as mentioned in the forums at sudhian and spcr.com, the mini should really be compared to some of the epia mini-itx systems.
i'm off to research those and will post later...
1 - go to store.apple.com
2 - go to the 'mini' page
3 - select the 1.42Ghz model
4 - configure it with more ram, BT and AP, KB and mouse
5 - click on "add to cart"
6 - click on "view cart" or "edit cart"
7 - all the optional items have been added up and listed as one item
as i said in one of my previous posts, cutting and pasting
and HTMLifying is a PITA and leads to odd assumptions.
again, configure a mini and a shuttle yourself(the one i chose is the one suggested on pcstats.com "Mac Builds a Shuttle, Shuttle Builds a Mac") and see it with your own eyes; you don't actually believe _everything_ you read do you?;-)
while composing my post i lost a linksys wireless adapter, sorry, cut and paste from neweggs web-store needs reformatting - the linksys is a 802.11a/b/g PCI add-in:
LINKSYS 54Mbps Dual-Band Wireless A+G PCI Ethernet Adapter, Model WMP55AG
- Specifications -
Standard: IEEE 802.11a, 802.11b, draft 802.11g
Wireless Data Rates: up to 11/56Mbps
Security: up to 152-Bit WEP
Interface: PCI
Frequency Band: 2.4G/5G
Modulation: CCK, DQPSK, DBPSK, OFDM
Transmitted Power: 11dBm to 17dBm
Temperature: 0C - 55C
Humidity: 10% - 85%, Non-Condensing
Weight: 100g
Dimensions(mm): 147 x 20 x 120
System Requirements: 200Mhz or Faster Processor, 64MB+ RAM, Available PCI Slot, CD-ROM Drive, Microsoft Windows 98SE/Millennium/2000/XP
Model#: WMP55AG
Item#: N82E16833124116
so now you can add $83.99 to your shuttle.
- unfortunately, the logitech keyboard isn't bluetooth, tho' i'm sure a BT adapter could be found(for as little as $15.99, like this one: N82E16833327108), allowing you to buy the apple BT keyboard and mouse.
for the rest of you who want to bash me, go ahead, bash away, then go build your own comparison and post it. (i will never claim to be entirely objective, nor error-free:-) can't please everyone...
and yes, you can go for the cheaper Office version.
anyone care to add it all up again?
sorry, i missed the security lock; didn't notice it while perusing the mac mini pages, so you're right, that's one less "-".
just so you know, i first posted from my work mac(pm-g4/400)
and this reply from my pismo at home(pb-g3/500); the wife uses a flower-power iMac(g3/500), i've also owned a performa 6400, and still have a 7200 and a 9500 in the garage right now - semi-retired; and when i will the lottery, i'll be getting a NEW powerbook, so some _might_ call me a 'fanboy'.
however, i built my own PC last year so i could learn more about PCs and linux(XPpro as well, and MS Windows _still_ sucks). i started with red hat9, and graduated to gentoo(2.4 through 2.6.10, yay fluxbox and UT2004) so i'm not unfamiliar with PC components, assembling my own, making ISOs, and my current personal fave, emerge:-) here's what i put together:
dfi lanparty nf2 ultra(a)
AMD barton 2500+ over-clocked to 200x10 on air
xfx fx5900xt(no vesafb-tng, so no gensplash, boo)
3x256MB pc2700
maxtor 120GB7200/8MB
tdk DVD+rw, etc.
anyway, i tried to be fair when doing the comparison; so i chose the options that matter the most to me(airport, wireless)
i expect there will be many, many comparisons, i just wanted to share mine...
the mac is a BTO, added BT, AP, BT-keyboard and mouse
Mac mini 1.42GHz
Accessory kit
Internal Bluetooth + AirPort Extreme Card
80GB Ultra ATA drive
SuperDrive
56K v.92 Modem
512MB DDR333 SDRAM - 1 DIMM
Mac OS X - U.S. English - P/N: Z0B8 $903.00
Wireless Keyboard & Mouse Set - P/N: B9396LL/A $99.00
Office 2004 for Mac - P/N: T9189LL/A $399.95
total: $1,401.95
differences for the shuttle:
DVD burner(the only silver ones were 16x).
Modem(has to be external if you want PCI-802.11a/b/g)
summary:
shuttle pluses
- you can build it yourself
- you can upgrade it yourself
- games(!)
shuttle minuses
- you can build it yourself
- you can upgrade it yourself
- Windows
- finding drivers, updating patches
- fan noise
mac mini pluses
- its very small
- its very quiet
- it looks nicer(subjective)
- the software is preinstalled
- there's more software included(appleworks, iLife, garage band, iMovie, iDVD)
mac mini minuses
- you can't upgrade it
- you can't make it faster(see previous)
- it's easy to steal(not showing up in any offices anytime soon)
- games:-( (that would be a LACK of games, although that's changing, slowly)
so once you've added up all the stuff you need to match the mini, you end up darn near close; a $27.14 difference in favor of the Shuttle.
ballmer: selfish, greedy, arrogant b*stard
on
How Cheap Can A PC Be?
·
· Score: 0, Redundant
if he really wants to sell longhorn, he can GIVE away
cheap PCs. Doesn't he have enough money aready?
Sheesh.
i have a similar issue: i have some semi-RT apps that were written by a vendor for
WinNT(and XP) - and not having tried either(i'm an end-user, not an admin, so i can't tinker...;-),
there ought to be a good way to utilise one or the other to achieve acceptable results in a
production environment.
before anyone gets all huffy about XP, it is fairly stable, can be configured to be relatively
secure(!) and, a recent LinuxFormat Magazine had a co-linux/Gentoo dist on it.
anyone try either one out? philosophically, i'd prefer to use win4lin, but realise that it may be
more practical to try co-linux because of the peculiarities of XP(wierd system calls, etc.)
I don't have insight into why Apple continues to do Intel builds of Darwin. It could be for no other reason than to keep IBM in check. It would be interesting to see how Microsoft's reaction would be if Apple took that Intel build to market. Microsoft needs Apple to remain in business, but how badly? Would Microsoft do another build of Office to run on an OS X for Intel platforms?
It is absolutely to keep IBM in check; next to MS, IBM is the other 2800lb gorilla in the industry. IBM has Linux, but no real desktop UI to sell to Corporations; once that happens(KDE, GNOME, denim, etc) Apple would have two OS competitors; isn't MS enough? Releasing MacOS(the GUI really) on the PC platform would probably be a last-ditch effort if and when we get a good consistent, predictable, easy-to-use GUI for Linux.
MS is terrified that either Apple or Linux will take over the PC-based desktop world, so they FUD both whenever possible.
And MS doesn't need Apple to survive(although any innovation seems to be coming their Mac Software group; new features in Office get folded back to Windows versions later)
I'm really curious to see how gentoo-on-the-Mac and co-linux(and David) will play out. Apple will have(should have) a good leg up once Portage and the UI toolkit get together; they'll finally be able to take advantage of the FOSS world. co-linux on the other hand, looks like the bridge that leads corporate IT departments to phase-out Windows(licenses only for those apps that require it and switching to replacement FOSS apps when they become available.)
as noted earlier, don't use less than DV for the money shots
the sony vx[1,2]000 are nice
the canon xl series allows you to change lenses as needed,
jvc and panasonic both make affordable(?) HD.
ditto info from the local users group/union hall
and now onto the other questions:
Film == complications? - film can be complicated if you don't have the skills or experience, you'll be wasting precious $$$ processing and seeing potentially crappy results. While film does have a 'feel', it's really who's directing, who the cinematographer is, grips(lighting), etc. Since the poster is doing this himself, he's all of the above and should take advantage of tape and digital. digital-8, DV, and HD are more forgiving while learning;
you can always shoot again and reuse tape. don't like that last shot? do it again. and again. and again. and again. try doing that with film on a limited budget. anyway, it's really easy to make a crappy movie in B&W _or_ color, digital _or_ film; it's hard to make a _great_ movie, period.
as for F/X, the less obvious and obtrusive the better; pretty much anything done traditionally, miniatures, composites, fx(laser beams, explosions, dust, smoke, water) can be done digitally, either with composited practicals or CG(your results may vary.) try to avoid digital effects unless you really, really have to. a side note here: for the lord of the rings trilogy, you probably already know the the hobbits and normal sized people were all shot separately and recombined digitally; this used to be done optically with multiple layers/strips of film at some expense for lab time, processing, etc. the LOTR composites were actually quite good(imnsho), but the point here is the camera angles were all planned far, far in advance _knowing_ that a composite would be used to create the illusion of the height differences. on the other hand there's 'Lost In Translation' - purposely done on film for the look and feel(no dramatic fx necessary to tell the story...)
I think the reason we perceive older films as being more thoughtful and creative is because 50 years ago, it took a long time to make a movie so everything had to be decided upon _before_ anyone stepped in front of a camera. have you watched a Bergman film with the extraordinarily long shots?
do you think they ad-libbed it? planning down to the last detail (beyond your limit of patience during screenwriting)will save your show whether you originate on film or digital.
regarding practicals: if you can do it well and quickly with a practical, that's one less thing to mess with in compositing later. i've stopped keeping track of how often a shot goes back for a 'quick tweak' just because it's digital. if you've planned it out(story board, test shots, etc.) ahead of time, it should be relatively easy. don't be afraid of a miniature set if you need something in the distance, detail is naturally low for shots with stuff way out back in the distance. when we worked on Reign of Fire, the shots of London burnt in the distance were done with miniatures, same with 102 dalmations.
finally, about underwater; you may be able to get away with hi-8, digital-8, or DV due to the natural softening of subject material under water, ie. digital-8 for water, DV/HD for the hero/money shots. also, it's amazing what you can do with a camera outside a fish tank looking _in_;-)
to the original poster - Best of Luck! I look forward to seeing your work(consider on-line trailers/teasers, hint, hint)
to my mind, this _was_ his best work in the SciFi genre; simple direction, great
performances(Robert Duvall), compelling story('1984'), excellent
cinematography
and most importantly, no attempt to spoon-feed the audience why things are the
way they are(like in SW-Ep1 - the force and 'mito-whatevers'.)
Judging by the "improvements" he keeps adding to his library of scifi films, this
Directors Cut will suck too. He just never knows when to leave well enough alone.
I used to be certified to fly "H" motors way before 9/11, and the testing procedures were minimal then.
Over the past few years(6-7ish?) the regs have gotten tighter because even without 9/11 happening
you can have serious accidents if you're not trained, careful and follow safe procedures.
Recently, you needed a LEUP and a class 3 pyrotechnics licence and a BATF approved storage
facility to store more than a certain amount of propellants(I forget how much.) As mentioned before,
it is hard enough to get any decent sized hobby rocket to get off the ground without any problems let
alone have it be guided to an airborne target. The worst a terrorist could do with a hobby rocket is
try to ballistcally drop something on a target and even then, without any guidance there are no guarantees
it'll go where you want it.
Here's a link to the Rocketry FAQ on rocketryonline.com, and a quick paragraph from it:
1.1 What, exactly, is a 'model rocket' versus a 'high power' rocket? Where do liquid fueled and
homemade rocket motors fit in? What about amateur rockets?
'Model', 'high power', 'advanced', and 'amateur' are all terms which have many definitions, depending
to whom you are speaking. In r.m.r., and in the FAQ documents, the definitions (if any) accepted by the NFPA,
National Association of Rocketry, and Tripoli High Power Rocketry Association are used. If these
definitions conflict the NAR definition is used.
'Model rockets' are rockets that conform to the guidelines and restrictions defined in the NFPA 1122 document. These rockets weigh less than 1500 grams, contain less than 125 grams of total fuel, have no motor with more than 62.5 grams of fuel or more than 160 NS of total impulse, use only pre-manufactured, solid propellant motors, and do not use metal body tubes, nose cones or fins. One inconsistancy with this is the CPSC definition of a model rocket motor, which by their definition must contain no more than 80NS total impulse. NFPA document 1127-94 contains the most complete definition of a model rocket and the model rocket safety code. This is the same safety code as adopted by the NAR.
'Large Model Rockets' is a term used in the FAA FAR 101 regulations. It refers to NAR/NFPA model rockets that are between 454 and 1500 grams (1 to 3.3 pounds) total liftoff weight and contain more than 113 grams but less than 125 grams of total fuel.
'High power rockets' are rockets that exceed the total weight, total propellant or single motor total impulse restrictions of model rockets, but otherwise conform to the same guidelines for construction materials and pre-manufactured, commericially made rocket motors. High power rockets also allow the use of metal structural components where such a material is necessary to insure structural integrity of the rocket. High power rockets have no total weight limits, but do have a single motor limit of no more than O power (40,960NS maximum total impulse) and have a total power limitation of 81,920NS total impulse. NFPA document 1127-1985 contains the most complete definition of a high power rocket and also the high power rocketry safety code. This safety code has been adopted by both the NAR and TRA. Metal bodied rockets are allowed by NFPA 1127 where metal is required to insure structural integrity of the rocket over all of its anticipated flight.
'Amateur' rockets covers all other non-professional rockets that do not meet the criteria for model or high power rockets. This includes metal bodied rockets, liquid or hybrid fueled rockets, and rockets with any type of homemade rocket motor.
'Experimental' rockets is an ambiguous term. In the early 1980's it was used (reportedly coined by the magazine 'California Rocketry') to describe rockets that exceeded the model rocket limit at that time (1 pound total liftoff weigh
We'll have a contest to see how many _single_ developers
can design, code and finish
an operating system similar to Minix(conceptually) with some standards compliance(i.e.POSIX.)
We'll select a bunch of the most critical subsystems and define those as a Base and give extra
points for the following:
- using a language that's not generally used for OS design,
- designing and coding for portability(more platforms=more points)
- smallest code base
- best documentation
- time to complete, less time=more points
- fastest(benchmarkers paradise here we come...)
- POSIX compliance, more compliant=more points
- massive extra points for running windows software;-)
- 'clean', no borrowed code = +100 points
and i'm sure there are other categories.
So for example, person A get 100 points for base compliance, 25 points for using a language
not generally used for OS design(Visual Basic?) another 25 points for best documentation. His total score would be 150.
Person B submits a Base+ OS:
base compliance = 100
written in Forth = 25
highly portable = 25
time to complete, 6months, 23 days, = 25 points
best documentation = 25 points
total score, 200 points
Ultimately, the point is how many POSIX-subset compliant OS's written by ONE programmer/analyst
can we get and how long will it take?
Say we get about twenty-five(25) base-implementations submitted by six months, three(3)
decent base+ implementations in 9-10 months and one(1) truly great implementation in 13 months;
We can then say that Ken Brown and company really, really don't have a clue about software
development, and OSs in particular.
When I started at the Lab, Bruce and Rick Ace(the other Systems Programmer) told me, "...learn everything in that manual..." while pointing at a lateral binder that was literally three feet wide. I couldn't tell if they were joking or not, but I went ahead and read the manual anyway. I learned to program C, fix production scripts(sh, csh, awk, the basics) that broke at 2am, and how you can trick a new operator by writing a trivial C program that opened a file, then a seek to the end of an RA80(?) disk that would require 13 tapes and about five hours of tape swapping for a backup of a single empty file. That training and a little self-discipline eventually got me to Disney.
Bruce's point of games are temporary, but improving yourself is forever should be well taken by many; anyone could be the next John Carmack(or Bruce Perens) with the right combination of skills, experience and knowledge. You can always play games later...
after posting some hardware sugs, i forgot about the driver issue:most of the newest 64bit driver work from the
major manufacturers appear to be for Windows(ech).
(
Here's a review that came out today.)
The latest Linux drivers from nvidia aren't too old; their last nForce3 update was in Dec 2003 and the gpu drivers in Jan 2004
i didn't see it mentioned here by anyone else, but as reported on a couple of (sites for one)
there's a neat new box coming out from IWILL
that crams two(2) Opterons in a SFF case. Unfortunately, if you need something now, this one will be coming too late for you unless you're a developer/partner/etc:
"IWILL ZMAX based on nVIDIA nForce3 Pro 250Gb chipset will sample in July.
Volume production is planned in September, with a suggested price of $499.
IWILL plans to get attention in workstation market. ZMAXdp will include proprietary
form factor motherboard, 300W power supply, up to 2x3.5" HDD bay, and 1xAGP;
PCI and SI can offer various configurations for workstation market demand."
there are others, but I've lost my wish-list;-)
You could also build one yourself, but I'd look for the nForce3 pro 250 or 250Gb, the NF3-150 didn't
exactly get extraordinary reviews.
Good Luck!
i'm embarrased to say i'd never heard of him despite
having two years of Political Science in College;
after Googling many uninformative links(read:i'm lazy and i wanted a synopsis;-), I found this link
which says:
Alexis de Tocqueville
Tocqueville, Alexis Charles Henri Maurice Clérel de (1805-59), French political writer and statesman, whose work on the United States political system became a classic.
Tocqueville was born July 29, 1805, in Verneuil, and studied law in Paris. With the French publicist Gustave Auguste de Beaumont de la Bonninière, he went abroad in 1831 to study the penal system in the U.S. The two men reported their findings in Du système pénitentiaire aux États-Unis et son application en France (The Penitentiary System in the United States and Its Application in France, 1832). After returning to France in 1832, Tocqueville wrote his most famous work, Democracy in America (2 vol., 1835-40; trans., 4 vol., 1835-40). One of the earliest and most profound studies of American life, it concerns the legislative and administrative systems in the U.S. and the influence of social and political institutions on the habits and manners of the people. Tocqueville maintains in this work that the full development of democracy occurred in the U.S. because conditions there best permitted the diffusion of European social ideas. He was highly critical of certain aspects of American democracy. For example, he believed that public opinion tended toward tyranny and that majority rule could be as oppressive as the rule of a despot.
As a member of the French Chamber of Deputies (1839-48), Tocqueville advocated a number of reforms, including the decentralization of government and an independent judiciary. He became vice president of the National Assembly in 1849 and for part of that year was minister of foreign affairs. After opposing the 1851 coup d'état of Louis Napoleon Bonaparte, later French emperor as Napoleon III, Tocqueville retired from political life. He died on April 16, 1859, in Cannes.
Tocqueville's major works offer a penetrating analysis of the principal political and social ideas of his period. His main emphasis was the evolutionary developments underlying all changes in society. His second most important work, The Old Regime and the Revolution (1856; trans. 1856), which he left unfinished at his death, interprets the French Revolution as having been the result of gradual changes in the structure of government and in political attitudes toward equality and freedom. Among his other writings is Recollections (1893; trans. 1896). An English translation of his notebooks for the period 1833-35 was published as Journeys to England and Ireland (1970).
There are other more in-depth biographies, but this was the most succinct. Spinning in his grave may be an understatment given the philosophy of this "institute" - He is probably closer to the spin-rate of a millisecond pulsar
specifically, a laser pointer has a big 'peak' at its center surrounded by lesser peak and valleys due to diffraction.
the four pin holes will correspond to some of the peaks and cause cancellations. the point is, this "experiment"
is silly and proves nothing new beyond common wave/optical diffraction theories. he's neglecting the fact that you can't just
go to Target and get a perfectly collimated single-photon-stream laser diode.
"...In general, laser-beam propagation can be approximated by assuming that the laser beam has an ideal Gaussian intensity profile, corresponding to the theoretical TEM00mode. Coherent Gaussian beams have peculiar transformation properties that require special consideration. In order to select the best optics for a particular laser application, it is important to understand the basic properties of Gaussian beams. Unfortunately, the output from real-life lasers is not truly Gaussian (although helium neon lasers and argon-ion lasers are a very close approximation).... In order to gain an appreciation of the principles and limitations of Gaussian beam optics, it is necessary to understand the nature of the laser output beam. In TEM00mode, the beam emitted from a laser is a perfect plane wave with a Gaussian transverse irradiance profile as shown in figure 2.1. The Gaussian shape is truncated at some diameter either by the internal dimensions of the laser or by some limiting aperture in the optical train. To specify and discuss propagation characteristics of a laser beam, we must define its diameter in some way. The commonly adopted definition is the diameter at which the beam irradiance (intensity) has fallen to 1/e2(13.5%) of its peak, or axial, value.
BEAM WAIST AND DIVERGENCE Diffraction causes light waves to spread transversely as they propagate, and it is therefore impossible to have a perfectly collimated beam. The spreading of a laser beam is in precise accord with the predictions of pure diffraction theory; aberration is totally insignificant in the present context. Under quite ordinary circumstances, the beam spreading can be so small it can go unnoticed. The following formulas accurately describe beam spreading, making it easy to see the capabilities and limitations of laser beams. The notation is consistent with much of the laser literature, particularly with Siegman's excellent Introduction to Lasers and Masers (McGraw-Hill).pecifications Gaussian Beam Optics "
because all the PHBs are folks that don't know what their product actually _is_ or how _real_ people
would use it and they need someone to slap them a bit so they can see the problems. If a lot of tech
companies actually spent any time _using_, testing, and refining a product before releasing it, things
could be a lot better. The bottom line is that many technology products need to be like the proverbial
toaster/phone; it does exactly what you think it should do and you don't necessarily need a manual to operate it.
At any rate, I agree with his philosophy, i.e. that much of technology products today are too hard to
use when they don't have to be. Part of the problem is really analysing what the function
purpose/workflow is; If you don't actually _use_ a product you designed or test it on someone not
familiar with its purpose, you might not see all those places that break your train of thought or the flow.
When I went to college(1979), a CS degree was more programmer/analyst and less code
monkey/god. As a result, while I'm not the greatest programmer, I write easy-to-use, reliable,
maintainable, functional programs that do what they're supposed to, the way the operator
wants them to work. I spend a lot of time _in_ the process so I can feel the way the workflow is going.
In a production environment, things that break the flow or require you to go someplace else to get
required information encourage operator error. It's also less efficient.
We shouldn't worry so much about how optimised the code is(see/. article) as we
should be worrying about whether people will continue to use a product again and again(and recommend
it to others) because it's easy to use and it works as advertised.
Computers are way fast enough as it is for 95% of the work that
gets done on them, so spend more time refining!
I don't want to get into a platform flame-fest, so i'll be brief;
I still prefer to use my Mac simply because it's just easier.
Dialog boxes, file browsers, etc. that are
too complicated and especially inconsistent like in many "designed for Windows" products
are my pet peeve(this applies to Open Office too.) The order of the file formats in "open" dialog boxes
seem like they're never the same from app to app; "all formats" is sometimes at the top, sometimes at
the bottom. Just pick one way and keep doing it that way!
Here are some of the things I've learned over the years:
For Designers:
- Pretty doesn't necessarily mean useful.
- Consistency, consistency, consistency.
- Can your Mom use it without calling you?
- Simplicity over complexity.
For Programmers:
- Whoever wrote, "If it was hard to write, it should be hard to read" should be caned.
Please write good comments and documentation. I've had to ponder over too many
modules with two-letter variable names.
- Assume that You will be supporting the code you just wrote for the next Ten Years off and on.
Will you remember why you wrote that module that way ten years later?
(I read the patent)
even if this is meant to apply to virtual buttons, prior art exists in many places: a friend of mine
used to work for Symbol Technology, the bar code scanner folks. he told me about how you determine
if a button is pressed at all; there's an effect he described as "button bounce" where as the button is
depressed, the electrical contact is intermittent for a while until it becomes constant - i.e. don't do anything
until the button has been "on" for 1200milliseconds. he's had to write customized timing code for a variety of
vendors' buttons, since they are all have a bit different 'action'; and since there's generally only one button(trigger)
on a hand-held scanner, they'd have done the same as described in the patent. the extensions
they've applied for seem completely "obvious" to anyone who's had to use/work/design a product with
"limited resources", i.e. buttons.
anyway, deciding what what to do depending on how long a button(real or virtual) has been done for
many, many years:
elevators, digital watches/clocks, PDAs, Apple Newtons and many others previously mentioned.
maybe the patent office should 'open source' the research of prior art(like groklaw?) since they seem to be
incapable of handling any more than a couple of applications per day.
Slashdot Mirror
as mentioned in the forums at sudhian and spcr.com, the mini should really be compared to some of the epia mini-itx systems. i'm off to research those and will post later...
thanks for reminding me about the software we sort of take for granted. could you please list the comparable software titles for everyone else?
Ok. let's try this:
;-)
1 - go to store.apple.com
2 - go to the 'mini' page
3 - select the 1.42Ghz model
4 - configure it with more ram, BT and AP, KB and mouse
5 - click on "add to cart"
6 - click on "view cart" or "edit cart"
7 - all the optional items have been added up and listed as one item
as i said in one of my previous posts, cutting and pasting and HTMLifying is a PITA and leads to odd assumptions. again, configure a mini and a shuttle yourself(the one i chose is the one suggested on pcstats.com "Mac Builds a Shuttle, Shuttle Builds a Mac") and see it with your own eyes; you don't actually believe _everything_ you read do you?
while composing my post i lost a linksys wireless adapter, sorry, cut and paste from neweggs web-store needs reformatting - the linksys is a 802.11a/b/g PCI add-in:
:-) can't please everyone...
LINKSYS 54Mbps Dual-Band Wireless A+G PCI Ethernet Adapter, Model WMP55AG
- Specifications -
Standard: IEEE 802.11a, 802.11b, draft 802.11g
Wireless Data Rates: up to 11/56Mbps
Security: up to 152-Bit WEP
Interface: PCI
Frequency Band: 2.4G/5G
Modulation: CCK, DQPSK, DBPSK, OFDM
Transmitted Power: 11dBm to 17dBm
Temperature: 0C - 55C
Humidity: 10% - 85%, Non-Condensing
Weight: 100g
Dimensions(mm): 147 x 20 x 120
System Requirements: 200Mhz or Faster Processor, 64MB+ RAM, Available PCI Slot, CD-ROM Drive, Microsoft Windows 98SE/Millennium/2000/XP
Model#: WMP55AG
Item#: N82E16833124116
so now you can add $83.99 to your shuttle.
- unfortunately, the logitech keyboard isn't bluetooth, tho' i'm sure a BT adapter could be found(for as little as $15.99, like this one: N82E16833327108), allowing you to buy the apple BT keyboard and mouse.
for the rest of you who want to bash me, go ahead, bash away, then go build your own comparison and post it. (i will never claim to be entirely objective, nor error-free
and yes, you can go for the cheaper Office version.
anyone care to add it all up again?
sorry, i missed the security lock; didn't notice it while perusing the mac mini pages, so you're right, that's one less "-".
:-)
just so you know, i first posted from my work mac(pm-g4/400) and this reply from my pismo at home(pb-g3/500); the wife uses a flower-power iMac(g3/500), i've also owned a performa 6400, and still have a 7200 and a 9500 in the garage right now - semi-retired; and when i will the lottery, i'll be getting a NEW powerbook, so some _might_ call me a 'fanboy'.
however, i built my own PC last year so i could learn more about PCs and linux(XPpro as well, and MS Windows _still_ sucks). i started with red hat9, and graduated to gentoo(2.4 through 2.6.10, yay fluxbox and UT2004) so i'm not unfamiliar with PC components, assembling my own, making ISOs, and my current personal fave, emerge
here's what i put together:
dfi lanparty nf2 ultra(a)
AMD barton 2500+ over-clocked to 200x10 on air
xfx fx5900xt(no vesafb-tng, so no gensplash, boo)
3x256MB pc2700
maxtor 120GB7200/8MB
tdk DVD+rw, etc.
anyway, i tried to be fair when doing the comparison; so i chose the options that matter the most to me(airport, wireless)
i expect there will be many, many comparisons, i just wanted to share mine...
Shuttle XPC Model SN41G2V3 - Item#N82E16856101460 $269.00
AMD Mobile Athlon XP 2500+ - Item#N82E16819103401 $88.00
Geil 512MB(256MBx2) - Item#N82E16820144309 $80.00
Western Digital 80GB - Item#N82E16822144122 $60.33
NEC 16X Double Layer DVD±RW - Item#N82E16827152037 $67.99
Logitech diNovo Cordless - Item#N82E16823126166 $125.00
NETGEAR Dual Band Wireless PCI - Item#N82E16833122126 $71.99
Innocom V.92/56KData/Fax/voice Modem - Item#N82E16825100103 $21.50
ATI RADEON 9200 128MB DDR - Item#N82E16814102287 $93.50
Windows XP Media Center 2005 - Item#N82E16832102311 $131.00
Office Small Business 2003 - Item#N82E16837116148 $331.00
Intuit Quicken 2005 Basic - Item#N82E16832109137 $36.00
total: $1,374.81
the mac is a BTO, added BT, AP, BT-keyboard and mouse
Mac mini 1.42GHz Accessory kit
Internal Bluetooth + AirPort Extreme Card
80GB Ultra ATA drive
SuperDrive
56K v.92 Modem
512MB DDR333 SDRAM - 1 DIMM
Mac OS X - U.S. English - P/N: Z0B8 $903.00
Wireless Keyboard & Mouse Set - P/N: B9396LL/A $99.00
Office 2004 for Mac - P/N: T9189LL/A $399.95
:-( (that would be a LACK of games, although that's changing, slowly)
total: $1,401.95
differences for the shuttle:
DVD burner(the only silver ones were 16x).
Modem(has to be external if you want PCI-802.11a/b/g)
summary:
shuttle pluses
- you can build it yourself
- you can upgrade it yourself
- games(!)
shuttle minuses
- you can build it yourself
- you can upgrade it yourself
- Windows
- finding drivers, updating patches
- fan noise
mac mini pluses
- its very small
- its very quiet
- it looks nicer(subjective)
- the software is preinstalled
- there's more software included(appleworks, iLife, garage band, iMovie, iDVD)
mac mini minuses
- you can't upgrade it
- you can't make it faster(see previous)
- it's easy to steal(not showing up in any offices anytime soon)
- games
so once you've added up all the stuff you need to match the mini, you end up darn near close;
a $27.14 difference in favor of the Shuttle.
if he really wants to sell longhorn, he can GIVE away
cheap PCs. Doesn't he have enough money aready?
Sheesh.
actually, i was thinking more like Frank Zappa or David Byrne; a little off the beaten path but once grasped, quite interesting and diverse.
i have a similar issue: i have some semi-RT apps that were written by a vendor for ;-),
WinNT(and XP) - and not having tried either(i'm an end-user, not an admin, so i can't tinker...
there ought to be a good way to utilise one or the other to achieve acceptable results in a
production environment.
before anyone gets all huffy about XP, it is fairly stable, can be configured to be relatively
secure(!) and, a recent LinuxFormat Magazine had a co-linux/Gentoo dist on it.
anyone try either one out? philosophically, i'd prefer to use win4lin, but realise that it may be
more practical to try co-linux because of the peculiarities of XP(wierd system calls, etc.)
It is absolutely to keep IBM in check; next to MS, IBM is the other 2800lb gorilla in the industry. IBM has Linux, but no real desktop UI to sell to Corporations; once that happens(KDE, GNOME, denim, etc) Apple would have two OS competitors; isn't MS enough? Releasing MacOS(the GUI really) on the PC platform would probably be a last-ditch effort if and when we get a good consistent, predictable, easy-to-use GUI for Linux.
MS is terrified that either Apple or Linux will take over the PC-based desktop world, so they FUD both whenever possible. And MS doesn't need Apple to survive(although any innovation seems to be coming their Mac Software group; new features in Office get folded back to Windows versions later)
I'm really curious to see how gentoo-on-the-Mac and co-linux(and David) will play out. Apple will have(should have) a good leg up once Portage and the UI toolkit get together; they'll finally be able to take advantage of the FOSS world. co-linux on the other hand, looks like the bridge that leads corporate IT departments to phase-out Windows(licenses only for those apps that require it and switching to replacement FOSS apps when they become available.)
as noted earlier, don't use less than DV for the money shots
the sony vx[1,2]000 are nice
the canon xl series allows you to change lenses as needed,
jvc and panasonic both make affordable(?) HD.
ditto info from the local users group/union hall
and now onto the other questions:
Film == complications? - film can be complicated if you don't have the skills or experience, you'll be wasting precious $$$ processing and seeing potentially crappy results. While film does have a 'feel', it's really who's directing, who the cinematographer is, grips(lighting), etc. Since the poster is doing this himself, he's all of the above and should take advantage of tape and digital. digital-8, DV, and HD are more forgiving while learning; you can always shoot again and reuse tape. don't like that last shot? do it again. and again. and again. and again. try doing that with film on a limited budget. anyway, it's really easy to make a crappy movie in B&W _or_ color, digital _or_ film; it's hard to make a _great_ movie, period.
as for F/X, the less obvious and obtrusive the better; pretty much anything done traditionally, miniatures, composites, fx(laser beams, explosions, dust, smoke, water) can be done digitally, either with composited practicals or CG(your results may vary.) try to avoid digital effects unless you really, really have to. a side note here: for the lord of the rings trilogy, you probably already know the the hobbits and normal sized people were all shot separately and recombined digitally; this used to be done optically with multiple layers/strips of film at some expense for lab time, processing, etc. the LOTR composites were actually quite good(imnsho), but the point here is the camera angles were all planned far, far in advance _knowing_ that a composite would be used to create the illusion of the height differences. on the other hand there's 'Lost In Translation' - purposely done on film for the look and feel(no dramatic fx necessary to tell the story...)
I think the reason we perceive older films as being more thoughtful and creative is because 50 years ago, it took a long time to make a movie so everything had to be decided upon _before_ anyone stepped in front of a camera. have you watched a Bergman film with the extraordinarily long shots? do you think they ad-libbed it? planning down to the last detail (beyond your limit of patience during screenwriting)will save your show whether you originate on film or digital.
regarding practicals: if you can do it well and quickly with a practical, that's one less thing to mess with in compositing later. i've stopped keeping track of how often a shot goes back for a 'quick tweak' just because it's digital. if you've planned it out(story board, test shots, etc.) ahead of time, it should be relatively easy. don't be afraid of a miniature set if you need something in the distance, detail is naturally low for shots with stuff way out back in the distance. when we worked on Reign of Fire, the shots of London burnt in the distance were done with miniatures, same with 102 dalmations.
finally, about underwater; you may be able to get away with hi-8, digital-8, or DV due to the natural softening of subject material under water, ie. digital-8 for water, DV/HD for the hero/money shots. also, it's amazing what you can do with a camera outside a fish tank looking _in_;-)
to the original poster - Best of Luck! I look forward to seeing your work(consider on-line trailers/teasers, hint, hint)
to my mind, this _was_ his best work in the SciFi genre; simple direction, great
performances(Robert Duvall), compelling story('1984'), excellent cinematography
and most importantly, no attempt to spoon-feed the audience why things are the
way they are(like in SW-Ep1 - the force and 'mito-whatevers'.)
Judging by the "improvements" he keeps adding to his library of scifi films, this
Directors Cut will suck too. He just never knows when to leave well enough alone.
Over the past few years(6-7ish?) the regs have gotten tighter because even without 9/11 happening
you can have serious accidents if you're not trained, careful and follow safe procedures.
Recently, you needed a LEUP and a class 3 pyrotechnics licence and a BATF approved storage
facility to store more than a certain amount of propellants(I forget how much.) As mentioned before,
it is hard enough to get any decent sized hobby rocket to get off the ground without any problems let
alone have it be guided to an airborne target. The worst a terrorist could do with a hobby rocket is
try to ballistcally drop something on a target and even then, without any guidance there are no guarantees
it'll go where you want it.
Here's a link to the Rocketry FAQ on rocketryonline.com, and a quick paragraph from it:
1.1 What, exactly, is a 'model rocket' versus a 'high power' rocket? Where do liquid fueled and
homemade rocket motors fit in? What about amateur rockets?
'Model', 'high power', 'advanced', and 'amateur' are all terms which have many definitions, depending
to whom you are speaking. In r.m.r., and in the FAQ documents, the definitions (if any) accepted by the NFPA,
National Association of Rocketry, and Tripoli High Power Rocketry Association are used. If these
definitions conflict the NAR definition is used.
'Model rockets' are rockets that conform to the guidelines and restrictions defined in the NFPA 1122 document. These rockets weigh less than 1500 grams, contain less than 125 grams of total fuel, have no motor with more than 62.5 grams of fuel or more than 160 NS of total impulse, use only pre-manufactured, solid propellant motors, and do not use metal body tubes, nose cones or fins. One inconsistancy with this is the CPSC definition of a model rocket motor, which by their definition must contain no more than 80NS total impulse. NFPA document 1127-94 contains the most complete definition of a model rocket and the model rocket safety code. This is the same safety code as adopted by the NAR.
'Large Model Rockets' is a term used in the FAA FAR 101 regulations. It refers to NAR/NFPA model rockets that are between 454 and 1500 grams (1 to 3.3 pounds) total liftoff weight and contain more than 113 grams but less than 125 grams of total fuel.
'High power rockets' are rockets that exceed the total weight, total propellant or single motor total impulse restrictions of model rockets, but otherwise conform to the same guidelines for construction materials and pre-manufactured, commericially made rocket motors. High power rockets also allow the use of metal structural components where such a material is necessary to insure structural integrity of the rocket. High power rockets have no total weight limits, but do have a single motor limit of no more than O power (40,960NS maximum total impulse) and have a total power limitation of 81,920NS total impulse. NFPA document 1127-1985 contains the most complete definition of a high power rocket and also the high power rocketry safety code. This safety code has been adopted by both the NAR and TRA. Metal bodied rockets are allowed by NFPA 1127 where metal is required to insure structural integrity of the rocket over all of its anticipated flight.
'Amateur' rockets covers all other non-professional rockets that do not meet the criteria for model or high power rockets. This includes metal bodied rockets, liquid or hybrid fueled rockets, and rockets with any type of homemade rocket motor.
'Experimental' rockets is an ambiguous term. In the early 1980's it was used (reportedly coined by the magazine 'California Rocketry') to describe rockets that exceeded the model rocket limit at that time (1 pound total liftoff weigh
oops! Of course it ALL has to be 'clean'. Strike my ninth item from the extra points list.
We'll have a contest to see how many _single_ developers can design, code and finish
an operating system similar to Minix(conceptually) with some standards compliance(i.e.POSIX.)
We'll select a bunch of the most critical subsystems and define those as a Base and give extra
points for the following:
- using a language that's not generally used for OS design,
- designing and coding for portability(more platforms=more points)
- smallest code base
- best documentation
- time to complete, less time=more points
- fastest(benchmarkers paradise here we come...)
- POSIX compliance, more compliant=more points
- massive extra points for running windows software ;-)
- 'clean', no borrowed code = +100 points
and i'm sure there are other categories.
So for example, person A get 100 points for base compliance, 25 points for using a language
not generally used for OS design(Visual Basic?) another 25 points for best documentation.
His total score would be 150.
Person B submits a Base+ OS:
base compliance = 100
written in Forth = 25
highly portable = 25
time to complete, 6months, 23 days, = 25 points
best documentation = 25 points total score, 200 points
Ultimately, the point is how many POSIX-subset compliant OS's written by ONE programmer/analyst
can we get and how long will it take?
Say we get about twenty-five(25) base-implementations submitted by six months, three(3)
decent base+ implementations in 9-10 months and one(1) truly great implementation in 13 months;
We can then say that Ken Brown and company really, really don't have a clue about software
development, and OSs in particular.
For those waiting for stupid names for sub-atomic particles:
'in' - hip and groovy, it just looks cool,
'out' - really relativistic: you saw it yesterday, but you can't prove it,
'N' - can only be detected when looking North(same for 'S', 'E', 'W')
'plugh' - anti-quark with a hollow sounding voice,
'xyzzy' - absolutely the last quark we'll ever need to find; when you see it, it takes you back to your house.
'inven' - will be harnessed for inventory purposes
and in other news, the obligatory: In Soviet Russia, Bosons find YOU.
is a berylium sphere!
When I started at the Lab, Bruce and Rick Ace(the other Systems Programmer) told me, "...learn everything in that manual..." while pointing at a lateral binder that was literally three feet wide. I couldn't tell if they were joking or not, but I went ahead and read the manual anyway. I learned to program C, fix production scripts(sh, csh, awk, the basics) that broke at 2am, and how you can trick a new operator by writing a trivial C program that opened a file, then a seek to the end of an RA80(?) disk that would require 13 tapes and about five hours of tape swapping for a backup of a single empty file. That training and a little self-discipline eventually got me to Disney.
Bruce's point of games are temporary, but improving yourself is forever should be well taken by many; anyone could be the next John Carmack(or Bruce Perens) with the right combination of skills, experience and knowledge. You can always play games later...
p.s. - thanks Bruce!
after posting some hardware sugs, i forgot about the driver issue:most of the newest 64bit driver work from the
major manufacturers appear to be for Windows(ech). ( Here's a review that came out today.)
The latest Linux drivers from nvidia aren't too old; their last nForce3 update was in Dec 2003 and the gpu drivers in Jan 2004
Tyan have a page of drivers, as does Highpoint, and Adaptec
Look into the suse amd64 message boards - they seem to be having some success...
i didn't see it mentioned here by anyone else, but as reported on a couple of (sites for one)
;-)
there's a neat new box coming out from IWILL that crams two(2) Opterons in a SFF case.
Unfortunately, if you need something now, this one will be coming too late for you unless you're a
developer/partner/etc:
"IWILL ZMAX based on nVIDIA nForce3 Pro 250Gb chipset will sample in July.
Volume production is planned in September, with a suggested price of $499.
IWILL plans to get attention in workstation market. ZMAXdp will include proprietary
form factor motherboard, 300W power supply, up to 2x3.5" HDD bay, and 1xAGP;
PCI and SI can offer various configurations for workstation market demand."
it sounds like it could be a nice little box...
other pre-built systems include:
Pre-built
Caliber
there are others, but I've lost my wish-list
You could also build one yourself, but I'd look for the nForce3 pro 250 or 250Gb, the NF3-150 didn't
exactly get extraordinary reviews.
Good Luck!
after Googling many uninformative links(read:i'm lazy and i wanted a synopsis
which says:
Alexis de Tocqueville
Tocqueville, Alexis Charles Henri Maurice Cl érel de (1805-59), French political writer and statesman, whose work on the United States political system became a classic.
Tocqueville was born July 29, 1805, in Verneuil, and studied law in Paris. With the French publicist Gustave Auguste de Beaumont de la Bonninière, he went abroad in 1831 to study the penal system in the U.S. The two men reported their findings in Du syst ème p énitentiaire aux États-Unis et son application en France (The Penitentiary System in the United States and Its Application in France, 1832). After returning to France in 1832, Tocqueville wrote his most famous work, Democracy in America (2 vol., 1835-40; trans., 4 vol., 1835-40). One of the earliest and most profound studies of American life, it concerns the legislative and administrative systems in the U.S. and the influence of social and political institutions on the habits and manners of the people. Tocqueville maintains in this work that the full development of democracy occurred in the U.S. because conditions there best permitted the diffusion of European social ideas. He was highly critical of certain aspects of American democracy. For example, he believed that public opinion tended toward tyranny and that majority rule could be as oppressive as the rule of a despot.
As a member of the French Chamber of Deputies (1839-48), Tocqueville advocated a number of reforms, including the decentralization of government and an independent judiciary. He became vice president of the National Assembly in 1849 and for part of that year was minister of foreign affairs. After opposing the 1851 coup d'état of Louis Napoleon Bonaparte, later French emperor as Napoleon III, Tocqueville retired from political life. He died on April 16, 1859, in Cannes.
Tocqueville's major works offer a penetrating analysis of the principal political and social ideas of his period. His main emphasis was the evolutionary developments underlying all changes in society. His second most important work, The Old Regime and the Revolution (1856; trans. 1856), which he left unfinished at his death, interprets the French Revolution as having been the result of gradual changes in the structure of government and in political attitudes toward equality and freedom. Among his other writings is Recollections (1893; trans. 1896). An English translation of his notebooks for the period 1833-35 was published as Journeys to England and Ireland (1970).
There are other more in-depth biographies, but this was the most succinct. Spinning in his grave may be an understatment given the philosophy of this "institute" - He is probably closer to the spin-rate of a millisecond pulsar
agreed.
... In order to gain an appreciation of the principles and limitations of Gaussian beam optics, it is necessary to understand the nature of the laser output beam. In TEM00mode, the beam emitted from a laser is a perfect plane wave with a Gaussian transverse irradiance profile as shown in figure 2.1. The Gaussian shape is truncated at some diameter either by the internal dimensions of the laser or by some limiting aperture in the optical train. To specify and discuss propagation characteristics of a laser beam, we must define its diameter in some way. The commonly adopted definition is the diameter at which the beam irradiance (intensity) has fallen to 1/e2(13.5%) of its peak, or axial, value.
specifically, a laser pointer has a big 'peak' at its center surrounded by lesser peak and valleys due to diffraction.
the four pin holes will correspond to some of the peaks and cause cancellations. the point is, this "experiment"
is silly and proves nothing new beyond common wave/optical diffraction theories. he's neglecting the fact that you can't just
go to Target and get a perfectly collimated single-photon-stream laser diode.
a little searching reveals this pdf@mellesgriot.com:
"...In general, laser-beam propagation can be approximated by assuming that the laser beam has an ideal Gaussian intensity profile, corresponding to the theoretical TEM00mode. Coherent Gaussian beams have peculiar transformation properties that require special consideration. In order to select the best optics for a particular laser application, it is important to understand the basic properties of Gaussian beams. Unfortunately, the output from real-life lasers is not truly Gaussian (although helium neon lasers and argon-ion lasers are a very close approximation).
BEAM WAIST AND DIVERGENCE Diffraction causes light waves to spread transversely as they propagate, and it is therefore impossible to have a perfectly collimated beam. The spreading of a laser beam is in precise accord with the predictions of pure diffraction theory; aberration is totally insignificant in the present context. Under quite ordinary circumstances, the beam spreading can be so small it can go unnoticed. The following formulas accurately describe beam spreading, making it easy to see the capabilities and limitations of laser beams. The notation is consistent with much of the laser literature, particularly with Siegman's excellent Introduction to Lasers and Masers (McGraw-Hill).pecifications Gaussian Beam Optics "
sorry for the this crass reply, but i can't help it:
i know some truly lazy geek is already thinking
about how to hack it with cyberskin and some
s/w to have it do "h*ndj*bs".
because all the PHBs are folks that don't know what their product actually _is_ or how _real_ people
/. article) as we
would use it and they need someone to slap them a bit so they can see the problems. If a lot of tech
companies actually spent any time _using_, testing, and refining a product before releasing it, things
could be a lot better. The bottom line is that many technology products need to be like the proverbial
toaster/phone; it does exactly what you think it should do and you don't necessarily need a manual to operate it.
At any rate, I agree with his philosophy, i.e. that much of technology products today are too hard to
use when they don't have to be. Part of the problem is really analysing what the function
purpose/workflow is; If you don't actually _use_ a product you designed or test it on someone not
familiar with its purpose, you might not see all those places that break your train of thought or the flow.
When I went to college(1979), a CS degree was more programmer/analyst and less code
monkey/god. As a result, while I'm not the greatest programmer, I write easy-to-use, reliable,
maintainable, functional programs that do what they're supposed to, the way the operator
wants them to work. I spend a lot of time _in_ the process so I can feel the way the workflow is going.
In a production environment, things that break the flow or require you to go someplace else to get
required information encourage operator error. It's also less efficient.
We shouldn't worry so much about how optimised the code is(see
should be worrying about whether people will continue to use a product again and again(and recommend
it to others) because it's easy to use and it works as advertised.
Computers are way fast enough as it is for 95% of the work that gets done on them, so spend more time refining!
I don't want to get into a platform flame-fest, so i'll be brief;
I still prefer to use my Mac simply because it's just easier. Dialog boxes, file browsers, etc. that are
too complicated and especially inconsistent like in many "designed for Windows" products
are my pet peeve(this applies to Open Office too.) The order of the file formats in "open" dialog boxes
seem like they're never the same from app to app; "all formats" is sometimes at the top, sometimes at
the bottom. Just pick one way and keep doing it that way!
Here are some of the things I've learned over the years:
For Designers:
- Pretty doesn't necessarily mean useful.
- Consistency, consistency, consistency.
- Can your Mom use it without calling you?
- Simplicity over complexity.
For Programmers:
- Whoever wrote, "If it was hard to write, it should be hard to read" should be caned.
Please write good comments and documentation. I've had to ponder over too many
modules with two-letter variable names.
- Assume that You will be supporting the code you just wrote for the next Ten Years off and on.
Will you remember why you wrote that module that way ten years later?
(I read the patent)
even if this is meant to apply to virtual buttons, prior art exists in many places: a friend of mine
used to work for Symbol Technology, the bar code scanner folks. he told me about how you determine
if a button is pressed at all; there's an effect he described as "button bounce" where as the button is
depressed, the electrical contact is intermittent for a while until it becomes constant - i.e. don't do anything
until the button has been "on" for 1200milliseconds. he's had to write customized timing code for a variety of
vendors' buttons, since they are all have a bit different 'action'; and since there's generally only one button(trigger)
on a hand-held scanner, they'd have done the same as described in the patent. the extensions
they've applied for seem completely "obvious" to anyone who's had to use/work/design a product with
"limited resources", i.e. buttons.
anyway, deciding what what to do depending on how long a button(real or virtual) has been done for
many, many years:
elevators, digital watches/clocks, PDAs, Apple Newtons and many others previously mentioned.
maybe the patent office should 'open source' the research of prior art(like groklaw?) since they seem to be
incapable of handling any more than a couple of applications per day.
c