I think, if anything, the following would happen after a public uncontrolled release of OSX-x86.
People would start using OS-X x86 on their home computers, 'cos it's "easier". Afterward, those same people would buy Mac hardware, for much the same reason - but only AFTER Apple has dropped its prices to be competitive with sellers like Dell.
Additionally, they can forbid third-party hardware developers from pre-installing OS-X for sales - but not bother to lock the OS. This was, Apple gets cash if resellers sell a computer "with" OS-X - but not installed - and have an advantage on being the only people who can sell pre-installed OS-X.
And I know, they can already do this, but not on an economy of scale. Open OS-X up to commodity hardware, and OS-X will OWN the computer OS market. Period.
I don't think Jobs even cares if you're able to install OS-X on commodity hardware. Yeah, they'll make it hard; they don't want it _looking_ like they condone that sort of behavior, nor do they want the practice to become _too_ widespread, but eventually, their hand will be "forced", and they'll start making insane amounts of money on the hard work of a million hackers.
Funny thing. OS-X x86 has been running stably on my machine for months now. Not much to do with it, but hey.
Meanwhile, my girlfriend's powerbook crashes at least on a weekly basis (she uses it for graphic design work). Stability my ass. Anything breaks if you push it too hard.
*sigh*
I don't know why I even talk in slashdot anymore. It's not like the great majority of these people know what a "segfault" is. Probably think a "kernel panic" is akin to a "blue screen of death" on a mac.
Apple didn't write their own driver API, knucklehead. You're talking about the mach user mode module interface. It was written by the mach kernel team.
Get a freaking clue.
Oh, and don't suggest that Apple wrote the mach kernel. If you do, I will be forced to flog you with Steve Jobs' penis.
Yeah. Then why is it possible for me to afford the latest and greatest PC - fast or faster than the best Mac and half as expensive?
Price is still one of them. I'm not paying $500 for crap when I can spend $500 on gold. And once OS-X x86 is released into the wild with its hardware (Yes. It will be leaked. Yes. It will be hacked. To suggest different is either an act of self-deceit, or basic, run-of-the-mill stupidity. Not that I'd expect anything less than someone who pays $1700 on a $700 computer), I'll have a computer that blazes past yours, runs Windows, Linux and OS-X (with cross-platform compatibility layers like Rosetta, Wine, SoftPC, and coLinux everywhere), and only cost me that $500.
Yeah. Swear up and down that high-powered G5s are for professional work only. In two years, an equivalent of the G5 will be the contents of the mac mini and the Next Best thing will be touted as "For Professionals Only". Me? I'm buying the AMD knock-offs that run faster and cost less. Screw _your_ rat race.
No drugs. Thing is, Mach (You know, the common microkernel for Darwin, OS-X and BSD?) has drivers for a good deal of x86 hardware... I don't think the "driver hell" everyone keeps envisioning for Mac on x86 is really gonna happen.
For example, what if Apple's plan is to initially release OS-X locked to its thoroughly tested hardware, then slowly expand "supported" hardware as they burn-in the open source Mach drivers?
Meanwhile, you, the user, can expand your horizons by Building Your Own Mach Kernel with naitive support for whatever hardware you feel like, following it up by injecting it into your hacked-in OS-X.
Yeah. OS-X is great for geeks, but really, it isn't ready for the desktop ^_^.
There's a physical reason a V12 won't fit in a Hyundai. There is not, however, any non-control-related reason that OS-X won't run on a standard PC. (granted, SSE2 is required, SSE3 prefered, but that's still commodity hardware).
<a href="http://games.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1<nobr>6<wbr></wbr></nobr> 7881&op=Reply&threshold=1&commentsort=0&tid=123&t<nobr>i<wbr></wbr></nobr> d=10&mode=thread&pid=13998271">If you look here</a>, you'll see that your entire post was invalidated.
Hm. How about letting the industry self-regulate? In the wake of RockStar's failure to fully disclose the contents of their game, you can be assured that if your kid owns an inappropriate videogame, chances are you bought it. No company wants to be sued, and now that awareness is appropriately up, game salespeople are generally required by their comanies to card you. Shit, I'm 25 and *I* just got carded before I could buy "God of War".
Meanwhile, if you can't be bothered to figure out what the label on a game cart means, perhaps someone else should be taking care of your kids. You obviously don't care enough.
>_> Or a large number of kernel-hackers modifying their kernel slightly to catch all traffic going from the kernel-to-binary and binary-to-hardware processes. Black-box hacking is fun and healthy!
It wouldn't be hard to include this as part of Hotplug support - as long as it's standardized. Since many security algorithms are included as part of the linux kernel, signed drivers aren't even difficult.
Meanwhile, being that it's _linux_, you can disable support for external drivers with some degree of ease.
Sheesh.
Hell, I could even think of a few easy ways to build _daemons_ into a linux kernel without seriously modding the source code (just adding something to, perhaps, the ACPI module. I'm actually surprised that there haven't been a few distributed multi-targetted virii that do this)
Apparently, this thing can handle going with windspeeds of over 154, while props fall must be braked or they'll fall apart. This likely has to do with the materials used.
Also, the wind-tunnel testing gave them a number of 2 blades.
That's the reason this _is_ news. This guy was able to overcome the inherent engineering problems with VAWTs (which are more efficient, but more difficult to design without the failures you described). The Slashdotters may think this is funny, or stupid, but...
It occurs to me that every time a new non-software technology has been reported on slashdot, >50% of those who comment on it are near-psychotic in claiming it's bunk. Why is that?
Um... it's so not a sanovius rotor. There's no air flow gap at the center, and the shape of the blades is designed to cause follow through lift on the away-from-the-incoming-airflow side.
If the design is still anything like efficient at 150 mile/hr speeds, why not just couple in a microcontrolled CV tranny? You know, keep the generator running at its most efficient speed for anything past the rotors' most efficient speed.
I know of a particular CV design that's extremely well tailored for high-speed low-torque applications.
"In particular, they have to combine their pursuit of profit with active involvement in a vibrant 'community' of open source users, some of whom are not paying customers. Not all open source companies are hitting the right balance between commerce and community, analysts and executives said."
Some of whom? Most users of OSS don't pay for support. The balance is that the _corporate_ customers pay through the nose - not because the costs are high, but because they're corporate, and need a LOT of support relative to non-corporate (say 1000 support requests per day for a good-sized company, not to mention potential hardware sales, as well as setup fees), and are more than willing to pay for it - not being the type to dig their fingers in and fix it themselves.
In addition, overhead for programming staff is lower for an OSS firm than for others; most core (read: linux/bsd kernel, apache, mysql, samba, ad inf) software is written by others, and usually by volunteers and those hired by other companies to advance their own interests. The OSS company really only has to work on integration-level software.
So, given that Open Source has a workable business model - as long as it's well-marketed - the real question is whether the venture capitalists are investing in sensible projects with good individual business models (Mozilla Foundation) or in some rediculous idea someone had in the late 90's (shipping management company offering free shipping for over a month).
I for one say goodbye to our Wal-Mart overlords, and welcome our new Google --- naw, but seriously...
From what I can tell, Google, thus far, has caused all kinds of problems for industry, disrupted such powerful forces as Microsoft, driven fear into a company that drives fear into retailers and supply-chain alike, and made billions of dollars, all on a geeks dream, and all without directly costing its users a penny.
Some people claim that Google is the new Micro$oft, in the negative sense, but that's likely years to come. For now, Google is doing things that Microsoft was never able to fully comprehend: Innovate.
Don't worry. The presence of a "safer" cigarette won't make the bars of NYC or of California any more fun to go to.
>_> I'd say I hope your sort dies a slow, painful death caused by the toxins in your drinking water, or your air, your genetic disposition, the exhaust from your car, the sweetener in your coffee, the preservatives in your salad, the additives in your food, the bacterium in your "organic" food, liver failure due to alcohol, or a number of the other "disease causing" items in the world, but while all these are proven to cause disease, the risks, like smoking, are lower than the fear-ridden public are led to believe - and so I'd be marked "troll".
That's why it was referred to as a witch hunt. Attack those without the determination to defend themselves. It's how politics work. It's also why, for example, you can't talk on your cell-phone in NY - but can still chat with your passenger.
If someone asks "could you smoke outside?"; if a nonsmoker walks into an establishment where many others are smoking, he or she must deal with it or leave. Litigating this kind of shit is outright fascism.
Not that I'd had any hope that the US wouldn't turn fascist anyway. It's the default state for all governments, and the reason why they eventually fall. Too much "You can't do this; it's for your your own good." Not enough "Sorry, we were wrong. You can do this."
Odd. The first Fast Fourier Transform function written in C was in the 1970s. It's still the best one to date for processing large-scale spectral analysis.
Besides which, non of the Linux kernel code could have originated before Mr. Torvalds sat down and started his hobby.
As for the GNU portion of the code... When's Grub 2 coming out?
That may be true, but the math is correct to the Shannon equation. Mr. Professor Man just stated it poorly.
900MHz band, to send a 3.7Mbit/s @ 50mW BW=Freq*log2(S/N+1)
We can assume N to be a nonzero constant, to avoid having to split those annoying infinitives. Now, let us solve for N.
N=S/(2^(BW/Freq)+1)
N=0.05W/(2^(3700000baud/900000000Hz)+1) N~=0.025W
Now note that that means this particular scheme, in this particular environment, was able to deal with a 2.0 S/N ratio (or 3.0db). Recalculating to 1MHz at 1W to get BW
Hm. I get about 5.1Mbaud at 1 Watt with the same noise characteristic. Apparently this guy can't do math. Still impressive, assuming that this system is able to intrinsically filter out most noise and just deals with less than, say 0.05-0.10W (1Mbit signal) of interference in a RF-crowded environment. If not, than this is a stupid pipe dream.
Impressive, because once applied to a spread spectrum, every 5kHz or so, you get another 1Mbaud of bandwidth to be shared by the geographically local group...
Slashdot Mirror
I dunno.
I think, if anything, the following would happen after a public uncontrolled release of OSX-x86.
People would start using OS-X x86 on their home computers, 'cos it's "easier". Afterward, those same people would buy Mac hardware, for much the same reason - but only AFTER Apple has dropped its prices to be competitive with sellers like Dell.
Additionally, they can forbid third-party hardware developers from pre-installing OS-X for sales - but not bother to lock the OS. This was, Apple gets cash if resellers sell a computer "with" OS-X - but not installed - and have an advantage on being the only people who can sell pre-installed OS-X.
And I know, they can already do this, but not on an economy of scale. Open OS-X up to commodity hardware, and OS-X will OWN the computer OS market. Period.
I don't think Jobs even cares if you're able to install OS-X on commodity hardware. Yeah, they'll make it hard; they don't want it _looking_ like they condone that sort of behavior, nor do they want the practice to become _too_ widespread, but eventually, their hand will be "forced", and they'll start making insane amounts of money on the hard work of a million hackers.
Because some things just MUST be done, regardless of the legalities. Like downloading the history of music.
Funny thing. OS-X x86 has been running stably on my machine for months now. Not much to do with it, but hey.
Meanwhile, my girlfriend's powerbook crashes at least on a weekly basis (she uses it for graphic design work). Stability my ass. Anything breaks if you push it too hard.
*sigh*
I don't know why I even talk in slashdot anymore. It's not like the great majority of these people know what a "segfault" is. Probably think a "kernel panic" is akin to a "blue screen of death" on a mac.
Apple didn't write their own driver API, knucklehead. You're talking about the mach user mode module interface. It was written by the mach kernel team.
Get a freaking clue.
Oh, and don't suggest that Apple wrote the mach kernel. If you do, I will be forced to flog you with Steve Jobs' penis.
"Yes"
The original press release said that.
Though, you can run SoftPC and Wine under OS-X, so my question is: "Why?"
Yeah. Then why is it possible for me to afford the latest and greatest PC - fast or faster than the best Mac and half as expensive?
Price is still one of them. I'm not paying $500 for crap when I can spend $500 on gold. And once OS-X x86 is released into the wild with its hardware (Yes. It will be leaked. Yes. It will be hacked. To suggest different is either an act of self-deceit, or basic, run-of-the-mill stupidity. Not that I'd expect anything less than someone who pays $1700 on a $700 computer), I'll have a computer that blazes past yours, runs Windows, Linux and OS-X (with cross-platform compatibility layers like Rosetta, Wine, SoftPC, and coLinux everywhere), and only cost me that $500.
Yeah. Swear up and down that high-powered G5s are for professional work only. In two years, an equivalent of the G5 will be the contents of the mac mini and the Next Best thing will be touted as "For Professionals Only". Me? I'm buying the AMD knock-offs that run faster and cost less. Screw _your_ rat race.
No drugs. Thing is, Mach (You know, the common microkernel for Darwin, OS-X and BSD?) has drivers for a good deal of x86 hardware... I don't think the "driver hell" everyone keeps envisioning for Mac on x86 is really gonna happen.
For example, what if Apple's plan is to initially release OS-X locked to its thoroughly tested hardware, then slowly expand "supported" hardware as they burn-in the open source Mach drivers?
Meanwhile, you, the user, can expand your horizons by Building Your Own Mach Kernel with naitive support for whatever hardware you feel like, following it up by injecting it into your hacked-in OS-X.
Yeah. OS-X is great for geeks, but really, it isn't ready for the desktop ^_^.
*sigh* Elitist.
There's a physical reason a V12 won't fit in a Hyundai. There is not, however, any non-control-related reason that OS-X won't run on a standard PC. (granted, SSE2 is required, SSE3 prefered, but that's still commodity hardware).
<a href="http://games.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1<nobr>6<wbr></wbr></nobr> 7881&op=Reply&threshold=1&commentsort=0&tid=123&t<nobr>i<wbr></wbr></nobr> d=10&mode=thread&pid=13998271">If you look here</a>, you'll see that your entire post was invalidated.
Hm. How about letting the industry self-regulate? In the wake of RockStar's failure to fully disclose the contents of their game, you can be assured that if your kid owns an inappropriate videogame, chances are you bought it. No company wants to be sued, and now that awareness is appropriately up, game salespeople are generally required by their comanies to card you. Shit, I'm 25 and *I* just got carded before I could buy "God of War".
Meanwhile, if you can't be bothered to figure out what the label on a game cart means, perhaps someone else should be taking care of your kids. You obviously don't care enough.
>_> Or a large number of kernel-hackers modifying their kernel slightly to catch all traffic going from the kernel-to-binary and binary-to-hardware processes. Black-box hacking is fun and healthy!
It wouldn't be hard to include this as part of Hotplug support - as long as it's standardized. Since many security algorithms are included as part of the linux kernel, signed drivers aren't even difficult.
Meanwhile, being that it's _linux_, you can disable support for external drivers with some degree of ease.
Sheesh.
Hell, I could even think of a few easy ways to build _daemons_ into a linux kernel without seriously modding the source code (just adding something to, perhaps, the ACPI module. I'm actually surprised that there haven't been a few distributed multi-targetted virii that do this)
*sigh*
I hate it when people don't read TFA.
Apparently, this thing can handle going with windspeeds of over 154, while props fall must be braked or they'll fall apart. This likely has to do with the materials used.
Also, the wind-tunnel testing gave them a number of 2 blades.
That's the reason this _is_ news. This guy was able to overcome the inherent engineering problems with VAWTs (which are more efficient, but more difficult to design without the failures you described). The Slashdotters may think this is funny, or stupid, but...
It occurs to me that every time a new non-software technology has been reported on slashdot, >50% of those who comment on it are near-psychotic in claiming it's bunk. Why is that?
I believe it also said something about how easy it is to fit it with a wire mesh.
Um... it's so not a sanovius rotor. There's no air flow gap at the center, and the shape of the blades is designed to cause follow through lift on the away-from-the-incoming-airflow side.
Hm.
If the design is still anything like efficient at 150 mile/hr speeds, why not just couple in a microcontrolled CV tranny? You know, keep the generator running at its most efficient speed for anything past the rotors' most efficient speed.
I know of a particular CV design that's extremely well tailored for high-speed low-torque applications.
"In particular, they have to combine their pursuit of profit with active involvement in a vibrant 'community' of open source users, some of whom are not paying customers. Not all open source companies are hitting the right balance between commerce and community, analysts and executives said."
Some of whom? Most users of OSS don't pay for support. The balance is that the _corporate_ customers pay through the nose - not because the costs are high, but because they're corporate, and need a LOT of support relative to non-corporate (say 1000 support requests per day for a good-sized company, not to mention potential hardware sales, as well as setup fees), and are more than willing to pay for it - not being the type to dig their fingers in and fix it themselves.
In addition, overhead for programming staff is lower for an OSS firm than for others; most core (read: linux/bsd kernel, apache, mysql, samba, ad inf) software is written by others, and usually by volunteers and those hired by other companies to advance their own interests. The OSS company really only has to work on integration-level software.
So, given that Open Source has a workable business model - as long as it's well-marketed - the real question is whether the venture capitalists are investing in sensible projects with good individual business models (Mozilla Foundation) or in some rediculous idea someone had in the late 90's (shipping management company offering free shipping for over a month).
Pure capitalism requires full access to information by the public. Anything less causes market failures of all sorts.
I for one say goodbye to our Wal-Mart overlords, and welcome our new Google --- naw, but seriously...
From what I can tell, Google, thus far, has caused all kinds of problems for industry, disrupted such powerful forces as Microsoft, driven fear into a company that drives fear into retailers and supply-chain alike, and made billions of dollars, all on a geeks dream, and all without directly costing its users a penny.
Some people claim that Google is the new Micro$oft, in the negative sense, but that's likely years to come. For now, Google is doing things that Microsoft was never able to fully comprehend: Innovate.
From TFA: "Google might soon be able to tell Wal-Mart shoppers if better bargains are available..."
Doesn't... doesn't Froogle already do this?
Don't worry. The presence of a "safer" cigarette won't make the bars of NYC or of California any more fun to go to.
>_> I'd say I hope your sort dies a slow, painful death caused by the toxins in your drinking water, or your air, your genetic disposition, the exhaust from your car, the sweetener in your coffee, the preservatives in your salad, the additives in your food, the bacterium in your "organic" food, liver failure due to alcohol, or a number of the other "disease causing" items in the world, but while all these are proven to cause disease, the risks, like smoking, are lower than the fear-ridden public are led to believe - and so I'd be marked "troll".
That's why it was referred to as a witch hunt. Attack those without the determination to defend themselves. It's how politics work. It's also why, for example, you can't talk on your cell-phone in NY - but can still chat with your passenger.
If someone asks "could you smoke outside?"; if a nonsmoker walks into an establishment where many others are smoking, he or she must deal with it or leave. Litigating this kind of shit is outright fascism.
Not that I'd had any hope that the US wouldn't turn fascist anyway. It's the default state for all governments, and the reason why they eventually fall. Too much "You can't do this; it's for your your own good." Not enough "Sorry, we were wrong. You can do this."
* Due to release delays, this entire schedule is to be moved back and average of six months.
Odd. The first Fast Fourier Transform function written in C was in the 1970s. It's still the best one to date for processing large-scale spectral analysis.
Besides which, non of the Linux kernel code could have originated before Mr. Torvalds sat down and started his hobby.
As for the GNU portion of the code... When's Grub 2 coming out?
That may be true, but the math is correct to the Shannon equation. Mr. Professor Man just stated it poorly.
900MHz band, to send a 3.7Mbit/s @ 50mW
BW=Freq*log2(S/N+1)
We can assume N to be a nonzero constant, to avoid having to split those annoying infinitives. Now, let us solve for N.
N=S/(2^(BW/Freq)+1)
N=0.05W/(2^(3700000baud/900000000Hz)+1)
N~=0.025W
Now note that that means this particular scheme, in this particular environment, was able to deal with a 2.0 S/N ratio (or 3.0db). Recalculating to 1MHz at 1W to get BW
BW=Freq*log2(S/N+1)
BW=1000000Hz*log2(1/0.025+1)
BW~=5,350,000baud
Hm. I get about 5.1Mbaud at 1 Watt with the same noise characteristic. Apparently this guy can't do math. Still impressive, assuming that this system is able to intrinsically filter out most noise and just deals with less than, say 0.05-0.10W (1Mbit signal) of interference in a RF-crowded environment. If not, than this is a stupid pipe dream.
Impressive, because once applied to a spread spectrum, every 5kHz or so, you get another 1Mbaud of bandwidth to be shared by the geographically local group...