This one has been bubbling under the surface for some time now already. It's good to see they [the EU] have finally gotten round to actually doing something more than talking about it - I'd like to see this get through the system beforeI MS is broken up by the US courts.
If they charged $25 for it, they'd need four times as many people to buy it in order to get the same income. They'd need mayby six times as many in order to cover the extra expenses involved in shipping and supporting that many copies. I doubt it'd get that kind of market penetration.
Bottom line is that pricing should reflect the best return, not the highest number of sales (otherwise everything would be sold for $1).
But you're right with your last comment: For most people, dual-booting is a perfectly acceptable, and much cheaper option. VM-Ware is for people for whom dual-boot just isn't good enough, and if that's you, then you'd be willing to pay.
The author's of Shapeshifter is Christian Bauer. Very talented programmer.
The reason he had to write a new emulator (ie Basilisk), rather than just porting Shapeshifter is because Basilisk needed to emulate the 68000 processors as well; Amiga uses the 68K, so Shapeshifter was a good deal simpler (though still an awe inspiring piece of software:-)
If I recall correctly (and I frequently don't, so feel free to correct me!)...
When PGP was banned from use outside the US, someone found a way around the ban by printing the code, and taking the printed code overseas.
The idea was that the print-out was "speech" rather than "code", and therefore was exempt from the ban (because "speech" is protected by the constitution).
So, how does that translate to these T-shirts? Well, the issue is with code, right.. Or with software that can circumvent the encrption.
As I see it, these T-shirts are neither of the above, so how is the prosecution going to make this stick? If printed code is speech, then surely so is a printed t-shirt. It is surely protected by the constitution?
Ovbiously, teh ammount fo mipseltings i s a caus four consern. Eye thinck teh bestt wey too ficx thise wood bee too fourse peepl too uss teh "Prefew" buton.
I know this sort of thing well. I get it myself often.
My solution is simply to switch to a different project for a while. It always works for me - I work well on the other project, and then when I go back to the original work, I'm more motivated.
I haven't really analysed why this works before, but I think it's maybe because when I come back to the original project, I've forgotten some of the details of how it works, so I have to study the code again; that's a great motivator (for me, at least) because I spot bugs and stuff that I would have missed otherwise, so I start fixing them, and that breaks the "programmer's block" syndrome.
By the way, I'm also a writer, and the same thing works for me with that too (although I usually have to leave it alone for a bit longer than with programming projects).
I remember waaay back, when I first started reading your column, there were a number of times when you gave quite favorable mentions to various 'alternative' systems (eg Amiga). What are your hopes for the re-emergence of a multiple-platform world? Do you view Linux, Amiga, BeOS, and others with hope?
Granted this is a hoax, but the reason it made an impact is because it is feasable. I remember a while ago reading about a PCI card that carried an Amiga computer (ie processor, chip set and rom), which could be operated independantly of the host system. IIRC, it was called Inside-Out, or something.
The point is that having a seperate computer on a card plugged into your main computer is perfectly feasable. The only real question here is: why bother?
A couple of days ago somebody proposed a brilliant idea: instead of something useless like SETI, one could dedicate those cycles to analysing data that could help farmers plan crops
I'm going to start using my processor cycles to help farmers plan crop circles!;) It'd be the anti-SETI - instead of looking for aliens, just make it look like they're here already.
Counting lines wouldn't work as well as bytes: the browser's width and font settings make it hard to do. You could count tags, but then they'd just post huge long one-line paragraphs. A possible solution would be to count the bytes, but add a weighting to <BR> tags so they're counted as more than just four bytes.
The comment in the article about the only real players being AOL, MSN and News.com managed to ignore the gool 'ol BBC, which is always my first choice for news.
Okay, I know that sounds like flame bait, but hear me out: Of the above three names, the only one I visit ever, except when referred to an article by someone else, is News.com. The others are simply too tacky to be taken seriously (IMHO, of course!). (I would have mentioned CNN, but they fall into the same trap too)
The point is that if I'm looking for news, I'll go to a news site, not a portal, and if I go to a news site, I'll chose one that looks professional, has good quality writing, and which I trust. The BBC is the only source which really fulfills those criteria for me.
Okay. All comments about Microsoft aside, this is a very cool-sounding idea. But I'm concerned about it's workability in "real life" (yeah, I know - there's no such thing...)
The software that drives this would have to be incredibly intelligent to avoid making serious mistakes. It would probably have to learn about how a user uses it.
The danger is that, being part of the user-interface, errors would be very noticable, and very annoying. Imagine not being able to do something, because the computer thought you were looking away?? (in fact, I know someone with a lazy eye - any software which tried to watch where she was looking would really get confused!)
I don't want to put a damper on anyone's party, but I think I'll wait before I try this, until it's been well tried and tested.
I don't think it's a problem for Microsoft (or anyone else) to release software which has new features and can do new things. This isn't the issue. I mean, we all want innovation, right? The issue is that they are creating these innovations at the expense of existing standards.
The problem here is that crucial phrase: sites designed for Explorer will be unviewable in other browsers. A good site designer will ensure that any newer features he incorporates into his site have a fall-back alternative for older browsers to use. This applies from <NOSCRIPT> tags, right down to simply using ALT text in your images. The only way Microsoft can really cause a problem in this regard is to make it impossible (or difficult) to offer a fall-back option.
The real problem is all the lazy site designers out there who simply don't bother to code fall-backs, or maybe don't even realise that they should be coding them. The more popular "site design" tools are also to blame for not making it clear, and those of us who use 'other' browsers are also to blame for not complaining enough when we come across a site which does this (not buying from them simply isn't good enough - they won't even notice).
Having said all that, I do believe that Microsoft could and should have submitted their enhancements to the standards authority. I mean, come on MS - how many times to you have to shoot yourself in same foot before it hurts??
I completely disagree with you. Kylix and gcc have completely different markets, and will therefore not cause problems for each other.
Kylix will be sold to people who want to play with a nice friendly VisualBastic-type environment; GCC will be used by developers. Kylix will be sold to people already using Delphi and VisualBastic, to allow existing apps to be ported to Linux which would otherwise never would have appeared; GCC is for developers. Kylix will be used by companies looking for a short learning curve for training people; CGG is used by developers.
But the big difference is that Kylix will primarily be used to write closed-source proprietary applications. You won't get GCC people getting angry about not being able to compile Kylix code as you claim, because there won't be that much Kylix code out there for them to compile.
And no, I don't have a problem with people writing closed source apps for Linux. In some cases - especially low-volume vertical market apps - closed source is pretty much a requirement. And even where it isn't, you're not going to change a company's business policy overnight.
Slashdot Mirror
Hmmm.... Sounds suspiciously like Star Trek's "Sonic Shower".
Well, I don't like the sound of it. But, hey - I guess it's less intrusive than a cavity search. ;-)
"Hey! Stop that man! He's wearing fake Gucci's!"
Try this link for Mozart's musical dice game as a CGI program, along with the rules and a bit of background on the whole thing.
:-)
Enjoy
That Pizza Hut logo was great! ;-) hehehehehe
I mean - a rocket with a painting of a big red flying saucer on it....
This one has been bubbling under the surface for some time now already. It's good to see they [the EU] have finally gotten round to actually doing something more than talking about it - I'd like to see this get through the system beforeI MS is broken up by the US courts.
If they charged $25 for it, they'd need four times as many people to buy it in order to get the same income. They'd need mayby six times as many in order to cover the extra expenses involved in shipping and supporting that many copies. I doubt it'd get that kind of market penetration.
Bottom line is that pricing should reflect the best return, not the highest number of sales (otherwise everything would be sold for $1).
But you're right with your last comment: For most people, dual-booting is a perfectly acceptable, and much cheaper option. VM-Ware is for people for whom dual-boot just isn't good enough, and if that's you, then you'd be willing to pay.
The author's of Shapeshifter is Christian Bauer.
:-)
Very talented programmer.
The reason he had to write a new emulator (ie Basilisk), rather than just porting Shapeshifter is because Basilisk needed to emulate the 68000 processors as well; Amiga uses the 68K, so Shapeshifter was a good deal simpler (though still an awe inspiring piece of software
If I recall correctly (and I frequently don't, so feel free to correct me!)...
When PGP was banned from use outside the US, someone found a way around the ban by printing the code, and taking the printed code overseas.
The idea was that the print-out was "speech" rather than "code", and therefore was exempt from the ban (because "speech" is protected by the constitution).
So, how does that translate to these T-shirts? Well, the issue is with code, right.. Or with software that can circumvent the encrption.
As I see it, these T-shirts are neither of the above, so how is the prosecution going to make this stick? If printed code is speech, then surely so is a printed t-shirt. It is surely protected by the constitution?
Ovbiously, teh ammount fo mipseltings i s a caus four consern. Eye thinck teh bestt wey too ficx thise wood bee too fourse peepl too uss teh "Prefew" buton.
I know this sort of thing well. I get it myself often.
My solution is simply to switch to a different project for a while. It always works for me - I work well on the other project, and then when I go back to the original work, I'm more motivated.
I haven't really analysed why this works before, but I think it's maybe because when I come back to the original project, I've forgotten some of the details of how it works, so I have to study the code again; that's a great motivator (for me, at least) because I spot bugs and stuff that I would have missed otherwise, so I start fixing them, and that breaks the "programmer's block" syndrome.
By the way, I'm also a writer, and the same thing works for me with that too (although I usually have to leave it alone for a bit longer than with programming projects).
I remember waaay back, when I first started reading your column, there were a number of times when you gave quite favorable mentions to various 'alternative' systems (eg Amiga).
What are your hopes for the re-emergence of a multiple-platform world? Do you view Linux, Amiga, BeOS, and others with hope?
Please - what does the "X" stand for??
I've been insatiably curious about that since the first article of yours that I read.
Granted this is a hoax, but the reason it made an impact is because it is feasable.
I remember a while ago reading about a PCI card that carried an Amiga computer (ie processor, chip set and rom), which could be operated independantly of the host system. IIRC, it was called Inside-Out, or something.
The point is that having a seperate computer on a card plugged into your main computer is perfectly feasable. The only real question here is: why bother?
I'm going to start using my processor cycles to help farmers plan crop circles!
It'd be the anti-SETI - instead of looking for aliens, just make it look like they're here already.
Counting lines wouldn't work as well as bytes: the browser's width and font settings make it hard to do. You could count
tags, but then they'd just post huge long one-line paragraphs.
A possible solution would be to count the bytes, but add a weighting to <BR> tags so they're counted as more than just four bytes.
....which looks suspiciously like what's happened to this article's comments too... :-(
I think Pizza Hut were a great choice for the first sponsors of space flight.
I mean, look at their logo: What other company do you know that could get away with painting a picture of a flying saucer on the side of a rocket??
I guess this will mean that all those old "Pizza the Hutt" jokes will get re-born too?
If not, then one of their domain names, at the very least...
The comment in the article about the only real players being AOL, MSN and News.com managed to ignore the gool 'ol BBC, which is always my first choice for news.
Okay, I know that sounds like flame bait, but hear me out:
Of the above three names, the only one I visit ever, except when referred to an article by someone else, is News.com. The others are simply too tacky to be taken seriously (IMHO, of course!). (I would have mentioned CNN, but they fall into the same trap too)
The point is that if I'm looking for news, I'll go to a news site, not a portal, and if I go to a news site, I'll chose one that looks professional, has good quality writing, and which I trust. The BBC is the only source which really fulfills those criteria for me.
Okay. All comments about Microsoft aside, this is a very cool-sounding idea. But I'm concerned about it's workability in "real life" (yeah, I know - there's no such thing...)
The software that drives this would have to be incredibly intelligent to avoid making serious mistakes. It would probably have to learn about how a user uses it.
The danger is that, being part of the user-interface, errors would be very noticable, and very annoying. Imagine not being able to do something, because the computer thought you were looking away?? (in fact, I know someone with a lazy eye - any software which tried to watch where she was looking would really get confused!)
I don't want to put a damper on anyone's party, but I think I'll wait before I try this, until it's been well tried and tested.
I don't think it's a problem for Microsoft (or anyone else) to release software which has new features and can do new things. This isn't the issue. I mean, we all want innovation, right? The issue is that they are creating these innovations at the expense of existing standards.
The problem here is that crucial phrase: sites designed for Explorer will be unviewable in other browsers.
A good site designer will ensure that any newer features he incorporates into his site have a fall-back alternative for older browsers to use. This applies from <NOSCRIPT> tags, right down to simply using ALT text in your images.
The only way Microsoft can really cause a problem in this regard is to make it impossible (or difficult) to offer a fall-back option.
The real problem is all the lazy site designers out there who simply don't bother to code fall-backs, or maybe don't even realise that they should be coding them. The more popular "site design" tools are also to blame for not making it clear, and those of us who use 'other' browsers are also to blame for not complaining enough when we come across a site which does this (not buying from them simply isn't good enough - they won't even notice).
Having said all that, I do believe that Microsoft could and should have submitted their enhancements to the standards authority. I mean, come on MS - how many times to you have to shoot yourself in same foot before it hurts??
With a name like "Linux Tag", it sounds like a penguin wrestling match.
"Quick - tag me!"
OOoooh! That's gotta be moderated as flamebait??
I completely disagree with you. Kylix and gcc have completely different markets, and will therefore not cause problems for each other.
Kylix will be sold to people who want to play with a nice friendly VisualBastic-type environment; GCC will be used by developers.
Kylix will be sold to people already using Delphi and VisualBastic, to allow existing apps to be ported to Linux which would otherwise never would have appeared; GCC is for developers.
Kylix will be used by companies looking for a short learning curve for training people; CGG is used by developers.
But the big difference is that Kylix will primarily be used to write closed-source proprietary applications. You won't get GCC people getting angry about not being able to compile Kylix code as you claim, because there won't be that much Kylix code out there for them to compile.
And no, I don't have a problem with people writing closed source apps for Linux. In some cases - especially low-volume vertical market apps - closed source is pretty much a requirement. And even where it isn't, you're not going to change a company's business policy overnight.
Yes, but that's how long it took him to type this post...