Your lungs are mostly worried about the partial pressure of oxygen;.16 bars is what you need. Your lungs don't care too much if that's.16 bars of 100% oxygen, or one bar of 16% oxygen, or two bars of 8% oxygen. The level of concentration of oxygen doesn't matter too much, just the pressure of oxygen to drive membrane gas exchange.
Fires, however, do not have gas-exchange membranes like your lungs, making the partial pressure less important, and the concentration more so. 8% oxygen at two bars is less supportive of fires than 100% oxygen at.16 bars.
Under current law, prior to marketing a new GM food product, manufacturers are required to get FDA approval before selling to consumers, having demonstrated to the FDA's satisfaction its safety for human consumption. They are also required to get EPA and USDA approval that the production does not have adverse impact on agriculture, other plants, animals, humans, or other environmental quality issues. And all this despite the scientifically proven fact that engineered genetic modifications cause fewer adverse changes than traditional methods of mutate-and-crossbreed, which are not subjected to the same regulatory process.
So, if deliberate, selected changes and testing to meet government safety standards makes food safer, GM food is significantly safer than non-GM food. On the other hand, if blind chance mutation and no testing is a mark of safety, non-GM is safer than GM food.
First of all, Apple is in the entertainment business as well, so the profits need to be spread over more than just computers;
Granted. But if we assume Apple is not lying in their SEC filings when it specifically claims the margins on the iPod and iTMS are much lower than on Mac hardware, then it is safe to conclude that the profit margin on the Mac business is somewhat higher than Apple's gross corporate profit margin. The result is that the comparison of corporate profit margins probably understates the Apple margin on the computer business.
But his analysis is nuts.
First, he only looks at U.S. shipments. Worldwide, the number of PCs sold grew 10% from 2005 to 2006; even with the Apple growth, Windows sales grew. "[A]s Apple takes away PC sales, an increasing smaller number of Windows licenses are sold" is utter nonsense.
Second, his quoted sales figures on PCs include backroom PC servers and corporate desktop sales; there is no evidence presented that Apple is displacing PCs on the desktop. It could be that 2006 was a good year for home desktop sales in the U.S. while companies avoided buying computers. That would result in companies that sell mostly to corporate clients seeing a decline while companies that sold home machines saw an increase, with no actual displacement of sales of the former by the latter.
Third, Apple has had past sudden explosions in sales, like in 1999-2000. These were always followed by massive declines, with long-term growth trailing the PC industry as a whole for two decades now. It's way too early to be saying that a spike in sales that corresponded with introduction of a new line of machines (the Intel Macs) represents a sea-change in sales.
RIAA didn't care at all that RealNetworks was selling DRMed tunes that played on the iPod. If they had, they would have withdrawn their tracks from the RealPlayer Music Store. The only thing that Harmony did was break the iPod-iTMS legal downloads lock-in, and the only party negatively affected by such a break was Apple.
Apple, of course, turned around and denounced Real for breaking the lock-in, changed the firmware on the iPod to deliberately break Harmony, and thus restored the iPod-iTMS lock-in.
Of course, now that some countries are pointing out that their laws prohibit such lock-in, so Steve Jobs is claiming that RIAA and technical limitations are the problem. This is a maneuver technically known as "lying your ass off."
No, when I want to point fingers at FairPlay's lack of interoperability, I'll sit back and point at Apple, thanks. They're the ones who deliberately broke Harmony to maintain iTMS lock-in as the only legitimate music service for iPod.
The labels had absolutely no reason to complain about Harmony; they were getting their cut from Rhapsody sales and the music was DRMed just like they wanted. The only party with reason to break Harmony was Apple, and the only incentive to do so was to maintain lock-in.
Now that Apple's facing legal trouble in Europe over this deliberate policy of lock-in, Jobs is invoking the RDF once again.
If Jobs really thought that he could win on an open playing field, why doesn't he let other music services use FairPlay?
Too hard to license? Bullshit. Real figured out how to make FairPlay tunes on their own; all Jobs had to was not deliberately break Harmony.
Similarly, if Apple's making no money on iTMS, why would it object to somebody else selling FairPlay-compatible downloads? All that does is expand the download choices for someone buying an iPod, making the iPod an even more attractive choice of music player.
Apple has deliberately and systematically acted to maintain iTMS lock-in by blocking iPods from using any competing music service.
Now that Apple's getting hammered by the Europeans for that lock-in, Steve Jobs is spinning a line about how nasty RIAA makes him use DRM and how FairPlay can't be licensed. But if that were all, he'd have never blocked Harmony.
Actions speak louder than words. Lock-in is a deliberate Apple policy.
Well, Robert L. Forward claimed (Indistinguishable From Magic, p.24) that the optimum antimatter rocket design has a payload-to-propellant ratio of 1:4. In intrasystem applications, you use milligrams of antimatter to heat the four tons of hydrogen into a hot gas. In intersystem applications, you'd use kilograms of antimatter to heat the hydrogen to a plasma -- 300 kg of antimatter to 3.7 tons of hydrogen giving you a 0.5 c rocket after it spends eighteen days accelerating at 10 gee.
The physics all work today, and the materials needed are not that much in advance of what we could churn out today, given enough money expended. It's not something we could build or afford today, of course, but it's the sort of thing that seems reasonable in the next few hundred years.
He's not confused, he's lying. By omission, yes, but that's what an airbrushing does. If he ignores the existence of HSDPA, he can make the argument that EDGE is the only reasonable choice, and any of his readers who aren't cell technology experts will buy his explanation.
The reason nobody but IBM would buy SCO is the IBM counterclaims, which don't go away even if SCO drops its claims. Buying SCO means you inherit their legal liabilities, which means giving IBM a chance to rip your company a new one.
Now, Darl McBride, in an interview, has said that he doesn't understand why IBM didn't just buy The SCO Group to make the lawsuit go away.
The reason IBM hasn't is because IBM doesn't want every pissant little company with a failing business to go, "Hey, I know how we can get out of this! We'll sue IBM, and they'll buy us out to make the whole thing go away! It worked for Darl McBride!" IBM wants this case to go long, to go hard, and to leave SCO a grease spot at the bottom of a crater, with all onlookers thinking, Man, I'm never going to dick with IBM like that idiot McBride.
Eh. Neither IBM nor SCO have been making any effort to get it over with quickly. As long as neither party cares that it's taking forever to argue dozens of claims and counter-claims before the actual trial begins, why not take forever?
Anyway, that's the way things were until the last set of judgments. The judge agreed with IBM that the SCO-Novell case has to be resolved first, because if Novell never sold certain rights to SCO, SCO didn't have standing to file a whole bunch of its claims in the first place. So this case has to wait until SCO-Novell is over.
AFAIK there's nothing really stopping anyone from writing a WINE-like program for emulating Mac apps; in fact, since OS X is a Unix it would probably be easier
Heck, with GNUStep already around, you already have quite a bit already implemented.
(It would be even easier if, when GNOME was announced [which was after Apple's NeXT purchase], the GNOME founders had chosen GNUStep as the framework for their desktop project instead of the GIMP toolkit. If the dev effort that went into Gtk+ had instead been spent on getting GNUStep fully functional . . . well.)
I'm wondering why anybody would have bought the insurance. The U.S. and Australia are both parties to the Outer Space Treaty, and were back in 1979; all damages caused by the Skylab crash were accordingly the full financial responsibility of the United States.
Negative and with an absolute value greater than or equal to 1 (keeping the group velocity equal to or less than c, but antiparallel to the phase velocity -- geometrically parallel with an opposite-direction vector.)
I misunderstood a claim I'd read, and of course missed this basic sanity check, and have now embarrassed myself. Video in standard definition in HD-DVD format can take less space than in DVD format because of the difference between MPEG-2 and MPEG-4. But this isn't an advantage over a Blu-Ray player, or even over the MPEG-4-on-DVD spec.
Well, let's see. The claim was the "first web browsers".
WorldWideWeb was in Objective-C. WWW. the line-mode CERN browser, was in plain C. Erwise was in plain C. ViolaWWW was written in the Viola toolkit/language system.
Mosaic was early, and Mosaic was important, but to say the "first web browsers" to have been written in C++, one has to ignore the actual first web browsers.
1) Nobody's shipped a DVD/Blu-Ray combo disc yet. DVD/HD-DVD titles are already available.
Accordingly, you can buy HD-DVDs that will play on the DVD players you already have and on your new HD player in high def. If you buy a Blu-Ray disc, it can only play on your Blu-Ray player; you need another copy to watch the same movie in a different room.
2) You can write a HD-DVD format filesystem to DVD.
For the consumer buying a write-capable drive, an HD-DVD writer lets you get more use out of DVD media than a Blu-Ray drive would. With Blu-Ray, you'd have to either buy Blu-Ray writeables or get no more use out of the write capability than if you had a normal DVD writer.
These are advantages that remain even if HD-DVD loses the war. Your combo disk will at worst be an ordinary DVD in a BluRay world; your BluRay disc will be a coaster in an HD-DVD world. And your HD-DVD-R drive will still have the advantage of being able to write extra capacity to DVD-R media if HD-DVD-R media is driven from the market; your BD-R will have no advantage over a DVD-R. So, buying HD combo discs or writers during the format wear is relatively safe; whichever format wins, some of the value is retained. Buying Blu-Ray discs or writers is all-or-nothing; if HD wins, you lose much more value. Assuming normal economic models, the result is that the HD-DVD combo discs and HD-DVD-Rs will sell better than Blu-Ray counterparts, which will create an installed base. Which will push the format war that direction.
Will that be strong enough to counter the PS3 installed base? Really depends if Sony ships enough Blu-Ray PS3s fast enough, doesn't it? They aren't off to a great start so far.
ECMA is an association of computer and communications companies.
ANSI is a national standards organization, co-founded by both corporations and government agencies, with government and nonprofit involvement. It serves as the official representative of the U.S. to international standards bodies, and deals with a much broader range of issues than just computing and telecom.
The problem with a charge of manipulation is that you have to prove that SCO management knew that its lawsuit was baseless and that it filed it anyway to try to make a fraudulent profit off the increased share price. The mere fact that the lawsuit increased the stock price is not nearly sufficient. A lawsuit with plausible grounding would produce the same effect, and it would have been not merely legal but arguably the fiduciary duty of SCO's management to its shareholders to sue to recover lost revenue if they believed they had a reasonable chance of making a recovery. And as long as the case is still before the courts, that is probably sufficient evidence that they had a reasonable chance of recovery. Unless and until the judge in the SCO-IBM case says the case was not merely insufficient, but utterly without merit, it's unlikely SCO can be hit for manipulation.
(I am not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet!)
Though Windows programs were cooperatively multitasked from Windows 1.0 until '95, starting with Windows/386 2.1, Windows did pre-emptively multitask DOS applications in 386 Enhanced Mode, exploiting the virtual 8086 mode of 386-class processors.
The U.S. has higher broadband penetration than, among others, Australia, Austria, Britain, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Portugal, and Spain.
Well, maybe they can adopt our policies and get their broadband penetration up before they're left behind.
Exactly. Anybody at Microsoft who has been paying attention the last ten years would realize the Microsoft effort to take over the server room has failed, foiled not by any success of commercial Unix, but by Linux. Vista is not a sufficient improvement over XP/Server 2003 to revive the progress Microsoft was making with NT, and the next release will be some time in the 2010s. Like it or not, Microsoft is facing a world where it must co-exist with the Linux boxes in the server room for years to come.
Slashdot Mirror
Your lungs are mostly worried about the partial pressure of oxygen; .16 bars is what you need. Your lungs don't care too much if that's .16 bars of 100% oxygen, or one bar of 16% oxygen, or two bars of 8% oxygen. The level of concentration of oxygen doesn't matter too much, just the pressure of oxygen to drive membrane gas exchange.
.16 bars.
Fires, however, do not have gas-exchange membranes like your lungs, making the partial pressure less important, and the concentration more so. 8% oxygen at two bars is less supportive of fires than 100% oxygen at
Under current law, prior to marketing a new GM food product, manufacturers are required to get FDA approval before selling to consumers, having demonstrated to the FDA's satisfaction its safety for human consumption. They are also required to get EPA and USDA approval that the production does not have adverse impact on agriculture, other plants, animals, humans, or other environmental quality issues. And all this despite the scientifically proven fact that engineered genetic modifications cause fewer adverse changes than traditional methods of mutate-and-crossbreed, which are not subjected to the same regulatory process.
So, if deliberate, selected changes and testing to meet government safety standards makes food safer, GM food is significantly safer than non-GM food. On the other hand, if blind chance mutation and no testing is a mark of safety, non-GM is safer than GM food.
First of all, Apple is in the entertainment business as well, so the profits need to be spread over more than just computers;
Granted. But if we assume Apple is not lying in their SEC filings when it specifically claims the margins on the iPod and iTMS are much lower than on Mac hardware, then it is safe to conclude that the profit margin on the Mac business is somewhat higher than Apple's gross corporate profit margin. The result is that the comparison of corporate profit margins probably understates the Apple margin on the computer business.
But his analysis is nuts.
First, he only looks at U.S. shipments. Worldwide, the number of PCs sold grew 10% from 2005 to 2006; even with the Apple growth, Windows sales grew. "[A]s Apple takes away PC sales, an increasing smaller number of Windows licenses are sold" is utter nonsense.
Second, his quoted sales figures on PCs include backroom PC servers and corporate desktop sales; there is no evidence presented that Apple is displacing PCs on the desktop. It could be that 2006 was a good year for home desktop sales in the U.S. while companies avoided buying computers. That would result in companies that sell mostly to corporate clients seeing a decline while companies that sold home machines saw an increase, with no actual displacement of sales of the former by the latter.
Third, Apple has had past sudden explosions in sales, like in 1999-2000. These were always followed by massive declines, with long-term growth trailing the PC industry as a whole for two decades now. It's way too early to be saying that a spike in sales that corresponded with introduction of a new line of machines (the Intel Macs) represents a sea-change in sales.
RIAA didn't care at all that RealNetworks was selling DRMed tunes that played on the iPod. If they had, they would have withdrawn their tracks from the RealPlayer Music Store. The only thing that Harmony did was break the iPod-iTMS legal downloads lock-in, and the only party negatively affected by such a break was Apple.
Apple, of course, turned around and denounced Real for breaking the lock-in, changed the firmware on the iPod to deliberately break Harmony, and thus restored the iPod-iTMS lock-in.
Of course, now that some countries are pointing out that their laws prohibit such lock-in, so Steve Jobs is claiming that RIAA and technical limitations are the problem. This is a maneuver technically known as "lying your ass off."
No, when I want to point fingers at FairPlay's lack of interoperability, I'll sit back and point at Apple, thanks. They're the ones who deliberately broke Harmony to maintain iTMS lock-in as the only legitimate music service for iPod.
The labels had absolutely no reason to complain about Harmony; they were getting their cut from Rhapsody sales and the music was DRMed just like they wanted. The only party with reason to break Harmony was Apple, and the only incentive to do so was to maintain lock-in.
Now that Apple's facing legal trouble in Europe over this deliberate policy of lock-in, Jobs is invoking the RDF once again.
If Jobs really thought that he could win on an open playing field, why doesn't he let other music services use FairPlay?
Too hard to license? Bullshit. Real figured out how to make FairPlay tunes on their own; all Jobs had to was not deliberately break Harmony.
Similarly, if Apple's making no money on iTMS, why would it object to somebody else selling FairPlay-compatible downloads? All that does is expand the download choices for someone buying an iPod, making the iPod an even more attractive choice of music player.
Apple has deliberately and systematically acted to maintain iTMS lock-in by blocking iPods from using any competing music service.
Now that Apple's getting hammered by the Europeans for that lock-in, Steve Jobs is spinning a line about how nasty RIAA makes him use DRM and how FairPlay can't be licensed. But if that were all, he'd have never blocked Harmony.
Actions speak louder than words. Lock-in is a deliberate Apple policy.
What, not even le petit mort? That's cold, man.
Well, Robert L. Forward claimed (Indistinguishable From Magic, p.24) that the optimum antimatter rocket design has a payload-to-propellant ratio of 1:4. In intrasystem applications, you use milligrams of antimatter to heat the four tons of hydrogen into a hot gas. In intersystem applications, you'd use kilograms of antimatter to heat the hydrogen to a plasma -- 300 kg of antimatter to 3.7 tons of hydrogen giving you a 0.5 c rocket after it spends eighteen days accelerating at 10 gee.
The physics all work today, and the materials needed are not that much in advance of what we could churn out today, given enough money expended. It's not something we could build or afford today, of course, but it's the sort of thing that seems reasonable in the next few hundred years.
He's not confused, he's lying. By omission, yes, but that's what an airbrushing does. If he ignores the existence of HSDPA, he can make the argument that EDGE is the only reasonable choice, and any of his readers who aren't cell technology experts will buy his explanation.
The reason nobody but IBM would buy SCO is the IBM counterclaims, which don't go away even if SCO drops its claims. Buying SCO means you inherit their legal liabilities, which means giving IBM a chance to rip your company a new one.
Now, Darl McBride, in an interview, has said that he doesn't understand why IBM didn't just buy The SCO Group to make the lawsuit go away.
The reason IBM hasn't is because IBM doesn't want every pissant little company with a failing business to go, "Hey, I know how we can get out of this! We'll sue IBM, and they'll buy us out to make the whole thing go away! It worked for Darl McBride!" IBM wants this case to go long, to go hard, and to leave SCO a grease spot at the bottom of a crater, with all onlookers thinking, Man, I'm never going to dick with IBM like that idiot McBride.
Eh. Neither IBM nor SCO have been making any effort to get it over with quickly. As long as neither party cares that it's taking forever to argue dozens of claims and counter-claims before the actual trial begins, why not take forever?
Anyway, that's the way things were until the last set of judgments. The judge agreed with IBM that the SCO-Novell case has to be resolved first, because if Novell never sold certain rights to SCO, SCO didn't have standing to file a whole bunch of its claims in the first place. So this case has to wait until SCO-Novell is over.
AFAIK there's nothing really stopping anyone from writing a WINE-like program for emulating Mac apps; in fact, since OS X is a Unix it would probably be easier
Heck, with GNUStep already around, you already have quite a bit already implemented.
(It would be even easier if, when GNOME was announced [which was after Apple's NeXT purchase], the GNOME founders had chosen GNUStep as the framework for their desktop project instead of the GIMP toolkit. If the dev effort that went into Gtk+ had instead been spent on getting GNUStep fully functional . . . well.)
I'm wondering why anybody would have bought the insurance. The U.S. and Australia are both parties to the Outer Space Treaty, and were back in 1979; all damages caused by the Skylab crash were accordingly the full financial responsibility of the United States.
Now if only we could make the same progress with . . . Miniplenty.
Sorry, France is still vigorously defending the Common Agricultural Policy.
Er, neverind, New Scientist is reporting the number as -0.6. Clearly I fucked up my understanding. (Again, for those following my recent posts.)
Negative and with an absolute value greater than or equal to 1 (keeping the group velocity equal to or less than c, but antiparallel to the phase velocity -- geometrically parallel with an opposite-direction vector.)
Er, sorry, yes, of course.
I misunderstood a claim I'd read, and of course missed this basic sanity check, and have now embarrassed myself. Video in standard definition in HD-DVD format can take less space than in DVD format because of the difference between MPEG-2 and MPEG-4. But this isn't an advantage over a Blu-Ray player, or even over the MPEG-4-on-DVD spec.
My apologies.
Well, let's see. The claim was the "first web browsers".
WorldWideWeb was in Objective-C.
WWW. the line-mode CERN browser, was in plain C.
Erwise was in plain C.
ViolaWWW was written in the Viola toolkit/language system.
Mosaic was early, and Mosaic was important, but to say the "first web browsers" to have been written in C++, one has to ignore the actual first web browsers.
it is hard to see how HD-DVD can possibly win.
Easier upgrade path.
1) Nobody's shipped a DVD/Blu-Ray combo disc yet. DVD/HD-DVD titles are already available.
Accordingly, you can buy HD-DVDs that will play on the DVD players you already have and on your new HD player in high def. If you buy a Blu-Ray disc, it can only play on your Blu-Ray player; you need another copy to watch the same movie in a different room.
2) You can write a HD-DVD format filesystem to DVD.
For the consumer buying a write-capable drive, an HD-DVD writer lets you get more use out of DVD media than a Blu-Ray drive would. With Blu-Ray, you'd have to either buy Blu-Ray writeables or get no more use out of the write capability than if you had a normal DVD writer.
These are advantages that remain even if HD-DVD loses the war. Your combo disk will at worst be an ordinary DVD in a BluRay world; your BluRay disc will be a coaster in an HD-DVD world. And your HD-DVD-R drive will still have the advantage of being able to write extra capacity to DVD-R media if HD-DVD-R media is driven from the market; your BD-R will have no advantage over a DVD-R. So, buying HD combo discs or writers during the format wear is relatively safe; whichever format wins, some of the value is retained. Buying Blu-Ray discs or writers is all-or-nothing; if HD wins, you lose much more value. Assuming normal economic models, the result is that the HD-DVD combo discs and HD-DVD-Rs will sell better than Blu-Ray counterparts, which will create an installed base. Which will push the format war that direction.
Will that be strong enough to counter the PS3 installed base? Really depends if Sony ships enough Blu-Ray PS3s fast enough, doesn't it? They aren't off to a great start so far.
Um. Yeah. Er.
"WorldWideWeb was written in Objective-C."
ANSI is the American version of ECMA
Well, only very roughly.
ECMA is an association of computer and communications companies.
ANSI is a national standards organization, co-founded by both corporations and government agencies, with government and nonprofit involvement. It serves as the official representative of the U.S. to international standards bodies, and deals with a much broader range of issues than just computing and telecom.
The problem with a charge of manipulation is that you have to prove that SCO management knew that its lawsuit was baseless and that it filed it anyway to try to make a fraudulent profit off the increased share price. The mere fact that the lawsuit increased the stock price is not nearly sufficient. A lawsuit with plausible grounding would produce the same effect, and it would have been not merely legal but arguably the fiduciary duty of SCO's management to its shareholders to sue to recover lost revenue if they believed they had a reasonable chance of making a recovery. And as long as the case is still before the courts, that is probably sufficient evidence that they had a reasonable chance of recovery. Unless and until the judge in the SCO-IBM case says the case was not merely insufficient, but utterly without merit, it's unlikely SCO can be hit for manipulation.
(I am not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet!)
Though Windows programs were cooperatively multitasked from Windows 1.0 until '95, starting with Windows/386 2.1, Windows did pre-emptively multitask DOS applications in 386 Enhanced Mode, exploiting the virtual 8086 mode of 386-class processors.
The U.S. has higher broadband penetration than, among others, Australia, Austria, Britain, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Portugal, and Spain.
Well, maybe they can adopt our policies and get their broadband penetration up before they're left behind.
Exactly. Anybody at Microsoft who has been paying attention the last ten years would realize the Microsoft effort to take over the server room has failed, foiled not by any success of commercial Unix, but by Linux. Vista is not a sufficient improvement over XP/Server 2003 to revive the progress Microsoft was making with NT, and the next release will be some time in the 2010s. Like it or not, Microsoft is facing a world where it must co-exist with the Linux boxes in the server room for years to come.