I think it is unfair to mod this as "offtopic." After all, we are talking about Apple. And Apple, much like Christianity, was founded by a messianic, charismatic figure who could perform wondrous miracles, such as turn water into wine or OS 9 into OSX. Is the Sermon on the Mount not unlike a MacWorld keynote? Did Steve not suffer for our sins at the hands of the prefect Sculley? Did he not wander in the wilderness before retuning to us with the UNIX keys to our salvation? "Steve, I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word and I shall buy a maxed-out 17 inch PowerBook and a top-of-the-line iPod."
Unless I am greatly mistaken, Microsoft does not give out major OS upgrades for free either. Apple is not using a subscription model. The "subscription model" is one in which you pay a monthly fee for the privilege of using your own computer. If you don't pay, you'd be SOL, I guess. Yes, in MacOS as in Windows, if you want the latest and greatest, you have to pay for it. This is shocking, I know. If you don't care about the latest and greatest, though, you can just leave your computer as-is and it will continue to work just fine. You can still run Jaguar on your Mac, it will still work, and if you don't care about keeping up with the Joneses, you don't need to pay a damn thing. So no, I'm afraid it's not even remotely like a subscription model.
A number of people have remarked on the harshness of the sentence and the "first amendment ramifications." I agree that nine years is rather steep for what is essentially harassment. I would like to comment, however, on the spech issue. Spam is not protected speech. It is not protected because you are abusing someone else's resources to make it. In the US, you have the right to say whatever you want on your own time with your own money (i.e. snail-mail junk mail.) You do not, however, have the right to use up the recipients' bandwidth and the bandwidth of their ISPs. In other words, the recipient is forced to bear the costs of your speech. You don't have the right to make someone else pay for your speech.
Well, I don't think it's necessary for a human to verify the proof. One might be able to verify a proof with the aid of a computer, for instance, using software that we haven't developed yet. The important thing is that for a conjecture to be a proof, it must be verifyable. Otherwise, it's just a hypothesis or a possibility. If there's a flaw in the way the program executed the proof for instance, it might show a theorem as having been "proven" when in fact it has not. Unless someone (and I think this can be done with the aid of a computer as well) can verify the results, I don't think we can confidently call a theorem "proven."
Re:Keyboard included at your house
on
Return of the Mac
·
· Score: 1
Actually, the adapter for the monitor is included with the mini, so he doesn't even have to shell out for that. http://www.apple.com/macmini/
Blogging and social networking. Is it just me, or is Yahoo not moving into Google's space here as much as LiveJournal's? As others have said, Orkut seems pretty dead. Google's Blogger doesn't do social networking as far as I know. Sounds more like LJ to me.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm just wondering where I can buy some of those Apple farts mentioned in the article. They sound really great. Does anyone have a link?
I think it is unfair to mod this as "offtopic." After all, we are talking about Apple. And Apple, much like Christianity, was founded by a messianic, charismatic figure who could perform wondrous miracles, such as turn water into wine or OS 9 into OSX. Is the Sermon on the Mount not unlike a MacWorld keynote? Did Steve not suffer for our sins at the hands of the prefect Sculley? Did he not wander in the wilderness before retuning to us with the UNIX keys to our salvation?
"Steve, I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word and I shall buy a maxed-out 17 inch PowerBook and a top-of-the-line iPod."
Unless I am greatly mistaken, Microsoft does not give out major OS upgrades for free either. Apple is not using a subscription model. The "subscription model" is one in which you pay a monthly fee for the privilege of using your own computer. If you don't pay, you'd be SOL, I guess.
Yes, in MacOS as in Windows, if you want the latest and greatest, you have to pay for it. This is shocking, I know. If you don't care about the latest and greatest, though, you can just leave your computer as-is and it will continue to work just fine. You can still run Jaguar on your Mac, it will still work, and if you don't care about keeping up with the Joneses, you don't need to pay a damn thing.
So no, I'm afraid it's not even remotely like a subscription model.
A number of people have remarked on the harshness of the sentence and the "first amendment ramifications." I agree that nine years is rather steep for what is essentially harassment. I would like to comment, however, on the spech issue. Spam is not protected speech. It is not protected because you are abusing someone else's resources to make it. In the US, you have the right to say whatever you want on your own time with your own money (i.e. snail-mail junk mail.) You do not, however, have the right to use up the recipients' bandwidth and the bandwidth of their ISPs. In other words, the recipient is forced to bear the costs of your speech. You don't have the right to make someone else pay for your speech.
You raise a good point. Remember, however, that it is possible for computer programs to be flawed. I don't think this is a novel concept to anyone.
It may, however, be possible to prove these theorems with the aid of a computer, thus eliminating the objection that these proofs are unverifyable.
Well, I don't think it's necessary for a human to verify the proof. One might be able to verify a proof with the aid of a computer, for instance, using software that we haven't developed yet. The important thing is that for a conjecture to be a proof, it must be verifyable. Otherwise, it's just a hypothesis or a possibility. If there's a flaw in the way the program executed the proof for instance, it might show a theorem as having been "proven" when in fact it has not. Unless someone (and I think this can be done with the aid of a computer as well) can verify the results, I don't think we can confidently call a theorem "proven."
Actually, the adapter for the monitor is included with the mini, so he doesn't even have to shell out for that. http://www.apple.com/macmini/
Blogging and social networking. Is it just me, or is Yahoo not moving into Google's space here as much as LiveJournal's? As others have said, Orkut seems pretty dead. Google's Blogger doesn't do social networking as far as I know. Sounds more like LJ to me.
WHOOSH!
What was that! Something just flew over my head!