Monopolies are not inherently illegal. Abusive usually are. Abusive non-monopolies can also be. As you state, some of these companies aren't monopolies, but they often use their strength and/or size in one market to unfairly strong arm their way to another market. That leverage can be anti-competitive and illegal. The breakups being proposed seem to be more related to that than a good-ol Ma Bell monopoly breakup.
When Apple's QuickTime came to Windows, Microsoft and Intel were astonished by its performance. When they couldn't compete, they just conspired to acquire the code from an Apple partner.
Not sure about that harming the relationship. Honest opinion sharing is a good thing. When a trusted engineer friend of yours tells you of shortcomings in your product, you listen. Maybe you missed something, or just disagree, but you can use this input to improve your product. Maybe its a design thing, or a culture of development, but identifying the shortcoming is step one. There are things that Apple can do long term in response, and sticking their fingers in their ears and ignoring Woz is one of the least productive.
I know it's been proposed before, but might they just build Longhorn on top of Linux? Maybe they already have some early code, and need an established source to really make it work and complete the picture.
Think of it as similar to Apple's Mac OS X. Darwin is open, but the Aqua/Quartz Extreme interface, built on Cocoa/Carbon/Java/QuickTime/OpenGL/WebCore isn't completely. Just for MS, it would be Aero/Aero Glass from Avalon/WindowsXP/C#/WMedia/DirectX/IE. Works out, doesn't it? Tho I don't think MS could pull it out of their arse. Apple just bought out NeXT. I suppose there's always BeOS...
Apple started with quite a few of the basic system segments still build on Carbon (many still are). QuickTime broke free as of version 7 (consider the non-modal export and live scaling, things Carbon wasn't designed for, but Cocoa/OpenGL are great at).
Back in my day, we had to learn MIPS assembly, and this was long after the era of MIPS processors being available on campus. Instead, we had to use the SPIM emulator to test our MAL code. It seemed to fit the professors needs, but I think the professor may have had a hand in writing it. (wisc.edu)
I'd say ask the professor what he/she thinks of using Bochs first. If they aren't totally against it, it should be fine. Freshman year, it felt like I was the only one in my CS course with linux at home, but my professor had no problem with it as long as my stuff worked on the sanctioned C compiler (in a *nix) we used in the labs. As long as it tested good on the machine it was tested on, it was fine. Heck, what if the professor is just going to use Bochs anyway?
Sounds like an extension of normal encryption/cryptanalysis techniques to me. The only difference is the ciphertext appears to be an unrelated plain text rather than random. To oversimplify, its a matter of finding patterns within other patterns, rather than patterns within pseudo-chaos. Still, seeing deeper than the obvious is not easy to do.
I still think the 1-button is a good idea, as long as users have options (i like my scroll wheel, dammit). But I recall someone had the point that the 1-button forces developers to get away from all this right-click or control-click nonsense, and actually design a good interface where things are intuitively found. Contextual menus are a good idea, but they aren't meant to supplant good interface design.
But in general, open source software is was could be called "Usability agnostic", so this might not be the safest place for me to bring up just how horrid right-click can make things. Just compare the difference between Office on PC and Mac, and you'll see what 1 button can mean.
GUI != Ghastly Unixy Intuitiveness (leave that to the shell, which i like too. and Quicksilver is kinda a bridge between them. good stuff)
I design for 1 button, live with the 5-button (2+scroll).
A reasonable attempt at a parallel situation, but it doesn't hold up for one reason: P2P doesn't kill people. In fact, the whole internet v. copyright is a very abstract concept to consider actual damages in, and for all the research that's out there, nobody agrees.
proof that Mac OS X has the same engine, the easter eggs from the Newton still work on Mac OS X.
A friend who has more consistent handwriting than I showed me. Write out Rosetta 3 times, and you will get "Rosetta Rosetta Hey, that's me!" Same thing happened on the Newton.
If this really works, and becomes popular, and gets many customers? Might this motivate Apple to release Marklar? The supposed reason they haven't is because they are a hardware company and it would kill sales. But if a third-party app gives people roughly the same option without Apple's help, would they do it?
Assuming they don't sue the bejesus out of someone first. AFAIK, part of the Mac OS X EULA is that it can only be used on Apple hardware. But when was the last time I read that thing? (any confirmation?)
I'm still skeptical that this does 80%, and out of the blue...
Just get a Mac. There are no cheap Macs because cheap isn't in Apple's vocabulary. Affordable, however, is.
... Steve Jobs has taken a liking to the sport of Cricket. While he doesn't quite seem to get the rules, he does clearly enjoy playing it. And if any certain employee's ass gets in the way of Steve's swing, it's their own damn fault.
iCricket anyone?
(disclaimer: I apologize to anyone who is a fan of Cricket. this is a joke. laugh and be merry.)
In the past, other compatibility issues appeared. changing the number of bits in addresses when the arch changed was supported by software that followed clearly spelled out rules. Some programmers ignored them, and their software still worked. Not harm? HA! When the new system came out, those programs crashed and burned when you tried them. People complained, companies were upset. But it was their own fault.
This is why we have standards. so people who follow them are rewarded with compatibility.
no no no, you're confused. You're thinking of the 65-bit system, where it has an extra bit saying that "this instruction is viral." Microsoft wanted it to be a DRM-signed bit, but Intel said no. Microsoft ignored Intel and set the bit high for all windows code anyway. Needless to say, Windows can't run on a 65-bit system for this very reason
that and they only exist in your mind, because i purged my mind of the very thought after writing this because my cpu said i was high on 'bits'.
Mac OS X for the rest of us with aging machines. Even 9600s are supported, thanks to Darwin being open enough. 10.3 will run on system's apple would rather shove under the table. But that doesn't mean they're useless. Just totally, absolutely, unconditionally UNSUPPORTED. that doesn't mean anything to a wheat hacksaw like you tho.
did you have to say "new math"? I have three oranges, and you take two away. How many do I have now? Three, because you better gimme back my damn oranges.
I disagree. Yeah, boxen is a unix admin term and seeing Apple use the jargon would be advantageous to get Unix geeks converted. But afair, 'boxen' is reserved for homogeneous systems that can be swapped, rearranged, and replaced with any other. 'Boxes' are each unique and have a personality, like your own personal system. Simply put, you name boxes, you number boxen. Macs come with a bit too much personality to be 'boxen' imho.
Slashdot Mirror
Monopolies are not inherently illegal. Abusive usually are. Abusive non-monopolies can also be. As you state, some of these companies aren't monopolies, but they often use their strength and/or size in one market to unfairly strong arm their way to another market. That leverage can be anti-competitive and illegal. The breakups being proposed seem to be more related to that than a good-ol Ma Bell monopoly breakup.
When Apple's QuickTime came to Windows, Microsoft and Intel were astonished by its performance. When they couldn't compete, they just conspired to acquire the code from an Apple partner.
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/RDM.Tech.Q1.07/5F0C866C-6DDF-4A9A-9515-531B0CA0C29C.html
Why did the chicken cross the road? Only way to know is to either be, or to ask the chicken. Dissection won't help you understand its mind.
Not sure about that harming the relationship. Honest opinion sharing is a good thing. When a trusted engineer friend of yours tells you of shortcomings in your product, you listen. Maybe you missed something, or just disagree, but you can use this input to improve your product. Maybe its a design thing, or a culture of development, but identifying the shortcoming is step one. There are things that Apple can do long term in response, and sticking their fingers in their ears and ignoring Woz is one of the least productive.
So.. the smallest unit of time to measure uptime is User life spans....
Who'd you have to kill to get that machine?
Man, how much more loaded a post title could this get? Patents dont mean anything about inventing.
p le-loses-ipod-patent-because-of-microsoft/
read what the Apple spokesperson had to say about that. Chronology with evidence does hold up for something, I'd hope. Its not who applies first, but who can prove they thought of it first.
http://www.ilounge.com/index.php/news/comments/ap
Move along. nothing to see here. Put it back in the oven.
I know it's been proposed before, but might they just build Longhorn on top of Linux? Maybe they already have some early code, and need an established source to really make it work and complete the picture.
Think of it as similar to Apple's Mac OS X. Darwin is open, but the Aqua/Quartz Extreme interface, built on Cocoa/Carbon/Java/QuickTime/OpenGL/WebCore isn't completely. Just for MS, it would be Aero/Aero Glass from Avalon/WindowsXP/C#/WMedia/DirectX/IE. Works out, doesn't it? Tho I don't think MS could pull it out of their arse. Apple just bought out NeXT. I suppose there's always BeOS...
Apple started with quite a few of the basic system segments still build on Carbon (many still are). QuickTime broke free as of version 7 (consider the non-modal export and live scaling, things Carbon wasn't designed for, but Cocoa/OpenGL are great at).
thats how i read it at first. Easy mistake, seeing as how that is free too. :)
Back in my day, we had to learn MIPS assembly, and this was long after the era of MIPS processors being available on campus. Instead, we had to use the SPIM emulator to test our MAL code. It seemed to fit the professors needs, but I think the professor may have had a hand in writing it. (wisc.edu)
I'd say ask the professor what he/she thinks of using Bochs first. If they aren't totally against it, it should be fine. Freshman year, it felt like I was the only one in my CS course with linux at home, but my professor had no problem with it as long as my stuff worked on the sanctioned C compiler (in a *nix) we used in the labs. As long as it tested good on the machine it was tested on, it was fine. Heck, what if the professor is just going to use Bochs anyway?
Sounds like an extension of normal encryption/cryptanalysis techniques to me. The only difference is the ciphertext appears to be an unrelated plain text rather than random. To oversimplify, its a matter of finding patterns within other patterns, rather than patterns within pseudo-chaos. Still, seeing deeper than the obvious is not easy to do.
I still think the 1-button is a good idea, as long as users have options (i like my scroll wheel, dammit). But I recall someone had the point that the 1-button forces developers to get away from all this right-click or control-click nonsense, and actually design a good interface where things are intuitively found. Contextual menus are a good idea, but they aren't meant to supplant good interface design.
But in general, open source software is was could be called "Usability agnostic", so this might not be the safest place for me to bring up just how horrid right-click can make things. Just compare the difference between Office on PC and Mac, and you'll see what 1 button can mean.
GUI != Ghastly Unixy Intuitiveness (leave that to the shell, which i like too. and Quicksilver is kinda a bridge between them. good stuff)
I design for 1 button, live with the 5-button (2+scroll).
A reasonable attempt at a parallel situation, but it doesn't hold up for one reason: P2P doesn't kill people. In fact, the whole internet v. copyright is a very abstract concept to consider actual damages in, and for all the research that's out there, nobody agrees.
Sorry, you're comparing apples to oranges.
maybe it was "Rosetta! Rosetta! Rosetta!" with exclamation marks. im sure google has something about it
The engine was named "Rosetta"
proof that Mac OS X has the same engine, the easter eggs from the Newton still work on Mac OS X.
A friend who has more consistent handwriting than I showed me. Write out Rosetta 3 times, and you will get "Rosetta Rosetta Hey, that's me!" Same thing happened on the Newton.
If this really works, and becomes popular, and gets many customers? Might this motivate Apple to release Marklar? The supposed reason they haven't is because they are a hardware company and it would kill sales. But if a third-party app gives people roughly the same option without Apple's help, would they do it?
Assuming they don't sue the bejesus out of someone first. AFAIK, part of the Mac OS X EULA is that it can only be used on Apple hardware. But when was the last time I read that thing? (any confirmation?)
I'm still skeptical that this does 80%, and out of the blue...
Just get a Mac. There are no cheap Macs because cheap isn't in Apple's vocabulary. Affordable, however, is.
First rule of the DMCA: You do not talk about the DMCA.
...
Second rule of the DMCA: You do NOT talk about the DMCA.
Third rule of the DMCA: Two to a copyright, fellas.
Last rule of the DMCA: If this is your first copyright, you must sue.
Anything Apple works for me. replace battery every 2 years or so.
-1 ubiquitous
-1 troll
... Steve Jobs has taken a liking to the sport of Cricket. While he doesn't quite seem to get the rules, he does clearly enjoy playing it. And if any certain employee's ass gets in the way of Steve's swing, it's their own damn fault.
iCricket anyone?
(disclaimer: I apologize to anyone who is a fan of Cricket. this is a joke. laugh and be merry.)
In the past, other compatibility issues appeared. changing the number of bits in addresses when the arch changed was supported by software that followed clearly spelled out rules. Some programmers ignored them, and their software still worked. Not harm? HA! When the new system came out, those programs crashed and burned when you tried them. People complained, companies were upset. But it was their own fault.
This is why we have standards. so people who follow them are rewarded with compatibility.
> Thats why volume controls work logarithmic.
only in iTunes 4.5 and later
no no no, you're confused. You're thinking of the 65-bit system, where it has an extra bit saying that "this instruction is viral." Microsoft wanted it to be a DRM-signed bit, but Intel said no. Microsoft ignored Intel and set the bit high for all windows code anyway. Needless to say, Windows can't run on a 65-bit system for this very reason
that and they only exist in your mind, because i purged my mind of the very thought after writing this because my cpu said i was high on 'bits'.
Read Or Die sounds much cooler for the market. Just ask The Paper.
http://eshop.macsales.com/OSXCenter/XPostFacto/Fra mework.cfm?page=XPostFacto3.html
Mac OS X for the rest of us with aging machines. Even 9600s are supported, thanks to Darwin being open enough. 10.3 will run on system's apple would rather shove under the table. But that doesn't mean they're useless. Just totally, absolutely, unconditionally UNSUPPORTED. that doesn't mean anything to a wheat hacksaw like you tho.
But you already knew that.
did you have to say "new math"? I have three oranges, and you take two away. How many do I have now? Three, because you better gimme back my damn oranges.
I disagree. Yeah, boxen is a unix admin term and seeing Apple use the jargon would be advantageous to get Unix geeks converted. But afair, 'boxen' is reserved for homogeneous systems that can be swapped, rearranged, and replaced with any other. 'Boxes' are each unique and have a personality, like your own personal system. Simply put, you name boxes, you number boxen. Macs come with a bit too much personality to be 'boxen' imho.
But i might be off my rocker.