Note: This article contains Speculation. I'd inviso-text the Speculative parts, but/. doesn't allow any coloury tags. Oh darn. =)
I agree with your opinion about press status -- I don't have as much of a problem with Apple excluding some people (e.g. low volume news sites, ordinary users with blogs) from media pass eligibility if that's what they want to do. And it would be different if the media pass was denied because Apple or IDG didn't consider Graphicpower "press".
But, after reportedly claiming that Graphicpower was blacklisted by Apple due to publishing of rumor, IDG now claims that Graphicpower isn't "press"; this claim may or may not have merit, but that doesn't mean that it's the original reason why the pass was revoked.
Sure, sour grapes over media outlet size discrimination may be a factor in this, but would Graphicpower publisher Scott McCarthy really be making as much noise about that alone?
Graphicpower isn't even a rumor site; it's just collateral damage to Apple's PR strategy.
I don't even think the issuance or non-issuance of media passes is really at issue here. As Matthew Rothenberg suggests in his eWeek article, folks can get the same amount of information (perhaps more even) with an exhibitor's pass as with a media pass.
What's really at issue here is Apple's vendetta against pre-release product information and rumour, and particularly the media control agenda behind it. Mr. McCarthy feels that Apple is putting their fingers where they don't belong, and he can't abide by it. That's fair, if you ask me.
Some may consider Mr. McCarthy's choice of action to be somewhat immature; I think it would be nobler to stick around, but there's room for debate, and it's his call in the end.
Anyway, I'm not sure what Apple high ups think they can accomplish here. Sure, Apple PR is up to their old tricks again, wanting to spoon-feed the public with their specially-selected news (apologies to Moxy Fruvous). Some bright spark at Apple probably decided that it would be best if their news packets were dispensed only through news outlets that they could count on not to dilute the "news" by reporting rumor, and to not cloud it by engaging in intelligent extrapolation. But this ignores the reason why sites report rumor and speculation, and why people read them, for that matter. Apple PR is trying to maintain an information void about future Apple products, and people are just trying to fill that void.
Unlike Mr. McCarthy's site, most Mac news sites not granted media passes won't shut down. They may go the exhibition or they may not. But at best (from Apple's perspective), they'll get as much Apple-approved information with an exhibitors pass as they would with a media pass (losing nothing from the blacklisting), and at worst they won't get as much information, perhaps not even going to the expo at all, and will have to fill the gap with speculation and rumor to an even greater degree. And people will continue to read their reports, for the same reason as before.
Of course, Apple could just be playing head games with Mac news sources that still believe they need to stay on Apple's good side to survive. Or Apple high ups, too, might hold the mistaken belief that mac news sites can't survive without their cooperation (which would be consistent with past Apple hubris). It doesn't matter. They may have limited success, if many blacklisted outlets decide to walk the straight and narrow so that this doesn't happen again. But rumour propagation and speculation will continue elsewhere, until the next blacklisting...... and so on.
Automatic binary stiching through the web interface?/me drools. I'd actually consider shelling out some cash for that.
Actually, this thread prompted me to grab a newer copy of newsgrabber (fairly good binary sticher for evil MS OSes and very wine-friendly iirc) and check out shaw's feed againd. I was pleasantly surprised by the improved quality. (Not to mention that I'm new to yEnc and parity files; efficiency has improved, and the need for reposts has been cut down). And, since it's my ISP's fairly local news server, I get a cool 2.5mbits/sec down; I'm not sure if a 3rd party feed could compete.
I can't remember who created it; I first saw it in the form of the T9 input method for wince-based palm-sized PCs, and I wasn't particularly impressed with its performance compared with the native glyph input. That style of input is really great for cellphones, however, where a touchscreen would be prohibitively expensive, and where there are enough actual hardware buttons to map to. Text entry on my new Nokia 3360 isn't bad, because of that feature.
I don't see any concepts that you could carry over to a language without multicharacter words, though.
There are several 68k mac emulators for PC: softmac, fusion, basiliskII, vmac, etc... These all emulate the Mac hardware at a lower level than ARDI's Executor, (I'm not sure if you're making that distiction or not) and so they need a copy of the MacOS and a Mac rom image to operate. BasiliskII is notable because it's GPLed, Linux-compatible, and fairly full-featured.
There are no PowerMac emulators for PC, however. Given this latest news about MOL running on fairly foreign (although still PPC) hardware, it must have a pretty complete architecture emulation. All that would be needed for a portable PowerMac emulation would be for a PPC emulator core to be tacked on and optimized a whole bunch. Although this would take some time, it doesn't seem terribly impossible.
Probably because most people don't have access to a reliable news server that carries a lot of binaries groups.
My current ISP, Shaw Cablesystems, has a high group count, but expires posts really fast. And it takes a lot of effort to supplement my feed from other servers.
(Hey... anyone know of any usenet binary software that can do simultaneous downloading from multiple servers and lets one specify different socks proxies for each one? That would be really helpful.)
I don't know why that was modded as a troll....
I mean, if some comprehensive user-moderation features could be tacked on to usenet nicely, I don't think we'd be here right now. =)
Firstly, there are copies of the promotional DVD of "Once More, With Feeling" floating around on eBay (although at fairly high prices).
Secondly, you can always fire up your favourite p2p software, if you're in to that sort of thing, and grab a copy of the full first run of the episode. I'm currently using Kazaa (nicely sandboxed -- ain't VMWare great?); fasttrack seems to have a lot of Buffy fans.
Oh, but I'll have to go along with the inevitable whining and wonder whether this story is really/.-worthy. Not that I don't like BtVS; quite the opposite. However, this isn't really "News for Nerds", and my slayage.com bookmark serves me perfectly well for Buffy news.
Yes, you do. IIRC, you give permission to MS to install software in the main XP EULA, even if you don't have auto updates turned on. I know that. I'm trying to determine whether that could bind me to special EULAs at all, or if it can't because I never have an opportunity to see or disagree with the special EULAs.
If this patch was distributed through Windows Update as a critical update, and thus was auto-installed on my machine through my XP Auto-Update configuration, then it's not like I've agreed to a new EULA, right? It was automatically installed; I was never given an opportunity to disagree to a new license.
"The restriction on binaries is to ensure product quality and consistency of the brand for hardware and software vendors and for the quality of support within the business organization. "
Heh... Well, that could be an argument against the distribution of _modified_ binaries not labelled as such, but not one against the distribution of _unaltered_ binaries. The only reason I can see to restrict the distribution of unaltered binaries is to obtain more money.
Now, keep in mind that all GPLed bits of UL will be freely available to the public in short order. (After all, the UL members can't enjoin their customers from distributing the GPLed bits, so even if the UL members won't do it directly, the sharing that is the basis of the linux community will ensure that they sneak out somehow...)
Anyway, the UL base seems to have a good chance of reaching the segment of the enterprise market looking for well-supported linux server distributions (that Red Hat is trying to reach with their Advanced Server product, for example). They tend to buy distros that contain a lot of non-GPLed value-add anyway, and will spend big chunks of cash on wider (more "end-to-end"-integrated) products.
But, it's kind of odd to try to go after them with the "standardization" angle, isn't it? I mean, they don't care very much about standardisation as a tool to integrate products from different vendors, because they don't want to spend any time on that anyway. Reaching a minimal cost to fit the requirements isn't really very important to most enterprise customers, when it comes right down to it, as long as the cost is below a subjective "too high" level. So wouldn't it be better for UL to pump out as much distribution lock-in as the customers can handle?
$500 US for 8 drives worth of IDE controller capacity? That seems pretty high; a pair of Promise UDMA133 controllers (2 ch = 4 drive ea.) would set me back 150$ US total at the local corporate-office mart. And consider also that motherboards typically have 4-6 drives of capacity to start with, which should take care of other IDE peripherals and then some; you may not need more than one additional controller.
Keep in mind that you need a computer system to connect the storage to either way; but interfacing would be really affordable with the model of jukebox you suggest, since it uses firewire (IEEE-1394). (I had sort of assumed that any high capacity changers would use FC or SCSI, requiring a significant chunk of cash for the interface, but apparently they don't.)
Also, any decent full tower case should be able to handle 8 3+1/2" standard height drives. (The fact that the majority of the world banishes themselves to bad mid or mini tower cases doesn't mean that everyone has to). My cheap-assed A/Open ATX full tower has 5 internal 3+1/2" bays (3 front, 2 rear), so I'd have to convert 3 of the 5+1/4" bays to hold the remaining hds, but there would still be 2 5+1/4"s and a 3+1/2" external left. Yes, this is quite a stretch, because my case isn't suited for the crapload of cooling you would need for all of those drives. Also the power supply would need to be fairly high capacity, as it might be difficult to stagger the drive spinups to avoid power problems without using SCSI. But it still shouldn't require especially rare/expensive casing, PS, or ATA controllerage.
I don't see why you're bringing RAID (especially hardware RAID -- very expensive and unnecessary when high throughput isn't crucial) into the equation. The jukebox wouldn't do mirrored reading in the RAID sense, because it only reads one disc at a time. And, although especially capabale bundled media jukebox software may prove me wrong, I doubt that it could automatically switch to an online backup disc when encountering a read error. So you would probably just keep the mirror set offline on the shelf to reclaim the jukebox capacity. The equivalent HD solution would have backup tapes on the shelf too. (the Jukebox may have less repair downtime, more than software RAID's none, but more cost competitive also.)
You'd have to have a fairly large jukebox system before it would begin to be cost-competitive with hard drive storage, wouldn't you? How much data are we talking about here?
Caveat Emptor (or "Audigy has 24/96 output. But:")
on
The State of PC Audio
·
· Score: 2
According to Creative's promotional material, the Audigy supports 24bit 96khz output, but only digitally; presumably this is because it doesn't have a high-rate DAC onboard.
However, promotional materials claim that the Digital Entertainment version of the Audigy, a higher-end version released for the Asian market, does have a 24bit 96khz capable DAC onboard. Additionally, the "Audigy drive" breakout boxes included with the Platinum and Platinum EX both have 24/96 DACs; 24/96 audio should play properly through them.
But, a grain of salt:
Creative's promotional materials and product specs are fairly... creative. =)
My Creative Labs CD-R Blaster 8432 (an OEM ATAPI Plextor Plexwriter 8432) is the last CL product I'm ever going to buy (well, at retail prices anyway, second-hand ebaying aside). The drive itself performs very well in terms of burn data error rates. However, it has performance problems which have occasionally led to underrunning. The buffer is half the size of the Plexwriter's (2mb instead of 4mb) -- but I knew that when I bought it. And, more importantly, like its equivalent ATAPI Plexwriter cousin, the drive doesn't support DMA properly, even though it claims in four seperate places on the box that it does. It even lists UDMA support as a system requirement. Creative tech support personnel are generally clueless, or seem to feel that giving out any product information will only encourage warranty returns or something. But from what I've been able to determine on the net, there Creative has OEMed at least 3 different drive models from Plextor, Panasonic, and Samsung, under the "CD-RW Blaster 8432" name. And the Samsung doesn't support UDMA either.
Complaining that your "Athlon XP 1900+ 1.5GHz" doesn't run at 1.9Ghz is about as sensible as complaining that your 2002 Honda Civic CE doesn't have 2002 horsepower. =)
And, also, comparing clock rates isn't like comparing horsepower at all -- horsepower has a very direct relationship with the performance of your engine. A processor's clock rate has only a very indirect relationship with its performance.
However, I think that AMD expressing their processors' performance in terms of intel's processors' only makes them second fiddle to intel. I'd expect a more practical rating system (perhaps with different sets of ratings for different groups of applications with similar performance characteristics) to be the best approach. And, as a bonus, they might be useful for more than just price comparisons of equivalently-performing processors.
Sure, computer salespeople are generally not very knowledgable (mind you, with many exceptions), and so processor manufacturers feel they need to do something to clue the customers in, but it's not like we can take their claims of equivalence without verification.
Although it's probably pretty easy for RMS to steer around the firmware binaries specifically, he would have to fine-tooth comb over every bit of source code license on anything he uses to remain ideologically pure (e.g. thousands of packages in a linux distribution, if he uses such things), especially when he knows that the author doesn't share his ideals. Does he do that, I wonder?
Mr. Stallman lives on a planet where non-free software is predominant. But, in this light, isn't it a bit strange that he hasn't yet commited suicide to avoid futher compromising his ideological position?
Of course not! If Mr. The Sane was not around, who would be left to make retaliatory ad hominem attacks about minor ideologial transgressions against aspiring Free Software authors who do not go out of their way to make sure that the GNU project gets the credit that (RMS feels) it deserves?
Hey, Stallman!: Linus Torvalds does not produce a GNU/Linux distribution. What would you have him do? a) Rename his kernel? b) Jump up and down and wave his arms at distribution producers? c) Quack like a duck?
If the credit is due to you, isn't the handwaving your job? Why should Torvalds do it for you? You imply that he has usurped your credit; however, he names no distributions... Does he steal your credit simply be existing? Or write software? Or hold a different ideological position? How dare he do those things!
I apologize in advance for any rantishness apparent in the following. I've tried my best to avoid that; I support Free Software proper, but I'm not sure if I support Stallman's methods.
Most seem to agree... Referring to a GNU/Linux OS without the "GNU" is not the same thing as crediting Torvalds for its production. Indeed, these two matters are unrelated. If some are misled to believe that the Linux kernel is its primary component of a distribution, simply because "Linux" appears in its name, that is their failing, not the distribution namer's, and certainly not Mr. Torvalds'.
It's just a name, dammit! What difference does it make what the name is? "To make that name appear justified, they must see molehills as mountains and mountains as molehills." This quote from you is especially appropriate, as it as much to the name to which you refer, as to your quest to seek renaming.
My $0.02 theory:
Okay, you refuse to give speeches for organizations that do not call GNU/Linux distributions by names that you feel are appropriate. And if this naming issue was really about credit assigned to the GNU project, then your position would most definitely be retributive. But, as you say, it isn't, because it's not about credit at all.
What is it about? It's about you doing whatever is in your power to ensure that messages endorsing free software are maximized, and messages endorsing non-free software are minimized. You want free advertising, plain and simple. You may feel that your ideological vision could spread over enough time without you having to pull a Daffy Duck, but that's irrelevant, because it would take longer. You're not afraid of borrowing big non-free-software's strategy and starting a public endoctrination campaign about software licensing on the back of revenues from successful products. So, you will attempt to hitch a ride on the popularity of GNU-containing OSes. Never mind that distribution creators have already followed (and promoted) your license; never mind that at best you remained indifferent to their efforts, and at worst you were actively kicking and screaming and dragging your heels over ideological differences; their distributions contain your software, so they must owe you [insert something more here] (e.g. primary credit), and you can use that to shoehorn them into changing their names to promote your vision. But why, then, does the Linux community laugh at you when you try to fly your flag on the masts of their ships? [Why? I don't know... He's on third base, and I don't give a darn!]
Oops. I've gone and done it. I said "Linux community". Now, I was talking about the community of Linux kernel users, of course. And since there are no Non-GNU Linux OSes, that must mean that all the OSes I'm talking about are GNU-based OSes. So, I'm sure you're offended. I apologize. However, as there are Non-Linux GNU systems, it is obvious that I'm not talking about all GNU systems. This is the origin of the naming convention; it necessarily and sufficiently identifies a set of something without adding qualifications that are needed to define the set. That is all. Don't take it personally.
If you ask me, the fact that it goes without saying -- that all Linux-based OS distributions contain GNU software -- is worth far more to the GNU project than any free advertising could be. The ideals of Free Software stand on their own merits. You need to lighten up, maybe, but you don't need to stack the deck in your favour. The ideological zealotry has scared away enough folks; don't lets start with the marketing...
Did you even read the message you just quoted from? It even says the person's grade has been held, and that their name has been submitted for investigation. How are they supposed to investigate if they don't know the person's name?
Hint: We do lock people up on suspicion of a crime. A person is arrested. If appropriate, bail is set. Then, the person can leave if they post a sufficient bond, until their trial.
Maybe I'm missing some important assumption. Why should a broader definition of academic misconduct be put in place just because the class is bigger? If the broader definition is used as a compromise to make it easier to run the class, how does it do that? If talking about a solution with your roommate is considered unacceptable when the solution is for a class of 800, should it not also be unacceptable when the solution is for a class of 30?
(In fact, the only relationship I can discern is the opposite one -- cooperation would be encouraged more in larger classes, as there is less teacher/TA time to go around for responding to questions.)
The student enrolled in a class. The class had a contract (a syllabus is a binding contract). Providing the syllabus did indeed mention the honor code, the student is wrong--not the school.
Right.
"Examples like this are ideal for showing our future technology generation the importance of standards and ethics.
This example tells us nothing about the importance of standards and ethics... For that, you would have to claim that the standards involved were important, or that violating them would be unethical. What does that have to do with whether the standards were violated or not?
In short, the student was wrong, the school simply enforced its policy.
I agree...
Georgia Tech is an excellent school with a high reputation.
Does GA Tech have a good reputation? I'll leave this question to another discussion; likewise with any comments you may have on student drug use there (after all, as you're not an alumnus, I can't make fun of bad grammar and remain on topic =)
If you want it on your resume, you have to earn it.
Truer words were never spoken. (That's why I always use plain paper, and leave the scented paper to the other guys. =)
Slashdot Mirror
Note: This article contains Speculation. I'd inviso-text the Speculative parts, but /. doesn't allow any coloury tags. Oh darn. =)
... ... and so on.
I agree with your opinion about press status -- I don't have as much of a problem with Apple excluding some people (e.g. low volume news sites, ordinary users with blogs) from media pass eligibility if that's what they want to do. And it would be different if the media pass was denied because Apple or IDG didn't consider Graphicpower "press".
But, after reportedly claiming that Graphicpower was blacklisted by Apple due to publishing of rumor, IDG now claims that Graphicpower isn't "press"; this claim may or may not have merit, but that doesn't mean that it's the original reason why the pass was revoked.
Sure, sour grapes over media outlet size discrimination may be a factor in this, but would Graphicpower publisher Scott McCarthy really be making as much noise about that alone?
Graphicpower isn't even a rumor site; it's just collateral damage to Apple's PR strategy.
I don't even think the issuance or non-issuance of media passes is really at issue here. As Matthew Rothenberg suggests in his eWeek article, folks can get the same amount of information (perhaps more even) with an exhibitor's pass as with a media pass.
What's really at issue here is Apple's vendetta against pre-release product information and rumour, and particularly the media control agenda behind it. Mr. McCarthy feels that Apple is putting their fingers where they don't belong, and he can't abide by it. That's fair, if you ask me.
Some may consider Mr. McCarthy's choice of action to be somewhat immature; I think it would be nobler to stick around, but there's room for debate, and it's his call in the end.
Anyway, I'm not sure what Apple high ups think they can accomplish here. Sure, Apple PR is up to their old tricks again, wanting to spoon-feed the public with their specially-selected news (apologies to Moxy Fruvous). Some bright spark at Apple probably decided that it would be best if their news packets were dispensed only through news outlets that they could count on not to dilute the "news" by reporting rumor, and to not cloud it by engaging in intelligent extrapolation. But this ignores the reason why sites report rumor and speculation, and why people read them, for that matter. Apple PR is trying to maintain an information void about future Apple products, and people are just trying to fill that void.
Unlike Mr. McCarthy's site, most Mac news sites not granted media passes won't shut down. They may go the exhibition or they may not. But at best (from Apple's perspective), they'll get as much Apple-approved information with an exhibitors pass as they would with a media pass (losing nothing from the blacklisting), and at worst they won't get as much information, perhaps not even going to the expo at all, and will have to fill the gap with speculation and rumor to an even greater degree. And people will continue to read their reports, for the same reason as before.
Of course, Apple could just be playing head games with Mac news sources that still believe they need to stay on Apple's good side to survive. Or Apple high ups, too, might hold the mistaken belief that mac news sites can't survive without their cooperation (which would be consistent with past Apple hubris). It doesn't matter. They may have limited success, if many blacklisted outlets decide to walk the straight and narrow so that this doesn't happen again. But rumour propagation and speculation will continue elsewhere, until the next blacklisting
-aT
Automatic binary stiching through the web interface? /me drools. I'd actually consider shelling out some cash for that.
Actually, this thread prompted me to grab a newer copy of newsgrabber (fairly good binary sticher for evil MS OSes and very wine-friendly iirc) and check out shaw's feed againd. I was pleasantly surprised by the improved quality. (Not to mention that I'm new to yEnc and parity files; efficiency has improved, and the need for reposts has been cut down). And, since it's my ISP's fairly local news server, I get a cool 2.5mbits/sec down; I'm not sure if a 3rd party feed could compete.
I can't remember who created it; I first saw it in the form of the T9 input method for wince-based palm-sized PCs, and I wasn't particularly impressed with its performance compared with the native glyph input. That style of input is really great for cellphones, however, where a touchscreen would be prohibitively expensive, and where there are enough actual hardware buttons to map to. Text entry on my new Nokia 3360 isn't bad, because of that feature.
I don't see any concepts that you could carry over to a language without multicharacter words, though.
There are several 68k mac emulators for PC: softmac, fusion, basiliskII, vmac, etc...
These all emulate the Mac hardware at a lower level than ARDI's Executor, (I'm not sure if you're making that distiction or not) and so they need a copy of the MacOS and a Mac rom image to operate. BasiliskII is notable because it's GPLed, Linux-compatible, and fairly full-featured.
There are no PowerMac emulators for PC, however. Given this latest news about MOL running on fairly foreign (although still PPC) hardware, it must have a pretty complete architecture emulation. All that would be needed for a portable PowerMac emulation would be for a PPC emulator core to be tacked on and optimized a whole bunch. Although this would take some time, it doesn't seem terribly impossible.
Probably because most people don't have access to a reliable news server that carries a lot of binaries groups.
My current ISP, Shaw Cablesystems, has a high group count, but expires posts really fast. And it takes a lot of effort to supplement my feed from other servers.
(Hey... anyone know of any usenet binary software that can do simultaneous downloading from multiple servers and lets one specify different socks proxies for each one? That would be really helpful.)
I don't know why that was modded as a troll....
I mean, if some comprehensive user-moderation features could be tacked on to usenet nicely, I don't think we'd be here right now. =)
One more thing...
Definitely expect UPN to rerun the full episode at some point if it gets nominated.
Firstly, there are copies of the promotional DVD of "Once More, With Feeling" floating around on eBay (although at fairly high prices).
/.-worthy. Not that I don't like BtVS; quite the opposite. However, this isn't really "News for Nerds", and my slayage.com bookmark serves me perfectly well for Buffy news.
Secondly, you can always fire up your favourite p2p software, if you're in to that sort of thing, and grab a copy of the full first run of the episode. I'm currently using Kazaa (nicely sandboxed -- ain't VMWare great?); fasttrack seems to have a lot of Buffy fans.
Oh, but I'll have to go along with the inevitable whining and wonder whether this story is really
Yes, you do. IIRC, you give permission to MS to install software in the main XP EULA, even if you don't have auto updates turned on. I know that. I'm trying to determine whether that could bind me to special EULAs at all, or if it can't because I never have an opportunity to see or disagree with the special EULAs.
If this patch was distributed through Windows Update as a critical update, and thus was auto-installed on my machine through my XP Auto-Update configuration, then it's not like I've agreed to a new EULA, right? It was automatically installed; I was never given an opportunity to disagree to a new license.
"The restriction on binaries is to ensure product quality and consistency of the brand for hardware and software vendors and for the quality of support within the business organization. "
Heh... Well, that could be an argument against the distribution of _modified_ binaries not labelled as such, but not one against the distribution of _unaltered_ binaries. The only reason I can see to restrict the distribution of unaltered binaries is to obtain more money.
Now, keep in mind that all GPLed bits of UL will be freely available to the public in short order. (After all, the UL members can't enjoin their customers from distributing the GPLed bits, so even if the UL members won't do it directly, the sharing that is the basis of the linux community will ensure that they sneak out somehow...)
Anyway, the UL base seems to have a good chance of reaching the segment of the enterprise market looking for well-supported linux server distributions (that Red Hat is trying to reach with their Advanced Server product, for example). They tend to buy distros that contain a lot of non-GPLed value-add anyway, and will spend big chunks of cash on wider (more "end-to-end"-integrated) products.
But, it's kind of odd to try to go after them with the "standardization" angle, isn't it? I mean, they don't care very much about standardisation as a tool to integrate products from different vendors, because they don't want to spend any time on that anyway. Reaching a minimal cost to fit the requirements isn't really very important to most enterprise customers, when it comes right down to it, as long as the cost is below a subjective "too high" level. So wouldn't it be better for UL to pump out as much distribution lock-in as the customers can handle?
$500 US for 8 drives worth of IDE controller capacity? That seems pretty high; a pair of Promise UDMA133 controllers (2 ch = 4 drive ea.) would set me back 150$ US total at the local corporate-office mart. And consider also that motherboards typically have 4-6 drives of capacity to start with, which should take care of other IDE peripherals and then some; you may not need more than one additional controller.
Keep in mind that you need a computer system to connect the storage to either way; but interfacing would be really affordable with the model of jukebox you suggest, since it uses firewire (IEEE-1394). (I had sort of assumed that any high capacity changers would use FC or SCSI, requiring a significant chunk of cash for the interface, but apparently they don't.)
Also, any decent full tower case should be able to handle 8 3+1/2" standard height drives. (The fact that the majority of the world banishes themselves to bad mid or mini tower cases doesn't mean that everyone has to). My cheap-assed A/Open ATX full tower has 5 internal 3+1/2" bays (3 front, 2 rear), so I'd have to convert 3 of the 5+1/4" bays to hold the remaining hds, but there would still be 2 5+1/4"s and a 3+1/2" external left. Yes, this is quite a stretch, because my case isn't suited for the crapload of cooling you would need for all of those drives. Also the power supply would need to be fairly high capacity, as it might be difficult to stagger the drive spinups to avoid power problems without using SCSI. But it still shouldn't require especially rare/expensive casing, PS, or ATA controllerage.
I don't see why you're bringing RAID (especially hardware RAID -- very expensive and unnecessary when high throughput isn't crucial) into the equation. The jukebox wouldn't do mirrored reading in the RAID sense, because it only reads one disc at a time. And, although especially capabale bundled media jukebox software may prove me wrong, I doubt that it could automatically switch to an online backup disc when encountering a read error. So you would probably just keep the mirror set offline on the shelf to reclaim the jukebox capacity. The equivalent HD solution would have backup tapes on the shelf too. (the Jukebox may have less repair downtime, more than software RAID's none, but more cost competitive also.)
more later...
You'd have to have a fairly large jukebox system before it would begin to be cost-competitive with hard drive storage, wouldn't you? How much data are we talking about here?
According to Creative's promotional material, the Audigy supports 24bit 96khz output, but only digitally; presumably this is because it doesn't have a high-rate DAC onboard.
However, promotional materials claim that the Digital Entertainment version of the Audigy, a higher-end version released for the Asian market, does have a 24bit 96khz capable DAC onboard. Additionally, the "Audigy drive" breakout boxes included with the Platinum and Platinum EX both have 24/96 DACs; 24/96 audio should play properly through them.
But, a grain of salt:
Creative's promotional materials and product specs are fairly... creative. =)
My Creative Labs CD-R Blaster 8432 (an OEM ATAPI Plextor Plexwriter 8432) is the last CL product I'm ever going to buy (well, at retail prices anyway, second-hand ebaying aside). The drive itself performs very well in terms of burn data error rates. However, it has performance problems which have occasionally led to underrunning. The buffer is half the size of the Plexwriter's (2mb instead of 4mb) -- but I knew that when I bought it. And, more importantly, like its equivalent ATAPI Plexwriter cousin, the drive doesn't support DMA properly, even though it claims in four seperate places on the box that it does. It even lists UDMA support as a system requirement. Creative tech support personnel are generally clueless, or seem to feel that giving out any product information will only encourage warranty returns or something. But from what I've been able to determine on the net, there Creative has OEMed at least 3 different drive models from Plextor, Panasonic, and Samsung, under the "CD-RW Blaster 8432" name. And the Samsung doesn't support UDMA either.
Why? The 1900+ isn't a clock speed. And it's not like 1.5GHz isn't in the ident.
Complaining that your "Athlon XP 1900+ 1.5GHz" doesn't run at 1.9Ghz is about as sensible as complaining that your 2002 Honda Civic CE doesn't have 2002 horsepower. =)
And, also, comparing clock rates isn't like comparing horsepower at all -- horsepower has a very direct relationship with the performance of your engine. A processor's clock rate has only a very indirect relationship with its performance.
However, I think that AMD expressing their processors' performance in terms of intel's processors' only makes them second fiddle to intel. I'd expect a more practical rating system (perhaps with different sets of ratings for different groups of applications with similar performance characteristics) to be the best approach. And, as a bonus, they might be useful for more than just price comparisons of equivalently-performing processors.
Sure, computer salespeople are generally not very knowledgable (mind you, with many exceptions), and so processor manufacturers feel they need to do something to clue the customers in, but it's not like we can take their claims of equivalence without verification.
Rofl... MaxiVision48 isn't digital!
Although it's probably pretty easy for RMS to steer around the firmware binaries specifically, he would have to fine-tooth comb over every bit of source code license on anything he uses to remain ideologically pure (e.g. thousands of packages in a linux distribution, if he uses such things), especially when he knows that the author doesn't share his ideals. Does he do that, I wonder?
Wow. Lots of fun in that message. And not an author's name, let alone a shred of demonstration.
Hmm... You just told the dude to shut up. That makes most of the above apply to you to the same degree, no?
Mr. Stallman lives on a planet where non-free software is predominant. But, in this light, isn't it a bit strange that he hasn't yet commited suicide to avoid futher compromising his ideological position?
Of course not! If Mr. The Sane was not around, who would be left to make retaliatory ad hominem attacks about minor ideologial transgressions against aspiring Free Software authors who do not go out of their way to make sure that the GNU project gets the credit that (RMS feels) it deserves?
Hey, Stallman!: Linus Torvalds does not produce a GNU/Linux distribution. What would you have him do? a) Rename his kernel? b) Jump up and down and wave his arms at distribution producers? c) Quack like a duck?
If the credit is due to you, isn't the handwaving your job? Why should Torvalds do it for you? You imply that he has usurped your credit; however, he names no distributions... Does he steal your credit simply be existing? Or write software? Or hold a different ideological position? How dare he do those things!
I apologize in advance for any rantishness apparent in the following. I've tried my best to avoid that; I support Free Software proper, but I'm not sure if I support Stallman's methods.
Most seem to agree... Referring to a GNU/Linux OS without the "GNU" is not the same thing as crediting Torvalds for its production. Indeed, these two matters are unrelated. If some are misled to believe that the Linux kernel is its primary component of a distribution, simply because "Linux" appears in its name, that is their failing, not the distribution namer's, and certainly not Mr. Torvalds'.
It's just a name, dammit! What difference does it make what the name is? "To make that name appear justified, they must see molehills as mountains and mountains as molehills." This quote from you is especially appropriate, as it as much to the name to which you refer, as to your quest to seek renaming.
My $0.02 theory:
Okay, you refuse to give speeches for organizations that do not call GNU/Linux distributions by names that you feel are appropriate. And if this naming issue was really about credit assigned to the GNU project, then your position would most definitely be retributive. But, as you say, it isn't, because it's not about credit at all.
What is it about? It's about you doing whatever is in your power to ensure that messages endorsing free software are maximized, and messages endorsing non-free software are minimized. You want free advertising, plain and simple. You may feel that your ideological vision could spread over enough time without you having to pull a Daffy Duck, but that's irrelevant, because it would take longer. You're not afraid of borrowing big non-free-software's strategy and starting a public endoctrination campaign about software licensing on the back of revenues from successful products. So, you will attempt to hitch a ride on the popularity of GNU-containing OSes. Never mind that distribution creators have already followed (and promoted) your license; never mind that at best you remained indifferent to their efforts, and at worst you were actively kicking and screaming and dragging your heels over ideological differences; their distributions contain your software, so they must owe you [insert something more here] (e.g. primary credit), and you can use that to shoehorn them into changing their names to promote your vision. But why, then, does the Linux community laugh at you when you try to fly your flag on the masts of their ships? [Why? I don't know... He's on third base, and I don't give a darn!]
Oops. I've gone and done it. I said "Linux community". Now, I was talking about the community of Linux kernel users, of course. And since there are no Non-GNU Linux OSes, that must mean that all the OSes I'm talking about are GNU-based OSes. So, I'm sure you're offended. I apologize. However, as there are Non-Linux GNU systems, it is obvious that I'm not talking about all GNU systems. This is the origin of the naming convention; it necessarily and sufficiently identifies a set of something without adding qualifications that are needed to define the set. That is all. Don't take it personally.
If you ask me, the fact that it goes without saying -- that all Linux-based OS distributions contain GNU software -- is worth far more to the GNU project than any free advertising could be. The ideals of Free Software stand on their own merits. You need to lighten up, maybe, but you don't need to stack the deck in your favour. The ideological zealotry has scared away enough folks; don't lets start with the marketing...
Ask a silly question...
So, "guerilla-style"? What, using small groups and ambushing the attacking troops with wi-fi equipment? =)
And if the course was entitled "How to get around in the world without actually coding", that would be relevant.
Did you even read the message you just quoted from? It even says the person's grade has been held, and that their name has been submitted for investigation. How are they supposed to investigate if they don't know the person's name?
Hint: We do lock people up on suspicion of a crime. A person is arrested. If appropriate, bail is set. Then, the person can leave if they post a sufficient bond, until their trial.
Maybe I'm missing some important assumption. Why should a broader definition of academic misconduct be put in place just because the class is bigger? If the broader definition is used as a compromise to make it easier to run the class, how does it do that? If talking about a solution with your roommate is considered unacceptable when the solution is for a class of 800, should it not also be unacceptable when the solution is for a class of 30?
(In fact, the only relationship I can discern is the opposite one -- cooperation would be encouraged more in larger classes, as there is less teacher/TA time to go around for responding to questions.)
The student enrolled in a class. The class had a contract (a syllabus is a binding contract). Providing the syllabus did indeed mention the honor code, the student is wrong--not the school.
Right.
"Examples like this are ideal for showing our future technology generation the importance of standards and ethics.
This example tells us nothing about the importance of standards and ethics... For that, you would have to claim that the standards involved were important, or that violating them would be unethical. What does that have to do with whether the standards were violated or not?
In short, the student was wrong, the school simply enforced its policy.
I agree...
Georgia Tech is an excellent school with a high reputation.
Does GA Tech have a good reputation? I'll leave this question to another discussion; likewise with any comments you may have on student drug use there (after all, as you're not an alumnus, I can't make fun of bad grammar and remain on topic =)
If you want it on your resume, you have to earn it.
Truer words were never spoken. (That's why I always use plain paper, and leave the scented paper to the other guys. =)
Uh... So, you feel that copying large code segments from other students educates students somehow?