Meh. Second link is just another term for the malthusian unsustainability curve that has recently been revised (population experiences an 'S' curve as civilization advances).
Meanwhile, I think it's going to be more like a water pahse-change curve. As usable space decreases, population growth falls off and population levels out (water reaches 100 deg cel). Then, as the economic system produces more cash than we know what to do with, we eventually find a way off this rock and the process starts anew on another planet.
First mocking: Man, I can't believe you actually put faith in that god crap.
Second mocking: Man, I can't believe you actually put faith in that environmental crap.
See? Mocking is easy! Meanwhile, if you liked that, you can have me do it for 40 hours a week for just $20 an hour! Sign me on as a journalist!
Re:Doomsday can come only from governments
on
Forecasting Doomsday
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
It's similar to the way things could be nicer worldwide. If, for example, everyone donated $0.25, you could cover the world's landmass with 802.11g WiFi and have enough left over to make it solar/wind powered, impregnable, maintenance free, and, aside from the $0.25, completely free to everyone.
Similarly, if you donate $0.25, you could cover the world's landmass (6km granularity) with solar-powered atmospheric H2O/CO2 reclamation facilities. The would quickly offset the global warming problem; with less CO2, and more importantly, less water vapor in the atmosphere, you have less heat trapped and less H2O being produced to trap it. For that cost (at $0.25 per person, at 6km granularity - 3km radius per unit in a hexagonal array, the possible cost of a unit is about $400), you could rig seasonal fuzzy logic (unit is at lat 45, temp is about 66 deg, it's january. Turn on and start drying the atmo; we're too warm and wet right now.), to maintain the balance after the problem is repaired. Not to mention the possibility that a district could relocate its excess water to more needy places for cash.
'Cept, you'll nevr get it done. Too many people would argue against either ("Free WiFi to all would hurt industry!" or "We have no idea what reducing moisture and CO2 levels could do to the environment!"). That's where it all falls apart, really. Doing such things would require both a full understanding of each project (to quell the naysayers) and an organization willing to actually act in the public interest (unlike government, which acts more on a pluralism of cash-backed interests).
That's where it all falls apart really. To truly understand such projects, you need to actually do them, and there aren't any organizations that act purely in the public interest. Thus, you'd have to find a way to make the projects tangably profitable for all people.
Meh. Like before, he chooses an unfortunate way to point out what's true and obvious: by spelling out 'Doom'.
Yes, the planet's gotten a bit hot. Stepping out in january wearing a spring jacket tells us that. (I AM skeptical about it being from CO2 production; I think it's much more likely due to the amount of heat and steam we produce as a society. The CO2 is a symptom, but atmospheric moisture is more self-inciting. Water vapor traps heat better than CO2 does, which causes more water vapor to form. Think about that next time you roll over a hill and see a power plant. In fact, think about how much heat you're producing when you flip on your air conditioner; yeah, it's cooling your house, but that's offset from its ass-end output heat. The difference is the heat from friction throughout the system - low in the pipes, hot from the motors.)
Saying we'll live to see a post-apocolyptic hell is a bad way to put it. Mainly because: 1) it's never too late to avert an environmental disaster; it just costs more the longer you wait. and 2) he fails to realize how most people will react when seeing that (ie: eh, never mind. The guys a nutter.)
The point of TFA is that Macs don't get the kind of scrutiny that Windows machines do.
This is, by the way, not even mentioning the following: Now that OS-X, Windows, and Linux all run on the same hardware, spreading a fully cross-platform virus is easy. The virus first attempts to identify the target machine. Upon doing so and diagnosing apprent weaknesses, the virus then packages the relevant position-independant code in an appropriate executable container (ELF for linux, PE for Windows, a.out or unibin for OS-X) and set the entry point.
The virus then executes a found exploit, causing the offending computer to download the converted virus from the attacking computer (uploading a virus via buffer overrun is tricky; it's better to simply send up a stub that grabs the virus from the attacker than to try for a full infection via exploit). This can be done by either piggybacking the download through a program that's been cleared by the firewall (wget, internet explorer, etc), or by creating a servlet whos only purpose is to wait for connections from the attacker and let it upload.
Hell, on OS-X, you could even have it download and compile the virus SOURCE behind the user's back.
I've said it here before: I'm a pretty good programmer, and I've been fighting viruses for years. Be glad I don't write the damned things; I could probably cripple the world. The same is true for any half-competant programmer with an interest in security.
Anyways, you make the same assumption that everyone seems to make: Apple has a 4% installed market share and there's a very small chance of that growing.
Apple could TROUNCE Microsoft just by/not/ having the TPM barrier to installation and/not/ supporting non-apple hardware.
(How much hardware does MS actually support? If you computer fails to work who do YOU call? If you went and installed OS-X on your PC, chances are you have some idea of what you're doing.)
Apple's afraid of it's own past. It's afraid that, once OS-X is out in the wild, it will no longer be able to charge double on its computers. It's afraid of competition on its hardware.
Fortunately, it's got a beautiful OS it can overcharge for and those sleek little over engineered and over designed plops of music player to fall back on, not to mention iTunes store,.Mac, etc.
Microsoft dominates the PC world because it runs on anything. Mac can't because it doesn't. Until now. Sure, it presently only runs on the highest of the high (P4/SSE3), but it won't be long until that's commodity hardware.
Meanwhile, I just brought home my new and pretty black box of OS-Xiness, and I'm about to run it through my own specially tweaked QEMU. We'll see who's got the TPM.
Blah, blah, blah, blah. It's nice to see you parroting off the same shit every business student and mac user since 1980 has ever said. Real creative.
They're not doing anything to protect their brand; the only thing they could have done would have been to stay with IBM and hook up the Cell processor. The second they set foot on the real PC world's soil, they doomed themselves to be stolen, run on unlicensed PCs, and eventually to become the major competition to Microsoft.
If the PS3 and X-Box 360 are, at their essence, the same machine... How long do you think it'll be before some group or other figures out how to get games for one to run on the other?
I don't bear Sony's gme division any bad blood, but you won't find me buying any Sony CDs. Or any CDs from the RIAA, for that matter. The RIAA's has, in recent years, proven themselves unworthy of my trust, my respect, and my dollar.
I'm sticking to indy artists that torrent and http their stuff, as well as my existing CD collection, and CDs I buy at shows.
My view is that we should be supporting the artists while screwing the middlemen. That's the only way to rid ourselves of the middlemen.
I think the point is to show context; you can make a lot of statements without knowing what you're on about, and especially in the case of Apple (and BSD) folks, the liklihood of replies being on the defensive (Don't talk that way about Apple, you PC Heathen!) side of things is high.
Apple users are, in general, zealots. When an Apple user says something that could be construed as 'sleeping with the enemy', they NEED to state their loyalties to prevent the more fucktarded of their bretheren from going all ulitmate-power (flipping out and killing people) in text.
SquashFS is a block compression filesystem. It's designed for fault tolerance without breaking the archive. The same can be said about bzip2, but at a 900kB granularity. Meanwhile, the resulting broken tar file would pose its own problems, as the size of the broken chunk in a bz2 compressed file would be variable.
But, yeah. It's just a choice for data integrity. Could've used DMG, too, just as long as it's some flavor of block-compressed filesystem, rather than a plain old archive.
So, what your saying is that, for the Uneducated Masses, an iPod is fine, but for the more discerning user, one demands higher quality and better compatibility than the iPod provides.
You're bundling Quicktime (the video for apple api) with Mov (the stream container preferred by quicktime).
I don't need another API for video. I have Xinerama on my Linux box and VFW/Directshow on my Windows box. What I need (and what has existed for nearly two years) is a well-written plugin for these APIs that will allow me to 1) view MOV-contained files and 2) contain streams in the MOV container.
A week of programming could use the KOffice Calc part with Openoffice's file input filters. I'll bet that whenever Apple's agenda gets to building a spreadsheet, that's going to be their strategy.
Darwine will probably supplant VirtualPC on intel macs.
Meanwhile, iWork, with a little code-borrowing from Openoffice and kOffice could easily make MS Office useless.
And, yes. I see it too. The first shots are being fired.
I thought this would happen back when the Intel move was announced. Jobs knew hackers would get OS-X to non-apple machines, and he still knows it. Sure, he'll make some noise now and again, but it boils down to this: he WANTS it. Once the 'bought and patched' user base is large enough, he'll be able to take on Gates' stranglehold on the PC world directly.
And Gates knows it. Neither side wants to say anything, but OS-X has the firepower to blow windows out. Once the market conditions shift in the right way
It's actually due to Quicktime's inability to handle a variable bitrate audio stream in an avi container (which is a hack of the AVI 'spec'; it was never designed to handle variable streams, as AVI was built before variable-rate mpeg audio came on the scene)
Slashdot Mirror
Meh. Second link is just another term for the malthusian unsustainability curve that has recently been revised (population experiences an 'S' curve as civilization advances).
Meanwhile, I think it's going to be more like a water pahse-change curve. As usable space decreases, population growth falls off and population levels out (water reaches 100 deg cel). Then, as the economic system produces more cash than we know what to do with, we eventually find a way off this rock and the process starts anew on another planet.
When the world fails to provide a suitable climate for our eating needs, wel will provide the climate ourselves: http://www.verticalfarm.com/index.htm
Actually, I'll mock both types.
First mocking: Man, I can't believe you actually put faith in that god crap.
Second mocking: Man, I can't believe you actually put faith in that environmental crap.
See? Mocking is easy! Meanwhile, if you liked that, you can have me do it for 40 hours a week for just $20 an hour! Sign me on as a journalist!
It's similar to the way things could be nicer worldwide. If, for example, everyone donated $0.25, you could cover the world's landmass with 802.11g WiFi and have enough left over to make it solar/wind powered, impregnable, maintenance free, and, aside from the $0.25, completely free to everyone.
Similarly, if you donate $0.25, you could cover the world's landmass (6km granularity) with solar-powered atmospheric H2O/CO2 reclamation facilities. The would quickly offset the global warming problem; with less CO2, and more importantly, less water vapor in the atmosphere, you have less heat trapped and less H2O being produced to trap it. For that cost (at $0.25 per person, at 6km granularity - 3km radius per unit in a hexagonal array, the possible cost of a unit is about $400), you could rig seasonal fuzzy logic (unit is at lat 45, temp is about 66 deg, it's january. Turn on and start drying the atmo; we're too warm and wet right now.), to maintain the balance after the problem is repaired. Not to mention the possibility that a district could relocate its excess water to more needy places for cash.
'Cept, you'll nevr get it done. Too many people would argue against either ("Free WiFi to all would hurt industry!" or "We have no idea what reducing moisture and CO2 levels could do to the environment!"). That's where it all falls apart, really. Doing such things would require both a full understanding of each project (to quell the naysayers) and an organization willing to actually act in the public interest (unlike government, which acts more on a pluralism of cash-backed interests).
That's where it all falls apart really. To truly understand such projects, you need to actually do them, and there aren't any organizations that act purely in the public interest. Thus, you'd have to find a way to make the projects tangably profitable for all people.
Oh, well.
Meh. Like before, he chooses an unfortunate way to point out what's true and obvious: by spelling out 'Doom'.
Yes, the planet's gotten a bit hot. Stepping out in january wearing a spring jacket tells us that. (I AM skeptical about it being from CO2 production; I think it's much more likely due to the amount of heat and steam we produce as a society. The CO2 is a symptom, but atmospheric moisture is more self-inciting. Water vapor traps heat better than CO2 does, which causes more water vapor to form. Think about that next time you roll over a hill and see a power plant. In fact, think about how much heat you're producing when you flip on your air conditioner; yeah, it's cooling your house, but that's offset from its ass-end output heat. The difference is the heat from friction throughout the system - low in the pipes, hot from the motors.)
Saying we'll live to see a post-apocolyptic hell is a bad way to put it. Mainly because: 1) it's never too late to avert an environmental disaster; it just costs more the longer you wait. and 2) he fails to realize how most people will react when seeing that (ie: eh, never mind. The guys a nutter.)
The point of TFA is that Macs don't get the kind of scrutiny that Windows machines do.
This is, by the way, not even mentioning the following: Now that OS-X, Windows, and Linux all run on the same hardware, spreading a fully cross-platform virus is easy. The virus first attempts to identify the target machine. Upon doing so and diagnosing apprent weaknesses, the virus then packages the relevant position-independant code in an appropriate executable container (ELF for linux, PE for Windows, a.out or unibin for OS-X) and set the entry point.
The virus then executes a found exploit, causing the offending computer to download the converted virus from the attacking computer (uploading a virus via buffer overrun is tricky; it's better to simply send up a stub that grabs the virus from the attacker than to try for a full infection via exploit). This can be done by either piggybacking the download through a program that's been cleared by the firewall (wget, internet explorer, etc), or by creating a servlet whos only purpose is to wait for connections from the attacker and let it upload.
Hell, on OS-X, you could even have it download and compile the virus SOURCE behind the user's back.
I've said it here before: I'm a pretty good programmer, and I've been fighting viruses for years. Be glad I don't write the damned things; I could probably cripple the world. The same is true for any half-competant programmer with an interest in security.
Sorry, they lost the school dollar years ago.
/not/ having the TPM barrier to installation and /not/ supporting non-apple hardware.
.Mac, etc.
Anyways, you make the same assumption that everyone seems to make: Apple has a 4% installed market share and there's a very small chance of that growing.
Apple could TROUNCE Microsoft just by
(How much hardware does MS actually support? If you computer fails to work who do YOU call? If you went and installed OS-X on your PC, chances are you have some idea of what you're doing.)
Apple's afraid of it's own past. It's afraid that, once OS-X is out in the wild, it will no longer be able to charge double on its computers. It's afraid of competition on its hardware.
Fortunately, it's got a beautiful OS it can overcharge for and those sleek little over engineered and over designed plops of music player to fall back on, not to mention iTunes store,
Microsoft dominates the PC world because it runs on anything. Mac can't because it doesn't. Until now. Sure, it presently only runs on the highest of the high (P4/SSE3), but it won't be long until that's commodity hardware.
Meanwhile, I just brought home my new and pretty black box of OS-Xiness, and I'm about to run it through my own specially tweaked QEMU. We'll see who's got the TPM.
Wait, so you're saying that OS-X is better 'cos it's less flexible?
Sounds like doublethink to me.
Blah, blah, blah, blah. It's nice to see you parroting off the same shit every business student and mac user since 1980 has ever said. Real creative.
They're not doing anything to protect their brand; the only thing they could have done would have been to stay with IBM and hook up the Cell processor. The second they set foot on the real PC world's soil, they doomed themselves to be stolen, run on unlicensed PCs, and eventually to become the major competition to Microsoft.
I'm wondering...
If the PS3 and X-Box 360 are, at their essence, the same machine... How long do you think it'll be before some group or other figures out how to get games for one to run on the other?
I don't bear Sony's gme division any bad blood, but you won't find me buying any Sony CDs. Or any CDs from the RIAA, for that matter. The RIAA's has, in recent years, proven themselves unworthy of my trust, my respect, and my dollar.
I'm sticking to indy artists that torrent and http their stuff, as well as my existing CD collection, and CDs I buy at shows.
My view is that we should be supporting the artists while screwing the middlemen. That's the only way to rid ourselves of the middlemen.
I think the point is to show context; you can make a lot of statements without knowing what you're on about, and especially in the case of Apple (and BSD) folks, the liklihood of replies being on the defensive (Don't talk that way about Apple, you PC Heathen!) side of things is high.
Apple users are, in general, zealots. When an Apple user says something that could be construed as 'sleeping with the enemy', they NEED to state their loyalties to prevent the more fucktarded of their bretheren from going all ulitmate-power (flipping out and killing people) in text.
Actually, I have Linux. iPod is MORE supported than most other MP3 player under it.
Meanwhile, I also have a Dell Axim. It was playing video when Steve Jobs was still only playing with himself.
correction: Quicktime _the container_ is shit. Go with mkv.
SquashFS is a block compression filesystem. It's designed for fault tolerance without breaking the archive. The same can be said about bzip2, but at a 900kB granularity. Meanwhile, the resulting broken tar file would pose its own problems, as the size of the broken chunk in a bz2 compressed file would be variable.
But, yeah. It's just a choice for data integrity. Could've used DMG, too, just as long as it's some flavor of block-compressed filesystem, rather than a plain old archive.
I'm sure WE aren't. ^_^
Hailing from Philly, my man.
Really? Many. Or, at least, I'm pretty sure I could write better games by taking a shit on a scanner and compiling the resulting image.
You know, I'm really curious:
What is it about Apple branded earbuds that justify a cost of $30-40 a pair?
So, what your saying is that, for the Uneducated Masses, an iPod is fine, but for the more discerning user, one demands higher quality and better compatibility than the iPod provides.
"'cos I'm the taxman... yeaah I'm the tax-maannnnn"
No, seriously. What flavor of crack DO you smoke?
You're bundling Quicktime (the video for apple api) with Mov (the stream container preferred by quicktime).
I don't need another API for video. I have Xinerama on my Linux box and VFW/Directshow on my Windows box. What I need (and what has existed for nearly two years) is a well-written plugin for these APIs that will allow me to 1) view MOV-contained files and 2) contain streams in the MOV container.
"Quicktime Alternative"
Google it. It's a VFW Quicktime filter that lets you use QT like an AVI.
A week of programming could use the KOffice Calc part with Openoffice's file input filters. I'll bet that whenever Apple's agenda gets to building a spreadsheet, that's going to be their strategy.
Darwine will probably supplant VirtualPC on intel macs.
Meanwhile, iWork, with a little code-borrowing from Openoffice and kOffice could easily make MS Office useless.
And, yes. I see it too. The first shots are being fired.
I thought this would happen back when the Intel move was announced. Jobs knew hackers would get OS-X to non-apple machines, and he still knows it. Sure, he'll make some noise now and again, but it boils down to this: he WANTS it. Once the 'bought and patched' user base is large enough, he'll be able to take on Gates' stranglehold on the PC world directly.
And Gates knows it. Neither side wants to say anything, but OS-X has the firepower to blow windows out. Once the market conditions shift in the right way
It's actually due to Quicktime's inability to handle a variable bitrate audio stream in an avi container (which is a hack of the AVI 'spec'; it was never designed to handle variable streams, as AVI was built before variable-rate mpeg audio came on the scene)