The cartel was among LCD manufacturers. Chi Mei is the sixth company to plead guilty; the other five were LG, Sharp, Chunghwa, Seiko Epson, and Hitachi.
If you're a manufacturer who sends out a bid for LCD panels, and they all come back at something close to $X, you pay up. You need the parts, they have them, you pay what they're asking.
Whatever format Apple releases will instantly become the de facto standard, quite frankly. And chances are, it will be Apple Lossless, since existing iPods can already decode it.
I would guess that "provision of . . . on-line information" would cover an ISP, though, and that's probably been registered since AppleLink came online in 1985.
"One very exciting product is Sony's 'Plug and Play' DRN-XM01 model that works in both your car and home stereo system through the use of a $150 adapter kit."
There was no transition from the Apple II to the Macintosh. They were two completely distinct product lines that coexisted for quite a long time together.
well...mostly true, but I do have this Mac LC with Apple IIe card sitting next to me...
I don't care how much HCI design Apple puts into the OS; if I as a user fall outside their statistical sample then I'm up a creek without a paddle. In a certain sense, a more complex but configurable interface is in the interests of the mediuma-to-advanced user if it lets them become more productive.
I think this is missing the point, though. The important factor, in the end, is not necessarily how a given program works, but how well it matches other programs. I'm a long-time Mac user, but I've got quite a bit of experience with other platforms (including doing Windows phone support, ick.) The reason I keep coming back to MacOS is speed. I can learn new programs faster, and operate quicker in old ones, than I can on other OSes. Every time I try customization tools, I usually end up going back.
It's little nuances of the GUI that add up--always having the menu bar in the same place, so you don't have to look for it, having consistant file and edit menus--that seem to enable this speed. I know Apple's UI (or 'user experience,' these days...) guidelines seem neurotic--"space elements thirteen pixels apart," etc.--but in the end, consistency is just as important as quality. (Contrast this with M$, who radically alter the interface of their programs with every revision.) Continual change is not always a sign of improvement, but rather of the need for it. Example: Microsoft has attempted to "improve" text selection using a mouse. Instead, it prevents me from selecting partial words, or phrases without their end punctuation, etc. The old system worked well, but in the name of 'better interface,' it's been ruined.
'Complex, configurable' interfaces place an unreasonable burden on the user. It's the developer who should have to worry about making the UI efficient--not the user. This is the standard we hold non-computer products to. We don't expect auto makers to let us replace the steering wheel with a joystick--using one would be another skill we'd have to master, when we could simply be driving. Another example--kitchen appliances. The 16 speed blenders of 25 years ago have predominantly given way to models which turn on and off. Why? Because the added complexity--in the name of configurability--was unneccesary, useless, and in the end, unwelcome.
I realize that power users will always want to change little things in their OSes. Nevertheless, I maintain that the most meaningful changes aren't ones that configurable operating systems allow you to make; they're usually corrections for programs which were improperly designed in the first place. Design a program once well, and your users won't need to customize it.
Yikes? There's no protection whatsoever like that on the Mac? You mean your 7 year old daughter can just go in there and waste the whole system without knowing it???
MacOS 9 has multi-user functionality which locks down the system folder, limits the applications a given user can use, etc. It's more functional in that respect than Win98. And Apple's had that confounded shell, At Ease, around for years. With a simplified, big button interface, it's great for your 7-year-old daughter.
The real risk on any platform isn't the innocent 7-year-old; you can set up almost any OS to withstand their attack. It's the user who thinks he knows what he's doing, but doesn't, that's the real risk. If the person with the root/admin password doesn't know what he's doing--and this is the case with most home PCs--user protections are irrelevant.
Legal analysis is another question, apparently. True, products which are exported from a given state are exempt from taxation. So, when VA ships me a computer, it's an article exported from California. Consequently, it's exempt from tax.
However, when it's delivered to me in Michigan, it's no longer an item exported, it's an item imported. Suddenly, that clause doesn't apply anymore! Michigan is free to levy a tax on me, and they do.
Free of grammatical errors, eh? For starters, try learning the difference between 'its' and 'it's.' (Hint: 'its' is possessive, and 'it's' is a contraction of 'it is.')
Keep in mind, though, that this was after classes ended (mandated moveout for underclassmen was on the 28th)...the number of people checking email in the science center was probably pretty small. And even if seniors were around, of twelve kiosks, the eight by the staircase were covered. The 3 by lecture hall D were apparently still visible. Even if those were full, it's a 1-minute walk downstairs to the labs. Furthermore, I'd agree with the "inadequate computer facilities" argument only insofar as the Tru64 boxes are concerned. While those are often full, I've never seen the Mac or PC labs filled. If the main, multiplatform lab is full, go across to the Mac and PC classrooms across the hall. (They're better Macs, anyway.) When 97% of your students have computers, the need for giant labs is somewhat less. Not that I'm defending Harvard on ethical grounds--they're utterly spineless when it comes to donations, and can't even pay all of their workers a living wage. I just don't think this is quite as blatant as it seems on the surface.
Slashdot Mirror
The cartel was among LCD manufacturers. Chi Mei is the sixth company to plead guilty; the other five were LG, Sharp, Chunghwa, Seiko Epson, and Hitachi.
If you're a manufacturer who sends out a bid for LCD panels, and they all come back at something close to $X, you pay up. You need the parts, they have them, you pay what they're asking.
Whatever format Apple releases will instantly become the de facto standard, quite frankly. And chances are, it will be Apple Lossless, since existing iPods can already decode it.
Actually Apple (Computer) demanded compensation...
I would guess that "provision of . . . on-line information" would cover an ISP, though, and that's probably been registered since AppleLink came online in 1985.
sony has one; it's mentioned in the post:
"One very exciting product is Sony's 'Plug and Play'
DRN-XM01 model that works in both your car and home stereo system through the use of a $150 adapter kit."
Wrong -- National Semi is still an independent company. Nice try, tho.
well...mostly true, but I do have this Mac LC with Apple IIe card sitting next to me...
I think this is missing the point, though. The important factor, in the end, is not necessarily how a given program works, but how well it matches other programs. I'm a long-time Mac user, but I've got quite a bit of experience with other platforms (including doing Windows phone support, ick.) The reason I keep coming back to MacOS is speed. I can learn new programs faster, and operate quicker in old ones, than I can on other OSes. Every time I try customization tools, I usually end up going back.
It's little nuances of the GUI that add up--always having the menu bar in the same place, so you don't have to look for it, having consistant file and edit menus--that seem to enable this speed. I know Apple's UI (or 'user experience,' these days...) guidelines seem neurotic--"space elements thirteen pixels apart," etc.--but in the end, consistency is just as important as quality. (Contrast this with M$, who radically alter the interface of their programs with every revision.) Continual change is not always a sign of improvement, but rather of the need for it. Example: Microsoft has attempted to "improve" text selection using a mouse. Instead, it prevents me from selecting partial words, or phrases without their end punctuation, etc. The old system worked well, but in the name of 'better interface,' it's been ruined.
'Complex, configurable' interfaces place an unreasonable burden on the user. It's the developer who should have to worry about making the UI efficient--not the user. This is the standard we hold non-computer products to. We don't expect auto makers to let us replace the steering wheel with a joystick--using one would be another skill we'd have to master, when we could simply be driving. Another example--kitchen appliances. The 16 speed blenders of 25 years ago have predominantly given way to models which turn on and off. Why? Because the added complexity--in the name of configurability--was unneccesary, useless, and in the end, unwelcome.
I realize that power users will always want to change little things in their OSes. Nevertheless, I maintain that the most meaningful changes aren't ones that configurable operating systems allow you to make; they're usually corrections for programs which were improperly designed in the first place. Design a program once well, and your users won't need to customize it.
MacOS 9 has multi-user functionality which locks down the system folder, limits the applications a given user can use, etc. It's more functional in that respect than Win98. And Apple's had that confounded shell, At Ease, around for years. With a simplified, big button interface, it's great for your 7-year-old daughter.
The real risk on any platform isn't the innocent 7-year-old; you can set up almost any OS to withstand their attack. It's the user who thinks he knows what he's doing, but doesn't, that's the real risk. If the person with the root/admin password doesn't know what he's doing--and this is the case with most home PCs--user protections are irrelevant.
Bravo. We can cut and paste...
Legal analysis is another question, apparently. True, products which are exported from a given state are exempt from taxation. So, when VA ships me a computer, it's an article exported from California. Consequently, it's exempt from tax.
However, when it's delivered to me in Michigan, it's no longer an item exported, it's an item imported. Suddenly, that clause doesn't apply anymore! Michigan is free to levy a tax on me, and they do.
Free of grammatical errors, eh? For starters, try learning the difference between 'its' and 'it's.' (Hint: 'its' is possessive, and 'it's' is a contraction of 'it is.')
Keep in mind, though, that this was after classes ended (mandated moveout for underclassmen was on the 28th)...the number of people checking email in the science center was probably pretty small. And even if seniors were around, of twelve kiosks, the eight by the staircase were covered. The 3 by lecture hall D were apparently still visible. Even if those were full, it's a 1-minute walk downstairs to the labs. Furthermore, I'd agree with the "inadequate computer facilities" argument only insofar as the Tru64 boxes are concerned. While those are often full, I've never seen the Mac or PC labs filled. If the main, multiplatform lab is full, go across to the Mac and PC classrooms across the hall. (They're better Macs, anyway.) When 97% of your students have computers, the need for giant labs is somewhat less. Not that I'm defending Harvard on ethical grounds--they're utterly spineless when it comes to donations, and can't even pay all of their workers a living wage. I just don't think this is quite as blatant as it seems on the surface.