Now that some sea beds have been located, it would seem like a very likely place to search for fossil evidence of life. Makes the chances much better. Rather than making a wild guess, we can now narrow down the search to where evidence may most likely exist. Interesting.
While this may be fine for rural net solutions, what I really want to know is whether the dish needs to be stationary.
If it can be used mobile, the dream of checking out and living off the net becomes true. Imagine telecommuting from the Carribean or running a content site from a homestead in Alaska. This is very empowing stuff.
Obviously a hoax, but funny nonetheless. Anyone else get a kick out of the Slashdot references?
Here's a couple of juicy tidbits...
"Turn your Internet Explorer to http://www.mozilla.org/, and laugh."
"We'll make our own proprietary version of Linux,
brand it with our trademark, and improve it until people would rather use our flavor than any other. At that point, we can lock everyone else out of the market."
"The poor zealots need to celebrate every small victory. This is a community of self- proclaimed
"hackers" that are still celebrating the successful reverse engineering of those silly CueCat scanners. Therefore, as soon as a company mentions Linux in a positive way, regardless of how insignificant, the slashdot.org crowd throws a virtual equivalent of Mardi Gras."
This seems to have been written with every intent of becoming a Slashdot link.
I'd just love to play this on one of the many buildings here in Southern California contaminated by those cheesey feel good Wyland seascapes. I'm so sick of froliking blue whales and smiling dolphins attacking me every time I drive down the freeway. Imagine playing Ateroids. Forget the chunks of space matter, kill the Whales!
Sounds like a good write in protest vote...
on
Quimby2000
·
· Score: 1
For those who don't find anyone worth voting for, Quimby could be a good protest vote. >br>
Seems Mickey Mouse didn't fit the bill.
What came out of PARC was the result of a commitment to an idea. Pay a bunch of hard core nerds to sit on their ass and just think up really cool shit.
PARC is not an asset to be sold. If anything, it's a stewardship that should be passed on to another orginization or company that can give it the attention it deserves. Maybe a consortum of companies... Sun, Apple, ect.
Courtney's playing this one smart. The industry is about to change. She know this. She also knows that it's only going to do so kicking and screaming. As an artist with a high profile, she had the visibility to turn up the heat and bring the issue to a head.
She's also smart enough to go after the real pricks in the supply chain... the record industry. She's not pissing off her fans by whining about Napster, she's not even bitching about MP3.com, she'e going after every damn nickel her label owes her.
Mark my words, in a few years when a new model evolves, the histroy books will look at Love and highlight her role in the process. She may not be crying from the rooftops to protect the fan's right to free music, but she is doing a damn good job of bringing artist rights into the discussion.
Besides that, she's friggen hot. I feel like a geezer at 32 when I go to see her live, but the woman puts on a good show.
Also, I think it's pretty damn cool to see a woman at the front lines of this fight. Not only is she fighting the good fight, she's doing it with intelligence and more understanding of the industry than most any other player in the game.
I find it terribly offensive that a company that has an army of slave labor making crap products in every third world nation wants to make moral decisions about what games kids can play.
Hell, they have no right making any moral judgements whatsoever. If they ever come out with a SIM for corporate life and ethics, that's the game I won't let my kids play.
Although this appears to ba a great idea on this surface, I think this will actually have a negative effect on ecommerce.
The battle to convince the average user that electonic commerce is a safe way to conduct transactions has been a tough fight. We're finally getting to the point where Joe Sixpac does not feel hesitant to shop at Amazon.
A major credit card company saying, "we don't think the present system is secure enough, so we're offering an alternative" will just add to the fears of the average person that shopping online is not safe.
This would have been a good thing a couple of years ago... now it's just a technical harbriner of FUD...
Whatever your opinion on encryption is, Phil Zimmerman deserves some respect. He released PGP despite very legitimate threats to his own personal well being.
I read an interview a long time ago about his reason for doing do. He said he had heard of a rebel group (forget which country) that was fighting against an oppressive govermnent was using PGP to communicate.
He decided that if his tool could be used to help people struggling for freedom, it did not matter what would happen to him. He released the software shortly thereafter. In my opinion, he's of the earliest true idealists in the world of hi-tech.
They want you to keep your computer by the TV. Broadcasters will embed an audio signal in and ad or part of the program. The cue cat/software listens for the audio code. When it hears the code, it launches the software and goes to the web site associated with the audio signal/ad.
Actually very cool in a demo, but the audio cue gets very annoying after a while. They did say they might change the audio signal so that it was inaudible to users.
Ok, this is the reason Digital Convergence is upset. DC makes their money selling codes at about $50/each to advertisers in different media. The consumer sees an ad, swipes the code. The driver software sends the code request to a MySQL database that interprets the code into a URL, after intercepting the user's unique ID code.
The reason DC is able to make money is not because they can move you to the site easily with the bar code scanner, it's because they can autmatically track the demographics of users who swipe codes.
DC has set up a completely seperate company called Digital Demographics to handle this. This is where the money really is.
Homegrown drivers that don't require the user to sign up and let their demographic pants down would obviously scare DC.
Also, the DC codes system is proprietary. The CueCats can read normal bar codes, but only CueCats can read DC codes. Figure it out for yourself.
There are a few hints of this in the above posts, but logically, the time is not right to announce OSX on Intel. OSX will be introduced next year without a lot of native apps. Many of the apps that are optimized will be based on carbon, which won't port over to Intel.
However, new apps (or those developed for with Cocoa) would run on an Intel port. The work to make OSX run on Intel is not what's holding Apple back from releasing an Intel based OSX box. Millions of Mac users with PPC legacy apps who would cry havoc if they could not run their apps on OSX is the real holdup.
About one year after OSX is out, most of the major apps should be ported over to OSX. Apple can then release an Apple branded Intel based OSX box. Run all your PC software, and gain the power of OSX as well on a duel boot Apple machine. This would be a no brainer for most customers. They would get a Apple OSX box, and an Apple branded Intel compatible windows box. How long do you think it would take for developers to start testing compatibility on Mac Intel HW?
My guess is that OSX on Intel is coming, but not until a good core set of apps is available that will compile on Intel. Then, it's just a matter of managing the migration and cashing the checks. It wouldn't be much of a stretch to imagine Apple's box sales doubling with such a box.
As far as cannibalizing sales, Apple could use a Rom or special motherboard check to make sure that OSX did not run on non Apple hardware. Gives a person a good reason to stick with an Apple brqanded box (in addition to the rep for quality).
This issue needs to get addressed. International law applied to the internet had been ignored for far to long. For example, could a person who runs a porn site in the U.S. get arrested by Australian authorities if he were vacationing there?
The RIAA knows it's going to have to do something about the artists. The whole Napster issue is opening up some closets that the record executives would rather keep closed. The recording industry may have to be dragged kicking and scraming into a new economic model that does not screw the artist, but they know it will eventually happen.
In addition to the reasons already suggested, everyone should take into account Apple's distribution channel. Apple is very unlike most PC companies in the way it prices and positions new products.
When Apple introduces a new product, demand for the current line plummets, due to several factors. Apple's product updates usually are enhancments combined with price cuts. Add the fact that the mac market is unique in that there are legions of mac nuts who absoutely must have the newest box, and Apple has every reason to keep their cards close to their vest.
Apple needs to manage consumer demand and the supply in the channel very carefully. Being a one-horse show (sole vendor) makes that need all the more acute.
Loose lips CAN cause financial hardship for the company. This is a strong motivation for Apple to pursue legal action, although it may not be the way they position the lawsuit.
This may not constitute legal grounds, but it certainly is a strong motivation. In the end, any company with that incentive can dream up a myriad of legal postures to protect it's bottom line.
Still, in the end, it's probably just as much about Steve not wanting to have his hand shown to the world.
First, Apple owns NeXT, which introduced the original Cube shaped server.
Secondly, Apple's suits against Emachines and other imac knockoffs was based on trade dress. I'm not a lawyer, but I don't see any violation of trade dress when comparing the G4 cube to Cobalt's.
Third, the G4 Cube and Cobalt's were not created for the same market. While the G4 Cube may be used as a server, that's not its intended niche. This sounds like a "trial balloon" on the part of Cobalt. My bet is that papers never get filed on this one.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd love to be the laywer challenging this in court. I'd have a field day showing "prior art" by demonstrating porn galleries.
I'm sure the email let me know how to make big money fast, all while working from home!
Uh... when was the last time you looked at your own user number?
Now that some sea beds have been located, it would seem like a very likely place to search for fossil evidence of life. Makes the chances much better. Rather than making a wild guess, we can now narrow down the search to where evidence may most likely exist. Interesting.
How in the world can you call getting Slashdotted a "slight push"?
While this may be fine for rural net solutions, what I really want to know is whether the dish needs to be stationary.
If it can be used mobile, the dream of checking out and living off the net becomes true. Imagine telecommuting from the Carribean or running a content site from a homestead in Alaska. This is very empowing stuff.
Obviously a hoax, but funny nonetheless. Anyone else get a kick out of the Slashdot references?
Here's a couple of juicy tidbits...
"Turn your Internet Explorer to http://www.mozilla.org/, and laugh."
"We'll make our own proprietary version of Linux, brand it with our trademark, and improve it until people would rather use our flavor than any other. At that point, we can lock everyone else out of the market."
"The poor zealots need to celebrate every small victory. This is a community of self- proclaimed "hackers" that are still celebrating the successful reverse engineering of those silly CueCat scanners. Therefore, as soon as a company mentions Linux in a positive way, regardless of how insignificant, the slashdot.org crowd throws a virtual equivalent of Mardi Gras."
This seems to have been written with every intent of becoming a Slashdot link.
Let the flame ware begin!
I'd just love to play this on one of the many buildings here in Southern California contaminated by those cheesey feel good Wyland seascapes. I'm so sick of froliking blue whales and smiling dolphins attacking me every time I drive down the freeway. Imagine playing Ateroids. Forget the chunks of space matter, kill the Whales!
For those who don't find anyone worth voting for, Quimby could be a good protest vote.
>br> Seems Mickey Mouse didn't fit the bill.
What came out of PARC was the result of a commitment to an idea. Pay a bunch of hard core nerds to sit on their ass and just think up really cool shit.
PARC is not an asset to be sold. If anything, it's a stewardship that should be passed on to another orginization or company that can give it the attention it deserves. Maybe a consortum of companies... Sun, Apple, ect.
Courtney's playing this one smart. The industry is about to change. She know this. She also knows that it's only going to do so kicking and screaming. As an artist with a high profile, she had the visibility to turn up the heat and bring the issue to a head.
She's also smart enough to go after the real pricks in the supply chain... the record industry. She's not pissing off her fans by whining about Napster, she's not even bitching about MP3.com, she'e going after every damn nickel her label owes her.
Mark my words, in a few years when a new model evolves, the histroy books will look at Love and highlight her role in the process. She may not be crying from the rooftops to protect the fan's right to free music, but she is doing a damn good job of bringing artist rights into the discussion.
Besides that, she's friggen hot. I feel like a geezer at 32 when I go to see her live, but the woman puts on a good show.
Also, I think it's pretty damn cool to see a woman at the front lines of this fight. Not only is she fighting the good fight, she's doing it with intelligence and more understanding of the industry than most any other player in the game.
I find it terribly offensive that a company that has an army of slave labor making crap products in every third world nation wants to make moral decisions about what games kids can play.
Hell, they have no right making any moral judgements whatsoever. If they ever come out with a SIM for corporate life and ethics, that's the game I won't let my kids play.
Although this appears to ba a great idea on this surface, I think this will actually have a negative effect on ecommerce.
The battle to convince the average user that electonic commerce is a safe way to conduct transactions has been a tough fight. We're finally getting to the point where Joe Sixpac does not feel hesitant to shop at Amazon.
A major credit card company saying, "we don't think the present system is secure enough, so we're offering an alternative" will just add to the fears of the average person that shopping online is not safe.
This would have been a good thing a couple of years ago... now it's just a technical harbriner of FUD...
Whatever your opinion on encryption is, Phil Zimmerman deserves some respect. He released PGP despite very legitimate threats to his own personal well being.
I read an interview a long time ago about his reason for doing do. He said he had heard of a rebel group (forget which country) that was fighting against an oppressive govermnent was using PGP to communicate.
He decided that if his tool could be used to help people struggling for freedom, it did not matter what would happen to him. He released the software shortly thereafter. In my opinion, he's of the earliest true idealists in the world of hi-tech.
This has everyting to do with the CueCat!
They want you to keep your computer by the TV. Broadcasters will embed an audio signal in and ad or part of the program. The cue cat/software listens for the audio code. When it hears the code, it launches the software and goes to the web site associated with the audio signal/ad.
Actually very cool in a demo, but the audio cue gets very annoying after a while. They did say they might change the audio signal so that it was inaudible to users.
DCI is HUGE. Backed by major money. This is a very big play with huge stakes. Trust me.
Ok, this is the reason Digital Convergence is upset. DC makes their money selling codes at about $50/each to advertisers in different media. The consumer sees an ad, swipes the code. The driver software sends the code request to a MySQL database that interprets the code into a URL, after intercepting the user's unique ID code.
The reason DC is able to make money is not because they can move you to the site easily with the bar code scanner, it's because they can autmatically track the demographics of users who swipe codes.
DC has set up a completely seperate company called Digital Demographics to handle this. This is where the money really is.
Homegrown drivers that don't require the user to sign up and let their demographic pants down would obviously scare DC.
Also, the DC codes system is proprietary. The CueCats can read normal bar codes, but only CueCats can read DC codes. Figure it out for yourself.
There are a few hints of this in the above posts, but logically, the time is not right to announce OSX on Intel. OSX will be introduced next year without a lot of native apps. Many of the apps that are optimized will be based on carbon, which won't port over to Intel.
However, new apps (or those developed for with Cocoa) would run on an Intel port. The work to make OSX run on Intel is not what's holding Apple back from releasing an Intel based OSX box. Millions of Mac users with PPC legacy apps who would cry havoc if they could not run their apps on OSX is the real holdup.
About one year after OSX is out, most of the major apps should be ported over to OSX. Apple can then release an Apple branded Intel based OSX box. Run all your PC software, and gain the power of OSX as well on a duel boot Apple machine. This would be a no brainer for most customers. They would get a Apple OSX box, and an Apple branded Intel compatible windows box. How long do you think it would take for developers to start testing compatibility on Mac Intel HW?
My guess is that OSX on Intel is coming, but not until a good core set of apps is available that will compile on Intel. Then, it's just a matter of managing the migration and cashing the checks. It wouldn't be much of a stretch to imagine Apple's box sales doubling with such a box.
As far as cannibalizing sales, Apple could use a Rom or special motherboard check to make sure that OSX did not run on non Apple hardware. Gives a person a good reason to stick with an Apple brqanded box (in addition to the rep for quality).
This issue needs to get addressed. International law applied to the internet had been ignored for far to long. For example, could a person who runs a porn site in the U.S. get arrested by Australian authorities if he were vacationing there?
Extradition? The list goes on.
The RIAA knows it's going to have to do something about the artists. The whole Napster issue is opening up some closets that the record executives would rather keep closed. The recording industry may have to be dragged kicking and scraming into a new economic model that does not screw the artist, but they know it will eventually happen.
This is nothing more than a diversionary tactic.
In addition to the reasons already suggested, everyone should take into account Apple's distribution channel. Apple is very unlike most PC companies in the way it prices and positions new products.
When Apple introduces a new product, demand for the current line plummets, due to several factors. Apple's product updates usually are enhancments combined with price cuts. Add the fact that the mac market is unique in that there are legions of mac nuts who absoutely must have the newest box, and Apple has every reason to keep their cards close to their vest.
Apple needs to manage consumer demand and the supply in the channel very carefully. Being a one-horse show (sole vendor) makes that need all the more acute.
Loose lips CAN cause financial hardship for the company. This is a strong motivation for Apple to pursue legal action, although it may not be the way they position the lawsuit.
This may not constitute legal grounds, but it certainly is a strong motivation. In the end, any company with that incentive can dream up a myriad of legal postures to protect it's bottom line.
Still, in the end, it's probably just as much about Steve not wanting to have his hand shown to the world.
First, Apple owns NeXT, which introduced the original Cube shaped server.
Secondly, Apple's suits against Emachines and other imac knockoffs was based on trade dress. I'm not a lawyer, but I don't see any violation of trade dress when comparing the G4 cube to Cobalt's.
Third, the G4 Cube and Cobalt's were not created for the same market. While the G4 Cube may be used as a server, that's not its intended niche. This sounds like a "trial balloon" on the part of Cobalt. My bet is that papers never get filed on this one.