Microsoft "borrowed" a huge amount of tech from Apple. They massaged it with macro-preprocessors and did some other near-mechanical transformations to functionally project the Macintosh Toolbox onto a pseudo-object concept they had been calling "windows" (windows on code). I think the concept was derived from the stupid segmented addressing in the x86. They did that because they could not figure out how to force their pseudo objects onto a windowing environment that would be flexible enough to replicate the functionality of the Macintosh. MSWindows 3 could not compete, and they did not understand enough about GUI to do it on their own.
There was a lot of stuff that seems obvious to us now, that their engineers could not grasp. They had to resort to a mechanical transformation of existing code, projecting it onto their pseudo-objects. This is not the same as Apple appropriating the concepts they saw at Xerox Parc. This is taking code.
I say "seems" obvious because real graphical user interface coding is nowhere nearly as obvious as we want to believe it is, especially on the limited processors they were using back then. These days, we are able to work with GUI by implementing general events and general graphical environments and near-general context entities that we call window managers and desktop managers, and our processors have the speed and memory to do it in a reasonably responsive manner. Back then, they had to cut a lot of corners, and figuring out which corners to cut is real engineering.
That is not deniable if you understand the programming and have ever looked at the orgiinal Mac toolbox code and the materials given to Mac programmers and compared it with the equivalent from MSWindows 95. There was no way any agreement between them was supposed to allow the level of borrowing. But Microsoft fast talked their way out of that somehow and Apple had to either give up and go home like a whipped dog or at least go down fighting. They chose the latter, and took a lot of wild swings. They salvaged enough of the fight to survive long enough to bring Jobs back.
Fast-forward that to today and the non-practicing entities and you see that courts have swung way too far the other direction, and are still unwilling to even try to read source code. The trolls are getting huge awards with the same wild punches that got Apple barely more than scratch. They are still hitting nothing but air, so to speak, and courts are awarding the match on bizarre technical points from misreading of law and misapplying it to the computer industry.
How Microsoft fast-talked their way out of it was that courts did not understand the sort of mathematical transforms that can be performed on source code without changing its essence. The suit should have been focused on copyright violations of the code, but the courts could not understand it. There are still very few people who understand it. This problem is probably the core motivation for the spurious invention of "intellectual property".
You raise some suit against Windows. There was no suit against "Windows".
The suit was against Microsoft and some of its partners over Microsoft Windows. The suit was against Microsoft, primarily. Microsoft Windows was the object of contention, but could not be dealt with directly because of the previous flawed court decisions. The partners were dragged in because the primary evidence had been passed over and thrown out.
It is not uncommon in patent fights for a general approach that allows multiple implementations to be found infringing for instances which implement elements of a prior patent. In such cases, the owner of the general approach can be required to take technical steps to prevent the uses of the instances which held to infringe. It seems insane, but most of the so-called IP law is based on similarly unreasonable convolutions to allow specific kinds of temporary monopoly but still disallow monopoly.
The specific instance you drag up was not about Apple re-painting and photoshopping
If that was "s1mpl3 sub5t1tut10ns" you're maybe doing okay. Either s1mpl3 or sub5t1tut10ns by themselves are going to be a little easy to hit with rainbow tables.
But I would probably expect $ub5t1tut10ns to last longer in an attack than "I date Sally."
"I date Sally's calendar." is better than "I date Sally."
"I date banana shipwreck." is better than either, but I would still use leetspeak to tighten it up.
I think the original problem is that you start out being reminded of the look and feel suit against "Windows" and end up dodging and focusing on HP.
Microsoft borrowed huge pieces of Apple code. They fudged the share agreements and tried to compete against Apple with Apple's own technology, a pattern they have a habit of repeating regularly. Different case, and, no, it's not the same. If Microsoft is doctoring the end product to hide Apple tech, trying to un-doctor the end-product is not unreasonable.
But that was then, when Apple was sort-of justified in grasping at straws. Funny those same straws turn into logs these days for non-practicing entities, but that's another insanity.
This year has seen Apple show some of its worst sides. This is now.
More like the benchmarks that INTEL was putting out at the time Apple started using those ads. Apple did use them too long.
At all was too long in my opinion, because they were just begging for what happened next.
INTEL was able to improve performance by buying the best engineers money can buy away from all the companies that were making better CPUs. That was a no-brainer, and a primary reason taunting the competition is not a good approach to ad campaigns.
And with all that talent, INTEL still can't overcome the basic deficiencies in the x86, all the vaporware to the contrary notwithstanding. They still have to resort to things like planting rumors that they have to keep the performance down to keep AMD in the game to keep the justice department at bay.
Suddenly the fascination with the asteroid belt begins t make more sense.
It's less that we need more than it is that we need to be able to get at it without forcing people to move, and wtihout cleaning up afterward. But I think, just as we find that we can't just dump junk off the the space station, refining and manufacturing in space may not be the ecological freebie it seems like.
Almost all major distros have audit processes of some sort. That's the only reason we have not already seen rogue engineers introducing trojans directly into the kernel and/or tools.
They could be better, but we need more guys like Theo DeRaadt to lead the audit teams, which presents a sort of dilemma.
The problem is not so much with whether you know the rules or not.
I know more about English spelling, syntax, and semantics than your average grammar nazi, but my fingers are always typing stuff wrong. (Okay, okay, "incorrectly".)
(This has been getting worse. The better I speak, read, and write Japanese, the more I make odd mistakes with English.)
If I notice, I correct it. If not, well, their I am post in a hurry so I can get bcak to wrok.
It's like, "We don't know anything about pricing yet. But trust us, we'll do it right."
And, then, "We know everything you need to know about the CPU so you don't need to. Trust us. We'll do it right."
Or is it, "If you have to ask about price, you needn't bother." followed by, "If you have to ask about the CPU's instruction set, register count, etc., you needn't bother."
I know, CPU is so passe, now, but I'd still like to know. (Yeah, and money is also passe.)
In the US, at any rate, there is supposed to be no such thing as a royal society (with the kind of power you describe).
I don't know about copyright law elsewhere, but under all conditions in the US, the copyright on the original work covers the original work, and expires.
Copyright on derivative works covers only what is added/modified, even when the original is public domain. An author is never supposed to be granted copyright for something he or she did not create.
But some publishing companies (I repeat myself, I guess) bend over backwards to avoid letting anyone know when the original works are in the public domain. The think they can get away with it because usually there is no one left to defend the works.
But it sucks value out of society as a whole, so we all, including them, end up losing for it.
Copyright on re-published public domain works is supposed to be on the expression, since the expression is what is new. The work derived from remains in the public domain.
In other words, the typefaces and font sizes used, any new illustrations, any editing and/or modernizing of the language, resulting pagination, added commentary, annotation, that sort of stuff, can be covered by new copyright because it is new work.
Some re-publishers bend over backward to avoid letting on that the original is out of copyright. I suppose they have no confidence in their own work.
I tried using the "binary" units, and they just don't work for me.
And they don't make any difference to most of the people I talk to. 1024 is close enough to a thousand, 1,048,576 is close enough to a million (US), 1,073,741,824 is close enough to a billion (US), and anything higher is well beyond the pale.
Even when talking about HD sizes. That's the reason KB, MB, etc. were coined as abbreviations. When we really need to know, we don7t depend on either abbreviation. The manufacturer can advertise either 512 GiB or 550 GB and the SI or sysadmin (who are the ones who think they erally care) aren't really sure until they see either
or some similarly specific numbers. (Yeah, I know that's too much for RAM and HD would never have exactly 2^39 bytes. It's intended to show how ridiculous the argument is.
It's a waste of taxpayer money to publish that kind of a "standard" except as a joke. (As a joke, it is useful, both for relieving stress and for teaching about numbering and measurement related to IT.)
Get a secondary account, always keep the funds in it limited.
Yeah, it's a bit of a pain. Especially if your primary bank automatically ties accounts so you can't limit the secondary account unless you open the account in another bank.
Some people think that R rated movies are "mature". Some think that X rated movies are even more "mature". I tend to see both as people letting there interests slip from understanding to stimulus, not because of what such movies generally contain, but because of what they generally don't (That's one of the problems with a single dimension to ratings systems, but that's wandering too far afield.)
I disagree with your definition of mature.
Slavers often talked to and about slaves who gave in and quit trying to escape as if those slaves had "grown up" in some sense.
I and my fellow teachers often treat the students who are trying their hardest to understand what's going on, and therefore testing all sorts of limits, as children, and treat the quiet students as more "grown up". And this after we have been imploring them to use their own minds.
Investors are not all-knowing, nor do they really have the best interests of a company's customers or employees, or even the company itself, in mind. This is especially so in these days where accountants have (deliberately) forgotten how to account for long-term value, and intangibles such as keeping the general market in good condition.
Sometimes investors need to be told to shut up and let the people they invested in do their job. What do the investors mean? Is investing in a company only investing in the profits the company make? I don't think that's investing in the company at all.
Shoot. As long as the investors were running Apple, they were running it into the ground. When enough of Apple's investors saw what was happening and brought Steve Jobs back, and gave him back the reigns, he turned the company back around. (You do understand why the first year or two he took only a token salary?)
Money is fertilizer. People treat it like it's gold. Well, gold is not that big a deal, either, but money is fertilizer. It tends to get wonky when too much of it sits in one place for too long. And then even worse things happen.
Doesn't answer the rest of your complaints, but being able to BTO with a solid state drive and a regular notebook grade HD probably answers most of the uses in this form factor better than a 7200 rpm drive.
A quick web search doesn't bring up any examples, but I remember when flash first came out, some of the manufacturers insisted on calling it "flash RAM" in their ads.
I also remember the arguments on the BBSes, and the conclusion that EEPROM was already different enough from UVEPROM and other ROM as to call into question the ROM part of the acronym, and that "flash ROM" seemed a bit like an oymoron. Enough people have complained about calling it flash RAM that the maufacturers have gone to "flash memory". But you still see lots of examples of the term "flash RAM" in use on the web, and it's really not technically incorrect. (Any re-writable store used to be called RAM in some camps, although you're probably too young to remember that. Sure, some other camps insisted on SRWM or the like for serially re-writable devices.)
Sure, the term causes confusion, see the article we seem to be commenting on.
Slashdot Mirror
HIstory:
Microsoft "borrowed" a huge amount of tech from Apple. They massaged it with macro-preprocessors and did some other near-mechanical transformations to functionally project the Macintosh Toolbox onto a pseudo-object concept they had been calling "windows" (windows on code). I think the concept was derived from the stupid segmented addressing in the x86. They did that because they could not figure out how to force their pseudo objects onto a windowing environment that would be flexible enough to replicate the functionality of the Macintosh. MSWindows 3 could not compete, and they did not understand enough about GUI to do it on their own.
There was a lot of stuff that seems obvious to us now, that their engineers could not grasp. They had to resort to a mechanical transformation of existing code, projecting it onto their pseudo-objects. This is not the same as Apple appropriating the concepts they saw at Xerox Parc. This is taking code.
I say "seems" obvious because real graphical user interface coding is nowhere nearly as obvious as we want to believe it is, especially on the limited processors they were using back then. These days, we are able to work with GUI by implementing general events and general graphical environments and near-general context entities that we call window managers and desktop managers, and our processors have the speed and memory to do it in a reasonably responsive manner. Back then, they had to cut a lot of corners, and figuring out which corners to cut is real engineering.
That is not deniable if you understand the programming and have ever looked at the orgiinal Mac toolbox code and the materials given to Mac programmers and compared it with the equivalent from MSWindows 95. There was no way any agreement between them was supposed to allow the level of borrowing. But Microsoft fast talked their way out of that somehow and Apple had to either give up and go home like a whipped dog or at least go down fighting. They chose the latter, and took a lot of wild swings. They salvaged enough of the fight to survive long enough to bring Jobs back.
Fast-forward that to today and the non-practicing entities and you see that courts have swung way too far the other direction, and are still unwilling to even try to read source code. The trolls are getting huge awards with the same wild punches that got Apple barely more than scratch. They are still hitting nothing but air, so to speak, and courts are awarding the match on bizarre technical points from misreading of law and misapplying it to the computer industry.
How Microsoft fast-talked their way out of it was that courts did not understand the sort of mathematical transforms that can be performed on source code without changing its essence. The suit should have been focused on copyright violations of the code, but the courts could not understand it. There are still very few people who understand it. This problem is probably the core motivation for the spurious invention of "intellectual property".
You raise some suit against Windows. There was no suit against "Windows".
The suit was against Microsoft and some of its partners over Microsoft Windows. The suit was against Microsoft, primarily. Microsoft Windows was the object of contention, but could not be dealt with directly because of the previous flawed court decisions. The partners were dragged in because the primary evidence had been passed over and thrown out.
It is not uncommon in patent fights for a general approach that allows multiple implementations to be found infringing for instances which implement elements of a prior patent. In such cases, the owner of the general approach can be required to take technical steps to prevent the uses of the instances which held to infringe. It seems insane, but most of the so-called IP law is based on similarly unreasonable convolutions to allow specific kinds of temporary monopoly but still disallow monopoly.
The specific instance you drag up was not about Apple re-painting and photoshopping
If that was "s1mpl3 sub5t1tut10ns" you're maybe doing okay. Either s1mpl3 or sub5t1tut10ns by themselves are going to be a little easy to hit with rainbow tables.
But I would probably expect $ub5t1tut10ns to last longer in an attack than "I date Sally."
"I date Sally's calendar." is better than "I date Sally."
"I date banana shipwreck." is better than either, but I would still use leetspeak to tighten it up.
I think the original problem is that you start out being reminded of the look and feel suit against "Windows" and end up dodging and focusing on HP.
Microsoft borrowed huge pieces of Apple code. They fudged the share agreements and tried to compete against Apple with Apple's own technology, a pattern they have a habit of repeating regularly. Different case, and, no, it's not the same. If Microsoft is doctoring the end product to hide Apple tech, trying to un-doctor the end-product is not unreasonable.
But that was then, when Apple was sort-of justified in grasping at straws. Funny those same straws turn into logs these days for non-practicing entities, but that's another insanity.
This year has seen Apple show some of its worst sides. This is now.
More like the benchmarks that INTEL was putting out at the time Apple started using those ads. Apple did use them too long.
At all was too long in my opinion, because they were just begging for what happened next.
INTEL was able to improve performance by buying the best engineers money can buy away from all the companies that were making better CPUs. That was a no-brainer, and a primary reason taunting the competition is not a good approach to ad campaigns.
And with all that talent, INTEL still can't overcome the basic deficiencies in the x86, all the vaporware to the contrary notwithstanding. They still have to resort to things like planting rumors that they have to keep the performance down to keep AMD in the game to keep the justice department at bay.
Suddenly the fascination with the asteroid belt begins t make more sense.
It's less that we need more than it is that we need to be able to get at it without forcing people to move, and wtihout cleaning up afterward. But I think, just as we find that we can't just dump junk off the the space station, refining and manufacturing in space may not be the ecological freebie it seems like.
You read Isaac Asimov, I suppose.
Infinite flavor, indeed!
Bankers at best simplify some transactions.
Almost all major distros have audit processes of some sort. That's the only reason we have not already seen rogue engineers introducing trojans directly into the kernel and/or tools.
They could be better, but we need more guys like Theo DeRaadt to lead the audit teams, which presents a sort of dilemma.
In a world without MSWindows, who needs MSWalls?
The purpose of DIY is doing it yourself.
The whole description of this .net gageteer thing is
That's typical of the cognitive dissonance that Microsoft's marketing department displays about anything real world.
(No, I don't count business management IT as real world. But it is as close as Microsoft seems to be able to get to the real world.)
Just kidding. (I hope.)
The caverns.
Hmm. Nukewatch has a map. Working Google Maps a little, I located WIPP road.
That locates it well away from the caverns, but within ten miles of Lindsey Lake.
Yep. Smells like it to me.
This is insane.
The problem is not so much with whether you know the rules or not.
I know more about English spelling, syntax, and semantics than your average grammar nazi, but my fingers are always typing stuff wrong. (Okay, okay, "incorrectly".)
(This has been getting worse. The better I speak, read, and write Japanese, the more I make odd mistakes with English.)
If I notice, I correct it. If not, well, their I am post in a hurry so I can get bcak to wrok.
Lousy autonomous nervous system.
That's something else I'd like to know.
It's like, "We don't know anything about pricing yet. But trust us, we'll do it right."
And, then, "We know everything you need to know about the CPU so you don't need to. Trust us. We'll do it right."
Or is it, "If you have to ask about price, you needn't bother." followed by, "If you have to ask about the CPU's instruction set, register count, etc., you needn't bother."
I know, CPU is so passe, now, but I'd still like to know. (Yeah, and money is also passe.)
In the US, at any rate, there is supposed to be no such thing as a royal society (with the kind of power you describe).
I don't know about copyright law elsewhere, but under all conditions in the US, the copyright on the original work covers the original work, and expires.
Copyright on derivative works covers only what is added/modified, even when the original is public domain. An author is never supposed to be granted copyright for something he or she did not create.
But some publishing companies (I repeat myself, I guess) bend over backwards to avoid letting anyone know when the original works are in the public domain. The think they can get away with it because usually there is no one left to defend the works.
But it sucks value out of society as a whole, so we all, including them, end up losing for it.
Try, new arrangements of said classical scores? Or copyright on an anthology?
In the US, at least, that's supposed to be the limit, and it should be plenty.
Copyright on re-published public domain works is supposed to be on the expression, since the expression is what is new. The work derived from remains in the public domain.
In other words, the typefaces and font sizes used, any new illustrations, any editing and/or modernizing of the language, resulting pagination, added commentary, annotation, that sort of stuff, can be covered by new copyright because it is new work.
Some re-publishers bend over backward to avoid letting on that the original is out of copyright. I suppose they have no confidence in their own work.
I tried using the "binary" units, and they just don't work for me.
And they don't make any difference to most of the people I talk to. 1024 is close enough to a thousand, 1,048,576 is close enough to a million (US), 1,073,741,824 is close enough to a billion (US), and anything higher is well beyond the pale.
Even when talking about HD sizes. That's the reason KB, MB, etc. were coined as abbreviations. When we really need to know, we don7t depend on either abbreviation. The manufacturer can advertise either 512 GiB or 550 GB and the SI or sysadmin (who are the ones who think they erally care) aren't really sure until they see either
5.498 * 10^11 bytes
or
pre-formatted:
16384 segments,
65536 sectors/segment
512 bytes/sector
or some similarly specific numbers. (Yeah, I know that's too much for RAM and HD would never have exactly 2^39 bytes. It's intended to show how ridiculous the argument is.
It's a waste of taxpayer money to publish that kind of a "standard" except as a joke. (As a joke, it is useful, both for relieving stress and for teaching about numbering and measurement related to IT.)
Get a secondary account, always keep the funds in it limited.
Yeah, it's a bit of a pain. Especially if your primary bank automatically ties accounts so you can't limit the secondary account unless you open the account in another bank.
Some people think that R rated movies are "mature". Some think that X rated movies are even more "mature". I tend to see both as people letting there interests slip from understanding to stimulus, not because of what such movies generally contain, but because of what they generally don't (That's one of the problems with a single dimension to ratings systems, but that's wandering too far afield.)
I disagree with your definition of mature.
Slavers often talked to and about slaves who gave in and quit trying to escape as if those slaves had "grown up" in some sense.
I and my fellow teachers often treat the students who are trying their hardest to understand what's going on, and therefore testing all sorts of limits, as children, and treat the quiet students as more "grown up". And this after we have been imploring them to use their own minds.
Investors are not all-knowing, nor do they really have the best interests of a company's customers or employees, or even the company itself, in mind. This is especially so in these days where accountants have (deliberately) forgotten how to account for long-term value, and intangibles such as keeping the general market in good condition.
Sometimes investors need to be told to shut up and let the people they invested in do their job. What do the investors mean? Is investing in a company only investing in the profits the company make? I don't think that's investing in the company at all.
Shoot. As long as the investors were running Apple, they were running it into the ground. When enough of Apple's investors saw what was happening and brought Steve Jobs back, and gave him back the reigns, he turned the company back around. (You do understand why the first year or two he took only a token salary?)
Money is fertilizer. People treat it like it's gold. Well, gold is not that big a deal, either, but money is fertilizer. It tends to get wonky when too much of it sits in one place for too long. And then even worse things happen.
Doesn't answer the rest of your complaints, but being able to BTO with a solid state drive and a regular notebook grade HD probably answers most of the uses in this form factor better than a 7200 rpm drive.
When a company is concerned about its children (employees and customers), it grows. When it is concerned about its investors, it stifles itself.
A quick web search doesn't bring up any examples, but I remember when flash first came out, some of the manufacturers insisted on calling it "flash RAM" in their ads.
I also remember the arguments on the BBSes, and the conclusion that EEPROM was already different enough from UVEPROM and other ROM as to call into question the ROM part of the acronym, and that "flash ROM" seemed a bit like an oymoron. Enough people have complained about calling it flash RAM that the maufacturers have gone to "flash memory". But you still see lots of examples of the term "flash RAM" in use on the web, and it's really not technically incorrect. (Any re-writable store used to be called RAM in some camps, although you're probably too young to remember that. Sure, some other camps insisted on SRWM or the like for serially re-writable devices.)
Sure, the term causes confusion, see the article we seem to be commenting on.
This is not an accident.