If you get this book try and find the one with the CD attached - it has some very interesting videos on it about space manufacturing and the proposed colonies. I believe that I found it on Amazon.
It seems to me that unless we develop the technologies required to provide the shielding afforded by 100 miles of atmosphere and/or propulsion to cut the trip time significantly, then a trip to Mars is a suicide mission.
IANAP (I Am Not A Physicist) but from the best I understand, nuclear rockets (Nerva?) would solve the first problem and water would solve the second.
Put the water supply in the skin of the ship to a certain thickness and it'll block the radiation effectively.
I'm just not good enough at math or Physics to calculate how much water would be needed.:-/
However, if they'd be on such a long trip -- timing will have to be a lot more precise.
I didn't understand half the math in The Case for Mars but the author explains in detail how the route could be planned to be both low cost and safe from radiation.
Part of the problem here is that space exploration is inherently dangerous and risky. There is no way you will ever remove all of the risk -- and because of this there will be future accidents and loss of life while we explore the stars. The men and women who volunteer to do this are extremely courageous individuals that should be honored and thanked many times over. Each time a shuttle goes up, there are a million ways something can go wrong yet only one way everything can go perfectly. NASA, along with the government and general public, must understand that although the risks associated with space flight are huge, the potential rewards are far greater. Hopefully our government will give NASA the funding needed to develop a better way to put people in orbit. Until that time, we must realize that there are risks associated with each launch but we must keep aiming for the stars because, in the long run, humanity stands to gain far more than the risks from occasional loss of life that occur when something goes horribly wrong.
While I agree with you and my heart desperately wants to see us leave these bonds of earth, we have become creatures of complacency.
That complacency is put in place by those in power.
That complacency lines their pockets, funds their wars, and feeds the chains that hold us in check.
That complacency will kill us in the end.
It's not the risks that bind us to the ground but the fear of them that is blown out of proportion to cause us to shrink back into our soft blankets of complacency. And those that line their pockets from us are just fine with that.
We should not be fine with that...
If just one quarter of the US marched on Washington and said "Send us to the stars!" their hold on us might be broken and we might waken from our complacency. I can only hope that I will be one of those 25%.
where does that "several billion dollars" stat come from?
I was making a rough estimate based on the fact that Microsoft is a billion dollar corporation which includes things like large buildings, multi-million dollar networking and communications structures, and marketing droids out the wazoo. Let's not forget their stunning legal team.
By contrast the Firefox developers are a loosly knit group of people connected via e-mail, IRC, and CVS and have a relatively inexpensive infrastructure.
Thus the comparison...
Admittedly I do not know the number of Microsoft developers versus Firefox developers but I'm betting that the Microsoft developers make metric tons more money.;-)
What is the problem with fire fox on and ebay? I saw the ebay listing fine with fire fox.
E-Bay lately has had a tendency to use some IE specific cr@p in their listings so that funky things happen. For instance it often won't load an item description/page when I'm logged in and looking at MyEbay.
They're not raising their own prices, they're raising the price they sell domains to companies like Dotster. When you buy something through them you pay $9 (or whatever) per year, of which $4.25 goes to verisign since they need *some* money to run the physical infrastructure for handling all of the lookups. So for dotster to keep their $5 per domain profit margin they'll have to raise their rates by as much as whatever verisign increases their price by.
Bah. I was not aware they were doing that. That'll teach me to learn more about TLDs and DNS. Blah.
How is this going to affect people like Dotster, etc.?
I have a.com and a.net and I personally don't want to be forced into paying more indirectly because of Verisign.
I'm curious as to why this is a big deal if it only affects their customers - they would just be pricing themselves out of existence. Or have I missed something as usual?
That just paranoid. I resolve things with people who are working for me in person because its quicker than going back and forth in email. Often my concern is making sure that we are on the same page on issues NOW, not later after someone has made a mistake (either technical or political). I'm not doing it to prevent some kind of paper trail.
As someone who has worked for several corporate entities among other things - you are taking a risk with your job if you do not keep a written record of everything that is asked of you or said to you.
More than once certain corporate minions tried to get rid of me because I stood up to their bullying and annoyance. Due to a good "paper trail" I'm still around and doing fine.
Also, Fansubbers tend to do a much better job at subbing than what the industry gives us. The only saving grace for the anime industry in America is that they dub the series, unfortunatly 99% of those dubs suck due to the hiring of cheap or inexperienced voice actors and poor casting.
It's gotten better over the years. Watch something like Ghost In The Shell or Wolf's Rain and then go dig up a copy of Outlanders. The latter is horribly hard to watch in dubbed form - it's bad enough to make even the most fanatical Otaku cringe.;-)
It's a shame too because the story by Johji Manabe was actually pretty good.
I think if they would have given the anime to a series like MST3K for anime, they would have had a much grander audience..... of course it would probably have ended up on something like the Spice Channel for G33KS.
Way back in the mists of history I recall seeing Dirty Pair videos done by a group called Pinesalad Productions. Completely spoofed translation and audio but they were funny as all hell.;-)
Hmm...apparently that's not that obscure a reference.
Let's take an ecosystem that we have less than say 25% (I'm being pessimistic here) total knowledge of and make a change to it's primary motivaional force.
In my opinion that's a Bad Idea(tm). That's like taking a precision built racecar engine and putting a thick wooden filter in the fuel line. (Yep...bad idea.)
On the flipside we could build the ring of ships so that they could house people long-term in space thus semi-satisfying the "eggs in one basket" hazard. Continuous upgrades and you could have ships that could leave earth orbit to colonize the solar system as they are replaced.
I still can't help but think it's a bad idea though...too many "coulds"...
That's bullshit... that's like saying Smith and Wesson is liable for my illegal shooting spree (mass ass cap-busting). If we can't hold gun manufacturers liable for drive-bys, hold-ups, and freeway shootings, what then? I'm curious to know what benefits the judge or 'other related parties' are getting in return for this ruling.
Give them time. The only reason that the gun lobby is so strong is the current administration. Once they are out of the picture, (yeah...right...maybe in ten years), they will try and do the same thing to the gun manufacturers. "To protect the children!"
You're playing word games. "Style" refers to look. When you talk about the "styling" of a car, you're referring to looks. You said the Mactel systems have no style --- the words you used referred to its look. You can't go and try to add terms to the definition of "stle".
How can something be messy and empty at the same time? There is no mess in the ThinkSecret pictures, empty is right, but a stark, empty interior fits quite well with Apple's overall style. Besides, how many Mac users look inside their case?
Unkempt wiring == messy. Big unfilled space == empty. As for people looking in their case - c'mon! It's got a frigging clear window on the side!
The fact that you have to put "balance" in quotes implies that even you don't know what you're referring to.
I was using the quotation marks to highlight the word not to indicate it was something less than actual. Perhaps that was a poor choice on my part so I will explain. Balance is not always a hard and fast thing and in this case I was referring to the balance between the four factors I mentioned before - functionality, efficiency, ease of use/maintenance, and balance of internal and external structure. I'm going to assume you're complaining about the last one in that list. What I meant by that was not having too much or too little inside or outside of the system. The G5's have just the right amount. The internals of the system are complete but not overfilled. The developer system is by contrast strikingly empty. Remember that perception is everything to a user - "Awfully little in that case for $1800."
It's fluffy nonesense because your logic is completely convoluted. You're conflating "style" (which, from your average user's point of view, refers to the exterior since they never open the case) with "usability". You're referring to some "balance" between elements that you cannot define. "Balance" is something that exists between things, but you can't name what those things are.
As you see above I have adequately named those things I'm referring to as well as defined the connection between style and design. You seem intent on attacking my verbage rather than my arguments.
Worse of all, you're treating an early developer's kit as a final product!
Of this I am guilty. But often the apple doesn't fall too far from the tree in my opinion and I will be happily surpised with a revised design from Apple that fixes these problems.
What the hell are you talking about? How does "ease of use" have anything to do with "style"?
Ease of use has everything to do with style. A well designed piece of equipment that is suited to a particular task or set of tasks is by definition designed to perform those tasks with a minumum of fuss and confusion for the person using it. Are people comfortable in badly "styled" chairs? Keyboards? Mice? It matters in more ways that you think.
And how does switching to x86 change anything of the things you mentioned.
Compare the development system pictures with pictures of the current G5 towers. What do you see? When you look at the G5 it looks complete. It looks like a fully filled out system with nothing out of place. Everything is tied and routed nicely and looks clean.
By comparison the Mactel system looks empty. It's wires are strewn around the case loosly. Not well routed.
What does this have to do with "style" among other things? Simple - perception of the user.
Anyone who's done any sort of user support or helpdesk or field service of PCs knows that perception is everything to a user. Sad but true. This machine in it's present form would be percieved as "messy", "empty", and "confusing" just by looking through the side plastic of the case. Users 99% of the time don't like "messy" or "confusing". I can tell you from experience that this will cause all sorts of user issues with the machine. "I paid $big_dollars for that?" is just one reaction right off the top of my head.
What sort of "balance" are you talking about anyway? It sounds like a bunch of fluffy nonesense.
Proper design is a "balance" of all the factors I mentioned and probably quite more that I can't recall at the moment. I am not a designer of anything but my own systems at home. I have however watched system design change inside and outside for the last 15+ years. I've seen all manner of things that don't work. The current Mac designs are some of the best ones I've ever seen. They achieve that balance I spoke of earlier. These development systems - if they represent something close to the final product - IMHO do not.
Oh, and just because you can't see the "whole picture" of something does not make it "fluffy nonsense". Why don't you check with some "old school" techs and see how many times they made nothing but a perceptual change that made the user feel better about the system. I'm betting that you'll find most of them had little or no support issues with the user after that even with repeated contact with them.
the key here is that the Power chips power some of the highest margin systems that IBM sells. That is why IBM didn't push for them to be used in Apple computers.
This makes much sense unfortunately. Gotta feed that big blue elephant I guess...:-)
The cases are the same as used in the G5s. How is the style any different?
There's more to a good computer's style than just a good looking case. Apple has for years been producing some of the most innovative works of art the computer industry has ever known.;-)
Truthfully a good computer platform should be:
1) Do what the user needs the system to do. (I'm not talking about "wants" here I'm talking about needs.) 2) Efficient. 3) Easy to use/Easy to maintain. 4) Be a good balance of internal and external structure.
Number 4 can easily interfere with the other three and thus needs to be considered in the design. The "whole" not just the parts needs to be considered and balanced.
Power chips are datacenter chips. they put out assloads of heat. The G5 was derived from the Power4 so apple could have a fast chip (for the time) that would put out a reasonable amount of heat. Using power4 chips directly would not of worked.
I suppose you're right there - Power does put out substantial amounts of heat. Still, if Apple had pushed IBM for a switch to Power I can't help but think that the double push for low-power from both inside and outside would have made IBM move quicker in the R&D area. After all - with lower power/heat CPUs IBM could put more in each supercomputer/workstation.
All this of course makes me wonder why IBM wasn't pushing for Apple to switch to Power CPUs and pushing itself to produce more efficient/cooler Power CPUs at the same time. Not that the supplier usually pushes the buyer to make major changes that is...;-)
I'm a mac supporter, a mac user, a programmer, and definitely a fan. But the bottom line for me is this: This x86 Mac doesn't excite me. Not at all.
Frankly I'm in agreement with you. FWIW I feel no sense of style from these pictures. Nothing that makes a Mac a Mac. Maybe it's just because these are developer systems - who knows.
Don't get me wrong.. I'm glad they switched away from IBM (though the Power chips make me drool)... and I agree that Intel can provide the products and capacity IBM wouldn't.
I'm still kind of mystified that they didn't do something like switch to Power chips. Those would have been just as powerful as PPCs and IBM is ramping up production of those anyway so the shortage issues would have disappeared after not too long a time. Though admittedly there would be more development costs in it for Apple since it's not like x86 where they already had it running in house.
I'm sure future ship-modders will be creating wild ships in ye olde style. As well as neon rims, water-cooled sail retractors, large led-fans with no effect, air tubes to guide the highly efficient space ether to cool the right spots, transparent hulls, chrome plated sails, and paint jobs that'll make the moon cry.
[Future TV Show] "Welcome to Pimp My Starship! Today we're going to take a guy with and old model 3623827 ship and make it so it's 'All that!'" [/Future TV Show]
I have always been facsinated by the idea of solar sails. Something about them seems so elegant and simple. The idea of branching from sailing ships to sailing starships just seems so right to me.
Indeed. And as far as I'm concerned the only thing needed is a good life support plan. (Yeah, I know, Duh!;-) If we were to think on a large enough scale I"m sure it would be doable.
The problem I see now is that $BIG_CORPS don't really see space as profitable yet. If they did we'd almost certainly have a way out there already.
Though like the parent I would just love to see a solar sailing ship in my lifetime. It'd be even cooler if someone made one that looked like the ships of old. (Yes, I know friction in space is still an issue and yes I know it would be anacronistic. But damn it would be cool to see!)
Yes, it would certainly discourge me from hiring someone if THE LOOK LIKE A FREAK! Sorry if I don't want to stare at the chunk of metal hanging out of our face; niether does any client or user.
An the "ultra conservative" award goes to...
Seriously, I don't give a damn what people look like really. If there's a true physical deformity it's hard to remove from your focus because you view it as "damage" and it's either fascinating so you can't look away or horrifying so you can't look at it. Body art despite what people call it is not a physical deformity - it is a chosen modification and in my opinion should be given no more weight in judging people's skills than the kind of watch the person wears or the color of his/her contacts. Either way I have no problem with body modifications though I suppose some people could see those as damage as well.
Tattooes are a little less offensive, although most look like something a sociopath would draw on the walls of his cell.
And who are you to decide what is art and what is garbage? Just asking because I'm certain many artists in their time were condemned as hacks and frauds because their art was not seen as such.
At least the person with the tribal tattoos up both arms is being creative. They chose the artist, they chose the tattoo, and they chose to modify their body. Just by making those choices they are light years ahead of the average sheep-on-the-street who chooses to do nothing and be nothing.
Slashdot Mirror
High Frontier: Human Colonies in Space
If you get this book try and find the one with the CD attached - it has some very interesting videos on it about space manufacturing and the proposed colonies. I believe that I found it on Amazon.
It seems to me that unless we develop the technologies required to provide the shielding afforded by 100 miles of atmosphere and/or propulsion to cut the trip time significantly, then a trip to Mars is a suicide mission.
:-/
IANAP (I Am Not A Physicist) but from the best I understand, nuclear rockets (Nerva?) would solve the first problem and water would solve the second.
Put the water supply in the skin of the ship to a certain thickness and it'll block the radiation effectively.
I'm just not good enough at math or Physics to calculate how much water would be needed.
However, if they'd be on such a long trip -- timing will have to be a lot more precise.
I didn't understand half the math in The Case for Mars but the author explains in detail how the route could be planned to be both low cost and safe from radiation.
I need to read that again...
Part of the problem here is that space exploration is inherently dangerous and risky. There is no way you will ever remove all of the risk -- and because of this there will be future accidents and loss of life while we explore the stars. The men and women who volunteer to do this are extremely courageous individuals that should be honored and thanked many times over. Each time a shuttle goes up, there are a million ways something can go wrong yet only one way everything can go perfectly. NASA, along with the government and general public, must understand that although the risks associated with space flight are huge, the potential rewards are far greater. Hopefully our government will give NASA the funding needed to develop a better way to put people in orbit. Until that time, we must realize that there are risks associated with each launch but we must keep aiming for the stars because, in the long run, humanity stands to gain far more than the risks from occasional loss of life that occur when something goes horribly wrong.
While I agree with you and my heart desperately wants to see us leave these bonds of earth, we have become creatures of complacency.
That complacency is put in place by those in power.
That complacency lines their pockets, funds their wars, and feeds the chains that hold us in check.
That complacency will kill us in the end.
It's not the risks that bind us to the ground but the fear of them that is blown out of proportion to cause us to shrink back into our soft blankets of complacency. And those that line their pockets from us are just fine with that.
We should not be fine with that...
If just one quarter of the US marched on Washington and said "Send us to the stars!" their hold on us might be broken and we might waken from our complacency. I can only hope that I will be one of those 25%.
Probably wishful thinking...
Great actor who played a great character. The episode of TNG that featured Scotty was one of my favorites.
;-)
Indeed. He will be greatly missed.
His character is the one that taught me to "multiple my repair estimates".
where does that "several billion dollars" stat come from?
;-)
I was making a rough estimate based on the fact that Microsoft is a billion dollar corporation which includes things like large buildings, multi-million dollar networking and communications structures, and marketing droids out the wazoo. Let's not forget their stunning legal team.
By contrast the Firefox developers are a loosly knit group of people connected via e-mail, IRC, and CVS and have a relatively inexpensive infrastructure.
Thus the comparison...
Admittedly I do not know the number of Microsoft developers versus Firefox developers but I'm betting that the Microsoft developers make metric tons more money.
Why does IE heading towards its next release trundle, whereas Firefox heading towards its next release moves swiftly?
Both are having a new release that is currently being worked on. What's the difference?
About several billion dollars of developer bloat?
Think of it as moving a large building that's attached to other buildings versus moving say a couple of tractor-trailors.
Not a very accurate analogy but I think you get the point.
What is the problem with fire fox on and ebay? I saw the ebay listing fine with fire fox.
E-Bay lately has had a tendency to use some IE specific cr@p in their listings so that funky things happen. For instance it often won't load an item description/page when I'm logged in and looking at MyEbay.
I've had this confirmed by other people as well.
They're not raising their own prices, they're raising the price they sell domains to companies like Dotster. When you buy something through them you pay $9 (or whatever) per year, of which $4.25 goes to verisign since they need *some* money to run the physical infrastructure for handling all of the lookups. So for dotster to keep their $5 per domain profit margin they'll have to raise their rates by as much as whatever verisign increases their price by.
Bah. I was not aware they were doing that. That'll teach me to learn more about TLDs and DNS. Blah.
This is going to most assuredly suck then.
How is this going to affect people like Dotster, etc.?
.com and a .net and I personally don't want to be forced into paying more indirectly because of Verisign.
I have a
I'm curious as to why this is a big deal if it only affects their customers - they would just be pricing themselves out of existence. Or have I missed something as usual?
That just paranoid. I resolve things with people who are working for me in person because its quicker than going back and forth in email. Often my concern is making sure that we are on the same page on issues NOW, not later after someone has made a mistake (either technical or political). I'm not doing it to prevent some kind of paper trail.
As someone who has worked for several corporate entities among other things - you are taking a risk with your job if you do not keep a written record of everything that is asked of you or said to you.
More than once certain corporate minions tried to get rid of me because I stood up to their bullying and annoyance. Due to a good "paper trail" I'm still around and doing fine.
Also, Fansubbers tend to do a much better job at subbing than what the industry gives us. The only saving grace for the anime industry in America is that they dub the series, unfortunatly 99% of those dubs suck due to the hiring of cheap or inexperienced voice actors and poor casting.
;-)
It's gotten better over the years. Watch something like Ghost In The Shell or Wolf's Rain and then go dig up a copy of Outlanders. The latter is horribly hard to watch in dubbed form - it's bad enough to make even the most fanatical Otaku cringe.
It's a shame too because the story by Johji Manabe was actually pretty good.
I think if they would have given the anime to a series like MST3K for anime, they would have had a much grander audience..... of course it would probably have ended up on something like the Spice Channel for G33KS.
;-)
Way back in the mists of history I recall seeing Dirty Pair videos done by a group called Pinesalad Productions. Completely spoofed translation and audio but they were funny as all hell.
Hmm...apparently that's not that obscure a reference.
Let's take an ecosystem that we have less than say 25% (I'm being pessimistic here) total knowledge of and make a change to it's primary motivaional force.
In my opinion that's a Bad Idea(tm). That's like taking a precision built racecar engine and putting a thick wooden filter in the fuel line. (Yep...bad idea.)
On the flipside we could build the ring of ships so that they could house people long-term in space thus semi-satisfying the "eggs in one basket" hazard. Continuous upgrades and you could have ships that could leave earth orbit to colonize the solar system as they are replaced.
I still can't help but think it's a bad idea though...too many "coulds"...
That's bullshit... that's like saying Smith and Wesson is liable for my illegal shooting spree (mass ass cap-busting). If we can't hold gun manufacturers liable for drive-bys, hold-ups, and freeway shootings, what then? I'm curious to know what benefits the judge or 'other related parties' are getting in return for this ruling.
Give them time. The only reason that the gun lobby is so strong is the current administration. Once they are out of the picture, (yeah...right...maybe in ten years), they will try and do the same thing to the gun manufacturers. "To protect the children!"
You're playing word games. "Style" refers to look. When you talk about the "styling" of a car, you're referring to looks. You said the Mactel systems have no style --- the words you used referred to its look. You can't go and try to add terms to the definition of "stle".
Style - definition number 2
Design - definition number 6
See the connection now?
How can something be messy and empty at the same time? There is no mess in the ThinkSecret pictures, empty is right, but a stark, empty interior fits quite well with Apple's overall style. Besides, how many Mac users look inside their case?
Unkempt wiring == messy. Big unfilled space == empty. As for people looking in their case - c'mon! It's got a frigging clear window on the side!
The fact that you have to put "balance" in quotes implies that even you don't know what you're referring to.
I was using the quotation marks to highlight the word not to indicate it was something less than actual. Perhaps that was a poor choice on my part so I will explain. Balance is not always a hard and fast thing and in this case I was referring to the balance between the four factors I mentioned before - functionality, efficiency, ease of use/maintenance, and balance of internal and external structure. I'm going to assume you're complaining about the last one in that list. What I meant by that was not having too much or too little inside or outside of the system. The G5's have just the right amount. The internals of the system are complete but not overfilled. The developer system is by contrast strikingly empty. Remember that perception is everything to a user - "Awfully little in that case for $1800."
It's fluffy nonesense because your logic is completely convoluted. You're conflating "style" (which, from your average user's point of view, refers to the exterior since they never open the case) with "usability". You're referring to some "balance" between elements that you cannot define. "Balance" is something that exists between things, but you can't name what those things are.
As you see above I have adequately named those things I'm referring to as well as defined the connection between style and design. You seem intent on attacking my verbage rather than my arguments.
Worse of all, you're treating an early developer's kit as a final product!
Of this I am guilty. But often the apple doesn't fall too far from the tree in my opinion and I will be happily surpised with a revised design from Apple that fixes these problems.
What the hell are you talking about? How does "ease of use" have anything to do with "style"?
Ease of use has everything to do with style. A well designed piece of equipment that is suited to a particular task or set of tasks is by definition designed to perform those tasks with a minumum of fuss and confusion for the person using it. Are people comfortable in badly "styled" chairs? Keyboards? Mice? It matters in more ways that you think.
And how does switching to x86 change anything of the things you mentioned.
Compare the development system pictures with pictures of the current G5 towers. What do you see? When you look at the G5 it looks complete. It looks like a fully filled out system with nothing out of place. Everything is tied and routed nicely and looks clean.
By comparison the Mactel system looks empty. It's wires are strewn around the case loosly. Not well routed.
What does this have to do with "style" among other things? Simple - perception of the user.
Anyone who's done any sort of user support or helpdesk or field service of PCs knows that perception is everything to a user. Sad but true. This machine in it's present form would be percieved as "messy", "empty", and "confusing" just by looking through the side plastic of the case. Users 99% of the time don't like "messy" or "confusing". I can tell you from experience that this will cause all sorts of user issues with the machine. "I paid $big_dollars for that?" is just one reaction right off the top of my head.
What sort of "balance" are you talking about anyway? It sounds like a bunch of fluffy nonesense.
Proper design is a "balance" of all the factors I mentioned and probably quite more that I can't recall at the moment. I am not a designer of anything but my own systems at home. I have however watched system design change inside and outside for the last 15+ years. I've seen all manner of things that don't work. The current Mac designs are some of the best ones I've ever seen. They achieve that balance I spoke of earlier. These development systems - if they represent something close to the final product - IMHO do not.
Oh, and just because you can't see the "whole picture" of something does not make it "fluffy nonsense". Why don't you check with some "old school" techs and see how many times they made nothing but a perceptual change that made the user feel better about the system. I'm betting that you'll find most of them had little or no support issues with the user after that even with repeated contact with them.
the key here is that the Power chips power some of the highest margin systems that IBM sells. That is why IBM didn't push for them to be used in Apple computers.
:-)
This makes much sense unfortunately. Gotta feed that big blue elephant I guess...
The cases are the same as used in the G5s. How is the style any different?
;-)
There's more to a good computer's style than just a good looking case. Apple has for years been producing some of the most innovative works of art the computer industry has ever known.
Truthfully a good computer platform should be:
1) Do what the user needs the system to do. (I'm not talking about "wants" here I'm talking about needs.)
2) Efficient.
3) Easy to use/Easy to maintain.
4) Be a good balance of internal and external structure.
Number 4 can easily interfere with the other three and thus needs to be considered in the design. The "whole" not just the parts needs to be considered and balanced.
Power chips are datacenter chips. they put out assloads of heat. The G5 was derived from the Power4 so apple could have a fast chip (for the time) that would put out a reasonable amount of heat. Using power4 chips directly would not of worked.
;-)
I suppose you're right there - Power does put out substantial amounts of heat. Still, if Apple had pushed IBM for a switch to Power I can't help but think that the double push for low-power from both inside and outside would have made IBM move quicker in the R&D area. After all - with lower power/heat CPUs IBM could put more in each supercomputer/workstation.
All this of course makes me wonder why IBM wasn't pushing for Apple to switch to Power CPUs and pushing itself to produce more efficient/cooler Power CPUs at the same time. Not that the supplier usually pushes the buyer to make major changes that is...
I'm a mac supporter, a mac user, a programmer, and definitely a fan. But the bottom line for me is this: This x86 Mac doesn't excite me. Not at all.
Frankly I'm in agreement with you. FWIW I feel no sense of style from these pictures. Nothing that makes a Mac a Mac. Maybe it's just because these are developer systems - who knows.
Don't get me wrong.. I'm glad they switched away from IBM (though the Power chips make me drool)... and I agree that Intel can provide the products and capacity IBM wouldn't.
I'm still kind of mystified that they didn't do something like switch to Power chips. Those would have been just as powerful as PPCs and IBM is ramping up production of those anyway so the shortage issues would have disappeared after not too long a time. Though admittedly there would be more development costs in it for Apple since it's not like x86 where they already had it running in house.
I'm sure future ship-modders will be creating wild ships in ye olde style. As well as neon rims, water-cooled sail retractors, large led-fans with no effect, air tubes to guide the highly efficient space ether to cool the right spots, transparent hulls, chrome plated sails, and paint jobs that'll make the moon cry.
:-)
[Future TV Show]
"Welcome to Pimp My Starship! Today we're going to take a guy with and old model 3623827 ship and make it so it's 'All that!'"
[/Future TV Show]
*watches karma go up in flames*
I have always been facsinated by the idea of solar sails. Something about them seems so elegant and simple. The idea of branching from sailing ships to sailing starships just seems so right to me.
;-) If we were to think on a large enough scale I"m sure it would be doable.
Indeed. And as far as I'm concerned the only thing needed is a good life support plan. (Yeah, I know, Duh!
The problem I see now is that $BIG_CORPS don't really see space as profitable yet. If they did we'd almost certainly have a way out there already.
Though like the parent I would just love to see a solar sailing ship in my lifetime. It'd be even cooler if someone made one that looked like the ships of old. (Yes, I know friction in space is still an issue and yes I know it would be anacronistic. But damn it would be cool to see!)
y'all please excuse me, this looks viable...
Or you could reverse it and try questionable billing practices like this guy:
http://www.blars.org/errors/block.html
The subnet I'm on, my ISP, and my corporate connection at work are all blocked by this guy but I refuse to pay his blood money to get off his list.
Yes, it would certainly discourge me from hiring someone if THE LOOK LIKE A FREAK! Sorry if I don't want to stare at the chunk of metal hanging out of our face; niether does any client or user.
An the "ultra conservative" award goes to...
Seriously, I don't give a damn what people look like really. If there's a true physical deformity it's hard to remove from your focus because you view it as "damage" and it's either fascinating so you can't look away or horrifying so you can't look at it. Body art despite what people call it is not a physical deformity - it is a chosen modification and in my opinion should be given no more weight in judging people's skills than the kind of watch the person wears or the color of his/her contacts. Either way I have no problem with body modifications though I suppose some people could see those as damage as well.
Tattooes are a little less offensive, although most look like something a sociopath would draw on the walls of his cell.
And who are you to decide what is art and what is garbage? Just asking because I'm certain many artists in their time were condemned as hacks and frauds because their art was not seen as such.
At least the person with the tribal tattoos up both arms is being creative. They chose the artist, they chose the tattoo, and they chose to modify their body. Just by making those choices they are light years ahead of the average sheep-on-the-street who chooses to do nothing and be nothing.
Just my $.02 worth...