I find it amusingly ironic that Apple, the makers of the iMac, iBook, iPod, and many iApps call the technology "FireWire", yet Sony call it "iLink".
And I for one am soooo grateful that Apple didn't think of that first. Enough with the i[noun] naming strategy! I am a die-hard mac fan but um...i am sick of it being so...predictable!
Might I add another tip that always works for me? Note: I have never worked phone support. I've worked retail jobs and in-house tech support for a smaller company, but I am decidedly viewing this from a consumer point of view.
Be kind, courteous and respectful of the tech support person with whom you are dealing.
It's a really simple thing but it does a few things...first, it makes the tech support person actually feel like a person and that gives them more incentive to help you or help you find someone who can help you. Second, and this is often overlooked, if you are nice to the person on the other end of the phone it will often make the experience less stressful and less negative for you, as the caller.
I know these are simple things and most everyone would realize them on their own, but I also know it's easy to forget these when dealing with tech support that in general sucks and is difficult to get in touch with.
That keyboard is definitely going to come in handy. Especially since my thumbs have been "mutated" [slashdot.org] [slashdot.org] from several years of playing Tetris on my Gameboy.
You have thumbs that small? I mean, you do realize that the thing measures only 2 7/8 inches wide...that would allow a maximum width of 0.2875 inches per button, without any space between them (which a close look at the pix on Sony's site reveals to be a generous assumption.) Now that's a tiny thumb and quite a mutation!
So, yeah, my point really is not to make jokes about our poor "mutated" children, teens and young adults but rather point out that such as small keyboard actually may be more of a hinderance and waste of space than it is a help or value-added feature. I think there are better solutions to the problem of rapid/efficient input for such small devices. Two examples that jump to mind are both the systems used by Nokia in many (all?) of their cell phones.
First is the predictive input where the user simply presses the number corresponding to the desired letter (standard 3 letter per numbered button phone configuration) for each letter and the phone uses its internal dictionary and word frequencies to 'guess' what word the user is trying to input.
The second, more simple system is the one that uses multiple presses of a particular number to select from the 3 corresponding letters. While it takes a little more effort to press the button multiple times it is very intuitive and the size of the buttons are still managable. For reference, Nokia's super small 8290 and 8260 series phones use both those systems and their buttons are approx. 3/8ths of an inch wide and they're almost too small to use accurately.
A cookbook with a "Version History"
Version History
1.5 color, added extras. There seems to be a problem with no search capabilities for this version.
1.0 initial release version. black and white. low distribution
And if that weren't enough, it's mirrored...on two continents. Now that's geeky
And how hard would it be to recruit personnel to work on gorgeous Caribbean islands? Grow your company to the right size in a protected nation (see USA), then when that country starts to turn on you, pack up and head for your own mini country!
Yeah, it'd be wonderful up until huricane abby or some such comes along and wipes out all of your senior software engineers...wait. Can we sell Microsoft on this idea?
The robots are NOT pheromone SNIFFING
on
Pheromone Robotics
·
· Score: 4, Informative
The first link mentioned in the story/writeup is not about pheromone sniffing robots persay. If you read the article, the whole idea is called "Pheromone Robotics" because of the similarity to ants and other, similar pheromone using species that the collaborative, distributed system of problem solving utilizing large numbers of independent and relatively simple robots. The robots use "virtual pheromones" to communicate (again this is an illusion to the system of pheromonic communication used by ants etc.
Here's a section from the article that explains basically what I just tried to explain.
Borrowing techniques used by ants and termites, our robots exhibit emergent collaboration. Inspired by the chemical markers used by these insects for communication and coordination, we exploit the notion of a "virtual pheromone," implemented using simple beacons and directional sensors mounted on each robot. Virtual pheromones facilitate simple communication and coordination and require little on-board processing.
I don't mean to be flame bating or anything, I just thought the writeup was a bit confusing/misleading...that or I'm just an idiot and didn't understand what they submitter meant.
When the first response to user's letter of complaint, a reasonably written one at that, is a series of three rude emails, something is *very wrong* with that group of developers.
Email #1:
"go away:)"
Email #2:
And if you email me again I'll procmail your ass.
I fund SmoothWall
I invented SmoothWall
If you have an issue don't fucking use it
Email #3:
and gcc ???
Oh dude go investigate me on the team page and stop teaching me to suck eggs. Dusty is a QUALIFIED MEMBER OF UK MILITARY INTELLIGENCE and you are not.
I didnt get richard@linux.com for not knowing my way around the OS. GCC is NOT on Smoothie - never will be now get a life
The general attitude shown in those emails is amazingly foul. Either we're not being told the whole story or the people behind SmoothWall don't know the first thing about PR and consumer relations. I am actually inclined to go with the second option.
If someone seeing this had't read the book, would they have understood Frodo and Sam's relationship?
That's a good point and it is a stepping stone to the quick conclusion that LOTR:FOTR was a far better movie for those who HAD read the book. Now that is an interesting thing, as most movies taken from books are despised by the people who have read the books those movies were based on.
So what I conclude from all the talk I've heard/read is that the movie seems to function best as an extension of the experience of reading the book rather than just a movie on its own. Granted, in my never-to-be-humble opinion, it was a good movie, but not the best movie that I have ever seen, based solely on its merits as a film alone -- that's exactly restating my above point: it is best when viewed as something more/other than a traditional/stand-alone movie.
I also loved the "photo" that is included along with the Yahoo! news story...it's an "artist's impression" of the distant planet. Oh but it gets better... below the 'photos' section there's a 'audio/video' link to an AP story entitled "Chemicals Found on Faraway Planet ".
In all seriousness, this discovery is really interesting, at least to me. Then again, every time the Hubble is used in something new, I am impressed considering its rocky beginings and the amazing in-orbit mirror replacement that had to be done just to get it working.
All that aside, the story that this submission is linked to makes me cringe.
Call it geek ellitism if you must but it just seems like such a dumbed-down treatment of the story in some ways. Most of the content is really cool, but the headlines/bold-points (like "INHOSPITABLE, BUT STILL BREAKTHROUGH") and the extra stuff (as mentioned before) are laughable. Am I wrong or is this a little...well...lite?
I'm really not trying to troll; the point seemed worth mentioning/discussing.
I suppose it's mechanically easier to shield an LCD and it won't overheat as much as a CRT (air vents leak radiation).
Actually, you can built shielding in the form of a Faraday Cage, which need be nothing more than a metal screen or a sheet of metal...indeed, a screen like material will work just fine, so long as the open spaces aren't more than about a wavelength (or the minimum wavelength you're hoping to block) in any of their dimensions. If you don't believe me, grab a college (or even a high school) physics book...or see an online resource such as physlink.com
and if JarJar were to be taken out it'd basically be because he as compromising artistic integrity for the fans.
You know, that's a really good point. Philosophically, I agree with you, 100%, now that I think about it (I mean it). However (we knew the 'however' had to be right around the corner, huh?) I have a question for you: Would I be compromising my own aesthetical principles if I repressed my own dislike of Jar-Jar just because his removal would signify a compromise on Lucas' part? I say yeah, to some extent. So, it seems, we're at an impass...Lucas should do whatever he sees fit and we should still voice our opinions (not to imply that you're advocating not expressing them...)
After having boxes mangled, mushed and otherwise beat to hell by shipping services, I began to think about WHY it happened to MY boxes and MY packing jobs, but not when I have had many MANY computers and other things shipped to me via UPS and other carriers....here's what I have come up with:
First: you must match the package to its contents. DO NOT try to fit as much as you can in a single, LARGE box. Instead, use smaller, properly sized boxes for each major piece of equipment. The biggest reason for this is that a lighter package, when dropped, will not produce as much force on impact. Inevitably, all impact forces are first applied to a specific part of the package or a specific item in the package. Therefore, a heavy package, loaded with many items, when dropped, is more likely to apply enough force to one of the items in it to break them, as compared to similar drops of the items packaged individually.
Second: The items, shipped in the box should NEVER end up as the primary load bearing members of the package structure. This is why computer and monitor boxes a)use double layered corrugated cardboard boxes and b) have heavy-duty Styrofoam pieces to provide an internal structure underneath the skin created by the cardboard. Bubble wrap does not provide such a structure. Additionally, the Styrofoam is resilient, like bubble wrap, but more so. Styrofoam keeps its shape much better.
Now, most times those factors are what keep computers, as shipped from the factory, in retail packaging, safe in shipping. Sometimes, EVEN those factors aren't enough and that's a clear indication of major incompetence on the part of the shipping company.
Those two requirements, it sadly seems, were not met by Jutus (the shipper). So, as much as I hate to point any blame, it seems that some blame does reside on the shipper, not all on the shipping company.
Again, this is my opinion, based on my experience, working in purchasing for the IT department of a med/small company and from years of purchasing my own machines via the 'net or mail-order.
For handy reference, this cool site, Slashdot, had great posting and discussion about this very topic on the 7th of this very month! Check it out here
Seriously though, I just thought it'd be worthwile referencing a very similar posting here on/. just a few days ago. It is cool to see that the flux estimator link made it onto the main page. If it's accurate, it'll really help all of us strange enough to go out and look (me being one of them) to actually find the best meteor shower show.
This might be one of those times where being a smaller fish in the big computing pond will actually help...apparently the AC who posted the previous comment is right, Macintosh and Linux machines are in fact immune to these problems. Follow this link, read more, and love your non-MS OS.
After plunking down $400 for an MP4 player,why is it so hard for people to spend an extra $20 for a firewire card that is clearly better? Odd.
well, in the case of the earlier iMacs, there is no way to add firewire if it didn't come standard with the machine...ergo a USB option would allow those machines to use the iPod.
Perhaps it has something to do with Firewire being at least 30 times faster than USB? How long would it take to transfer several gigabytes of MP3s over USB?
My first thought was "ask a Nomad owner"... I own a USB RIO (500) and I gotta say, the speed of the USB connection is a pain even for filling the 64MB of that little machine's memory. I can't imagine what it'd be like to use USB to load a 20GB Nomad!
That having been said though, if the ARM processor that runs the iPod has a USB controller built in (I don't know much about such things), then why not inculde a USB connection for all the machines out there that do not have firewire ports but do have USB ports? Now, it really wasn't that long ago that there were shipping Macs that didn't have firewire (many of the iMacs in use out there do not and they're probably in the homes of the target market for the iPod...and then there are a whole bunch of Powerbooks and iBooks...again the owners of which are Apple's target market.) Beyond all those machines, there are a lot of PC's out there that do not have firewire but do have USB ports...
That brings me to a point that many others have said before me, so at risk of being moded-down for being redundant, it seems that apple could really sell a lot of these little units if they were PC/Windows/Linux friendly. The iPod is so close to perfect in so many ways that it makes some of the flaws it does have stand out more than they might otherwise.
Yeah, this should compete favorably with the solid state units, but they've already lost to the CD-MP3 units, IMO.
Speaking of comparisons...
Let's compare the iPod to a sampling of other units that share its form-factor... that excludes all CD-MP3 based units AND it excludes units such as the Nomad.
So how does the iPod stack up to it's form-factor matched competitors? What are it's competitors? Looking at the ever-cool ThinkGeek's MP3 player selection, here are the competition:
20 Gig Personal MP3 Jukebox (Designed by Compaq)
Price: $499 Capacity: 20 GB I/O Interface: USB Desktop OS Compatibility: Windows, & Linux (??) Battery Type/Life(playtime): Internal rechargable/ 12 Hrs Dimensions: 150 x 80 x 26 mm Weight: 9.9oz.
Archos Jukebox 6000: Price: $249 Capacity: 6 GB I/O Interface: USB Desktop OS Compatibility: Windows and Mac Battery Type/Life(playtime): 4 AA/ Max 8 hours Dimensions: 4.5" x 3.2" x 1.3" Weight: 12oz. Additional features: Can function as USB hardrive. Also, Archo's website is unclear as to whether the unit can charge "it's 4-AA rechargables" with the included power adapter but such is hinted at...
Archos Jukebox Studio 20 MP3 Player
Same as above, with 20GB of storage, for $349
Toshiba Portable MP3 Player - MEA210 Price: $199.99 Capacity: 32MB int. Expandable w/ SD card I/O Interface: USB Desktop OS Compatibility: Windows only Battery Type/Life(playtime): 1 AAA/ Max 4 hours Dimensions: 2" x 2" x 0.5" Weight: 1.5 oz w/out battery
Rio 600 64MB MP3 Player
Price: $159.99 Capacity: 64MB int. Expandable w/ add-on back of up to 340 MB I/O Interface: USB Desktop OS Compatibility: Mac & Windows Battery Type/Life(playtime): 1 AA/ Max 8 hours Dimensions: 3.5" x 2.5" x 5/8" Weight: ??
Rio 800 128 MB MP3 Player
Price: $219.99 Capacity: 128MB int. Expandable w/ add-on back up to 340 MB I/O Interface: USB Desktop OS Compatibility: Mac & Windows Battery Type/Life(playtime): 1 Ni-MH AA Rechargable (built in recharger)/ ?? Dimensions: 3.5" x 2.5" x 1" Weight: ??
Apple iPod Price: $399.00 Capacity: 5GB I/O Interface: Firewire Desktop OS Compatibility: Mac only (?) Battery Type/Life(playtime): Internal, (rechargable via external adaptor or via firewire bus)/ 10 hrs max. Dimensions: 4.02"x2.3"x0.78" Weight: 6.5 oz Additional features: may be used as firewire disk
General discussion:
First, why exclude such different form-factor units such as the nomad? IMHO, size plays a major part in dictating what one of these units will be used for. A CD player, or Nomad is simply too big for me to take to the gym and use while I am running, biking or using any of the machines. Therefore, it's gotta be small..
So how does the iPod stack up? It looks like it's middle of the road, but if certain features are or are not important to you, the choice may be easier (for or against the iPod.) For instance, the Mac only (??) status of this unit makes it unacceptable for many consumers (I love my macs but single OS support IS a handicap for any MP3 player and when that one OS is not the numerically superior one, it's a real issue. On the other hand, the iPod is the only unit that supports firewire. That speed advantage can be really big. Additionally, the iPod blows many of the other units away as far as storage goes (such as the Rio's, Toshiba's, Samsung's, Iomega's and Intel's offerings) but it is matched and exceeded by the Archos units.
My take, overall is that this is a good start and there is a lot of potential in the iPod, but for my $$, right now, I'd buy one of the Archos units.
Only saw video of WTC 2 strike. If all of the terrorist pilots had that skill level, they needed good visibility, i.e., he was too wobbly to be a seasoned instrumet pilot.
I don't know too many veteran pilots who wouldn't be just a bit jittery and sloppy on the controls when driving their aircraft into a building and certain death for themselves...would you really be able to hold it steady in such a situation? I know I couldn't...
This is bull-shit. When colombian drug dealers killed DEA agent, Kiki Camarena, the DEA broke down every suspected drug dealer's door with or without evidence of any crimes. The DEA fucked them up really good. Since that time, DEA agents have led charmed lives. In many cases DEA agents are in peril, but only live because the Druggies know better than to touch a DEA agent for the repercussions. In the same light, it is clear to me and should be to everyone else that a serious strike against ALL possible/suspected terrorist organizations will send a similar message.
As much as I wish we could do *something* that would have the effect which you intend, I must point out one serious flaw in your logic. The drug cartels are more or less businesses and their main business is the trafficking of narcotics. As much as DEA agents may get in the way at times, killing them is not the main mission of the drug cartels.
Terrorists, on the other hand have one mission and one mission only: terror. They don't have an economic mission. They have a psychological and a hate based mission. They will likely not be dissuaded by terror tactics as the cartel members were, according to your post. Actions of the sort you suggest would, unfortunately, only spur the hate and the violence...especially if we fail to actually get the persons who masterminded these terrible attacks.
He himself said that he created the site for the university. That means that they actually do have IP rights over the site. He can create a similar site elsewhere, but that site belongs to the university. He doesn't own it any more than the guy who wrote the HTML for Microsoft's website owns the site itself.
1) Did he say that he created it for the University? This point is a bit of a vague one, but here's my argument. Note the following from flikx's original writeup sent to ask slashdot:
Early last fall, I personally created a Slash site called SOS under student government for my University.
It seems pretty clear that the specific organization that flikx was working for was the Student Government of the University. Does that then entail that he was working for the University itself, or moreover, that the University can claim IP rights for the work he produced? I think that there is a definite line between student government and University Administration in many regards. Student government is in a gray area between the individual student and the university administration, and I certainly believe that this question is not as clear cut as you'd make it seem. Legally, there may not be a distinction, but that point, in and of itself is troubling, to some extent.
2). The analogy between flikx and some MS Web-jockey falls apart in some very problematic ways. First there is clear compensation given to the MS designer. Second, there is a clearly understood agreement (I bet good money that it's even a written one, beyond any codification in statute or law) stating that any work done by that designer, for MS is MS's property. There does not seem to be the same clear agreement in flikx's case.
3) The IP rights in this case go well beyond the University vs. flikx. There is also the question of the IP rights of all of the people who posted to that site. By claiming all content from flikx's slashcode site as its own, the University is also denying the IP rights of anyone who authored a post on that slashcode site, are they not?
He is not being discriminated against. The University is censoring itself, not him. He was doing the work, but it was for their site, and with their name on it....Likewise, the U of U was protecting its own identity by removing content that represented it, not flikx. If Flikx had his own website, independent from U of U, they couldn't touch him.
zpengo, I totally appreciate and agree with your points regarding the University's right and ability to remove their support (via "lending him their servers, bandwidth, domain name, etc.")
The point that is being made, however, seems to extend further than what you're arguing. From your original post in this thread: "Flikx is not being oppressed, he simply lost the support of those sponsoring him "
I think that the problem that's got most people a little worried or upset is not the University pulling it's support, via servers, bandwidth, etc. but rather the disciplinary and intellectual property rights issues that are being (possibly) abused in this case. The fact that the university is now claiming all content from the slashcode site that Flikx put together is a troubling move, in many people's eyes. Does the University of Utah have a right to claim all of that content as its own intellectual property? There may well be some sort of clause in their usage agreement to that effect, but if there is not, it seems very questionable as to whether or not UofU may claim it as their property.
I did a quick search of the University's website, hoping to find their network and computing acceptable usage policy statement, but I found something else that seems to speak to this issue even more strongly. At the bottom of many (if not all) pages on the UofU website, there is this link to a "Content Disclaimer". Of particular interest was the second point in this disclaimer:
The University of Utah web site may contain information that is created and maintained by a variety of sources both internal and external to the University. These sites are unmoderated forums containing the personal opinions and other expressions of the persons who post the entries. The University of Utah does not control, monitor or guarantee the information contained in these sites or information contained in links to other external web sites, and does not endorse any views expressed or products or services offered therein. In no event shall the University of Utah be responsible or liable, directly or indirectly, for any damage or loss caused or alleged to be caused by or in connection with the use of or reliance on any such content, goods, or services available on or through any such site or resource.
Clearly, when it suits them, the University is more than willing to draw a clear distinction between what is their doing and what is the doing of another party, whom they are not responsible for, even though the content in question may be under their domain name. That point seems to really call into question whether or not the University may claim the work of Flikx, for which he was not compensated nor (as far as I understand it) was he under any sort of agreement regarding the rights to the site which he created. Clearly, the content disclaimer makes it clear that the University doesn't always claim any/all content accessible under its domain name as its property, so what is it about this case that makes them able to do so?
It is that point, in my opinion, that does make what the University of Utah is doing very scary, and if not censorship (which I am not arguing it is), it seems like it might be theft of intellectual property rights (both Flikx's AND all of the users who ever posted to that slashcode site.)
Slashdot Mirror
And I for one am soooo grateful that Apple didn't think of that first. Enough with the i[noun] naming strategy! I am a die-hard mac fan but um...i am sick of it being so...predictable!
Be kind, courteous and respectful of the tech support person with whom you are dealing.
It's a really simple thing but it does a few things...first, it makes the tech support person actually feel like a person and that gives them more incentive to help you or help you find someone who can help you. Second, and this is often overlooked, if you are nice to the person on the other end of the phone it will often make the experience less stressful and less negative for you, as the caller.
I know these are simple things and most everyone would realize them on their own, but I also know it's easy to forget these when dealing with tech support that in general sucks and is difficult to get in touch with.
You have thumbs that small? I mean, you do realize that the thing measures only 2 7/8 inches wide...that would allow a maximum width of 0.2875 inches per button, without any space between them (which a close look at the pix on Sony's site reveals to be a generous assumption.) Now that's a tiny thumb and quite a mutation!
So, yeah, my point really is not to make jokes about our poor "mutated" children, teens and young adults but rather point out that such as small keyboard actually may be more of a hinderance and waste of space than it is a help or value-added feature. I think there are better solutions to the problem of rapid/efficient input for such small devices. Two examples that jump to mind are both the systems used by Nokia in many (all?) of their cell phones.
First is the predictive input where the user simply presses the number corresponding to the desired letter (standard 3 letter per numbered button phone configuration) for each letter and the phone uses its internal dictionary and word frequencies to 'guess' what word the user is trying to input.
The second, more simple system is the one that uses multiple presses of a particular number to select from the 3 corresponding letters. While it takes a little more effort to press the button multiple times it is very intuitive and the size of the buttons are still managable. For reference, Nokia's super small 8290 and 8260 series phones use both those systems and their buttons are approx. 3/8ths of an inch wide and they're almost too small to use accurately.
1.0 initial release version. black and white. low distribution And if that weren't enough, it's mirrored...on two continents. Now that's geeky
and I love it! I LOVE IT!
Yeah, it'd be wonderful up until huricane abby or some such comes along and wipes out all of your senior software engineers...wait. Can we sell Microsoft on this idea?
Here's a section from the article that explains basically what I just tried to explain.
I don't mean to be flame bating or anything, I just thought the writeup was a bit confusing/misleading...that or I'm just an idiot and didn't understand what they submitter meant.
When the first response to user's letter of complaint, a reasonably written one at that, is a series of three rude emails, something is *very wrong* with that group of developers.
Email #1:
Email #2:
Email #3:
The general attitude shown in those emails is amazingly foul. Either we're not being told the whole story or the people behind SmoothWall don't know the first thing about PR and consumer relations. I am actually inclined to go with the second option.
That's a good point and it is a stepping stone to the quick conclusion that LOTR:FOTR was a far better movie for those who HAD read the book. Now that is an interesting thing, as most movies taken from books are despised by the people who have read the books those movies were based on.
So what I conclude from all the talk I've heard/read is that the movie seems to function best as an extension of the experience of reading the book rather than just a movie on its own. Granted, in my never-to-be-humble opinion, it was a good movie, but not the best movie that I have ever seen, based solely on its merits as a film alone -- that's exactly restating my above point: it is best when viewed as something more/other than a traditional/stand-alone movie.
And here is the website of the grad student behind the hoax.
Damn. I went to grade school with that guy...and I'm nowhere near as...well...creative? (Monzy, if you're reading this, congrats, you crack me up.)
I stand corrected! I knew that I shoulda double checked my facts. Thanks, PJ, for correcting my mistake.
-i
I also loved the "photo" that is included along with the Yahoo! news story...it's an "artist's impression" of the distant planet. Oh but it gets better... below the 'photos' section there's a 'audio/video' link to an AP story entitled "Chemicals Found on Faraway Planet ".
In all seriousness, this discovery is really interesting, at least to me. Then again, every time the Hubble is used in something new, I am impressed considering its rocky beginings and the amazing in-orbit mirror replacement that had to be done just to get it working. All that aside, the story that this submission is linked to makes me cringe.
Call it geek ellitism if you must but it just seems like such a dumbed-down treatment of the story in some ways. Most of the content is really cool, but the headlines/bold-points (like "INHOSPITABLE, BUT STILL BREAKTHROUGH") and the extra stuff (as mentioned before) are laughable. Am I wrong or is this a little...well...lite?
I'm really not trying to troll; the point seemed worth mentioning/discussing.
Actually, you can built shielding in the form of a Faraday Cage, which need be nothing more than a metal screen or a sheet of metal...indeed, a screen like material will work just fine, so long as the open spaces aren't more than about a wavelength (or the minimum wavelength you're hoping to block) in any of their dimensions. If you don't believe me, grab a college (or even a high school) physics book...or see an online resource such as physlink.com
You know, that's a really good point. Philosophically, I agree with you, 100%, now that I think about it (I mean it). However (we knew the 'however' had to be right around the corner, huh?) I have a question for you: Would I be compromising my own aesthetical principles if I repressed my own dislike of Jar-Jar just because his removal would signify a compromise on Lucas' part? I say yeah, to some extent. So, it seems, we're at an impass...Lucas should do whatever he sees fit and we should still voice our opinions (not to imply that you're advocating not expressing them...)
No Jar-Jar sightings in the trailer...
Please, let this be a sign of things to come...
First: you must match the package to its contents. DO NOT try to fit as much as you can in a single, LARGE box. Instead, use smaller, properly sized boxes for each major piece of equipment. The biggest reason for this is that a lighter package, when dropped, will not produce as much force on impact. Inevitably, all impact forces are first applied to a specific part of the package or a specific item in the package. Therefore, a heavy package, loaded with many items, when dropped, is more likely to apply enough force to one of the items in it to break them, as compared to similar drops of the items packaged individually.
Second: The items, shipped in the box should NEVER end up as the primary load bearing members of the package structure. This is why computer and monitor boxes a)use double layered corrugated cardboard boxes and b) have heavy-duty Styrofoam pieces to provide an internal structure underneath the skin created by the cardboard. Bubble wrap does not provide such a structure. Additionally, the Styrofoam is resilient, like bubble wrap, but more so. Styrofoam keeps its shape much better.
Now, most times those factors are what keep computers, as shipped from the factory, in retail packaging, safe in shipping. Sometimes, EVEN those factors aren't enough and that's a clear indication of major incompetence on the part of the shipping company.
Those two requirements, it sadly seems, were not met by Jutus (the shipper). So, as much as I hate to point any blame, it seems that some blame does reside on the shipper, not all on the shipping company.
Again, this is my opinion, based on my experience, working in purchasing for the IT department of a med/small company and from years of purchasing my own machines via the 'net or mail-order.
-i
Seriously though, I just thought it'd be worthwile referencing a very similar posting here on /. just a few days ago. It is cool to see that the flux estimator link made it onto the main page. If it's accurate, it'll really help all of us strange enough to go out and look (me being one of them) to actually find the best meteor shower show.
This might be one of those times where being a smaller fish in the big computing pond will actually help...apparently the AC who posted the previous comment is right, Macintosh and Linux machines are in fact immune to these problems. Follow this link, read more, and love your non-MS OS.
well, in the case of the earlier iMacs, there is no way to add firewire if it didn't come standard with the machine...ergo a USB option would allow those machines to use the iPod.
My first thought was "ask a Nomad owner"... I own a USB RIO (500) and I gotta say, the speed of the USB connection is a pain even for filling the 64MB of that little machine's memory. I can't imagine what it'd be like to use USB to load a 20GB Nomad!
That having been said though, if the ARM processor that runs the iPod has a USB controller built in (I don't know much about such things), then why not inculde a USB connection for all the machines out there that do not have firewire ports but do have USB ports? Now, it really wasn't that long ago that there were shipping Macs that didn't have firewire (many of the iMacs in use out there do not and they're probably in the homes of the target market for the iPod...and then there are a whole bunch of Powerbooks and iBooks...again the owners of which are Apple's target market.) Beyond all those machines, there are a lot of PC's out there that do not have firewire but do have USB ports...
That brings me to a point that many others have said before me, so at risk of being moded-down for being redundant, it seems that apple could really sell a lot of these little units if they were PC/Windows/Linux friendly. The iPod is so close to perfect in so many ways that it makes some of the flaws it does have stand out more than they might otherwise.
But those are just my thoughts...
-t
Speaking of comparisons... Let's compare the iPod to a sampling of other units that share its form-factor... that excludes all CD-MP3 based units AND it excludes units such as the Nomad. So how does the iPod stack up to it's form-factor matched competitors? What are it's competitors? Looking at the ever-cool ThinkGeek's MP3 player selection, here are the competition:
Price: $499
Capacity: 20 GB
I/O Interface: USB
Desktop OS Compatibility: Windows, & Linux (??)
Battery Type/Life(playtime): Internal rechargable/ 12 Hrs
Dimensions: 150 x 80 x 26 mm
Weight: 9.9oz.
Price: $249
Capacity: 6 GB
I/O Interface: USB
Desktop OS Compatibility: Windows and Mac
Battery Type/Life(playtime): 4 AA/ Max 8 hours
Dimensions: 4.5" x 3.2" x 1.3"
Weight: 12oz.
Additional features: Can function as USB hardrive. Also, Archo's website is unclear as to whether the unit can charge "it's 4-AA rechargables" with the included power adapter but such is hinted at...
Same as above, with 20GB of storage, for $349
Price: $199.99
Capacity: 32MB int. Expandable w/ SD card
I/O Interface: USB
Desktop OS Compatibility: Windows only
Battery Type/Life(playtime): 1 AAA/ Max 4 hours
Dimensions: 2" x 2" x 0.5"
Weight: 1.5 oz w/out battery
Price: $159.99
Capacity: 64MB int. Expandable w/ add-on back of up to 340 MB
I/O Interface: USB
Desktop OS Compatibility: Mac & Windows
Battery Type/Life(playtime): 1 AA/ Max 8 hours
Dimensions: 3.5" x 2.5" x 5/8"
Weight: ??
Price: $219.99
Capacity: 128MB int. Expandable w/ add-on back up to 340 MB
I/O Interface: USB
Desktop OS Compatibility: Mac & Windows
Battery Type/Life(playtime): 1 Ni-MH AA Rechargable (built in recharger)/ ??
Dimensions: 3.5" x 2.5" x 1"
Weight: ??
Price: $399.00
Capacity: 5GB
I/O Interface: Firewire
Desktop OS Compatibility: Mac only (?)
Battery Type/Life(playtime): Internal, (rechargable via external adaptor or via firewire bus)/ 10 hrs max.
Dimensions: 4.02"x2.3"x0.78"
Weight: 6.5 oz
Additional features: may be used as firewire disk
General discussion:
First, why exclude such different form-factor units such as the nomad? IMHO, size plays a major part in dictating what one of these units will be used for. A CD player, or Nomad is simply too big for me to take to the gym and use while I am running, biking or using any of the machines. Therefore, it's gotta be small..
So how does the iPod stack up? It looks like it's middle of the road, but if certain features are or are not important to you, the choice may be easier (for or against the iPod.) For instance, the Mac only (??) status of this unit makes it unacceptable for many consumers (I love my macs but single OS support IS a handicap for any MP3 player and when that one OS is not the numerically superior one, it's a real issue. On the other hand, the iPod is the only unit that supports firewire. That speed advantage can be really big. Additionally, the iPod blows many of the other units away as far as storage goes (such as the Rio's, Toshiba's, Samsung's, Iomega's and Intel's offerings) but it is matched and exceeded by the Archos units.
My take, overall is that this is a good start and there is a lot of potential in the iPod, but for my $$, right now, I'd buy one of the Archos units.
I don't know too many veteran pilots who wouldn't be just a bit jittery and sloppy on the controls when driving their aircraft into a building and certain death for themselves...would you really be able to hold it steady in such a situation? I know I couldn't...
just my $.02
As much as I wish we could do *something* that would have the effect which you intend, I must point out one serious flaw in your logic. The drug cartels are more or less businesses and their main business is the trafficking of narcotics. As much as DEA agents may get in the way at times, killing them is not the main mission of the drug cartels.
Terrorists, on the other hand have one mission and one mission only: terror. They don't have an economic mission. They have a psychological and a hate based mission. They will likely not be dissuaded by terror tactics as the cartel members were, according to your post. Actions of the sort you suggest would, unfortunately, only spur the hate and the violence...especially if we fail to actually get the persons who masterminded these terrible attacks.
Yeah, I hate it when my prey gets noisy and decides to eat me.
Oh man. I'm sorry; that quote made me chuckle.
1) Did he say that he created it for the University? This point is a bit of a vague one, but here's my argument. Note the following from flikx's original writeup sent to ask slashdot:
Early last fall, I personally created a Slash site called SOS under student government for my University.
It seems pretty clear that the specific organization that flikx was working for was the Student Government of the University. Does that then entail that he was working for the University itself, or moreover, that the University can claim IP rights for the work he produced? I think that there is a definite line between student government and University Administration in many regards. Student government is in a gray area between the individual student and the university administration, and I certainly believe that this question is not as clear cut as you'd make it seem. Legally, there may not be a distinction, but that point, in and of itself is troubling, to some extent.
2). The analogy between flikx and some MS Web-jockey falls apart in some very problematic ways. First there is clear compensation given to the MS designer. Second, there is a clearly understood agreement (I bet good money that it's even a written one, beyond any codification in statute or law) stating that any work done by that designer, for MS is MS's property. There does not seem to be the same clear agreement in flikx's case.
3) The IP rights in this case go well beyond the University vs. flikx. There is also the question of the IP rights of all of the people who posted to that site. By claiming all content from flikx's slashcode site as its own, the University is also denying the IP rights of anyone who authored a post on that slashcode site, are they not?
zpengo, I totally appreciate and agree with your points regarding the University's right and ability to remove their support (via "lending him their servers, bandwidth, domain name, etc.")
The point that is being made, however, seems to extend further than what you're arguing. From your original post in this thread: "Flikx is not being oppressed, he simply lost the support of those sponsoring him "
I think that the problem that's got most people a little worried or upset is not the University pulling it's support, via servers, bandwidth, etc. but rather the disciplinary and intellectual property rights issues that are being (possibly) abused in this case. The fact that the university is now claiming all content from the slashcode site that Flikx put together is a troubling move, in many people's eyes. Does the University of Utah have a right to claim all of that content as its own intellectual property? There may well be some sort of clause in their usage agreement to that effect, but if there is not, it seems very questionable as to whether or not UofU may claim it as their property.
I did a quick search of the University's website, hoping to find their network and computing acceptable usage policy statement, but I found something else that seems to speak to this issue even more strongly. At the bottom of many (if not all) pages on the UofU website, there is this link to a "Content Disclaimer". Of particular interest was the second point in this disclaimer:
Clearly, when it suits them, the University is more than willing to draw a clear distinction between what is their doing and what is the doing of another party, whom they are not responsible for, even though the content in question may be under their domain name. That point seems to really call into question whether or not the University may claim the work of Flikx, for which he was not compensated nor (as far as I understand it) was he under any sort of agreement regarding the rights to the site which he created. Clearly, the content disclaimer makes it clear that the University doesn't always claim any/all content accessible under its domain name as its property, so what is it about this case that makes them able to do so?
It is that point, in my opinion, that does make what the University of Utah is doing very scary, and if not censorship (which I am not arguing it is), it seems like it might be theft of intellectual property rights (both Flikx's AND all of the users who ever posted to that slashcode site.)