They have had success in the past - but now they have a significantly higher market share than in years past. The courts may take this dominance into account.
It did seem that way, but Tom Bishop spends an awful lot of time defending the theory, one might mistake the amount of time he's invested (average 9 posts per day, ~ 9,000 posts total) as something more than "humor" lol
No, not really a mini electoral system. The fact that you can directly cast your vote is funadmentally different. In some ways this is a better model, you can still choose someone you trust, but vote specifically on your issues but still delegate most of the gov't running process to a trusted party. Additionally if the trusted party demonstrates a track record that you don't like, there is always the option of choosing another at any time.
Lol you have to be kidding. Non-Intel macs are dead, they are not being supported by a wide range of vendors, including their creator, Apple. Per Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X_v10.5
"Leopard drops support for slower G4 and all G3 processors".
"Bill Gates did not put low cost PC's into the hands of the masses. IBM did that and it would have done it without Microsoft."
While I don't really care to weigh in on the Gate character issue, I will say I think this is wrong.
If a company owns both the operating system and the hardware - then the entire package tends to be more expensive - especially during that time period. There is no incentive to compete, and ultimately you end up comparing apples to oranges (no pun intended) as a consumer. We get stuck with computers that do good things over here (like graphics and things) and do other good (but different) things over there (games, spreadsheets, word processing).
I actually think that we could hold up Apple/Mac as an example of this. There were other factors associated with the cost of the Mac but overall - it took Mac much longer to catch up in terms of price competitiveness. Ironically when they finally made the switch to "mainstream" hardware we found out that the previous generation Macs were 4 - 6 times slower than the Intel versions. So not only were Mac users paying more for their hardware, they were also getting less, this is of course, specifically because we are tied to Cupertino's hardware decisions.
Keeping the OS separate from the hardware creates two markets, and creates a consumer demand to run the operating system on hardware which not just one, but many hardware vendors can then produce. The cost of PC's is a product of this scenario. It would be far different if OS's (thus applications) could not be used across multiple vendor's hardware. Apple's Mac shows that because there is no competition for Hardware and OS the overall price tends to be higher.
Thus, the stipulation that IBM would have automatically done right by us is false.
"On the other hand I want to say... WTF?!? Why does a markup language need all that crap anyway? Persistent local storage? What does that have to do with page markup? "
Which is why it should be broken up... they don't have anything to do with HTML.
HAHAHHA - you have to be kidding me. You can't defend this - Microsoft, never communicated that the the purpose of UAC was to encourage vendors to sign their code and reduce prompts.
The fact of the matter is that there is no way to truly get rid of the prompts.
For example, I have an application that uses WCF - but you can't run it in normal mode because it requires socket level access. Great! Elevation at every turn. Of course if you register it as a service which is the normal case, then everything is good - but it is still running with admin privs.
Of course, I can start decorating every single freaking method in my code with security demands so that vista knows that i should elevate - but this too is nothing but a chore. Considering the compiler already knows that i'm using call that require elevation.
Vista went the wrong way in so many directions. It was a clean slate OS basically, and instead of looking toward what could be the engineers developed an OS encumbered with restrictions and conditions for scenarios that may or may not exist. Ultimately these cause major problems for users. I will cite only one example of a solution looking for a problem: Audio playback limits the throughput of Gigabit ethernet adapters. The perceived problem was: The quality of audio playback would be compromised by network interrupts. The "solution" to this renders a gigabit ethernet transfer 10% effective. That is, there is a 90% reduction in ethernet throughput during audio playback. This issue is STILL not fixed.
Mental masturbation over problems that don't exist (audio still skips on vista despite this "improvement") don't help anyone.
Someone needs to reign the organization in and stop focusing on perceived problems and start providing a better user experience.
Lol... Just like 64 bit and multicore, AMD was talking about Fusion way before anyone else was. Intel has "stolen" yet another idea from AMD. Unfortunately, the reality is that AMD doesn't have the capital to refresh it's production lines as often as Intel - and I think to some extent the human capital to exectute on the big ideas.
You're clearly unfamiliar with the history. Apple have been saying that Carbon was a temporary transitional framework and that developers should move to Cocoa since the late 90s.
And you don't really seem to be familiar with the platform. Puma was released in 2000/2001 - So I'm not sure how you arrive at "should move to Cocoa since the late 90's" as there was nothing to program against during the late 90's.
Dropping 64 bit support for Carbon *GUI* code (yes, there is 64 bit Carbon, just not 64 bit Carbon GUI libraries) was just the latest in Apple's long litany of warnings that Carbon is eventually going bye bye and developers should transition to Cocoa, something they were told to do nearly a decade ago.
It doesn't really matter what code it is. Dropping support for a major API is not something that a business should reveal at a developer conference. It is something that you put in a "roadmap" to let your "partners" know where you are going. Such a transition should be executed on the scale of years so that no one is caught by surprise. That is not what is going on here - and thus the reason for my post.
Speaking from experience, you will gain nothing by using XP x64 as opposed to Vista X64. XP64 has the same problem that Vista 64 has - lack of driver support and lack of most apps supporting x64.
Things like the old Cisco VPN client simply don't work.
Just go to Vista 64 if you think you want or need to use 4GB of RAM.
Despite what you've heard there are some nice things about it too, it isn't that bad and you will get more drivers for it as the years wane on. It is also more secure, and you don't run the risk of not getting support in the near future.
How can Apple get away with essentially discontinuing updates to one of its core programming environments. You can't just tell your partners "oh hey, yeah we just decided that we're not going to support X anymore".
So I started writing without reading TFA. Then I read TFA to be sure that I was not in fact missing something. I'm not, and you're not either... The assertions of the article are absurd - someone must have felt that they needed to put something on the web for google to index.
While not related to parallelism I especially like "SaaS as an Appliance. One area within SaaS that is growing quickly is the opportunity to deliver a SaaS product as an appliance."
So you mean to tell me that the next big thing is installing software on a server, and installing that server in my datacenter and supporting it?! New!? HA HA HA. So actually what you are saying is that SaaS is too limiting, unreliable (from a connectivity perspective) or not secure enough for client needs and that we have to do it the Old way.
As far as the last item in the Blog goes I'm not sure where all of this crazy excitement over parallelism is coming from. There have been several posts on slashdot over the last few weeks regarding it. Massive parallelism has been available for decades for very special types of scientific problems that merit the additional complexity of coding them up. Parallelism has also been available in the form of threads.
The real conundrum is that not many problems on the desktop are in fact, parallel and if they are then one would utilize threads, and if really needing to be sure the OS is behaving itself, processor affinity would be used as well. This would allow, given the proper task, one to fully utilize every cycle of the available cores. The real desktop problem is how can most efficiently allocate processes across multiple cores and physical CPU's.
The tools to do this are available today, here and now! Just get your latest copy of Xcode, VS Studio, or GCC! Unless someone reinvents the way we code I'm not sure that anything is going to happen here.
you know the right side is a boolean expression, and that you are assigning the result of the expression to the left.
in fact, it is actually more clear, and less error prone to do it the first way - there is never an opportinity to "accidently" assign the wrong boolean value to the variable where as in the second case it is up to the programmer to properly interpret the boolean comparison and assign the proper outcome to the variable.
I'm absolutely baffled at how you can legitimize Apple's actions in this case. I don't *want* safari and I don't want to accidently install it, because it is always selected.
Slashdot Mirror
They have had success in the past - but now they have a significantly higher market share than in years past. The courts may take this dominance into account.
It did seem that way, but Tom Bishop spends an awful lot of time defending the theory, one might mistake the amount of time he's invested (average 9 posts per day, ~ 9,000 posts total) as something more than "humor" lol
Poor sod
Return it and buy from a manufacturer... no need to disassemble the BIOS, your time is worth more than that.
No, not really a mini electoral system. The fact that you can directly cast your vote is funadmentally different. In some ways this is a better model, you can still choose someone you trust, but vote specifically on your issues but still delegate most of the gov't running process to a trusted party. Additionally if the trusted party demonstrates a track record that you don't like, there is always the option of choosing another at any time.
Call it a hybrid democracy.
"one camp tried to advance the underlying solar technology and mostly failed."
That is simply not true at all. December 6, 2006 http://www.boeing.com/ids/news/2006/q4/061206b_nr.html. 40% is nothing to scoff at, and it does use a different underlying technology.
Nanosolar has done great things - but to say that advancements in underlying solar technolgy have not been made in recent years is in accurate.
Nanosolar is also the only company that I know of that has fundamentally streamlined the solar panel production process.
"We're seeing companies ignore their largest market simply because they can make a greater profit elsewhere"
Wiki indicates that there are approximately 495 million people[1] within the borders of the EU member states.
So America is not really "their largest market". The conversion rate is much more in favor of the EU residents.
We'll get our Wii Fits eventually, but only after people whos dollars are worth more than ours.
[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union
Lol you have to be kidding. Non-Intel macs are dead, they are not being supported by a wide range of vendors, including their creator, Apple. Per Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X_v10.5
"Leopard drops support for slower G4 and all G3 processors".
It's just a matter of time.
"Bill Gates did not put low cost PC's into the hands of the masses. IBM did that and it would have done it without Microsoft."
While I don't really care to weigh in on the Gate character issue, I will say I think this is wrong.
If a company owns both the operating system and the hardware - then the entire package tends to be more expensive - especially during that time period. There is no incentive to compete, and ultimately you end up comparing apples to oranges (no pun intended) as a consumer. We get stuck with computers that do good things over here (like graphics and things) and do other good (but different) things over there (games, spreadsheets, word processing).
I actually think that we could hold up Apple/Mac as an example of this. There were other factors associated with the cost of the Mac but overall - it took Mac much longer to catch up in terms of price competitiveness. Ironically when they finally made the switch to "mainstream" hardware we found out that the previous generation Macs were 4 - 6 times slower than the Intel versions. So not only were Mac users paying more for their hardware, they were also getting less, this is of course, specifically because we are tied to Cupertino's hardware decisions.
Keeping the OS separate from the hardware creates two markets, and creates a consumer demand to run the operating system on hardware which not just one, but many hardware vendors can then produce. The cost of PC's is a product of this scenario. It would be far different if OS's (thus applications) could not be used across multiple vendor's hardware. Apple's Mac shows that because there is no competition for Hardware and OS the overall price tends to be higher.
Thus, the stipulation that IBM would have automatically done right by us is false.
"The power is off due to the explosion but there servers themselves are A-OK."
Physically OK maybe... lets see how many of them come back up when the power is restored ^ ^
"I know it's bad form to reply to my own post, but as to the MMORPG problem I had another epiphany."
Indeed. I am not sure we really need you to spend time writing any of this down.
Nothing to see here. Move along.
"On the other hand I want to say... WTF?!? Why does a markup language need all that crap anyway? Persistent local storage? What does that have to do with page markup? "
Which is why it should be broken up... they don't have anything to do with HTML.
HAHAHHA - you have to be kidding me. You can't defend this - Microsoft, never communicated that the the purpose of UAC was to encourage vendors to sign their code and reduce prompts.
The fact of the matter is that there is no way to truly get rid of the prompts.
For example, I have an application that uses WCF - but you can't run it in normal mode because it requires socket level access. Great! Elevation at every turn. Of course if you register it as a service which is the normal case, then everything is good - but it is still running with admin privs.
Of course, I can start decorating every single freaking method in my code with security demands so that vista knows that i should elevate - but this too is nothing but a chore. Considering the compiler already knows that i'm using call that require elevation.
Vista went the wrong way in so many directions. It was a clean slate OS basically, and instead of looking toward what could be the engineers developed an OS encumbered with restrictions and conditions for scenarios that may or may not exist. Ultimately these cause major problems for users. I will cite only one example of a solution looking for a problem: Audio playback limits the throughput of Gigabit ethernet adapters. The perceived problem was: The quality of audio playback would be compromised by network interrupts. The "solution" to this renders a gigabit ethernet transfer 10% effective. That is, there is a 90% reduction in ethernet throughput during audio playback. This issue is STILL not fixed.
Mental masturbation over problems that don't exist (audio still skips on vista despite this "improvement") don't help anyone.
Someone needs to reign the organization in and stop focusing on perceived problems and start providing a better user experience.
Lol... Just like 64 bit and multicore, AMD was talking about Fusion way before anyone else was. Intel has "stolen" yet another idea from AMD. Unfortunately, the reality is that AMD doesn't have the capital to refresh it's production lines as often as Intel - and I think to some extent the human capital to exectute on the big ideas.
You're clearly unfamiliar with the history. Apple have been saying that Carbon was a temporary transitional framework and that developers should move to Cocoa since the late 90s.
And you don't really seem to be familiar with the platform. Puma was released in 2000/2001 - So I'm not sure how you arrive at "should move to Cocoa since the late 90's" as there was nothing to program against during the late 90's.
Dropping 64 bit support for Carbon *GUI* code (yes, there is 64 bit Carbon, just not 64 bit Carbon GUI libraries) was just the latest in Apple's long litany of warnings that Carbon is eventually going bye bye and developers should transition to Cocoa, something they were told to do nearly a decade ago.
It doesn't really matter what code it is. Dropping support for a major API is not something that a business should reveal at a developer conference. It is something that you put in a "roadmap" to let your "partners" know where you are going. Such a transition should be executed on the scale of years so that no one is caught by surprise. That is not what is going on here - and thus the reason for my post.
Speaking from experience, you will gain nothing by using XP x64 as opposed to Vista X64. XP64 has the same problem that Vista 64 has - lack of driver support and lack of most apps supporting x64.
Things like the old Cisco VPN client simply don't work.
Just go to Vista 64 if you think you want or need to use 4GB of RAM.
Despite what you've heard there are some nice things about it too, it isn't that bad and you will get more drivers for it as the years wane on. It is also more secure, and you don't run the risk of not getting support in the near future.
Cocoa and Carbon are not just API's they are core system interfaces.
It is equivalent to MS saying they will not support 64 bit platforms for MFC.
Really amazing.
How can Apple get away with essentially discontinuing updates to one of its core programming environments. You can't just tell your partners "oh hey, yeah we just decided that we're not going to support X anymore".
So I started writing without reading TFA. Then I read TFA to be sure that I was not in fact missing something. I'm not, and you're not either... The assertions of the article are absurd - someone must have felt that they needed to put something on the web for google to index.
While not related to parallelism I especially like "SaaS as an Appliance. One area within SaaS that is growing quickly is the opportunity to deliver a SaaS product as an appliance."
So you mean to tell me that the next big thing is installing software on a server, and installing that server in my datacenter and supporting it?! New!? HA HA HA. So actually what you are saying is that SaaS is too limiting, unreliable (from a connectivity perspective) or not secure enough for client needs and that we have to do it the Old way.
As far as the last item in the Blog goes I'm not sure where all of this crazy excitement over parallelism is coming from. There have been several posts on slashdot over the last few weeks regarding it. Massive parallelism has been available for decades for very special types of scientific problems that merit the additional complexity of coding them up. Parallelism has also been available in the form of threads.
The real conundrum is that not many problems on the desktop are in fact, parallel and if they are then one would utilize threads, and if really needing to be sure the OS is behaving itself, processor affinity would be used as well. This would allow, given the proper task, one to fully utilize every cycle of the available cores. The real desktop problem is how can most efficiently allocate processes across multiple cores and physical CPU's.
The tools to do this are available today, here and now! Just get your latest copy of Xcode, VS Studio, or GCC! Unless someone reinvents the way we code I'm not sure that anything is going to happen here.
With all those kernels lying around all you are going to get out that design is *popcorn*
PA-KOW parent hit the nizale on the hized! hiz-AOW!
______
This post brought to you by 50 cent
I don't agree that this is not clear.
you know the right side is a boolean expression, and that you are assigning the result of the expression to the left.
in fact, it is actually more clear, and less error prone to do it the first way - there is never an opportinity to "accidently" assign the wrong boolean value to the variable where as in the second case it is up to the programmer to properly interpret the boolean comparison and assign the proper outcome to the variable.
IE8 is still puttering around with ACID2...so I hate to sound like the cynic...
The IE 8 team will be home with their wives and children soon. Hey, there is always tomorrow to get some work done...
Shut the fuck up.
And of course, the Ballmer *Chair* - that one will really get ya' if you aren't careful!
I'm absolutely baffled at how you can legitimize Apple's actions in this case. I don't *want* safari and I don't want to accidently install it, because it is always selected.