Especially when you consider the number of people who constantly move their mouths and say nothing.
More fun when you think of the things people mutter only to have the said out loud for you now. 'Stupid son of a... WAIT I didn't mean for it to say that'
Wouldn't this be similar to 'offering a function alreday available' a la iTunes movie rentals?
iTunes movie rentals are on-device downloaded content. Netflix would be streaming, just like the Pandora app streams music just fine. Since they allow one I don't see why they would ban the other.
It would probably eliminate offline caching though, which would be a shame for plane travel. We'll see (if they do it).
Thing is, Pandora is a radio-style app ( http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/pandora-radio/id284035177?mt=8 ). You can't just select which songs you want, you can only pick a 'station' that suits your tastes. With such randomness and inability to replay a chosen song its more likely to make a sale like traditional radio then anything. Plus it's free so doesn't take away any possible profits. Netflix on the other hand does let people chose which movies exactly and wouldn't be free thus would take money away from Apple.
With what was mentioned that Apple has a much larger and up to date selection then Netflix (I don't use either one so can't speak for sure), I don't see why they would want to trade their first party solution for a lower grade third party solution.
Wouldn't this be similar to 'offering a function alreday available' a la iTunes movie rentals? While it would stream where the iTunes won't, it still will directly compete against Apple's iTune movie rentals.
it doesn't even need to be broken, if linux were the dominant os im sure a large percentage of the userbase would run 'sudo./porndownload' if the website said to do so.
I don't think you give the public enough credit now since you could also have a website that could say "Open Command Prompt Window. Now type 'format c:. Press Enter button and then press 'Y'" and I doubt most people would bother.
Compare that to a Windows machine connected to the Internet without some sort of protection--it can become infected without the user doing anything at all.
These problems do in fact happen. They use third party issues like the Flash bug patched only a month and a half ago ( http://apple.slashdot.org/story/10/01/20/217257/Apple-Patches-Massive-Holes-In-OS-X?art_pos=6 ) where all you had to do was surf onto the infected site. This is an issue since all Mac's are pre-installed with Flash, and the patch had been available for weeks on the official Flash site before Apple bothered to include it into an 'official' patch. The typical end user doesn't want to have to look for fixes beyond the update program. And as long as things like this happen, they will have issues and problems of their own.
It's just such a small market and thus has the least amount of malware and other such worries. Also why I said MAYBE Linux, because I know there is no such thing as a perfectly secure OS. It can always be broken.
I'm also talking about a fundamental change to the OS in a much larger way than the change to the NT kernel - there are substantial portions of Windows that have not changed, and are the poorer for it (hence all the holes - some of this stuff was written before we even knew what computer security was, and is either hard to secure or just not really built to be locked up).
Age doesn't make something more insecure. BSD is from 1977, much older then MS in general. And while there are security holes found in Windows, things like security holes are found in every OS. Just which one is the most popular are the ones that tend to be examined and found more often.
I also remember using W2K, which used the NT kernel - I believe I got this via my university though, not sure if it was ever available to consumers.
Technically it was available to the public, but it wasn't really sold like one on most PC's. It was usually found on business designed laptops.
I am also interested that you think using BSD code is "resorting to other's works" like it's some sort of cop out. Like I said before, there is substantial back-play into the OSS community, and the decision to base OS X on Unix has meant that is is remarkably more compatible with a lot of software than it would have been otherwise.
I don't feel is a cop out as more of a bad reflection of ones faith in their own company, since they did have a self-made product that they had been working on for 17 years. Its not like Apple started square one with Unix, if they did then I would have a completely different feeling for this. Apple has a long history for itself and dropping all of it's history and work that they did to use what is technically a rival's work (these were 2 different and thus competing, if indirectly, OS's) just doesn't feel right nor a good sign of how you feel your own company can preform it's core tasks that it models its business upon.
In the case of Apple, I would hope to use their own 'lovely, mature' OS they wrote from scratch in 1984 to power their original machines, like Microsoft. Not drop all of their own work and use someone else's 17 years later. Think of the uproar if Microsoft did this.
Microsoft DOES also do this. Take a look at this article:
Now, some of Spider's code (possibly all of it) was based on the TCP/IP stack in the BSD flavors of Unix. These are open source, but distributed under the BSD license, not the GPL that Linux is released under. Whereas the GPL states that any software derived from GPL'ed software must also be released under the GPL, the BSD license basically says, "here's the source, you can do whatever you want, just give credit to the original author."
Eventually the new, from scratch TCP/IP stack was done and shipped with NT 3.5 (the second version, despite the number) in late 1994. The same stack was also included with Windows 95.
However, it looks like some of those Unix utilities were never rewritten. If you look at the executables, you can still see the copyright notice from the regents of the University of California (BSD is short for Berkeley Software Distrubution, Berkeley being a branch of the University of California, for some reason referred to as "Berkeley" on the East Coast and "California" on the West Coast...and "Berkeley" is one of those words that starts to look real funny if you stare at it too long - but I digress).
Keep in mind there is no reason to rewrite that code. If your ftp client works fine (no comments from the peanut gallery!) then why change it? Microsoft has other fish to fry. And the software was licensed perfectly legally, since the inclusion of the copyright notice satisfied the BSD license.
Microsoft doesn't advertise it but they have freely used BSD code in the past. They did NOT write all of their own code from scratch. In the end it really doesn't matter who wrote the code, so long as it's being used properly according to the license. The BSD code is released under and open license that allows you to do just about anything you want with it so there's very little trouble there.
Spider isn't Microsoft's flagship product being sold to consumers. Spider is a (if I'm reading the article correctly) is to handle TCP/IP stacks, not run the entire core. You could remove Spider from Windows and it would still function (sans TCP/IP, but would in all effects still run.) Same can't be said for OSX and BSD/Mach Kernel. A part isn't comparable to a whole product
I have seen comments on/. before about how MS really needs to do what Apple did and just start fresh with Windows and stop patching on top of patches - citing security and the age and complexity of the code as a problem. Whether that's the right thing to do is another matter, but it's not as cut and dried as you make out.
But Microsoft did do this. They started with MS-DOS and gradually moved into Windows. Windows did in the beginning run on top of DOS but as time passed, it was becoming more apparent that this was not going to be a perfect solution. Windows ME was the last OS they made that used DOS as it's core. Then they ditched it in favor of their own, in-house programmed NT Kernel. Windows XP (the first consumer based OS to run NT) was completely running on NT and while it had access to DOS, it didn't run off DOS. And Windows XP was considered an amazing success as mentioned here on Slashdot since it's still the most used OS on desktop computers. And that was in 2001. A company can make it's own OS without having to resort to other's works and still make it an success, XP being the living proof.
Tell me, where would you start if you were going to create an OS? Would you write literally everything from scratch, or would you use all that lovely, mature, licence-compatible BSD code?
In the case of Apple, I would hope to use their own 'lovely, mature' OS they wrote from scratch in 1984 to power their original machines, like Microsoft. Not drop all of their own work and use someone else's 17 years later. Think of the uproar if Microsoft did this. Slashdot would be packed to hell and back with comments of how 'MS was so pathetic that they couldn't use their own code, R&D, and abilities and now use someone else's work'. But Apple did that very thing and it's hailed not as a failure on Apple's part to not use their own 17 year mature product but dropped it all for someone else's. Its hailed as major step forward.
You mean the BSD whose license deliberately lets you do anything you want with the source code, including making it entirely into your own product? The BSD that Apple freely mentions in its own literature? At no point does Apple claim that BSD is theirs, they rightfully say that they developed Mac OS X and Darwin on top of BSD and Mach.
I never said that they claimed it was their's, just made it appear. Two different things. Claiming can get you in court, the making it appear won't. Though as for Apple freely mentioning about it, show me a 'I'm a PC, I'm a Mac' that states it openly, and not in some of the more finer print like most company's do to 'publicly' hide information. Your one link is for developers (not a general public location), the other one looks like you have to know about BSD to learn about BSD.
And will Apple pay Xerox for inventing Graphical User Interfaces? Will they pay Nokia for developing cell phones and smart phones for years? Hypocrisy is the one of the most despicable traits imaginable. This lawsuit has that coming out of it's ears.
And as far is hugely innovative... I guessed the form factor in 2006. If I had a company built on the technology developed by others, maybe I could be the one running around like a greedy bitch pretending that I did it all on my own.
That doesn't take into consideration that all of their devices run on a form of OSX ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osx ) which is made from BSD (made by University of California, Berkeley http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bsd ) and Mach Kernal (made by Carnegie Mellon University http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach_kernel ). Just because it was freely available doesn't make it theirs. They stood on giants and made it appear if it was their own, only geeks know that OSX is a mostly a cut-n-paste job, the public thinks its unique programming on Apples part. And while OSX was made from bits of Nextstep, Nextstep was made from the Mach Kernel.
You might want to. She runs the risk of DNA discrimination. Just because it's illegal, doesn't mean it won't happen. Sometimes its very hard to claim you've been discriminated against in job hunting since it's illegal most work sites will hire the bare minimum to avoid a case. Think of how many restaurants are filled with women waitresses verse men. Sure there are a few guys but it's just enough to get legally by and its very normal to have a ratio of 4 to 1 of women to men. It's not a fluke that happens, and DNA testing can take the same route. If it were to ever go to court, the business would just go "Look, this is a worker we have that has the same issue, we didn't discriminate" and then its case over. I've seen and heard men seeking these jobs and being told that the place wasn't hiring but 2 minutes later a woman gets the job right then and there because she was a pretty woman and the man really was being discriminated against. But since the place had a few men, it wasn't possible to file it in court.
The digital letdown was when many of the top ideas generated by the process were to legalize marijuana
Or maybe that's because it's a worthwhile and viable policy objective.
I agree with you there. Marijuana (to my knowledge) was the last natural (as opposed to synthetics and chemical) 'mind altering' substance. Cocaine was outlawed in 1914 with the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act, Opium was made illegal in 1905, alcohol was illegal in 1920 (Prohibition). Marijuana on the other hand was made illegal in 1937 with the Marihuana Tax Act, and while it was a tax the government wouldn't accept the money effectively making it illegal. It was also followed with the Uniform State Narcotic Act
It was also made illegal for the wrong reasons, with massive help from Harry Anslinger. Some of the reasons where financial gains, as people like Harry Anslinger's wife's family, the Mellon family who owned Mellon Financial Corporation. The Mellon Financial Corporation had invested in DuPont who had synthetic products that competed against hemp, amongst others, and that helped since hemp and marijuana aren't very different (they are, but not like and apple to an orange). Another reason was racism, and Harry Anslinger was also a virulent racist, and at the time spun marijuana to be considered a 'color man's' drug, noted of being used by black jazz players and Mexican immigrants (while I'm aware it was not limited to certain people, it was how it was spun at the time). It was also had the use of very distorted 'facts' to help, one of them being the story in Scientific America in March of 1936 ( http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/history/menaces_youth.htm ) that stated when marijuana was 'combined with intoxicants, it often makes the smoker vicious, with a desire to fight and kill'. It was also seen as a stepping stone in Harry Anslinger's future when he entered the Federal Bureau of Narcotics to outlaw it. These are of course just some of the reasons.
That way, when sales of Assassin's Creed 2 are pathetically low and there are no cracks available, then Ubisoft must be forced to accept that poor sales are due to poor products, not "piracy". Hopefully the movie, music and games industries will learn from Ubisoft's impending demise.
It will be cracked. All DRM is cracked. It just takes time. And this one seems to be taking a little longer then usual. Does this mean it's uncrackable? No, it just means its different, a more radically different then typical DRM. This has been seen before and the problem with this type of difference in DRM is it only works once. Its like CSS in DVD"s and hardware checks with Windows and Adobe products. Sure when they first showed up it took a little longer then usual to crack since it was a completely new level of DRM. But in the end, it is done. And when it is done, it never takes nearly as long to crack when that same style of DRM comes around again.
Granted, even though DRM comes in some radical styles, so do some cracks. Old cartridge games needed a re-flasher to re-write the game cartridge to bypass the DRM. Sony's PSP originally needed a 'Pandora's Battery' to bypass it's DRM. Modchips we're needed in the newer systems requiring at first and still most of the time a little soldering work. And even the Gamecube, with it's specially made 'cd' discs that spun backwards needed a fun answer (it took a bought copy of Phantasy Star Episode 1 + 2 and the broadband adaptor to make it call 'home' to a program on your computer.) Dreamcast had 1 gig cd discs that, while it didn't have DRM in theory, the discs were unreadable... until someone figured out how to make the Dreamcast think it was an external cd drive and used it to read and copy it's own discs. As DRM has gotten creative, so have the crackers that bypass it, like a puzzle game each time with some interesting answers. (I do realize that these are all consoles, they are more fun answers to DRM then 'download crack and replace file'.) As for a non-console issue, for a small time some music cd's had if I remember, 'crash code' on I think the outer ring of the cd to crash a computer if it tried to read it which worked... until someone figured out to use a Sharpie marker to make a line around the cd preventing the computer from seeing that DRM.
In short, you've made everything up and when its shown to you in black and white, you lie and divert attention. I show facts, you make more things up. You have a very poor understanding of facts or are too lazy and hope to hide behind 'Google it'. You want age, thats a childs answer 'I don't wanna, you do it.' Like some spoiled child
You mention that somehow free is open. Free isn't open. Free means you don't pay. Open means you can tinker with it.
You stated "1. The MBP most likely has a better screen (color, contrast, etc.)" I said prove it and you acted dumb and couldn't figure out what to prove. Prove that the MBP screen is better. I mentioned that the Alienwares comparison was using an i7, you keep mis-reading it as an i3 to divert attention. You wanted to compare the Core2, even though it was pointed out that Apple sells a Core2Duo. You insist on hide truth and diverting attention. You claim that somehow Apple builds a better screen, you have no proof but the BS you keep spouting. Facts is what shows the truth from lies.
You say "Citation? Don't act like everything you post is backed up by facts but everything anyone else posts is mere conjecture." about paying more for the Apple, both of my comparisons are your citations, from the company's mouth. Again, facts disprove BS. Click the links to see, don't shoot your mouth off.
You don't need to use wikipedia, but stating BS and refusing to show a single scrap of proof shows you as unable to understand truth. I used more then wikipedia, I used Apple and Dell, I used SquareTrade. Showing sources like Wikipedia with facts doesn't make me dumber, it makes you dumber by still refusing to prove anything and just keep going 'Well I say X... because I can".
You ask " if there's anything specific you'd like me to clarify, or cite for you, do ask" Ok. In simple, 5 year old understandable english. Show a fact, a single fact, stop making BS claims and show a single fact. Maybe explain where you get these ideas that Apple builds these magical high quality systems, that I showed you from more FACTS from www.squaretrade.com that they aren't the highest quality built. These FACTS disprove your BS claim of "a PC... with a crappier screen, worse trackpad, abysmal battery life, and of lesser sturdiness, etc". Your posts just show you have been drinking WAY too much kool-aid and need to stop watching pretty commercials and need to look at facts and truth and not what some company's pays for you to believe.
TO start with, USB was developed by Microsoft amongst other company's according to Wikipedia, ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Serial_Bus ) so I'm not believing that they led the charge of it.
Apple replaced their own external bus (ADB) with USB with the 1998 introduction of the iMac. At that time, USB was extremely uncommon on PCs.
And you can prove this? Or am I to believe everything you say to be true regardless?As with all your posts, you've just bluntly stated a bunch of random 'facts' you can't prove or refuse to prove and expect others to disprove because truth is too hard for a fanboi to accept.
As for your other 'facts', they would take a lot of effort to figure out the truth, and with you blunt mis-understanding of USB alone makes me lean towards you talking whatever you feel without wanting/needing facts. You have purposely made your 'facts' as vague and old as you can to make disproving them either too hard or impossible. This doesn't make your right, it just shows you wish to blur facts from fiction.
In other words, your ignorance is so vast, that you don't feel the need to replace it with actual knowledge?
Or I was pressed for time with a bad internet. As I stated above, you've chosen vague 'facts'. I call BS. Prove me wrong. I've already with USB since it's not Apples tech (it was made in part with Microsoft, amongst Intel, Compaq (another competitor since they make PCs), Sony (another PC maker), Digital Equipment Corporation, IBM (yet another PC maker) and Northern Telecom). And I doubt a company will 'lead the charge' by pressing their immediate competition since FireWire was made by Apple in 1995 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FireWire ) and USB was made in 1996 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB ) This would be corperate suicide, and a massive waste of their own money and R&D. And as you so nicely put it as "My ignorance is so vast, that I don't feel the need to replace it with actual knowledge?" I am showing knowledge and facts to prove it. Your turn.
Mini DisplayPort are Apple tech, so thats more of a 'force upon' then leading edge ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mini_Display_Port ) Similar to how a lot of Sony products use a Memory Stick. Its not forward thinking, its forward 'pushing'.
Mini displayport is an open standard. Memory Stick is closed. But the point isn't that MDP, or any of the other features I mentioned in that paragraph are something that I expect to be common on other computers, but that these are things that Apple is doing to move their own technology forward, which is anything but being on the trailing edge.
No, Mini Displayport is not an open standard, again you are not paying attention to facts over your fiction. Its a FREE standard, not an OPEN standard. These are 2 different things, as mentioned on Wikipedia "On November 27, 2008, Apple announced that it would license the Mini DisplayPort connector with no fee.[5] Apple reserves the right to void the license if the licensee does "commence an action for patent infringement against Apple" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mini_displayport ). Now it did become a standard in DisplayPort 1.2 specification last year, it never went open. Still just free.
Saving more then $700 for a faster laptop over the Apple... I don't see how your last claim works... But please keep insisting it does:)
A few things to note:
1. The MBP most likely has a better screen (color, contrast, etc.), is thinner and lighter, has FireWire 800, h
Slashdot Mirror
Especially when you consider the number of people who constantly move their mouths and say nothing.
More fun when you think of the things people mutter only to have the said out loud for you now. 'Stupid son of a... WAIT I didn't mean for it to say that'
Read my lips
Now get off my lawn
Wouldn't this be similar to 'offering a function alreday available' a la iTunes movie rentals?
iTunes movie rentals are on-device downloaded content. Netflix would be streaming, just like the Pandora app streams music just fine. Since they allow one I don't see why they would ban the other.
It would probably eliminate offline caching though, which would be a shame for plane travel. We'll see (if they do it).
Thing is, Pandora is a radio-style app ( http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/pandora-radio/id284035177?mt=8 ). You can't just select which songs you want, you can only pick a 'station' that suits your tastes. With such randomness and inability to replay a chosen song its more likely to make a sale like traditional radio then anything. Plus it's free so doesn't take away any possible profits. Netflix on the other hand does let people chose which movies exactly and wouldn't be free thus would take money away from Apple.
With what was mentioned that Apple has a much larger and up to date selection then Netflix (I don't use either one so can't speak for sure), I don't see why they would want to trade their first party solution for a lower grade third party solution.
Wouldn't this be similar to 'offering a function alreday available' a la iTunes movie rentals? While it would stream where the iTunes won't, it still will directly compete against Apple's iTune movie rentals.
it doesn't even need to be broken, if linux were the dominant os im sure a large percentage of the userbase would run 'sudo ./porndownload' if the website said to do so.
I don't think you give the public enough credit now since you could also have a website that could say "Open Command Prompt Window. Now type 'format c:. Press Enter button and then press 'Y'" and I doubt most people would bother.
Compare that to a Windows machine connected to the Internet without some sort of protection--it can become infected without the user doing anything at all.
These problems do in fact happen. They use third party issues like the Flash bug patched only a month and a half ago ( http://apple.slashdot.org/story/10/01/20/217257/Apple-Patches-Massive-Holes-In-OS-X?art_pos=6 ) where all you had to do was surf onto the infected site. This is an issue since all Mac's are pre-installed with Flash, and the patch had been available for weeks on the official Flash site before Apple bothered to include it into an 'official' patch. The typical end user doesn't want to have to look for fixes beyond the update program. And as long as things like this happen, they will have issues and problems of their own.
It's just such a small market and thus has the least amount of malware and other such worries. Also why I said MAYBE Linux, because I know there is no such thing as a perfectly secure OS. It can always be broken.
Maybe Linux, but not Mac. Mac has it's own malware, while small it's still there and growing as Mac is growing. Mac even has it's own botnet ( http://theappleblog.com/2009/04/24/mac-botnet-how-to-ensure-you-are-not-part-of-the-problem/ )
I'm also talking about a fundamental change to the OS in a much larger way than the change to the NT kernel - there are substantial portions of Windows that have not changed, and are the poorer for it (hence all the holes - some of this stuff was written before we even knew what computer security was, and is either hard to secure or just not really built to be locked up).
Age doesn't make something more insecure. BSD is from 1977, much older then MS in general. And while there are security holes found in Windows, things like security holes are found in every OS. Just which one is the most popular are the ones that tend to be examined and found more often.
I also remember using W2K, which used the NT kernel - I believe I got this via my university though, not sure if it was ever available to consumers.
Technically it was available to the public, but it wasn't really sold like one on most PC's. It was usually found on business designed laptops.
I am also interested that you think using BSD code is "resorting to other's works" like it's some sort of cop out. Like I said before, there is substantial back-play into the OSS community, and the decision to base OS X on Unix has meant that is is remarkably more compatible with a lot of software than it would have been otherwise.
I don't feel is a cop out as more of a bad reflection of ones faith in their own company, since they did have a self-made product that they had been working on for 17 years. Its not like Apple started square one with Unix, if they did then I would have a completely different feeling for this. Apple has a long history for itself and dropping all of it's history and work that they did to use what is technically a rival's work (these were 2 different and thus competing, if indirectly, OS's) just doesn't feel right nor a good sign of how you feel your own company can preform it's core tasks that it models its business upon.
In the case of Apple, I would hope to use their own 'lovely, mature' OS they wrote from scratch in 1984 to power their original machines, like Microsoft. Not drop all of their own work and use someone else's 17 years later. Think of the uproar if Microsoft did this.
Microsoft DOES also do this. Take a look at this article:
Now, some of Spider's code (possibly all of it) was based on the TCP/IP stack in the BSD flavors of Unix. These are open source, but distributed under the BSD license, not the GPL that Linux is released under. Whereas the GPL states that any software derived from GPL'ed software must also be released under the GPL, the BSD license basically says, "here's the source, you can do whatever you want, just give credit to the original author."
Eventually the new, from scratch TCP/IP stack was done and shipped with NT 3.5 (the second version, despite the number) in late 1994. The same stack was also included with Windows 95.
However, it looks like some of those Unix utilities were never rewritten. If you look at the executables, you can still see the copyright notice from the regents of the University of California (BSD is short for Berkeley Software Distrubution, Berkeley being a branch of the University of California, for some reason referred to as "Berkeley" on the East Coast and "California" on the West Coast...and "Berkeley" is one of those words that starts to look real funny if you stare at it too long - but I digress).
Keep in mind there is no reason to rewrite that code. If your ftp client works fine (no comments from the peanut gallery!) then why change it? Microsoft has other fish to fry. And the software was licensed perfectly legally, since the inclusion of the copyright notice satisfied the BSD license.
Microsoft doesn't advertise it but they have freely used BSD code in the past. They did NOT write all of their own code from scratch. In the end it really doesn't matter who wrote the code, so long as it's being used properly according to the license. The BSD code is released under and open license that allows you to do just about anything you want with it so there's very little trouble there.
Spider isn't Microsoft's flagship product being sold to consumers. Spider is a (if I'm reading the article correctly) is to handle TCP/IP stacks, not run the entire core. You could remove Spider from Windows and it would still function (sans TCP/IP, but would in all effects still run.) Same can't be said for OSX and BSD/Mach Kernel. A part isn't comparable to a whole product
I have seen comments on /. before about how MS really needs to do what Apple did and just start fresh with Windows and stop patching on top of patches - citing security and the age and complexity of the code as a problem. Whether that's the right thing to do is another matter, but it's not as cut and dried as you make out.
But Microsoft did do this. They started with MS-DOS and gradually moved into Windows. Windows did in the beginning run on top of DOS but as time passed, it was becoming more apparent that this was not going to be a perfect solution. Windows ME was the last OS they made that used DOS as it's core. Then they ditched it in favor of their own, in-house programmed NT Kernel. Windows XP (the first consumer based OS to run NT) was completely running on NT and while it had access to DOS, it didn't run off DOS. And Windows XP was considered an amazing success as mentioned here on Slashdot since it's still the most used OS on desktop computers. And that was in 2001. A company can make it's own OS without having to resort to other's works and still make it an success, XP being the living proof.
Tell me, where would you start if you were going to create an OS? Would you write literally everything from scratch, or would you use all that lovely, mature, licence-compatible BSD code?
In the case of Apple, I would hope to use their own 'lovely, mature' OS they wrote from scratch in 1984 to power their original machines, like Microsoft. Not drop all of their own work and use someone else's 17 years later. Think of the uproar if Microsoft did this. Slashdot would be packed to hell and back with comments of how 'MS was so pathetic that they couldn't use their own code, R&D, and abilities and now use someone else's work'. But Apple did that very thing and it's hailed not as a failure on Apple's part to not use their own 17 year mature product but dropped it all for someone else's. Its hailed as major step forward.
You mean the BSD whose license deliberately lets you do anything you want with the source code, including making it entirely into your own product? The BSD that Apple freely mentions in its own literature? At no point does Apple claim that BSD is theirs, they rightfully say that they developed Mac OS X and Darwin on top of BSD and Mach.
I never said that they claimed it was their's, just made it appear. Two different things. Claiming can get you in court, the making it appear won't. Though as for Apple freely mentioning about it, show me a 'I'm a PC, I'm a Mac' that states it openly, and not in some of the more finer print like most company's do to 'publicly' hide information. Your one link is for developers (not a general public location), the other one looks like you have to know about BSD to learn about BSD.
Apple sort of deserves to profit from their R&D
And will Apple pay Xerox for inventing Graphical User Interfaces? Will they pay Nokia for developing cell phones and smart phones for years? Hypocrisy is the one of the most despicable traits imaginable. This lawsuit has that coming out of it's ears.
And as far is hugely innovative... I guessed the form factor in 2006. If I had a company built on the technology developed by others, maybe I could be the one running around like a greedy bitch pretending that I did it all on my own.
http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=193127&cid=15847027
That doesn't take into consideration that all of their devices run on a form of OSX ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osx ) which is made from BSD (made by University of California, Berkeley http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bsd ) and Mach Kernal (made by Carnegie Mellon University http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach_kernel ). Just because it was freely available doesn't make it theirs. They stood on giants and made it appear if it was their own, only geeks know that OSX is a mostly a cut-n-paste job, the public thinks its unique programming on Apples part. And while OSX was made from bits of Nextstep, Nextstep was made from the Mach Kernel.
You might want to. She runs the risk of DNA discrimination. Just because it's illegal, doesn't mean it won't happen. Sometimes its very hard to claim you've been discriminated against in job hunting since it's illegal most work sites will hire the bare minimum to avoid a case. Think of how many restaurants are filled with women waitresses verse men. Sure there are a few guys but it's just enough to get legally by and its very normal to have a ratio of 4 to 1 of women to men. It's not a fluke that happens, and DNA testing can take the same route. If it were to ever go to court, the business would just go "Look, this is a worker we have that has the same issue, we didn't discriminate" and then its case over. I've seen and heard men seeking these jobs and being told that the place wasn't hiring but 2 minutes later a woman gets the job right then and there because she was a pretty woman and the man really was being discriminated against. But since the place had a few men, it wasn't possible to file it in court.
Another possible issue is a false 'positive' in a criminal charge that could destroy her life in a DNA profiling case. This issue was mentioned here on slashdot only 2 months ago ( http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/01/09/1321219/Scientists-and-Lawyers-Argue-For-Open-US-DNA-Database?art_pos=8 ). While this might seem like an unlikely thing to happen, the reality is it can and does happen.
The digital letdown was when many of the top ideas generated by the process were to legalize marijuana
Or maybe that's because it's a worthwhile and viable policy objective.
I agree with you there. Marijuana (to my knowledge) was the last natural (as opposed to synthetics and chemical) 'mind altering' substance. Cocaine was outlawed in 1914 with the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act, Opium was made illegal in 1905, alcohol was illegal in 1920 (Prohibition). Marijuana on the other hand was made illegal in 1937 with the Marihuana Tax Act, and while it was a tax the government wouldn't accept the money effectively making it illegal. It was also followed with the Uniform State Narcotic Act
It was also made illegal for the wrong reasons, with massive help from Harry Anslinger. Some of the reasons where financial gains, as people like Harry Anslinger's wife's family, the Mellon family who owned Mellon Financial Corporation. The Mellon Financial Corporation had invested in DuPont who had synthetic products that competed against hemp, amongst others, and that helped since hemp and marijuana aren't very different (they are, but not like and apple to an orange). Another reason was racism, and Harry Anslinger was also a virulent racist, and at the time spun marijuana to be considered a 'color man's' drug, noted of being used by black jazz players and Mexican immigrants (while I'm aware it was not limited to certain people, it was how it was spun at the time). It was also had the use of very distorted 'facts' to help, one of them being the story in Scientific America in March of 1936 ( http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/history/menaces_youth.htm ) that stated when marijuana was 'combined with intoxicants, it often makes the smoker vicious, with a desire to fight and kill'. It was also seen as a stepping stone in Harry Anslinger's future when he entered the Federal Bureau of Narcotics to outlaw it. These are of course just some of the reasons.
Assume Good Faith!
I have candy. Get in the van.
Ehhhhhh.... in the words of Ogden Nash 'Candy is dandy, but liquor is quicker'.
That way, when sales of Assassin's Creed 2 are pathetically low and there are no cracks available, then Ubisoft must be forced to accept that poor sales are due to poor products, not "piracy". Hopefully the movie, music and games industries will learn from Ubisoft's impending demise.
It will be cracked. All DRM is cracked. It just takes time. And this one seems to be taking a little longer then usual. Does this mean it's uncrackable? No, it just means its different, a more radically different then typical DRM. This has been seen before and the problem with this type of difference in DRM is it only works once. Its like CSS in DVD"s and hardware checks with Windows and Adobe products. Sure when they first showed up it took a little longer then usual to crack since it was a completely new level of DRM. But in the end, it is done. And when it is done, it never takes nearly as long to crack when that same style of DRM comes around again.
Granted, even though DRM comes in some radical styles, so do some cracks. Old cartridge games needed a re-flasher to re-write the game cartridge to bypass the DRM. Sony's PSP originally needed a 'Pandora's Battery' to bypass it's DRM. Modchips we're needed in the newer systems requiring at first and still most of the time a little soldering work. And even the Gamecube, with it's specially made 'cd' discs that spun backwards needed a fun answer (it took a bought copy of Phantasy Star Episode 1 + 2 and the broadband adaptor to make it call 'home' to a program on your computer.) Dreamcast had 1 gig cd discs that, while it didn't have DRM in theory, the discs were unreadable... until someone figured out how to make the Dreamcast think it was an external cd drive and used it to read and copy it's own discs. As DRM has gotten creative, so have the crackers that bypass it, like a puzzle game each time with some interesting answers. (I do realize that these are all consoles, they are more fun answers to DRM then 'download crack and replace file'.) As for a non-console issue, for a small time some music cd's had if I remember, 'crash code' on I think the outer ring of the cd to crash a computer if it tried to read it which worked... until someone figured out to use a Sharpie marker to make a line around the cd preventing the computer from seeing that DRM.
They're basically trying to prevent "hidden" p2p software.
Like trojans and botnets?
Ubuntu installs a Bittorrent client by default.
So does World of Warcraft. They use it to help with patches.
Like this can be viewed as discriminatory against sufferers of Tourettes.
Does remind me of that one joke saying "If you don't believe in what I believe, and you deny Gosh then you'll be Darned to Heck".
In short, you've made everything up and when its shown to you in black and white, you lie and divert attention. I show facts, you make more things up. You have a very poor understanding of facts or are too lazy and hope to hide behind 'Google it'. You want age, thats a childs answer 'I don't wanna, you do it.' Like some spoiled child
You mention that somehow free is open. Free isn't open. Free means you don't pay. Open means you can tinker with it.
You stated "1. The MBP most likely has a better screen (color, contrast, etc.)" I said prove it and you acted dumb and couldn't figure out what to prove. Prove that the MBP screen is better. I mentioned that the Alienwares comparison was using an i7, you keep mis-reading it as an i3 to divert attention. You wanted to compare the Core2, even though it was pointed out that Apple sells a Core2Duo. You insist on hide truth and diverting attention. You claim that somehow Apple builds a better screen, you have no proof but the BS you keep spouting. Facts is what shows the truth from lies.
You say "Citation? Don't act like everything you post is backed up by facts but everything anyone else posts is mere conjecture." about paying more for the Apple, both of my comparisons are your citations, from the company's mouth. Again, facts disprove BS. Click the links to see, don't shoot your mouth off.
You don't need to use wikipedia, but stating BS and refusing to show a single scrap of proof shows you as unable to understand truth. I used more then wikipedia, I used Apple and Dell, I used SquareTrade. Showing sources like Wikipedia with facts doesn't make me dumber, it makes you dumber by still refusing to prove anything and just keep going 'Well I say X... because I can".
You ask " if there's anything specific you'd like me to clarify, or cite for you, do ask" Ok. In simple, 5 year old understandable english. Show a fact, a single fact, stop making BS claims and show a single fact. Maybe explain where you get these ideas that Apple builds these magical high quality systems, that I showed you from more FACTS from www.squaretrade.com that they aren't the highest quality built. These FACTS disprove your BS claim of "a PC... with a crappier screen, worse trackpad, abysmal battery life, and of lesser sturdiness, etc". Your posts just show you have been drinking WAY too much kool-aid and need to stop watching pretty commercials and need to look at facts and truth and not what some company's pays for you to believe.
TO start with, USB was developed by Microsoft amongst other company's according to Wikipedia, ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Serial_Bus ) so I'm not believing that they led the charge of it.
Apple replaced their own external bus (ADB) with USB with the 1998 introduction of the iMac. At that time, USB was extremely uncommon on PCs.
And you can prove this? Or am I to believe everything you say to be true regardless?As with all your posts, you've just bluntly stated a bunch of random 'facts' you can't prove or refuse to prove and expect others to disprove because truth is too hard for a fanboi to accept.
As for your other 'facts', they would take a lot of effort to figure out the truth, and with you blunt mis-understanding of USB alone makes me lean towards you talking whatever you feel without wanting/needing facts. You have purposely made your 'facts' as vague and old as you can to make disproving them either too hard or impossible. This doesn't make your right, it just shows you wish to blur facts from fiction.
In other words, your ignorance is so vast, that you don't feel the need to replace it with actual knowledge?
Or I was pressed for time with a bad internet. As I stated above, you've chosen vague 'facts'. I call BS. Prove me wrong. I've already with USB since it's not Apples tech (it was made in part with Microsoft, amongst Intel, Compaq (another competitor since they make PCs), Sony (another PC maker), Digital Equipment Corporation, IBM (yet another PC maker) and Northern Telecom). And I doubt a company will 'lead the charge' by pressing their immediate competition since FireWire was made by Apple in 1995 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FireWire ) and USB was made in 1996 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB ) This would be corperate suicide, and a massive waste of their own money and R&D. And as you so nicely put it as "My ignorance is so vast, that I don't feel the need to replace it with actual knowledge?" I am showing knowledge and facts to prove it. Your turn.
Mini DisplayPort are Apple tech, so thats more of a 'force upon' then leading edge ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mini_Display_Port ) Similar to how a lot of Sony products use a Memory Stick. Its not forward thinking, its forward 'pushing'.
Mini displayport is an open standard. Memory Stick is closed. But the point isn't that MDP, or any of the other features I mentioned in that paragraph are something that I expect to be common on other computers, but that these are things that Apple is doing to move their own technology forward, which is anything but being on the trailing edge.
No, Mini Displayport is not an open standard, again you are not paying attention to facts over your fiction. Its a FREE standard, not an OPEN standard. These are 2 different things, as mentioned on Wikipedia "On November 27, 2008, Apple announced that it would license the Mini DisplayPort connector with no fee.[5] Apple reserves the right to void the license if the licensee does "commence an action for patent infringement against Apple" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mini_displayport ). Now it did become a standard in DisplayPort 1.2 specification last year, it never went open. Still just free.
Saving more then $700 for a faster laptop over the Apple... I don't see how your last claim works... But please keep insisting it does :)
A few things to note:
1. The MBP most likely has a better screen (color, contrast, etc.), is thinner and lighter, has FireWire 800, h