Slashdot Mirror

You are missing the point. Science does not deal in complete and utter absolutes but in order to supplant a VERY firmly entreched theory a person must supply highly convincing evidence which contradicts it. Lerner presents nothing more than wacky ramblings which, as Wolfgang Pauli would say, is not even wrong.

Wow Baldrson this must only be what, the 500th time you've posted this nothing letter here as being something that "blows the doors off" the government's past projects in fusion energy? Goodness, are you perhaps hoping to get a better response here this time than you did when you posted nearly the exact same nuttery to the hyper-racist "Stormfront.org" where you apparently tried to tie the "inhibition of pioneering culture in the US" to..... wait for it.... yep THE JEWS!? Hat's off to you! You truly are a first rate interweb whackjob!

Besides, without DNS, how are you going to even get to Google? http://64.233.161.99? Or maybe you prefer http://64.233.161.104/ or http://64.233.161.147?

There was a company called Real Names that tried to be an alternative to DNS; for a while it was included with IE. You could type "Ford" into your browser's address bar and it would deliver you to Ford Motor Company. Unfortuantely, the idea didn't fly at the time (although the company is still around: http://www.realnames.com/), but the infrastructure was there and could be built again.

"Before you mod this a troll, go read up on ITIL. On the surface it doesn't look bad, but the extremes the consultants can push it to are ludicrous. And the consultants almost always will..."

That's why we should get rid of the Sarbanes-Oxley act. Damn consultants.

Bit-torrent doesn't need [DNS], Google lets me find information anywhere without needing to remember domain names, and portable bookmarks make my life simple.

Bittorrent is an itty-bitty part of the services available on the Internet. And if you let search engines serve as your source for finding the location of resources you need, how is that better than DNS? It seems to me that you're just swapping one directory service for another, the second being corporately owned and changeable at their whim. Besides, without DNS, how are you going to even get to Google? http://64.233.161.99? Or maybe you prefer http://64.233.161.104/ or http://64.233.161.147?

Maybe you don't use DNS a lot, but the rest of the world sure as heck does. It's a basic network service that the Internet is almost useless without. Personally, I think it's pretty scary that one country that, frankly, the world doesn't find very trustworthy right now, controls it.

But I guess that's just me. Oh, and the rest of the world. (And for what it's worth I am American...)

If we assume that statiscally blacks are more likely to: come from single parent families, live in crime ridden neighborhoods, attend underperforming and underfunded schools, be harassed and ill-treated by the judicial system, be poor; and less likely to complete college -

Why are these things true? Because the culture is racist? Perhaps it is.

Perhaps it is more than that.

The Journal of Negro Education printed an article on success of African Americans from families where there was considerable parental involvement and found that these children attained higher levels of success than other African Americans.

I concur that we should work to make schools better - for all students. If we are serious about societal improvement, we must make families better and stronger, because they are the foundation on which individuals stand when learning to overcome obstacles in life.

The downstram effect of limited parenting, poor role models, and poor primary and secondary education means that people who are selected from that group on the basis of race alone are ill equipped to perform competetively with those who have the advantages from the beginning.

It's a multifaceted problem which will require a multifaceted solution. I get frustrated when people want to put window dressing on and call it a solution.

In the US we are in denial about the societal effect of divorce and single-parent households. We are only now beginning to reap the rewards of the sexual revolution - how many kids go home to single-parent houses? How many kids get home alone for a couple of hours in the afternoon?

I submit that if we could teach people with all amounts of melanin in their skin in our culture how to be successfully married, and how to teach children to value themselves and others, we would revolutionize the US - in less than one generation!

Instead we seek to glorify the ethic of the individual - that self pleasure is all that matters and we must do whatever it takes to 'be happy.' And then continue in our denial by railing against the system, and bias.

"The system" (whatever that is) and bias may discriminate against people of color. It probably does. But it can be overcome. We should teach people about success rather than to live as victims of 'the man.'

Just my $0.25 (sorry for the long and wandering rant on social policy)

Respectfully,
Anomaly

Or maybe try these links: main page, first subpage, second subpage, third subpage. They're slow, but they do load eventually.

Or maybe try these links: main page, first subpage, second subpage, third subpage. They're slow, but they do load eventually.

Or maybe try these links: main page, first subpage, second subpage, third subpage. They're slow, but they do load eventually.

Or maybe try these links: main page, first subpage, second subpage, third subpage. They're slow, but they do load eventually.

Google's official birthday is September 7th.... (Link is to Google Cache. Otherwise, first hit for "google birthday" and check the cache.....)

I agree with that, but I see so many reasons we can't get there, and many of my reasons revolve around government regulations, not true market cost concerns!

In the end, I believe that we should be supporting private competition like the X-Prize rather than trying to shove information down the throat of kids who don't really care what they're learning in school, especially at taxpayer's expense.

PUBLIC WARNING

The website listed at domain name http://specops.jeff.net.ru/ is no way affiliated with Specops Laboratories, Philippines; the unscrupulous owners of the aforementioned website are infringing on our copyrighted material and have no authorization to represent our company in any fashion.

We believe that the purpose of this web site may to mislead the public and to defraud unsuspecting persons. We are now conducting an investigation to determine the person(s) behind this fraud and we will be seeking assistant from legal authorities in the appropriate jurisdiction. If you have any information about the person(s) involved in this fraud please contact us at info@specopslabs.com

here

may be a bit old... it's not up on mirrordot yet

Google's cache of the front page should give you an idea of the fun they have going on there.

Hey - not just Poland! A lot of countries count themselves in on the war on Iraq. Gleaned from a Google cache of the White House's own pages (which seems to have been pulled with no trace now), here's a list of some of the powerful nations lending their brave support: Azerbaijan, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Micronesia, Mongolia, Palau, Uzbekistan

Dude, they've got the descendants of Genghis Khan on their side. You don't want to mess with that shite.

Particularly pleasing was the statement at the bottom: "all Coalition member nations understand the threat Saddam Hussein's weapons pose to the world". I mean I think most are crystal clear on that -- none at all.

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:1RFYjZrAz80J: www.slashcode.com/+slashcode&hl=en

Last I heard, it's back in a pre-order phase, after doing a round of orders (check the forums for some really cool mods to the design). Apparently they're having problems tracking down some of the parts, but they post instructions and parts-needed for everything (including USB interface, IIRC), if you wanted to build your own. (the orders were either for kits, or pre-builts, I don't recall which.)

I just went to the link, and it doesn't seem to work: Google Cache

~electro1

If you want to build your own hardware TB-303 clone (and plus some), check out Ladyada's open-source x0b0x kit. (cached). The documentation is excellent, even for a beginner builder. And, they've gone and painstakingly measured all the transistors from an original TB-303 to accurately recreate the sound. It's a steal at $300.

Actually I tunneled a hole through their brick room safe with a pickaxe.
News Article

Remember, don't believe everything you see in the news, No credit cards were taken and no "doors" were burned. The acetylene torch was in case the room-safe had a metal wall. lol.. acetylene torch vs wooden door.. I don't know how they came up with that one.

Yea like Las Vegas casinos or carnies would never cheat. LOL!!!

Not sure I've met to many people if any, who wouldn't take money if its laying there to be taken. Fact is if its easy to cheat, and Internet poker looks ripe for it, I wager somebody will. The per hand fees they levy are bad enough but they have to keep them down to compete with other sites. If they skim a bunch more off the top with no little or no risk of getting caught whose gonna know. Don't think there is any actual oversight authority is there, they are mostly self policing and off shore. If they were totally ripping people off, I imagine they close down overnight, clean out the bank and start over under a new name. Would seem to me like its subject to debate if they could even be held civilly or criminally responsible for skimming, since you are pretty much at their mercy for the rules they decide to play by when you charge up your account with them with your plastic.

Dunno about server, but I was wondering about a new desktop...
http://www.orionmulti.com/products/specs_ds96
- Performance 230 GFlop peak, 110 GFlop sustained (Linpack) -

What else ??? ah, yes, an ugly as hell server I wouldn't mind this winter : http://www.iwill.net/product_2.asp?p_id=90
Dunno if many people are into rack server modding, but you cannot make it more ugly than it is on the outside....

The inside can host 16 Opteron 800 cores and 128Gig of Ram, which make it pretty hot - both senses.....

For the Network War room, what about a nice visual representation of network attacks/activity, using "The Spinning Cube of Imminent Doom" which is both impressive and easy to explain...:
http://www.nersc.gov/nusers/security/TheSpinningCu be.php
(maintenance of servers going on, use the cache, luke...

Personnaly I like people that forego LCDs and such and directly use a nice and silencious video projector for general informations (say a Sanyo Z3).
Even more if you show your skills at system management using "Doom, the Aftermath"http://www.cs.unm.edu/~dlchao/flake/doom /after.html

Yeah, follow my words, I can garantee your customers will be impressed 8)

The site is on the subscriber-only side of their site. Here is a cut and paste on a fan-site of the Xbox press release.

Looks like the Coral Cache link is no good, and MirrorDot doesn't have it. So here's a Google cached version of the page. Anyway, after it comes out, where can I find the torrent?

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:1CvlEjwElaUJ: www.flexbeta.net/main/printarticle.php%3Fid%3D106+ &hl=en&client=firefox-a
Full article

Google cache link

Page 1

Page 2

Page 3

Page 4

Unfortunately, that's all google cached, but it's better than nothing.

Page 1

Page 2

Page 3

Page 4

Unfortunately, that's all google cached, but it's better than nothing.

Page 1

Page 2

Page 3

Page 4

Unfortunately, that's all google cached, but it's better than nothing.

Want another reason to mod this up, how about real life examples.

Here is Real life example of where you are proven wrong.
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:h-1fz6LRxFsJ: mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope/2002-June/117241.html +%40bankofamerica.com+base64&hl=en

And with about an hour I could easily document 30 more nearly identical real life Whuupses.
Now if we didint have google to show us all the idiots you'd be quite correct but we do.

Had this fool not connected his company, email servers, passwords and lack of authentication up to his code, he would be completely OUT of MIND not obscured.
His systems are MUCH more likley to face attack (which are likley to be successfull) not becasue of his stupid code, but becasue HE is!
This Moron at the Bank of America published not only the source in a base 64 zip attachments any child could decode. He follow up with which servers use no authentication, no password needed its in the zip.

This is not about GPL'ling vs or convincing your boss on merits its bout not committing carrier limiting moves BY HOW you DO GPL your code.

How you GPL it is much more important that the code or the GPL it's self.

How did I find the above security abomination by Googling for @bankofamerica.com base64 , it's on the first page half way down.

I have had several other real life experiences in coders compromising their companies. With respect to security I have personally been witness to by way of programmers GPL'ing code huge confidential information disclosures due to GPL and poor brain use by the GPL'ing coders.
.
This fools code his email finding its way to Google has made his systems a lot more vulnerable. And IM sorry I can't blame Google, so I have to blame the coder with the small ego.

Obscurity is not the same thing as knowing how and when to keep your mouth sgut and your email address private.
Had he not disclosed who he is and who he works for the same email would have had virtually NO VALUE given the same content.
He has identified the server targets by name which we would not know the meaning of but because he she disclosed its a bank system they have inherently larger value.

Now the because this moron is blathering their code, server names, passwords, associates names, non use of authentication we DONT know if its related to a GPL ego trip but this is exactly what I have seen when coders DO GPL their code.

The risks include direct hacking, blackmail, spear physhing.
This is not a theoretical risk.

Follow my previous advice and the chances of stepping on your own dick are greatly reduced should you want to GPL company code.

I didn't say code should not be GPL'd. I said HOW its GPL'd will make the difference between day and night!
If I forwarded the link to Bank SOX auditors(I have those email addresses handy) this moron would face investigation, suspension, perhaps firing.
We don't know and I don't care about this cases particular circumstances.

Google hacking for code is common, books written about it. Look it up on slash Dhot.

--
Hacking is what happens between the lines of code.

Operating the device will not change a room's environment, air quality or other conditions. Air comes into the device, is modified then ejected and illuminated to produce the image. Nothing is added to the air so there isn't any harmful gas or liquid emitted from the device. If a Heliodisplay were left running for a week in a hermetically sealed room, the only change to the room`s environment would be from the electricity used to run the device. Although the Heliodisplay uses lasers, the images are not holographic.

Here's the Google cache.

Looking at the video, it looks like something similar to what you suggest. Some kind of smoke or something. It doesn't look as good as it sounds.

I also wonder how much noise it makes.

Google cached page Images

Google cached page Images

Google Cache of article

Because once you have tenure there is little they can do to you. Short of academic fraud you can make all sorts of wild, unfounded, or simply off-the-beaten path claims you like.

As for CATO your own,, has an entry. One of the external links of interest is available but is available here.

http://64.233.161.104/search?sourceid=navclient-me nuext&ie=UTF-8&q=cache:http%3A%2F%2Fzieak.com%2Fpr ojects%2Fnintendo_mouse.htm

Site seems slow. Google cache here and here

Wasn't there a list just like this about a week ago?

Site seems slow. Google cache here and here

Wasn't there a list just like this about a week ago?

I don't know if he's commented on it since, but Michael Swaine made a small but amusing prediction that this might happen waaay back in the April 1993 issue of Dr. Dobb's Journal. Here's a link to the Google cache version since the original wasn't coming up for me.

Would pressuring a customer's own customers to switch to another distributor out of retaliation be considered screwing a customer?

Here are several selected paragraphs from the following document that presents and entirely different picture of the first company you mention (but consider its source, the 2nd company you mentioned, when judging its content):

PDF - http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/Downl oadableAssets/AMD-Intel_Full_Complaint.pdf

HTML - http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:BK_UrlmGznsJ: www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/Downloadable Assets/AMD-Intel_Full_Complaint.pdf+amd+pdf+intel& hl=en&lr=lang_en

73. As Gateway executives have recounted, Intel's threats beat them into "guacamole." But Gateway is not alone. Prior to its merger with HP, Compaq Computer received Intel threats every time it engaged with AMD. In late 2000, for example, Compaq's CEO, Michael Capellas, disclosed that because of the volume of business he had given to AMD, Intel withheld delivery of server chips that Compaq desperately needed. Reporting that "he had a gun to his head," Capellas informed an AMD executive that he had to stop buying AMD processors.

74. In 2002, Intel pointed its gun at NEC. Intel threatened to discontinue providing NEC with the technological roadmap of future Intel products if NEC did not convert its entire line of Value Star L computers to Intel microprocessors. Without that roadmap, NEC would be at a distinct competitive disadvantage. Predictably, NEC succumbed and eliminated AMD from the Value Star L series in 2002 and 2003.

76. AMD had been engaged in discussions with IBM about introducing an Opteron "blade" server, when IBM suddenly announced that any such product it distributed could not bear an IBM logo. When pressed for an explanation, IBM reported that it could not appear overly supportive of AMD server products because it feared Intel retaliation.

79. AMD's September 23, 2003, launch of Athlon64 was a watershed event for the Company. Upon learning the launch schedule, Intel did its best to disrupt it. For example, Acer committed to support the AMD rollout by making a senior executive available for a videotaped endorsement and by timing the introduction of two computers, a desktop and a notebook, to coincide with AMD events planned for Cannes, San Francisco and Taiwan. Days before the event, Intel CEO, Craig Barrett, visited Acer's Chairman, CEO and President in Taiwan, expressed to them Intel's "concern" and said Acer would suffer "severe consequences" if it publicly supported AMD's launch. The Barrett visit coincided with an unexplained delay by Intel providing $15-20 million in market development funds owed to Acer. As a result, Acer withdrew from the launch in the U.S. and Taiwan, pulled its promotional materials, banned AMD's use of the video, and delayed the announcement of its Athlon64-powered computers. Acer's President subsequently reported that the only thing different about Intel's threats was the messenger - they were "usually done by lower ranking managers," not Intel's CEO.

86. As retaliation for dealing with AMD, Intel has also used chipset pricing as a bludgeon. For example, in 2003, Acer had committed to launch the AMD Athlon XP. Acer executives worldwide had been working with AMD to bring the product to market post-launch. But, on the eve of the launch the Acer management in Taiwan pulled the plug. AMD learned from Acer executives

Article's pulled off, so here's the Google cache.

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:nWFSAHGeqewJ: www.ffii.org&hl=en

I find it funny they can take a site down, and it only takes me a few seconds to get a cached version from somewhere.

That didn't take long. Thank God for Google:

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:FIZRIcFPX6YJ: www.freedomtoaster.org/+Freedom+Toaster&hl=en

So the site has been /.'ed, have no fear, google's cache is hear: http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:qloFh8l4wmsJ: www.audioorigami.co.uk/FloppyProject/FloppyDIYMoto r.htm+&hl=en

Ack, wrong formatting option. Here's the article again, correctly formatted this time:

From the Google cache of pages 1, 2, and 3:

Apple's Colossal Disappointment
Updated: 06-19-2005
Submitted by: Michael Robertson

I heard a rumor last week that Apple would announce they are switching to Intel chips. My first thought is that I hoped that Steve Job's success selling iTunes to the other 95% of the world - Microsoft Windows users - would embolden him to take a strategic step that could shake up the PC business as we know it. I was hoping that he would catch the openness wave sweeping the technology world and apply it to his business. I would love to see Apple's PC market share reverse its downward trend. Few people know it, but I started my tech career as a Macintosh user, ran a consulting company specializing in Macintosh, and even wrote my first commercial application, Network Security Guard, for the Macintosh.

Unfortunately, I was disappointed with Apple's actual announcement on Monday, which revealed not a bold strategy embracing the openness movement but confirmation that Apple is still a company locked in the time warp of the go-it-alone '70s. Apple agreed to switch from processors made by IBM to special processors made from Intel over the next two years - that's it. This is only slightly more significant than Apple choosing to change the hard disk or memory supplier it puts into its computers.

Instead of a brilliant strategic maneuver, it's a step necessitated by IBM's inability to keep pace with Intel. It seems Apple was tired of losing the gigahertz competition to the PC world. Apple had been promising faster computers for some time and had not been able to deliver them. In addition, they were frustrated at IBM's inability to produce a fast low-powered chip for laptops.

Mac users will eventually see the benefit of this move, but will first have to suffer through a period of uncertainty and forced upgrades. Eventually, this switch will enable Apple to offer speedier machines more in line with PC performance. Until then, however, customers will have to make a tough decision - purchase a new computer that is guaranteed to be made obsolete or wait two years for machines to be released and software to be natively working.

My disappointment was captured by an Apple spokesman who commented on what the switch does not mean: "We will not allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac." Future "Mactel" computers will have specially designated Intel chips, not generic x86 compatible chips found in common PCs. My sources say that Jobs is going to use Intel's cryptographic technology called LaGrande to make sure OS X will only boot on Apple-branded hardware. This is a similar technique to the one that Microsoft used to make sure Linux could not be loaded on Xbox.

The bottom line is that PC buyers will unfortunately not have the option to install and experience OS X. There will be no low-cost laptops from budget-minded Taiwanese manufacturers. There will be no generic AMD or Via white boxes sold by the millions capable of running OS X. Apple will not be reaching the 95% of the world buying Intel-compatible machines.

I'm sure Jobs remembers a failed experiment in the '90s when Apple embraced a more open strategy. During that time, other companies were permitted to build Mac clones. Those companies targeted the most lucrative customers, siphoning off the high-end users who wanted the fastest machines. Apple depends on those customers to pay top dollar and uses those profits to fund their significant r

Ack, wrong formatting option. Here's the article again, correctly formatted this time:

From the Google cache of pages 1, 2, and 3:

Apple's Colossal Disappointment
Updated: 06-19-2005
Submitted by: Michael Robertson

I heard a rumor last week that Apple would announce they are switching to Intel chips. My first thought is that I hoped that Steve Job's success selling iTunes to the other 95% of the world - Microsoft Windows users - would embolden him to take a strategic step that could shake up the PC business as we know it. I was hoping that he would catch the openness wave sweeping the technology world and apply it to his business. I would love to see Apple's PC market share reverse its downward trend. Few people know it, but I started my tech career as a Macintosh user, ran a consulting company specializing in Macintosh, and even wrote my first commercial application, Network Security Guard, for the Macintosh.

Unfortunately, I was disappointed with Apple's actual announcement on Monday, which revealed not a bold strategy embracing the openness movement but confirmation that Apple is still a company locked in the time warp of the go-it-alone '70s. Apple agreed to switch from processors made by IBM to special processors made from Intel over the next two years - that's it. This is only slightly more significant than Apple choosing to change the hard disk or memory supplier it puts into its computers.

Instead of a brilliant strategic maneuver, it's a step necessitated by IBM's inability to keep pace with Intel. It seems Apple was tired of losing the gigahertz competition to the PC world. Apple had been promising faster computers for some time and had not been able to deliver them. In addition, they were frustrated at IBM's inability to produce a fast low-powered chip for laptops.

Mac users will eventually see the benefit of this move, but will first have to suffer through a period of uncertainty and forced upgrades. Eventually, this switch will enable Apple to offer speedier machines more in line with PC performance. Until then, however, customers will have to make a tough decision - purchase a new computer that is guaranteed to be made obsolete or wait two years for machines to be released and software to be natively working.

My disappointment was captured by an Apple spokesman who commented on what the switch does not mean: "We will not allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac." Future "Mactel" computers will have specially designated Intel chips, not generic x86 compatible chips found in common PCs. My sources say that Jobs is going to use Intel's cryptographic technology called LaGrande to make sure OS X will only boot on Apple-branded hardware. This is a similar technique to the one that Microsoft used to make sure Linux could not be loaded on Xbox.

The bottom line is that PC buyers will unfortunately not have the option to install and experience OS X. There will be no low-cost laptops from budget-minded Taiwanese manufacturers. There will be no generic AMD or Via white boxes sold by the millions capable of running OS X. Apple will not be reaching the 95% of the world buying Intel-compatible machines.

I'm sure Jobs remembers a failed experiment in the '90s when Apple embraced a more open strategy. During that time, other companies were permitted to build Mac clones. Those companies targeted the most lucrative customers, siphoning off the high-end users who wanted the fastest machines. Apple depends on those customers to pay top dollar and uses those profits to fund their significant r

Ack, wrong formatting option. Here's the article again, correctly formatted this time:

From the Google cache of pages 1, 2, and 3:

Apple's Colossal Disappointment
Updated: 06-19-2005
Submitted by: Michael Robertson

I heard a rumor last week that Apple would announce they are switching to Intel chips. My first thought is that I hoped that Steve Job's success selling iTunes to the other 95% of the world - Microsoft Windows users - would embolden him to take a strategic step that could shake up the PC business as we know it. I was hoping that he would catch the openness wave sweeping the technology world and apply it to his business. I would love to see Apple's PC market share reverse its downward trend. Few people know it, but I started my tech career as a Macintosh user, ran a consulting company specializing in Macintosh, and even wrote my first commercial application, Network Security Guard, for the Macintosh.

Unfortunately, I was disappointed with Apple's actual announcement on Monday, which revealed not a bold strategy embracing the openness movement but confirmation that Apple is still a company locked in the time warp of the go-it-alone '70s. Apple agreed to switch from processors made by IBM to special processors made from Intel over the next two years - that's it. This is only slightly more significant than Apple choosing to change the hard disk or memory supplier it puts into its computers.

Instead of a brilliant strategic maneuver, it's a step necessitated by IBM's inability to keep pace with Intel. It seems Apple was tired of losing the gigahertz competition to the PC world. Apple had been promising faster computers for some time and had not been able to deliver them. In addition, they were frustrated at IBM's inability to produce a fast low-powered chip for laptops.

Mac users will eventually see the benefit of this move, but will first have to suffer through a period of uncertainty and forced upgrades. Eventually, this switch will enable Apple to offer speedier machines more in line with PC performance. Until then, however, customers will have to make a tough decision - purchase a new computer that is guaranteed to be made obsolete or wait two years for machines to be released and software to be natively working.

My disappointment was captured by an Apple spokesman who commented on what the switch does not mean: "We will not allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac." Future "Mactel" computers will have specially designated Intel chips, not generic x86 compatible chips found in common PCs. My sources say that Jobs is going to use Intel's cryptographic technology called LaGrande to make sure OS X will only boot on Apple-branded hardware. This is a similar technique to the one that Microsoft used to make sure Linux could not be loaded on Xbox.

The bottom line is that PC buyers will unfortunately not have the option to install and experience OS X. There will be no low-cost laptops from budget-minded Taiwanese manufacturers. There will be no generic AMD or Via white boxes sold by the millions capable of running OS X. Apple will not be reaching the 95% of the world buying Intel-compatible machines.

I'm sure Jobs remembers a failed experiment in the '90s when Apple embraced a more open strategy. During that time, other companies were permitted to build Mac clones. Those companies targeted the most lucrative customers, siphoning off the high-end users who wanted the fastest machines. Apple depends on those customers to pay top dollar and uses those profits to fund their significant r

From the Google cache of pages 1, 2, and 3: Apple's Colossal Disappointment Updated: 06-19-2005 Submitted by: Michael Robertson I heard a rumor last week that Apple would announce they are switching to Intel chips. My first thought is that I hoped that Steve Job's success selling iTunes to the other 95% of the world - Microsoft Windows users - would embolden him to take a strategic step that could shake up the PC business as we know it. I was hoping that he would catch the openness wave sweeping the technology world and apply it to his business. I would love to see Apple's PC market share reverse its downward trend. Few people know it, but I started my tech career as a Macintosh user, ran a consulting company specializing in Macintosh, and even wrote my first commercial application, Network Security Guard, for the Macintosh. Unfortunately, I was disappointed with Apple's actual announcement on Monday, which revealed not a bold strategy embracing the openness movement but confirmation that Apple is still a company locked in the time warp of the go-it-alone '70s. Apple agreed to switch from processors made by IBM to special processors made from Intel over the next two years - that's it. This is only slightly more significant than Apple choosing to change the hard disk or memory supplier it puts into its computers. Instead of a brilliant strategic maneuver, it's a step necessitated by IBM's inability to keep pace with Intel. It seems Apple was tired of losing the gigahertz competition to the PC world. Apple had been promising faster computers for some time and had not been able to deliver them. In addition, they were frustrated at IBM's inability to produce a fast low-powered chip for laptops. Mac users will eventually see the benefit of this move, but will first have to suffer through a period of uncertainty and forced upgrades. Eventually, this switch will enable Apple to offer speedier machines more in line with PC performance. Until then, however, customers will have to make a tough decision - purchase a new computer that is guaranteed to be made obsolete or wait two years for machines to be released and software to be natively working. My disappointment was captured by an Apple spokesman who commented on what the switch does not mean: "We will not allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac." Future "Mactel" computers will have specially designated Intel chips, not generic x86 compatible chips found in common PCs. My sources say that Jobs is going to use Intel's cryptographic technology called LaGrande to make sure OS X will only boot on Apple-branded hardware. This is a similar technique to the one that Microsoft used to make sure Linux could not be loaded on Xbox. The bottom line is that PC buyers will unfortunately not have the option to install and experience OS X. There will be no low-cost laptops from budget-minded Taiwanese manufacturers. There will be no generic AMD or Via white boxes sold by the millions capable of running OS X. Apple will not be reaching the 95% of the world buying Intel-compatible machines. I'm sure Jobs remembers a failed experiment in the '90s when Apple embraced a more open strategy. During that time, other companies were permitted to build Mac clones. Those companies targeted the most lucrative customers, siphoning off the high-end users who wanted the fastest machines. Apple depends on those customers to pay top dollar and uses those profits to fund their significant research and development costs. Losing them was a painful experience and Jobs shut down the clone business when he returned to the corner office at One Infinite