Meanwhile, many companies, from small businesses to worldwide corporations, are spending a lot of money to fight spam and other problems. I see a need for many large businesses to get together and build their own network, an "Internet-3" so to speak. They would still have security concerns, but because most of the network's traffic will be business related, the signal to noise ratio will be much better..
Bad idea. Businesses are the very same driving force that can find a way to eliminate stuff like spam traffic via either monies or lobbies. It would be far too confusing for businesses to interoperate on their own network like you suggest. Competition alone would kill it stillborn. Not to mention the fact that many large businesses already have their own large leased lines for intra-com.
Peak has been observed at ABOUT every 11 years. The last minimum was in 1997. It's also been observed that it takes only ABOUT four years to reach peak and ABOUT seven to reach minimum. So four to peak and seven down. It's still a mystery as to why this is so. 1997 + 4 would be 2001, 2003 - 2001 is 2, so there's still another 5 years left until we expect minimum.
In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence:
Abolition of private property.
You're right, that IS very simple and plain, and I'm a westerner and, yes, I reject the entire idea based upon that one, single sentence. I know, I'm shallow... But I'm also paying property taxes so don't say we westerners wouldn't accept it. WE HAVE! You see, here in the U.S. we don't actually OWN our property, we rent it like good serfs always have. "Ideollogical background" and "propoganda" aside, you're right, there are many truths contained within the manifesto, but it's still crap IMO.
Apple's EULA is a license agreement. That means that it is negotiable, it wasn't written by God ( although I'm sure Jobs has identity crises like that once in a while ). Did IBM even ASK Apple if it would be willing to deal? We may never know that. Linux IS better than OS X in CERTAIN tasks on the ppc. OS X is the most widely used and developed os specifically for the ppc. Linux is not. This logic is just messing me up here. Windows doesn't work on the ppc, it works on the x86. Windows runs on over 90% of the computers in the world. Why then would it be beneficial for IBM to try to market a server on a processor that is used in less than 10% of computers worldwide using an operating system designed primarily for a processor that comprises the other 90%? Mac OS X has way more development effort put forth towards its efficiency on the ppc as its primary os. Why am I being so defensive of Apple here? I don't think I am, at least I'm not trying to be. I'm simply thinking that IBM is choosing poorly simply for the fact that yelling "Linux" will grab some attention. I don't know, it just doesn't seem right to me. The Mac is not my primary platform BTW.
But Linux, AIX, NetBSD, and other operating systems (especially Windows) are NOT designed to run primarily on ppc. It doesn't disappoint me that 10.3 will not be 64 bit because that wasn't the argument I made. Even if it was, it still wouldn't disappoint me because it isn't my primary os. My argument is that there is a better os for the ppc than Linux and that IBM is just barking about Linux to make noise.
Apple drives the market for the ppc architecture and develops hardware. They push the product. No Apple, no ppc. No IBM, no ppc. No Motorola, no ppc. IBM develops POWER architecture. Motorola pushes the architecture for Apple and makes a deal with IBM. IBM says it has a better idea. Motorola produces first. Motorola stops pushing architecture. IBM takes up new idea that it has and tells Apple "we'll make a better version". Apple says, "ok" but let's do it like this. IBM says, "ok". Now what? By far, the biggest influence on the ppc design is Apple, IBM, and Motorola. Blanks filled in as per your request. That was even easier than signing the paperwork on a bloody urine sample.
Why can't IBM sell a quad-ppc system with OSX on it? IBM knows EVERYTHING about the ppc achitecture, they designed it. Is it just because Apple makes the board? Did IBM even ASK Apple? I'm not suggesting Linux wouldn't be modifiable to perform well on the ppc, I'm saying that Apple already did it and they AIN'T Microsoft so why not use OS X? What is this with the idea that everybody thinks anything out of Apple/by Apple has to cost the price of the universe!?!?!...~~ Jesus! If it isn't with Linux and against M$ then screw you? And Apple too? Common! Apple's on a roll! Give them a chance on the ppc at least. Why is it that since it says Linux it MUST be better than what Apple could POSSIBLY do with the ppc? Dude, you guys, Linux is primarily developed on the x86 processor, think about this for a bit. Please?
Okay, first, I didn't ever imply that supporting the Linux/Linux community was silly. What I was saying is that MARKETING LINUX ON THE PPC IS SILLY. Linux is kickass! How did you read that wrong? Second, I'm probably next in line to be the last person to ever discourage an effort to remove Wintel from dominating the lemmings of the world. I'm also a realist, not a fatalist, and I still think IBM could choose more wisely. Ironically, I AM a moron game developer! Never been to a conference though because those guys really are morons, I agree. And to make matters worse, I'm typing this on a kick-ass, top-of-the-line Mac! Why? Because my Win2k machine sucks! Why are you giving me shit?!!! Back off dude!
It is better to be silent and remain a fool than to speak and remove all doubt. I think that was a Confuscious quote but don't quote me. Correct me if I'm wrong. Heeheee!~
Of that I have no doubt, IBM's reputation precedes them. I'm skeptical about their reasoning behind marketing Linux on ppc though. I think that's a flakey business move. There is a much more powerful OS available for that processor than Linux ppc. I think it's just a move based on the hype of the word Linux. I hate to make it sound so stupid but...
Yeah, yeah, I know, NextStep, blah blah blah... Linux WILL NEVER BE NATIVE on the ppc as long as more than 50% of its developers do its primary development on another processor. Argue with me as much as you want but I still think it's a silly idea to market a ppc server with Linux.
BTW, I take offense to the "So if you don't like ports, you had better throw away your Mac and switch to Windows now" comment. I port software betweeen Windows and Mac for a living every day, and it's a bitch. You can argue about that with me too and I promise I will not reply.
I don't get it. Call me stupid but ppc Linux does not seem to be nearly up to the same grade as OS X. I'm not saying Linux isn't, just ppc Linux. OS X/Darwin is entirely optimized for ppc and is developed entirely towards that end. ppc Linux is a port from something else (albeit a good one). Is IBM looking at developing a market that doesn't exist yet? Why does this strike me as being another example of corporate indirection for lack of a better idea?
Most musicians have poor business sense, that's not how they see their profession. They think they are musicians, and they are correct in thinking this way. As it is, because of that attitude, they gravitate towards thinking only in terms of their only proprietary source of income -touring. In effect this natural shift in focus is away from the complexities of "the contract" and towards what they control. This is completely understandable and works well in practice. I just talked to a great friend of mine yesterday and he just got off a four show tour and wound up pulling in close to ten grand for the band. That's excellent cash for them but it's also interesting to note that they were just recently dropped from their label. Huh? That's right, bands don't need labels to make money, they need labels for large scale promotion and distribution. Bands can and do make good money while touring but unfortunately touring can also be very expensive at times and that's one of the areas where the label comes in to help. Anyway, I could go on for a long time about what's really up with all this crap and what certain labels do and don't do, but I'll get back to the point. Record labels wanting a piece of the road action is good. It's good because they're going to get into a heap of shit if they do. The reason I say that is because it won't give the musicians anywhere else to run (the road revenues) and then they'll be forced into understanding more clearly what they need to learn on the business side of things. This, I think, will ultimately be good for both sides. Well, maybe... There's also the issue of that advance. Cutting into the road revenues could also drive musicians into being nothing more than contractors which is already a pretty close call. Gosh, there's so much to this but it looks like we're about to find out.
Does this mean that I shouldn't flash people with my headlights if they have theirs off like that rumor about ten years ago? What is this? Now hackers are on the level of street gangsters? This is stupid, I can't believe it got news coverage.
Well, let's see... According to all the stuff I've read here on/., Apple has like 3 or 4 percent market share. So I'm reading all these posts that are 'all so authoritative and knowing' - about 400 replies on this topic so far. 4 percent of 400 is 16, so that means that 16 of you actually have a Mac. Now, according to some of the surveys I've seen less than a third of current Mac owners have even seen iTunes Music Store. So... Now I'm left with only six or so people on this entire topic besides myself that actually KNOW what it's all about and how it works. So I guess what I'm really saying about Apple and the iTunes subject is that "Ya'all is mostly fulla shit!" It's good stuff and Apple isn't going to just 'fuck you over' like many of you seem to think. It's like beer, give it a try, you might like it.
I agree, but $8 Million in operating losses doesn't mean that they're "not in the best condition" when you consider they moved $1500 Million in revenues last year. To many, it just means they're even par. I wouldn't say they were in the "best" condition even if they *made* $8M.
3% of a $100 billion dollar market. It's well known that they've been holding five billion in cash for years. I think they turned like a billion and a half in revenues last year and only lost like ten million or so. While a 10 million dollar loss might sound like a lot to some, they moved 1500 million. Universal holds %25 market share in the music industry and is the biggest player there. That means one out of every four cd's sold worldwide is coming from Universal. I think they pushed over a half a billion in revenue last year, that's still not as big as Apple by a long shot and all Apple has to do is give up their cash to hold a majority market share in the music industry? Maybe not evil borg but that's a lot of cash to be swinging around on the other side of the cage!
Slashdot Mirror
Bad idea. Businesses are the very same driving force that can find a way to eliminate stuff like spam traffic via either monies or lobbies. It would be far too confusing for businesses to interoperate on their own network like you suggest. Competition alone would kill it stillborn. Not to mention the fact that many large businesses already have their own large leased lines for intra-com.
Peak has been observed at ABOUT every 11 years. The last minimum was in 1997. It's also been observed that it takes only ABOUT four years to reach peak and ABOUT seven to reach minimum. So four to peak and seven down. It's still a mystery as to why this is so. 1997 + 4 would be 2001, 2003 - 2001 is 2, so there's still another 5 years left until we expect minimum.
That's why we're making anti ballistic missile missiles. That technology wasn't "leaked", it was sold.
No he's not, he's smoking crack.
We don't know that yet.
Unless you're Yoda
You're right, that IS very simple and plain, and I'm a westerner and, yes, I reject the entire idea based upon that one, single sentence. I know, I'm shallow... But I'm also paying property taxes so don't say we westerners wouldn't accept it. WE HAVE! You see, here in the U.S. we don't actually OWN our property, we rent it like good serfs always have. "Ideollogical background" and "propoganda" aside, you're right, there are many truths contained within the manifesto, but it's still crap IMO.
Yeah, or quit drinking so much!
Apple's EULA is a license agreement. That means that it is negotiable, it wasn't written by God ( although I'm sure Jobs has identity crises like that once in a while ). Did IBM even ASK Apple if it would be willing to deal? We may never know that. Linux IS better than OS X in CERTAIN tasks on the ppc. OS X is the most widely used and developed os specifically for the ppc. Linux is not. This logic is just messing me up here. Windows doesn't work on the ppc, it works on the x86. Windows runs on over 90% of the computers in the world. Why then would it be beneficial for IBM to try to market a server on a processor that is used in less than 10% of computers worldwide using an operating system designed primarily for a processor that comprises the other 90%? Mac OS X has way more development effort put forth towards its efficiency on the ppc as its primary os. Why am I being so defensive of Apple here? I don't think I am, at least I'm not trying to be. I'm simply thinking that IBM is choosing poorly simply for the fact that yelling "Linux" will grab some attention. I don't know, it just doesn't seem right to me. The Mac is not my primary platform BTW.
But Linux, AIX, NetBSD, and other operating systems (especially Windows) are NOT designed to run primarily on ppc. It doesn't disappoint me that 10.3 will not be 64 bit because that wasn't the argument I made. Even if it was, it still wouldn't disappoint me because it isn't my primary os. My argument is that there is a better os for the ppc than Linux and that IBM is just barking about Linux to make noise.
Apple drives the market for the ppc architecture and develops hardware. They push the product. No Apple, no ppc. No IBM, no ppc. No Motorola, no ppc. IBM develops POWER architecture. Motorola pushes the architecture for Apple and makes a deal with IBM. IBM says it has a better idea. Motorola produces first. Motorola stops pushing architecture. IBM takes up new idea that it has and tells Apple "we'll make a better version". Apple says, "ok" but let's do it like this. IBM says, "ok". Now what? By far, the biggest influence on the ppc design is Apple, IBM, and Motorola. Blanks filled in as per your request. That was even easier than signing the paperwork on a bloody urine sample.
Why can't IBM sell a quad-ppc system with OSX on it? IBM knows EVERYTHING about the ppc achitecture, they designed it. Is it just because Apple makes the board? Did IBM even ASK Apple? I'm not suggesting Linux wouldn't be modifiable to perform well on the ppc, I'm saying that Apple already did it and they AIN'T Microsoft so why not use OS X? What is this with the idea that everybody thinks anything out of Apple/by Apple has to cost the price of the universe!?!?!...~~ Jesus! If it isn't with Linux and against M$ then screw you? And Apple too? Common! Apple's on a roll! Give them a chance on the ppc at least. Why is it that since it says Linux it MUST be better than what Apple could POSSIBLY do with the ppc? Dude, you guys, Linux is primarily developed on the x86 processor, think about this for a bit. Please?
Okay, first, I didn't ever imply that supporting the Linux/Linux community was silly. What I was saying is that MARKETING LINUX ON THE PPC IS SILLY. Linux is kickass! How did you read that wrong? Second, I'm probably next in line to be the last person to ever discourage an effort to remove Wintel from dominating the lemmings of the world. I'm also a realist, not a fatalist, and I still think IBM could choose more wisely. Ironically, I AM a moron game developer! Never been to a conference though because those guys really are morons, I agree. And to make matters worse, I'm typing this on a kick-ass, top-of-the-line Mac! Why? Because my Win2k machine sucks! Why are you giving me shit?!!! Back off dude!
It is better to be silent and remain a fool than to speak and remove all doubt. I think that was a Confuscious quote but don't quote me. Correct me if I'm wrong. Heeheee!~
Of that I have no doubt, IBM's reputation precedes them. I'm skeptical about their reasoning behind marketing Linux on ppc though. I think that's a flakey business move. There is a much more powerful OS available for that processor than Linux ppc. I think it's just a move based on the hype of the word Linux. I hate to make it sound so stupid but...
ppc development was a joint effort of the AIM (Apple, IBM, Motorola) alliance.
Yeah, yeah, I know, NextStep, blah blah blah... Linux WILL NEVER BE NATIVE on the ppc as long as more than 50% of its developers do its primary development on another processor. Argue with me as much as you want but I still think it's a silly idea to market a ppc server with Linux.
BTW, I take offense to the "So if you don't like ports, you had better throw away your Mac and switch to Windows now" comment. I port software betweeen Windows and Mac for a living every day, and it's a bitch. You can argue about that with me too and I promise I will not reply.
I don't get it. Call me stupid but ppc Linux does not seem to be nearly up to the same grade as OS X. I'm not saying Linux isn't, just ppc Linux. OS X/Darwin is entirely optimized for ppc and is developed entirely towards that end. ppc Linux is a port from something else (albeit a good one). Is IBM looking at developing a market that doesn't exist yet? Why does this strike me as being another example of corporate indirection for lack of a better idea?
Most musicians have poor business sense, that's not how they see their profession. They think they are musicians, and they are correct in thinking this way. As it is, because of that attitude, they gravitate towards thinking only in terms of their only proprietary source of income -touring. In effect this natural shift in focus is away from the complexities of "the contract" and towards what they control. This is completely understandable and works well in practice. I just talked to a great friend of mine yesterday and he just got off a four show tour and wound up pulling in close to ten grand for the band. That's excellent cash for them but it's also interesting to note that they were just recently dropped from their label. Huh? That's right, bands don't need labels to make money, they need labels for large scale promotion and distribution. Bands can and do make good money while touring but unfortunately touring can also be very expensive at times and that's one of the areas where the label comes in to help. Anyway, I could go on for a long time about what's really up with all this crap and what certain labels do and don't do, but I'll get back to the point. Record labels wanting a piece of the road action is good. It's good because they're going to get into a heap of shit if they do. The reason I say that is because it won't give the musicians anywhere else to run (the road revenues) and then they'll be forced into understanding more clearly what they need to learn on the business side of things. This, I think, will ultimately be good for both sides. Well, maybe... There's also the issue of that advance. Cutting into the road revenues could also drive musicians into being nothing more than contractors which is already a pretty close call. Gosh, there's so much to this but it looks like we're about to find out.
Does this mean that I shouldn't flash people with my headlights if they have theirs off like that rumor about ten years ago? What is this? Now hackers are on the level of street gangsters? This is stupid, I can't believe it got news coverage.
Save gas! Fart in a jar!
IBM VP says it "costs $3 billion to fab this thing" because they "shrunk the gate length to 6 atomic units."
It's not over yet.
Well, let's see... According to all the stuff I've read here on /., Apple has like 3 or 4 percent market share. So I'm reading all these posts that are 'all so authoritative and knowing' - about 400 replies on this topic so far. 4 percent of 400 is 16, so that means that 16 of you actually have a Mac. Now, according to some of the surveys I've seen less than a third of current Mac owners have even seen iTunes Music Store. So... Now I'm left with only six or so people on this entire topic besides myself that actually KNOW what it's all about and how it works. So I guess what I'm really saying about Apple and the iTunes subject is that "Ya'all is mostly fulla shit!" It's good stuff and Apple isn't going to just 'fuck you over' like many of you seem to think. It's like beer, give it a try, you might like it.
I agree, but $8 Million in operating losses doesn't mean that they're "not in the best condition" when you consider they moved $1500 Million in revenues last year. To many, it just means they're even par. I wouldn't say they were in the "best" condition even if they *made* $8M.
A few things to ponder:
3% of a $100 billion dollar market. It's well known that they've been holding five billion in cash for years. I think they turned like a billion and a half in revenues last year and only lost like ten million or so. While a 10 million dollar loss might sound like a lot to some, they moved 1500 million. Universal holds %25 market share in the music industry and is the biggest player there. That means one out of every four cd's sold worldwide is coming from Universal. I think they pushed over a half a billion in revenue last year, that's still not as big as Apple by a long shot and all Apple has to do is give up their cash to hold a majority market share in the music industry? Maybe not evil borg but that's a lot of cash to be swinging around on the other side of the cage!