Just the opposite: they should make their product on Windows work so well that it's easier to use it than Metro. If they do this, Metro will die on the vine.
That indeed appears to be their current strategy, but I'm not so sure it'll work. The point of my post was that I'm not sure at all that Adobe can win this solely through having a better product--Microsoft has lots of products that won not because they were better, but because they were everywhere.
Adobe tools might be better, but whoops! LH's IE won't allow you to open inline PDFs, but will open in-line Metro docs. Personally, I hate inline PDFs, but I see that lots of folks clamor for this feature; so guess what kind of documents will be published by websites? There will be little that Adobe could do to enable this feature if MSFT chose to break it, regardless of how nice their PDF tools are.
As an Apple defender, let me say this: Jobs is a bastard. I wouldn't work for him, and I'm surprised that people still do. I guess the smart ones don't.
However, that doesn't prevent me from liking their products, or even the ethos of the company as a whole. And, it's pretty apparent that laregly due to Job's personality, he was able to bring Apple back from the brink of disaster. It's just too bad that he is an asshole.
What is with Microsoft and their Not Invented Here attitude ?
Seriously? Because then they don't own it. And they'd rather own than lease; so that they can, in turn, lease the product or technology back to the consumer. What technology is better is really of tertiary consideration. Since they have their monopoly, they'll install Metro tools on every shipping system, making it the defacto standard for LH users. Office users on the LH OS will find that they can seamlessly print and edit Metro docs, whereas they have to buy PDF tools/converters/importers from someone else.
Once LH achieves more penetration, the Metro format will be the standard, and then there is one less reason to give Adobe money instead of Microsoft. You'll be submitting your resume in Metro format in 10 years.
The only mystery is why Adobe continues to support the Windows platform. They should counter attack, by making their products rock on alternative platforms like OS X and Linux, and be late and sucky on Windows. Instead, however, it seems like they are "focusing their efforts" by striving for quality on Windows and neglecting the Windows competitors. It's a "compete with quality" strategy that would work in a normal universe, but this is a universe that Microsoft owns: which means quality is trumped.
Adobe would do better in the long run to attempt to break the Microsoft monopoly, and encourage a cosmology of OSes--then you would really depend on the cross-platform tools that Adobe can deliver. That's a long term strategy, however, and requires more vision than I think your typical MBA can muster.
Kaylee is there. I had to scrub the video to see her, but she's indeed in there in a few spots. And the actress (Jewel Staite) has maintained a public blog that indicates a strong interest in the film, as well as mentioning time she spent shooting it, so I don't think there's much fear of her being left out.
But, and this was true in the series as well, her character doesn't participate in "crime" very much, so when much of the action is off ship, she doesn't get a lot of screen time. "Shindig" to be excepted, of course.
Wash is there too--he has some lines and is in a few scenes. I think the one that we're missing is Book--hopefully he'll come back for later movies (or, hope against hope, the Renewed TV Series.)
Rumor is, that Book has only a very small role in the movie. Not all of the orginal cast could be gathered together; frankly, we're lucky we got as many as we did.
Although there was some doubt precisely which character wasn't back for much, there was little doubt that one of the actors couldn't be signed--Joss was just vague about which one. But the preview (and other speculation) sure makes it look like it's Book.
Better him that Inara, I guess;) Hopefully we get more of that backstory in Eps 2 and 3, for which apparently there is strong interest by Universal.
Mind you, I don't know if the people removed were quite at that point but it's not hard to imagine.
The word for that is: straw man fallacy. You indict these telco members because others of their extended association are extremists? I guess you must be some wacko living in a Montana cave because I knew a libertarian like that, you said you're a libertarians, and therefore you are just as wacko as they.
Conservatism is all about the individual. Conservatives want to protect the individual from oppressive taxation and government regulation.
Baloney. Conservatives are defined by the desire to regulate my individual, specifically who I can sleep with, how I chose to sleep with them, what I chose to do with the consequences of sleeping with someone, and regulating how and when I chose to die.
I wouldn't mind so much if the conservatives would keep their God to themselves, but they keep trying to foist it upon me, like it or not; and I understand, as they're just trying to save me. Well, stop.
If conservatives would truly get the hell out of my bedroom and drs. office, i would be a lot more sympathetic to the fiscal issues that they raise.
Do you really think you can foster a successful violent revolution with hunting rifles?
Ask the Afghanis. There are differences, sure, chiefly that they had the backing of a major power for aid and support, whereas a US insurrection would have no such obvious friends. Well, except for potentially China, the OPEC powers, or the EU...wait.
You do realize that the Iraqi insurgents took out one of our Abrams, right? And, btw, do you see them using many cruise missiles and/or nukes in Iraq/Afaghanistan/Vietnam/Korea/S. America/etc? There's a reason they don't get used, and I think they'd be pretty hard to use against your own civilian population.
That's funny: I guess Jefferson couldn't work in a job in our government that required clearance. "Have you ever advocated for the violent overthrow of the government?"
Seriously, as I live and work in DC, and I pine for a job that would give me clearance, I avoid expressing such sentiment so I can answer truthfully on the lie detector test. Think they'd buy it if I explained that I was simply following Jeffersonian ideals?
And btw, I agree. I think it's pretty clear that's what the founding fathers intended. And Jefferson would be horrified that we've let our government trump state's rights, and encroach on the rights of the citizen. Maybe there's a Jefferson out there right now?
This tool then is cutting out the Mac and Linux users from their tracked demographic; together those users represent about 5-10% of the market. And they represent many early adopters of tech, too.
I would think that the use of a tool of this kind would be enough to skew their information, causing any results to be not credible. I certainly wouldn't use them to research products that I would sell, as I would want to be able to target Mac and Linux users as well.
Along those lines, my first thought was: I hope they hire me; then, at first chance I get, I'll ass-rape their Intellectual Property (or, more likely, their customers) to any portable drive and take that ferry to the shore. And sell it to the highest bidder.
It's not as if this ship will be a signatory to the Berne Treaty, or really be able to expect the protection of any country's laws. They are doing this to get around the barriers of some laws, yet they don't think their employees will have the same idea? Didn't these guys hear about the Social Contract: some prohibitions you may find onerous, but others are for your own protection. Forgo the former at the risk of the latter.
No doubt an Appleista will be along in due course to make clear the path to enlightenment.
You called?
The answer to your difficulty is obvious: follow the money. What strategic advantage does Apple gain by not publicly documenting these APIs? A corner on the windows management market? I'm sure is worth a whole lot because you can see how much Apple charges for it at the Apple Store. Oh, wait, you can't, cause there is no such separate competing product that Apple profits by leveraging their OS.
vs. Windows, where, let's see, they made a substantial amount of their $50 Billion on by selling Office--which required that they kill their competition in Office applications.
"But what of IE?", I hear you plaintively cry. "Doesn't Microsoft give that away for free?" Certainly. But their clear strategy was to use the product to own the web, and IE was the platform to do it.
When Apple sells a virtual desktop management tool, besides the OS, and doesn't document the APIs, you'd have an argument. For example, I imagine QT has access to things that WMP doesn't, but proving that is an exercise for the reader. As it is, you're just trolling. Speaking of simplistic arguments.
Interesting...you're saying that, lo and behold, the "leftie ecogroup" was actually right in saying that clear cutting was bad all along?
You think that's just some coincidence, or maybe that they actually know what they're talking about?
You don't clearly state it, so I won't accuse; but your tone is coming close to saying "Weyerhauser invented non-homogenous tree planting and has moved away from clear cutting because they learned it was bad for the land. Coincidentally, 'leftie greenies' have been saying the same thing for 40 years, but it's just luck that they had it right this time."
You think W would have ever even considered this strategy if it wasn't for the education and research that leftie greenie organizations and PhDs have done?
Did you see the system requirements for FC Studio if you want to work with HDV or HD DVD?
It's not my business, so I didn't look that closely, but that's a nice point. Mac OS Rumors has been muttering about using a Cell-based co-processor for HD video tasks; I wonder if that's how Apple hopes to get HD FCP and friends working on a PowerBook.
Inclusion of a Cell co-processor, on the surface, seems like a useful thing to do, and not only for FCP--I would think, if it was handled correctly, that the Mac would no longer be in the gaming basement. And frankly that means more to me, personally. I'm not smart enough to know if the inclusion of the Cell is more fantasy or really possible, the fact that IBM makes it regardless.
You're not getting a G5 PowerBook by June. Have you seen the heatsinks in the G5 towers? We'll need new CPUs with smaller dies before that will happen, and those are still at the rumor stage. And, btw, why? As was discussed when Tiger was announced, what does a 970 get you? You won't use 64bit in a portable, as there aren't enough ram slots anyways. You'd be happier with a dual core "Freescale" G4--and those might happen a lot sooner.
You can configure an Apple Xserve this way, with either one or two CPUs. Not an AMD board, but it is 64bit, and you can still put Linux on it if you like.
$14,599--One CPU, 80GB HD, CD-RW, no video support, but 16GB of RAM and an unlimited user Server OS. You can do better if you purchase through the Education or Government channels, and you can do better if you purchase the 2GB DIMMs elsewhere.
Although I actually couldn't find 2GB DIMMs at the popular aftermarket places, but they are now available from Apple direct (just be sure to get the Xserve with at least one 2GB DIMM, to be sure it has support for 2GB DIMMs on the MLB).
That's an interesting point, and I guess helps to explain why PC games that are ported to the Mac don't take advantage of the second CPU, usually--too much work would need to be done to make the Mac port multi-threaded.
So my question is: if multi-threaded coding of games for the PC market becomes more popular, are we going to see Mac ports of those games get faster also? That would be a big boon--there's lots more dual CPU using Mac gamers than there are (or will be for some time) dual CPU using PC gamers.
Any switch will do, so long as it runs the Cisco IOS--because that's what our support is trained and experienced with; and if we can get Cisco to support it--because we have used Cisco support, and they are reliable, fast, and knowledgeable.
That's the spec; any switch that meets those requirements will do. So it goes.
Kinda like Sherlock. The only useful feature of it, for me, is the Movie Showtimes--saves me from having to dig through the paper, plus I get a preview. But the once every two months that I consider going to a movie are the ONLY times Sherlock gets used. Especially since the Sherlocker site shut down; I don't know of anyone trying to extend Sherlock anymore. Which means we're left with the Find Flights etc
Really, why use this stuff when it's just a link away? Does anyone find it easier to launch Sherlock and type their google search into Sherlock, or to just go to google directly with the browser that they already likely have open? Same for Dictionary.com. To sum: what makes the movie button useful is that it's an aggregator of several sites; but most of the buttons simply replicate an existing site. We need more aggregators, and less purely redundant buttons.
we want code that runs on unix, not code that runs on linux, and students will matriculate hopefully with a broader sense of what that can mean with more opportunities available to them.
If that's really the philosophy, then don't forget to throw some Macs into the mix. OS X Is Unix Too. Then your students can work with a different CPU architecture, also.
btw, I work with and support SunRays, and imo for thin-client they can't be beat.
The more big companies, like Microsoft, are getting screwed over by bullshit software patents... the more likely they will push for patent reform.
While I agree with this sentiment, it is more likely that any reform that happens will protect the position of big companies, but impair the ability of smaller companies to protect their patents.
For instance, Microsoft could well lobby for "loser pays litigation costs" when patents are litigated. Such legislation would reward the big companies with large war chests, and make it hard for smaller companies to prosecute their cases.
Be careful of what you wish for, is all that I'm saying.
You should outsource to the US, where there are legal protections for IP. My understanding is that in India, there are none, or very few; so the only way to protect yourself is to restrict physical and logical connections to the work computer, since you can't prosecute after the theft has been accomplished.
And, as other posts have made clear, that's not possible against someone willing to breach security. Just ask the CIA.
How much would you bet that Microsoft would prefer if people got pirate versions of Windows "Less-Crippled Edition" instead of trying, say, Linux?
In fact, Gates has said exactly that, in an interview that I read with my own eyes--I think it was around '99 or so. Unfortunately, I can't find it now.
The theory is simple--if you can get folks to pirate Windows, the "oxygen supply" of support and developers for other systems goes away. Once the competition has cleared the field, Microsoft is then free to put a technical end to the piracy, and raise the prices; and there are no options left but to pay the higher prices.
The only interesting points to this old quote: is it really ever possible to end piracy? does Microsoft believe that it has reached that end stage now, and so the time has come to stop piracy?
Slashdot Mirror
Just the opposite: they should make their product on Windows work so well that it's easier to use it than Metro. If they do this, Metro will die on the vine.
That indeed appears to be their current strategy, but I'm not so sure it'll work. The point of my post was that I'm not sure at all that Adobe can win this solely through having a better product--Microsoft has lots of products that won not because they were better, but because they were everywhere.
Adobe tools might be better, but whoops! LH's IE won't allow you to open inline PDFs, but will open in-line Metro docs. Personally, I hate inline PDFs, but I see that lots of folks clamor for this feature; so guess what kind of documents will be published by websites? There will be little that Adobe could do to enable this feature if MSFT chose to break it, regardless of how nice their PDF tools are.
That's being a scum sucking bastard.
As an Apple defender, let me say this: Jobs is a bastard. I wouldn't work for him, and I'm surprised that people still do. I guess the smart ones don't.
However, that doesn't prevent me from liking their products, or even the ethos of the company as a whole. And, it's pretty apparent that laregly due to Job's personality, he was able to bring Apple back from the brink of disaster. It's just too bad that he is an asshole.
What is with Microsoft and their Not Invented Here attitude ?
Seriously? Because then they don't own it. And they'd rather own than lease; so that they can, in turn, lease the product or technology back to the consumer. What technology is better is really of tertiary consideration. Since they have their monopoly, they'll install Metro tools on every shipping system, making it the defacto standard for LH users. Office users on the LH OS will find that they can seamlessly print and edit Metro docs, whereas they have to buy PDF tools/converters/importers from someone else.
Once LH achieves more penetration, the Metro format will be the standard, and then there is one less reason to give Adobe money instead of Microsoft. You'll be submitting your resume in Metro format in 10 years.
The only mystery is why Adobe continues to support the Windows platform. They should counter attack, by making their products rock on alternative platforms like OS X and Linux, and be late and sucky on Windows. Instead, however, it seems like they are "focusing their efforts" by striving for quality on Windows and neglecting the Windows competitors. It's a "compete with quality" strategy that would work in a normal universe, but this is a universe that Microsoft owns: which means quality is trumped.
Adobe would do better in the long run to attempt to break the Microsoft monopoly, and encourage a cosmology of OSes--then you would really depend on the cross-platform tools that Adobe can deliver. That's a long term strategy, however, and requires more vision than I think your typical MBA can muster.
Kaylee is there. I had to scrub the video to see her, but she's indeed in there in a few spots. And the actress (Jewel Staite) has maintained a public blog that indicates a strong interest in the film, as well as mentioning time she spent shooting it, so I don't think there's much fear of her being left out.
But, and this was true in the series as well, her character doesn't participate in "crime" very much, so when much of the action is off ship, she doesn't get a lot of screen time. "Shindig" to be excepted, of course.
Wash is there too--he has some lines and is in a few scenes. I think the one that we're missing is Book--hopefully he'll come back for later movies (or, hope against hope, the Renewed TV Series.)
Rumor is, that Book has only a very small role in the movie. Not all of the orginal cast could be gathered together; frankly, we're lucky we got as many as we did.
Although there was some doubt precisely which character wasn't back for much, there was little doubt that one of the actors couldn't be signed--Joss was just vague about which one. But the preview (and other speculation) sure makes it look like it's Book.
Better him that Inara, I guess
Mind you, I don't know if the people removed were quite at that point but it's not hard to imagine.
The word for that is: straw man fallacy. You indict these telco members because others of their extended association are extremists? I guess you must be some wacko living in a Montana cave because I knew a libertarian like that, you said you're a libertarians, and therefore you are just as wacko as they.
Conservatism is all about the individual. Conservatives want to protect the individual from oppressive taxation and government regulation.
Baloney. Conservatives are defined by the desire to regulate my individual, specifically who I can sleep with, how I chose to sleep with them, what I chose to do with the consequences of sleeping with someone, and regulating how and when I chose to die.
I wouldn't mind so much if the conservatives would keep their God to themselves, but they keep trying to foist it upon me, like it or not; and I understand, as they're just trying to save me. Well, stop.
If conservatives would truly get the hell out of my bedroom and drs. office, i would be a lot more sympathetic to the fiscal issues that they raise.
Do you really think you can foster a successful violent revolution with hunting rifles?
Ask the Afghanis. There are differences, sure, chiefly that they had the backing of a major power for aid and support, whereas a US insurrection would have no such obvious friends. Well, except for potentially China, the OPEC powers, or the EU...wait.
You do realize that the Iraqi insurgents took out one of our Abrams, right? And, btw, do you see them using many cruise missiles and/or nukes in Iraq/Afaghanistan/Vietnam/Korea/S. America/etc? There's a reason they don't get used, and I think they'd be pretty hard to use against your own civilian population.
That's funny: I guess Jefferson couldn't work in a job in our government that required clearance. "Have you ever advocated for the violent overthrow of the government?"
Seriously, as I live and work in DC, and I pine for a job that would give me clearance, I avoid expressing such sentiment so I can answer truthfully on the lie detector test. Think they'd buy it if I explained that I was simply following Jeffersonian ideals?
And btw, I agree. I think it's pretty clear that's what the founding fathers intended. And Jefferson would be horrified that we've let our government trump state's rights, and encroach on the rights of the citizen. Maybe there's a Jefferson out there right now?
This tool then is cutting out the Mac and Linux users from their tracked demographic; together those users represent about 5-10% of the market. And they represent many early adopters of tech, too.
I would think that the use of a tool of this kind would be enough to skew their information, causing any results to be not credible. I certainly wouldn't use them to research products that I would sell, as I would want to be able to target Mac and Linux users as well.
Someones tax man will find them.
Along those lines, my first thought was: I hope they hire me; then, at first chance I get, I'll ass-rape their Intellectual Property (or, more likely, their customers) to any portable drive and take that ferry to the shore. And sell it to the highest bidder.
It's not as if this ship will be a signatory to the Berne Treaty, or really be able to expect the protection of any country's laws. They are doing this to get around the barriers of some laws, yet they don't think their employees will have the same idea? Didn't these guys hear about the Social Contract: some prohibitions you may find onerous, but others are for your own protection. Forgo the former at the risk of the latter.
No doubt an Appleista will be along in due course to make clear the path to enlightenment.
You called?
The answer to your difficulty is obvious: follow the money. What strategic advantage does Apple gain by not publicly documenting these APIs? A corner on the windows management market? I'm sure is worth a whole lot because you can see how much Apple charges for it at the Apple Store. Oh, wait, you can't, cause there is no such separate competing product that Apple profits by leveraging their OS.
vs. Windows, where, let's see, they made a substantial amount of their $50 Billion on by selling Office--which required that they kill their competition in Office applications.
"But what of IE?", I hear you plaintively cry. "Doesn't Microsoft give that away for free?" Certainly. But their clear strategy was to use the product to own the web, and IE was the platform to do it.
When Apple sells a virtual desktop management tool, besides the OS, and doesn't document the APIs, you'd have an argument. For example, I imagine QT has access to things that WMP doesn't, but proving that is an exercise for the reader. As it is, you're just trolling. Speaking of simplistic arguments.
Fixed in Security Update 2005-004; or at least the description of the fix includes text concerning mRouter and iSync.
Apparently, posting the vuln on
'some leftie ecogroup says it's bad'
Interesting...you're saying that, lo and behold, the "leftie ecogroup" was actually right in saying that clear cutting was bad all along?
You think that's just some coincidence, or maybe that they actually know what they're talking about?
You don't clearly state it, so I won't accuse; but your tone is coming close to saying "Weyerhauser invented non-homogenous tree planting and has moved away from clear cutting because they learned it was bad for the land. Coincidentally, 'leftie greenies' have been saying the same thing for 40 years, but it's just luck that they had it right this time."
You think W would have ever even considered this strategy if it wasn't for the education and research that leftie greenie organizations and PhDs have done?
How would something like ping be handled ( I don't use OS X )?
Only applies to scripts, not to compiled executeables. So it wouldn't matter at all.
Did you see the system requirements for FC Studio if you want to work with HDV or HD DVD?
It's not my business, so I didn't look that closely, but that's a nice point. Mac OS Rumors has been muttering about using a Cell-based co-processor for HD video tasks; I wonder if that's how Apple hopes to get HD FCP and friends working on a PowerBook.
Inclusion of a Cell co-processor, on the surface, seems like a useful thing to do, and not only for FCP--I would think, if it was handled correctly, that the Mac would no longer be in the gaming basement. And frankly that means more to me, personally. I'm not smart enough to know if the inclusion of the Cell is more fantasy or really possible, the fact that IBM makes it regardless.
You're not getting a G5 PowerBook by June. Have you seen the heatsinks in the G5 towers? We'll need new CPUs with smaller dies before that will happen, and those are still at the rumor stage.
And, btw, why? As was discussed when Tiger was announced, what does a 970 get you? You won't use 64bit in a portable, as there aren't enough ram slots anyways. You'd be happier with a dual core "Freescale" G4--and those might happen a lot sooner.
You can configure an Apple Xserve this way, with either one or two CPUs. Not an AMD board, but it is 64bit, and you can still put Linux on it if you like.
$14,599--One CPU, 80GB HD, CD-RW, no video support, but 16GB of RAM and an unlimited user Server OS. You can do better if you purchase through the Education or Government channels, and you can do better if you purchase the 2GB DIMMs elsewhere.
Although I actually couldn't find 2GB DIMMs at the popular aftermarket places, but they are now available from Apple direct (just be sure to get the Xserve with at least one 2GB DIMM, to be sure it has support for 2GB DIMMs on the MLB).
and most PC games are not even multithreaded
That's an interesting point, and I guess helps to explain why PC games that are ported to the Mac don't take advantage of the second CPU, usually--too much work would need to be done to make the Mac port multi-threaded.
So my question is: if multi-threaded coding of games for the PC market becomes more popular, are we going to see Mac ports of those games get faster also? That would be a big boon--there's lots more dual CPU using Mac gamers than there are (or will be for some time) dual CPU using PC gamers.
Any switch will do, so long as it runs the Cisco IOS--because that's what our support is trained and experienced with; and if we can get Cisco to support it--because we have used Cisco support, and they are reliable, fast, and knowledgeable.
That's the spec; any switch that meets those requirements will do. So it goes.
Kinda like Sherlock. The only useful feature of it, for me, is the Movie Showtimes--saves me from having to dig through the paper, plus I get a preview. But the once every two months that I consider going to a movie are the ONLY times Sherlock gets used. Especially since the Sherlocker site shut down; I don't know of anyone trying to extend Sherlock anymore. Which means we're left with the Find Flights etc
Really, why use this stuff when it's just a link away? Does anyone find it easier to launch Sherlock and type their google search into Sherlock, or to just go to google directly with the browser that they already likely have open? Same for Dictionary.com.
To sum: what makes the movie button useful is that it's an aggregator of several sites; but most of the buttons simply replicate an existing site. We need more aggregators, and less purely redundant buttons.
we want code that runs on unix, not code that runs on linux, and students will matriculate hopefully with a broader sense of what that can mean with more opportunities available to them.
If that's really the philosophy, then don't forget to throw some Macs into the mix. OS X Is Unix Too. Then your students can work with a different CPU architecture, also.
btw, I work with and support SunRays, and imo for thin-client they can't be beat.
The more big companies, like Microsoft, are getting screwed over by bullshit software patents
While I agree with this sentiment, it is more likely that any reform that happens will protect the position of big companies, but impair the ability of smaller companies to protect their patents.
For instance, Microsoft could well lobby for "loser pays litigation costs" when patents are litigated. Such legislation would reward the big companies with large war chests, and make it hard for smaller companies to prosecute their cases.
Be careful of what you wish for, is all that I'm saying.
You should outsource to the US, where there are legal protections for IP. My understanding is that in India, there are none, or very few; so the only way to protect yourself is to restrict physical and logical connections to the work computer, since you can't prosecute after the theft has been accomplished.
And, as other posts have made clear, that's not possible against someone willing to breach security. Just ask the CIA.
How much would you bet that Microsoft would prefer if people got pirate versions of Windows "Less-Crippled Edition" instead of trying, say, Linux?
In fact, Gates has said exactly that, in an interview that I read with my own eyes--I think it was around '99 or so. Unfortunately, I can't find it now.
The theory is simple--if you can get folks to pirate Windows, the "oxygen supply" of support and developers for other systems goes away. Once the competition has cleared the field, Microsoft is then free to put a technical end to the piracy, and raise the prices; and there are no options left but to pay the higher prices.
The only interesting points to this old quote: is it really ever possible to end piracy? does Microsoft believe that it has reached that end stage now, and so the time has come to stop piracy?