good point. why are they focusing on apple? i don't know how different the EU market is from the US, but I wonder if their cell carriers have crazy lock in like here in the us. what about video games? is it crazy that a version of a game i buy for ps2 won't work in the xbox won't work in the GC? vendor lock-in sucks, and it always will, but apple is by no means the only ones playing this game (assuming that steve is actually HAPPY the record industry "makes" apple use DRM).
it just seems suspect that the EU is going after apple, when really, they should be going after EVERYONE that is doing it. oh wait, that would effectively make europe an amish state, wouldn't it?
well, i understand why you've made your decision, but i do think that you represent a minority with that viewpoint. and i'm glad you're not making public health policy.
well, as a parent, if i knew the vaccination would keep my child from missing a week of school, i would do it. 1) i wouldn't want my kid to miss out on the lessons 2) i wouldn't want my kid miserable for a week and 3) i don't want to lose a week doctoring my kid if i didn't have to 4) i can't afford to stop my life for a week.
why shouldn't i vaccinate my child again? is your point that some children die from the vaccination?
i'm not trying to be contrary or obtuse. it just seems that a vaccination that protects someone from sickness is, in general, a good idea.
mr c
ps. about online discussions: i say "if the numbers clearly show" because i'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and frankly, i don't have time to investigate this -- i'm indulging you here, if only because i think you may have something interesting to say -- but this is a conversation. i trust that you won't trivialize my parsimonious use of time by accusing me of laziness or bias.
also, keep in mind that although i'm aware there's a controversy surrounding vaccination, but it's just not something i've had the inclination to learn about.
interesting point that never occurred to me. when i want the menu bar in os x, i just "throw" the cursor to the top of the screen and hit the menu item. when i want to click something in the middle of the screen, i must approach it more slowly. this is the first time i ever thought there was an advantage to having the menu bar at the top of the screen . . .
i should start by saying i'm not familiar with this case, but taking your data at face value -- i agree, we should reconsider. but let's remember, there may very well be concerns that those unfamiliar from the issue may not be aware of.
is the vaccine designed to *contain* the disease? perhaps there were models/simulations that indicated that if we *didn't* use the vaccine, we would be seeing a large increase in deaths.
of course, it could come to pass that they "experts" were payed off by pharma -- but that would make them NOT scientists in my book. surely some "experts" shouldn't be trusted.
but in the case of global warming, for example, it seems that an *overwhelmingly majority* of scientists agree on the issue -- yet people -- non scientists -- debate it as if they konow better than an ecologist about such matters.
any way, you seem intent on debating the vaccine issue. not that i don't trust you, but again, i must defer trust to someone who has studied a subject rather than a poster on/.
as i said, the "experts" in this case may be shills, and you could hold a phd in public health policy. of course, if i were to learn of this, i would trust you over the "experts" in this case -- but really, all that would have happened is that it turned out YOU were the actual expert.
why is it that topics like global warming (and evolution for that matter), everyone thinks they know better than someone whom has (presumably) studied the topic for years by dismissing them as saying what they "cause it sells newspapers/magazines"?
i'm not saying that your theory is wrong (or that the scientist is right), but assessing validity between A) a random poster on/. and B) a researcher at u of w, i think i may be inclined to believe the scientist.
sorry, not to pick on you, but it amazes me how often politicians, theologians, pundits, etc., spout their opinions as if it carries more weight than someone who has dedicated their life studying the subject. if it turns out that science is wrong, then the truth will bear out, and any scientist worth their salt will be the first to say it's wrong -- i also suspect that most scientists *are* worth their salt.
modern science has benefited humanity in so many ways, yet people deny it when it goes against their opinions/politics.
The file was deleted after it failed to run (because I said "no"), and then would appear back in a few seconds and try to run again. I'm happy that whatever application was vulnerable wasn't able to do anything to my system. this is what drives me crazy about windows. ok, so you kept the file from running, but you said it reappeared a few seconds later. weren't you interested in where it was coming from? to me, windows' file structure and that mess the registry are so convoluted that there isn't any hope of cleaning them out. when i find out malware has infected my system, i grab the system disk (always within arm's reach of the windows box) and reinstall.
i'm no system admin expert, but i feel that i can at least *navigate* the system in linux and os x....
it's funny, i just checked out 2nd life last night -- first time since a year or two ago -- and i was pretty amazed -- the place is one big car lot or sex club. really. i guess there are two kinds of people in 2nd life now -- the people selling "sex", and the people trying to sell their objects to buy the "sex".
it really was a cool online social experiment -- it only ultimately confirmed what we knew all along -- the internet is good only for porn and consumerism.
now, think about this for a second. first, it's not real sex that is drawing people. it's not even imagery of real people having sex. it's interaction of poorly-rendered avatars in a virtual world. this is a testament to the power of the sexual drive in humans, and what we decide to do with our best technology..... just a friendly reminder that yes, we are doomed.
hello class, this is a COM-PU-TER. computers run a set of instructions called a PROOOGRAAAM. programs are nothing but 1's and 0's. heheheh, but we don't program in 1's and 0's, we program in a language, such as linden script. another computer program, called a com-pi-ler, compiles the script into a format the computer can understand. ok, class, this is a DISK DRIVE . . .
sheesh, i thought this was/.
(actually, it must be -- even *I* am complaining about the summaries...)
Also, don't forget that in some states, the electric co pays a cheaper rate for energy flowing back into the grid. in st louis, i think a kW is around $.08 -- i understand that they pay $.02 for it.
makes it a bit harder to regain on the investment.
although the summary focused on the "guarantee" of security joost represented for viacom, i think the one-sided distribution model is the big difference. i think, fundamentally, google's business plan revolves around letting end users become the content providers, and google just indexes all of the content -- they make it possible to navigate. this is a view orthogonal to what we're seeing with the media companies, of course. they want to create the content, own it, and control it. they don't want to sell it, but to license it.
the problem, of course, is a matter of generating quality content from the user side.
1/3 of the content i "consume" is probably user-generated. if it weren't for movies/netflix, and television bits on youtube, it would be much closer to 100%. i can certainly envision a future where it becomes more and more fragmented as the tools to generate content become cheaper and cheaper.
Who cares if we find a cure for cancer when people are just going to die in car accidents? that's a good point, but it misses mine, which is closer to: "who cares if we find a cure for lung cancer if people smoke more and more cigarettes?"
of course i am for more efficient uses of energy, etc. but i don't think we're *addressing* the real crisis: our reckless use of our resources. also, i put forth a crude theory that, as a species, we're *unable* to effectively do so.
how many people here would, if they were a CEO or politician, would get up in front of the public or board members and say, "if we tighten our belts, and accept cut backs in our way of life, accept smaller profits, we can get our society back on track for a brighter, sustainable future."?
if you answered no, you're pretty much everybody. if you answered yes, then you'd be out of a job P.D.Q.
yes, absolutely. oil is the closest thing to free energy we have on this earth -- but only because it is the suns' energy stored up from bazillions or years. of course, we're seeing that it's not really free with the environmental problems, but that's besides the point. a gallon of oil contains quite a bit of energy, not to say all the stuff that can be made from it.
but hydrogen is not energy. we still need the energy to prepare the hydrogen for consumption. biodiesel is not free energy. the consequences of farming the amount of land to grow the crops to generate the biodiesel will have negative environmental effects (supposedly this is happening in mexico with corn flour being used for ethanol). wind power, hydroplants, and solar power are a good sources, but how much energy can we really generate with these methods, and, what large scale impacts will they have on the environment? (for example, if we covered a coast with wind turbines, how would that slow down the wind -- how would that affect the weather inland?)
as i understand it, nuclear is really the closest thing we have to free energy. the only risk, as i understand, are meltdown (cherynobl) and what to do with the waste. (in hindsight) cherynobl was of a design that should've never been built in the first place. i think that we could feasibly engineer a solution to the waste problem -- not ideal, but a lot better than the course we're on now -- energy and environmental crisis.
and i'm burning it up at a pretty good clip. i have a small, drafty flat in saint louis, where it's pretty cold this week, and my super old inefficient furnace is running quite a bit burning off fuel. i've been burning about 10 gallons of gas in my old car with a slipping transmission driving around to school, because it's too cold to ride my motorcycle, and saint louis is notorious (as a lot of american cities) for its bad public transit.
i plan on buying a house, and the first order of business is to insulate the hell out of it. not the best thing aesthetically (saint louis buildings are beautiful when you expose the interior brick, but very efficient -- at conducting heat that is). even if we don't run out of energy, the price is going to go up and up and up.
it will be the failure of our species that we blindly burned it all off, and let a few people decide our energy policy for their own profit (i at least hope they're profiting, otherwise they're just dumb). oh, sorry. depressing cold day again.
it's getting better, tho. my girl brought home some 1/2 off valentines chocolate. mmmmm, chocolate.
we've seen a lot of "new energy" stories on/. today, and there's been a lot of talk in the media lately, too. but NO ONE is talking about conserving energy. of course, this is an american perspective, and self-constraint is unamerican as it gets.
who cares if we figure out, say, how to meet 10% of our energy needs with new tech when our consumption rises 10% (or more).
a lot of "new energy" isn't really energy. as others have pointed out, hydrogen, is really just a way to transport energy.
it occurred to me recently, that, collectively, humans are like any other organism. we cannot control ourselves from the inside (something to do with goedels theorem maybe), and thus we will overrun the planet until we choke on ourselves -- or run out of energy. so i don't worry about it too much.
oh. whoops. depressing cold day here in st louis today.
and it seems that, in general, this ruling is un-european. it almost seems like their anti-american brain beat out their pro-european brain with this ruling.
i guess there's no way to say conclusively without doing some bazillion dollar research project, and perhaps i'm overly optimistic. i just think most people that have the money to spend anyway, will spend some for the convenience and consistency. note that this implies that people who don't have the money to spend can't buy it anyway. i know i mainly listened to crappy cassette mix tapes when i was a punkrock kid in the '80's. 1) i couldn't afford to spend money on music 2)it wasn't available at the local wal-mart.
i get your point, but no one pays for television anyway. advertising does. tv won't go away, but it may have to change dramatically.
i think the parent was coming from the viewpoint that music is shared more than movies on p2p nets. this probably has more to do with bandwidth than demand (ie. it could change when the "pipes" get bigger), so your point about movies is legitimate.
also, to be clear, we're not talking about "pirated" in the true sense of the word here (people who copy media wholesale and sell off the copies for profit -- like counterfeiting) -- we're talking about filesharing. no one profits off this (unless the people who distribute the clients are taking donations or selling advertising).
right now, i use netflix, and love it. if netflix is able to provide an "on demand" service where i just download the movie, that would be incredible. i would pay for it, and i think most people would.
i don't think most people who download from p2p nets do so because they refuse to pay for something, i think that it's because there's no middle ground reasonable option. iTMS is one, and it's very successful.
most of the people damning file sharing do so by taking the line that we, as consumers, should just suck it up and take whatever we're given, and pay whatever we're told, or just go without. this wasn't an invalid stance 20-30 years ago, but it is now -- the modes of distribution of information are changing.
i'm sorry, i just don't see this as any reason for someone to step down. granted, i'm not used to brushing elbows with ceo's and hanging out in boardrooms, so i don't know how those social circles work, but i always imagined them as an "ol boys club" of sorts. i just can't see that he was under any real pressure to step down.
i just wonder if he was quietly wishing he could retire, or he was on the outs for some other reason, and this was just an excuse.
i assumed the 2 megabuck payout was kinduva acknowledgement that they got some publicity, "and, hey, it's pocket change" sort of a thing.
it just seems so implausible that they really freaked out about. then again, maybe they grew up with (and agreed with) mcarthurism . . .
the thing to keep in mind is the definition of "evil". in consumerist america, that usually means whether the company has the consumers' interest at heart. when i'm using windows, i don't feel like microsoft gives a rats' shit about me. they care more about MSN, or their deal with company X, or whatever. when I use os x, i feel that apple has put a lot of thought into how a customer, like myself, uses the computer and the os.
both companies could be committing horrible atrocities against freedom and humanity, for all i know (and I'm not downplaying that), but from a user-experience standpoint, microsoft *is* evil, and apple (and google for that matter) come out looking good.
user experience, in my mind, is at the heart of this debate.
saying ipods will become flash-based is like saying all houses will eventually have indoor plumbing after it had been installed.
but i thought usb drives were an indication of the state of the art with the stuff. i see 4G drives now, and that's what the nano ipods are. how are they going to make this huge jump from 4G to 64G within a year -- and keep it affordable?
i never considered that someone who bought the iphone would want an ipod, too. as far as i'm concerned, i want less gadgets in my pocket, not more. i certainly wouldn't want to lug around another ipod just for archiving -- and if the ipod just stays at home, why wouldn't i archive to my laptop or desktop?
I think what the parent was getting at is that yes, while windows has a larger market share for desktop OS, Apple iPod (and thus, fairplay) has a larger market share as far as DRM'ed media goes.
So yes, it would make sense from this logic that windows has more viruses, and fairplay has more cracks -- both based on market share.
For a sine wave AC waveform, your calculation is correct. Vrms x 1.414 = Vp-p
I think the problem they are experiencing is the high voltage for the LCD screen backlight shorting onto the notebook chasis.
i think you meant Vrms*2*(2^(1/2)) for Vp-p. Vrms*(2^(1/2)) gives Vp. Vp is voltage of peak referenced to ground (unipolar). you have to double that to get voltage of the peak referenced to the the "other" peak -- Vpp (bipolar) .
65*2*1.414 does equal 183.8, so maybe that could be it. but where in the hell is the 65 Vrms coming from in a laptop? seems like your suggestion about the lamp makes sense.
Slashdot Mirror
good point. why are they focusing on apple? i don't know how different the EU market is from the US, but I wonder if their cell carriers have crazy lock in like here in the us. what about video games? is it crazy that a version of a game i buy for ps2 won't work in the xbox won't work in the GC? vendor lock-in sucks, and it always will, but apple is by no means the only ones playing this game (assuming that steve is actually HAPPY the record industry "makes" apple use DRM).
it just seems suspect that the EU is going after apple, when really, they should be going after EVERYONE that is doing it. oh wait, that would effectively make europe an amish state, wouldn't it?
mr c
because people get *more* scared of death as it approaches.
mr c
well, i understand why you've made your decision, but i do think that you represent a minority with that viewpoint. and i'm glad you're not making public health policy.
cheers,
mr c
well, as a parent, if i knew the vaccination would keep my child from missing a week of school, i would do it. 1) i wouldn't want my kid to miss out on the lessons 2) i wouldn't want my kid miserable for a week and 3) i don't want to lose a week doctoring my kid if i didn't have to 4) i can't afford to stop my life for a week.
why shouldn't i vaccinate my child again? is your point that some children die from the vaccination?
i'm not trying to be contrary or obtuse. it just seems that a vaccination that protects someone from sickness is, in general, a good idea.
mr c
ps. about online discussions:
i say "if the numbers clearly show" because i'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and frankly, i don't have time to investigate this -- i'm indulging you here, if only because i think you may have something interesting to say -- but this is a conversation. i trust that you won't trivialize my parsimonious use of time by accusing me of laziness or bias.
also, keep in mind that although i'm aware there's a controversy surrounding vaccination, but it's just not something i've had the inclination to learn about.
interesting point that never occurred to me. when i want the menu bar in os x, i just "throw" the cursor to the top of the screen and hit the menu item. when i want to click something in the middle of the screen, i must approach it more slowly. this is the first time i ever thought there was an advantage to having the menu bar at the top of the screen . . .
mr c
well, it certainly brings up the very good question: why do so many doctors suggest the vaccine if the numbers clearly show that it doesn't work?
mr c
i should start by saying i'm not familiar with this case, but taking your data at face value -- i agree, we should reconsider. but let's remember, there may very well be concerns that those unfamiliar from the issue may not be aware of.
is the vaccine designed to *contain* the disease? perhaps there were models/simulations that indicated that if we *didn't* use the vaccine, we would be seeing a large increase in deaths.
of course, it could come to pass that they "experts" were payed off by pharma -- but that would make them NOT scientists in my book. surely some "experts" shouldn't be trusted.
but in the case of global warming, for example, it seems that an *overwhelmingly majority* of scientists agree on the issue -- yet people -- non scientists -- debate it as if they konow better than an ecologist about such matters.
any way, you seem intent on debating the vaccine issue. not that i don't trust you, but again, i must defer trust to someone who has studied a subject rather than a poster on
as i said, the "experts" in this case may be shills, and you could hold a phd in public health policy. of course, if i were to learn of this, i would trust you over the "experts" in this case -- but really, all that would have happened is that it turned out YOU were the actual expert.
mr c.
why is it that topics like global warming (and evolution for that matter), everyone thinks they know better than someone whom has (presumably) studied the topic for years by dismissing them as saying what they "cause it sells newspapers/magazines"?
i'm not saying that your theory is wrong (or that the scientist is right), but assessing validity between A) a random poster on
sorry, not to pick on you, but it amazes me how often politicians, theologians, pundits, etc., spout their opinions as if it carries more weight than someone who has dedicated their life studying the subject. if it turns out that science is wrong, then the truth will bear out, and any scientist worth their salt will be the first to say it's wrong -- i also suspect that most scientists *are* worth their salt.
modern science has benefited humanity in so many ways, yet people deny it when it goes against their opinions/politics.
mr c
i'm no system admin expert, but i feel that i can at least *navigate* the system in linux and os x....
mr c
it's funny, i just checked out 2nd life last night -- first time since a year or two ago -- and i was pretty amazed -- the place is one big car lot or sex club. really. i guess there are two kinds of people in 2nd life now -- the people selling "sex", and the people trying to sell their objects to buy the "sex".
it really was a cool online social experiment -- it only ultimately confirmed what we knew all along -- the internet is good only for porn and consumerism.
now, think about this for a second. first, it's not real sex that is drawing people. it's not even imagery of real people having sex. it's interaction of poorly-rendered avatars in a virtual world. this is a testament to the power of the sexual drive in humans, and what we decide to do with our best technology..... just a friendly reminder that yes, we are doomed.
mr c
hello class, this is a COM-PU-TER. computers run a set of instructions called a PROOOGRAAAM. programs are nothing but 1's and 0's. heheheh, but we don't program in 1's and 0's, we program in a language, such as linden script. another computer program, called a com-pi-ler, compiles the script into a format the computer can understand. ok, class, this is a DISK DRIVE . . .
sheesh, i thought this was
(actually, it must be -- even *I* am complaining about the summaries...)
mr c
Also, don't forget that in some states, the electric co pays a cheaper rate for energy flowing back into the grid. in st louis, i think a kW is around $.08 -- i understand that they pay $.02 for it.
makes it a bit harder to regain on the investment.
mr c
although the summary focused on the "guarantee" of security joost represented for viacom, i think the one-sided distribution model is the big difference. i think, fundamentally, google's business plan revolves around letting end users become the content providers, and google just indexes all of the content -- they make it possible to navigate. this is a view orthogonal to what we're seeing with the media companies, of course. they want to create the content, own it, and control it. they don't want to sell it, but to license it.
the problem, of course, is a matter of generating quality content from the user side.
1/3 of the content i "consume" is probably user-generated. if it weren't for movies/netflix, and television bits on youtube, it would be much closer to 100%. i can certainly envision a future where it becomes more and more fragmented as the tools to generate content become cheaper and cheaper.
mr c
"who cares if we find a cure for lung cancer if people smoke more and more cigarettes?"
of course i am for more efficient uses of energy, etc. but i don't think we're *addressing* the real crisis: our reckless use of our resources. also, i put forth a crude theory that, as a species, we're *unable* to effectively do so.
how many people here would, if they were a CEO or politician, would get up in front of the public or board members and say, "if we tighten our belts, and accept cut backs in our way of life, accept smaller profits, we can get our society back on track for a brighter, sustainable future."?
if you answered no, you're pretty much everybody. if you answered yes, then you'd be out of a job P.D.Q.
mr c
yes, absolutely. oil is the closest thing to free energy we have on this earth -- but only because it is the suns' energy stored up from bazillions or years. of course, we're seeing that it's not really free with the environmental problems, but that's besides the point. a gallon of oil contains quite a bit of energy, not to say all the stuff that can be made from it.
but hydrogen is not energy. we still need the energy to prepare the hydrogen for consumption. biodiesel is not free energy. the consequences of farming the amount of land to grow the crops to generate the biodiesel will have negative environmental effects (supposedly this is happening in mexico with corn flour being used for ethanol). wind power, hydroplants, and solar power are a good sources, but how much energy can we really generate with these methods, and, what large scale impacts will they have on the environment? (for example, if we covered a coast with wind turbines, how would that slow down the wind -- how would that affect the weather inland?)
as i understand it, nuclear is really the closest thing we have to free energy. the only risk, as i understand, are meltdown (cherynobl) and what to do with the waste. (in hindsight) cherynobl was of a design that should've never been built in the first place. i think that we could feasibly engineer a solution to the waste problem -- not ideal, but a lot better than the course we're on now -- energy and environmental crisis.
and i'm burning it up at a pretty good clip. i have a small, drafty flat in saint louis, where it's pretty cold this week, and my super old inefficient furnace is running quite a bit burning off fuel. i've been burning about 10 gallons of gas in my old car with a slipping transmission driving around to school, because it's too cold to ride my motorcycle, and saint louis is notorious (as a lot of american cities) for its bad public transit.
i plan on buying a house, and the first order of business is to insulate the hell out of it. not the best thing aesthetically (saint louis buildings are beautiful when you expose the interior brick, but very efficient -- at conducting heat that is). even if we don't run out of energy, the price is going to go up and up and up.
it will be the failure of our species that we blindly burned it all off, and let a few people decide our energy policy for their own profit (i at least hope they're profiting, otherwise they're just dumb). oh, sorry. depressing cold day again.
it's getting better, tho. my girl brought home some 1/2 off valentines chocolate. mmmmm, chocolate.
mr c
we've seen a lot of "new energy" stories on /. today, and there's been a lot of talk in the media lately, too. but NO ONE is talking about conserving energy. of course, this is an american perspective, and self-constraint is unamerican as it gets.
who cares if we figure out, say, how to meet 10% of our energy needs with new tech when our consumption rises 10% (or more).
a lot of "new energy" isn't really energy. as others have pointed out, hydrogen, is really just a way to transport energy.
it occurred to me recently, that, collectively, humans are like any other organism. we cannot control ourselves from the inside (something to do with goedels theorem maybe), and thus we will overrun the planet until we choke on ourselves -- or run out of energy. so i don't worry about it too much.
oh. whoops. depressing cold day here in st louis today.
mr c
and it seems that, in general, this ruling is un-european. it almost seems like their anti-american brain beat out their pro-european brain with this ruling.
mr c
i guess there's no way to say conclusively without doing some bazillion dollar research project, and perhaps i'm overly optimistic. i just think most people that have the money to spend anyway, will spend some for the convenience and consistency. note that this implies that people who don't have the money to spend can't buy it anyway. i know i mainly listened to crappy cassette mix tapes when i was a punkrock kid in the '80's. 1) i couldn't afford to spend money on music 2)it wasn't available at the local wal-mart.
mr c
i get your point, but no one pays for television anyway. advertising does. tv won't go away, but it may have to change dramatically.
i think the parent was coming from the viewpoint that music is shared more than movies on p2p nets. this probably has more to do with bandwidth than demand (ie. it could change when the "pipes" get bigger), so your point about movies is legitimate.
also, to be clear, we're not talking about "pirated" in the true sense of the word here (people who copy media wholesale and sell off the copies for profit -- like counterfeiting) -- we're talking about filesharing. no one profits off this (unless the people who distribute the clients are taking donations or selling advertising).
right now, i use netflix, and love it. if netflix is able to provide an "on demand" service where i just download the movie, that would be incredible. i would pay for it, and i think most people would.
i don't think most people who download from p2p nets do so because they refuse to pay for something, i think that it's because there's no middle ground reasonable option. iTMS is one, and it's very successful.
most of the people damning file sharing do so by taking the line that we, as consumers, should just suck it up and take whatever we're given, and pay whatever we're told, or just go without. this wasn't an invalid stance 20-30 years ago, but it is now -- the modes of distribution of information are changing.
mr c
i'm sorry, i just don't see this as any reason for someone to step down. granted, i'm not used to brushing elbows with ceo's and hanging out in boardrooms, so i don't know how those social circles work, but i always imagined them as an "ol boys club" of sorts. i just can't see that he was under any real pressure to step down.
i just wonder if he was quietly wishing he could retire, or he was on the outs for some other reason, and this was just an excuse.
i assumed the 2 megabuck payout was kinduva acknowledgement that they got some publicity, "and, hey, it's pocket change" sort of a thing.
it just seems so implausible that they really freaked out about. then again, maybe they grew up with (and agreed with) mcarthurism . . .
mr c
the thing to keep in mind is the definition of "evil". in consumerist america, that usually means whether the company has the consumers' interest at heart. when i'm using windows, i don't feel like microsoft gives a rats' shit about me. they care more about MSN, or their deal with company X, or whatever. when I use os x, i feel that apple has put a lot of thought into how a customer, like myself, uses the computer and the os.
both companies could be committing horrible atrocities against freedom and humanity, for all i know (and I'm not downplaying that), but from a user-experience standpoint, microsoft *is* evil, and apple (and google for that matter) come out looking good.
user experience, in my mind, is at the heart of this debate.
mr c
saying ipods will become flash-based is like saying all houses will eventually have indoor plumbing after it had been installed.
but i thought usb drives were an indication of the state of the art with the stuff. i see 4G drives now, and that's what the nano ipods are. how are they going to make this huge jump from 4G to 64G within a year -- and keep it affordable?
mr c
i never considered that someone who bought the iphone would want an ipod, too. as far as i'm concerned, i want less gadgets in my pocket, not more. i certainly wouldn't want to lug around another ipod just for archiving -- and if the ipod just stays at home, why wouldn't i archive to my laptop or desktop?
mr c
I think what the parent was getting at is that yes, while windows has a larger market share for desktop OS, Apple iPod (and thus, fairplay) has a larger market share as far as DRM'ed media goes.
So yes, it would make sense from this logic that windows has more viruses, and fairplay has more cracks -- both based on market share.
mr c
I think the problem they are experiencing is the high voltage for the LCD screen backlight shorting onto the notebook chasis.
i think you meant Vrms*2*(2^(1/2)) for Vp-p. Vrms*(2^(1/2)) gives Vp. Vp is voltage of peak referenced to ground (unipolar). you have to double that to get voltage of the peak referenced to the the "other" peak -- Vpp (bipolar) .
65*2*1.414 does equal 183.8, so maybe that could be it. but where in the hell is the 65 Vrms coming from in a laptop? seems like your suggestion about the lamp makes sense.
mr c