There is a significant price hike on the cpu jump from 2.4 to 2.66. The mobo in the apple machine is WAY more expensive (just check the HW it supports, like the number of GPUs and other little things). Comarable Mobos cost a lot more than $219 (in retail, anyway).
The Antec case is decent, but still not as good.
STOCK INTEL COOLING??????? are you f******* kidding? The Macbook doesn't sound like a vacuum cleaner on full! Because it has a custom cooling solution similar in quality to what you MIGHT be able to put together (based on your skill level and thought) for around 200-400 bucks and a lot of patience (or with high skill, quite a bit cheaper, just more time spent on the project)
The cost of apple RAM is way too high, some upgrades are a bit too expensive, but I've done the same comparison, using COMPARABLE hardware, and there was still a price difference. Between 200 and 400 dollars, based on my choices (excluding RAM, I would buy that anyway) And of course a Mac with 2GB RAM will at the moment outperform a Vista box with any amount of RAM you can fit in it.... Vista is not a ready product. XP was not a ready product for the first one and a half years, and Mac OS X took two years to get properly usable. No special hat for Vista, OS's are just released long before they are ready. The laptop I'm writing this on only has 2GB of RAM, and I promise you, in any normal operations it will outperform a Vista desktop box in any configuration that doesn't involve more than twice the number of processors....
Oh, and I haven't had to restart in 41days (no restart, no shutdown, only close the lid so it goes into sleep mode) Also, I'm not a mac fanboy, I also run XP and Ubuntu Linux, and just try to use the right tool for the right job. I have also built custom computers for a living, including Vista boxes, and wouldn't wish that thing on my friends (at least not yet, hopefully it will improve)
Repost. Forgot the bloody formatting and didn't preview, sorry!
I've run those four operating systems in the last few months, have all but Vista in my home. I also worked for a company selling good computers, now with Vista. They don't run Vista, not at work or at home. Vista just doesn't have enough over XP to justify it, especially considering the HW requirements. For a decent Vista experience (apart from all the bugs and problems, like the network/audio issue) you need 2GB RAM and a twin core CPU and a DX10 GPU. And Vist doesn't beat MacOS X or Ubuntu in any way that I've seen. Usability wise MacOsX has a clear advantage over all the others, in my experience Ubuntu (after being set up and configured which can take a little tinkering if you're unlucky) takes second place, XP third and Vista comes squarely last. Why?
Vista just isn't organized sensibly, when people complain about Mac stuff like the iTunes interface, they should try going through Vista networking after hitting a snag. Or the control panel in general. It's just not good. If completely set up it's not that bad, but no better than XP on the whole.
Xp is stable enough now, and the interface is functional but not fancy. Some things could be better, especially networking and system configuration of all sorts. Frequent restarts are required (as in Vista) to keep the systems running well.
Ubuntu needs more setting up, the control panel menus are decent, if a little crowded. If you hit snags you can get online help, or help from any UNIX/Linux nerd. Usually easily solved given enough knowledge (meaning, can be solved using a certain technique, not so hit and miss like in the Win systems). Networking works great. Graphically it can be simple or amazingly cool, your choice. To have it really nice (running Beryl or Compiz) with 3d desktop feature, all kinds of transparancy effects and such a load of graphic goodies that bot MacOS and Vista go into jealous fits you need only modest hardware. Mine is a AMD Sempron2800CPU, 768MB RAM (overkill) and a 128MB Geforce 6600GT GPU, it runs ALL the graphic goodies I can throw at it with NO glitches, generally using less than 300MB RAM to run the OS and graphic goodies (and one browser and one video window....). Restarts are few and far between. Crashes, not yet...
MacOsX needs minimal setting up or tweaking. The biggest tweaks I've done are setting different behaviour on the trackpad (two finger right clicking etc.) The Preferences pane is dead simple. Changing settings is the easiest of all the systems and connecting to other computers (any OS) is also simple. The laptop I'm writing this on was last restarted (shut off or restarted) over 40 days ago. I've seen mods for other OS's to make them look lik MacOs, not to make MacOs look like XP or Vista..... In six months I've had to restart twice because of crashes, that OS bug has since been fixed.
My personal belief is that the Vista Horrors will drive a few people over to Mac and more to Linux, but not that many. People invent all kinds of reasons to endure subpar experiences and turn stuff like which hardware, operating system and software into a religious type debate instead of looking at these things like tools. IMO you should use the OS and SW which can do the stuff you need to do. For most people Ubuntu is way more than adequate. I have different needs as I do hobbyist level audio recording, which means that XP and MacOs are the only usable OSs for me (the Vista audio path and drivers are completely unusable at the moment). MacOS has worked much better than XP for me in for that, and does everything else that I need as well. If you play games, then off to XP land you go. For business applications any of those three should do nicely, just based on which applications you need (and no MS Office preaching, please, it's not a bad solution, but not the only one). MacOS X is really nice to work in, but most of the HW is a bit expensive, which is a definite point against Apple, and plus point for XP (
I've run those four operating systems in the last few months, have all but Vista in my home. I also worked for a company selling good computers, now with Vista.
They don't run Vista, not at work or at home.
Vista just doesn't have enough over XP to justify it, especially considering the HW requirements. For a decent Vista experience (apart from all the bugs and problems, like the network/audio issue) you need 2GB RAM and a twin core CPU and a DX10 GPU.
And Vist doesn't beat MacOS X or Ubuntu in any way that I've seen.
Usability wise MacOsX has a clear advantage over all the others, in my experience Ubuntu (after being set up and configured which can take a little tinkering if you're unlucky) takes second place, XP third and Vista comes squarely last.
Why?
Vista just isn't organized sensibly, when people complain about Mac stuff like the iTunes interface, they should try going through Vista networking after hitting a snag. Or the control panel in general. It's just not good. If completely set up it's not that bad, but no better than XP on the whole.
Xp is stable enough now, and the interface is functional but not fancy. Some things could be better, especially networking and system configuration of all sorts. Frequent restarts are required (as in Vista) to keep the systems running well.
Ubuntu needs more setting up, the control panel menus are decent, if a little crowded. If you hit snags you can get online help, or help from any UNIX/Linux nerd. Usually easily solved given enough knowledge (meaning, can be solved using a certain technique, not so hit and miss like in the Win systems). Networking works great. Graphically it can be simple or amazingly cool, your choice. To have it really nice (running Beryl or Compiz) with 3d desktop feature, all kinds of transparancy effects and such a load of graphic goodies that bot MacOS and Vista go into jealous fits you need only modest hardware. Mine is a AMD Sempron2800CPU, 768MB RAM (overkill) and a 128MB Geforce 6600GT GPU, it runs ALL the graphic goodies I can throw at it with NO glitches, generally using less than 300MB RAM to run the OS and graphic goodies (and one browser and one video window....).
Restarts are few and far between. Crashes, not yet...
MacOsX needs minimal setting up or tweaking. The biggest tweaks I've done are setting different behaviour on the trackpad (two finger right clicking etc.) The Preferences pane is dead simple. Changing settings is the easiest of all the systems and connecting to other computers (any OS) is also simple. The laptop I'm writing this on was last restarted (shut off or restarted) over 40 days ago.
I've seen mods for other OS's to make them look lik MacOs, not to make MacOs look like XP or Vista.....
In six months I've had to restart twice because of crashes, that OS bug has since been fixed.
My personal belief is that the Vista Horrors will drive a few people over to Mac and more to Linux, but not that many. People invent all kinds of reasons to endure subpar experiences and turn stuff like which hardware, operating system and software into a religious type debate instead of looking at these things like tools.
IMO you should use the OS and SW which can do the stuff you need to do. For most people Ubuntu is way more than adequate. I have different needs as I do hobbyist level audio recording, which means that XP and MacOs are the only usable OSs for me (the Vista audio path and drivers are completely unusable at the moment).
MacOS has worked much better than XP for me in for that, and does everything else that I need as well.
If you play games, then off to XP land you go.
For business applications any of those three should do nicely, just based on which applications you need (and no MS Office preaching, please, it's not a bad solution, but not the only one). MacOS X is really nice to work in, but most of the HW is a bit expensive, which is a definite point against Apple, and plus point for XP (two plus points to Ubuntu on that count...)
Notice a pattern there?
There is no application at which Vista is currently outperforming any
Placebo effect does not require faith, but may benefit from it. Just the hope that it might work, even if unlikely, has an effect.
Sitting down for a good, long talk with a homeopath will also help, if for no other reason than stress relief.
It's interesting to note that the only area where homeopathy seems to score higher than placebo effect is against allergies.
Also interesting that allergies are very much influenced by stress, and a certain percentage is considered to be purely fueled by the brain (stress related, psychosomatic....)
Hmmm, pattern?
Not explained by regular science is not a valid defense for this hocus pocus. Homeopathy stands to win a million dollars just by proving that it works. The fact that there are no takers speaks volumes.
One of the basis of any science is that it looks critically at itself. Go through the main journals of homeopathy and try to find articles criticizing the art to further it. You won't find that.
Go through the british medical journal and look for same. No problem.
Critical thinking, even gorillas have that, why not homeopaths?
Water memory is not just contested, the single experiment that demonstrated it was not done correctly, not documented correctly and not presented correctly.
Noone know if the microscope pictures he took of those ice crystals were of areas he selected (he didn't show th surrounding area or the whole structure, just a small part that he selected).
He came into all parts of the experiment, there was no blind element, he "scared" the water, froze it and then tried to find crystal formations conforming to his own hypothesis.
That really is the definition of bad science!
Needless to say, noone has gotten the same result when trying to repeat the experiment, strange that......maybe you just have to BELIEVE!
The search field in most media libraries should do nicely.
In iTunes type in search field "Rock Slipknot" and you should have something (depending on musical taste, obviously...). If you want genre and sub-genre you should be able to do that by listing them both in the Genre id3 field, such as "rock backbeat" then when you search you can get all "rock" or just "rock backbeat", also when you sort by genre it gets ordered into groups of sub genres.
In iTunes it works using the search field, in winamp (the only program I sortof miss from PC, although I am finding that I can do everything I used to do in iTunes, usually simpler. Winamp is a good way around the spreadsheet like design of windows....) you can have the refine field also, making more criteria even easier.
Oh, and smart playlists are rather nice for playing groupings of stuff you like, simple enough so it can be used in real life use and powerful and tweakable enough for most of us geeks:)
I can hardly believe the elitism and snobbery in some of these comments!
Oh wait, yes I can....
The series is decently written, she's a much better storyteller than writer and definitely a better writer than most who target this audience. Which audience is that? I would say a similar audience as the Famous Five books (Enid Blyton), Hardy Boys, Nancy Drew and the Narnia tales. Not Dostoyevski, Bulgakov, Asimov, Steinbeck et. al.
Clearly, as the Harry Potter series more akin to these stories than to "serious literature", they must be pretty good. I mean, they sell by the truckload, and buyers are definitely not just in their teens.
Their secret is in capturing the imagination, nothing more, nothing less. By getting a certain suspension of disbelief and creating a exciting, wondrous world she gets her target audience wrapped up in her world and caring for the characters therein. Thing is, she manages to get this effect for lots of other people too, many of whom also read serious stuff.
Although her writing is not as fluid as many other contemporary authors (notably Neil Gaiman IMO) dhe gets the job done with massive overkill.
As for reviewing the actual book, it was ok. It wrapped up the characters, the main storyarc and most substories, with only minor disappointments. The main would be her too frequent use of deus ex machina solutions (goblin teleportation comes to mind, additions to magic rules). I also think she could have spent a few extra pages on the last chapter, I had already ploughed through 600 pages, a few more won't kill me!
All in all enjoyable, rating as fun book 8/10, as a work of serious literature ?/10 (I dunno man, get your a** out of your head...)
As for my background, I'm over 30, decently educated and a "serious" professional and have been reading books since I could hold them (tecnically untrue, I dropped a particularly large and expensive book, damaging its spine, just too damn big). I enjoy books that challenge me intellectually or mess with my head in other ways, with a special affinity towards anything that really sucks me in, dont care about the degree of artiness/intellectualism. Will read authors with strange Russian names if their books are interesting enough (surprisingly, some of them are REALLY good, others could bore the snot out of me!).
If a book has anything to do with the numbers 42 or 5 I've probably read them:)
Now, not wanting to be a spoilsport, some people (including some on the forums) seem to think that whales are whales, and all whales are in danger of extinction, being hunted by cruel people, and they are really smart, like from a Disney cartoon.
Lets take it from the start. There are over 60 different main species of whale. Some are in danger of extinction, others are not. The whale in the referenced article was a Bowhead whale, of which around 10.000 exist. That may sound like a big number, but it isnt. Its classified at "lower risk" for extinction and 67 animals are hunted each year by natives in Alaska. The whales hunted by the Norwegian and Icelandic are mostly Minke whale, of which more than 450.000 are believed to exist, therof around 150.000 in the North Atlantic. That one is not considered in danger of extinction, and those countries try to act responsibly about ALL their hunting and fishing, as mistakes made by all North Atlancic countries in the past have been shown to have a real consequence. Iceland also catches 9 Fin whales (endangered, 50.000 total, sustainable catch around 200 pr.year according to IWC) Japan is also aiming for some Bowhead whales (lower risk) and 50 Humpback whales (vulnerable)
All in all, Japan hunts around 1000 whales a year, Norway also around 1000 and Iceland between 40 and 60. These numbers are approximate and are not just one type. The largest numbers are Minke, followed by Bowhead, Humpback and Fin whales.
All three countries are behaving in a responsible manner, understanding the consequences of overhunting.
One of the problems is that the IWC (International Whaling Commission) is controlled by people who only listen to political pressure and environmental pressure groups (which may or may not have the environment as their primary concern) instead of listening to their own scientists. In 1989 the IWC put in place a ban on whaling. Whales were not hunted commercially because the conditions were not right. The main whaling countries all took part in this. Later, conditions changed. Some species of whales were shown to be in abundance. A few of the countries tried to have the IWC change their rules, so that if whaling were commenced again, it would be done responsibly. The IWC had at that time been taken over by lilly livered politicians who favor pressure groups over science (the Americans spring to mind). The result is that three countries hunt whales, each trying to do so responsibly, but the commission which was founded to ensure that whaling is done responsibly is so out of the loop that there is no coordination.
Whales are beautiful creatures, but so are many others we hunt, eat and use for the products we can make from them. As to their intelligence, that is fiercely debated. Those stating whales to be extremely intelligent are mostly doing it from the heart (I mean, they ARE beautiful), those stating that whales are probably no more intelligent than any other mammal living in the wild are mostly scientists. Whales do have large brains, but intelligence pretty closely correlates with the ratio between total mass and brain mass in all other animals. By that reasoning, whales are decently clever, beautiful, and, if cooked correctly, pretty tasty (like Bambi, with a hint of ocean)
As for the cruelty of the hunting method, military bullets are often ful metal jacket, which means they do not balloon or disintegrate when penetrating their target. This is to injure and hurt rather than to kill, these are illegal for hunting in most places. Regular hunting bullets penetrate their target, balloon due to deceleration (they widen or flatten) and rip out a big chunk where they exit. Kill almost instantly if aimed well. An exploding tip harpoon penetrates and explodes, hopefuly killing the animal swiftly. I dont see a big difference. In general the whalers are just regular guys, they dont want the animal to suffer (unlike greenpeace which has been known to pay hunters to treat animals badly to show on video), th
Now, not wanting to be a spoilsport, some people (including some on the forums) seem to think that whales are whales, and all whales are in danger of extinction, being hunted by cruel people, and they are really smart, like from a Disney cartoon.
Lets take it from the start.
There are over 60 different main species of whale.
Some are in danger of extinction, others are not.
The whale in the referenced article was a Bowhead whale, of which around 10.000 exist. That may sound like a big number, but it isnt. Its classified at "lower risk" for extinction and 67 animals are hunted each year by natives in Alaska.
The whales hunted by the Norwegian and Icelandic are mostly Minke whale, of which more than 450.000 are believed to exist, therof around 150.000 in the North Atlantic. That one is not considered in danger of extinction, and those countries try to act responsibly about ALL their hunting and fishing, as mistakes made by all North Atlancic countries in the past have been shown to have a real consequence.
Iceland also catches 9 Fin whales (endangered, 50.000 total, sustainable catch around 200 pr.year according to IWC)
Japan is also aiming for some Bowhead whales (lower risk) and 50 Humpback whales (vulnerable)
All in all, Japan hunts around 1000 whales a year, Norway also around 1000 and Iceland between 40 and 60. These numbers are approximate and are not just one type. The largest numbers are Minke, followed by Bowhead, Humpback and Fin whales.
All three countries are behaving in a responsible manner, understanding the consequences of overhunting.
One of the problems is that the IWC (International Whaling Commission) is controlled by people who only listen to political pressure and environmental pressure groups (which may or may not have the environment as their primary concern) instead of listening to their own scientists.
In 1989 the IWC put in place a ban on whaling. Whales were not hunted commercially because the conditions were not right. The main whaling countries all took part in this. Later, conditions changed. Some species of whales were shown to be in abundance. A few of the countries tried to have the IWC change their rules, so that if whaling were commenced again, it would be done responsibly. The IWC had at that time been taken over by lilly livered politicians who favor pressure groups over science (the Americans spring to mind).
The result is that three countries hunt whales, each trying to do so responsibly, but the commission which was founded to ensure that whaling is done responsibly is so out of the loop that there is no coordination.
Whales are beautiful creatures, but so are many others we hunt, eat and use for the products we can make from them. As to their intelligence, that is fiercely debated. Those stating whales to be extremely intelligent are mostly doing it from the heart (I mean, they ARE beautiful), those stating that whales are probably no more intelligent than any other mammal living in the wild are mostly scientists.
Whales do have large brains, but intelligence pretty closely correlates with the ratio between total mass and brain mass in all other animals. By that reasoning, whales are decently clever, beautiful, and, if cooked correctly, pretty tasty (like Bambi, with a hint of ocean)
As for the cruelty of the hunting method, military bullets are often ful metal jacket, which means they do not balloon or disintegrate when penetrating their target. This is to injure and hurt rather than to kill, these are illegal for hunting in most places. Regular hunting bullets penetrate their target, balloon due to deceleration (they widen or flatten) and rip out a big chunk where they exit. Kill almost instantly if aimed well.
An exploding tip harpoon penetrates and explodes, hopefuly killing the animal swiftly.
I dont see a big difference.
In general the whalers are just regular guys, they dont want the animal to suffer (unlike greenpeace which has been known to pay hunters to treat animals badly to show on video), they just want to do their jobs well, and get home to their family. No int
Penzim is already used here to treat eczema, sores that wont heal and more (thats just as as a cream, not in its purest form)
As for arthritis, fish byproducts have been known to help for a while as well, I have no idea if one of the reasons for that is the penzim, but wouldnt rule it out.
And take your cod oil, everybody:)
So, ultimately companies may need to analyse which is cheaper/less detrimental, sexual harassment suits or discrimination suits.
Leading to many companies not hiring women at all if they find the cost/benefit analysis makes harassment suits too expensive, or that the threat of harassment suits scares away the best candidates (male or female) while also making a bad working environment for EVERYONE.
This legal environment is not helpful to women at all
Definitely, small, purpose built r/c control units could minimize risks alot. Wouldnt remove the needs for spacewalks, but might replace the more standard tasks.
Re:Another argument against manned spaceflight
on
ISS Spacewalk Cut Short
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
as has been discussed on/. often, manned spaceflights do jobs which unmanned flights cant. (real time experiments, fixing stuff in orbit etc.)
Space station usage could be hugely beneficial (and has already given a better understanding of various subjects in fields like medicine and chemistry, like ostereoposis (med.) and crystal formation (chem.) However, due to budget cuts, the ISS cant fulfill its role as well as it should.
Regarding the dangers, we humans have a need to explore and push boundaries. This urge has driven almost all advances since the stone age, it is fundamental to our being. Some people are willing to risk their lives for this, others arent.
Not really, too big, too heavy, too cumbersome (cant maneuver them in the small spaces needed) PLUS you would be using robotic arms instead of your own, an unmanned EVA pod would be just as good for any mission that a pod could be used for.
unfortunately, it is much easier to use hands (even in thick gloves) for most delicate movements.
EVA suits are here to stay for the near future
Good point, (of course google is god...), The problem is average JoeUser will get annoyed by pop-ups, see advert for pop-up blocker, buy product.
It may actually be easier to SELL avg. User a product than to give it to him for free...
speaking of google, if you need to get a gmail invite off your hands, feel free:)
I know its not fashionable around these parts, being closed source, but Opera (www.opera.com) really is the bees knees.
On my machine it renders faster, everything is snappier than mozilla/firefox and has more features than you can shake Darl Mcbride at.
Its not free, true, but costs about the same as a pop-up blocker for Internal Exploder
Plus, Operas built in mail client is wonderful
Not that Im badmouthing firefox, I have that too, I just like Opera even better
Third type of person who can answer this offhand, Those who have actually thought the issue through, with sacrifices and all! Not just pathetic losers MikShapi seems to think
Ahh, yes, but could it be flown twice in 2 weeks?? Without replacing more than 10% of the crafts zero fuel weight??? I dont think so.
also, the X-15 wasnt very stable, especially at high altitude (inertia coupling was a very real danger) and made the approach for landing at just around 300 knots (thats 555km/h or around 350 mph)(for comparison a LARGE passenger jet makes an approach at around 140kts)
Finally the x-15 was bigger and heavier than SS1 needed a bigger drop-vehicle, and had a highly explosive and complex liquid fuel engine producing 57.000lbs of thrust (dont know what SS1 pruduces, but substantially less than that!)
X-15 weighed in at 32.000 lbs SS1 is around 6000lbs
I reckon these craft cant easily be compared, theyre just designed for such vastly different purposes, although one feature coincides (going high)
Well, the X-33 prototype was in part built by Scaled.... Burt Rutan thought the design was too complex.... but probably gained some experience regarding spacecraft design (like dont use advanced linear aerospike engines like the x-33 was supposed to)
RTF Rules......;)
Have to launch with 3 ppl or the equivalent mass, have lifesupport for 3 ppl, and accommodation (i.e. 3 seats).
also 2 launches must me made within 2 weeks, changing only a minimal percentage of the crafts own weight (replace maximum 10% of the crafts weight EXCLUDING fuel)
thats that
they havent applied for permission for flight 2 within two weeks, therefore this is probably not an attempt for the prize, just a test/validation flight, if all goes well, theyll probably set the goal for 2 consecutive launches in a month or so. (Rutans stated goal is to launch twice within TWO DAYS..... that would pretty much rule!)
Slashdot Mirror
Nonono
;)
We're not angsty anymore, now we're all buff and shit.
Thing is NiN has slowly evolved, as has much of his fanbase. All grown up now
comparing oranges and,well, apples.
There is a significant price hike on the cpu jump from 2.4 to 2.66.
The mobo in the apple machine is WAY more expensive (just check the HW it supports, like the number of GPUs and other little things). Comarable Mobos cost a lot more than $219 (in retail, anyway).
The Antec case is decent, but still not as good.
STOCK INTEL COOLING??????? are you f******* kidding? The Macbook doesn't sound like a vacuum cleaner on full!
Because it has a custom cooling solution similar in quality to what you MIGHT be able to put together (based on your skill level and thought) for around 200-400 bucks and a lot of patience (or with high skill, quite a bit cheaper, just more time spent on the project)
The cost of apple RAM is way too high, some upgrades are a bit too expensive, but I've done the same comparison, using COMPARABLE hardware, and there was still a price difference. Between 200 and 400 dollars, based on my choices (excluding RAM, I would buy that anyway)
And of course a Mac with 2GB RAM will at the moment outperform a Vista box with any amount of RAM you can fit in it....
Vista is not a ready product. XP was not a ready product for the first one and a half years, and Mac OS X took two years to get properly usable. No special hat for Vista, OS's are just released long before they are ready.
The laptop I'm writing this on only has 2GB of RAM, and I promise you, in any normal operations it will outperform a Vista desktop box in any configuration that doesn't involve more than twice the number of processors....
Oh, and I haven't had to restart in 41days (no restart, no shutdown, only close the lid so it goes into sleep mode)
Also, I'm not a mac fanboy, I also run XP and Ubuntu Linux, and just try to use the right tool for the right job. I have also built custom computers for a living, including Vista boxes, and wouldn't wish that thing on my friends (at least not yet, hopefully it will improve)
Repost.
Forgot the bloody formatting and didn't preview, sorry!
I've run those four operating systems in the last few months, have all but Vista in my home. I also worked for a company selling good computers, now with Vista.
They don't run Vista, not at work or at home.
Vista just doesn't have enough over XP to justify it, especially considering the HW requirements. For a decent Vista experience (apart from all the bugs and problems, like the network/audio issue) you need 2GB RAM and a twin core CPU and a DX10 GPU.
And Vist doesn't beat MacOS X or Ubuntu in any way that I've seen.
Usability wise MacOsX has a clear advantage over all the others, in my experience Ubuntu (after being set up and configured which can take a little tinkering if you're unlucky) takes second place, XP third and Vista comes squarely last.
Why?
Vista just isn't organized sensibly, when people complain about Mac stuff like the iTunes interface, they should try going through Vista networking after hitting a snag. Or the control panel in general. It's just not good. If completely set up it's not that bad, but no better than XP on the whole.
Xp is stable enough now, and the interface is functional but not fancy. Some things could be better, especially networking and system configuration of all sorts. Frequent restarts are required (as in Vista) to keep the systems running well.
Ubuntu needs more setting up, the control panel menus are decent, if a little crowded. If you hit snags you can get online help, or help from any UNIX/Linux nerd. Usually easily solved given enough knowledge (meaning, can be solved using a certain technique, not so hit and miss like in the Win systems). Networking works great. Graphically it can be simple or amazingly cool, your choice. To have it really nice (running Beryl or Compiz) with 3d desktop feature, all kinds of transparancy effects and such a load of graphic goodies that bot MacOS and Vista go into jealous fits you need only modest hardware. Mine is a AMD Sempron2800CPU, 768MB RAM (overkill) and a 128MB Geforce 6600GT GPU, it runs ALL the graphic goodies I can throw at it with NO glitches, generally using less than 300MB RAM to run the OS and graphic goodies (and one browser and one video window....).
Restarts are few and far between. Crashes, not yet...
MacOsX needs minimal setting up or tweaking. The biggest tweaks I've done are setting different behaviour on the trackpad (two finger right clicking etc.) The Preferences pane is dead simple. Changing settings is the easiest of all the systems and connecting to other computers (any OS) is also simple. The laptop I'm writing this on was last restarted (shut off or restarted) over 40 days ago.
I've seen mods for other OS's to make them look lik MacOs, not to make MacOs look like XP or Vista.....
In six months I've had to restart twice because of crashes, that OS bug has since been fixed.
My personal belief is that the Vista Horrors will drive a few people over to Mac and more to Linux, but not that many. People invent all kinds of reasons to endure subpar experiences and turn stuff like which hardware, operating system and software into a religious type debate instead of looking at these things like tools.
IMO you should use the OS and SW which can do the stuff you need to do. For most people Ubuntu is way more than adequate. I have different needs as I do hobbyist level audio recording, which means that XP and MacOs are the only usable OSs for me (the Vista audio path and drivers are completely unusable at the moment).
MacOS has worked much better than XP for me in for that, and does everything else that I need as well.
If you play games, then off to XP land you go.
For business applications any of those three should do nicely, just based on which applications you need (and no MS Office preaching, please, it's not a bad solution, but not the only one). MacOS X is really nice to work in, but most of the HW is a bit expensive, which is a definite point against Apple, and plus point for XP (
I've run those four operating systems in the last few months, have all but Vista in my home. I also worked for a company selling good computers, now with Vista. They don't run Vista, not at work or at home. Vista just doesn't have enough over XP to justify it, especially considering the HW requirements. For a decent Vista experience (apart from all the bugs and problems, like the network/audio issue) you need 2GB RAM and a twin core CPU and a DX10 GPU. And Vist doesn't beat MacOS X or Ubuntu in any way that I've seen. Usability wise MacOsX has a clear advantage over all the others, in my experience Ubuntu (after being set up and configured which can take a little tinkering if you're unlucky) takes second place, XP third and Vista comes squarely last. Why? Vista just isn't organized sensibly, when people complain about Mac stuff like the iTunes interface, they should try going through Vista networking after hitting a snag. Or the control panel in general. It's just not good. If completely set up it's not that bad, but no better than XP on the whole. Xp is stable enough now, and the interface is functional but not fancy. Some things could be better, especially networking and system configuration of all sorts. Frequent restarts are required (as in Vista) to keep the systems running well. Ubuntu needs more setting up, the control panel menus are decent, if a little crowded. If you hit snags you can get online help, or help from any UNIX/Linux nerd. Usually easily solved given enough knowledge (meaning, can be solved using a certain technique, not so hit and miss like in the Win systems). Networking works great. Graphically it can be simple or amazingly cool, your choice. To have it really nice (running Beryl or Compiz) with 3d desktop feature, all kinds of transparancy effects and such a load of graphic goodies that bot MacOS and Vista go into jealous fits you need only modest hardware. Mine is a AMD Sempron2800CPU, 768MB RAM (overkill) and a 128MB Geforce 6600GT GPU, it runs ALL the graphic goodies I can throw at it with NO glitches, generally using less than 300MB RAM to run the OS and graphic goodies (and one browser and one video window....). Restarts are few and far between. Crashes, not yet... MacOsX needs minimal setting up or tweaking. The biggest tweaks I've done are setting different behaviour on the trackpad (two finger right clicking etc.) The Preferences pane is dead simple. Changing settings is the easiest of all the systems and connecting to other computers (any OS) is also simple. The laptop I'm writing this on was last restarted (shut off or restarted) over 40 days ago. I've seen mods for other OS's to make them look lik MacOs, not to make MacOs look like XP or Vista..... In six months I've had to restart twice because of crashes, that OS bug has since been fixed. My personal belief is that the Vista Horrors will drive a few people over to Mac and more to Linux, but not that many. People invent all kinds of reasons to endure subpar experiences and turn stuff like which hardware, operating system and software into a religious type debate instead of looking at these things like tools. IMO you should use the OS and SW which can do the stuff you need to do. For most people Ubuntu is way more than adequate. I have different needs as I do hobbyist level audio recording, which means that XP and MacOs are the only usable OSs for me (the Vista audio path and drivers are completely unusable at the moment). MacOS has worked much better than XP for me in for that, and does everything else that I need as well. If you play games, then off to XP land you go. For business applications any of those three should do nicely, just based on which applications you need (and no MS Office preaching, please, it's not a bad solution, but not the only one). MacOS X is really nice to work in, but most of the HW is a bit expensive, which is a definite point against Apple, and plus point for XP (two plus points to Ubuntu on that count...) Notice a pattern there? There is no application at which Vista is currently outperforming any
Placebo effect does not require faith, but may benefit from it. Just the hope that it might work, even if unlikely, has an effect. Sitting down for a good, long talk with a homeopath will also help, if for no other reason than stress relief. It's interesting to note that the only area where homeopathy seems to score higher than placebo effect is against allergies. Also interesting that allergies are very much influenced by stress, and a certain percentage is considered to be purely fueled by the brain (stress related, psychosomatic....) Hmmm, pattern? Not explained by regular science is not a valid defense for this hocus pocus. Homeopathy stands to win a million dollars just by proving that it works. The fact that there are no takers speaks volumes. One of the basis of any science is that it looks critically at itself. Go through the main journals of homeopathy and try to find articles criticizing the art to further it. You won't find that. Go through the british medical journal and look for same. No problem. Critical thinking, even gorillas have that, why not homeopaths?
Water memory is not just contested, the single experiment that demonstrated it was not done correctly, not documented correctly and not presented correctly. Noone know if the microscope pictures he took of those ice crystals were of areas he selected (he didn't show th surrounding area or the whole structure, just a small part that he selected). He came into all parts of the experiment, there was no blind element, he "scared" the water, froze it and then tried to find crystal formations conforming to his own hypothesis. That really is the definition of bad science! Needless to say, noone has gotten the same result when trying to repeat the experiment, strange that......maybe you just have to BELIEVE!
The search field in most media libraries should do nicely.
:)
In iTunes type in search field "Rock Slipknot" and you should have something (depending on musical taste, obviously...).
If you want genre and sub-genre you should be able to do that by listing them both in the Genre id3 field, such as "rock backbeat" then when you search you can get all "rock" or just "rock backbeat", also when you sort by genre it gets ordered into groups of sub genres.
In iTunes it works using the search field, in winamp (the only program I sortof miss from PC, although I am finding that I can do everything I used to do in iTunes, usually simpler. Winamp is a good way around the spreadsheet like design of windows....) you can have the refine field also, making more criteria even easier.
Oh, and smart playlists are rather nice for playing groupings of stuff you like, simple enough so it can be used in real life use and powerful and tweakable enough for most of us geeks
I can hardly believe the elitism and snobbery in some of these comments!
:)
Oh wait, yes I can....
The series is decently written, she's a much better storyteller than writer and definitely a better writer than most who target this audience. Which audience is that? I would say a similar audience as the Famous Five books (Enid Blyton), Hardy Boys, Nancy Drew and the Narnia tales. Not Dostoyevski, Bulgakov, Asimov, Steinbeck et. al.
Clearly, as the Harry Potter series more akin to these stories than to "serious literature", they must be pretty good. I mean, they sell by the truckload, and buyers are definitely not just in their teens.
Their secret is in capturing the imagination, nothing more, nothing less. By getting a certain suspension of disbelief and creating a exciting, wondrous world she gets her target audience wrapped up in her world and caring for the characters therein. Thing is, she manages to get this effect for lots of other people too, many of whom also read serious stuff.
Although her writing is not as fluid as many other contemporary authors (notably Neil Gaiman IMO) dhe gets the job done with massive overkill.
As for reviewing the actual book, it was ok. It wrapped up the characters, the main storyarc and most substories, with only minor disappointments. The main would be her too frequent use of deus ex machina solutions (goblin teleportation comes to mind, additions to magic rules). I also think she could have spent a few extra pages on the last chapter, I had already ploughed through 600 pages, a few more won't kill me!
All in all enjoyable, rating as fun book 8/10, as a work of serious literature ?/10 (I dunno man, get your a** out of your head...)
As for my background, I'm over 30, decently educated and a "serious" professional and have been reading books since I could hold them (tecnically untrue, I dropped a particularly large and expensive book, damaging its spine, just too damn big). I enjoy books that challenge me intellectually or mess with my head in other ways, with a special affinity towards anything that really sucks me in, dont care about the degree of artiness/intellectualism. Will read authors with strange Russian names if their books are interesting enough (surprisingly, some of them are REALLY good, others could bore the snot out of me!).
If a book has anything to do with the numbers 42 or 5 I've probably read them
Now, not wanting to be a spoilsport, some people (including some on the forums) seem to think that whales are whales, and all whales are in danger of extinction, being hunted by cruel people, and they are really smart, like from a Disney cartoon.
Lets take it from the start.
There are over 60 different main species of whale.
Some are in danger of extinction, others are not.
The whale in the referenced article was a Bowhead whale, of which around 10.000 exist. That may sound like a big number, but it isnt. Its classified at "lower risk" for extinction and 67 animals are hunted each year by natives in Alaska.
The whales hunted by the Norwegian and Icelandic are mostly Minke whale, of which more than 450.000 are believed to exist, therof around 150.000 in the North Atlantic. That one is not considered in danger of extinction, and those countries try to act responsibly about ALL their hunting and fishing, as mistakes made by all North Atlancic countries in the past have been shown to have a real consequence.
Iceland also catches 9 Fin whales (endangered, 50.000 total, sustainable catch around 200 pr.year according to IWC)
Japan is also aiming for some Bowhead whales (lower risk) and 50 Humpback whales (vulnerable)
All in all, Japan hunts around 1000 whales a year, Norway also around 1000 and Iceland between 40 and 60. These numbers are approximate and are not just one type. The largest numbers are Minke, followed by Bowhead, Humpback and Fin whales.
All three countries are behaving in a responsible manner, understanding the consequences of overhunting.
One of the problems is that the IWC (International Whaling Commission) is controlled by people who only listen to political pressure and environmental pressure groups (which may or may not have the environment as their primary concern) instead of listening to their own scientists.
In 1989 the IWC put in place a ban on whaling. Whales were not hunted commercially because the conditions were not right. The main whaling countries all took part in this. Later, conditions changed. Some species of whales were shown to be in abundance. A few of the countries tried to have the IWC change their rules, so that if whaling were commenced again, it would be done responsibly. The IWC had at that time been taken over by lilly livered politicians who favor pressure groups over science (the Americans spring to mind).
The result is that three countries hunt whales, each trying to do so responsibly, but the commission which was founded to ensure that whaling is done responsibly is so out of the loop that there is no coordination.
Whales are beautiful creatures, but so are many others we hunt, eat and use for the products we can make from them. As to their intelligence, that is fiercely debated. Those stating whales to be extremely intelligent are mostly doing it from the heart (I mean, they ARE beautiful), those stating that whales are probably no more intelligent than any other mammal living in the wild are mostly scientists.
Whales do have large brains, but intelligence pretty closely correlates with the ratio between total mass and brain mass in all other animals. By that reasoning, whales are decently clever, beautiful, and, if cooked correctly, pretty tasty (like Bambi, with a hint of ocean)
As for the cruelty of the hunting method, military bullets are often ful metal jacket, which means they do not balloon or disintegrate when penetrating their target. This is to injure and hurt rather than to kill, these are illegal for hunting in most places. Regular hunting bullets penetrate their target, balloon due to deceleration (they widen or flatten) and rip out a big chunk where they exit. Kill almost instantly if aimed well.
An exploding tip harpoon penetrates and explodes, hopefuly killing the animal swiftly.
I dont see a big difference.
In general the whalers are just regular guys, they dont want the animal to suffer (unlike greenpeace which has been known to pay hunters to treat animals badly to show on video), th
Now, not wanting to be a spoilsport, some people (including some on the forums) seem to think that whales are whales, and all whales are in danger of extinction, being hunted by cruel people, and they are really smart, like from a Disney cartoon. Lets take it from the start. There are over 60 different main species of whale. Some are in danger of extinction, others are not. The whale in the referenced article was a Bowhead whale, of which around 10.000 exist. That may sound like a big number, but it isnt. Its classified at "lower risk" for extinction and 67 animals are hunted each year by natives in Alaska. The whales hunted by the Norwegian and Icelandic are mostly Minke whale, of which more than 450.000 are believed to exist, therof around 150.000 in the North Atlantic. That one is not considered in danger of extinction, and those countries try to act responsibly about ALL their hunting and fishing, as mistakes made by all North Atlancic countries in the past have been shown to have a real consequence. Iceland also catches 9 Fin whales (endangered, 50.000 total, sustainable catch around 200 pr.year according to IWC) Japan is also aiming for some Bowhead whales (lower risk) and 50 Humpback whales (vulnerable) All in all, Japan hunts around 1000 whales a year, Norway also around 1000 and Iceland between 40 and 60. These numbers are approximate and are not just one type. The largest numbers are Minke, followed by Bowhead, Humpback and Fin whales. All three countries are behaving in a responsible manner, understanding the consequences of overhunting. One of the problems is that the IWC (International Whaling Commission) is controlled by people who only listen to political pressure and environmental pressure groups (which may or may not have the environment as their primary concern) instead of listening to their own scientists. In 1989 the IWC put in place a ban on whaling. Whales were not hunted commercially because the conditions were not right. The main whaling countries all took part in this. Later, conditions changed. Some species of whales were shown to be in abundance. A few of the countries tried to have the IWC change their rules, so that if whaling were commenced again, it would be done responsibly. The IWC had at that time been taken over by lilly livered politicians who favor pressure groups over science (the Americans spring to mind). The result is that three countries hunt whales, each trying to do so responsibly, but the commission which was founded to ensure that whaling is done responsibly is so out of the loop that there is no coordination. Whales are beautiful creatures, but so are many others we hunt, eat and use for the products we can make from them. As to their intelligence, that is fiercely debated. Those stating whales to be extremely intelligent are mostly doing it from the heart (I mean, they ARE beautiful), those stating that whales are probably no more intelligent than any other mammal living in the wild are mostly scientists. Whales do have large brains, but intelligence pretty closely correlates with the ratio between total mass and brain mass in all other animals. By that reasoning, whales are decently clever, beautiful, and, if cooked correctly, pretty tasty (like Bambi, with a hint of ocean) As for the cruelty of the hunting method, military bullets are often ful metal jacket, which means they do not balloon or disintegrate when penetrating their target. This is to injure and hurt rather than to kill, these are illegal for hunting in most places. Regular hunting bullets penetrate their target, balloon due to deceleration (they widen or flatten) and rip out a big chunk where they exit. Kill almost instantly if aimed well. An exploding tip harpoon penetrates and explodes, hopefuly killing the animal swiftly. I dont see a big difference. In general the whalers are just regular guys, they dont want the animal to suffer (unlike greenpeace which has been known to pay hunters to treat animals badly to show on video), they just want to do their jobs well, and get home to their family. No int
Penzim is already used here to treat eczema, sores that wont heal and more (thats just as as a cream, not in its purest form) As for arthritis, fish byproducts have been known to help for a while as well, I have no idea if one of the reasons for that is the penzim, but wouldnt rule it out. And take your cod oil, everybody :)
So, ultimately companies may need to analyse which is cheaper/less detrimental, sexual harassment suits or discrimination suits. Leading to many companies not hiring women at all if they find the cost/benefit analysis makes harassment suits too expensive, or that the threat of harassment suits scares away the best candidates (male or female) while also making a bad working environment for EVERYONE. This legal environment is not helpful to women at all
we needs the gmail invite, my precious
ya think??
the last people to realise that the technology doent work are the homeland security ppl..
Thats weird, have you tried with latest version? (Opera 7.51) Havent seen that problem.
Definitely, small, purpose built r/c control units could minimize risks alot. Wouldnt remove the needs for spacewalks, but might replace the more standard tasks.
as has been discussed on /. often, manned spaceflights do jobs which unmanned flights cant. (real time experiments, fixing stuff in orbit etc.)
Space station usage could be hugely beneficial (and has already given a better understanding of various subjects in fields like medicine and chemistry, like ostereoposis (med.) and crystal formation (chem.)
However, due to budget cuts, the ISS cant fulfill its role as well as it should.
Regarding the dangers, we humans have a need to explore and push boundaries. This urge has driven almost all advances since the stone age, it is fundamental to our being.
Some people are willing to risk their lives for this, others arent.
Not really, too big, too heavy, too cumbersome (cant maneuver them in the small spaces needed) PLUS you would be using robotic arms instead of your own, an unmanned EVA pod would be just as good for any mission that a pod could be used for. unfortunately, it is much easier to use hands (even in thick gloves) for most delicate movements. EVA suits are here to stay for the near future
In soviet russia, spacewalks cut YOU short!
Good point, (of course google is god...), The problem is average JoeUser will get annoyed by pop-ups, see advert for pop-up blocker, buy product. It may actually be easier to SELL avg. User a product than to give it to him for free... speaking of google, if you need to get a gmail invite off your hands, feel free :)
I know its not fashionable around these parts, being closed source, but Opera (www.opera.com) really is the bees knees. On my machine it renders faster, everything is snappier than mozilla/firefox and has more features than you can shake Darl Mcbride at. Its not free, true, but costs about the same as a pop-up blocker for Internal Exploder Plus, Operas built in mail client is wonderful Not that Im badmouthing firefox, I have that too, I just like Opera even better
Third type of person who can answer this offhand, Those who have actually thought the issue through, with sacrifices and all! Not just pathetic losers MikShapi seems to think
Ahh, yes, but could it be flown twice in 2 weeks??
Without replacing more than 10% of the crafts zero fuel weight???
I dont think so.
also, the X-15 wasnt very stable, especially at high altitude (inertia coupling was a very real danger) and made the approach for landing at just around 300 knots (thats 555km/h or around 350 mph)(for comparison a LARGE passenger jet makes an approach at around 140kts)
Finally the x-15 was bigger and heavier than SS1 needed a bigger drop-vehicle, and had a highly explosive and complex liquid fuel engine producing 57.000lbs of thrust (dont know what SS1 pruduces, but substantially less than that!)
X-15 weighed in at 32.000 lbs
SS1 is around 6000lbs
I reckon these craft cant easily be compared, theyre just designed for such vastly different purposes, although one feature coincides (going high)
Well, the X-33 prototype was in part built by Scaled.... Burt Rutan thought the design was too complex.... but probably gained some experience regarding spacecraft design (like dont use advanced linear aerospike engines like the x-33 was supposed to)
RTF Rules...... ;)
Have to launch with 3 ppl or the equivalent mass, have lifesupport for 3 ppl, and accommodation (i.e. 3 seats).
also 2 launches must me made within 2 weeks, changing only a minimal percentage of the crafts own weight (replace maximum 10% of the crafts weight EXCLUDING fuel)
thats that
they havent applied for permission for flight 2 within two weeks, therefore this is probably not an attempt for the prize, just a test/validation flight, if all goes well, theyll probably set the goal for 2 consecutive launches in a month or so. (Rutans stated goal is to launch twice within TWO DAYS..... that would pretty much rule!)