I'd REALLY have to see this in action. After HP abandoned the Jornada (their own Pocket PC, one with a much better human-engineered design) for the Heath-Robinson iPaq, I've taken everything they've said about handhelds with a shovel-full of salt.
The strategy memo which I cited suggests to react to the concern by filing as many software patents as possible, and entering patent cross-licensing agreements with major IT companies.
This strategy, ah, hardly reflects the tone of the original article.:)
Still therein you are mentioning a case of intentional broadcasting, which a file traded on P2P is not an intentional broadcast in any sense.
Getting music or movies for free does not "damage the property in the marketplace". Even distribution outside the "controlled intended distribution" doesn't do that. Neither are many mechanisms for such distribution (say, for example, recording the music on a CD or tape and cranking it in your car stereo so people nearby can hear it) even illegal. That, of course, is the point I'm trying to get across: the MPAA and RIAA are already living with a regime where distribution outside their control at no charge to the recipient is common, so this decision doesn't change things significantly for them.
But if you want to move the discussion further...
It's the lack of a mechanism to reward the creator or distributor that causes the damage you're talking about. For commercial broadcasting that reward is subsidized by advertising, albeit in a patchy and inefficient manner. Can you think of ways advertising could be used by creators and distributors to profit from P2P distribution of their product? Can you think of ways such a scheme could actually do a better job than commercial broadcasting does?
Audiophiles don't buy CD blanks in Kroger and CVS. They order special gold-master CD-R blanks with de-ionised plastic and hardened faces, and think they're slumming because they're not Ampex tape.
I'd like that. I wanted to use XServes in a colo, but they're too deep for the cabinets at that site so I ended up with Intel boxes. A 2U wouldn't need to be as deep as the 1U boxes, and I might be able to upgrade...
I think that depends solely on the use of the server.
Sure, and the amount of processing power in desktops depends on the use of the desktop. There's a market for high performance servers and workstations... I just think that in general Macs are likely to demand more raw CPU speed in the workstation role than in the server role.
Maybe, but XServes have trailed desktops on performance, and servers really need lots of I/O bandwidth more than lots of CPU grunt. I suspect a dual-dual config will hit the desktop at least as soon as it hits the rack, and probably sooner.
If people didn't buy them they wouldn't be for sale in every grocery store and pharmacy. Kroger and CVS don't stock stuff that people don't buy... hell, they don't even keep stocking stuff I buy regularly because I don't buy enough.
Um, yes, I know how TCP works. I'm a contributor to the Freefire open source firewall project, I think I've got a good handle on TCP acknowledgments and handshaking. And it didn't sound like that's what he was talking about.
Still, it seems like an exceptionally harsh judgement against the MPAA and RIAA to say that anyone who wants any of their wares can aquire them for free.
"Critics of Microsoft often claim that MS was behind the EU lobbying and wanted software patents to kill open source."
Straw man! Whether Microsoft was behind the efforts, they definitely supported them. Showing that other groups may have been the prime motivators for this misguided legislation doesn't change the fact that Microsoft's actions were directed to supporting it.
If Microsoft is so concerned with submarine patents, why did they put pressure on Denmark to export the patent mess overseas?
So what if Microsoft says they couldn't have come into existence in today's patent environment. Do you think Microsoft cares about that? Well, I do, actually... but not in the sense they seem to be trying to imply. I think they would be really unhappy about another Microsoft coming into existence. They already exist, a monoply like theirs in another field could only hurt them.
Hey, will you look at that. The Xerox Unistroke patent did a real number on Palm, and forced Palm to give up one of their competitive advantages over the Pocket PC... the efficient Graffiti shorthand system.
Yeh, I think the current patent environment is in Microsoft's favor, and I don't think they really believe US patent law can be reformed. This is all a PR smoke-screen to distract attention from Europe.
The use of the word addiction to describe purely behavioural situations worries me. I can see some future totalitarian state forcibly enrolling "liberty addicts", defined as people who become distressed when incarcerated, in "aversive therapy programs" involving "tight institutional curfews"... i.e., locking them up.
So don't load Konq off the CD. Just put enough on the boot CD to boot the OS, and run the apps off your iPod or flash drive.
The point is that there's 30 PCs out there for every Mac, and probably 90 unused PCs for every unused Mac, and 180 PC-based internet cafes for every Mac one... so a solution that gets you up and running on a PC is ninety nine and forty four hundredths percent* more likely to get you up on Linux at some random location when you need it than a Mac one. And once you're in Linux it doesn't matter what you started with...
What i was responding to in my post was the attitude that anyone running linux on a Mac is insane because OS X is the greatest thing on the planet.
That answers half the question (the 'why run Linux' part). It doesn't answer the other hald (the 'on a Mac') part.
I originally bought the machine to run OS X and I've since found that I'm more comfortable and productive under linux, so I switched back.
That answers that part of the question. You're running Linux on a Mac not because you want to run it on a Mac, but because you happen to have a Mac and you want to run Linux, that a fair enough summary?
some people think that ppc processors are better than intel's.
Well, yeh, they let you build a cheaper and lower-power system with the same performanve because you're not paying the x86 translation penalty on every instruction.
But from the user level, the instruction set is pretty much irrelevant. Paying extra for a PPC and running Linux on it doesn't make any objective sense.
Look, I'm not an Intel apologist. I'm a long-time Intel anti-fan who's got a NeXT, a PDP-11, an AT&T UNIX PC, and used to run the Amiga sources group on Usenix. Oh, and I also have about six old Macs I've restored and upgraded to run OS X on. I've run more weird combinations of OS and processor than most people will ever see (mostly because there's almost no processor architectures other than the Wintel Virus left)... and I can't see the point.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's the HP article outside the PhysORG tarpit.
I'd REALLY have to see this in action. After HP abandoned the Jornada (their own Pocket PC, one with a much better human-engineered design) for the Heath-Robinson iPaq, I've taken everything they've said about handhelds with a shovel-full of salt.
The strategy memo which I cited suggests to react to the concern by filing as many software patents as possible, and entering patent cross-licensing agreements with major IT companies.
:)
This strategy, ah, hardly reflects the tone of the original article.
Still therein you are mentioning a case of intentional broadcasting, which a file traded on P2P is not an intentional broadcast in any sense.
Getting music or movies for free does not "damage the property in the marketplace". Even distribution outside the "controlled intended distribution" doesn't do that. Neither are many mechanisms for such distribution (say, for example, recording the music on a CD or tape and cranking it in your car stereo so people nearby can hear it) even illegal. That, of course, is the point I'm trying to get across: the MPAA and RIAA are already living with a regime where distribution outside their control at no charge to the recipient is common, so this decision doesn't change things significantly for them.
But if you want to move the discussion further...
It's the lack of a mechanism to reward the creator or distributor that causes the damage you're talking about. For commercial broadcasting that reward is subsidized by advertising, albeit in a patchy and inefficient manner. Can you think of ways advertising could be used by creators and distributors to profit from P2P distribution of their product? Can you think of ways such a scheme could actually do a better job than commercial broadcasting does?
They've been seriously concerned since 1991.
They may have been talking about it since 1991, but I can't believe this is a major corporate concern given what they did in Denmark.
Audiophiles don't buy CD blanks in Kroger and CVS. They order special gold-master CD-R blanks with de-ionised plastic and hardened faces, and think they're slumming because they're not Ampex tape.
Maybe Apple will do a 2U XServe?
I'd like that. I wanted to use XServes in a colo, but they're too deep for the cabinets at that site so I ended up with Intel boxes. A 2U wouldn't need to be as deep as the 1U boxes, and I might be able to upgrade...
I think that depends solely on the use of the server.
Sure, and the amount of processing power in desktops depends on the use of the desktop. There's a market for high performance servers and workstations... I just think that in general Macs are likely to demand more raw CPU speed in the workstation role than in the server role.
Maybe, but XServes have trailed desktops on performance, and servers really need lots of I/O bandwidth more than lots of CPU grunt. I suspect a dual-dual config will hit the desktop at least as soon as it hits the rack, and probably sooner.
If people didn't buy them they wouldn't be for sale in every grocery store and pharmacy. Kroger and CVS don't stock stuff that people don't buy... hell, they don't even keep stocking stuff I buy regularly because I don't buy enough.
Um, yes, I know how TCP works. I'm a contributor to the Freefire open source firewall project, I think I've got a good handle on TCP acknowledgments and handshaking. And it didn't sound like that's what he was talking about.
Not here in the US, since we do not have the lousy media tax anyway.
Haven't you ever wondered why audio CDR blanks cost more than data CDR blanks?
I was responding specifically to the comment that acquiring a copy of a work for free was illegal. It isn't.
A lending library is one example of a legal way to listen to music, read books, or watch movies for free.
A better example would be taping a movie off broadcast TV or a song off FM radio. Does that sound better to you?
Oh, yeah, this will go over big in sharing communities. Only the leeches are legal.
Well, yeh, that's exactly what the law in most countries says, if you read it literally. Why are you surprised by this?
There is no mechanism to prevent this
IIRC, if you don't allow incoming connections through your firewall, you're effectively leeching off the P2P service without contributing to it.
Indeed. Why were they even going after someone who wasn't sharing movies?
Still, it seems like an exceptionally harsh judgement against the MPAA and RIAA to say that anyone who wants any of their wares can aquire them for free.
What do you have against lending libraries?
"Critics of Microsoft often claim that MS was behind the EU lobbying and wanted software patents to kill open source."
Straw man! Whether Microsoft was behind the efforts, they definitely supported them. Showing that other groups may have been the prime motivators for this misguided legislation doesn't change the fact that Microsoft's actions were directed to supporting it.
If Microsoft is so concerned with submarine patents, why did they put pressure on Denmark to export the patent mess overseas?
So what if Microsoft says they couldn't have come into existence in today's patent environment. Do you think Microsoft cares about that? Well, I do, actually... but not in the sense they seem to be trying to imply. I think they would be really unhappy about another Microsoft coming into existence. They already exist, a monoply like theirs in another field could only hurt them.
Hey, will you look at that. The Xerox Unistroke patent did a real number on Palm, and forced Palm to give up one of their competitive advantages over the Pocket PC... the efficient Graffiti shorthand system.
Yeh, I think the current patent environment is in Microsoft's favor, and I don't think they really believe US patent law can be reformed. This is all a PR smoke-screen to distract attention from Europe.
It will be interesting to see what direction Groove takes now.
"Dude, you're going to hell."
Here's your handbasket.
The use of the word addiction to describe purely behavioural situations worries me. I can see some future totalitarian state forcibly enrolling "liberty addicts", defined as people who become distressed when incarcerated, in "aversive therapy programs" involving "tight institutional curfews"... i.e., locking them up.
So don't load Konq off the CD. Just put enough on the boot CD to boot the OS, and run the apps off your iPod or flash drive.
The point is that there's 30 PCs out there for every Mac, and probably 90 unused PCs for every unused Mac, and 180 PC-based internet cafes for every Mac one... so a solution that gets you up and running on a PC is ninety nine and forty four hundredths percent* more likely to get you up on Linux at some random location when you need it than a Mac one. And once you're in Linux it doesn't matter what you started with...
* Statistics 99 44/100 percent pure guesswork.
What i was responding to in my post was the attitude that anyone running linux on a Mac is insane because OS X is the greatest thing on the planet.
That answers half the question (the 'why run Linux' part). It doesn't answer the other hald (the 'on a Mac') part.
I originally bought the machine to run OS X and I've since found that I'm more comfortable and productive under linux, so I switched back.
That answers that part of the question. You're running Linux on a Mac not because you want to run it on a Mac, but because you happen to have a Mac and you want to run Linux, that a fair enough summary?
sources group on Usenix...
UseNET.
I die, I die, Oh the Embarassment!
some people think that ppc processors are better than intel's.
Well, yeh, they let you build a cheaper and lower-power system with the same performanve because you're not paying the x86 translation penalty on every instruction.
But from the user level, the instruction set is pretty much irrelevant. Paying extra for a PPC and running Linux on it doesn't make any objective sense.
Look, I'm not an Intel apologist. I'm a long-time Intel anti-fan who's got a NeXT, a PDP-11, an AT&T UNIX PC, and used to run the Amiga sources group on Usenix. Oh, and I also have about six old Macs I've restored and upgraded to run OS X on. I've run more weird combinations of OS and processor than most people will ever see (mostly because there's almost no processor architectures other than the Wintel Virus left)... and I can't see the point.
Finding a free FLAC player takes some work [...]
There's at least two free FLAC quicktime plugins that let you play FLAC from any quicktime-capable application including iTunes.
Apple's Java is seriously broken [...]
There's at least two implementations of Java available.
Multiple Desktops would be nice under OS X
There's three applications for this, two of them free.
Lack of decent Office packages under OS X. [...]
All the open source ones, plus all the Classic Mac OS ones, plus Office X and Pages... that's not enough for you?
I run deb on my dual 1.8Ghz G5.
And the reason for paying the Apple Tax instead of getting an Opteron was...?