Out of Date and Misinformation.
on
Blu-Ray vs. HD-DVD
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
OMG, this article was singularly the WORSE I've read about the BD/HD-DVD format war yet!
Start with this: "Although it will take a while till they become largely accessible - probably towards the end of 2005, but most likely in 2006..."
HD-DVD will launch in Septmeber 2005 with 80 movies, incuding the Matrix Trilogy and Star Trek First Contact as launch titles!
"As far as entertainment is concerned, the maximum video resolution DVD could provide, 720x480, was shortly overcome by the technological progress pace and technical features of new TVs, multimedia projectors or other image display devices. But the main problem remains the poor security. DeCSS and DivX came as major surprises, and lessened the DVD enthusiasm."
The BEST SELLING FORMAT in the Electronics Industry HISTORY! And enthusiasm was lessened????? Sheesh.
"The future of DVD is still unclear, but what is certain is that a replacement is already needed and looked upon."
With a... what?... 10% install base of HDTV, a replacement is looked upon?? And of that 10% installed base, the MAJORITY does not notice the quality difference between HD and DVD!!
"Blu-Ray - winner before the race is over?"
Blu-WHAT??? Besides technophiles, BD is laregely unknown! HD-DVD, OTOH, has name recognition and will beat BD to market by at least 4 months. Doesn't matter which format is better, it's all about marketing... and the name "HD-DVD" immediately communicates "better than DVD" even to those who have no idea what it really is.
I'm saying all this as one who preferes (via specs and codecs) BD. But HD-DVD has a clear advantage, and I honestly expect it to win.
Regardless, this article had so much misinformation, it was a total crock.
Apple makes money off iTunes (music store / iPods), and they provide security updates for Jaguar (good security means good PR means more OS sales). So they certainly have a reason for these particular updates.
While it certainly is possible Apple will give Panther a Safari 2.0, I wouldn't bet on it. There ain't any money in it for them.
Just an FYI. Apple is VERY Careful about NDAs. A friend of mine did mock-ups for a product (now released), and they were NDA central before the prototype ever entered the building.
While I certainly don't KNOW if Apple employees / contractors all sign an NDA, there is certainly EVIDENCE that they do.
And when you sign an NDA, you give away some of your free speech rights -- willingly.
I don't mind *static*, magazine/newspaper-style ads that sit there in the side column (these can get annoying with T and A type stuff or whatever, but still... in *general*).
The Web is sorta like an "interactive" print media IMHO. We *generally* read static text with the ability to click links and whatnot. But advertisers tend to treat it like Television, with motion ads, flashing ads, sound-enhanced ads, popup ads, etc. etc. It just plain doesn't fit the paradigm.
Maybe instead of annoy people who are reading articles, supplement the articles with paradigm-fitting ads (ie static ads that don't tear attention away from the information content that you're reading). Heck that's how magazines and newspapers work... and work well. Why can't the web?
As a surfer, I know quite a bit about the ocean, so this obviously sparked my interest. As such, I've read the majority of posts, and I've been able to make a simple conclusion about this whole thing...
We have no idea what we're talking about -- we have no idea what these "wave farms" will actually do to the environment!
Most people are just spouting uneducated opinion, and are for the most part completely clueless. Sure most responses look intelligent and well thought out, and they pretty much are. But because we don't know the subject at hand -- and think we do -- puts us one step above throwing darts blindfolded.
Didn't learn much about waves here. Learned a LOT about slashdot.
Okay, so we need to make the waves smaller to slow erosion?
But we have no measured values on how much these things will effect wave size.
And more importantly, you ignore the effect of bottom contouring, energy focus (ie swell direction), and wave behaviour.
As stated previously, these pontoons are 20KM out in the ocean, and they are smaller and have less effect than an island. If you look at the CDIP swell maps for southern California, that San Clemente Island has little or no effect on coastal wave height... The waves WRAP AROUND the islands because they behave like... well waves.
So we can argue all we want about coastal erosion and diminished wave size. But a 3KM wave farm out to sea at 20KM is probably not going to have a huge effect. The waves that miss the farm will simply wrap around and hit the coastline at full force anyway. And this is ONLY when the swell is directed at the coast through the wave farm in the first place. Swells come from many varying directions.
All this to make one simple point... We have no idea what the effect will be.
I think the Altamont wind generators are beautiful.
I'd say the most likely reason we don't sink 'em is that they'd become very difficult to maintain. They also would not be able to spin anywhere near as fast under the water.
"Oh, gee this is a hard one. Would that manmade structure be called... a PIER?" As already pointed out, they are often rebuilt. During the 1983 el nino, almost every single pier in southern California was either totally demolished or suffered extensive damage.
I'm actually smart enough to think of the most obvious manmade coastal structure BEFORE making that challenge...:)
"Wave energy will be focused on the best surf sites..." There is a LOT more to good surf spots than just wave energy focus. Bottom contours play a huge role.
And wave energy is highly variable. Sure, if you put these things immediately in front of a surf spot (meters, not km), they may block it. But at 1 to 2km away, the swells will not be going directly through them every time to reach a surf spot.
And waves behave like, well waves. Drop a rock in a pond and try to block a 1 foot section of the waves from reaching the shore.
San Clemente island does not block swells from reching San Diego, or any other coastal region for that matter Catalina can -- it's much closer -- but only when the swell is a certain direction. Which makes my point that wave energy highly variable (and note that Catalina is a frickin island!).
Aight, I've seen tons of misinformation and bogus speculation here, and I just perused the document!!
(1) The facility is out to sea. Hawaii is the closest at 2.5KM, while California is at 13 to 20 Km.
(2) They are in about 40M of water. Waves break in about 1-4M of water, depending on size.
(3) The things FLOAT on TOP of the water! (The "Pelamis" design does anyway.) They are mored with cable, and are no where near breakers.
(4) They are not so much "wave" energy as "swell" energy (ie waves = coastal, swell = deep ocean).
Huge variation in wave height makes near-shore uneconomical when waves are small (often), and SEVERELY dangerous when large. (Name a man made structure that has withstood BREAKING waves or a sustained period of time.)
Even when waves are small on the coast, deep sea swells still oscillate across the surface unhindered. The point is to harness these oscillations for energy (as far as I can tell).
The environmental impact will be truly negligable, except for moorings and swell energy depleted before it reaches the coastline.
The very environmentally-paranoid surfer in me says... Go for it!
" Those electrical generators are going to TOTALLY kill those waves I wanted to surf. Oh MAN."
Remember, part of being "green" is doing LITTLE or NO damage to the environment!
But rest easy... the CLOSEST facility is 2.5km (HI) from shore, while the CA facility is 13 to 25km from shore. MOST surf spots are a scant 20 to 100 meters from shore. (As a surfer, this is the very first thing I checked in the document!)
I suspect the effect on "my surf spot" will be negligable. And hopefully this will be a viable form of energy that has negligable impact on the ocean environment.
I'm actually talking about HDTV Cable. The FCC mandated that last April *all* cablecos had to deploy a firewire-enabled cable box to allow recording of HDTV. Copy Protection occurs via 5C / DTCP, but some cablecos dont have it on... allowing recording to any firewire capable Mac/PC.
MythTV's features suggest that it will work in this regard (ie "Firewire Enabled"), but I won't know till tonight when I test. The previous software for the Mac was something called VirtualDVHS, a sample program delivered with the Developer Tools... It's beta and leaks memory like crazy... but it works!
So in my case, I actually do not have any tuner card, just a stock Powerbook. I do not watch the HDTV on my screen either. I simply record from the Cable Box and playback to my Firewire-enabled HDTV (or Firewire-enabled D-VHS deck).
USA - we'll help you with technology for nuclear power so you don't need to develop it yourself ...many years later...
Korea - er, hello. where's our help?
USA - fuck you
Korea - fuck you too then
Actually...
Korea - we want to develop nuclear WEAPONS
USA - we will PAY YOU not to develop them, and help you develop power
...immediately afterward...
USA - Here's your check (I recall $2,000,000, but I think that's low).
Korea - THANKS!
... Many years later...
Korea - We want to develop Nuclear WEAPONS
USA - We ain't payin' you this time!
Korea - Fuck you
USA - LET'S NEGOTIATE
Korea - Fuck you
... Nine months Later...
Korea - We got bombs now!
I've gotten facts wrong on posts before, so your post is forgivable. I followed this and supported the Clinton Administration decision to play the "blackmail" money. My thinking: What the hey, it's only money. *shrugs* But all that did was postpone (possibly aid?) Korea's drive for a Nuclear Arsenal.
And it was obvious to me, and the Bush administration -- who actuallly followed/remembered past dealings -- that last year's rumblings from North Korea was just another money blackmail attempt.
So don't just rag on the US and the Bush administration. North Korea is the one making the weapons and using them as a threat... Oh and they have an ICBM capable of striking Japan, who they hate with a passion...
Threads like this end up being relatively reactionary. "OMFG the Government wants to take control us!"
Please consider some important facts.
"Movie Ratings"
The Movie Industry implemented a rating system BECAUSE the Government pressured them to do it. It ain't perfect, but we use it and it generally works. AND there's no fear of censorship (well, except that motivated by money).
The Game Industry simply needs to adopt a standard rating system, adhere to it, and make sure retailers do too. Then there's no censorship (except $$ motivated)... you can make a game any way you want. Parents get some idea of what's in the game beforehand and can decide if they feel it's appropriate for their kids/themselves.
"Forcing their Morality on Kids"
There is no such thing as "FORCING MORALITY" on someone. Don't believe me, go see A Clockwork Orange (with your parents:) ).
Parents influence their children, but they don't make the ultimate moral decisions. If parents feel a game/movie/web site aint appropriate for their children, then it's the parent's RIGHT and RESPONSIBILITY to limit their use (with good communication as to why, IMHO).
This results in influence. And as children grow into adults, they (hopefully) recall this influence... but they ultimately get to decide if they agree with it.
If they don't agree, they don't agree. Period. You can't force them to agree.
So all this to say... Game Industry: Implement a consistent rating system in games and adhere to it... don't have the government do it for you. No, it won't be perfect, but it will probably (for the most part) work.
NASA IS REPLACING HUBBLE ALREADY... and in the interrum Hubble WORKS... and works WELL!!
The new Space Telescope is called "The James Webb Space Telescope." It is (via specs) better than Hubble.
From hubblesite.org/newscenter/newsdesk/future/ "Plans are still underway for the James Webb Space Telescope, Hubble's successor, which would be launched in 2011."
If you guys, and that O'Keefe bozo (formerly) at NASA have their way, a WORKING, and SCIENTIFICALLY SIGNIFICANT telescope will be left to die even while it's STILL producing amazing results!!
And in space, NOTHING is a done deal. Sure we can do better than Hubble. But until said better telescope is in orbit AND working, we need to leave Hubble in place. Otherwise we have a multi-year downtime between two missions... and a potentially LONGER downtime if Webb (et al) fails.
I submitted similar input to NASA during their request for comments about the Hubble-Webb transition.
Please, don't get cocky about this. Sure, we have some high profile successes of late (Mars Rovers, Cassini/Huygens), but before that, NASA's better-faster-cheaper lost two Mars mission (one via a metric/English conversion error), and a Shuttle. Plus ESA's Huygens had one xmitter failure, losing directional data.
Among other things, one huge red flag was the idiotic name.
The "Can Spam" act... As in... I can spam, you can spam, we all can spam with spammedy smam.
Microsoft pushed this legislation, as opposed to another bill that was opt-in, and potentially a real detterrent.
Is it a coincidence that they impemented an "open source" (hah!) mailer ID technology to fight spam within months of the passage of this law? The paranoid in me says they pushed for CAN SPAM cuz they knew it'd fail, giving them an opportunity to gain control of one aspect of the e-mail protocol...
There is no such thing as too fast, no matter what form factor you're talking about.
Besides, just type "ls" in the Terminal and you will see a noticable (though slight) delay. We can argue about the source (CPU, HDD, VidOut, etc.), but this just illustrates the point.
I mean... so where is the "Obfuscated Fortran Contest"???
Teaching good (pretty) programming principles are a relatively recent development ('80s?). Fortran is freakin' old and a lotta legacy code comes from before the "pretty programming" era. And let's face it, a lotta science/math profs use Fortran -- and they wouldn't take a structured programming class to save their lives.
My work deals with a lotta NASA code. Our joke has become "written by Physics grad students enslaved to Physics professors." A porter/debugger's nightmare! And it ain't limited to fortran -- the C code is just as bad, if not worse.
The moral of the story (and it's been said before):
You need to know HOW TO write good code before you can write good code... and these principals (generally) apply across languages.
-Pie
"Same thing with these pictures. They're accurate as far as you or I know."
Technically, they ain't accurate at all! They lack calibration (unless these guys got the calibration coefficients). That was part of my earlier point:)
Slashdot Mirror
OMG, this article was singularly the WORSE I've read about the BD/HD-DVD format war yet!
Start with this: "Although it will take a while till they become largely accessible - probably towards the end of 2005, but most likely in 2006..."
HD-DVD will launch in Septmeber 2005 with 80 movies, incuding the Matrix Trilogy and Star Trek First Contact as launch titles!
"As far as entertainment is concerned, the maximum video resolution DVD could provide, 720x480, was shortly overcome by the technological progress pace and technical features of new TVs, multimedia projectors or other image display devices. But the main problem remains the poor security. DeCSS and DivX came as major surprises, and lessened the DVD enthusiasm."
The BEST SELLING FORMAT in the Electronics Industry HISTORY! And enthusiasm was lessened????? Sheesh.
"The future of DVD is still unclear, but what is certain is that a replacement is already needed and looked upon."
With a
"Blu-Ray - winner before the race is over?"
Blu-WHAT??? Besides technophiles, BD is laregely unknown! HD-DVD, OTOH, has name recognition and will beat BD to market by at least 4 months. Doesn't matter which format is better, it's all about marketing... and the name "HD-DVD" immediately communicates "better than DVD" even to those who have no idea what it really is.
I'm saying all this as one who preferes (via specs and codecs) BD. But HD-DVD has a clear advantage, and I honestly expect it to win.
Regardless, this article had so much misinformation, it was a total crock.
-Pie
Ever seen the satellite imagery of Energia's destrictive power when blows up on the pad?
Oy, those Rooskeys ain't brave... they CRAZY!!
And we complain about Shuttle safety. NASA PR needs to just start advertising Russian "safety" and people will lay off. Bigtime!
-Pie
It's all about the money (duh).
Apple makes money off iTunes (music store / iPods), and they provide security updates for Jaguar (good security means good PR means more OS sales). So they certainly have a reason for these particular updates.
While it certainly is possible Apple will give Panther a Safari 2.0, I wouldn't bet on it. There ain't any money in it for them.
-Pie
Just an FYI. Apple is VERY Careful about NDAs. A friend of mine did mock-ups for a product (now released), and they were NDA central before the prototype ever entered the building.
While I certainly don't KNOW if Apple employees / contractors all sign an NDA, there is certainly EVIDENCE that they do.
And when you sign an NDA, you give away some of your free speech rights -- willingly.
-Pie
I don't actually mind ads!
But let me explain.
I don't mind *static*, magazine/newspaper-style ads that sit there in the side column (these can get annoying with T and A type stuff or whatever, but still... in *general*).
The Web is sorta like an "interactive" print media IMHO. We *generally* read static text with the ability to click links and whatnot. But advertisers tend to treat it like Television, with motion ads, flashing ads, sound-enhanced ads, popup ads, etc. etc. It just plain doesn't fit the paradigm.
Maybe instead of annoy people who are reading articles, supplement the articles with paradigm-fitting ads (ie static ads that don't tear attention away from the information content that you're reading). Heck that's how magazines and newspapers work... and work well. Why can't the web?
-Pie
As a surfer, I know quite a bit about the ocean, so this obviously sparked my interest. As such, I've read the majority of posts, and I've been able to make a simple conclusion about this whole thing...
We have no idea what we're talking about -- we have no idea what these "wave farms" will actually do to the environment!
Most people are just spouting uneducated opinion, and are for the most part completely clueless. Sure most responses look intelligent and well thought out, and they pretty much are. But because we don't know the subject at hand -- and think we do -- puts us one step above throwing darts blindfolded.
Didn't learn much about waves here. Learned a LOT about slashdot.
-Pie
Okay, so we need to make the waves smaller to slow erosion?
But we have no measured values on how much these things will effect wave size.
And more importantly, you ignore the effect of bottom contouring, energy focus (ie swell direction), and wave behaviour.
As stated previously, these pontoons are 20KM out in the ocean, and they are smaller and have less effect than an island. If you look at the CDIP swell maps for southern California, that San Clemente Island has little or no effect on coastal wave height... The waves WRAP AROUND the islands because they behave like... well waves.
So we can argue all we want about coastal erosion and diminished wave size. But a 3KM wave farm out to sea at 20KM is probably not going to have a huge effect. The waves that miss the farm will simply wrap around and hit the coastline at full force anyway. And this is ONLY when the swell is directed at the coast through the wave farm in the first place. Swells come from many varying directions.
All this to make one simple point... We have no idea what the effect will be.
-Pie
I think the Altamont wind generators are beautiful.
I'd say the most likely reason we don't sink 'em is that they'd become very difficult to maintain. They also would not be able to spin anywhere near as fast under the water.
-Pie
The Tsunami caused a 3' wave at sea. Storm generated swells are much bigger at sea.
The Tsunami was not a big wave by any means. But it caused a rise in sea level that flooded over the islands.
Think "flash flood" rather than "big wave" and you have the more accurate picture.
-Pie
"Oh, gee this is a hard one. Would that manmade structure be called... a PIER?"
:)
= PST&sub=nowcast&xitem=socal_now
As already pointed out, they are often rebuilt. During the 1983 el nino, almost every single pier in southern California was either totally demolished or suffered extensive damage.
I'm actually smart enough to think of the most obvious manmade coastal structure BEFORE making that challenge...
"Wave energy will be focused on the best surf sites..."
There is a LOT more to good surf spots than just wave energy focus. Bottom contours play a huge role.
And wave energy is highly variable. Sure, if you put these things immediately in front of a surf spot (meters, not km), they may block it. But at 1 to 2km away, the swells will not be going directly through them every time to reach a surf spot.
And waves behave like, well waves. Drop a rock in a pond and try to block a 1 foot section of the waves from reaching the shore.
San Clemente island does not block swells from reching San Diego, or any other coastal region for that matter Catalina can -- it's much closer -- but only when the swell is a certain direction. Which makes my point that wave energy highly variable (and note that Catalina is a frickin island!).
For a good view of wave energy, check CDIP. http://cdip.ucsd.edu/?nav=recent&units=english&tz
-Pie
Aight, I've seen tons of misinformation and bogus speculation here, and I just perused the document!!
(1) The facility is out to sea. Hawaii is the closest at 2.5KM, while California is at 13 to 20 Km.
(2) They are in about 40M of water. Waves break in about 1-4M of water, depending on size.
(3) The things FLOAT on TOP of the water! (The "Pelamis" design does anyway.) They are mored with cable, and are no where near breakers.
(4) They are not so much "wave" energy as "swell" energy (ie waves = coastal, swell = deep ocean).
Huge variation in wave height makes near-shore uneconomical when waves are small (often), and SEVERELY dangerous when large. (Name a man made structure that has withstood BREAKING waves or a sustained period of time.)
Even when waves are small on the coast, deep sea swells still oscillate across the surface unhindered. The point is to harness these oscillations for energy (as far as I can tell).
The environmental impact will be truly negligable, except for moorings and swell energy depleted before it reaches the coastline.
The very environmentally-paranoid surfer in me says... Go for it!
-Pie
" Those electrical generators are going to TOTALLY kill those waves I wanted to surf. Oh MAN."
Remember, part of being "green" is doing LITTLE or NO damage to the environment!
But rest easy... the CLOSEST facility is 2.5km (HI) from shore, while the CA facility is 13 to 25km from shore. MOST surf spots are a scant 20 to 100 meters from shore. (As a surfer, this is the very first thing I checked in the document!)
I suspect the effect on "my surf spot" will be negligable. And hopefully this will be a viable form of energy that has negligable impact on the ocean environment.
-EatingPie (aka SurfingPie)
"Are you talking about the EyeTV 500?"
I'm actually talking about HDTV Cable. The FCC mandated that last April *all* cablecos had to deploy a firewire-enabled cable box to allow recording of HDTV. Copy Protection occurs via 5C / DTCP, but some cablecos dont have it on... allowing recording to any firewire capable Mac/PC.
MythTV's features suggest that it will work in this regard (ie "Firewire Enabled"), but I won't know till tonight when I test. The previous software for the Mac was something called VirtualDVHS, a sample program delivered with the Developer Tools... It's beta and leaks memory like crazy... but it works!
So in my case, I actually do not have any tuner card, just a stock Powerbook. I do not watch the HDTV on my screen either. I simply record from the Cable Box and playback to my Firewire-enabled HDTV (or Firewire-enabled D-VHS deck).
-Pie
I've been using firewire based HDTV playback/recording on a Mac for a year or so. Had it not been tagged as "Apple," I might have missed this.
Mistake or not, it works for me!
-Pie
Korea - we want to develop nuclear WEAPONS
USA - we will PAY YOU not to develop them, and help you develop power
USA - Here's your check (I recall $2,000,000, but I think that's low).
Korea - THANKS!
Korea - We want to develop Nuclear WEAPONS
USA - We ain't payin' you this time!
Korea - Fuck you
USA - LET'S NEGOTIATE
Korea - Fuck you
Korea - We got bombs now!
I've gotten facts wrong on posts before, so your post is forgivable. I followed this and supported the Clinton Administration decision to play the "blackmail" money. My thinking: What the hey, it's only money. *shrugs* But all that did was postpone (possibly aid?) Korea's drive for a Nuclear Arsenal.
And it was obvious to me, and the Bush administration -- who actuallly followed/remembered past dealings -- that last year's rumblings from North Korea was just another money blackmail attempt.
So don't just rag on the US and the Bush administration. North Korea is the one making the weapons and using them as a threat... Oh and they have an ICBM capable of striking Japan, who they hate with a passion...
-Pie
Threads like this end up being relatively reactionary. "OMFG the Government wants to take control us!"
:) ).
Please consider some important facts.
"Movie Ratings"
The Movie Industry implemented a rating system BECAUSE the Government pressured them to do it. It ain't perfect, but we use it and it generally works. AND there's no fear of censorship (well, except that motivated by money).
The Game Industry simply needs to adopt a standard rating system, adhere to it, and make sure retailers do too. Then there's no censorship (except $$ motivated)... you can make a game any way you want. Parents get some idea of what's in the game beforehand and can decide if they feel it's appropriate for their kids/themselves.
"Forcing their Morality on Kids"
There is no such thing as "FORCING MORALITY" on someone. Don't believe me, go see A Clockwork Orange (with your parents
Parents influence their children, but they don't make the ultimate moral decisions. If parents feel a game/movie/web site aint appropriate for their children, then it's the parent's RIGHT and RESPONSIBILITY to limit their use (with good communication as to why, IMHO).
This results in influence. And as children grow into adults, they (hopefully) recall this influence... but they ultimately get to decide if they agree with it.
If they don't agree, they don't agree. Period. You can't force them to agree.
So all this to say... Game Industry: Implement a consistent rating system in games and adhere to it... don't have the government do it for you. No, it won't be perfect, but it will probably (for the most part) work.
-Pie
NASA IS REPLACING HUBBLE ALREADY... and in the interrum Hubble WORKS... and works WELL!!
s are still underway for the James Webb Space Telescope, Hubble's successor, which would be launched in 2011."
The new Space Telescope is called "The James Webb Space Telescope." It is (via specs) better than Hubble.
From hubblesite.org/newscenter/newsdesk/future/
"Plan
If you guys, and that O'Keefe bozo (formerly) at NASA have their way, a WORKING, and SCIENTIFICALLY SIGNIFICANT telescope will be left to die even while it's STILL producing amazing results!!
And in space, NOTHING is a done deal. Sure we can do better than Hubble. But until said better telescope is in orbit AND working, we need to leave Hubble in place. Otherwise we have a multi-year downtime between two missions... and a potentially LONGER downtime if Webb (et al) fails.
I submitted similar input to NASA during their request for comments about the Hubble-Webb transition.
Please, don't get cocky about this. Sure, we have some high profile successes of late (Mars Rovers, Cassini/Huygens), but before that, NASA's better-faster-cheaper lost two Mars mission (one via a metric/English conversion error), and a Shuttle. Plus ESA's Huygens had one xmitter failure, losing directional data.
-Pie
Sheesh, this thing is ALREADY selling like hotcakes on ebay and a few import sites.... at over $400.00 a pop!
/., but they sure as hell *do* have a market.
Apparently Sony ain't marketing this to people posting on
Also, on the Memory Stick... isn't that a Sony-developed technology (like MD and BD)? If so that alone explains why they used that instead of CF.
-Pie
Among other things, one huge red flag was the idiotic name.
The "Can Spam" act... As in... I can spam, you can spam, we all can spam with spammedy smam.
Microsoft pushed this legislation, as opposed to another bill that was opt-in, and potentially a real detterrent.
Is it a coincidence that they impemented an "open source" (hah!) mailer ID technology to fight spam within months of the passage of this law? The paranoid in me says they pushed for CAN SPAM cuz they knew it'd fail, giving them an opportunity to gain control of one aspect of the e-mail protocol...
-Pie
"1.5GHz ought to be enough for everyone"
You mean 1.5Mhz.
There is no such thing as too fast, no matter what form factor you're talking about.
Besides, just type "ls" in the Terminal and you will see a noticable (though slight) delay. We can argue about the source (CPU, HDD, VidOut, etc.), but this just illustrates the point.
-Pie
Apple has NO presence at MacWorld Boston. Jobs now uses the WWDC to make major mid-year announcements.
Though in this case, the timing may be dictated more by technology than marketing...
It's all guesswork at this point, though I will be HUGELY surpried/disapointed if the G5 PB misses a summer release.
-Pie
Or "Don't Write Text."
I had that post formatted so nicely, but forgot to select "Plain Old Text" before posting.
Sheesh.
-Pie
I mean... so where is the "Obfuscated Fortran Contest"??? Teaching good (pretty) programming principles are a relatively recent development ('80s?). Fortran is freakin' old and a lotta legacy code comes from before the "pretty programming" era. And let's face it, a lotta science/math profs use Fortran -- and they wouldn't take a structured programming class to save their lives. My work deals with a lotta NASA code. Our joke has become "written by Physics grad students enslaved to Physics professors." A porter/debugger's nightmare! And it ain't limited to fortran -- the C code is just as bad, if not worse. The moral of the story (and it's been said before): You need to know HOW TO write good code before you can write good code... and these principals (generally) apply across languages. -Pie
The linked articles all refer back to the two original authors, "S. J. LIEBOWITZ and STEPHEN E. MARGOLIS."
So this Dvorak Debunking lies in two people's research. Are there any others who have verified this research?
I've no political interest or affiliation with one story or the other, I would simply like to know the truth!
-Pie
"Same thing with these pictures. They're accurate as far as you or I know."
:)
Technically, they ain't accurate at all! They lack calibration (unless these guys got the calibration coefficients). That was part of my earlier point
-Pie