become much of a PDA anytime soon. You're right in that phones are doing so. So how about making the iPod into a kind of PDA helper? Plug your phone in (or connect via bluetooth) and store thousands of addresses on it. Put the yellow pages on it. Snap pictures directly to it. Record ridiculously long movie clips and voice messages on it. I see phones getting more and better functionality in the way of cameras and so on but storage space is still a bit of a drawback. Or am I way off?
4. I'm not really sure what you're suggesting here but take a look back at what each new version of OSX has brought to the table in the last three years and then look at what's coming in 10.4 and I'm sure you'll notice that they're not just sitting around twittling their thumbs. I think you're suggesting that they should work more on their OS and software than on their consumer electronics offerings (iPod). I think it's clear that they are fully capable of doing both. Anyway, doesn't your 4 contradict your 3? And what porting are you talking about exactly?
There's a really good point to made about PCI slots and the Mac vs PC debate. Back when I was more involved with all this stuff I remember a lot of people using the argument that Macs (we're talking Power Macs here, this would be around the days of the blue and white G3s and the first G4s) didn't have enough expandability in the way of PCI. I never could understand that. You've got audio, ethernet and later on, Firewire built into the board. What more do you want? Three displays, a TV tuner, and a fiber card?
The iPod is more than a music player, it's a portable hard drive. If you've got extra space on it you can use it to carry around any kind of file and transfer stuff quickly between different computers.
This is not news. Hasn't Steve actually come out an said this exact thing several times since the store opened? This why all those comparisons to Napster 2.0 and the other online music stores is pointless.
Japan is crowded but not overcrowded. I lived in Tokyo for a year and I can say the benefits absolutely outweigh the drawbacks. Transportation, communications, entertainment, it's all better there than here (Seattle, USA). Sure, living space is limited but when you have so much great stuff outside your door, you stop caring how little you have inside it.
Yes, he is running for president and yes, he has toned down his moralist stance on this subject recently. In other words, he'd still love to see stricter legislation on this kind of thing but he has more to gain politically right now by saying that the industry is doing fine on its own.
While I don't dispute that some users may have trouble with two or more buttons initially, I think there may be more to Apple's decision to stick with one button. The defining characteristic of the Macintosh from its inception has been the intuitiveness of its interface. The primary function of a second mouse button is to bring up an otherwise hidden menu. If a two button mouse was standard on every mac, it would be a little too easy for developers to get lazy and start putting commands in that menu that didn't appear in any more obvious place. Sticking with one button discourages this kind of bad UI design.
Hang one from the ceiling with a string near a window. It will reflect the sun in to a fairly bright spot somewhere on the floor or wall, give it a little spin. Your cat will chase it as if it's some kind of small rodent but of course never be able to catch it. This may work with exceptionally stupid dogs too. Laser pointers work just as well but require more user interaction.
Until Moto fixes their bus problems, increasing raw processor speed is meaningless. This is the real advantage of the 970s, they can communicate at full speed with DDR RAM. I'm sure Apple will be happy to put faster G4s in their iMacs and maybe PowerBooks but the pro line is getting 970s and then we'll see how much difference a fast bus makes.
Computers cannot generate random numbers, only pseudorandom numbers. That means that while each time the simulation is run, the outcome may be different because of a different set of pseudorandom numbers, once a simulation is set in motion, it's future is certain. However, that doesn't mean the future is predictable. Just because the outcome is determined doesn't mean it can be known ahead of time.
Slashdot Mirror
Languages are OSS for your brain. Anyone is free to contribute to them, expand them, specialize them toward some particular purpose and those changes are given freely back to the community. The community then automatically decides if those changes were beneficial or not and either adopts them or doesn't. For the english language alone there are dozens of distributions available that are all more or less interoperable. If your distro does something a little different than someone else's that doesn't mean either is right or wrong. Differences are bound to pop up, some exist for a reason, others are basically arbitrary. As someone who uses the distro you're criticizing, I'll just say that the alternative spelling you've suggested seems a little awkward to pronounce while the one we use flows easily.
Anyway, my point is that you are free to contribute to English or any other human language as much as you want but you must remember that you don't own any of them even if one of them happens to be named after your nationality.
Well, just for the record, I am an Apple guy all the way. But I am so because they are consistently the best choice when it comes to the OS. I like QuickTime as an architecture but the built in codecs are not so hot. I prefer my media in open, unrestricted formats that I can use where and when I want. There are some pretty good ones out there but I'm definitely not going to complain if someone wants to develop another one. Besides, as has been pointed out by several others, this is a next generation codec. Saying we should be happy with what we have now rather than get excited over what's coming next is moronic and very odd coming from a Mac fanatic as it is completely opposite to what most of us feel Apple stands for.
Well, one of the main points of this codec is that will be useable on all platforms. Windows, Mac OS, and Linux are mentioned in the article but as it's going to be OSS and royalty free, there's no reason for it not to have implementations on other platforms as well. I periodically hear that Amiga is making a comeback...
Don't expect WMP, Real, or even our beloved QuickTime to ship with support for it but do expect plugins to be readily available. Anyway, all of those players suck (although QuickTime sucks less) compared to MPlayer (and VLC is OK too) and I would expect it to come with support built in.
It really sounds like some Apple people have come to this forum to talk up QuickTime just because Apple makes it even though it's clearly got certain issues that make it less than ideal for what the BBC wants to do. No offense to Apple or QuickTime but this project is a really really good thing. Someone with more technical expertise than I needs to explain the difference here between a codec (like Sorenson or MPEG4), an architecture (like Quicktime), and an application (like the QuickTime player). What they are doing has everything to do with the comments about Windows Media and Real because a royalty free codec is a direct threat to the Windows Media and Real codecs and when broadcasters choose it over them (and they will), MS and Real will lose a major source of revenue.
And Al Gore invented the internet, right?
Deciding which programming to keep and which to drop comes down to a lot more than just "ratings" but it seems most people just don't get it. If two shows have equivalent ratings but one costs half as much to produce as the other, which do you think they'll keep?
I can't imaging Farscape's ratings were very far below SG1's, maybe even about the same but just watch five minutes of each show and it's clear which one cost more to produce. Farscape had a much larger cast, way way way more intricate costumes/special effects, and a much better (higher paid?) team of writers. Doesn't anyone notice that every planet SG1 goes to looks like the woods outside of Vancouver BC?
Then you've got John Edward... No writers, no special effects, maybe they even scam his audience into paying to come see the live show. This is what few people seem to notice about "reality" television. It's not on TV because more people actually want to watch it, it's there because it has higher profit margins.
But, in this case, are we really "giving up" any liberties? Are we really "increasing police powers?" Isn't this just a case of extending the existing powers of the police to the next technological level? I mean, if police already have the right to wiretap a standard phone line and VoIP is just the successor to old fashioned telephony, then isn't denying them the ability to wiretap VoIP basically like taking a capability of theirs away?
Now, there may be a good argument for taking away the right to use wiretapping altogether and if there is, let's hear about that. But saying that they can wiretap one form of communication but not another seems a little weird.
Are we going to see a point where the convergence turns to over taking, and end-user CPU's need to be faster than a lot of corporate stuff?
I think we will actually. If I understand your meaning correctly when you say "corporate stuff" I'm thinking web, file, email servers and so on. Like you said, 3 year old machines are fine for most of that stuff now and will continue to be for some time. On the other hand, the end user is going to be requiring more and more power and not just for games or pretty interface animations. Apple and Microsoft have both been talking about the idea of the PC as a digital hub (well, I don't think MS uses that term exactly because it may be a Steve-ism) for a while. As it becomes a hub for more and more devices it's going to need more power. Loading an iPod with songs is trivial. Manipulating digital photos is a bit tougher. Beyond that you get into editing video and burning DVDs. Encoding and Decoding video. Music creation software. Maybe it won't be long before we see easy to use, prosumer quality 3D animation software...
We've seen a lot of things that used to require very expensive, specialized equipment make their way into the consumer space in the past few years. It's not too hard to guess where that trend may go next. One thing is for sure, it will continue to require more and more powerful processors. Not everyone will need all that power every day but when you get back from that European vacation and you want to do something cool with all the video you shot, you'll be glad it's there.
Kind of silly if you ask me. I'm not crazy about John Kerry but calling his record "monstrous" based on the incidents in that story is pure hyperbole. Yeah, the Patriot Act was a huge mistake, but not Kerry's alone by a long shot and as, the article states, he's trying to fix it to some degree with SAFE. The bits about his stance on encryption and "wiretapping" of VoIP are not the horrible violations of civil liberties they're being passed off as. These things would require a court order and therefore give law enforcement no new powers, just keep them on the same level as they've always been as technology marches forward. Like I said, I'm not Kerry's biggest fan, but in a two party system is it really fair to say "Kerry's Monstrous Record on Civil Liberties" without saying "Is only 1/10 as Monstrous as that of the Bush Administration"?
Are you kidding? You weren't even close! That is seriously the the worst FP attempt I've ever seen. You, sir, are a miserable failure and will never amount to anything as long as you live.
No one would expect this sort of tech to be perfected in the first generation, that's what monkeys are for. I, for one, won't be implanting anything in my brain that hasn't thoroughly been tested on monkeys first.
I hate typing (though, now that I no longer need to write, I can stop hating that so it's a trade off)
So it follows logically that once this becomes available you'll no longer need to hate typing but will start to hate thinking instead.
If who intended what now?
Look, humans already are virtual file systems. The technology being discussed here is really just a way of bridging two otherwise incompatible protocols.
Nice thoughts, here's how I see it:
1. There is a lot of goodwill towards them at the moment, however that's a hard thing to capitalize on. However getting more open source projects developed for OSX should help get a lot of people of the fence about switching. One of the main reasons people are afraid to switch is because they'd have to buy all their software again, if there are viable open source alternatives to most of them then that eliminates a major hurdle. That being said, OSX is already very open source friendly.
2. It's been frequently rumored that Apple has always maintained x86 code for OSX just in case. Remember, a big chunk of OSX was ported FROM x86 to begin with. But be careful how you throw that word "platform" around. It's possible that one day Apple might ship boxes containing x86 chips but they will certainly not be the same "platform" that is shipped by the likes of Dell, Gateway, etc. An Apple with x86 chips in it would still be an Apple. You wouldn't be able to install Windows on it and you wouldn't be able to install OSX on a Dell.
3. Keeping the iPod #1 is certainly one of the key things Apple must do to hold onto its mindshare, grow its marketshare, and remain as profitable as it has been recently. It doesn't look like the iPod will really become much of a PDA anytime soon. You're right in that phones are doing so. So how about making the iPod into a kind of PDA helper? Plug your phone in (or connect via bluetooth) and store thousands of addresses on it. Put the yellow pages on it. Snap pictures directly to it. Record ridiculously long movie clips and voice messages on it. I see phones getting more and better functionality in the way of cameras and so on but storage space is still a bit of a drawback. Or am I way off?
4. I'm not really sure what you're suggesting here but take a look back at what each new version of OSX has brought to the table in the last three years and then look at what's coming in 10.4 and I'm sure you'll notice that they're not just sitting around twittling their thumbs. I think you're suggesting that they should work more on their OS and software than on their consumer electronics offerings (iPod). I think it's clear that they are fully capable of doing both. Anyway, doesn't your 4 contradict your 3? And what porting are you talking about exactly?
There's a really good point to made about PCI slots and the Mac vs PC debate. Back when I was more involved with all this stuff I remember a lot of people using the argument that Macs (we're talking Power Macs here, this would be around the days of the blue and white G3s and the first G4s) didn't have enough expandability in the way of PCI. I never could understand that. You've got audio, ethernet and later on, Firewire built into the board. What more do you want? Three displays, a TV tuner, and a fiber card?
The iPod is more than a music player, it's a portable hard drive. If you've got extra space on it you can use it to carry around any kind of file and transfer stuff quickly between different computers.
This is not news. Hasn't Steve actually come out an said this exact thing several times since the store opened? This why all those comparisons to Napster 2.0 and the other online music stores is pointless.
Japan is crowded but not overcrowded. I lived in Tokyo for a year and I can say the benefits absolutely outweigh the drawbacks. Transportation, communications, entertainment, it's all better there than here (Seattle, USA). Sure, living space is limited but when you have so much great stuff outside your door, you stop caring how little you have inside it.
Yes, he is running for president and yes, he has toned down his moralist stance on this subject recently. In other words, he'd still love to see stricter legislation on this kind of thing but he has more to gain politically right now by saying that the industry is doing fine on its own.
While I don't dispute that some users may have trouble with two or more buttons initially, I think there may be more to Apple's decision to stick with one button. The defining characteristic of the Macintosh from its inception has been the intuitiveness of its interface. The primary function of a second mouse button is to bring up an otherwise hidden menu. If a two button mouse was standard on every mac, it would be a little too easy for developers to get lazy and start putting commands in that menu that didn't appear in any more obvious place. Sticking with one button discourages this kind of bad UI design.
Hang one from the ceiling with a string near a window. It will reflect the sun in to a fairly bright spot somewhere on the floor or wall, give it a little spin. Your cat will chase it as if it's some kind of small rodent but of course never be able to catch it. This may work with exceptionally stupid dogs too. Laser pointers work just as well but require more user interaction.
Just imagine a Beowulf cluster...
Until Moto fixes their bus problems, increasing raw processor speed is meaningless. This is the real advantage of the 970s, they can communicate at full speed with DDR RAM. I'm sure Apple will be happy to put faster G4s in their iMacs and maybe PowerBooks but the pro line is getting 970s and then we'll see how much difference a fast bus makes.
"God does not play dice with the Universe." -Albert Einstein
Computers cannot generate random numbers, only pseudorandom numbers. That means that while each time the simulation is run, the outcome may be different because of a different set of pseudorandom numbers, once a simulation is set in motion, it's future is certain. However, that doesn't mean the future is predictable. Just because the outcome is determined doesn't mean it can be known ahead of time.