You're right. I always equate mouse with tablet with trackball with touch screens though. Just like a gamepad is a keyboard with just a few keys. They are essentially specializations of two basic categories of input devices.
This is a hold over from the normal DSLR market. Arguably, Pentax and Minolta have better lines, feature wise, but people who have tons of canon or nikkor lenses aren't really going to care. Luckily, I recently got into photography, stuck my fingers in my ears and sung 'lalalala' over the nikon vs. canon debate and went straight to a k1000.
Yeah, you'll be able to get basic services (i.e. a stunning array of text modes) with a 2 day hack on non-apple hardware, but I doubt it'll just be an issue of 'cracking' it and having perfect hardware support on everything. Particularly, I forsee problems with Aqua and non-supported video cards.
Well, I hope you have fun paying that tax on every piece of software you write (including anything you release as open source). You see, because in order to be able to license something (that is, to set any terms of distribution and/or use) you have to hold the copyright. Same goes for any webpage you make, any book you write, etc. Copyright applies to things which are not meant as commercial ventures as well, and I think it would be horrible if no artist could say what was to be done with his/her work without forking over a fee to the government.
In response to all the "how will they keep OSX from running on all x86s?" comments, maybe that is exactly what they want. Maybe Apple has decided to go into software as well. At a time when the public is more disatisfied with windows than ever (ok, so maybe they don't _know_ it is windows, yet), it would be a good call to at least test the water, IMHO.
You obviously can't make a blanket statement about that, because robots already _have_ replaced some human workers in manufacturing, for example. Now, are you likely to see humanoid robots with human like intelligence walking into your office building carrying their briefcases in the next couple of decades? No, probably not. Gradually, more and more labor will be performed by robots though. It is merely industrialization continuing-- capital displaces labor.
No, because for a company, there is still no economic incentive to raise salaries (you would raise expenses without raising production levels). Instead, a better decision would be to sit on it and use it as a cash reserve. For an outsider, rising interest rates make it harder and harder to start up and fill the needs of the market. Furthermore, workers won't even _ask_ for those raises for awhile (there is usually a delay between increases in inflation and increases of wage escalation).
Then, of course, no one would have any motivation to make more than 2 million dollars. Instead of producing goods and services that people want and need, the leadership would take the easy route and not grow their companies. Shortages ensue. Shortages lead to excess profits. Since there is no incentive to invest, companies retain as much income as possible. The amount of money in circulation falls. Interest rates increase. The incentive for investment further falls. Soon, your economy is in a full on depression. Few people can afford to buy their own homes or start new businesses, because of the interest rates. Inflation compounds the situation. Soon, you have two classes of people: the people making the 2 million dollar limit and people getting hammered by inflation and interest rates.
No, I'm sure they didn't think of that at all. They are going to ship thousands of these all over creation, and then realize that they don't work. They certainly wouldn't _test_ such things out in advance.
I hear that all the damned time. I'm a former computer engineering guy who has recently taken up with a group of artists and industrial designers. Obviously, mac users the whole lot (well, so am I, but at least I get my facts straight). As far as I can tell, the difference between an apple zealot and a wintel zealot is that a wintel zealot doesn't even know why wintel is supposed to be better, but the apple zealot is prepared with brochures straight from marketing.
I do some part time work as a photographer (usually for fully clothed people, but same issue). In depictions of people, the photo itself is property of the photographer until he signs away the rights. However, what he can do with the photo is limited largely by the consent of the "model". If you wish to distribute a photo in any way, except for journalistic purposes, you need a model release. Of course, for most people taking pictures of family, the issue is moot, because your family probably won't sue you. That said, this is a simplification of a very complicated part of the law.
If you could really get everything you need to know about making a nuclear bomb from one bbc article, everybody would have them. Maybe everything you need to know about how a bomb works, if you don't intend to actually design one, in one article. Heck, you couldn't even really learn how to design a _rifle_ from an article that size.
It is easier than that. You don't need two and three. The POS device prints a password on the receit. The customer pulls out his laptop and opens a browser-- his MAC is not authorized and he gets redirected to a page that lets him type in his password. He types in the password, and it authorizes his MAC address for a certain amount of time.
But I'm not. Google is only cutting into their variable costs, not their fixed costs. These businesses still have to pay rent, salaries for the editors, and the cost for the equipment they use to make these books. If google takes away enough sales, then they will fall below the break even point and will have to shut down (they won't be able to pay editors, or replace their equipment when it breaks down). No more sales, and they won't be able to publish any new books.
Of course, as I've stated elsewhere, we aren't allowed to dictate other business's plans. If they have property (copyrights) it is up to them to decide how to use it. So, google plans better include limiting the search results to "fair use" type exerpts.
Totally. Not. The. Issue. If the works google is adding to the database are copyrighted, then they should only be reproduced by google under fair use terms. That means small snippets for search purposes (so if you find a reference in a book, you can make sure it is in the right context). Regardless of what the publisher's business model is, or what it should be, they own the copyrights and as such, largely get to dictate how the works are copied.
Ok, how about this? Bandwidth and power for servers. Even if these presses were to go digital, they would still have expenses. Not to mention the staff. There is really no getting around that one. Somebody has to run the place. Somebody has to get paid to run the place.
Yes, because everything must have the same cause. And only one cause at that. Since one product went down in price, inflation can't possibly exist. You are sssooo right.
Well, considering that it isn't.NET's fault that they didn't properly implement exception handling I would say no. Also, combine this with the fact that that exception is caused simply by a server overload and you get a total nonissue.
Slashdot Mirror
Jesus. Christ. YHBT. HAND.
You're right. I always equate mouse with tablet with trackball with touch screens though. Just like a gamepad is a keyboard with just a few keys. They are essentially specializations of two basic categories of input devices.
Try using photoshop without a mouse.
Or maybe, the correct answer here, like in every field, is USE THE PROPER TOOL FOR THE JOB.
This is a hold over from the normal DSLR market. Arguably, Pentax and Minolta have better lines, feature wise, but people who have tons of canon or nikkor lenses aren't really going to care. Luckily, I recently got into photography, stuck my fingers in my ears and sung 'lalalala' over the nikon vs. canon debate and went straight to a k1000.
Yeah, you'll be able to get basic services (i.e. a stunning array of text modes) with a 2 day hack on non-apple hardware, but I doubt it'll just be an issue of 'cracking' it and having perfect hardware support on everything. Particularly, I forsee problems with Aqua and non-supported video cards.
The problem is that it'll only support one motherboard, one type of NIC, one graphics card, etc etc
Well, I hope you have fun paying that tax on every piece of software you write (including anything you release as open source). You see, because in order to be able to license something (that is, to set any terms of distribution and/or use) you have to hold the copyright. Same goes for any webpage you make, any book you write, etc. Copyright applies to things which are not meant as commercial ventures as well, and I think it would be horrible if no artist could say what was to be done with his/her work without forking over a fee to the government.
In response to all the "how will they keep OSX from running on all x86s?" comments, maybe that is exactly what they want. Maybe Apple has decided to go into software as well. At a time when the public is more disatisfied with windows than ever (ok, so maybe they don't _know_ it is windows, yet), it would be a good call to at least test the water, IMHO.
You obviously can't make a blanket statement about that, because robots already _have_ replaced some human workers in manufacturing, for example. Now, are you likely to see humanoid robots with human like intelligence walking into your office building carrying their briefcases in the next couple of decades? No, probably not. Gradually, more and more labor will be performed by robots though. It is merely industrialization continuing-- capital displaces labor.
No, because for a company, there is still no economic incentive to raise salaries (you would raise expenses without raising production levels). Instead, a better decision would be to sit on it and use it as a cash reserve. For an outsider, rising interest rates make it harder and harder to start up and fill the needs of the market. Furthermore, workers won't even _ask_ for those raises for awhile (there is usually a delay between increases in inflation and increases of wage escalation).
Then, of course, no one would have any motivation to make more than 2 million dollars. Instead of producing goods and services that people want and need, the leadership would take the easy route and not grow their companies. Shortages ensue. Shortages lead to excess profits. Since there is no incentive to invest, companies retain as much income as possible. The amount of money in circulation falls. Interest rates increase. The incentive for investment further falls. Soon, your economy is in a full on depression. Few people can afford to buy their own homes or start new businesses, because of the interest rates. Inflation compounds the situation. Soon, you have two classes of people: the people making the 2 million dollar limit and people getting hammered by inflation and interest rates.
No, I'm sure they didn't think of that at all. They are going to ship thousands of these all over creation, and then realize that they don't work. They certainly wouldn't _test_ such things out in advance.
I hear that all the damned time. I'm a former computer engineering guy who has recently taken up with a group of artists and industrial designers. Obviously, mac users the whole lot (well, so am I, but at least I get my facts straight). As far as I can tell, the difference between an apple zealot and a wintel zealot is that a wintel zealot doesn't even know why wintel is supposed to be better, but the apple zealot is prepared with brochures straight from marketing.
I do some part time work as a photographer (usually for fully clothed people, but same issue). In depictions of people, the photo itself is property of the photographer until he signs away the rights. However, what he can do with the photo is limited largely by the consent of the "model". If you wish to distribute a photo in any way, except for journalistic purposes, you need a model release. Of course, for most people taking pictures of family, the issue is moot, because your family probably won't sue you. That said, this is a simplification of a very complicated part of the law.
Fortunately, dude, we have "laws" that are for the purpose (even if they aren't 100% effective) of making the world more like the way it should be.
If you could really get everything you need to know about making a nuclear bomb from one bbc article, everybody would have them. Maybe everything you need to know about how a bomb works, if you don't intend to actually design one, in one article. Heck, you couldn't even really learn how to design a _rifle_ from an article that size.
It is easier than that. You don't need two and three. The POS device prints a password on the receit. The customer pulls out his laptop and opens a browser-- his MAC is not authorized and he gets redirected to a page that lets him type in his password. He types in the password, and it authorizes his MAC address for a certain amount of time.
But I'm not. Google is only cutting into their variable costs, not their fixed costs. These businesses still have to pay rent, salaries for the editors, and the cost for the equipment they use to make these books. If google takes away enough sales, then they will fall below the break even point and will have to shut down (they won't be able to pay editors, or replace their equipment when it breaks down). No more sales, and they won't be able to publish any new books.
Of course, as I've stated elsewhere, we aren't allowed to dictate other business's plans. If they have property (copyrights) it is up to them to decide how to use it. So, google plans better include limiting the search results to "fair use" type exerpts.
Totally. Not. The. Issue. If the works google is adding to the database are copyrighted, then they should only be reproduced by google under fair use terms. That means small snippets for search purposes (so if you find a reference in a book, you can make sure it is in the right context). Regardless of what the publisher's business model is, or what it should be, they own the copyrights and as such, largely get to dictate how the works are copied.
Ok, how about this? Bandwidth and power for servers. Even if these presses were to go digital, they would still have expenses. Not to mention the staff. There is really no getting around that one. Somebody has to run the place. Somebody has to get paid to run the place.
The numbers
Check note 7.
In summary: Last quarter, AOL made 324 million dollars in operating income last quarter. That's only 18% of TW's 1,779 million operating income.
Yes, because everything must have the same cause. And only one cause at that. Since one product went down in price, inflation can't possibly exist. You are sssooo right.
just make roland an editor so we can block his stories and get on with it.
Indeed.
Well, considering that it isn't .NET's fault that they didn't properly implement exception handling I would say no. Also, combine this with the fact that that exception is caused simply by a server overload and you get a total nonissue.