I think the problem with Apple mice has been that they're too simple. And indeed, they are too simple. Often decently designed, but not as functional as a plain old three-button mouse. Apple mice are an example of the design interfering with the functionality instead of enhancing it.
My problem with mice that come with commodity computers is that they under-perform compared to the cheap and dirty $10 mice you can buy retail, and are vastly inferior to anything Logitech or Microsoft offers. I'm not familiar with the kind of mouse that came with your Revo, so I have no idea where it goes in that continuum, it may be an exception to my experience. But I can say that I at one time worked selling computers, and never once did I sell a computer that came with a mouse I'd want to keep
While I would agree with all this, I would also note that mice included with any home computer tend to be the bottom of the barrel, regardless of how many buttons they have, and the first thing I always do with any computer is get rid of the mouse and plug in a better one.
A market where Apple allowed Mac OS X to run on anyone's hardware would soon be a market without Macs, and shortly after that a market without Mac OS X at all. Apple did try this once, remember? Didn't work so well for them, did it? They've only just recently recovered. Apple doesn't sell OS's, Apple sells hardware, and more specifically, Apple sells good design and a very particular user experience. Licensing out Mac OS X to anyone who can build a box would take a big enough bite out of their hardware sales, that it would no longer be worth maintaining and upgrading their OS.
How is a market without Mac OS X better than a market where Mac OS X is available only on a Mac?
Forget about the word monopoly if you prefer. It's a small point.
You used it. You've been around here long enough to know better than to try mis-using a term of art to make a point. Suck it up, low-UID-boy.:-p
The important point is that OSX is tied to Apple hardware through artificial means, and that Apple does this in order to protect its position as the sole supplier of hardware that can run OSX without the need to circumvent Apple's anti-competitive technical measures.
Ah, the meat of the argument (you'll note that I said essentially the same thing somewhere up there, but without the moral pissiness). So here's my question.
OS X was never meant to be compatible on that hardware, and hackers have to use all sorts of tricks to get it to run. I looked into it myself, at one point. It wasn't a trivial procedure, even then.
As for your use of the word monopoly, it's essentially meaningless. Many companies have a "monopoly" on the particular product they sell, in the sense that they're the only supplier of that particular product. And many companies go to great lengths to protect the unique nature of their product. You've defined the "market" too narrowly. Of course Apple has a "monopoly" on Apple products, that's a tautology, not an argument. There is no moral or legal reason for Apple to make its OS compatible with any other hardware.
Using the term monopoly the way you do is abusing a term of art. Would you think it okay if I referred to Apple's computers (or worse, monitors) as CPU's or hard-drives? It's not a nitpick to correct your usage of the term when that term -- and its meaning -- is at the heart of your argument.
Er, I think you're slightly mis-informed as to the meaning and definition of "monopoly." Last I checked, Apple did not have a monopoly on computers (plenty of manufacturers sell plenty more computer than Apple), did not have a monopoly on computer components (most Mac parts are middle-quality or better commodity stuff), and did not have a monopoly on OS (if I have to explain that one to you, please turn in your geek card at the door). So where's the monopoly position that Apple's supposed to have? Music players/stores don't count in this particular discussion.
Apple ties their OS to their hardware, and makes no secret of this. Many other companies do the same thing, and suffer no legal consequences. Apple does this because it makes good business sense to do so. They have a very good OS, far and away better than the market leader, and part of the reason the OS experience is so good is that they strictly limit the hardware their OS will work with. Of course it also means that they can charge more money for their hardware offerings than their competitors.
If there's no legal reason (and there isn't) to give up this advantage, why should they? This isn't a monopoly strategy, it's a niche strategy. Apple gets to charge higher prices for their computer/os combination, and the price of that is they get a niche market share instead of a huge market share. If they keep making a profit (and they are) then what does it matter if their market share stays low?
As for moral reasons, this isn't about morality. It's about a bunch of frustrated nerds and hackers who want what they perceive as a really great operating system but don't want to pay the extra price.
He might be hoping for exactly that. Google's position with the Anti-trust watchdogs is somewhat precarious these days, if they just cut off access to Murdoch's sites, they might rouse the ire of the Justice department. Better to simply keep pointing out robots.txt and waiting patiently for Murdoch to do something.
My impression is that the cars would only be connected by the control computer in the lead vehicle, via wireless network. There's no physical connection, and presumably the control computer, if smart enough, could tune the distance between cars to get a better over-all mileage.
Did you not notice that I used the word "may"? Do you know what that means? Do you think that maybe sometimes (but only sometimes) it's not the GPS data that's at fault?
No, you both missed the point. The accuracy of the GPS unit wasn't challenged in the court, it said so in the summary. The GPS data was found to support the radar gun evidence. Don't feel bad, apparently Sgt Savano also missed the point. If this is the only precedent, then GPS data is still fair game in a courtroom, and disproving it will have to wait for another day.
And to 4D6963, be careful not to confuse the GPS position data with the map data that it overlays to produce the amusingly inaccurate anomalies you describe. The position data may be far more accurate than the map data.
Actually, I think Goldman Sachs was profitable all through the crisis, and didn't take any money from the gov. And now we know where all the money went.
I think personal responsibility is a crutch that people lean on instead of facing up to the fact that our problems and questions have difficult and complicated solutions. It's far easier to put responsibility on individuals than it is to admit that there may be genetic or social infrastructures issues that encourage criminality in some people and discourage it in others. If we can say the criminal is solely at fault for his actions, then we never acknowledge our own responsibility for the problems that the criminal was trying to correct.
The philosophical Free Will debate finally has a physical answer. Our actions are determined by our genetics, chemistry, upbringing, etc, and on back to the big bang, but the Uncertainty Principle guarantees that at some fundamental level, we can't deterministically predict the future. So the whole debate basically becomes meaningless.
Free Will, per se, is an illusion. So is determinism, for that matter, because on a practical level we can't do anything with it. The reality is that we each have a will (and really, internally we may have several, competing wills), and it is more or less free to act depending on the wills of those who would act for or against our wills. Nietsche solved this one more than a hundred years ago. Heisenberg confirmed it.
Hahahaha right. Except that executing someone is irreversible, and the costs of maintaining an appeals system that protects against executing innocent people is exorbitant. It may be cheaper to simply commute all death penalties to life sentences, at least then we wouldn't have to pay for the numerous, complicated and multiple appeals. And we'd be guaranteed not to execute any innocent people.
This essentially reflects my belief. If a person has a genetic disposition to murder and acts on it, they shouldn't be "punished" for this, but may need to be isolated from society. Of course, if we can cure the physical ill (i.e. schizophrenia) then we should cure rather than isolate.
It can't be secret in Canada if it's going to be a law. The federal government will have to ratify it (and maybe the provinces too, if the substance of the bill encroaches on provincial powers).
Of course, being "not secret" in Canada means being published in the Canada Gazette. Most Canadians haven't even heard of the Canada Gazette.
This is not true in Canada. A signature on a treaty does not make it law. And in fact, if the Federal government ratifies a treaty that affects matters constitutionally in the sphere of the provinces, then the treaty doesn't take effect unless the provinces also ratify the treaty. In the case of the ACTA, it probably does fall into the federal sphere, but it would still have to be ratified in Parliament before it became law.
Slashdot Mirror
I run Windows on my Mac so I can run Wordperfect. Because Microsoft Office sucks.
Yes, but mostly China.
I think the problem with Apple mice has been that they're too simple. And indeed, they are too simple. Often decently designed, but not as functional as a plain old three-button mouse. Apple mice are an example of the design interfering with the functionality instead of enhancing it.
My problem with mice that come with commodity computers is that they under-perform compared to the cheap and dirty $10 mice you can buy retail, and are vastly inferior to anything Logitech or Microsoft offers. I'm not familiar with the kind of mouse that came with your Revo, so I have no idea where it goes in that continuum, it may be an exception to my experience. But I can say that I at one time worked selling computers, and never once did I sell a computer that came with a mouse I'd want to keep
While I would agree with all this, I would also note that mice included with any home computer tend to be the bottom of the barrel, regardless of how many buttons they have, and the first thing I always do with any computer is get rid of the mouse and plug in a better one.
A market where Apple allowed Mac OS X to run on anyone's hardware would soon be a market without Macs, and shortly after that a market without Mac OS X at all. Apple did try this once, remember? Didn't work so well for them, did it? They've only just recently recovered. Apple doesn't sell OS's, Apple sells hardware, and more specifically, Apple sells good design and a very particular user experience. Licensing out Mac OS X to anyone who can build a box would take a big enough bite out of their hardware sales, that it would no longer be worth maintaining and upgrading their OS.
How is a market without Mac OS X better than a market where Mac OS X is available only on a Mac?
Forget about the word monopoly if you prefer. It's a small point.
You used it. You've been around here long enough to know better than to try mis-using a term of art to make a point. Suck it up, low-UID-boy. :-p
The important point is that OSX is tied to Apple hardware through artificial means, and that Apple does this in order to protect its position as the sole supplier of hardware that can run OSX without the need to circumvent Apple's anti-competitive technical measures.
Ah, the meat of the argument (you'll note that I said essentially the same thing somewhere up there, but without the moral pissiness). So here's my question.
What's wrong with that?
OS X was never meant to be compatible on that hardware, and hackers have to use all sorts of tricks to get it to run. I looked into it myself, at one point. It wasn't a trivial procedure, even then.
As for your use of the word monopoly, it's essentially meaningless. Many companies have a "monopoly" on the particular product they sell, in the sense that they're the only supplier of that particular product. And many companies go to great lengths to protect the unique nature of their product. You've defined the "market" too narrowly. Of course Apple has a "monopoly" on Apple products, that's a tautology, not an argument. There is no moral or legal reason for Apple to make its OS compatible with any other hardware.
Using the term monopoly the way you do is abusing a term of art. Would you think it okay if I referred to Apple's computers (or worse, monitors) as CPU's or hard-drives? It's not a nitpick to correct your usage of the term when that term -- and its meaning -- is at the heart of your argument.
Er, I think you're slightly mis-informed as to the meaning and definition of "monopoly." Last I checked, Apple did not have a monopoly on computers (plenty of manufacturers sell plenty more computer than Apple), did not have a monopoly on computer components (most Mac parts are middle-quality or better commodity stuff), and did not have a monopoly on OS (if I have to explain that one to you, please turn in your geek card at the door). So where's the monopoly position that Apple's supposed to have? Music players/stores don't count in this particular discussion.
Apple ties their OS to their hardware, and makes no secret of this. Many other companies do the same thing, and suffer no legal consequences. Apple does this because it makes good business sense to do so. They have a very good OS, far and away better than the market leader, and part of the reason the OS experience is so good is that they strictly limit the hardware their OS will work with. Of course it also means that they can charge more money for their hardware offerings than their competitors.
If there's no legal reason (and there isn't) to give up this advantage, why should they? This isn't a monopoly strategy, it's a niche strategy. Apple gets to charge higher prices for their computer/os combination, and the price of that is they get a niche market share instead of a huge market share. If they keep making a profit (and they are) then what does it matter if their market share stays low?
As for moral reasons, this isn't about morality. It's about a bunch of frustrated nerds and hackers who want what they perceive as a really great operating system but don't want to pay the extra price.
He might be hoping for exactly that. Google's position with the Anti-trust watchdogs is somewhat precarious these days, if they just cut off access to Murdoch's sites, they might rouse the ire of the Justice department. Better to simply keep pointing out robots.txt and waiting patiently for Murdoch to do something.
Since Google isn't breaking any laws, they don't need to do anything.
My impression is that the cars would only be connected by the control computer in the lead vehicle, via wireless network. There's no physical connection, and presumably the control computer, if smart enough, could tune the distance between cars to get a better over-all mileage.
Something about your post makes me feel uneasy....
Did you not notice that I used the word "may"? Do you know what that means? Do you think that maybe sometimes (but only sometimes) it's not the GPS data that's at fault?
No, you both missed the point. The accuracy of the GPS unit wasn't challenged in the court, it said so in the summary. The GPS data was found to support the radar gun evidence. Don't feel bad, apparently Sgt Savano also missed the point. If this is the only precedent, then GPS data is still fair game in a courtroom, and disproving it will have to wait for another day.
And to 4D6963, be careful not to confuse the GPS position data with the map data that it overlays to produce the amusingly inaccurate anomalies you describe. The position data may be far more accurate than the map data.
Or maybe the market for servers really is distinguishable from the market for home computers, or something crazy like that.
Actually, I think Goldman Sachs was profitable all through the crisis, and didn't take any money from the gov. And now we know where all the money went.
I think personal responsibility is a crutch that people lean on instead of facing up to the fact that our problems and questions have difficult and complicated solutions. It's far easier to put responsibility on individuals than it is to admit that there may be genetic or social infrastructures issues that encourage criminality in some people and discourage it in others. If we can say the criminal is solely at fault for his actions, then we never acknowledge our own responsibility for the problems that the criminal was trying to correct.
The philosophical Free Will debate finally has a physical answer. Our actions are determined by our genetics, chemistry, upbringing, etc, and on back to the big bang, but the Uncertainty Principle guarantees that at some fundamental level, we can't deterministically predict the future. So the whole debate basically becomes meaningless.
Free Will, per se, is an illusion. So is determinism, for that matter, because on a practical level we can't do anything with it. The reality is that we each have a will (and really, internally we may have several, competing wills), and it is more or less free to act depending on the wills of those who would act for or against our wills. Nietsche solved this one more than a hundred years ago. Heisenberg confirmed it.
Hahahaha right. Except that executing someone is irreversible, and the costs of maintaining an appeals system that protects against executing innocent people is exorbitant. It may be cheaper to simply commute all death penalties to life sentences, at least then we wouldn't have to pay for the numerous, complicated and multiple appeals. And we'd be guaranteed not to execute any innocent people.
This might be true if the defect is incurable or uncontrollable, but otherwise I think the death penalty comes at too high a cost to society.
This essentially reflects my belief. If a person has a genetic disposition to murder and acts on it, they shouldn't be "punished" for this, but may need to be isolated from society. Of course, if we can cure the physical ill (i.e. schizophrenia) then we should cure rather than isolate.
What makes you think no other animals fear retribution or punishment? Ever train a dog? What makes you think other primates don't feel guilt?
Hate to break it to you but...we aren't any different from animals.
We are animals.
It can't be secret in Canada if it's going to be a law. The federal government will have to ratify it (and maybe the provinces too, if the substance of the bill encroaches on provincial powers).
Of course, being "not secret" in Canada means being published in the Canada Gazette. Most Canadians haven't even heard of the Canada Gazette.
It hasn't been made public yet. A source has leaked details, but the document is watermarked, and the source evidently fears being tracked down.
Same for any country that approves the treaty.
This is not true in Canada. A signature on a treaty does not make it law. And in fact, if the Federal government ratifies a treaty that affects matters constitutionally in the sphere of the provinces, then the treaty doesn't take effect unless the provinces also ratify the treaty. In the case of the ACTA, it probably does fall into the federal sphere, but it would still have to be ratified in Parliament before it became law.