I had exactly that same thought. But I wonder if they would be willing to lose those 1M customers in order to kill a competitor? And, it doesn't explain the absence of: MS Project, Access, or a good v.X Exchange client, even still.
2) let me upload a shopping list to the cart via USB keychain, and use feature one to give me the most efficient order in which to get the items (or close to it anyway - it might be an NP complete problem to get the most efficient route
Right! And the list was generated by your fridge, which knew what you were out of, and better, the things that you were almost out of. And helped along by the recipe items that you need for a dish, generated by a site such as allrecipes.com. That would indeed be cool. I do the shopping for my family, and anything that helps me find the things that I need is a friend indeed. If costs were the same, I would be induced to change my preferred grocery store.
What I fail to understand--the self-checkout lines save, what, $8/hour in labor? Maybe add 50% for benefits etc--so they save $12/hour.
Are you going to look me in the eye and tell me that a given store doesn't lose more than $12 in that same hour from customers "forgetting" to scan an item? I would think the shrink in these stores would go way up, and erode any of the savings acquired from reducing staff. But maybe that's just me and my black heart.
AND have every AOL user on the planet instantly be abel [sic] to use the ITMS (it uses the credit card from the AOl account)
This is an interesting part of the deal, to be sure. Does anyone know if this means that AOL will ship iTunes for Win on their CDs? Or what? Not being an AOL user, can someone explain how this looks to them? ie Does one find the music they like (listed by AOL), click on the button--which takes the user to the iTMS, purchase the music--and then what? Do you have to download iTunes then? How much clue is given that this is required? Or does the iTMS music play in a AOL media jukebox?
I think that iTunes for Win is especially interesting, because, if I'm not mistaken, to install it a Win user also gets Qucktime installed--which is a trojan to a lot of other media opportunities for Apple. So, if AOL starts shipping iTunes for Win on their CDs, and then by extension, every AOL user has the latest version of QT installed--all of a sudden, QT is a market leader, or damn close.
Will someone who admits to the use of AOL elaborate on the default tools?
And, with all that, Apple still doesn't expect to make money off of the store. If one of the smaller legal download sites has on 1/10 of the marketshare of Apple's, is there any chance that they're making money? And those other sites are depending on their store to be a profit center, whereas Apple is treating it more like a loss leader--so they have even less chance of making it.
Unless Apple's costs for some reason are prohibitively high compared to the other sites (eg Xserves instead of athlon based server farm, overpaid admins, etc) the other sites had better start gaining market share, and damn quick, or they're not going to last. Beyond Xmas. 70% marketshare with exposure to just 3% of the market is pretty damn amazing.
Crystal ball time: if Apple succeeds in getting 90% of the market--not too far off, now that the other 95% of the market can download songs--and you can only use Apple's iPod to play those songs, does that expose Apple to charges of monopoly, and predatory monopolistic practices ie illegal tie-in? I suppose Apple would just open up their DRMed AAC, at that point, but still. I would like to see Microsoft on the other side of the bench...
Now that I'm past Michael being an idiot, I think we can get back to the point at hand: the UCSD is claiming that they own the trademark to 4 letters situated in an acronym. My first inclination was that this was pretty ridiculous--but if I made a site about government waste, and called it NASAoverruns, I guess I would have a hard time defending my use of "NASA". So basically, these kids should just change their name, and they'd be back in business.
Michael, if you'd have taken the time to read the article for yourself, you would have learned that UCSD stands for "University of California, San Diego".
Do I need to spell it out for you? Please, editors, for the love of God--don't show so much contempt for your readership that you can't be bothered to read the articles yourself. If you can't take that much time away from your busy busy days, find another line of work.
I've agreed with this perspective before--but wouldn't a port of Safari to Windows be one more way to keep "IE" only sites from gaining dominance? Which means that sites that wish to remain compliant with Safari for Windows (because Safari would suddenly have, perhaps, double the market share it has now) would also then maintain compliance with Safari for Mac--an attitude that is beginning to erode, albeit slowly.
The news is that the Apple stock declined because their profit margins slipped. Which makes no sense to me--their margins went from, like, 29% to 27%; and yet Dells' is closer to 5%, and they're a darling of WallStreet? Oh well.
This application may be a few years overdue, but IMO it's light-years ahead of every other free MP3 jukebox for Windows, and most of the commercial ones as well.
I haven't used the Windows version of iTunes, and I have no plans to. But what strikes me as interesting: Apple gives away, for free, "an MP3 player light years ahead" of others, presumably to promote the iTunes Music Store; but wait! The iTMS doesn't make any money, in fact--it still operates at a loss! So Apple doesn't make any money, there, either. So eventually, Apple hopes to drive sales of the iPod, where they do have substantial margins.
But isn't it curious that they are basically giving away two services to make money off the third? That's more removed than typical, and highlights this as a fairly risky strategy afterall. In fact, I wonder if they backfigured the amount of Mac hardware sales that they would lose to do this; iTunes is one of the products that you had to have a Mac for to get. Now you don't, so you have one less reason to purchase a Mac.
Is one more reason to purchase an iPod going to outweigh one less reason to purchase a Mac?
Time will tell, I suppose. Some corollary benefits--AAC and MP3 will be improved in prominence, and therefore acceptance/use, as will QuickTime; I don't believe that iTunes for Windows will play WMA (but could be wrong). And maybe, exposure to the Apple Stores etc, and Apple Support--can you call AppleCare for help installing/burning etc with your own MP3s with iTunes for Win?
Re:Isn't an NDA supposed to be limited in time ?
on
Of NDAs and Resumes?
·
· Score: 1
I believe both you and the parent poster are confusing "Non-Disclousure Agreements", which covers the disclosure of technologies worked on, and "Non-Compete Agreements", which make some attempt to forbid you from working in the same field in the same area.
While I have seen some indication that Non-Competes are often failed in court, I don't know that the same is true at all for NDAs. I would suspect not.
The BTO option of a second drive would allow for configuration of a software RAID 0 or 1, through included tools in OS X. Maybe you think they're toys because that's easier that doing research on the product?
Those same "Web Developers" that are complaining about IE's lack of progress are the same ones that helped IE to it's monopoly by refusing to code and test against other browsers. So they really only have themselves to blame.
The monster that they helped to create by being lazy and not regressing against other browsers and platforms is something that they'll have to live with now.
Just don't let it happen again, kay? We have another chance with media standards--all you fools who only support WinMedia, once it becomes the standard, innovation will stop with it, too.
I'm mostly just curious--if you cancel your account, do you lose access to your previously downloaded music? Or does it persist in the absence of a subcription?
I swear if I see another image of a stick figure guy scratching his head on the slide entitiled "Any Questions?" I'm going to start shooting people...
I would call that an argument against the export of Microsoft imagery to alien worlds. What if the Martians are a bunch of Linux h@xorz, see the PowerPoint influenced design, and decide that it'd be better to nuke us from orbit?
Not a lot of confidence...
on
Get Paid To Crack?
·
· Score: 3, Informative
You should be able to complete the goals easily without the need to break any laws...[in] about 5 hours
Sounds like this is more of a "target-rich environment" where they expect the dedicated hacker to succeed, and they want to study means/methods, rather than a "our box is unbreakable" type challenge. I think they'll be writing a lot of $250 checks--which explains also why the sum is low.
That's all I got. I dunno if that rumor was repeated elsewhere or not, or if there was any confirmation from anywhere that those are even the terms of the Apple/Moto contract.
Basically, they believed Moto corporate was sandbagging the PPC to "screw Apple."
As an avid Mac follower, yeah, I could believe that too, exactly for the reason that you mention--to spite Apple after Jobs killed the clones.
Here's a related question: there've been rumors that Apple will sue Moto for stopping production on the G4 prematurely; apparently the contract with Moto spelled out a timeframe of warning that Moto would have to give Apple. Would the parent Moto be liable, or would the spun off company? Would the minimization of liability be one of the reasons to spin off the PPC unit, so that the liability follows the PPC company and doesn't harm the (viable) parent?
I'm kinda surprised that Apple didn't buy the rights to the PPC--if they're not even interested, who would be?
If my crazy uncle calls me and I don't want to listen to him, I can just hang up. Two seconds later, I can pick up the phone and dial someone else. He can't hijack my phone just because he initiated the call.
Actually, that's indeed what will happen--the only reason why you might get a dial tone on your next pickup is because your crazy uncle hung up in the interim. If he didn't, you would have been reconnected to him on your pickup. Try it sometime.
University of Maryland University College has just such an accreditation; it also has an extensive online curriculum. I have seriously considered going back to school with them (but haven't yet, so I can't comment on their quality. But the advantage of the accreditation puts them head-n-shoulders above every other online Uni that I've found, at least in the US.)
I've wanted to have digital reference material for years, and haven't yet found a solution that was ubiquitous. And I don't mean fiction. Advantages: portability, storage, and searchability. I don't mind reading LCDs. And even if the price was the same as the dead-tree version, so be it--those advantage pay for it.
However, what no one has figured out yet is how to offer those advantages but still attach DRM such that I can't buy one book and then share it with the rest of the class. And as soon as you add DRM, well, you have to give the DRM-makers a cut, distribution becomes it's own painful channel, you need proprietary readers, etc.
I would pay right now to have DRM-protected PDFs of my favorite manuals--in fact, I wouldn't buy another dead tree manual, and carrying around yet another 600 pages has kept me from buying quite a few. But nobody has gotten it yet. Adobe, you listening? DRM enabled Acrobat Reader to accept but not copy "No copy" bit enabled PDFs is exactly what I would like. Oh, and scans of the manuals that I have into said PDF format.
Until then, screw it. I'll just get the same info online, from free or subscription websites.
My alma mater (University of Iowa) required that the royalty from textbooks written by the same professor teaching the class went to the department, and not to the professor.
Didn't keep professor A from assigning professor B's textbooks, and then B did the same for A; but at least it slowed down the graft. Whether or not that practice is any more evil than invading a country and then skimming the grants for the rebuilding of same is left for followup posters; in the best light, I suppose you could call it "good practice for the real world."
Link goes to the Washington Times, not the Washington Post. In this town, that's like the difference between Slashdot and CNET. Not to mention incorrect accrediation being a fairly substantial copyright issue.
But to bring it back on topic, I guess that verfiies that the/. editors don't RTFA article themselves, or they would have noticed right away. I would suggest they start, or they'll get sued over it sooner or later.
Slashdot Mirror
I had exactly that same thought. But I wonder if they would be willing to lose those 1M customers in order to kill a competitor? And, it doesn't explain the absence of: MS Project, Access, or a good v.X Exchange client, even still.
2) let me upload a shopping list to the cart via USB keychain, and use feature one to give me the most efficient order in which to get the items (or close to it anyway - it might be an NP complete problem to get the most efficient route
Right! And the list was generated by your fridge, which knew what you were out of, and better, the things that you were almost out of. And helped along by the recipe items that you need for a dish, generated by a site such as allrecipes.com. That would indeed be cool. I do the shopping for my family, and anything that helps me find the things that I need is a friend indeed. If costs were the same, I would be induced to change my preferred grocery store.
What I fail to understand--the self-checkout lines save, what, $8/hour in labor? Maybe add 50% for benefits etc--so they save $12/hour.
Are you going to look me in the eye and tell me that a given store doesn't lose more than $12 in that same hour from customers "forgetting" to scan an item? I would think the shrink in these stores would go way up, and erode any of the savings acquired from reducing staff. But maybe that's just me and my black heart.
AND have every AOL user on the planet instantly be abel [sic] to use the ITMS (it uses the credit card from the AOl account)
This is an interesting part of the deal, to be sure. Does anyone know if this means that AOL will ship iTunes for Win on their CDs? Or what? Not being an AOL user, can someone explain how this looks to them? ie Does one find the music they like (listed by AOL), click on the button--which takes the user to the iTMS, purchase the music--and then what? Do you have to download iTunes then? How much clue is given that this is required? Or does the iTMS music play in a AOL media jukebox?
I think that iTunes for Win is especially interesting, because, if I'm not mistaken, to install it a Win user also gets Qucktime installed--which is a trojan to a lot of other media opportunities for Apple. So, if AOL starts shipping iTunes for Win on their CDs, and then by extension, every AOL user has the latest version of QT installed--all of a sudden, QT is a market leader, or damn close.
Will someone who admits to the use of AOL elaborate on the default tools?
And, with all that, Apple still doesn't expect to make money off of the store. If one of the smaller legal download sites has on 1/10 of the marketshare of Apple's, is there any chance that they're making money? And those other sites are depending on their store to be a profit center, whereas Apple is treating it more like a loss leader--so they have even less chance of making it.
Unless Apple's costs for some reason are prohibitively high compared to the other sites (eg Xserves instead of athlon based server farm, overpaid admins, etc) the other sites had better start gaining market share, and damn quick, or they're not going to last. Beyond Xmas. 70% marketshare with exposure to just 3% of the market is pretty damn amazing.
Crystal ball time: if Apple succeeds in getting 90% of the market--not too far off, now that the other 95% of the market can download songs--and you can only use Apple's iPod to play those songs, does that expose Apple to charges of monopoly, and predatory monopolistic practices ie illegal tie-in? I suppose Apple would just open up their DRMed AAC, at that point, but still. I would like to see Microsoft on the other side of the bench...
ut they're hardly acting out of legal bounds here
Now that I'm past Michael being an idiot, I think we can get back to the point at hand: the UCSD is claiming that they own the trademark to 4 letters situated in an acronym. My first inclination was that this was pretty ridiculous--but if I made a site about government waste, and called it NASAoverruns, I guess I would have a hard time defending my use of "NASA". So basically, these kids should just change their name, and they'd be back in business.
Michael, if you'd have taken the time to read the article for yourself, you would have learned that UCSD stands for "University of California, San Diego".
Do I need to spell it out for you? Please, editors, for the love of God--don't show so much contempt for your readership that you can't be bothered to read the articles yourself. If you can't take that much time away from your busy busy days, find another line of work.
I've agreed with this perspective before--but wouldn't a port of Safari to Windows be one more way to keep "IE" only sites from gaining dominance? Which means that sites that wish to remain compliant with Safari for Windows (because Safari would suddenly have, perhaps, double the market share it has now) would also then maintain compliance with Safari for Mac--an attitude that is beginning to erode, albeit slowly.
The news is that the Apple stock declined because their profit margins slipped. Which makes no sense to me--their margins went from, like, 29% to 27%; and yet Dells' is closer to 5%, and they're a darling of WallStreet? Oh well.
This application may be a few years overdue, but IMO it's light-years ahead of every other free MP3 jukebox for Windows, and most of the commercial ones as well.
I haven't used the Windows version of iTunes, and I have no plans to. But what strikes me as interesting: Apple gives away, for free, "an MP3 player light years ahead" of others, presumably to promote the iTunes Music Store; but wait! The iTMS doesn't make any money, in fact--it still operates at a loss! So Apple doesn't make any money, there, either. So eventually, Apple hopes to drive sales of the iPod, where they do have substantial margins.
But isn't it curious that they are basically giving away two services to make money off the third? That's more removed than typical, and highlights this as a fairly risky strategy afterall. In fact, I wonder if they backfigured the amount of Mac hardware sales that they would lose to do this; iTunes is one of the products that you had to have a Mac for to get. Now you don't, so you have one less reason to purchase a Mac.
Is one more reason to purchase an iPod going to outweigh one less reason to purchase a Mac?
Time will tell, I suppose. Some corollary benefits--AAC and MP3 will be improved in prominence, and therefore acceptance/use, as will QuickTime; I don't believe that iTunes for Windows will play WMA (but could be wrong). And maybe, exposure to the Apple Stores etc, and Apple Support--can you call AppleCare for help installing/burning etc with your own MP3s with iTunes for Win?
I believe both you and the parent poster are confusing "Non-Disclousure Agreements", which covers the disclosure of technologies worked on, and "Non-Compete Agreements", which make some attempt to forbid you from working in the same field in the same area.
While I have seen some indication that Non-Competes are often failed in court, I don't know that the same is true at all for NDAs. I would suspect not.
The BTO option of a second drive would allow for configuration of a software RAID 0 or 1, through included tools in OS X. Maybe you think they're toys because that's easier that doing research on the product?
Those same "Web Developers" that are complaining about IE's lack of progress are the same ones that helped IE to it's monopoly by refusing to code and test against other browsers. So they really only have themselves to blame.
The monster that they helped to create by being lazy and not regressing against other browsers and platforms is something that they'll have to live with now.
Just don't let it happen again, kay? We have another chance with media standards--all you fools who only support WinMedia, once it becomes the standard, innovation will stop with it, too.
I'm mostly just curious--if you cancel your account, do you lose access to your previously downloaded music? Or does it persist in the absence of a subcription?
Did no one else think of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy parallels with the game of cricket?
I swear if I see another image of a stick figure guy scratching his head on the slide entitiled "Any Questions?" I'm going to start shooting people...
I would call that an argument against the export of Microsoft imagery to alien worlds. What if the Martians are a bunch of Linux h@xorz, see the PowerPoint influenced design, and decide that it'd be better to nuke us from orbit?
From their FAQ:
You should be able to complete the goals easily without the need to break any laws...[in] about 5 hours
Sounds like this is more of a "target-rich environment" where they expect the dedicated hacker to succeed, and they want to study means/methods, rather than a "our box is unbreakable" type challenge. I think they'll be writing a lot of $250 checks--which explains also why the sum is low.
Apple to sue Motorola?
That's all I got. I dunno if that rumor was repeated elsewhere or not, or if there was any confirmation from anywhere that those are even the terms of the Apple/Moto contract.
Basically, they believed Moto corporate was sandbagging the PPC to "screw Apple."
As an avid Mac follower, yeah, I could believe that too, exactly for the reason that you mention--to spite Apple after Jobs killed the clones.
Here's a related question: there've been rumors that Apple will sue Moto for stopping production on the G4 prematurely; apparently the contract with Moto spelled out a timeframe of warning that Moto would have to give Apple. Would the parent Moto be liable, or would the spun off company? Would the minimization of liability be one of the reasons to spin off the PPC unit, so that the liability follows the PPC company and doesn't harm the (viable) parent?
I'm kinda surprised that Apple didn't buy the rights to the PPC--if they're not even interested, who would be?
If my crazy uncle calls me and I don't want to listen to him, I can just hang up. Two seconds later, I can pick up the phone and dial someone else. He can't hijack my phone just because he initiated the call.
Actually, that's indeed what will happen--the only reason why you might get a dial tone on your next pickup is because your crazy uncle hung up in the interim. If he didn't, you would have been reconnected to him on your pickup. Try it sometime.
They are both French, but you Americans have managed to bastardize them into an unrecognizable mess.
Oh christ. What have you French done to the word "email" again? Do you really think cultural bias goes just one way?
Not that the grandparent poster isn't an idiot, of course, but America has no monopoly on them.
University of Maryland University College has just such an accreditation; it also has an extensive online curriculum. I have seriously considered going back to school with them (but haven't yet, so I can't comment on their quality. But the advantage of the accreditation puts them head-n-shoulders above every other online Uni that I've found, at least in the US.)
I've wanted to have digital reference material for years, and haven't yet found a solution that was ubiquitous. And I don't mean fiction. Advantages: portability, storage, and searchability. I don't mind reading LCDs. And even if the price was the same as the dead-tree version, so be it--those advantage pay for it.
However, what no one has figured out yet is how to offer those advantages but still attach DRM such that I can't buy one book and then share it with the rest of the class. And as soon as you add DRM, well, you have to give the DRM-makers a cut, distribution becomes it's own painful channel, you need proprietary readers, etc.
I would pay right now to have DRM-protected PDFs of my favorite manuals--in fact, I wouldn't buy another dead tree manual, and carrying around yet another 600 pages has kept me from buying quite a few. But nobody has gotten it yet. Adobe, you listening? DRM enabled Acrobat Reader to accept but not copy "No copy" bit enabled PDFs is exactly what I would like. Oh, and scans of the manuals that I have into said PDF format.
Until then, screw it. I'll just get the same info online, from free or subscription websites.
My alma mater (University of Iowa) required that the royalty from textbooks written by the same professor teaching the class went to the department, and not to the professor.
Didn't keep professor A from assigning professor B's textbooks, and then B did the same for A; but at least it slowed down the graft. Whether or not that practice is any more evil than invading a country and then skimming the grants for the rebuilding of same is left for followup posters; in the best light, I suppose you could call it "good practice for the real world."
Link goes to the Washington Times, not the Washington Post. In this town, that's like the difference between Slashdot and CNET. Not to mention incorrect accrediation being a fairly substantial copyright issue.
But to bring it back on topic, I guess that verfiies that the