But also, they will do / have done less nice things (like using MPEG-4 instead of Ogg Theora in their video player, for one, and that whole Orkut "W3 0wN j00r wR1t1ng"-copyright-thing).
They might have also do this because Ogg Theora is even less known than Ogg Vorbis, which, itself is barely on the radar.
Second: Jon Lech Johansen is not raising hell.
And, if I'd RTFA I'd probably know that. I assumed he'd hacked it to do something interesting, like circumvent DRM lockouts on some video. Knowing that he only made it so it would play video from other sites is, well, yawn.
I think we all like Jon when he was meddling with "evil" companies. How do we feel now that he is locking horns with the geeks' uncontested favorite company? I'm all for raising a little hell when the intents of a company are less than honorable, but leave the good guys alone. Not to say Google can do not evil, just that they haven't yet.
Maybe Java isn't cool on the client side, but its sure is used widely on the backend. I see many, many posting each day for Java programmers, as I'm looking for a way out of this hell hole I work in. When I first started writing Java I scoffed at it, my background educationally is in systems, so C and maybe C++ are my domain. But, if you need to throw something together quickly Java is a great language, not so much for the language features, but rather the API that comes along with it. I live by "make it work, make it right, make it fast" philosophy, and you can do the first two with Java very well. With some time you can even do the last one, but half the time development deadlines don't allow me to optimize things.
Because, miss the true point of the story, you do. Bringing balance to the force, this story is about. Anakin and Luke, but elements of this process are. Focus on the light side of the force, the films do. When the light side Anakin, leaves, focus of the story does he lose. Luke, then, the hopes of balance rest with, and so focus does he gain.
This seems a little disturbing- for the first time they're admitting they're not trying to stop big pirate-mills but slow down the consumer?
For the moment music companies have to accept that they can not stop determined pirates. Realize that, and move that out of the issue. What can they stop? They can stop "armchair" pirates, who if they put the disk in and they can't rip the music to Kazaa or whatever will give up. Stopping some form of piracy is better than none at all.
Maybe a million monkeys at typewriters can't produce Shakespeare after all. I think blogs are like almost everything on the Internet. They start out small, get hot, mainstream, and they are all the rage. Then people realize they aren't really adding value.
Blogs change the publishing path, but changing the path doesn't make the content any better. Blogs have enabled people with something intelligent and relevant, who didn't have a way to before, to get themselves heard. Unfortunately it has also allowed a lot of people with nothing to say a way to spew more junk for everyone to filter.
Changing the medium doesn't automatically make better content.
Darwin != Mac OS X. There's no reason that Apple couldn't write code outside of Darwin the Darwin core that would prevent OS X from running on non-Apple hardware.
Amen brother, amen. I could not possibly agree more with every point made. I really don't know if I'll stay with the platform, and I've eaten and slept Apple for a decade now. I wish they could take it all back, like a really awful joke.
Because it is only going to achieve this kind of performance for specific circumstances. Specifically when the 8 non-general cores (in marketing Synergistic Processing Elements) can be chained together such that the output of one is the input of another. For something like graphics rendering this makes a lot of sense, since you want to apply a series of effects to a scene. Each core is setup to do one effect and you end up with this really high performance processing stream that's all flowing through fast on-chip memories and buses (once initial data is pulled from main memory).
Market forces will determine this. 8x8 may be forced to include it now with all its service. Then they will either increase the price of plans or add it as a fee, like the Universal Service Recovery Fee that many telcos charge. At the end of the day, the total cost of your plan will depend on how consumers react and how their competitors react to this ruling.
The idea that VoIP providers must provide emergency services is bogus. If you want something for emergencies, then get a land line. The internet is not reliable enough to depend on for emergency communications like this.
You are missing the point. The government wants technology to advance and the old phone system to be replaced. If this is going to happen, new technologies have to offer the same emergency features. "Get a land line" will eventually not be an option, when it is no longer cost-effective for the telcos to provide them. The internet is not reliable? The Internet was designed to be reliable in the face of node failure, it was one of the primary design goals of the original Arpanet. The military wanted a system that could get messages from A to C even if B failed, by finding an alternate B. Your DSL service may not be reliable, but this is not the Internet. There is a difference, and it is an important one.
Just to plug a company I invest in, 8x8 or Packet8 already has E911 because they use Level3's network. So the message is, use Level3 for your network, have E911, and make me money by increasing Level3's profits!:-)
Does this really amount to anything more than a fork? I mean, it isn't as if there's never been an open source project that has been forked against the will of the original founders of the project. Does the forking by a company automatically make the fork bad? What if Google forked a project against the desire of the founder or "community"?
Nothing is as simple as you would make it seem. If you release updates too often people will get tired of applying them and stop applying them. This is the current state of Windows. For a long time, although better now, Windows needed to be patched every couple of days. People are not willing to do this. Everything is trade offs. Computer science or economics will teach you this very quickly.
I am actually going to side with Microsoft on this one. It is not as if they removed raw sockets, but rather restricted access to them. Let's consider who needs raw sockets, mostly advanced users. Advanced users are going to have an Administrator or root account on the Windows machine and therefore should have access to raw sockets, no? There is almost no reason for the average user to have raw sockets. They do create a real risk of bad network behavior and I imagine if someone were to create TCP/IP today instead of 30 years ago when the Internet was a much smaller, nicer place, raw sockets would not be part of the spec.
As an aside, I think I'm going to take the rest of the day off, agreeing with Microsoft is mentally jarring. It has to make you question existence just a little and also make you a touch ill.
The "Radeon 9650" is the highest upgrade option.. also an old card. There are no options for current graphics cards.
Other people do sell Macintosh graphics cards.
So where is the dual-core??
Ask IBM, Apple doesn't make the G5 processor. That's like asking Dell where the 4.0Ghz P4 is. Furthermore, dual core chips from AMD and Intel are only appearing this week, if we don't see dual core G5's in six months or so, then that's reason for alarm.
Alot of people care. I personally don't want a 4+ foot tall computer... this isn't the 70's.
I think we'll have to agree to disagree on whether or not most users find the G5 size a problem, I have yet to meet one that does. If making it smaller meant making it loader (and it probably would), I'm against smaller.
More network cards, better Audio cards, Raid controllers... things that power users who buy PowerMacs typically need.
If you need more than one gigabit ethernet connection you're probably running a server and you should pick appropriate hardware, namely an XServe. If you want to use the G5 as a server than you have a low-end graphics card, and 3 slots, which you could add two more ethernet cards and a RAID controller to. RAID controllers would be an odd addition unless you were using external drives, in which case you might as well get a Firewire RAID tower and forget the card entirely. Audio cards, assuming you also have a high-end graphics card you can add two more. Anyway, my point is that the number of people whose expansion needs can't be filled by firewire peripherals and two or three slots is a tiny percentage of the PowerMac target market, let along the general computing market.
You shouldn't have to buy extra RAM on a $3000 machine
If you're spending $3K on a computer, my guess is a couple hundred for 2GB more RAM isn't going to matter a whole lot.
- The Radeon 9600 was released in 2003.. Where is the X800??
My guess is that Apple couldn't secure enough supply from ATI to include it. Rather than risk huge shipping delays (like with the GeForce Ultra DDL) they left it to you to upgrade if you want it.
- Apple actually launched Dual 2.0Ghz G5's in 2003 (todays speedbump still includes this product)
Let remind you that no one has really moved their processor performance much in the last two years, until just recently with dual core designs.
- The case is still gigantic (2003 size), and still only sports 1 external drive bay
As to size, I have one and its just fine by me. It sits on the floor, it could be four feet tall for all I care. So, one external drive bay, with an optical drive that supports reading and writing just about every format under the sun. Why would I want another? To duplicate disks? I can rip a disk and burn it so fast that this is really a moot point.
- Still only 3 PCI slots (2 if your using the Nvidia Video card)
And what would most people use more slots for? Nothing. So much is included on the motherboard these days that six slots really doesn't make sense for the vast majority. If you need more, you'll probably get a PCI expansion chasis and stop whinning.
- Only 512MB Ram for a workstation?
Fine by me, I never buy RAM from the box makers. It can be had much more cheaply (particularly vs Apple RAM) from elsewhere.
Since most creative apps won't support clustering, no, six mac minis are not as fast.
Firstly, Google is making vast amounts of money, over $300 million (or $400 if you back out stock options) while increasing the size of their work force by 15%. So, they have no problem paying for all this cool stuff as it is.
On the topic of this move being evil, I don't think it is. At the end of the day, it is the third-party sites that decide to display the image ads, not Google. They provide a way for you to make more money (I assume image ads are significantly more costly) if you want. You trade more money for you against the experience of your (not Google's) visitors. Does providing a way for advertisers to display graphical ads on third-party sites that want them make Google evil? No, it means they are enabling two parties (site owners and advertisers) an easy way to get what they want. At the end of the day, it is the site owners who decide. Hate the user, not the tool.
Re:Ads should be distinguishable from non-ads
on
Google Upgrades AdSense
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I think that Google's old method of embedding text ads in search result pages was a little bit underhanded. While they were off in another column of the screen, they looked just like regular search results.
For a long time, I didn't even notice the ads on the right side. Further, how could you think these are regular search results? The format of the "ad column" is totally different from the search results.
Humanitarily speaking, since they are not actually in any country, who protects the rights of those 600 laboring software engineers?
Ummm, well, they do. If they can call water taxi and leave, then if they feel they are being abused, they should leave. Do you honestly think software engineers will be kept at gun point?
Its a classical economic tradeoff. You have less accurate information, but you use less resources to get it. Quickly updated DNS servers means bandwidth and processing power. The queston is how to find the amount of time that is "good enough" for the target users. Honestly, how often should a domain's IP be changing? Maybe every day at most, and I think this is pushing it. If you've got a domain that changes more often than that, perhaps you should be relying on something other than the global DNS system to route your changes down to users. Special needs require special software.
But until Verizon (and DSL providers in general) get their heads out of the "1.5 Mb is the fastest that we give" particularly for those of us who are less than 5,000 feet from the CO (like myself), DSL just doesn't provide the value.
Ummm, well, considering they now offer 3.0Mbps for $30, I think maybe that time has come.
I've managed hundreds of systems over the years and never once had an optical drive failure. In everything from 5+ year-old x86 boxes to caddy-loaded early PowerMacs to the new G5's. My current office has many optical drives 5+ years old and have never had any difficulties. Maybe this is because most systems are macs and Apple tends to use good components? However, the quality of modern Mac systems (post-Jobs return) is not like it used to be. I still have a PowerMac 6100 with original CD drive working perfectly! I have also never used a cleaning disc on anything.
Slashdot Mirror
Morals are not absolute
You, sir, make me ill.
But also, they will do / have done less nice things (like using MPEG-4 instead of Ogg Theora in their video player, for one, and that whole Orkut "W3 0wN j00r wR1t1ng"-copyright-thing).
They might have also do this because Ogg Theora is even less known than Ogg Vorbis, which, itself is barely on the radar.
Second: Jon Lech Johansen is not raising hell.
And, if I'd RTFA I'd probably know that. I assumed he'd hacked it to do something interesting, like circumvent DRM lockouts on some video. Knowing that he only made it so it would play video from other sites is, well, yawn.
I think we all like Jon when he was meddling with "evil" companies. How do we feel now that he is locking horns with the geeks' uncontested favorite company? I'm all for raising a little hell when the intents of a company are less than honorable, but leave the good guys alone. Not to say Google can do not evil, just that they haven't yet.
Maybe Java isn't cool on the client side, but its sure is used widely on the backend. I see many, many posting each day for Java programmers, as I'm looking for a way out of this hell hole I work in. When I first started writing Java I scoffed at it, my background educationally is in systems, so C and maybe C++ are my domain. But, if you need to throw something together quickly Java is a great language, not so much for the language features, but rather the API that comes along with it. I live by "make it work, make it right, make it fast" philosophy, and you can do the first two with Java very well. With some time you can even do the last one, but half the time development deadlines don't allow me to optimize things.
Because, miss the true point of the story, you do. Bringing balance to the force, this story is about. Anakin and Luke, but elements of this process are. Focus on the light side of the force, the films do. When the light side Anakin, leaves, focus of the story does he lose. Luke, then, the hopes of balance rest with, and so focus does he gain.
This seems a little disturbing- for the first time they're admitting they're not trying to stop big pirate-mills but slow down the consumer?
For the moment music companies have to accept that they can not stop determined pirates. Realize that, and move that out of the issue. What can they stop? They can stop "armchair" pirates, who if they put the disk in and they can't rip the music to Kazaa or whatever will give up. Stopping some form of piracy is better than none at all.
Maybe a million monkeys at typewriters can't produce Shakespeare after all. I think blogs are like almost everything on the Internet. They start out small, get hot, mainstream, and they are all the rage. Then people realize they aren't really adding value.
Blogs change the publishing path, but changing the path doesn't make the content any better. Blogs have enabled people with something intelligent and relevant, who didn't have a way to before, to get themselves heard. Unfortunately it has also allowed a lot of people with nothing to say a way to spew more junk for everyone to filter.
Changing the medium doesn't automatically make better content.
One problem dunkis, OS X isn't going to try to phone home when install, but check against the underlying hardware. Two completely different problems.
Darwin != Mac OS X. There's no reason that Apple couldn't write code outside of Darwin the Darwin core that would prevent OS X from running on non-Apple hardware.
Amen brother, amen. I could not possibly agree more with every point made. I really don't know if I'll stay with the platform, and I've eaten and slept Apple for a decade now. I wish they could take it all back, like a really awful joke.
Because it is only going to achieve this kind of performance for specific circumstances. Specifically when the 8 non-general cores (in marketing Synergistic Processing Elements) can be chained together such that the output of one is the input of another. For something like graphics rendering this makes a lot of sense, since you want to apply a series of effects to a scene. Each core is setup to do one effect and you end up with this really high performance processing stream that's all flowing through fast on-chip memories and buses (once initial data is pulled from main memory).
Market forces will determine this. 8x8 may be forced to include it now with all its service. Then they will either increase the price of plans or add it as a fee, like the Universal Service Recovery Fee that many telcos charge. At the end of the day, the total cost of your plan will depend on how consumers react and how their competitors react to this ruling.
The idea that VoIP providers must provide emergency services is bogus. If you want something for emergencies, then get a land line. The internet is not reliable enough to depend on for emergency communications like this.
You are missing the point. The government wants technology to advance and the old phone system to be replaced. If this is going to happen, new technologies have to offer the same emergency features. "Get a land line" will eventually not be an option, when it is no longer cost-effective for the telcos to provide them. The internet is not reliable? The Internet was designed to be reliable in the face of node failure, it was one of the primary design goals of the original Arpanet. The military wanted a system that could get messages from A to C even if B failed, by finding an alternate B. Your DSL service may not be reliable, but this is not the Internet. There is a difference, and it is an important one.
Just to plug a company I invest in, 8x8 or Packet8 already has E911 because they use Level3's network. So the message is, use Level3 for your network, have E911, and make me money by increasing Level3's profits! :-)
Does this really amount to anything more than a fork? I mean, it isn't as if there's never been an open source project that has been forked against the will of the original founders of the project. Does the forking by a company automatically make the fork bad? What if Google forked a project against the desire of the founder or "community"?
Nothing is as simple as you would make it seem. If you release updates too often people will get tired of applying them and stop applying them. This is the current state of Windows. For a long time, although better now, Windows needed to be patched every couple of days. People are not willing to do this. Everything is trade offs. Computer science or economics will teach you this very quickly.
I am actually going to side with Microsoft on this one. It is not as if they removed raw sockets, but rather restricted access to them. Let's consider who needs raw sockets, mostly advanced users. Advanced users are going to have an Administrator or root account on the Windows machine and therefore should have access to raw sockets, no? There is almost no reason for the average user to have raw sockets. They do create a real risk of bad network behavior and I imagine if someone were to create TCP/IP today instead of 30 years ago when the Internet was a much smaller, nicer place, raw sockets would not be part of the spec.
As an aside, I think I'm going to take the rest of the day off, agreeing with Microsoft is mentally jarring. It has to make you question existence just a little and also make you a touch ill.
The "Radeon 9650" is the highest upgrade option .. also an old card. There are no options for current graphics cards.
... this isn't the 70's.
... things that power users who buy PowerMacs typically need.
Other people do sell Macintosh graphics cards.
So where is the dual-core??
Ask IBM, Apple doesn't make the G5 processor. That's like asking Dell where the 4.0Ghz P4 is. Furthermore, dual core chips from AMD and Intel are only appearing this week, if we don't see dual core G5's in six months or so, then that's reason for alarm.
Alot of people care. I personally don't want a 4+ foot tall computer
I think we'll have to agree to disagree on whether or not most users find the G5 size a problem, I have yet to meet one that does. If making it smaller meant making it loader (and it probably would), I'm against smaller.
More network cards, better Audio cards, Raid controllers
If you need more than one gigabit ethernet connection you're probably running a server and you should pick appropriate hardware, namely an XServe. If you want to use the G5 as a server than you have a low-end graphics card, and 3 slots, which you could add two more ethernet cards and a RAID controller to. RAID controllers would be an odd addition unless you were using external drives, in which case you might as well get a Firewire RAID tower and forget the card entirely. Audio cards, assuming you also have a high-end graphics card you can add two more. Anyway, my point is that the number of people whose expansion needs can't be filled by firewire peripherals and two or three slots is a tiny percentage of the PowerMac target market, let along the general computing market.
You shouldn't have to buy extra RAM on a $3000 machine
If you're spending $3K on a computer, my guess is a couple hundred for 2GB more RAM isn't going to matter a whole lot.
- The Radeon 9600 was released in 2003 .. Where is the X800??
My guess is that Apple couldn't secure enough supply from ATI to include it. Rather than risk huge shipping delays (like with the GeForce Ultra DDL) they left it to you to upgrade if you want it.
- Apple actually launched Dual 2.0Ghz G5's in 2003 (todays speedbump still includes this product)
Let remind you that no one has really moved their processor performance much in the last two years, until just recently with dual core designs.
- The case is still gigantic (2003 size), and still only sports 1 external drive bay
As to size, I have one and its just fine by me. It sits on the floor, it could be four feet tall for all I care. So, one external drive bay, with an optical drive that supports reading and writing just about every format under the sun. Why would I want another? To duplicate disks? I can rip a disk and burn it so fast that this is really a moot point.
- Still only 3 PCI slots (2 if your using the Nvidia Video card)
And what would most people use more slots for? Nothing. So much is included on the motherboard these days that six slots really doesn't make sense for the vast majority. If you need more, you'll probably get a PCI expansion chasis and stop whinning.
- Only 512MB Ram for a workstation?
Fine by me, I never buy RAM from the box makers. It can be had much more cheaply (particularly vs Apple RAM) from elsewhere.
Since most creative apps won't support clustering, no, six mac minis are not as fast.
...this network be able to handle Longhorn SP1?
Firstly, Google is making vast amounts of money, over $300 million (or $400 if you back out stock options) while increasing the size of their work force by 15%. So, they have no problem paying for all this cool stuff as it is.
On the topic of this move being evil, I don't think it is. At the end of the day, it is the third-party sites that decide to display the image ads, not Google. They provide a way for you to make more money (I assume image ads are significantly more costly) if you want. You trade more money for you against the experience of your (not Google's) visitors. Does providing a way for advertisers to display graphical ads on third-party sites that want them make Google evil? No, it means they are enabling two parties (site owners and advertisers) an easy way to get what they want. At the end of the day, it is the site owners who decide. Hate the user, not the tool.
I think that Google's old method of embedding text ads in search result pages was a little bit underhanded. While they were off in another column of the screen, they looked just like regular search results.
For a long time, I didn't even notice the ads on the right side. Further, how could you think these are regular search results? The format of the "ad column" is totally different from the search results.
Humanitarily speaking, since they are not actually in any country, who protects the rights of those 600 laboring software engineers?
Ummm, well, they do. If they can call water taxi and leave, then if they feel they are being abused, they should leave. Do you honestly think software engineers will be kept at gun point?
Its a classical economic tradeoff. You have less accurate information, but you use less resources to get it. Quickly updated DNS servers means bandwidth and processing power. The queston is how to find the amount of time that is "good enough" for the target users. Honestly, how often should a domain's IP be changing? Maybe every day at most, and I think this is pushing it. If you've got a domain that changes more often than that, perhaps you should be relying on something other than the global DNS system to route your changes down to users. Special needs require special software.
But until Verizon (and DSL providers in general) get their heads out of the "1.5 Mb is the fastest that we give" particularly for those of us who are less than 5,000 feet from the CO (like myself), DSL just doesn't provide the value.
Ummm, well, considering they now offer 3.0Mbps for $30, I think maybe that time has come.
I've managed hundreds of systems over the years and never once had an optical drive failure. In everything from 5+ year-old x86 boxes to caddy-loaded early PowerMacs to the new G5's. My current office has many optical drives 5+ years old and have never had any difficulties. Maybe this is because most systems are macs and Apple tends to use good components? However, the quality of modern Mac systems (post-Jobs return) is not like it used to be. I still have a PowerMac 6100 with original CD drive working perfectly! I have also never used a cleaning disc on anything.