I've been gifted a Shuffle, and I've gifted iPod nanos to two people. And I'd bought a regular iPod which I later sold....
So, technically, I purchased 4 iPods according to Apple. There you go, skewing of stats, right there.
No, you silly person. According to Apple you've bought... uh... [takes off shoes and socks]... 50 iPods!
Divide the number of iPods sold (100,000,000) and divide by "millions" of customers (2,000,000) which yields 50. You have bought 50 iPods
Seriously, pondering the disposition of many of those 100 million iPods was the true exercise of TFA. Aside from Steve Job's reference to "millions" there is nothing in the press release that can remotely be construed to represent a realistic number of customers nor how many iPods that people own or use, or have scratched, broke, replaced, lost, or intentionally destroyed.
The purpose of the Apple press release was (surprise!) to impress and assure customers, investors, third party manufacturers, entrepreneurs, and investment capitalists with the fact that they've sold a huge number of gadgets that customers have loaded up with an enormous number of "consumable" items (songs and videos) which in turn has spawned a consumer product "ecosystem" of third part gadgets and do-dads. Impressing nitpicking Slashdot posters is not on the list.
There is no "skewing" going on in the press release: there have been x number of products sold, there are y number of products available at the iTunes Store, and there are z number of third party products. Plus two testimonials. OK here's one potentially skew worthy figure:
[M]ore than 70 percent of 2007-model US automobiles currently offer iPod connectivity.
In order to meet this criteria, all that needs to be added to the car's audio system is an auxiliary IN jack too which I say, it's about bloody time. More's the pity is it's an iPod only connection.
software that automatically generates timely video news bulletins, presented by computer-animated characters...
Great. As if human on screen news announcers aren't superfluous enough.
I often think about the Movie Camera Syndrome exhibited at family picnics when I was a kid. Somebody's aunt or cousin pulls out an 8mm movie camera and points it at kids who are talking or playing animately (no pun intended). The kids promptly stop whatever they're doing and look at the camera with a note of slack jawed interest on their faces.
"Move!" says the camera operator, "this is a movie camera!"
Kids put stupid grins on their faces but do little else except perhaps some unimaginative clowning around.
I get the feeling that this is exactly what happened as televised news broadcasts evolved over the years. At first they were little more than an announcer reading the news just like they did on radio. Except this time they wore makeup and dressed a little better. They add a bit of personality, a touch of humanity, but not much more form or content of a kid at a family picnic.
So what's the point of adding a computer generated avatar? From a geek perspective it's cool but it has little to do with "news".
Which undoubtedly means it will become wildly popular as people pour their creativity energy into avatars. Download 'em! Collect 'em! Trade 'em!
I was going to make a point. Maybe it's something like, "avatars? we don' need no stinkin' avatars!". I think we people like Jon Stewart of The Daily Show and Keith Olbermann of Countdown -- they're "value added" announcers. We certainly need them because what's served up on TV "news" programs is largely fluffy repetitious dreck.
On second thought, maybe avatars are a good idea after all.
I'll just out and say it -- Ken Mingis is just looking for bells & whistles. He's not in search of the 'best' operating system, just looking for the one that can waste CPU cycles while making the user ooh and ahh.
I'll just out and say it -- eldavojohn is just looking for speed because everybody knows that the 'best' OS is the fastest OS. It may take take three weeks and many a trip to a manpage to learn how to get your work done but once you type in that command and hit the enter key, that baby just flies!
Call me when you write an object review. I want to know which of these operating systems will run on my old ass laptop with a low end P4 in it.
Uh... right. Don't call us and we won't call you. Deal?
Congratulations, four pages of inundating me with ads, bitching about UAC & falling head over heels for Aero. Sounds like every other Vista review I've read.
Still here, eldavojohn?
The real thrust of the article (take it from someone who actually read it) is that Vista incorporates features that have been around for years both aesthetically (Mac OS X's entire appearance) and functionally (tabbed web browser, Mac OS X widgets, sidebar) in a typically inferior ham fisted way (UAC versus Mac OS security features that don't need a name).
Author Ken Mingis focused on what well over 90% of computer users think of as an OS, the interface; what it looks like and -- most importantly -- how effective it is in getting work done. Actually, typical computer users don't realize just how ineffective Windows is having never used anything to compare to it. But that's fodder for a different thread.
Microsoft, as usual, is playing catch up. The one comment that Mingis made that sticks out in my minds is that Vista's Flip 3D "wins on aesthetics" over Mac OS X's Exposé. Note that he doesn't compare functionality. If he would have, it's rather clear to me that Microsoft fails. Again. Exposé reveals the entire contents of windows whereas Vista may easily hide crucial information due to the nature of a stack -- which explains the "mess" on many people's non-virtual desktops. Many days have I cursed Microsoft for doing this kind of stuff such as listing full file pathnames left justified in teeny tiny areas of dialog boxes when what I need to know is on the right.
For starters, who's going to draft a Federal Shield Law? Politicians.
We could try to get the RIAA or MPAA to write it but I doubt they're interested.
And who's going to enforce it? Cops. And it's an election year.
Uh... no. This type of law would prevent prosectuters -- District Attorneys or DAs for you CSI types -- from even attempting to get their hands on information on reporters sources. Also, judges will not be able to cite reporters who refuse to divulge such information with contempt and throw them in jail.
Cops don't even enter the picture.
At the very least, a Federal Shield Law would (attempt to) clearly indicate how and when reporters may or may not withhold the identity of their sources. I say "attempt to" because any provisions of the law will themselves be subject to clarification by the Supreme Court. By design, this is how the US legal system works.
"Uh, Mister Vice-President, this graph is based on press conferences in which you repeatedly mentioned Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda in the same breath. It may not have any statistical value."
"Shut up and bring me my war britches, dimwit, the computer never lies!"
In calendar year 2005 (Q2-4 FY2005, Q1 FY2006), Apple unit sales were 4.7 million.
In calendar year 2005, total PC unit sales were 208.6 million.
In calendar year 2005, Microsoft shipped 0 (zero) PC units
You need to break down PC units shipped by manufacturer for a real comparison, but I state the (endlessly repeated) flocking obvious.
Why is it that Mac hardware unit sales get compared to Windows OS unit sales but not Linux OS unit sales and downloads? Obviously because the numbers are less spectacular. Media sensationalization rubs off on us all.
After CPU Mhz, MIPS, MFlops, we need a new dick measuring tool: MSY (Market Share per Year -- pronounced "messy")
Apple's selling plenty to survive as a profitable niche product, sure. But they are competition for Microsoft in the same sense mainframes are.
You can install Windows on a mainframe? Would you want to?
Not all PCs run Windows; many run Linux or some other unix (variants).
Macs run unix (other than OS X) even if there's little reason to do so.
And now Mac can run natively Windows even if a small percentage will do so -- at least in the near future.
Once you eliminate the big market niches, corporate desktops and home game machines, how does Apple's MSY look? (hint: look at video, graphics, and pre-press market "niches.")
Just like Mhz and MIPS, straight forward comparisons of MSY don't reflect underlying subtleties and complexities. But that's as flocking obvious as the fact that somebody drags out MSY figures whenever Apple is the subject of a Slashdot article.
What about the popularity of windows? Does that fit the description of something that "works, but isn't pretty"?
Works? Your Windows works? Mine just lies around the house all day watching TV and eating potato chips. It never washes the dishes -- and laundry? Sheesh! socks and underwear are piled up to here!
As for pretty, well, it should either shave or grow a proper beard. This "grunge" thing is just awful!"
So... that profit figure was damaged considerably by the $10 million or so in IT expenses. Which means -- using a very rough calculation -- profits rose from $16.464 to $16.465, a whopping %.009 (a thousandth of one percent) by eliminating those jobs!
It's amazing BofA showed any growth over the past five years what with carrying the dead weight of 500 IT people!
Seriously. The shuttle program at this point in time is insane. We do not have the technology yet to make space travel cost-effective.
Yes, we do. What we don't have is political commitment for a government backed development (which some may argue is a Good Thing) nor sufficient venture capital available to the private sector to get off the ground floor (if you'll excuse the horrible pun).
Instead of pointlessly doing it wastefully now for no other purpose than habit,
Pointless? Hardly. The Shuttle is the only launch vehicle capable of completing ISS (International Space Station). Whether we're better off ditching the whole ISS/Shuttle program because it's wasteful is a separate, though related, argument.
why not pour all that money into a program to develop new forms of propulsion and energy, and come back to spacefaring when we have a better solution?
This really bears repeating: the viability of a successful space program -- public or private -- has nothing to do with technology; what we have now is totally adequate for the task and has been for at least the last 20 years.
The plea to "come back when..." is a specious bumper sticker argument that emerged in the early 1970's though it usually goes like "... when we've solved the problems here on earth!" as if the space program exists to "solve problems in space". The suggestion that we wait until we've developed "the right" technology betrays enormous ignorance.
As for doing science, an astronaut can stop, look, say "ooh, what an interesting rock!" then walk over, pick it up, and examine it closely with a Mark I eyeball in, what, 30 seconds? It takes days if not weeks for a Mars rover to do the same thing.
So answer me this, earthworm, what "new forms of propulsion and energy" should we wait for? Scramjets? Totally unsuitable. A large, lightweight tank filled with LOX (liquid oxygen) is a far superior solution than a heavy air breathing engine that carries a huge drag penalty. Better to get out of the atmosphere quickly and carry your own oxidizer. LOX is cheap, as is rocket fuel be it RP-1, liquid hydrogen, or whatever.
It's not like sending humans into space serves any real purpose anyway. Robots can carry out virtually everything we need to do for FAR less payload cost. People often whine about the limitations of the robot missions compared to human missions, but these people have simply not thought through the cost-benefit analysis.
As if you have done a thorough analysis? Right. So what benefit are you talking about? Science? Economic return by exploiting an extraterrestrial resource? Human colonization of the solar system?
... If any of the Mars lander people could fill something the size of the shuttle with robot equipment, we'd be able to set up huge self-sustaining robot colonies on Mars easily. Instead, we want to send humans in what will then have to mostly be wasted space.
Why would we build a colony of and, presumably, for robots on Mars? As for any sort of "easy" robotic mission to Mars, forget it. The robotic technology simply does not exist. It's likely, but by no means certain, that the cost of developing the robot technology would be at least as much as it would to develop a human mission. Why? Human beings are a well developed technology; the technology to send humans on long space voyages also exists -- because we've been doing it for over 40 years when we include the Shuttle program. Duh.
Geeks of Slashdot, I bring you the link to The Case for Mars by Robert Zubrin. It's not the latest treatment on a manned Mars mission but it indicates that we've had sufficient technology to begin development of Mars mission at least as early as 1996 when the book was written. Goo
Modem OGR programs can put out plotters and text myth very lithe karma 6 sonny of them can hankie science and math content just as ea. sly.
Otter than a lack of mili nation, what 1s slopping people from buying (or burrowing a leapt up with) someone's e-book & fuming a screen snapper tOCR?
Save the out pull to a PDE 6 you ire do me. You don't even have to pry and cock their protest lion shorn en... Or am I missing smelling hero?
When something like Linux is ported to anything, it's because there is a cult following in the community and this is what they specialize in. Window's has a cult following, it's just not specialized in this sort of development.
It's not the Windows users who are interested in running it on Macs, it's the Mac users. You say:
... Intel Macs are cheaper [sic] than what I can piece together in PC x86 form.
Don't get me wrong, Macs are nice machines but they're not exactly easy to upgrade or fix on your own.
You obviously are not a Mac user.:-j
The vast majority of Mac users don't care much about cheap hardware; otherwise they wouldn't buy Macs in the first place. What they are extremely interested in is running Windows only software on their Macs without buying a Wintel machine. What you should be looking at is the number of users who run Windows on the Macs using Virtual PC plus the number of people who would use Virtual PC if it wasn't just too slow.
That said, Windows running native Intel code on the new Macs under Virtual PC may preclude any need to port Windows to boot on Macs directly. But I doubt it; why pay Microsoft for Virtual PC and a copy of Windows?
In brief, your skepticism is based on a mistaken belief that enthusiasts who want to port Windows to Intel Macs have the same motivation as those who are willing to port Linux to a pair of scissors. A better comparison is the group of Windows and Linux enthusiasts who are drooling at the prospect of finally being able to run Mac OS X on their Intel PC hardware because they don't want to buy Macs.
I'm curious to see if Microsoft figures it would be to their own benefit to directly support Windows on Macs. The implications are huge: why will developers bother to create Mac version of their software if a Windows version will suffice? Would this encourage or discourage Apple and Mac developers encroaching on Microsoft's lucrative productivity application (e.g., Office) market?
The deal to support MS Office on the Mac for five more years seems to be a clear indication that Microsoft is at least keeping their options open. The fact that Apple isn't preventing Windows from running on Intel Macs (yet) clearly indicates that Apple has some confidence another mass exodus of developers from Mac to Windows platform will occur.
Now, as a Java developer I see nothing wrong with this... [Java is] an easy language to pick up
Really? Compared to what?
I'm finding that learning to speak Italian is easier, even though it will take longer. And Italian is a lot more useful for ordering food at a restaurant in Italy. Java is pretty useless in that respect -- even at a Starbucks.
Without the freedom to rethink, for instance, Slashdot's comment threading, or its presentation of search results, or its topic pages, the net effect of a redesign will be considerably less impactful than one might hope for...
Impactful? That one... uh... "word" makes me think I'm not interested in seeing the type of changes the author has in mind for Slashot.
ALONtm is virtually scratch resistant, offers substantial impact resistance, and provides better durability and protection against armor piercing threats, at roughly half the weight and half the thickness of traditional glass transparent armor, said the lieutenant.
[time warp]
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Cupertino CA -- Apple Computer faces rising complaints of "scratches" that reportedly developed on the cases of their iPod Angstrom virtual reality player. The device, which feeds audio, video, and olfactory images directly to the brain, is implanted under the skin behind the ear, remaining there for up to three days. It is this repeated insertion and extraction of the device which causes scratches on the iPod's case.
"The scratches are obvious," say disgruntled user Mitch Burnsome, "I can see them clearly under my microscope, at maginications as low as 20 times. Apple's quality control is dreadful."
Apple responded that the iPod Angstrom case is very durable. "The case is made of ALONtm which is used as armor on tanks and Humvees; it's virtually scratch resistant," said Apple spokesperson Anton Natale. "Steve Jobs has been using a prototype for the past six months and declares that it works so well with his brain that it's 'sanely great'."
Since the release of the iPod Angstrom four hours ago, Apple has sold 7 million units. The price of Apple stock dropped 7% after analysts complained that sales were projected to be 7.1 million units by this time.
Clearly Google's interest in AOL is their huge CD distribution system, widely regarded as the most advanced in the world as demonstrated by my mailbox.
What's so advanced about a room of 10,000 monkeys trained to stuff CDs into shipping packages?:-j
Selling porn to children is something most of us agree is Bad.
But can said Most be able to explain Why? It harms children? How? I've yet to see a satisfactory explanation
The best counter argument I've seen was in a TV program called "The History of Pornagraphy" (something like that). The introductory episode was enough to really put it all into perspective for me.
Pornography, it seems, was invented in Victorian England. No, not erotica, pornography. Erotica titillates and has been around since... well, as long as people's arms have been long enough to reach their genitalia. Pornography is a specific notion that erotica is defacto harmful to women, children, and less than serious minded men.
For some reason there's a general notion that persists in English culture today that it's Bad for people, and especially children, to get too excited. Stimulating wallpaper should never be used in a child's room, nor should they be fed spicy food. I first heard this from someone who was born in the US but her parents emigrated from England. I thought she was joking.
It's all really too bizarre. And since I don't have my references handy, I'll just have to stop here.
When reached Tuesday afternoon, a FEMA spokeswoman said they were aware of the problem and had passed it along to their tech guys to try to resolve the issue.
The spokeswoman I spoke with declined to venture a guess on when the problem might be solved, however.
The unmanned lunar device, in development for two years, is 3 feet tall and weighs approximately 230 pounds. It "hops" by reigniting small propulsion engines.
Slashdot Mirror
So, technically, I purchased 4 iPods according to Apple. There you go, skewing of stats, right there.
No, you silly person. According to Apple you've bought ... uh ... [takes off shoes and socks] ... 50 iPods!
Divide the number of iPods sold (100,000,000) and divide by "millions" of customers (2,000,000) which yields 50. You have bought 50 iPods
Seriously, pondering the disposition of many of those 100 million iPods was the true exercise of TFA. Aside from Steve Job's reference to "millions" there is nothing in the press release that can remotely be construed to represent a realistic number of customers nor how many iPods that people own or use, or have scratched, broke, replaced, lost, or intentionally destroyed.
The purpose of the Apple press release was (surprise!) to impress and assure customers, investors, third party manufacturers, entrepreneurs, and investment capitalists with the fact that they've sold a huge number of gadgets that customers have loaded up with an enormous number of "consumable" items (songs and videos) which in turn has spawned a consumer product "ecosystem" of third part gadgets and do-dads. Impressing nitpicking Slashdot posters is not on the list.
There is no "skewing" going on in the press release: there have been x number of products sold, there are y number of products available at the iTunes Store, and there are z number of third party products. Plus two testimonials. OK here's one potentially skew worthy figure:
[M]ore than 70 percent of 2007-model US automobiles currently offer iPod connectivity.In order to meet this criteria, all that needs to be added to the car's audio system is an auxiliary IN jack too which I say, it's about bloody time. More's the pity is it's an iPod only connection.
Great. As if human on screen news announcers aren't superfluous enough.
I often think about the Movie Camera Syndrome exhibited at family picnics when I was a kid. Somebody's aunt or cousin pulls out an 8mm movie camera and points it at kids who are talking or playing animately (no pun intended). The kids promptly stop whatever they're doing and look at the camera with a note of slack jawed interest on their faces.
"Move!" says the camera operator, "this is a movie camera!"
Kids put stupid grins on their faces but do little else except perhaps some unimaginative clowning around.
I get the feeling that this is exactly what happened as televised news broadcasts evolved over the years. At first they were little more than an announcer reading the news just like they did on radio. Except this time they wore makeup and dressed a little better. They add a bit of personality, a touch of humanity, but not much more form or content of a kid at a family picnic.
So what's the point of adding a computer generated avatar? From a geek perspective it's cool but it has little to do with "news".
Which undoubtedly means it will become wildly popular as people pour their creativity energy into avatars. Download 'em! Collect 'em! Trade 'em!
I was going to make a point. Maybe it's something like, "avatars? we don' need no stinkin' avatars!". I think we people like Jon Stewart of The Daily Show and Keith Olbermann of Countdown -- they're "value added" announcers. We certainly need them because what's served up on TV "news" programs is largely fluffy repetitious dreck.
On second thought, maybe avatars are a good idea after all.
Neither do I.
As for young female cadets in mini skirts...
eldavojohn (898314) wrote:
I'll just out and say it -- eldavojohn is just looking for speed because everybody knows that the 'best' OS is the fastest OS. It may take take three weeks and many a trip to a manpage to learn how to get your work done but once you type in that command and hit the enter key, that baby just flies!
Uh... right. Don't call us and we won't call you. Deal?
Still here, eldavojohn?
The real thrust of the article (take it from someone who actually read it) is that Vista incorporates features that have been around for years both aesthetically (Mac OS X's entire appearance) and functionally (tabbed web browser, Mac OS X widgets, sidebar) in a typically inferior ham fisted way (UAC versus Mac OS security features that don't need a name).
Author Ken Mingis focused on what well over 90% of computer users think of as an OS, the interface; what it looks like and -- most importantly -- how effective it is in getting work done. Actually, typical computer users don't realize just how ineffective Windows is having never used anything to compare to it. But that's fodder for a different thread.
Microsoft, as usual, is playing catch up. The one comment that Mingis made that sticks out in my minds is that Vista's Flip 3D "wins on aesthetics" over Mac OS X's Exposé. Note that he doesn't compare functionality. If he would have, it's rather clear to me that Microsoft fails. Again. Exposé reveals the entire contents of windows whereas Vista may easily hide crucial information due to the nature of a stack -- which explains the "mess" on many people's non-virtual desktops. Many days have I cursed Microsoft for doing this kind of stuff such as listing full file pathnames left justified in teeny tiny areas of dialog boxes when what I need to know is on the right.Only if you continue to smell your own farts.
We could try to get the RIAA or MPAA to write it but I doubt they're interested.
Uh... no. This type of law would prevent prosectuters -- District Attorneys or DAs for you CSI types -- from even attempting to get their hands on information on reporters sources. Also, judges will not be able to cite reporters who refuse to divulge such information with contempt and throw them in jail.
Cops don't even enter the picture.
At the very least, a Federal Shield Law would (attempt to) clearly indicate how and when reporters may or may not withhold the identity of their sources. I say "attempt to" because any provisions of the law will themselves be subject to clarification by the Supreme Court. By design, this is how the US legal system works.
"... That's my job!"
In calendar year 2005, Microsoft shipped 0 (zero) PC units
You need to break down PC units shipped by manufacturer for a real comparison, but I state the (endlessly repeated) flocking obvious.
Why is it that Mac hardware unit sales get compared to Windows OS unit sales but not Linux OS unit sales and downloads? Obviously because the numbers are less spectacular. Media sensationalization rubs off on us all.
After CPU Mhz, MIPS, MFlops, we need a new dick measuring tool: MSY (Market Share per Year -- pronounced "messy")
You can install Windows on a mainframe? Would you want to?
Just like Mhz and MIPS, straight forward comparisons of MSY don't reflect underlying subtleties and complexities. But that's as flocking obvious as the fact that somebody drags out MSY figures whenever Apple is the subject of a Slashdot article.
Works? Your Windows works? Mine just lies around the house all day watching TV and eating potato chips. It never washes the dishes -- and laundry? Sheesh! socks and underwear are piled up to here!
As for pretty, well, it should either shave or grow a proper beard. This "grunge" thing is just awful!"
Translation: I enjoyed working with other people at the RIAA who were pulling down six to eight figure incomes -- like me!
Translation: I don't like the iPod because I'm not getting a piece of the action.
My reaction: the iPod is too small? What is big enough? Vinyl? Now there's twelve inches of love, baby!
From TFA:
BofA estimates that outsourcing has allowed the bank to save about $100 million over the past five years.
From Fortune 500:
So... that profit figure was damaged considerably by the $10 million or so in IT expenses. Which means -- using a very rough calculation -- profits rose from $16.464 to $16.465, a whopping %.009 (a thousandth of one percent) by eliminating those jobs!
It's amazing BofA showed any growth over the past five years what with carrying the dead weight of 500 IT people!
Yes, we do. What we don't have is political commitment for a government backed development (which some may argue is a Good Thing) nor sufficient venture capital available to the private sector to get off the ground floor (if you'll excuse the horrible pun).
Instead of pointlessly doing it wastefully now for no other purpose than habit,
Pointless? Hardly. The Shuttle is the only launch vehicle capable of completing ISS (International Space Station). Whether we're better off ditching the whole ISS/Shuttle program because it's wasteful is a separate, though related, argument.
why not pour all that money into a program to develop new forms of propulsion and energy, and come back to spacefaring when we have a better solution?
This really bears repeating: the viability of a successful space program -- public or private -- has nothing to do with technology; what we have now is totally adequate for the task and has been for at least the last 20 years.
The plea to "come back when..." is a specious bumper sticker argument that emerged in the early 1970's though it usually goes like "... when we've solved the problems here on earth!" as if the space program exists to "solve problems in space". The suggestion that we wait until we've developed "the right" technology betrays enormous ignorance.
As for doing science, an astronaut can stop, look, say "ooh, what an interesting rock!" then walk over, pick it up, and examine it closely with a Mark I eyeball in, what, 30 seconds? It takes days if not weeks for a Mars rover to do the same thing.
So answer me this, earthworm, what "new forms of propulsion and energy" should we wait for? Scramjets? Totally unsuitable. A large, lightweight tank filled with LOX (liquid oxygen) is a far superior solution than a heavy air breathing engine that carries a huge drag penalty. Better to get out of the atmosphere quickly and carry your own oxidizer. LOX is cheap, as is rocket fuel be it RP-1, liquid hydrogen, or whatever.
It's not like sending humans into space serves any real purpose anyway. Robots can carry out virtually everything we need to do for FAR less payload cost. People often whine about the limitations of the robot missions compared to human missions, but these people have simply not thought through the cost-benefit analysis.
As if you have done a thorough analysis? Right. So what benefit are you talking about? Science? Economic return by exploiting an extraterrestrial resource? Human colonization of the solar system?
Why would we build a colony of and, presumably, for robots on Mars? As for any sort of "easy" robotic mission to Mars, forget it. The robotic technology simply does not exist. It's likely, but by no means certain, that the cost of developing the robot technology would be at least as much as it would to develop a human mission. Why? Human beings are a well developed technology; the technology to send humans on long space voyages also exists -- because we've been doing it for over 40 years when we include the Shuttle program. Duh.
Geeks of Slashdot, I bring you the link to The Case for Mars by Robert Zubrin. It's not the latest treatment on a manned Mars mission but it indicates that we've had sufficient technology to begin development of Mars mission at least as early as 1996 when the book was written. Goo
Yep. Them OGR pro grams gork real food.
WHAT DID YOU SAY? I CAN'T HEAR YOU OVER THE FAN NOISE OF MY MEDIA PC!
It's not the Windows users who are interested in running it on Macs, it's the Mac users. You say:
Don't get me wrong, Macs are nice machines but they're not exactly easy to upgrade or fix on your own.
You obviously are not a Mac user. :-j
The vast majority of Mac users don't care much about cheap hardware; otherwise they wouldn't buy Macs in the first place. What they are extremely interested in is running Windows only software on their Macs without buying a Wintel machine. What you should be looking at is the number of users who run Windows on the Macs using Virtual PC plus the number of people who would use Virtual PC if it wasn't just too slow.
That said, Windows running native Intel code on the new Macs under Virtual PC may preclude any need to port Windows to boot on Macs directly. But I doubt it; why pay Microsoft for Virtual PC and a copy of Windows?
In brief, your skepticism is based on a mistaken belief that enthusiasts who want to port Windows to Intel Macs have the same motivation as those who are willing to port Linux to a pair of scissors. A better comparison is the group of Windows and Linux enthusiasts who are drooling at the prospect of finally being able to run Mac OS X on their Intel PC hardware because they don't want to buy Macs.
I'm curious to see if Microsoft figures it would be to their own benefit to directly support Windows on Macs. The implications are huge: why will developers bother to create Mac version of their software if a Windows version will suffice? Would this encourage or discourage Apple and Mac developers encroaching on Microsoft's lucrative productivity application (e.g., Office) market?
The deal to support MS Office on the Mac for five more years seems to be a clear indication that Microsoft is at least keeping their options open. The fact that Apple isn't preventing Windows from running on Intel Macs (yet) clearly indicates that Apple has some confidence another mass exodus of developers from Mac to Windows platform will occur.
Interesting times lie ahead.
Dude, you should try emptying the Trash.
Hold on ... 40% of 620GB ... means you have about almost 250GB free. And you're complaining?
But I guess not everyone regularly edits and encodes video on their computers, or routes their entire entertainment system through their computers.Oh.
Never mind.
Really? Compared to what?
I'm finding that learning to speak Italian is easier, even though it will take longer. And Italian is a lot more useful for ordering food at a restaurant in Italy. Java is pretty useless in that respect -- even at a Starbucks.
Disambiguation? Couldn't that refer to a number of different things?
:-j
TFA says:
Without the freedom to rethink, for instance, Slashdot's comment threading, or its presentation of search results, or its topic pages, the net effect of a redesign will be considerably less impactful than one might hope forImpactful? That one ... uh ... "word" makes me think I'm not interested in seeing the type of changes the author has in mind for Slashot.
[time warp]
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Cupertino CA -- Apple Computer faces rising complaints of "scratches" that reportedly developed on the cases of their iPod Angstrom virtual reality player. The device, which feeds audio, video, and olfactory images directly to the brain, is implanted under the skin behind the ear, remaining there for up to three days. It is this repeated insertion and extraction of the device which causes scratches on the iPod's case.
"The scratches are obvious," say disgruntled user Mitch Burnsome, "I can see them clearly under my microscope, at maginications as low as 20 times. Apple's quality control is dreadful."
Apple responded that the iPod Angstrom case is very durable. "The case is made of ALONtm which is used as armor on tanks and Humvees; it's virtually scratch resistant," said Apple spokesperson Anton Natale. "Steve Jobs has been using a prototype for the past six months and declares that it works so well with his brain that it's 'sanely great'."
Since the release of the iPod Angstrom four hours ago, Apple has sold 7 million units. The price of Apple stock dropped 7% after analysts complained that sales were projected to be 7.1 million units by this time.
What's so advanced about a room of 10,000 monkeys trained to stuff CDs into shipping packages? :-j
But can said Most be able to explain Why? It harms children? How? I've yet to see a satisfactory explanation
The best counter argument I've seen was in a TV program called "The History of Pornagraphy" (something like that). The introductory episode was enough to really put it all into perspective for me.
Pornography, it seems, was invented in Victorian England. No, not erotica, pornography. Erotica titillates and has been around since... well, as long as people's arms have been long enough to reach their genitalia. Pornography is a specific notion that erotica is defacto harmful to women, children, and less than serious minded men.
For some reason there's a general notion that persists in English culture today that it's Bad for people, and especially children, to get too excited. Stimulating wallpaper should never be used in a child's room, nor should they be fed spicy food. I first heard this from someone who was born in the US but her parents emigrated from England. I thought she was joking.
It's all really too bizarre. And since I don't have my references handy, I'll just have to stop here.
I'll let Daffy speak for me.
That's nothing. From the article:
The development -- which has a patent pending -- has implications for speech recognitionDo you realize the implications? Every child who learns how to talk will have to pay licensing fees!
I did:
Penguin? Sounds a lot more like a blast-ended skrewt to me.