Apple is NOT maintaining a version of "MacOS X" on Intel. The last system to run on Intel was "MacOS X Server" (can you say NextStep?). Darwin is the only thing that has been ported to Intel, and it's just the lowest layers of the new MacOS.
In addition, I don't know where you saw their "hints about dropping PowerPC", but it was probably some fictional prose you read on MacOS Rumors. Apple is quite devoted to the PowerPC processor -- they helped design it and they have 2 different companies to provide them chips.
Besides, it's not practical to switch processors like you do underwear. Imagine Sun switching to PowerPC -- the hardware and software rewrites would be enormous! Obviously, there will be layers that are much more portable to new platforms (Java/Cocoa), but there are bits that are simply impossible (Classic MacOS emulation).
I'm all for optimism, but let's not spread rumors.
Jon has polished his writing to cater to the cyber-anarchist, the content-consumer who feels that piracy is his right, that he shares some mysterious brotherhood with masses of faceless teenagers, and that this is some sort of crusade to "take back the power". Every characterization of the content producers and publishers indicate that they have sold out and are only in it for the money, all but justifying the piracy of their product.
Instead of fighting the "evil greedy" corporations, he should encourage people to make their own content and sell it any darn way they please. The Internet shouldn't be about taking what isn't yours and redistributing it, but about creating something new and special and then self-publishing it. Make your own music, animations, fiction -- and bypass the traditional media to make your own mark (and profit). Of course, then how do you protect your content from the same pirates that you were previously allied with?
It's not just about profit. Okay, that's a big portion of it. I feed my family on the profits my company makes off its software. But it's also about responsibility. You can't blame the media conglomerates for making these huge special effects movies to cater to the Stars Wars generation, then blame them because they need to recoup the huge investment they made. That's the market you helped to build.
I can't stand people who advocate giving away their ideas and stealing from those who don't, when the only product they actually have is their own opinion. Jon has spent alot of time culling an audience of technical readers who feel the government or big business has done them wrong. He taps into adolescent rage against things that they can't change by making them feel that they can, that there is some massive wrong to be righted. If government and business don't move fast enough to keep up with technology that reinvents itself every 5 years, they are dinosaurs that are being passed by. If government and business try to anticipate the needs of the industry, they are thwarting the open nature of the market and should be stopped.
He tries to put a face on the "little guy" who is fighting for something (usually to make free copies of the Matrix or slurp down more free music into his dorm). He argues that the kids at Columbine are misunderstood, that the rioters in Seattle had some noble intentions, and that people in trenchcoats are being singled out. Maybe there is some injustice going on here, but maybe, they are just angry Quake heads who only know how to express themselves through destruction or by playing the outsiders. People give him this power the same way they give Rush or Howard their power, by identifying with his stories in some way (I've been wronged, and he understands me).
Instead of stirring up a mob, Jon should be preaching responsibility. Civil disobedience is only effective when you stand up to the system and say "I'm doing this because I think there is something wrong with the system -- I'm going to take my lumps, and demonstrate to the world how wrong it is". Don't teach people to steal, don't encourage them to break the rules, but work within the system and defeat it. How is Microsoft going to be beaten? Not by pirating their software, but by building something better. That's working within the system, beating them at their own game. It's responsible. It's the adult thing to do.
Finally, here are some juicy excerpts and my comments:
they have organized into enormous corporatist collectives that are the
antithesis of individualism and creative expression.
Well bully for them. I don't see how this impedes you from creating your own content, or at least continuing on with your life unaffected. If you don't like the homogonized product, then don't buy it. If you don't like what's on the tube, don't watch it. There is no reason why the product they push needs to bother you if you can avoid it.
Also, don't try to justify piracy because (a) you can't stand the content producers, (b) you can't stand the content publishers, or (c) you can't stand the product itself.
My response to that congressional aide: It's disingenuous to use terms like
"theft" and "piracy," ancient notions of law and property, in the 21st Century. They have little contemporary meaning in cyberspace.
That's a totally non-responsive response. These concepts don't map perfectly into a digital world, but there is still enough overlap. Every copy of a virtual work lessens the value of that work for future profit. If 100% of the people who wanted a work made an illegal copy, then the author would have little justification for producing another. If 50% made a copy, then the other 50% would feel cheated for shouldering the burden. At the microscopic level, one person may feel he has done no harm by making an illegal copy, but encouraging a whole class of people do do the same... that's irresponsible and a real problem that needs to be addressed.
The fact is anyone who writes or designs on the Web understands immediately that
culture can't be copyrighted online
Ideas want to be free, right? I seriously wonder what would happen if someone copied Jon's articles verbatim and posted them onto their own website. I haven't "stolen" anything from him because his articles are still available on slashdot, but perhaps I can generate a few more hits (and a little more cash) on my own website. Aren't I just borrowing some of the value of his ideas, or am I doing him real harm?
Each time I read a Jon Katz article, it's like reading a textbook example of how to stir up angry rebellion against the faceless monopolies and government henchmen. It's diatribe meant to inflame instead of inform, to accuse instead of explain, and to subvert instead of support. If I had the time, I'd compare him to some of the other great subversives of the last century -- but I'm afraid of the parallels I might find. Just please, please don't ever vote him into office.
Don't think of Dune as a character-oriented story, but rather as an epic in the classic sense. Yes, the characters are 2-dimensional and don't have the witty conversations like they do in Star Trek (watered down SF) or or sharp interaction like Gibson (jacked up SF). They have roles to play: Yueh is the traiter, Harkonnen is just evil, the Worms are nature/entropy. You can try to question their motivations, or you can accept them. Paul is the tragic hero and must follow the path that has been laid out for him. Do the predictable characters in Beowolf or Hamlet make them any less of a masterpiece? I guess you could argue it.
I find that any time I find something long-winded, it's because I'm missing something that the author is trying to tell me. When (sometimes if) I find that element, it adds more meaning to the work. Anyway, I suppose that everyone has different tastes, and there is probably something you find incredibly challenging and insightful that others would find droll and pedestrian. Fortunately SF (and fiction in general) is a large arena.
Since I'm ranting... I thought I'd add my 2c about the story itself. I found the first book rivetting (and still find something new each time I read it again), found the 2nd and 3rd books quite slow, and the 4th picked up again. It wasn't until I digested the whole set that I earned new respect for 2+3. Books 5 and 6 left me a bit cold, but supposedly there was a book 7 that tied them together. Unfortunately he passed away before writing the book, but his son has found his notes and expects to write the final book after he finishes the 3rd prequel. (I haven't read any of the prequels, as I'm saving up to read them in a batch.). BTW, i picked up the Dune Encyclopedia and I actually found it to be well done.
"Dear customer of my competition: As you can see, your current lawyer can't protect their own data let alone any confidential information that you may have shared with them. You should find a new company."
How many of those customers can they afford to lose? How many would cost $2.5 million?
CERT provides advisories. Their "investigation" is usually technical in nature: dissecting worms or virii, documenting vulnerabilities, educating admins on security.
FBI is an enforcement agency. Their "investigation" focuses on possible crimes. Just because they investigate doesn't mean they can or will bring charges -- of course, this is a pretty blatant case.
Let's make a comparison: someone intentionally blocks a major thoroughfare in your town, maybe to the commercial (or redlight) districts. The radio stations tell you where the problem areas are and how to avoid them, but the police arrest those responsible and enforce the laws.
Someone breaks into your house, maybe even destroys some of your possessions. You manage to scare them off (you got a big dog or a handy baseball bat), but wouldn't you also report them to the police?
Sure, you don't have to report them. You could just better locks or a big gun, but don't blame someone else for turning to the authorities.
Instead of a shadow conspiracy, isn't it possible that they just realized that the source was in the court documents (it's been hyped enough here)? If so, then they'd have to plug that "leak" as well.
Do I think they're greedy, yes. Do I think everything is a plot, no.
Yah, heaven forbid they try to prevent piracy of movies that costs millions to produce. People wonder why Lucas isn't putting TPM on DVD -- this is exactly why.
The QuickTime file/stream format is also open. This means that anyone can write a compressor, decompressor, and/or player without going through QuickTime or a patented codec. Sure, you actually gotta write the code, but it *is* documented.
By "wrapping architecture around the codec", do you mean "file/stream format". The QT file format is open as well. In addition, you could even port another codec to QT so you don't have to use Sorenson or one of the other kick-ass compressors out there.
So, let's see... you could write an open QT compressor to compress a stream, use the open Apple streaming server, decompress with a client side codec, and then play using the standard Apple players (or write your own). QT is open and extensible at each stage in the pipe.
As for "not enough bandwidth", I think you are seriously mistaken. My cable modem rocks, and the Sorensen/TPM trailer was very good quality. Streaming is an evolving technology.
You are absolutely right on one point, though, you are getting very confused.
Apple created: AppleTalk (chatty, but very flexible for small LANs), TrueType, FireWire, QuickTime, co-designed PowerPC and AltiVec. Apple was the first to ship a PC with a mouse, plug-and-play networking (LocalTalk), SCSI, PostScript printers, USB, AirPort, etc.
They may not have created every technology, but they certainly have certainly led the crowd in many ways.
The linux mascot, Tux, is about as close to a loudmouth C.E.O. as linux gets. If somebody donated a few million dollars to linux-oriented (OSS) projects, I don't think too much of it would be spent on advertising. In fact, I don't think any of it would.
Nope, OSS projects get free advertising (and advocacy) from the same place they get their developers -- loudmouth college kids with too much time on their hands.
You make great points, but the fact is that they are not litigating "addiction" but "gambling". Note that he argues the 3 elements of gambling. The fact that it's addictive is just the reason behind the lawsuit, not an element of it.
Any system or software will crash if not properly installed: windows, mac, or UNIX. My Macs simply don't crash during normal use -- and I leave the machine running 24/7.
Get the latest system software, update the hard disk drivers, run norton's on your disk, and throw away any crap 3rd party extensions -- you'll find your Mac is much more solid than you think.
Several of our earlier games used music licensed from Killer Tracks, which I've heard in several other places.
More recently, Eric Speier was contracted to write several original tracks for Mars Rising, Slithereens, and the upcoming Ferazel's Wand. This guy rocks!
The first justification people try is "I wouldn't have bought it anyway." Fine, then just don't use it. If it's not necessary for daily or periodic usage, then you are either stuffing it on an archive CD or dabbling at something. "What's the harm?" you might ask -- but what's the point either? Piracy for piracy sake? Stealing is still stealing.
The next justification people try is "I just want to try it before I buy it." Fine, then drop a line to the company! If they don't have a preview or demo version, then I'm sure you could convince marketing to send you a copy to try out. Honestly, most companies would like to start a real relationship with a potential customer, so that if it *didn't* meet your needs, they could get a list of feature suggestions for the next version.
Finally, the problem isn't one-off pirates, who grab a copy of the latest game to play for a week. The problem -- the people they are prosecuting -- are the people who run the pirate servers. These are the people who send out thousands of illegal software packages (or MP3s) a day. A single user can only steal so much software, but pirate clearinghouses are exponentially worse. Fortunately, they are much easier to catch and convict.
Something Apple didn't hype yet but is buried deep in the FAQ is that you don't need the hub to communicate between Airport hosts:
What is the AirPort Software Access Point?
This special software allows you to use a second iBook computer as a wireless base station to connect to the Internet instead of using an AirPort Base Station. The software works similarly to the hardware access point, except that it uses the modem of the iBook as its Internet connection.
Probably the biggest thing Steve Jobs has brought to Apple is an all-or-nothing marketing style. He takes big strides, not looking back to see whether people follow, but to see where computers *should* be going.
Dropping the floppy drive, adopting USB, the iMac design, MacOS X based on real UNIX, and now AirPort and the iBook. Whether you agree with his decision or not, you have to admit that it causes a strong reaction.
Of course many Mac enthusiasts are happy to hang on his every whim, but even those that don't still appreciate that he's done alot for the company and product line.
Personally, I think computers are reaching the point where the car did so many years ago -- they are quite functional, but people want more than a black or beige box with pretty much standard components. They want A/C, AM/FM/CD, Power Windows, and they want something that *draws* your eye.
Even if you don't like the look of the iMac or iBook, you know that you'll be seeing them all over from now on -- and you'll recognize them instantly. Consumers like the Nike swoosh, McDonalds fries, and they'll like the iBook, even if you don't.
They added a kernel task that watches for pauses in typing and mousing, and manages the low power mode of the CPU on a millisecond granularity. Lots of peripherals and constant HD access will hurt performance, but "normal use" like word processing and web surfing will be awesome.
Slashdot Mirror
... the sun rises in the EAST, moron.
Apple is NOT maintaining a version of "MacOS X" on Intel. The last system to run on Intel was "MacOS X Server" (can you say NextStep?). Darwin is the only thing that has been ported to Intel, and it's just the lowest layers of the new MacOS.
In addition, I don't know where you saw their "hints about dropping PowerPC", but it was probably some fictional prose you read on MacOS Rumors. Apple is quite devoted to the PowerPC processor -- they helped design it and they have 2 different companies to provide them chips.
Besides, it's not practical to switch processors like you do underwear. Imagine Sun switching to PowerPC -- the hardware and software rewrites would be enormous! Obviously, there will be layers that are much more portable to new platforms (Java/Cocoa), but there are bits that are simply impossible (Classic MacOS emulation).
I'm all for optimism, but let's not spread rumors.
who feels that piracy is his right, that he shares some mysterious brotherhood with
masses of faceless teenagers, and that this is some sort of crusade to "take back the
power". Every characterization of the content producers and publishers indicate that
they have sold out and are only in it for the money, all but justifying the piracy of
their product.
Instead of fighting the "evil greedy" corporations, he should encourage people to make
their own content and sell it any darn way they please. The Internet shouldn't be about
taking what isn't yours and redistributing it, but about creating something new and
special and then self-publishing it. Make your own music, animations, fiction -- and
bypass the traditional media to make your own mark (and profit). Of course, then how
do you protect your content from the same pirates that you were previously allied with?
It's not just about profit. Okay, that's a big portion of it. I feed my family on the
profits my company makes off its software. But it's also about responsibility. You can't
blame the media conglomerates for making these huge special effects movies to cater to
the Stars Wars generation, then blame them because they need to recoup the huge investment
they made. That's the market you helped to build.
I can't stand people who advocate giving away their ideas and stealing from those who
don't, when the only product they actually have is their own opinion. Jon has spent alot
of time culling an audience of technical readers who feel the government or big business
has done them wrong. He taps into adolescent rage against things that they can't change
by making them feel that they can, that there is some massive wrong to be righted. If
government and business don't move fast enough to keep up with technology that reinvents
itself every 5 years, they are dinosaurs that are being passed by. If government and
business try to anticipate the needs of the industry, they are thwarting the open nature
of the market and should be stopped.
He tries to put a face on the "little guy" who is fighting for something (usually to make
free copies of the Matrix or slurp down more free music into his dorm). He argues that the
kids at Columbine are misunderstood, that the rioters in Seattle had some noble intentions,
and that people in trenchcoats are being singled out. Maybe there is some injustice going
on here, but maybe, they are just angry Quake heads who only know how to express themselves
through destruction or by playing the outsiders. People give him this power the same way
they give Rush or Howard their power, by identifying with his stories in some way (I've been
wronged, and he understands me).
Instead of stirring up a mob, Jon should be preaching responsibility. Civil disobedience
is only effective when you stand up to the system and say "I'm doing this because I think
there is something wrong with the system -- I'm going to take my lumps, and demonstrate to
the world how wrong it is". Don't teach people to steal, don't encourage them to break the
rules, but work within the system and defeat it. How is Microsoft going to be beaten? Not
by pirating their software, but by building something better. That's working within the
system, beating them at their own game. It's responsible. It's the adult thing to do.
Finally, here are some juicy excerpts and my comments:
Well bully for them. I don't see how this impedes you from creating your own content, or
at least continuing on with your life unaffected. If you don't like the homogonized product,
then don't buy it. If you don't like what's on the tube, don't watch it. There is no reason
why the product they push needs to bother you if you can avoid it.
Also, don't try to justify piracy because (a) you can't stand the content producers, (b)
you can't stand the content publishers, or (c) you can't stand the product itself.
That's a totally non-responsive response. These concepts don't map perfectly into a digital
world, but there is still enough overlap. Every copy of a virtual work lessens the value of
that work for future profit. If 100% of the people who wanted a work made an illegal copy,
then the author would have little justification for producing another. If 50% made a copy,
then the other 50% would feel cheated for shouldering the burden. At the microscopic level,
one person may feel he has done no harm by making an illegal copy, but encouraging a whole
class of people do do the same... that's irresponsible and a real problem that needs to be
addressed.
Ideas want to be free, right? I seriously wonder what would happen if someone copied
Jon's articles verbatim and posted them onto their own website. I haven't "stolen" anything
from him because his articles are still available on slashdot, but perhaps I can generate a
few more hits (and a little more cash) on my own website. Aren't I just borrowing some of
the value of his ideas, or am I doing him real harm?
Each time I read a Jon Katz article, it's like reading a textbook example of how to stir
up angry rebellion against the faceless monopolies and government henchmen. It's diatribe
meant to inflame instead of inform, to accuse instead of explain, and to subvert instead
of support. If I had the time, I'd compare him to some of the other great subversives of
the last century -- but I'm afraid of the parallels I might find. Just please, please don't
ever vote him into office.
Don't think of Dune as a character-oriented story, but rather as an epic in the classic sense. Yes, the characters are 2-dimensional and don't have the witty conversations like they do in Star Trek (watered down SF) or or sharp interaction like Gibson (jacked up SF). They have roles to play: Yueh is the traiter, Harkonnen is just evil, the Worms are nature/entropy. You can try to question their motivations, or you can accept them. Paul is the tragic hero and must follow the path that has been laid out for him. Do the predictable characters in Beowolf or Hamlet make them any less of a masterpiece? I guess you could argue it.
I find that any time I find something long-winded, it's because I'm missing something that the author is trying to tell me. When (sometimes if) I find that element, it adds more meaning to the work. Anyway, I suppose that everyone has different tastes, and there is probably something you find incredibly challenging and insightful that others would find droll and pedestrian. Fortunately SF (and fiction in general) is a large arena.
Since I'm ranting... I thought I'd add my 2c about the story itself. I found the first book rivetting (and still find something new each time I read it again), found the 2nd and 3rd books quite slow, and the 4th picked up again. It wasn't until I digested the whole set that I earned new respect for 2+3. Books 5 and 6 left me a bit cold, but supposedly there was a book 7 that tied them together. Unfortunately he passed away before writing the book, but his son has found his notes and expects to write the final book after he finishes the 3rd prequel. (I haven't read any of the prequels, as I'm saving up to read them in a batch.). BTW, i picked up the Dune Encyclopedia and I actually found it to be well done.
"Dear customer of my competition: As you can see, your current lawyer can't protect their own data let alone any confidential information that you may have shared with them. You should find a new company."
How many of those customers can they afford to lose? How many would cost $2.5 million?
CERT provides advisories. Their "investigation" is usually technical in nature: dissecting worms or virii, documenting vulnerabilities, educating admins on security.
FBI is an enforcement agency. Their "investigation" focuses on possible crimes. Just because they investigate doesn't mean they can or will bring charges -- of course, this is a pretty blatant case.
Let's make a comparison: someone intentionally blocks a major thoroughfare in your town, maybe to the commercial (or redlight) districts. The radio stations tell you where the problem areas are and how to avoid them, but the police arrest those responsible and enforce the laws.
Let's make a loose analogy...
Someone breaks into your house, maybe even destroys some of your possessions. You manage to scare them off (you got a big dog or a handy baseball bat), but wouldn't you also report them to the police?
Sure, you don't have to report them. You could just better locks or a big gun, but don't blame someone else for turning to the authorities.
Instead of a shadow conspiracy, isn't it possible that they just realized that the source was in the court documents (it's been hyped enough here)? If so, then they'd have to plug that "leak" as well.
Do I think they're greedy, yes. Do I think everything is a plot, no.
Yah, heaven forbid they try to prevent piracy of movies that costs millions to produce. People wonder why Lucas isn't putting TPM on DVD -- this is exactly why.
The QuickTime file/stream format is also open. This means that anyone can write a compressor, decompressor, and/or player without going through QuickTime or a patented codec. Sure, you actually gotta write the code, but it *is* documented.
By "wrapping architecture around the codec", do you mean "file/stream format". The QT file format is open as well. In addition, you could even port another codec to QT so you don't have to use Sorenson or one of the other kick-ass compressors out there.
So, let's see... you could write an open QT compressor to compress a stream, use the open Apple streaming server, decompress with a client side codec, and then play using the standard Apple players (or write your own). QT is open and extensible at each stage in the pipe.
As for "not enough bandwidth", I think you are seriously mistaken. My cable modem rocks, and the Sorensen/TPM trailer was very good quality. Streaming is an evolving technology.
You are absolutely right on one point, though, you are getting very confused.
You don't need a subpoena to examine something that's publicly accessible, but yes, the RIAA couldn't reach the network without cooperation from CMU.
Read it again. The students put the files in their public folders, not on their private hard disk or under password protection.
If you're gonna grow marijuana, don't do it on your front lawn!
Apple created: AppleTalk (chatty, but very flexible for small LANs), TrueType, FireWire, QuickTime, co-designed PowerPC and AltiVec. Apple was the first to ship a PC with a mouse, plug-and-play networking (LocalTalk), SCSI, PostScript printers, USB, AirPort, etc.
They may not have created every technology, but they certainly have certainly led the crowd in many ways.
Nope, OSS projects get free advertising (and advocacy) from the same place they get their developers -- loudmouth college kids with too much time on their hands.
Lighten up, it's funny.
You make great points, but the fact is that they are not litigating "addiction" but "gambling". Note that he argues the 3 elements of gambling. The fact that it's addictive is just the reason behind the lawsuit, not an element of it.
Any system or software will crash if not properly installed: windows, mac, or UNIX. My Macs simply don't crash during normal use -- and I leave the machine running 24/7.
Get the latest system software, update the hard disk drivers, run norton's on your disk, and throw away any crap 3rd party extensions -- you'll find your Mac is much more solid than you think.
Perhaps the biggest difference is that you can find GIF code almost everywhere on the net, but the libpng code is rare, large, and unwieldy.
To get more PNG support in software, we need to get better PNG libraries and sample code.
Several of our earlier games used music licensed from Killer Tracks, which I've heard in several other places.
More recently, Eric Speier was contracted to write several original tracks for Mars Rising, Slithereens, and the upcoming Ferazel's Wand. This guy rocks!
The first justification people try is "I wouldn't have bought it anyway."
Fine, then just don't use it. If it's not necessary for daily or periodic
usage, then you are either stuffing it on an archive CD or dabbling at
something. "What's the harm?" you might ask -- but what's the point either?
Piracy for piracy sake? Stealing is still stealing.
The next justification people try is "I just want to try it before I buy
it." Fine, then drop a line to the company! If they don't have a preview
or demo version, then I'm sure you could convince marketing to send you
a copy to try out. Honestly, most companies would like to start a real
relationship with a potential customer, so that if it *didn't* meet your
needs, they could get a list of feature suggestions for the next version.
Finally, the problem isn't one-off pirates, who grab a copy of the latest
game to play for a week. The problem -- the people they are prosecuting --
are the people who run the pirate servers. These are the people who send
out thousands of illegal software packages (or MP3s) a day. A single user
can only steal so much software, but pirate clearinghouses are exponentially
worse. Fortunately, they are much easier to catch and convict.
Something Apple didn't hype yet but is buried deep in the FAQ is that you don't need the hub to communicate between Airport hosts:
What is the AirPort Software Access Point?
This special software allows you to use a second iBook computer as a wireless base station to connect to the Internet instead of using an AirPort Base Station. The software works similarly to the hardware access point, except that it uses the modem of the iBook as its Internet connection.
> It's not light (6.7 pounds)
No, but it's got a *handle*. How heavy is a boombox, and you didn't mind lugging it about.
6 pounds is only heavy because most laptops are bulky enought that you need to use your whole hand to hold them.
Probably the biggest thing Steve Jobs has brought to Apple is an all-or-nothing marketing style. He takes big strides, not looking back to see whether people follow, but to see where computers *should* be going.
Dropping the floppy drive, adopting USB, the iMac design, MacOS X based on real UNIX, and now AirPort and the iBook. Whether you agree with his decision or not, you have to admit that it causes a strong reaction.
Of course many Mac enthusiasts are happy to hang on his every whim, but even those that don't still appreciate that he's done alot for the company and product line.
Personally, I think computers are reaching the point where the car did so many years ago -- they are quite functional, but people want more than a black or beige box with pretty much standard components. They want A/C, AM/FM/CD, Power Windows, and they want something that *draws* your eye.
Even if you don't like the look of the iMac or iBook, you know that you'll be seeing them all over from now on -- and you'll recognize them instantly. Consumers like the Nike swoosh, McDonalds fries, and they'll like the iBook, even if you don't.
They added a kernel task that watches for pauses in typing and mousing, and manages the low power mode of the CPU on a millisecond granularity. Lots of peripherals and constant HD access will hurt performance, but "normal use" like word processing and web surfing will be awesome.
That link points to the PowerBook G3, not the iBook: