The summary didn't have a link to the update and the FA had the update information several paragraphs down from the top. I just wanted to highlight the fact that an update was out there and link to a short announcement that had the relevant information. I did not offer any commentary or complaint as to bias or quality re: the summary.
I play World of Warcraft on a MBP over WiFi while reclining on the couch. PVP is a challenge because mouse turns are hard to do with a trackpad, but I can raid without difficulties. I assume that most people play games on a desktop, but I can't imagine sitting in a chair for hours like that. YMMV.
In the UK for example, the death rate from car accidents was 5.4 per 100,000 population, while in the US it was 14.3 per 100,000 population
Last I checked, miles driven was the largest factor in determining frequency of accidents. In the US we drive more on average than the Brits. If you check the number of deaths per billion vehicle kilometers, the numbers get much closer: 9.3 for the UK and 10.7 for the US.
It doesn't help that its a lawyer doing the trash talking either, it seems all too common for people with law-centric world views to be completely out of sync with a world that operates on the principles of physics.
I live within 50 miles of KSC, so I hate to turn on my fellow central Floridians, but shouldn't NASA consider moving its launch facilities to the desert southwest? Wouldn't the lower humidity mitigate the ice/foam problems? Wouldn't the thinner, drier air of the high desert require at least a little less fuel for launch? I've always assumed that the Cape was chosen as a launch location because it was fairly far to the south and allowed launches over water, but launching over water doesn't seem to be that big of a deal when (a) it doesn't add any additional safety for the astronauts and (b) there are plenty of areas in the desert SW that would allow for launches over uninhabited territories.
I don't know if it rises to the level of a "study" but MythBusters looked into this and IIRC found that cell phone use was analogous to driving drunk. From the discovery.com site:
Episode 33: Killer Brace Position
Everyone knows that talking on a cell phone while driving is potentially dangerous, but is it as risky as driving drunk? To find out, Adam and Kari head to a local raceway to try their hand at driving a skills course, first, while being distracted on a cell phone, and then after knocking back a couple of rounds of beers. Then, the guys strap themselves into their own homemade mock airplane and go for a little ride straight down to test the efficacy of that oh-so-familiar brace position that airlines outline in their safety procedures.
premiere: June 22, 2005
Slightly off the main topic, but Apple has changed the way iTunes initially activates the ministore so that users get the following message:
"The iTunes MiniStore allows you to discover new music and videos right from your iTunes Library. As you select items in your Library, information about that item is sent to Apple and the MiniStore will show you related songs or videos. Apple does not keep any information related to the contents of your music Library.
I have QuickTime Pro, and when I downloaded F4M, I also got the encoder without paying any additional fee to F4M (I have both Flip4Mac WMV Export.component and Flip4Mac WMV Import.component in Library/QuickTime). It's possible that I purchased the full version of F4M a while ago and forgot about it, but not likely. Does anyone know if QuickTime Pro users automatically get the encoder? This is really strange.
Anyway, I pulled a short.mov that I had been working on, and sure enough, Quicktime gave me the option of encoding in.wmv. I tested it and it seemed to create a.wmv fine.
As for why someone would want to do this, try sharing PowerPoint presentations with Windows users. For the most part, you can't get.mov files to play inside of PowerPoint for Windows. Yes, you can use.mpg or.avi, but this is a nice alternative that seems to encode fast and result in a decent quality video in a small(ish) file size.
I may be a lawyer, but IANAA (I am not an accountant). As best I can tell, depreciation is limited to tangible property (not software). There are two general classes of depreciable assets:
(1) Personalty - Tangible property other than land, buildings, or permanent additions or components of buildings.
and
(2) Realty - Tangible property that is either land, buildings, or permanent additions or components of buildings.
I don't see how software could be included in either of these categories, but obviously hardware would be considered Personalty (I checked MACRS and found that computers are given a 5 year depreciation schedule).
Any CPAs out there care to comment on whether software is eligible for depreciation and, if not, how important this would be for business planners?
OK, I'll admit it. While trying to quit Space Invaders in the simulation, I hit cmd-Q without thinking and wiped out a bunch of research tabbed in Safari.
There's something else called supply which is what actually changes when a more aggressive supplier enters the market, moving the equilibrium price to a new spot on the same demand curve.
The submitter may have been patronizing in tone, but the spirit of his/her message is more or less accurate given the barriers to entry in chip fab market (plant/equipment + design = BIG$$). The problem with your statement is that I am not sure that the market will create this "more aggressive supplier" -- unless those rumors about the ultra cheap and fast Chinese chips are true, but in that case we are dealing with a state created (or at least heavily subsidized) chip producer and not one created by the competitive market.
Bah. I'm a Mac guy. Where's my IBM 970?
Re:Apple controls the conversation
on
Switch Different
·
· Score: 1
(Personally, I think it looks sort of a combo iMac/eMac... an eiMac)
I'm afraid that the real problem is that you (and many others) have deemed youself qualified to slam legal scholars based upon an MSNBC article that is a distilation of a WSJ article that is in turn selectively quoting from the "legal industry trade press."
The reader of one of these journals might be judging YOUR DMCA case using bad ideas coming from, say, the clown who supports the French decision to attack websites outside France because they are an offense against French law.
Listen, no matter how special you think that you are, that doesn't mean that the tech elites are entitled to special treatment under the law. I'm a lawyer and I deal with issues that I barely understand every day. The point is that I hire an expert (doctors, economists, CPAs) to teach me what I need to know and/or testify at trial. That's the way the system works.
IANAL, but if I undestand correctly, the great deal of Western law is based on 'common law', the practice of allowing previous court decisions to affect future decisions.
That's a pretty good assumption, but keep in mind that statutes trump common law. The legislature gets a bug up their rear and 300 years of precident goes down the drain. Add to that the fact that the executive branch has also encroached upon the areas traditionally within the judicial domain, and suddenly common law is fairly rare.
The problem with trying to apply laws to the Internet is that digital technology has caused a wave of obsolescence in any kind of existing communication, information technology, and dozens of other of societal concepts we hold near and dear. Law based on past precidents rather than fairness and equitable behavior can't hope to keep up through such an incredible wave of advancement.
Not to flame, but this is exactly the sort of "we're special" elitism that the article referenced. You don't think that the telegraph or the telephone had a profound impact on society? The irony here is that past legal precedents are generally more focused on fairness and equity than their statutory replacements that are burdened with special interest dollars (say what you will about judges, but they are certainly better insolated from undue influence than either the executive branch or the legislative branch).
As for the common law changing slowly, it's supposed to change slowly. It evolves over time. Like a glacier moveing over the land, the glacier is changed and the land is changed gradually. This is a good thing. Laws that change slowly allow businesses to make long range plans without fear that there will be a radical shift in the public policy (of course tech companies tend not to make plans of any sort -- long range or otherwise -- so perhaps this is an alien concept to many Slashdotters). I won't get into the whole law and economics thing here, but take a look at the common law jurisdictions (UK, Canada, South Africa, OZ, New Zealand, USA) and there is pretty good anicdotal evidence that the common law has not historically injured economic or technological development.
They don't want a set of laws that specifically apply to the internet because there weren't specific laws that apply to trains. (Great choice, cause the internet, and trains are so similiar)
The point is that trains had an enormous impact on society, not that trains and the internet are similiar technologies (come on, haven't you played Civilization?).
Keep in mind that the articles that MSNBC quoted from were published in LAW journals. Most law students and lawyers understand the important impact that the trains had on society and the law (Palzgraf anyone?). I imagine that the points made in the original, i.e., ante MSNBC, articles were that the common law evolved to deal with the legal challenges created by trains and can do so again with respect to the internet.
In the Mozilla family, I find tabbed browsing thoroughly superior to multiple windows.
I have to say that on a Mac, I really don't get very much utility from tabbed browsing since it is so easy to cycle through windows in OS X -- command `. In fact, I never understood the hoopla over tabbed browsing until I was forced to use a Win2000 machine at work. Then it hit me, since Windows does not group windows by application, there is no way (that I know) to efficiently cycle through browser windows and tabbed browsing goes a long way towards fixing that problem. But IMHO tabbed browsing is a Windows hack that doesn't add very much to the Mac experience.
Don't get me wrong, I use Chimera and Omniweb each about 50% of the time, but Chimera's appeal is due to the fact that it runs faster than Omniweb on my G4 400 than to any feature advantage. I have to say that once I get my hands on Jaguar and/or faster hardware, Omniweb may be hard to put down.
Just to point out the legal significance of your post, generally one of the most important issues in a case like this is whether consumers would be confused. After looking at the Fish it appears that Apple has much weaker argument for consumer confusion here as compared to the case of the eOne. Of course Apple could raise other issues.
Although I do not work in antitrust, let me offer couple of things from a lawyer's perspective:
1. As a general rule, Judges do not like to maintain continuing jurisdiction over a dispute. They like to come to a decision, issue an order and move on.
2. In addition to the game theory explanation that was mentioned above as to why a breakup would lead to more competition, a breakup would create a type of private regulation. If individual companies do not act to maximize shareholder wealth then the directors of company are subject to a shareholder derivative suit. While collusion would maximize shareholder wealth, it will be almost impossible to hide this type of collusion from the DOJ.
Remember boys and girls, capitalism works best when it takes the worst aspects of our society (greed, litigiousness) and turns them to the public good.
I am at work, so I do not have time do this properly, but corporations are amoral as a matter of law. Corporate directors have been sued by shareholders for donating too much money to charity. Corporate donations are limited in a practical sense by the benefit conferred by tax breaks and the notion of "corporate good will." And you know what -- that's how it should be. It makes corporations more predictable and easier to regulate. If a corp does something wrong then either a lawsuit results or the government steps in to fix things. End of story. Remember two things: 1. People have morals, not corporations. 2. Morality can not be legislated. btw, for the sake of disclosure, I am a practicing lawyer.
Slashdot Mirror
The summary didn't have a link to the update and the FA had the update information several paragraphs down from the top. I just wanted to highlight the fact that an update was out there and link to a short announcement that had the relevant information. I did not offer any commentary or complaint as to bias or quality re: the summary.
http://arstechnica.com/apple/2...
I play World of Warcraft on a MBP over WiFi while reclining on the couch. PVP is a challenge because mouse turns are hard to do with a trackpad, but I can raid without difficulties. I assume that most people play games on a desktop, but I can't imagine sitting in a chair for hours like that. YMMV.
In the UK for example, the death rate from car accidents was 5.4 per 100,000 population, while in the US it was 14.3 per 100,000 population
Last I checked, miles driven was the largest factor in determining frequency of accidents. In the US we drive more on average than the Brits. If you check the number of deaths per billion vehicle kilometers, the numbers get much closer: 9.3 for the UK and 10.7 for the US.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_traffic_safety#KSI_by_country
It doesn't help that its a lawyer doing the trash talking either, it seems all too common for people with law-centric world views to be completely out of sync with a world that operates on the principles of physics.
I find your lack of faith disturbing.
Playing the video on my MacBook Pro resulting in Safari going from 5% of CPU to 20%. Clearly, YMMV.
Actually, I think the phrase is "Cry "Havoc!" and let *slip* the dogs of war. Julius Caesar Act 3, scene 1
What am I missing?
See the following for more info:
http://playlistmag.com/news/2006/01/18/ministore/i ndex.php?lsrc=mwrss
I have QuickTime Pro, and when I downloaded F4M, I also got the encoder without paying any additional fee to F4M (I have both Flip4Mac WMV Export.component and Flip4Mac WMV Import.component in Library/QuickTime). It's possible that I purchased the full version of F4M a while ago and forgot about it, but not likely. Does anyone know if QuickTime Pro users automatically get the encoder? This is really strange.
.mov that I had been working on, and sure enough, Quicktime gave me the option of encoding in .wmv. I tested it and it seemed to create a .wmv fine.
.mov files to play inside of PowerPoint for Windows. Yes, you can use .mpg or .avi, but this is a nice alternative that seems to encode fast and result in a decent quality video in a small(ish) file size.
Anyway, I pulled a short
As for why someone would want to do this, try sharing PowerPoint presentations with Windows users. For the most part, you can't get
I may be a lawyer, but IANAA (I am not an accountant). As best I can tell, depreciation is limited to tangible property (not software). There are two general classes of depreciable assets:
(1) Personalty - Tangible property other than land, buildings, or permanent additions or components of buildings.
and
(2) Realty - Tangible property that is either land, buildings, or permanent additions or components of buildings.
I don't see how software could be included in either of these categories, but obviously hardware would be considered Personalty (I checked MACRS and found that computers are given a 5 year depreciation schedule).
Any CPAs out there care to comment on whether software is eligible for depreciation and, if not, how important this would be for business planners?
OK, I'll admit it. While trying to quit Space Invaders in the simulation, I hit cmd-Q without thinking and wiped out a bunch of research tabbed in Safari.
I'm off to hunt through the history...
www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/19817
The submitter may have been patronizing in tone, but the spirit of his/her message is more or less accurate given the barriers to entry in chip fab market (plant/equipment + design = BIG$$). The problem with your statement is that I am not sure that the market will create this "more aggressive supplier" -- unless those rumors about the ultra cheap and fast Chinese chips are true, but in that case we are dealing with a state created (or at least heavily subsidized) chip producer and not one created by the competitive market.
Bah. I'm a Mac guy. Where's my IBM 970?
http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/07/07/ 1753208&mode=flat&tid=107
I wouldn't want word of this to leak out before my RDF spin had a chance to work either.
I'm afraid that the real problem is that you (and many others) have deemed youself qualified to slam legal scholars based upon an MSNBC article that is a distilation of a WSJ article that is in turn selectively quoting from the "legal industry trade press."
Listen, no matter how special you think that you are, that doesn't mean that the tech elites are entitled to special treatment under the law. I'm a lawyer and I deal with issues that I barely understand every day. The point is that I hire an expert (doctors, economists, CPAs) to teach me what I need to know and/or testify at trial. That's the way the system works.
That's a pretty good assumption, but keep in mind that statutes trump common law. The legislature gets a bug up their rear and 300 years of precident goes down the drain. Add to that the fact that the executive branch has also encroached upon the areas traditionally within the judicial domain, and suddenly common law is fairly rare.
Not to flame, but this is exactly the sort of "we're special" elitism that the article referenced. You don't think that the telegraph or the telephone had a profound impact on society? The irony here is that past legal precedents are generally more focused on fairness and equity than their statutory replacements that are burdened with special interest dollars (say what you will about judges, but they are certainly better insolated from undue influence than either the executive branch or the legislative branch).
As for the common law changing slowly, it's supposed to change slowly. It evolves over time. Like a glacier moveing over the land, the glacier is changed and the land is changed gradually. This is a good thing. Laws that change slowly allow businesses to make long range plans without fear that there will be a radical shift in the public policy (of course tech companies tend not to make plans of any sort -- long range or otherwise -- so perhaps this is an alien concept to many Slashdotters). I won't get into the whole law and economics thing here, but take a look at the common law jurisdictions (UK, Canada, South Africa, OZ, New Zealand, USA) and there is pretty good anicdotal evidence that the common law has not historically injured economic or technological development.
The point is that trains had an enormous impact on society, not that trains and the internet are similiar technologies (come on, haven't you played Civilization?).
Keep in mind that the articles that MSNBC quoted from were published in LAW journals. Most law students and lawyers understand the important impact that the trains had on society and the law (Palzgraf anyone?). I imagine that the points made in the original, i.e., ante MSNBC, articles were that the common law evolved to deal with the legal challenges created by trains and can do so again with respect to the internet.
Don't get me wrong, I use Chimera and Omniweb each about 50% of the time, but Chimera's appeal is due to the fact that it runs faster than Omniweb on my G4 400 than to any feature advantage. I have to say that once I get my hands on Jaguar and/or faster hardware, Omniweb may be hard to put down.
I don't practice in this area but...
Just to point out the legal significance of your post, generally one of the most important issues in a case like this is whether consumers would be confused. After looking at the Fish it appears that Apple has much weaker argument for consumer confusion here as compared to the case of the eOne. Of course Apple could raise other issues.
Although I do not work in antitrust, let me offer couple of things from a lawyer's perspective:
1. As a general rule, Judges do not like to maintain continuing jurisdiction over a dispute. They like to come to a decision, issue an order and move on.
2. In addition to the game theory explanation that was mentioned above as to why a breakup would lead to more competition, a breakup would create a type of private regulation. If individual companies do not act to maximize shareholder wealth then the directors of company are subject to a shareholder derivative suit. While collusion would maximize shareholder wealth, it will be almost impossible to hide this type of collusion from the DOJ.
Remember boys and girls, capitalism works best when it takes the worst aspects of our society (greed, litigiousness) and turns them to the public good.
I am at work, so I do not have time do this properly, but corporations are amoral as a matter of law. Corporate directors have been sued by shareholders for donating too much money to charity. Corporate donations are limited in a practical sense by the benefit conferred by tax breaks and the notion of "corporate good will." And you know what -- that's how it should be. It makes corporations more predictable and easier to regulate. If a corp does something wrong then either a lawsuit results or the government steps in to fix things. End of story. Remember two things: 1. People have morals, not corporations. 2. Morality can not be legislated. btw, for the sake of disclosure, I am a practicing lawyer.