I'm no expert in the field, but I'm pretty sure its in the region of 120 megapixels, but this site http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/eye-resolution. html begs to differ and states that it is in the region of 500 megapixels. This is based on a treatment of diffraction limited resolution based on theta = lamda/D (see here). But 500mp sounds is a HUGE amount and would require massive processing by the brain. This is a theoretical maximum of angular resolution based on perfect eyesight and a fully dilated pupil without abberation or imperfections. In the real world, we are unlikely to approach this figure by a long way. Even if the eye could resolve such small angles, we reach a limit based on the number of receptors (the rods and cones) which are somewhat less than 500 million - and according to this site http://kidshealth.org/kid/body/eye_noSW.html the number is around 120 - 130 million receptors so a resolution of around 120MP seems like a good ballpark estimate. You should bear in mind though, that we actually "see" very little of what we "detect".
I think that this is inevitable. Mac OS X is a desktop OS, desktop customers demand shiny new features and Apple needs to compete with Microsoft in adding such features, otherwise it will fall behind in market share. These new features make for a supremely usable OS, but it means that development is always too fast. Security flaws are invariably human logic errors, and when a lot of new code is written really fast, errors are made. Conversely, take OpenBSD, its pace of development is slow and thorough and due to its comprehensive code audit (which slows development) very few security holes are found in the code. As complexity escalates, so will the number of bugs and until Apple's workforce is replaced with androids (Which I'm sure will have a negative impact on its cool reputation) errors will continue to be made.
Although inevitable, we need not accept that there should be quite as many flaws as there are - Apple is in a uniquely privilege position over microsoft in using the unix permission system and the mature core that mach and FreeBSD provides, it must not become complacent. Increasingly, it appears that Apple is becoming sloppy - There are reports of Apple not using automated bound checking and the such. Such arrogance is inexcusable from any developer, and as Apple's popularity increases poor security will invariably become more of an issue. Its time for Apple to seriously take stock of this issue.
This will only attract cranks and pretentious people. This will spew out garbage - results will be stated without formal proof etc etc, the community will fold and collapse quickly. I'll give them a month.
These problems are hard, this is why they are unsolved, and to make any progress requires hugely talented people working solidly on the problem. These people are already involved in research. I do not believe that mathematics lends itself well to a wiki format - its going to end up fragmented and without direction. You need direction in a proof, a proof is made up of many stages, but it also needs a general direction and insight. This will not work. Important results are published in journals - not by a community of amateurs.
The only good that this will have, is in raising awareness of the problems and of mathematics in general - a commendable effort, but not one that will create important new results.
This is not a new idea. Humans are sensitve to changing magnetic fields.
Magnetic fields have been used in medicine for a while - a large electromagnet placed on the skull would emit a breif magnetic field, and induce currents in the neurons in the brain, causing a spasm which could be used in diagnosing various problems. See this for more information.
These effects have also been used in more obscure ways: A while ago, I saw a product being tested as an aid for insomniacs. It was basically an RF emitting spoon that would be placed in the mouth and through some unknown mechanism could help to induce sleep. Trials showed it to be quite effective.
the device is mentioned here. Below is an excerpt:
"I was skeptical at first," admitted Dr. Thomas Roth, a sleep expert at Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit, in an interview with New Scientist. "But the indications are that it does have some biological effects and is effective in treating insomnia in some circumstances."
The LEET device was tested on over a hundred chronic insomniacs at two clinics, the Scripps Clinic in La Jolla, California, and Denver's University of Colorado Health Sciences Center. Some of the insomniacs received a fully operational LEET device to help them sleep, while others received a device that looked the same -- but emitted no radio energy at all."
Its probably best to keep in mind that this was using a low frequency signal, high frequency RF (~2GHz and above) is not believed to be recitified in body tissue, and would simply cause heating rather that any direct neuronal stimulation.
Bluetooth, wifi, cellphones and passive radiators such as PCs are all incredibly useful but I think that we should be increasingly aware of the effects that EM emmisions can have on the body in an age of accelerating usage.
Although Apple is largely responsible for causing these security flaws, it is hardly something that can be avoided in a modern consumer oriented OS such as Mac OS X. Despite the fact that it inherits a large chunk of its code base from the relatively mature FreeBSD (as well as being descended from NeXTSTEP), Apple have added a vast amount of entirely new code to the system, purely because of the demands of the consumer, and as a result in terms of a general user experience (as in regular user stuff - no flaimbait intended) I believe that Mac OS X has surpassed the experience currently possible with *BSD/Linux.
However, in doing so it has introduced a vast amount of new code:
-Spotlight
-Aqua
-WebKit
-Quicktime
et al.
All of these add in functionality and usability, but lots of new code means lots of room for error. No human can develop 100% bug free code when introducing new ideas with great speed. (As anyone using a cutting edge Linux kernal knows).
Apple could introduce an OpenBSD style audit (Rumour suggests that they don't even use automated checking for buffer overruns!), but the pace of development would suffer and Apple needs to be competitive with the overal rate of development of Windows if it will have any great success in the consumer market.
This is a natural consequence of rapid development.
If we want new features we will get new bugs and, to be honest, I'm surprised that the overall negative impact of such a strategy hasn't been even greater for Apple. But if there is any time to change their strategy, now is the time.
"If something doesn't work first time, invent something imaginary"
This is not the first time in which an existing theory has had a part added (a fudge factor if you will...) to explain an anomalous phenomenon.
Such example include,
1. God
2. The aether
3. The cosmological constant
Each of these ideas have been used at some point to ensure that an existing theory (or foundationless preconceptions) coincide nicely with observation. In each case, they have been refuted at some point in the future.
The idea of modifying the rate of gravitational fall off with distance is not a new idea - back in the 1800s, Airy (If I remember correctly) discovered that if instead of gravity obeying an inverse square relationship, it obeyed an inverse relationship to a different power, the predicted orbit of mercury would fit the observed data. If this was proposed however, there would have been a lesser incentive to look for the more accurate theory that General Relativity provides.
I can't help but think that very rarely does true progress come from simple modifications to existing theory. When theory does not match observation, it is often a new idea entirely that is needed to resolve the problem. A modification to an otherwise elegant idea usually obscures the truth.
If this new theory really does provide highly accurate results, we should ask why and look for the underlying cause of gravity falling off faster than expected, rather be complacent with the introduction of a new constant.
Re:How does it handle values outside the range?
on
More iTunes Math
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
I've just tried this - If you insert a value outside the range, iTunes assumes the nearest value to 0, 20, 40, 60, 80, and 100 and doesn't crash.
I doubt that Apple's move to Intel had a great deal to do with performance, and I dislike this fact being used as a key selling point for the iMac. If you refer to the "definitive" G5 vs. everyone else benchmarks at http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2436 it is apparent that the G5 is largely comparable to offerings from AMD and Intel (admitedly the new Intel Core Duo is not benchmarked) and although the G5 is, in many cases, not the fastest chip, it is similar. The increases of 2-3x in performance between the G5 and MacIntel iMac are a consequence of having a dual core chip (and being a generation ahead of the G5) besides, Apple could have feasibly used the dual-core G5 chips that they've had at their disposal for a while now. Any Mac zealot will argue that their PowerPC Mac is "just" as fast as an intel based system, but performance is NOT the issue. This is why the iMac was updated first, it is a consumer product, supporting Apple's fledgling attempts to enter the living room (consider front row ) - it desperately needs Intel's brand name associated with its hardware.
The significance of this new product is long term and cannot be underestimated.
Apple finanlly has penetrated the consumer electronics market with the iPod, and their brand recognition and image could not be better. Apple has shoehorned its way into the psyche of the common man. It now has to bring its key product, the mac, to the masses. Consumers will be attracted from a design perspective and because it shares the same logo as their iPod, the OS is a little different to windows, but now at least you have the reasurrance of dual booting into windows (I'd like proof of this concept, but I'm sure it will come) and the processor gives the security of a well recognised brand name (consider brand strengh of Intel vs. AMD).
In the future, I doubt that IBM's die shrunk Power chips will share the low power consumption that I expect Intel will bring, and many concepts for great products will never be realised. I'll be interested to see if the new Intel chips can match up to the PowerPC altivec-ised vDSP FFT's , but in a way I don't care. It is an exciting time to be a Mac user, as more people join the fantastic experience that we have had for so long, and new software and hardware comes our way. Either way, they're finally here and it will be interesting to see what the future holds.
I doubt that Apple's move to Intel had a great deal to do with performance, and I dislike this fact being used as a key selling point for the iMac. If you refer to the "definitive" G5 vs. everyone else benchmarks at http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2436 it is apparent that the G5 is largely comparable to offerings from AMD and Intel (admitedly the new Intel Core Duo is not benchmarked) and although the G5 is, in many cases, not the fastest chip, it is similar. The increases of 2-3x in performance between the G5 and MacIntel iMac are a consequence of having a dual core chip (and being a generation ahead of the G5) besides, Apple could have feasibly used the dual-core G5 chips that they've had at their disposal for a while now. Any Mac zealot will argue that their PowerPC Mac is "just" as fast as an intel based system, but performance is NOT the issue. This is why the iMac was updated first, it is a consumer product, supporting Apple's fledgling attempts to enter the living room (consider front row ) - it desperately needs Intel's brand name associated with its hardware.
The significance of this new product is long term and cannot be underestimated.
Apple finanlly has penetrated the consumer electronics market with the iPod, and their brand recognition and image could not be better. Apple has shoehorned its way into the psyche of the common man. It now has to bring its key product, the mac, to the masses. Consumers will be attracted from a design perspective and because it shares the same logo as their iPod, the OS is a little different to windows, but now at least you have the reasurrance of dual booting into windows (I'd like proof of this concept, but I'm sure it will come) and the processor gives the security of a well recognised brand name (consider brand strengh of Intel vs. AMD).
In the future, I doubt that IBM's die shrunk Power chips will share the low power consumption that I expect Intel will bring, and many concepts for great products will never be realised. I'll be interested to see if the new Intel chips can match up to the PowerPC altivec-ised vDSP FFT's , but in a way I don't care. It is an exciting time to be a Mac user, as more people join the fantastic experience that we have had for so long, and new software and hardware comes our way. Either way, they're finally here and it will be interesting to see what the future holds.
I doubt that Apple's move to Intel had a great deal to do with performance, and I dislike this fact being used as a key selling point for the iMac. If you refer to the "definitive" G5 vs. everyone else benchmarks at http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2436it is apparent that the G5 is largely comparable to offerings from AMD and Intel (admitedly the new Intel Core Duo is not benchmarked) and although the G5 is, in many cases, not the fastest chip, it is similar. The increases of 2-3x in performance between the G5 and MacIntel iMac are a consequence of having a dual core chip (and being a generation ahead of the G5) besides, Apple could have feasibly used the dual-core G5 chips that they've had at their disposal for a while now. Any Mac zealot will argue that their PowerPC Mac is "just" as fast as an intel based system, but performance is NOT the issue. This is why the iMac was updated first, it is a consumer product, supporting Apple's fledgling attempts to enter the living room (consider front row ) - it desperately needs Intel's brand name associated with its hardware.
The significance of this new product is long term and cannot be underestimated.
Apple finanlly has penetrated the consumer electronics market with the iPod, and their brand recognition and image could not be better. Apple has shoehorned its way into the psyche of the common man. It now has to bring its key product, the mac, to the masses. Consumers will be attracted from a design perspective and because it shares the same logo as their iPod, the OS is a little different to windows, but now at least you have the reasurrance of dual booting into windows (I'd like proof of this concept, but I'm sure it will come) and the processor gives the security of a well recognised brand name (consider brand strengh of Intel vs. AMD).
In the future, I doubt that IBM's die shrunk Power chips will share the low power consumption that I expect Intel will bring, and many concepts for great products will never be realised. I'll be interested to see if the new Intel chips can match up to the PowerPC altivec-ised vDSP FFT's , but in a way I don't care. It is an exciting time to be a Mac user, as more people join the fantastic experience that we have had for so long, and new software and hardware comes our way. Either way, they're finally here and it will be interesting to see what the future holds.
I doubt that Apple's move to Intel had a great deal to do with performance, and I dislike this fact being used as a key selling point. If you refer to the "definitive" G5 vs. everyone else benchmarks at http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2436 it is apparent that the G5 is largely comparable to offerings from AMD and Intel (admitedly the new Intel Core Duo is not benchmarked) and although the G5 is, in many cases, not the fastest chip, it is similar. The increases of 2-3x in performance between the G5 and MacIntel iMac are a consequence of having a dual core chip (and being a generation ahead of the G5) besides, Apple could have feasibly used the dual-core G5 chips that they've had at their disposal for a while now.
Any Mac zealot will argue that their PowerPC Mac is "just" as fast as an intel based system, but performance is NOT the issue. This is why the iMac was updated first, it is a consumer product, supporting Apple's fledgling attempts to enter the living room (consider front row) - it desperately needs Intel's brand name associated with its hardware.
The significance of this new product is long term and cannot be underestimated.
Apple finanlly has penetrated the consumer electronics market with the iPod, and their brand recognition and image could not be better. Apple has shoehorned its way into the psyche of the common man. It now has to bring its key product, the mac, to the masses. Consumers will be attracted from a design perspective and because it shares the same logo as their iPod, the OS is a little different to windows, but now at least you have the reasurrance of dual booting into windows (I'd like proof of this concept, but I'm sure it will come) and the processor gives the security of a well recognised brand name (consider brand strengh of Intel vs. AMD).
In the future, I doubt that IBM's die shrunk Power chips will share the low power consumption that I expect Intel will bring, and many concepts for great products will never be realised.
I'll be interested to see if the new Intel chips can match up to the PowerPC altivec-ised vDSP FFT's, but in a way I don't care. It is an exciting time to be a Mac user, as more people join the fantastic experience that we have had for so long, and new software and hardware comes our way. Either way, they're finally here and it will be interesting to see what the future holds.
"For the pro-crowd they just need to stretch their pro-video and maybe throw in some eye candy like 32 inch displays or intel plasma display"
Although many people are familiar with the Macintosh TV and later models with integrated TV tuners, few people are aware that Apple did once trial a TV reciever with a small embedded version of Mac OS. See http://www.theapplemuseum.com/index.php?id=45 for details.
It was a miserable failure. But times have changed, and Apple are now very much in competition with Microsoft and Sony for control of the living room.
It will be interesting to see what is announced at MacWorld.
In fact, they did. The "astronauts" were selected on the basis of their suggestibility and ignorance of physics, space and Russia. The extent of which is quite astounding - they are told that they are "too close to earth" to experience any weightlessness. Which has interesting implications for the fate of their shuttle...
Here are the deeply patronising contestant profiles from the Channel Four web site:
Andrew is a student who lives at home with his parents. He's good looking and confident, and describes himself as funny, intelligent, charming and considerate. One of his luckiest moments was going out with the prettiest girl in his primary school.
Andrew finds the R Kelly track 'I Believe I Can Fly' inspirational because it gives him self-belief and makes him feel he can do anything.
He is a keen Arsenal fan and plays football in a local league - but that's not his only interest: he also confesses to being a church attendee but sadly he only mimes the words to the hymns, as he doesn't know the words.
Andrew is also scared of moths.
Astrid is looking for some real excitement in her life. She's a pretty blonde from Mid Glamorgan, who went to school in Cardiff with pop chick Charlotte Church. She now lives in the sticks, so can't hit the town every night.
Astrid works in a call centre, and has had five different jobs this year but still doesn't know what she wants to do. In fact, she wants to do everything! She's also quite clumsy and has a habit of losing mobile phones. Like her old school chum Charlotte, she also likes to sing, but suffers from stagefright and can only perform in front of her family.
Astrid's had a boyfriend for the last 6 months and claims she has lots of friends. She's an adventurous girl who dreams of riding in a Formula 1 car. She gets annoyed by two-faced people and hates seeing others being picked on.
Billy is one for the ladies. He is a semi-pro footballer and his ultimate ambition is a to be a footballer or film star. He realises he's too old for professional football but there is still time to hit Hollywood. He describes himself as tall, dark and handsome, funny, outgoing, polite and caring but also one of the lads.
Billy loves the film Armageddon, hates spiders and the idea of drowning and says his most embarrassing moment was when his ex girlfriend's dad witnessed him walking down the catwalk in a red silk thong. He believes in reincarnation and wants to return as a golden eagle. Billy does not believe in ghosts but claims to have seen an alien.
Cheryl is a lively, ambitious and opinionated girl who loves people. She is also impatient and hates being alone. A firm believer in fate, she believes in reincarnation and ghosts - she says a guardian angel visited her when she was aged sixteen. She fears drowning and fire but feels that taking part in a 'thrill-seekers' show will give her the chance to do something unique.
Cheryl describes herself as a typical, up-for-it 23 year old girl. She hates liars and smoking, and enjoys clubbing with her friends, clothes and relaxing in a bath with a glass of wine.
Keri's so keen on space travel that her ultimate fancy dress outfit is dressing up as an astronaut. She describes herself as a friendly, outgoing girl who will try anything once, and compares herself to Bridget Jones. She's also a team player - as long as the team wins! Her fears include drowning and spiders, and she never, ever wants to free-fall into water or sing in front of a group of people.
Keri's strangest job was dressing up as a human eyeball to promote Specsavers. Other unusual achievements include being able to put her fist in her mouth.
Things Keri likes include Christmas, white-knuckle rides, family, friends, holidays, romance and chocolate.
Louise is sporty and competitive and represents her county in basketball and athletics. She lived in Canada for ten months, and admits to being afraid of
Does anyone know how the pilot Blu-ray failure rate compares to the average current commercial rejection rate of CDs/DVDs?
It seems somewhat unfounded to denounce a 20% failure rate (althought, yes it does seem wasteful) without comparing this to the current, and so reasonable economical, failure rates?
Any thoughts?
Re:Reason for code name Kaleidoscope revealed...
on
Mac mini, Apple DVR?
·
· Score: 1
Here's a link to the patent application , and here's an overview from MacNN (note that the link posted by MacNN appears to be invalid).
"In the United Kingdom, these fees are set by Parliament and go directly to the funding of the BBC, enabling it to run without the need for market competition. The licence fee, initially for radio sets (exempt since 1971), was mandated by the 1904 Wireless Telegraphy Act. The fee was originally 10 shillings (£0.50) and in 2005 was £126.50 for colour TV and £42 for monochrome TV. There are concessions for the elderly (free for over 75s) and blind people (50% off). Only one licence is required per household.
It is believed that approximately 5% of TVs are unlicensed. With the BBC's increased worldwide output (including its online services) there has been a debate as to the abolition of the TV licence, which has been denounced as a violation of the freedom to receive information without inteference. Generally, competing television companies favour the licence fee since it means the BBC will not compete with them for advertising or subscriptions. Proper debate of the licence fee is consistently suppressed by the BBC from its own airwaves. Numerous polls show significant public opposition to the fee.
According to the definition of TV receiving apparatus [1], a licence must be obtained for any device which is "installed or used" for receiving broadcasts, which potentially covers devices such as a tuner card in a PC or a portable television. However a television installed and used for some other purpose, such as a closed-circuit monitor, video player or a games console, is exempt provided the owner can demonstrate it is not used for receiving broadcasts.
Enforcement in the UK is provided by Capita Group and the AMV consortium. Capita agents are paid bonuses on the basis of the convictions they secure. AMV is an advertising and public relations agency. Several hundred thousand prosecutions are brought each year. Observations at magistrates court show that a very large proportion of those prosecuted are single women on benefits. Capita maintain a database of all addresses in the country, with electronics retailers being subject to large fines if they do not pass on the addresses of anyone buying television receiving equipment. Addresses with no licence are assumed to have a television, and are subject to repeated threatening mailshots and visits by the enforcement agency.
In addition to the database, the BBC claims that electronic detectors are used to pick up the small amount of energy re-radiated by the local oscillator in the tuning circuitry. There is no evidence of any prosecution ever having been brought on this basis of this warrantless electronic surveillance and it is widely suspected that the famous detector vans are no more than mock-ups designed to intimidate viewers. It's open to doubt how well the much advertised detectors would work on a TV tuner card within the electrically noisy Faraday cage enclosure of a PC: the simpler method of calling round and looking for the aerial or an operating television would seem more effective. Note that, since the inspectors are not police officers or any other type of government official, they have no right to enter private property unless invited.
Some feel that the scheme is as a regressive tax, in that the very poorest are those least likely to have a licence, and least able to pay the fine for not having a licence. A report ("TV sinners", March 1998) by the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux pointed out that failure to pay the fine is the single largest reason for the imprisonment of single mothers. However, supporters of the licence fee claim that it helps maintain a higher quality of programming on the BBC compared to its commercial rivals. Some also claim that it also leads to better programmes on the commercial channels as they seek to draw viewers/listeners away from the BBC's output."
Any other questions should probably be directed here.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm no expert in the field, but I'm pretty sure its in the region of 120 megapixels, but this site http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/eye-resolution. html begs to differ and states that it is in the region of 500 megapixels. This is based on a treatment of diffraction limited resolution based on theta = lamda/D (see here). But 500mp sounds is a HUGE amount and would require massive processing by the brain. This is a theoretical maximum of angular resolution based on perfect eyesight and a fully dilated pupil without abberation or imperfections. In the real world, we are unlikely to approach this figure by a long way. Even if the eye could resolve such small angles, we reach a limit based on the number of receptors (the rods and cones) which are somewhat less than 500 million - and according to this site http://kidshealth.org/kid/body/eye_noSW.html the number is around 120 - 130 million receptors so a resolution of around 120MP seems like a good ballpark estimate. You should bear in mind though, that we actually "see" very little of what we "detect".
Apple did this years ago, but with real jet engines. Its called the PowerMac G4. I was so impressed by this advance, that I immortalised it in my sig.
Noooo! :(
My error...
You are quite correct - I was mistaken to think that a Mach Kernel should always support Mach-O binaries. I should probably hand in my nerd badge now.
...Use GNU Hurd. It runs Mach-O binaries, Not ELF.
and it looks like it's going to be released by the time this one's settled.
I think that this is inevitable. Mac OS X is a desktop OS, desktop customers demand shiny new features and Apple needs to compete with Microsoft in adding such features, otherwise it will fall behind in market share. These new features make for a supremely usable OS, but it means that development is always too fast. Security flaws are invariably human logic errors, and when a lot of new code is written really fast, errors are made. Conversely, take OpenBSD, its pace of development is slow and thorough and due to its comprehensive code audit (which slows development) very few security holes are found in the code. As complexity escalates, so will the number of bugs and until Apple's workforce is replaced with androids (Which I'm sure will have a negative impact on its cool reputation) errors will continue to be made.
Although inevitable, we need not accept that there should be quite as many flaws as there are - Apple is in a uniquely privilege position over microsoft in using the unix permission system and the mature core that mach and FreeBSD provides, it must not become complacent. Increasingly, it appears that Apple is becoming sloppy - There are reports of Apple not using automated bound checking and the such. Such arrogance is inexcusable from any developer, and as Apple's popularity increases poor security will invariably become more of an issue. Its time for Apple to seriously take stock of this issue.
This will only attract cranks and pretentious people. This will spew out garbage - results will be stated without formal proof etc etc, the community will fold and collapse quickly. I'll give them a month.
These problems are hard, this is why they are unsolved, and to make any progress requires hugely talented people working solidly on the problem. These people are already involved in research. I do not believe that mathematics lends itself well to a wiki format - its going to end up fragmented and without direction. You need direction in a proof, a proof is made up of many stages, but it also needs a general direction and insight. This will not work. Important results are published in journals - not by a community of amateurs.
The only good that this will have, is in raising awareness of the problems and of mathematics in general - a commendable effort, but not one that will create important new results.
This is not a new idea. Humans are sensitve to changing magnetic fields.
Magnetic fields have been used in medicine for a while - a large electromagnet placed on the skull would emit a breif magnetic field, and induce currents in the neurons in the brain, causing a spasm which could be used in diagnosing various problems. See this for more information.
These effects have also been used in more obscure ways: A while ago, I saw a product being tested as an aid for insomniacs. It was basically an RF emitting spoon that would be placed in the mouth and through some unknown mechanism could help to induce sleep. Trials showed it to be quite effective.
the device is mentioned here. Below is an excerpt:
"I was skeptical at first," admitted Dr. Thomas Roth, a sleep expert at Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit, in an interview with New Scientist. "But the indications are that it does have some biological effects and is effective in treating insomnia in some circumstances." The LEET device was tested on over a hundred chronic insomniacs at two clinics, the Scripps Clinic in La Jolla, California, and Denver's University of Colorado Health Sciences Center. Some of the insomniacs received a fully operational LEET device to help them sleep, while others received a device that looked the same -- but emitted no radio energy at all."
Its probably best to keep in mind that this was using a low frequency signal, high frequency RF (~2GHz and above) is not believed to be recitified in body tissue, and would simply cause heating rather that any direct neuronal stimulation.
Bluetooth, wifi, cellphones and passive radiators such as PCs are all incredibly useful but I think that we should be increasingly aware of the effects that EM emmisions can have on the body in an age of accelerating usage.
Although Apple is largely responsible for causing these security flaws, it is hardly something that can be avoided in a modern consumer oriented OS such as Mac OS X. Despite the fact that it inherits a large chunk of its code base from the relatively mature FreeBSD (as well as being descended from NeXTSTEP), Apple have added a vast amount of entirely new code to the system, purely because of the demands of the consumer, and as a result in terms of a general user experience (as in regular user stuff - no flaimbait intended) I believe that Mac OS X has surpassed the experience currently possible with *BSD/Linux.
However, in doing so it has introduced a vast amount of new code:
-Spotlight
-Aqua
-WebKit
-Quicktime
et al.
All of these add in functionality and usability, but lots of new code means lots of room for error. No human can develop 100% bug free code when introducing new ideas with great speed. (As anyone using a cutting edge Linux kernal knows).
Apple could introduce an OpenBSD style audit (Rumour suggests that they don't even use automated checking for buffer overruns!), but the pace of development would suffer and Apple needs to be competitive with the overal rate of development of Windows if it will have any great success in the consumer market.
This is a natural consequence of rapid development.
If we want new features we will get new bugs and, to be honest, I'm surprised that the overall negative impact of such a strategy hasn't been even greater for Apple. But if there is any time to change their strategy, now is the time.
Ok, raise your hands. Who among us here can say that he hasn't disassembled a computer before powering it up?
This is a result of Gauss' law.
"If something doesn't work first time, invent something imaginary"
This is not the first time in which an existing theory has had a part added (a fudge factor if you will...) to explain an anomalous phenomenon.
Such example include,
1. God
2. The aether
3. The cosmological constant
Each of these ideas have been used at some point to ensure that an existing theory (or foundationless preconceptions) coincide nicely with observation. In each case, they have been refuted at some point in the future.
The idea of modifying the rate of gravitational fall off with distance is not a new idea - back in the 1800s, Airy (If I remember correctly) discovered that if instead of gravity obeying an inverse square relationship, it obeyed an inverse relationship to a different power, the predicted orbit of mercury would fit the observed data. If this was proposed however, there would have been a lesser incentive to look for the more accurate theory that General Relativity provides.
I can't help but think that very rarely does true progress come from simple modifications to existing theory. When theory does not match observation, it is often a new idea entirely that is needed to resolve the problem. A modification to an otherwise elegant idea usually obscures the truth.
If this new theory really does provide highly accurate results, we should ask why and look for the underlying cause of gravity falling off faster than expected, rather be complacent with the introduction of a new constant.
I've just tried this - If you insert a value outside the range, iTunes assumes the nearest value to 0, 20, 40, 60, 80, and 100 and doesn't crash.
I doubt that Apple's move to Intel had a great deal to do with performance, and I dislike this fact being used as a key selling point for the iMac. If you refer to the "definitive" G5 vs. everyone else benchmarks at http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2436 it is apparent that the G5 is largely comparable to offerings from AMD and Intel (admitedly the new Intel Core Duo is not benchmarked) and although the G5 is, in many cases, not the fastest chip, it is similar. The increases of 2-3x in performance between the G5 and MacIntel iMac are a consequence of having a dual core chip (and being a generation ahead of the G5) besides, Apple could have feasibly used the dual-core G5 chips that they've had at their disposal for a while now. Any Mac zealot will argue that their PowerPC Mac is "just" as fast as an intel based system, but performance is NOT the issue. This is why the iMac was updated first, it is a consumer product, supporting Apple's fledgling attempts to enter the living room (consider front row ) - it desperately needs Intel's brand name associated with its hardware.
The significance of this new product is long term and cannot be underestimated.
Apple finanlly has penetrated the consumer electronics market with the iPod, and their brand recognition and image could not be better. Apple has shoehorned its way into the psyche of the common man. It now has to bring its key product, the mac, to the masses. Consumers will be attracted from a design perspective and because it shares the same logo as their iPod, the OS is a little different to windows, but now at least you have the reasurrance of dual booting into windows (I'd like proof of this concept, but I'm sure it will come) and the processor gives the security of a well recognised brand name (consider brand strengh of Intel vs. AMD).
In the future, I doubt that IBM's die shrunk Power chips will share the low power consumption that I expect Intel will bring, and many concepts for great products will never be realised. I'll be interested to see if the new Intel chips can match up to the PowerPC altivec-ised vDSP FFT's , but in a way I don't care. It is an exciting time to be a Mac user, as more people join the fantastic experience that we have had for so long, and new software and hardware comes our way. Either way, they're finally here and it will be interesting to see what the future holds.
Because if it is, I'm sure the discussion will happen at a lightning pace.
...Pobody's nerfect.
I doubt that Apple's move to Intel had a great deal to do with performance, and I dislike this fact being used as a key selling point for the iMac. If you refer to the "definitive" G5 vs. everyone else benchmarks at http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2436 it is apparent that the G5 is largely comparable to offerings from AMD and Intel (admitedly the new Intel Core Duo is not benchmarked) and although the G5 is, in many cases, not the fastest chip, it is similar. The increases of 2-3x in performance between the G5 and MacIntel iMac are a consequence of having a dual core chip (and being a generation ahead of the G5) besides, Apple could have feasibly used the dual-core G5 chips that they've had at their disposal for a while now. Any Mac zealot will argue that their PowerPC Mac is "just" as fast as an intel based system, but performance is NOT the issue. This is why the iMac was updated first, it is a consumer product, supporting Apple's fledgling attempts to enter the living room (consider front row ) - it desperately needs Intel's brand name associated with its hardware.
The significance of this new product is long term and cannot be underestimated.
Apple finanlly has penetrated the consumer electronics market with the iPod, and their brand recognition and image could not be better. Apple has shoehorned its way into the psyche of the common man. It now has to bring its key product, the mac, to the masses. Consumers will be attracted from a design perspective and because it shares the same logo as their iPod, the OS is a little different to windows, but now at least you have the reasurrance of dual booting into windows (I'd like proof of this concept, but I'm sure it will come) and the processor gives the security of a well recognised brand name (consider brand strengh of Intel vs. AMD). In the future, I doubt that IBM's die shrunk Power chips will share the low power consumption that I expect Intel will bring, and many concepts for great products will never be realised. I'll be interested to see if the new Intel chips can match up to the PowerPC altivec-ised vDSP FFT's , but in a way I don't care. It is an exciting time to be a Mac user, as more people join the fantastic experience that we have had for so long, and new software and hardware comes our way. Either way, they're finally here and it will be interesting to see what the future holds.
I doubt that Apple's move to Intel had a great deal to do with performance, and I dislike this fact being used as a key selling point for the iMac. If you refer to the "definitive" G5 vs. everyone else benchmarks at http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2436it is apparent that the G5 is largely comparable to offerings from AMD and Intel (admitedly the new Intel Core Duo is not benchmarked) and although the G5 is, in many cases, not the fastest chip, it is similar. The increases of 2-3x in performance between the G5 and MacIntel iMac are a consequence of having a dual core chip (and being a generation ahead of the G5) besides, Apple could have feasibly used the dual-core G5 chips that they've had at their disposal for a while now. Any Mac zealot will argue that their PowerPC Mac is "just" as fast as an intel based system, but performance is NOT the issue. This is why the iMac was updated first, it is a consumer product, supporting Apple's fledgling attempts to enter the living room (consider front row ) - it desperately needs Intel's brand name associated with its hardware.
The significance of this new product is long term and cannot be underestimated.
Apple finanlly has penetrated the consumer electronics market with the iPod, and their brand recognition and image could not be better. Apple has shoehorned its way into the psyche of the common man. It now has to bring its key product, the mac, to the masses. Consumers will be attracted from a design perspective and because it shares the same logo as their iPod, the OS is a little different to windows, but now at least you have the reasurrance of dual booting into windows (I'd like proof of this concept, but I'm sure it will come) and the processor gives the security of a well recognised brand name (consider brand strengh of Intel vs. AMD).
In the future, I doubt that IBM's die shrunk Power chips will share the low power consumption that I expect Intel will bring, and many concepts for great products will never be realised. I'll be interested to see if the new Intel chips can match up to the PowerPC altivec-ised vDSP FFT's , but in a way I don't care. It is an exciting time to be a Mac user, as more people join the fantastic experience that we have had for so long, and new software and hardware comes our way. Either way, they're finally here and it will be interesting to see what the future holds.
I doubt that Apple's move to Intel had a great deal to do with performance, and I dislike this fact being used as a key selling point. If you refer to the "definitive" G5 vs. everyone else benchmarks at http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2436 it is apparent that the G5 is largely comparable to offerings from AMD and Intel (admitedly the new Intel Core Duo is not benchmarked) and although the G5 is, in many cases, not the fastest chip, it is similar. The increases of 2-3x in performance between the G5 and MacIntel iMac are a consequence of having a dual core chip (and being a generation ahead of the G5) besides, Apple could have feasibly used the dual-core G5 chips that they've had at their disposal for a while now. Any Mac zealot will argue that their PowerPC Mac is "just" as fast as an intel based system, but performance is NOT the issue. This is why the iMac was updated first, it is a consumer product, supporting Apple's fledgling attempts to enter the living room (consider front row) - it desperately needs Intel's brand name associated with its hardware.
The significance of this new product is long term and cannot be underestimated.
Apple finanlly has penetrated the consumer electronics market with the iPod, and their brand recognition and image could not be better. Apple has shoehorned its way into the psyche of the common man. It now has to bring its key product, the mac, to the masses. Consumers will be attracted from a design perspective and because it shares the same logo as their iPod, the OS is a little different to windows, but now at least you have the reasurrance of dual booting into windows (I'd like proof of this concept, but I'm sure it will come) and the processor gives the security of a well recognised brand name (consider brand strengh of Intel vs. AMD).
In the future, I doubt that IBM's die shrunk Power chips will share the low power consumption that I expect Intel will bring, and many concepts for great products will never be realised. I'll be interested to see if the new Intel chips can match up to the PowerPC altivec-ised vDSP FFT's, but in a way I don't care. It is an exciting time to be a Mac user, as more people join the fantastic experience that we have had for so long, and new software and hardware comes our way. Either way, they're finally here and it will be interesting to see what the future holds.
"For the pro-crowd they just need to stretch their pro-video and maybe throw in some eye candy like 32 inch displays or intel plasma display"
Although many people are familiar with the Macintosh TV and later models with integrated TV tuners, few people are aware that Apple did once trial a TV reciever with a small embedded version of Mac OS. See http://www.theapplemuseum.com/index.php?id=45 for details.
It was a miserable failure. But times have changed, and Apple are now very much in competition with Microsoft and Sony for control of the living room. It will be interesting to see what is announced at MacWorld.
"Beagle 2 spotted on mars"
Sounds like more like a Dalmation to me.
In fact, they did. The "astronauts" were selected on the basis of their suggestibility and ignorance of physics, space and Russia. The extent of which is quite astounding - they are told that they are "too close to earth" to experience any weightlessness. Which has interesting implications for the fate of their shuttle...
Here are the deeply patronising contestant profiles from the Channel Four web site:
Andrew is a student who lives at home with his parents. He's good looking and confident, and describes himself as funny, intelligent, charming and considerate. One of his luckiest moments was going out with the prettiest girl in his primary school.
Andrew finds the R Kelly track 'I Believe I Can Fly' inspirational because it gives him self-belief and makes him feel he can do anything.
He is a keen Arsenal fan and plays football in a local league - but that's not his only interest: he also confesses to being a church attendee but sadly he only mimes the words to the hymns, as he doesn't know the words.
Andrew is also scared of moths.
Astrid is looking for some real excitement in her life. She's a pretty blonde from Mid Glamorgan, who went to school in Cardiff with pop chick Charlotte Church. She now lives in the sticks, so can't hit the town every night.
Astrid works in a call centre, and has had five different jobs this year but still doesn't know what she wants to do. In fact, she wants to do everything! She's also quite clumsy and has a habit of losing mobile phones. Like her old school chum Charlotte, she also likes to sing, but suffers from stagefright and can only perform in front of her family.
Astrid's had a boyfriend for the last 6 months and claims she has lots of friends. She's an adventurous girl who dreams of riding in a Formula 1 car. She gets annoyed by two-faced people and hates seeing others being picked on.
Billy is one for the ladies. He is a semi-pro footballer and his ultimate ambition is a to be a footballer or film star. He realises he's too old for professional football but there is still time to hit Hollywood. He describes himself as tall, dark and handsome, funny, outgoing, polite and caring but also one of the lads.
Billy loves the film Armageddon, hates spiders and the idea of drowning and says his most embarrassing moment was when his ex girlfriend's dad witnessed him walking down the catwalk in a red silk thong. He believes in reincarnation and wants to return as a golden eagle. Billy does not believe in ghosts but claims to have seen an alien.
Cheryl is a lively, ambitious and opinionated girl who loves people. She is also impatient and hates being alone. A firm believer in fate, she believes in reincarnation and ghosts - she says a guardian angel visited her when she was aged sixteen. She fears drowning and fire but feels that taking part in a 'thrill-seekers' show will give her the chance to do something unique.
Cheryl describes herself as a typical, up-for-it 23 year old girl. She hates liars and smoking, and enjoys clubbing with her friends, clothes and relaxing in a bath with a glass of wine.
Keri's so keen on space travel that her ultimate fancy dress outfit is dressing up as an astronaut. She describes herself as a friendly, outgoing girl who will try anything once, and compares herself to Bridget Jones. She's also a team player - as long as the team wins! Her fears include drowning and spiders, and she never, ever wants to free-fall into water or sing in front of a group of people.
Keri's strangest job was dressing up as a human eyeball to promote Specsavers. Other unusual achievements include being able to put her fist in her mouth.
Things Keri likes include Christmas, white-knuckle rides, family, friends, holidays, romance and chocolate.
Louise is sporty and competitive and represents her county in basketball and athletics. She lived in Canada for ten months, and admits to being afraid of
Does anyone know how the pilot Blu-ray failure rate compares to the average current commercial rejection rate of CDs/DVDs?
It seems somewhat unfounded to denounce a 20% failure rate (althought, yes it does seem wasteful) without comparing this to the current, and so reasonable economical, failure rates?
Any thoughts?
Here's a link to the patent application , and here's an overview from MacNN (note that the link posted by MacNN appears to be invalid).
Here's what wikipedia has to say:
"In the United Kingdom, these fees are set by Parliament and go directly to the funding of the BBC, enabling it to run without the need for market competition. The licence fee, initially for radio sets (exempt since 1971), was mandated by the 1904 Wireless Telegraphy Act. The fee was originally 10 shillings (£0.50) and in 2005 was £126.50 for colour TV and £42 for monochrome TV. There are concessions for the elderly (free for over 75s) and blind people (50% off). Only one licence is required per household. It is believed that approximately 5% of TVs are unlicensed. With the BBC's increased worldwide output (including its online services) there has been a debate as to the abolition of the TV licence, which has been denounced as a violation of the freedom to receive information without inteference. Generally, competing television companies favour the licence fee since it means the BBC will not compete with them for advertising or subscriptions. Proper debate of the licence fee is consistently suppressed by the BBC from its own airwaves. Numerous polls show significant public opposition to the fee.
According to the definition of TV receiving apparatus [1], a licence must be obtained for any device which is "installed or used" for receiving broadcasts, which potentially covers devices such as a tuner card in a PC or a portable television. However a television installed and used for some other purpose, such as a closed-circuit monitor, video player or a games console, is exempt provided the owner can demonstrate it is not used for receiving broadcasts.
Enforcement in the UK is provided by Capita Group and the AMV consortium. Capita agents are paid bonuses on the basis of the convictions they secure. AMV is an advertising and public relations agency. Several hundred thousand prosecutions are brought each year. Observations at magistrates court show that a very large proportion of those prosecuted are single women on benefits. Capita maintain a database of all addresses in the country, with electronics retailers being subject to large fines if they do not pass on the addresses of anyone buying television receiving equipment. Addresses with no licence are assumed to have a television, and are subject to repeated threatening mailshots and visits by the enforcement agency. In addition to the database, the BBC claims that electronic detectors are used to pick up the small amount of energy re-radiated by the local oscillator in the tuning circuitry. There is no evidence of any prosecution ever having been brought on this basis of this warrantless electronic surveillance and it is widely suspected that the famous detector vans are no more than mock-ups designed to intimidate viewers. It's open to doubt how well the much advertised detectors would work on a TV tuner card within the electrically noisy Faraday cage enclosure of a PC: the simpler method of calling round and looking for the aerial or an operating television would seem more effective. Note that, since the inspectors are not police officers or any other type of government official, they have no right to enter private property unless invited. Some feel that the scheme is as a regressive tax, in that the very poorest are those least likely to have a licence, and least able to pay the fine for not having a licence. A report ("TV sinners", March 1998) by the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux pointed out that failure to pay the fine is the single largest reason for the imprisonment of single mothers. However, supporters of the licence fee claim that it helps maintain a higher quality of programming on the BBC compared to its commercial rivals. Some also claim that it also leads to better programmes on the commercial channels as they seek to draw viewers/listeners away from the BBC's output."
Any other questions should probably be directed here.
...Pobody's Nerfect