oh my god that's so true. i never thought of that. i bet all the hoopla about RIAA lawsuits is starting to reach a class of people who could never figure out a P2P network unless they somehow learned that they could completely stop paying for all their media.
mmm hmmm. i have my wireless router open and named Public. when i first moved in i got and used a (weak) signal from the apartment building next door down, and i used gnutella then; now i have my wireless router open and i still use gnutella, and i'm sure my neighbors do, too. sometimes i worry about it, but not too much.
When I was in college at Dartmouth there was a policy that the regularly-made backups of the mail servers were deleted after *one week*. They were daily or weekly backups, can't remember. The given reason for the policy was that it was in the college's interests to have nothing to hand over if there were ever a subpoena.
I'm reading Cosmos right now (published in 1980), and Sagan includes a little daydream about the future of Mars exploration (the Viking was the first, non-roving Mars lander):
For all the tantalizing and provocative character of the Viking results, I know a hundred places on Mars which are far more interesting than our landing sites. The ideal tool is a roving vehicle carrying on advanced experiments, particularly in imaging, chemistry and biology. Prototypes of such rovers are under development by NASA. They know on their own how to go over rocks, how not to fall down ravines, how to get out of tight spots. It is within our capability to land a rover on Mars that could scan its surroundings, see the most interesting place in its field of view and, by the same time tomorrow, be there. Every day a new place, a complex, winding traverse over the varied topography of this appealing planet.
Such a mission would reap enormous scientific benefits, even if there is no life on Mars. We could wander down the ancient river valleys, up the slopes of one of the great volcanic mountains, along the strange stepped terrain of the icy polar terraces, or muster a close approach to the beckoning pyramids of Mars. Public interest in such a mission would be sizable. Every day a new set of vistas would arrive on our home television screens. We could trace the route, ponder the findings, suggest new destinations. The journey would be long, the rover obedient to radio commands from Earth. There would be plenty of time for good new ideas to be incorporated into the mission plan. A billion people could participate in the exploration of another world.
The only thing he got wrong was the medium by which many people would participate in the mission, since there was no internet/web in 1980.
i don't know the details of either law, but if RIAA can demand a zillion dollars for a handful of shared MP3s, then imagine what this company could demand for ten million infringing spam emails!
You're confused, and I'm confused as to why you're confused. To me, they used clear english: they don't want to end the product lines; rather they want to stake their business future on the product lines. What part don't you (and the people who mod'd you up) understand?
i think you are right in the end, but: 1.) i would say that iTunes is more about MP3 than AAC, and even if you don't think so, it's not quite right to say that iTunes is 'all about' AAC; and AFAIK converting an AAC to an MP3 is not a "simple task".
mm. i'm a professional coder. i do perl and java. i've only ever used Linux and Mac to do dev on (ie not Windows), but i think Mac is, at least, no worse than Linux.
this is only true if Apple wanted to be a software company, a la Microsoft. if Apple had decided to get out of the hardware business and just sell its (superior) OS software, then licensing the hardware specs would have been a good move; but Apple wanted (and still wants) to be a whole-system vender, which it can't be (economically) if it licenses its hardware.
indeed, one major reason that Apple's offerings are so great is that it controls the whole system, so of COURSE it all integrates well. if they had other people build the hardware, they wouldn't be able to integrate everything so well or so quickly -- PLUS they'd lose all the hardware revenue (which, i understand, is the majority of the revenue). i'm no economist, i'm no computer salesman, but i certainly would call it "obvious" that licensing is the reason Apple failed to lead the PC market.
to tell you the truth, i personally think that the reason Apple doesn't sell as many computer systems as WinTel is the same reason the Green party doesn't get as many votes as the Republican party: PEOPLE DON'T LIKE HIPPIES. even when the hippies are right. Apple computers are used by potsmoking, creative, freethinking people (at least, that is the stereotype, mmkay?), and all the stick-in-the-butt people don't want to associate themselves with those types. and by far most people have sticks in their butts.
but i'm not trying to be facecious: i'm a potsmoking, creative, freethinking person, and i use a Mac -- probably for that reason. i mean, i like to SAY i don't use Windows because it's insecure and ugly and whatever, but the real reason is that i LIKE the underdog, the paradigm breaker, the hippies -- maybe it's no surprise that i chose a Macintosh.
it depends on whether or not Apple learns from history. Apple's lawyers didn't manage to write a very good contract with Microsoft in the early 90s, after all...
NO closet? there's still the obscurity of the code. don't act like it's a triviality to look thru (and grok) tens of thousands of lines of code. that's a moderately deep closet. wasn't there a database or something which was open sourced, and then several YEARS later someone found a backdoor password in it?
these 'skeletons' can be 'found' by anyone with a LOT of time and skillz on their hands, just like they can with closed-source software (with a little more effort, maybe).
every time slashdot has a story about spam, i again wonder to myself why the world hasn't turned to the obvious solution: a new email standard. i read a comment recently to the effect of "if a given protocol allows cheating, it's a bad protocol". it should be clear to everybody that this technical problem can not be solved with legislation (not that it shouldn't be illegal anyway, but it's folly to expect laws to have any real impact). the world needs an email protocol which is encrypted and authenticated, traceable and secure, and easily combined with whitelist or pay-to-deliver filters.
i guess i never realized that windows was so advanced. do you have any examples? what exactly was windows doing that Mac System Software wasn't? windows got mulititasking right at the same time that MultiFinder was released for System 6, right? then apple released System 7, which was (this may be apocraphal -- i was in junior high so i was too young to really know) supposed to be the "Windows Killer" (since it was way more advanced -- silly Apple thinking that mattered).
also, when it was released, OS X was way more stable than OS 9 was (but not nearly as stable as it is now). that, my friend, i'm sure of, because i used both.
oh, i'd also like to point out how you said that windows was as technically sophisticated, "but it laggeed in UI design and stability". aren't those two of that top three or four most important 'sophistications' for an operating system?
yo seriously, respond with examples because i don't know Windows historical feature set well enough to comment. i've always been under the impression that apple's software has always been technically superior.
Slashdot Mirror
oh my god that's so true. i never thought of that. i bet all the hoopla about RIAA lawsuits is starting to reach a class of people who could never figure out a P2P network unless they somehow learned that they could completely stop paying for all their media.
mmm hmmm. i have my wireless router open and named Public. when i first moved in i got and used a (weak) signal from the apartment building next door down, and i used gnutella then; now i have my wireless router open and i still use gnutella, and i'm sure my neighbors do, too. sometimes i worry about it, but not too much.
When I was in college at Dartmouth there was a policy that the regularly-made backups of the mail servers were deleted after *one week*. They were daily or weekly backups, can't remember. The given reason for the policy was that it was in the college's interests to have nothing to hand over if there were ever a subpoena.
The only thing he got wrong was the medium by which many people would participate in the mission, since there was no internet/web in 1980.
ouch
oh my god that is awesome. someone out there deserves a pat on the back.
i don't know the details of either law, but if RIAA can demand a zillion dollars for a handful of shared MP3s, then imagine what this company could demand for ten million infringing spam emails!
That is true, but don't underestimate the significant enhancements to the GUI concepts developed by Xerox.
emacs vs. vi isn't a religious issue -- it's just that vi users are crackwhores who don't know good from bad. it's that simple.
i'm glad you aren't in charge of linux. i'm happy for all the things you're unhappy for.
You're confused, and I'm confused as to why you're confused. To me, they used clear english: they don't want to end the product lines; rather they want to stake their business future on the product lines. What part don't you (and the people who mod'd you up) understand?
well let's take a polling, then. i know i've heard music in lots of elevators. who else?
you are ignoring the fact that MP3 is technically inferior to almost all competitors: AAC, WMA, Ogg, from a quality-per-filesize standpoint.
of course, i'd still rather poke my eyes out with pointy sticks than use WMA.
peace
i think you are right in the end, but: 1.) i would say that iTunes is more about MP3 than AAC, and even if you don't think so, it's not quite right to say that iTunes is 'all about' AAC; and AFAIK converting an AAC to an MP3 is not a "simple task".
peace
isn't that illegal? that sounds like something that would be against the rules. not that i'd know.
mm. i'm a professional coder. i do perl and java. i've only ever used Linux and Mac to do dev on (ie not Windows), but i think Mac is, at least, no worse than Linux.
Free dime bag with your MP3 player? Sweet!
this is only true if Apple wanted to be a software company, a la Microsoft. if Apple had decided to get out of the hardware business and just sell its (superior) OS software, then licensing the hardware specs would have been a good move; but Apple wanted (and still wants) to be a whole-system vender, which it can't be (economically) if it licenses its hardware.
indeed, one major reason that Apple's offerings are so great is that it controls the whole system, so of COURSE it all integrates well. if they had other people build the hardware, they wouldn't be able to integrate everything so well or so quickly -- PLUS they'd lose all the hardware revenue (which, i understand, is the majority of the revenue). i'm no economist, i'm no computer salesman, but i certainly would call it "obvious" that licensing is the reason Apple failed to lead the PC market.
to tell you the truth, i personally think that the reason Apple doesn't sell as many computer systems as WinTel is the same reason the Green party doesn't get as many votes as the Republican party: PEOPLE DON'T LIKE HIPPIES. even when the hippies are right. Apple computers are used by potsmoking, creative, freethinking people (at least, that is the stereotype, mmkay?), and all the stick-in-the-butt people don't want to associate themselves with those types. and by far most people have sticks in their butts.
but i'm not trying to be facecious: i'm a potsmoking, creative, freethinking person, and i use a Mac -- probably for that reason. i mean, i like to SAY i don't use Windows because it's insecure and ugly and whatever, but the real reason is that i LIKE the underdog, the paradigm breaker, the hippies -- maybe it's no surprise that i chose a Macintosh.
it depends on whether or not Apple learns from history. Apple's lawyers didn't manage to write a very good contract with Microsoft in the early 90s, after all...
yes. very, very, very far behind.
after the SCO lawsuit, IBM will owe them six hundred bucks per seat.
NO closet? there's still the obscurity of the code. don't act like it's a triviality to look thru (and grok) tens of thousands of lines of code. that's a moderately deep closet. wasn't there a database or something which was open sourced, and then several YEARS later someone found a backdoor password in it?
these 'skeletons' can be 'found' by anyone with a LOT of time and skillz on their hands, just like they can with closed-source software (with a little more effort, maybe).
you can boot a Mac from an iPod? wow. i didn't know that. like, full-on OS X with personal directories and the like? on any modern Mac?
every time slashdot has a story about spam, i again wonder to myself why the world hasn't turned to the obvious solution: a new email standard. i read a comment recently to the effect of "if a given protocol allows cheating, it's a bad protocol". it should be clear to everybody that this technical problem can not be solved with legislation (not that it shouldn't be illegal anyway, but it's folly to expect laws to have any real impact). the world needs an email protocol which is encrypted and authenticated, traceable and secure, and easily combined with whitelist or pay-to-deliver filters.
i guess i never realized that windows was so advanced. do you have any examples? what exactly was windows doing that Mac System Software wasn't? windows got mulititasking right at the same time that MultiFinder was released for System 6, right? then apple released System 7, which was (this may be apocraphal -- i was in junior high so i was too young to really know) supposed to be the "Windows Killer" (since it was way more advanced -- silly Apple thinking that mattered).
also, when it was released, OS X was way more stable than OS 9 was (but not nearly as stable as it is now). that, my friend, i'm sure of, because i used both.
oh, i'd also like to point out how you said that windows was as technically sophisticated, "but it laggeed in UI design and stability". aren't those two of that top three or four most important 'sophistications' for an operating system?
yo seriously, respond with examples because i don't know Windows historical feature set well enough to comment. i've always been under the impression that apple's software has always been technically superior.