I try to be a safe driver. So, I drive with the intention of leaving a couple of car lengths between me and the car in front. What happens? Someone sees that as an invitation to merge on over!! Next thing I know my "safe space" is down to inches.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding your comment, but why is this so annoying to you? I agree it's annoying when a car "merges on over" just "inches" in front of my bumper (rarely happens). It's also annoying when a car "merges on over," then drives slower than the car that was previously in front me (a little more common, but still rare).
However, the vast majority of the time, a car that's merging in front of me just wants to drive in my lane at the same speed, or is only there temporarily (avoiding a tailgater, changing two lanes, getting off at the next exit, etc). In fact, I use "safe and comfortable merging space" as my guideline for safe following distance. I like to leave enough space between me and the car in front ofme to allow another driver to comfortably merge in front of me without me having to slow down suddenly (to make more room) and wave my hand outside of my window to tell the merger it's "okay" to merge in front of me.
I upset the guy behind me and slow down opening up more of a gap trying to manage between not letting someone over and making sure I have some room to stop.
I think the "guy behind me" can usually see the person merging in front of me. If that person is not tailgating me, then I don't think that person should be upset. Again, maybe I'm misunderstanding your comment. There are a heck of a lot of annoying drivers out there.
but that's a matter of case design, if the case design can eliminate the heat from the heatsink effectively I would imagine both systems would run at the same temperature
Which brings up another "con" for the QuadFX platform: so far, it's only available in the eATX (extended ATX) form factor. The motherboard is too big to fit in almost all popular gaming cases (which max out at "standard" ATX). In contrast, a Core 2 Quad can be used in standard ATX and even microATX SFF cases like the Falcon NW Fragbox.
I still don't understand the big need for the QuadFX platform when a dual-Opteron motherboard can be bought in the standard ATX form factor for less than $300 and Opteron 2000 series CPUs can be bought for as little as $208 a piece.
Wish I had mod points. According to Apple's page of available updates for OS X 10.2, 10.2 (released August 23, 2002) got its last security update on December 12, 2004. So OS X 10.2, which was released 4.25 years ago, only got 2.3 years of security updates.
In contrast, "Pro" versions of Windows (e.g. 2000 and XP Pro) are guaranteed 10 years of security updates and "Home" versions get at least 5 years (XP Home gets 7+ years).
I don't understand why Apple doesn't get criticized for not having (AFAIK) an official support lifecycle policy. Red Hat gives 7 years of support for Enterprise Linux. Heck even free Ubuntu LTS (Long Term Support) versions get 5 years of support. Is Apple even trying to be taken seriously in the enterprise?
This bugs me because I thought 10.2 was Apple's first very good version of OS X. Many people who bought 10.2 or a Mac less than 4 years ago should be perfectly fine running 10.2, but they are forced to upgrade if they still want security updates and bug fixes.
OS X is pretty and all, but I prefer 'functional' over 'shiny' and I like to really dig into the inner workings of the OS that I use. OS X doesn't entirely appeal to my demographic for that reason, which is why it appeals to people who just want to use a computer and have it work without having to mess with it any more than they need to.
Really? I switched from XP to OS X for teh exact same reason. XP was shinny and colorful, but it wasn't very functional. Crap I still haven't figured out how to burn a dvd-sized iso without paying for or pirating 3rd party commercial software. (if someone wants to respond with a link, I'd be happy to learn the error of my ways).
ImgBurn is freeware. However, every DVD burner (or computer sold with a DVD burner) comes bundled with Windows software that burns DVD ISOs, so this is a very rare problem.
Also, although Tarlus talked about Windows in the first part of his comment, I'm pretty sure he was referring to Linux or BSD when he said OS X was "relatively stupified in comparison to other OS's that I've used" and that he liked to "really dig into the inner workings of the OS that I use." Tarlus didn't say Windows in this part of his comment.
However, if Tarlus was talking about Windows, then I agree with you: I don't know what the frick he's talkin' about.
Unfortunately, the problem with the 135 degrees position is that you need a very good chair with a head-rest, otherwise, sitting at 135 degrees while keeping you head straight (in order to be looking horizontally at your monitor, rather than at the ceiling) hurts the neck.
Maybe office chair manufacturers should take some design hints from car seat manufacturers. I once sat behind the wheel of a low-to-the-ground Ferrai Testarossa, and almost felt like I was lying on my back. However, the headrest's design somehow keeps the driver's head in a comfortable position to see the road.
The first thought that came to my mind, when I saw this story's headline, was that this is important news for truckers, people with long commutes, and others who drive long distances. Office workers can at least find a moment to stand up and stretch once in a while. Drivers can put themselves in danger by just squirming in their seat.
I had a Dell laptop at school. I'd use it at home. Turn it off. Take it to school. Turn it on for class. Use it. Turn it off. Take it to next class/home and repeat. Suspend was very iffy (and didn't help much in the battery life department).
Then I got a Powerbook G4 (which I still use today). Run it at home. Close the lid. Take it to school. Open the lid. IT WAS READY. Within 3 seconds I could start working... I know some PCs worked that way, mine never did (reliably) that I remember...
...Now I'll note that some other people at my school had newer laptops that could suspend/resume just fine. But they took much longer. Some of them approached boot time length, some could do it in 20-30 seconds. No PC there matched my Mac (note: I never asked the few Linux users if they had it working on their laptops). I could suspend/resume my Mac 3 times with ease in the time it took the fastest XP users
Your anecdote just doesn't seem right compared to my old PC notebook (5 seconds to resume) and that other replier whose old Thinkpad resumes in "less than a second."
My notebook is an old Toshiba DynaBook (Japanese) Pentium III from late 2001 (upgraded to 512MB RAM and Windows XP Home U.S. version). Just like you, I close the lid for Standy mode (it beeps). I open the lid and it's ready in 5 seconds. The old battery drains too quickly to run Windows unplugged for reasonable lengths of time, but that old battery can last a week in Standby mode.
If those "newer" Windows XP notebooks at your school were taking "boot time length" or "20-30 seconds," then I suspect they either all had lemons (seems unlikely) or they were all "Hibernating," which is different than "Suspend/Standby." "Hibernate" is the same as powering down your computer, except it saves an image of your desktop (with all open apps and documents) onto your hard drive. When you come out of "Hibernate," your computer powers on, then loads that saved image so that your desktop (with opened apps and documents) appear exactly as you left them. In other words, hibernate looks just like suspend/standby, but it actually turns the computer off/on.
You'll realize that this is just a typical Microsoft "throw something out there" first effort.
This observation sounds right for Microsoft software (e.g. Windows, Internet Explorer 1.0, Windows Media Player), but not for their mostly highly-regarded hardware products. The XBox, original MS ergonomic mouse/keyboard, wireless basestation/adapter kit, joysticks/gamepads, and web cams were good products from version 1, if I remember correctly.
I think they can get away with some initially poor software versions because they can push free updates that fix/improve the software until the customer is satifisfied (also see Apple's great free update to crappy Aperture 1.0). Or, in the case of operating systems, it's difficult for the customer to switch. However, if the hardware sucks, they cannot fix all of the hardware problems with software updates. I think an unfixable, expensive product will leave too much of a bad impression and buyers will not trust a vastly improved version 3.
Maybe MS can fix most of the Zune annoyances with software/firmware updates, but my memory tells me that this poor Zune launch is atypical for MS hardware products.
According to Apple that only works with songs purchased from iTunes Store and authorized computers. I hope people's music collections are not made up of mostly iTunes Store songs.
Also, the fact that you can access the drive normally means you can go into a little folder called.iPod_Control (or something) and do fun things like export your songs and hack the iPod database. The songs aren't on a separate partition or anything, they're just named funny things like SFJI.mp3 and put into weird folders.
Apparently, all PlaysForSure devices also allow "reverse synch" using Windows Media Player 11. Is there a good reason why Apple doesn't allow users to easily transfer songs from the iPod back to the computer without dealing with weird folders and mangled filenames?
You people _do_ know that iTunes can rip to MP3 just as well as AAC right? Sure MP3 isn't the default, but it takes all of 5 seconds to change. I use iTunes this way... and when I'm in Linux Amarok automatically pics up my iTunes MP3's... CD art, artist name, genre and all.
From http://www.linuxhq.com/kernel/
Version 2.6 * Current: 2.6.18, 20-Sep-2006
Version 2.4 * Current: 2.4.33, 11-Aug-2006
Version 2.2 * Current: 2.2.26, 25-Feb-2004
Version 2.0 * Current: 2.0.40, 08-Feb-2004
So, 2.6 and 2.4 are actively maintained, with 2.2 released in '99 with updates to '04, and 2.0 being updated for over 8 years, since 1996. And I'll wager that there's been no more updates since then for those two kernels simply because it *is* good enough.
When comparing Windows and Linux, we need to define "actively maintained" and determine the value of security updates/patches.
Linux Kernel 2.2 was released in '99, updated until '04, and got its last patch in January 2005. The kernel may be "good enough" feature-wise, but do you really think it's secure enough to not require any security patches since the beginning of 2005? Since 2.2 is not getting security patches anymore, is it still "good enough" (secure enough) to use?
In comparison, Windows 2000 was released in '00, updated until '05, and will continue to get security patches until 2010. Also until 2010, customers can continue to get paid support directly from Microsoft.
I'm not arguing that Windows is more secure than Linux (or even a better option), but they sure give customers a heck of along product lifecycle. Even if they can't convice customers to upgrade, they continue to supply patches for much longer than a Linux kernel gets patches. They also continue to provide paid support for their "no longer good enough" OS.
I personally don't see the need to have the Wii be able to play DVD movies. It's a game console...if I really want to play DVD movies, the local grocery store has progressive scan DVD players for $28, and these will be better for movies than any game console.
Maybe you don't see the need, but many people don't have any more S-video or component inputs left on their television for that seperate DVD player. Playing DVD movies through your Wii will allow you to use its high-quality video cable.
Of course, if you have the extra high-quality input, it's a no-brainer to opt for a seperate DVD player. But in this age of seperate cable/satellite tv set-top boxes, DVRs, VCRs, and multiple game consoles, it's easy to run out of decent video inputs. Isn't that why DVD/VCR combos are still somewhat popular?
Mabye Gates isn't the power hungry asshole you make him seem to be?
No, there's no way Gates can think beyond himself and his company. His charitable contributions (money, time, and thought) are all given to benefit himself and Microsoft. His reduced role/time at Microsoft and increased time spent on charitable causes is all part of a big scheme to increase his power and benefit MS.[/sarcasm]
Is it just young people who can't see the possibility of a smart, driven man growing up and becoming wiser/more compassionate as he reaches his forties, gets married to a decent/smart woman, and has children?
Nah, I'm probably being naive and deluding myself. That's just not possible. We should support tech executives that aren't power-hungry, like Steve Jobs and Larry Ellison.
I mostly agree with you on trusting "customer reviews" from online stores, especially if they accept "reviews" from customers who haven't bought the item being reviewed. These Zune "reviews" could turn into a flame war against Apple fans who haven't actually tried the Zune and others trying to counter the effects from fake reviews. See CNET user reviews for a really obnoxious example of this.
However, Ars Technica (an Apple-friendly, but fair site, IMO) gave a pretty positive review for the Zune (7 out of 10), even though they pointed out the early flaws of this product. If you're not familiar with Ars Technica reviews, they are the ones that published some rather infamous iPod reviews where they tested durability by putting an iPod in a washing machine, running it over with a car, and dropping it from a third-story balcony onto concrete (covered on Slashdot). BTW, they gave the newest iPod Shuffle 7/10 and the 2nd generation Nano got 8/10.
I think you're missing his point (or maybe I'm missing the point). Yes, iTunes songs burned to CD and played from that CD give acceptable quality for most people. However, ripping and re-encoding iTunes songs results in noticeably crappy sound quality (even on crappy earbuds).
If people are going to mention or imply "burn and rip" as an counterargument against iTunes lock-in claims, then they should always mention this significant loss in sound quality (which many people find unacceptable for music they paid for). People should just accept the fact that the iPod will be the only digital audio player that will play iTunes store music at acceptable quality. This is an acceptable limitation for many people, who refuse to consider anything but an iPod. For many others, this is an unacceptable limitation.
Doesn't anyone bother to fact-check before modding a troll "Insightful?" The brown Zune, which trolls are ridiculing without seeing it in person, was at #83 (now #78 (1:15pm PST)). The black Zune is at #24.
Yes, Zune sales appear "flaccid," but you don't need to resort to Michael Moore tactics to make your point.
We came to the conclusion that only people that were buying PS3s now were going to sell it on Ebay.
But the amount of people willing to pay more than $1,000 is very small. So a handful of people will make money, but since Ebay is being flooded with PS3s there is a high chance that many of these Ebayers are going to be sorely disappointed.
The PlayStation 3 launched in Japan just 6 days ago, but according to that article, smart bidders are buying them off Yahoo! Japan auctions for near-retail prices ($510 for premium model, $420 for cheaper model).
When you factor in the eBay fees and shipping hassles, I think some American PS3 scalpers are in for a monumental letdown. I feel sorry for some of them.
"It just works." I can sit down at my PS2, put in any PS2 game disc, and know it'll work. No screwing with graphics drivers, worrying about upgrading the graphics card, drivers for the controllers,...
He said "geeks." I think most geeks (not just gamer geeks) keep their OS and drivers (also applications and BIOS) updated, even if they don't need to. A geek's computer "just works," even if it's a Windows PC. I'm sure I'm not the only person that runs Microsoft Update almost every time I boot Windows, then check my important apps (AVG, Opera, Office 2000, etc) and drivers for updates.
...rebooting the PC 15 times because I haven't booted Windows lately and need to install 30 service packs, etc. etc. etc.
There have been 2 service packs for Windows XP, but I'm sure you meant "updates." If there are 30 updates since the last time you booted Windows, then you might not be a gamer geek.
Just know that while your 16 bit apps will run under Vista, but this is only true for the 32bit version of Vista, as your programs will always fail to run in the 64bit version...
I'm pretty sure a software emulator or virtualization can be used to run those 16-bit apps in the 64-bit version of Vista. Maybe this is one reason Microsoft bought Virtual PC and now offers it for free.
Their Virtual PC home page says: "Microsoft will also offer the free download of Virtual PC 2007, with support for Windows Vista, available in 2007." Their Vista Team Blog page about Virtual PC 2007 Beta says: "For those not familiar with Virtual PC, it also works the other way around--you can run Windows XP or an earlier OS on Windows Vista. This can be helpful if you have an older application that does not work well in Windows Vista."
So... Is the quad core considered 4 processors? or just one?
I ask because the Vista EULA says:
2. INSTALLATION AND USE RIGHTS. Before you use the software under a license, you must assign that license to one device (physical hardware system). That device is the "licensed device." A hardware partition or blade is considered to be a separate device.
a. Licensed Device. You may install one copy of the software on the licensed device. You may use the software on up to two processors on that device at one time.
When AMD and Intel introduced their dual-core processors, Microsoft made it clear that they define a "processor" or "physical processor" as a "single chip that houses a collection of one or more cores." This page should make it clear: http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/highlights/mult icore.mspx
That page's primary purpose is to clarify their policy for server software (probably in response to Oracle defining a "processor" as a core), but they also mention Windows XP:
Windows XP Professional can support up to two processors regardless of the number of cores on the processor.
If Microsoft changed their definition of "a processor" for Windows Vista, believe me, we would have heard all about it by now. Slashdot would have been slashdotted by all the comments.
I wonder how much faster the Intel versions will be in comparison to the G5s...
Look at #20; it's almost identical to an Intel Xserve.
Did you notice #5? It's almost identical to a blade version of a G5 Xserve (but running SuSe Linux). Those PowerPC 970 processors still ain't bad for servers, even though Apple abandoned them.
If anybody's curious, here's Barcelona Supercomputing Center's brief description of their system: MareNostrum System Architecture
That's not the only information the GP left out (I'm not from WA, so please correct my mistakes). I'm now replying to the GP:
Just pay for the building yourself, don't use my tax dollars. Case in point - my hometown Seattle...
...the second richest man in the world pays 50 odd men multiple million dollars a year a piece to play a child's game...
...This is a pure taxpayer takeaway, and it sickens me how city after city falls for it. If they want to conduct a business, they should have to pay for the facility just like any other business.
You say your tax dollars, but it's unclear how much of your tax dollars payed for the stadium. According to the Washington State Public Stadium Athority's FAQs, the tax dollars used came from "Washington State Lottery; King County sales tax; King County Hotel/Motel tax; deferred sales tax in King County; and stadium and exhibition center parking and admissions taxes."
More importantly, neither the Seahawks nor Paul Allen own Qwest Field. Qwest Field is owned by "the public" (the state of Washington). If the stadium is going to be owned by the state of Washington, shouldn't taxpayers pay the vast majority of the cost? The public "only" payed $300 million for a stadium, event center, and parking garage that cost at least $430 million. The private sector (mostly Paul Allen) payed the remaining $130 million plus cost overruns (anybody know how much?) for that stadium owned by the state of Washington.
Sure, that stadium might be a waste of money, but it's their (state of Washington's) stadium. Sure, you'd expect the team (or in this case, the owner) to chip in since the team is a major beneficiary. But I can't recall any team or owner contributing anything close to $130 million for a publicly owned stadium and also pay an annual lease to use it. Washington might be lucky to have such an uber-rich uber-sportsfan that's willing to contribute that much for a stadium he pays to use and doesn't even own.
As a tax payer and potential fan, I have to pay a lot of money to see the inside of a resource that I pay for.
(WARNING: BAD COMPARISON FOLLOWS)
As a tax payer and potential student, you'd have to pay a lot of money to "see the inside of" Washington State University, which you payed for. I know, that's an awful comparison. I think my point is that you don't use some of the things you paid for with your tax dollars and you need to pay to use some of the things your tax dollars payed for.
I'm sure the Seattle Cooks!! expo didn't pay an unreasonable amount of money to use Qwest Field from November 3-5. If you want to hold a big event in Seattle, you now have a great big attractive venue to hold it in. Maybe you didn't need it, but "your" stadium isn't just for the Seahawks.
As for that other stadium next door (Safeco Field, home of the Mariners), the state of Washington didn't get such a good deal. I'm pretty sure it was all publicly funded and I remember huge cost overruns when they rushed its completion so that it wouldn't need to compete for attention the next season, when other new ballparks were opening.
Also, the proposed new stadium in TFA is dissimilar to the stadiums in Seattle. It's going to be privately funded and privatel
People really still drag themselves to a stadium through all that traffic when HDTV exists?
People really still go through the "hassles" of getting laid when HDTV POV porn exists? (Should I post this comment anonymously?)
I'd guesstimate that over 90 percent of HDTV telecasts show the game from the center field camera. Most of the time, you see nothing but the pitcher, catcher, batter, and home plate umpire from a behind-the-pitcher point of view (no porn joke intended). When the ball is hit, the camera follows the ball. Sure, those are usually the most important things happening at the moment, but a lot more is going on off-camera. Also, the limited view of any camera shot does not give a good perspective of the amazing speeds, distances, and skills displayed in a big league ballgame.
Some of the things you miss when watching a game on HDTV instead of at the ballpark:
A perspective of just how shallow Mark Kotsay (Oakland Athletics) positions himself in center field (to prevent bloop singles) and how skillful he is when running down a drive hit over his head (he actually takes his eyes off the ball and finds it again before the ball comes down).
A perspective of just how tall and intimidating Randy Johnson is (6'10", 95-100MPH) on the pitcher's mound (10" high, 60'6" away from home plate).
The beauty, coordination, rhythm, and skill of both middle infielders working together on a 6-4-3 double play (the tv camera follows the ball and shows one player briefly at a time).
The off-camera action when a hit-and-run is being attempted: runner(s) going as the ball is being pitched, a middle infielder (which one depends on the batter and the pitch) covering second base, a weakly-hit ball going through the infield area vacated by the infielder covering the stolen base attempt.
The sound and mood of an entire impatient New York ballpark when Alex Rodriguez ($25 million salary) boots yet another ground ball at Yankee Stadium.
An HDTV center field camera does not do justice to the sight (and sometimes sound) of a 100MPH Rich Harden (Oakland A's) fastball and a swing that's quick and accurate enough to hit it. At the ballpark, that pitch looks impossibly fast. A swing that can hit it looks like an optical illusion.
I guess you have to be a baseball nerd to appreciate some of these things. I also notice a lot of "business-related entertainment" attendies at AT&T Park (S.F. Giants) that seem to ignore about 90 percent of the game. They enjoy being there for other reasons I can't relate to (not that there's anything wrong with that). MLB in the Silicon Valley should attract a good mix of baseball nerds and "suits" trying to impress business clients.
From 14 November, customers on the MSN Music store site will now be redirected to Zune Marketplace or, as part of a 2005 legal settlement where Microsoft agreed that no music service would receive greater promotion than RealNetworks, Real Rhapsody.
MS just fscked everyone who got onboard with their PlayForSure program. This move only makes sense if MS decided that the ill will generated by screwing all their existing customers is outweighed by the the marketshare they'll gain from Zune
To be fair to Microsoft, I think the whole PlaysForSure program has already moved from web sites (like the MSN Music store site) to music services that are integrated into Windows Media Player 11. Since WMP 11 was released, PlaysForSure customers should now buy their DRM music from within WMP 11. URGE, Audible.com, Napster, et. al. are now accessible from within WMP 11.
Slashdot Mirror
However, the vast majority of the time, a car that's merging in front of me just wants to drive in my lane at the same speed, or is only there temporarily (avoiding a tailgater, changing two lanes, getting off at the next exit, etc). In fact, I use "safe and comfortable merging space" as my guideline for safe following distance. I like to leave enough space between me and the car in front ofme to allow another driver to comfortably merge in front of me without me having to slow down suddenly (to make more room) and wave my hand outside of my window to tell the merger it's "okay" to merge in front of me.
I think the "guy behind me" can usually see the person merging in front of me. If that person is not tailgating me, then I don't think that person should be upset. Again, maybe I'm misunderstanding your comment. There are a heck of a lot of annoying drivers out there.I still don't understand the big need for the QuadFX platform when a dual-Opteron motherboard can be bought in the standard ATX form factor for less than $300 and Opteron 2000 series CPUs can be bought for as little as $208 a piece.
In contrast, "Pro" versions of Windows (e.g. 2000 and XP Pro) are guaranteed 10 years of security updates and "Home" versions get at least 5 years (XP Home gets 7+ years).
I don't understand why Apple doesn't get criticized for not having (AFAIK) an official support lifecycle policy. Red Hat gives 7 years of support for Enterprise Linux. Heck even free Ubuntu LTS (Long Term Support) versions get 5 years of support. Is Apple even trying to be taken seriously in the enterprise?
This bugs me because I thought 10.2 was Apple's first very good version of OS X. Many people who bought 10.2 or a Mac less than 4 years ago should be perfectly fine running 10.2, but they are forced to upgrade if they still want security updates and bug fixes.
Also, although Tarlus talked about Windows in the first part of his comment, I'm pretty sure he was referring to Linux or BSD when he said OS X was "relatively stupified in comparison to other OS's that I've used" and that he liked to "really dig into the inner workings of the OS that I use." Tarlus didn't say Windows in this part of his comment.
However, if Tarlus was talking about Windows, then I agree with you: I don't know what the frick he's talkin' about.
The first thought that came to my mind, when I saw this story's headline, was that this is important news for truckers, people with long commutes, and others who drive long distances. Office workers can at least find a moment to stand up and stretch once in a while. Drivers can put themselves in danger by just squirming in their seat.
My notebook is an old Toshiba DynaBook (Japanese) Pentium III from late 2001 (upgraded to 512MB RAM and Windows XP Home U.S. version). Just like you, I close the lid for Standy mode (it beeps). I open the lid and it's ready in 5 seconds. The old battery drains too quickly to run Windows unplugged for reasonable lengths of time, but that old battery can last a week in Standby mode.
If those "newer" Windows XP notebooks at your school were taking "boot time length" or "20-30 seconds," then I suspect they either all had lemons (seems unlikely) or they were all "Hibernating," which is different than "Suspend/Standby." "Hibernate" is the same as powering down your computer, except it saves an image of your desktop (with all open apps and documents) onto your hard drive. When you come out of "Hibernate," your computer powers on, then loads that saved image so that your desktop (with opened apps and documents) appear exactly as you left them. In other words, hibernate looks just like suspend/standby, but it actually turns the computer off/on.
I think they can get away with some initially poor software versions because they can push free updates that fix/improve the software until the customer is satifisfied (also see Apple's great free update to crappy Aperture 1.0). Or, in the case of operating systems, it's difficult for the customer to switch. However, if the hardware sucks, they cannot fix all of the hardware problems with software updates. I think an unfixable, expensive product will leave too much of a bad impression and buyers will not trust a vastly improved version 3.
Maybe MS can fix most of the Zune annoyances with software/firmware updates, but my memory tells me that this poor Zune launch is atypical for MS hardware products.
According to Apple that only works with songs purchased from iTunes Store and authorized computers. I hope people's music collections are not made up of mostly iTunes Store songs.
Apparently, all PlaysForSure devices also allow "reverse synch" using Windows Media Player 11. Is there a good reason why Apple doesn't allow users to easily transfer songs from the iPod back to the computer without dealing with weird folders and mangled filenames?
I don't think this is Apple's fault, though. AFAIK, there is no established tagging standard for AAC files (like ID3 for MP3s).
Linux Kernel 2.2 was released in '99, updated until '04, and got its last patch in January 2005. The kernel may be "good enough" feature-wise, but do you really think it's secure enough to not require any security patches since the beginning of 2005? Since 2.2 is not getting security patches anymore, is it still "good enough" (secure enough) to use?
In comparison, Windows 2000 was released in '00, updated until '05, and will continue to get security patches until 2010. Also until 2010, customers can continue to get paid support directly from Microsoft.
I'm not arguing that Windows is more secure than Linux (or even a better option), but they sure give customers a heck of along product lifecycle. Even if they can't convice customers to upgrade, they continue to supply patches for much longer than a Linux kernel gets patches. They also continue to provide paid support for their "no longer good enough" OS.
Of course, if you have the extra high-quality input, it's a no-brainer to opt for a seperate DVD player. But in this age of seperate cable/satellite tv set-top boxes, DVRs, VCRs, and multiple game consoles, it's easy to run out of decent video inputs. Isn't that why DVD/VCR combos are still somewhat popular?
Is it just young people who can't see the possibility of a smart, driven man growing up and becoming wiser/more compassionate as he reaches his forties, gets married to a decent/smart woman, and has children?
Nah, I'm probably being naive and deluding myself. That's just not possible. We should support tech executives that aren't power-hungry, like Steve Jobs and Larry Ellison.
However, Ars Technica (an Apple-friendly, but fair site, IMO) gave a pretty positive review for the Zune (7 out of 10), even though they pointed out the early flaws of this product. If you're not familiar with Ars Technica reviews, they are the ones that published some rather infamous iPod reviews where they tested durability by putting an iPod in a washing machine, running it over with a car, and dropping it from a third-story balcony onto concrete (covered on Slashdot). BTW, they gave the newest iPod Shuffle 7/10 and the 2nd generation Nano got 8/10.
If people are going to mention or imply "burn and rip" as an counterargument against iTunes lock-in claims, then they should always mention this significant loss in sound quality (which many people find unacceptable for music they paid for). People should just accept the fact that the iPod will be the only digital audio player that will play iTunes store music at acceptable quality. This is an acceptable limitation for many people, who refuse to consider anything but an iPod. For many others, this is an unacceptable limitation.
Yes, Zune sales appear "flaccid," but you don't need to resort to Michael Moore tactics to make your point.
The PlayStation 3 launched in Japan just 6 days ago, but according to that article, smart bidders are buying them off Yahoo! Japan auctions for near-retail prices ($510 for premium model, $420 for cheaper model).
When you factor in the eBay fees and shipping hassles, I think some American PS3 scalpers are in for a monumental letdown. I feel sorry for some of them.
Their Virtual PC home page says: "Microsoft will also offer the free download of Virtual PC 2007, with support for Windows Vista, available in 2007." Their Vista Team Blog page about Virtual PC 2007 Beta says: "For those not familiar with Virtual PC, it also works the other way around--you can run Windows XP or an earlier OS on Windows Vista. This can be helpful if you have an older application that does not work well in Windows Vista."
That page's primary purpose is to clarify their policy for server software (probably in response to Oracle defining a "processor" as a core), but they also mention Windows XP:
Windows XP Professional can support up to two processors regardless of the number of cores on the processor.
If Microsoft changed their definition of "a processor" for Windows Vista, believe me, we would have heard all about it by now. Slashdot would have been slashdotted by all the comments.
If anybody's curious, here's Barcelona Supercomputing Center's brief description of their system: MareNostrum System Architecture
MareNostrum uses 2560 IBM BladeCenter JS21 blades.
You are correct. In fact, that building the GP was referring to ("14 days out of the year") is hosting 17 "events" (2-day events counted twice) this month alone.
That's not the only information the GP left out (I'm not from WA, so please correct my mistakes). I'm now replying to the GP:
You say your tax dollars, but it's unclear how much of your tax dollars payed for the stadium. According to the Washington State Public Stadium Athority's FAQs, the tax dollars used came from "Washington State Lottery; King County sales tax; King County Hotel/Motel tax; deferred sales tax in King County; and stadium and exhibition center parking and admissions taxes."
More importantly, neither the Seahawks nor Paul Allen own Qwest Field. Qwest Field is owned by "the public" (the state of Washington). If the stadium is going to be owned by the state of Washington, shouldn't taxpayers pay the vast majority of the cost? The public "only" payed $300 million for a stadium, event center, and parking garage that cost at least $430 million. The private sector (mostly Paul Allen) payed the remaining $130 million plus cost overruns (anybody know how much?) for that stadium owned by the state of Washington.
Sure, that stadium might be a waste of money, but it's their (state of Washington's) stadium. Sure, you'd expect the team (or in this case, the owner) to chip in since the team is a major beneficiary. But I can't recall any team or owner contributing anything close to $130 million for a publicly owned stadium and also pay an annual lease to use it. Washington might be lucky to have such an uber-rich uber-sportsfan that's willing to contribute that much for a stadium he pays to use and doesn't even own.
(WARNING: BAD COMPARISON FOLLOWS)
As a tax payer and potential student, you'd have to pay a lot of money to "see the inside of" Washington State University, which you payed for. I know, that's an awful comparison. I think my point is that you don't use some of the things you paid for with your tax dollars and you need to pay to use some of the things your tax dollars payed for.
I'm sure the Seattle Cooks!! expo didn't pay an unreasonable amount of money to use Qwest Field from November 3-5. If you want to hold a big event in Seattle, you now have a great big attractive venue to hold it in. Maybe you didn't need it, but "your" stadium isn't just for the Seahawks.
As for that other stadium next door (Safeco Field, home of the Mariners), the state of Washington didn't get such a good deal. I'm pretty sure it was all publicly funded and I remember huge cost overruns when they rushed its completion so that it wouldn't need to compete for attention the next season, when other new ballparks were opening.
Also, the proposed new stadium in TFA is dissimilar to the stadiums in Seattle. It's going to be privately funded and privatel
I'd guesstimate that over 90 percent of HDTV telecasts show the game from the center field camera. Most of the time, you see nothing but the pitcher, catcher, batter, and home plate umpire from a behind-the-pitcher point of view (no porn joke intended). When the ball is hit, the camera follows the ball. Sure, those are usually the most important things happening at the moment, but a lot more is going on off-camera. Also, the limited view of any camera shot does not give a good perspective of the amazing speeds, distances, and skills displayed in a big league ballgame.
Some of the things you miss when watching a game on HDTV instead of at the ballpark:
- A perspective of just how shallow Mark Kotsay (Oakland Athletics) positions himself in center field (to prevent bloop singles) and how skillful he is when running down a drive hit over his head (he actually takes his eyes off the ball and finds it again before the ball comes down).
- A perspective of just how tall and intimidating Randy Johnson is (6'10", 95-100MPH) on the pitcher's mound (10" high, 60'6" away from home plate).
- The beauty, coordination, rhythm, and skill of both middle infielders working together on a 6-4-3 double play (the tv camera follows the ball and shows one player briefly at a time).
- The off-camera action when a hit-and-run is being attempted: runner(s) going as the ball is being pitched, a middle infielder (which one depends on the batter and the pitch) covering second base, a weakly-hit ball going through the infield area vacated by the infielder covering the stolen base attempt.
- The sound and mood of an entire impatient New York ballpark when Alex Rodriguez ($25 million salary) boots yet another ground ball at Yankee Stadium.
- An HDTV center field camera does not do justice to the sight (and sometimes sound) of a 100MPH Rich Harden (Oakland A's) fastball and a swing that's quick and accurate enough to hit it. At the ballpark, that pitch looks impossibly fast. A swing that can hit it looks like an optical illusion.
I guess you have to be a baseball nerd to appreciate some of these things. I also notice a lot of "business-related entertainment" attendies at AT&T Park (S.F. Giants) that seem to ignore about 90 percent of the game. They enjoy being there for other reasons I can't relate to (not that there's anything wrong with that). MLB in the Silicon Valley should attract a good mix of baseball nerds and "suits" trying to impress business clients.