I don't think this is unique to Open Source software. As a person who develops for Macs, a bit of Windows, and some free software in my spare time I see user demands made all the time. There are three things I need before I develop something:
Motivation - without this (or a contract binding you) the work inevitably languishes
Ability - An idea may be great but if it's not already something I can do or think I can learn to do, it's not feasible for me to do it.
Resources - Other things (health, family, paying jobs) have higher priority. Is it realistic of me to volunteer for this?
I frequently hear from users who want something but have no idea how it would be implemented. They throw out the idea (e.g. "a voice driven paint program!") and instantly expect the same fervor that struck them will strike me.
What's worse is when they don't take "No" as an acceptable answer. There are so many times I've seen people be bullied in to saying "Yes" and then only get a half-implemented, half-assed, crappy result. Thus disappointing everyone involved, hurting their own reputation, and discouraging other developers who want to work on the same idea if they have to follow in your failed precedent.
I like development ideas. I really hate it when I have developed a new skill or mastered a new api and I have zero idea about how I could usefully work with it. But for working on someone else's idea, the motivation, ability, and resources have to be there or I'm just going to end up screwing yet another pooch. (so to speak)
Rura Penthe completely missed my point when he sarcastically wrote:
Yeah the CHUD tools are so hard to get ahold of now that you can download them straight from Apple's FTP without even registering for ADC... Clearly they're locking down those developer tools!
The easy accessiblity of the CHUD tools today is not in dispute; it's a very useful thing! Tech-savvy end users have asked for these tools to help resolve problems with CPU related heat and sleep problems. They are genuinely useful even if you aren't using them for their intended hardware development and testing purposes.
The rumor mongers are jeopardizing that free and easy access to tomorrow's CHUD tools for some half-baked speculation they dug out of strings in the version recently released. The fact that people are bragging that this access was:
easy
anonymous
Apple's fault for not being more careful
implies to me that we'll no longer see a useful version of CHUD tools made available to the public. Many of those who benefit from those tools will be pissed if the tools disappear because of this meaningless, speculative "evidence"
Apple is a market driven company, not a tech driven one. We might see reference to an undisclosed chip, an octuple processor arrangement, or a 6502 in those strings. Trying to predict Apple's marketing from a tech tool is not effective.
CHUD tools are most useful for testing products, but they happen to have some utility for those of us who want to tweak our computers at home. The latest release indicates that the developers have modularized the product and made it more adaptable when chips change.
What's likely happened is that Apple will get hot under the collar about the way these tools can inadvertantly indicate possible future plans. They used to release WWDC sessions on Quicktime CD's for free (back in 98 or 99). They used to not make developers sign their life away in non-disclosure agreements. They used to allow more access to developer docs, tools, and seeds to the dedicated hobbyist. Now these are all restricted because of leaks that have come from eager fans searching resource forks, out of context remarks, and misunderstood uses as "evidence of Apple's future plans".
If no quad processors are actually in the production pipeline, this rumor will be forgotten. If there is something that has been revealed by the Chud tools, it's more likely that Chud tools will be even more restricted and difficult to get hold of. Slowing down development as developers fear for their jobs for accidentally including a reference to a product they may know nothing about (e.g. Asteroid, a cpu number, a code name, etc.)
It's not like these strings tell you any useful information. Since Apple has a lengthy design, testing and production pipeline all it really says is we might have some new tech in a couple of years if it seems like a good marketing move. There's no pricing, case design, release dates, or anything marketing related in these leaks. In fact, since Apple is strongly dependent on a suprising and innovative marketing aura these leaks and speculations probably worsen that marketability.
One other example: the rumors sites have seen some "evidence" in seed releases that Apple will be making a push to release OS X on x86 chips. That may be the case, but more than likely they're confusing efforts to make a Window's user's transition to a Mac easier as "evidence" that Apple is moving to x86. All that happens is that OS X users will be disappointed that future releases don't run on the x86 line as their speculative "evidence" promised.
Get over the obsession with the rumors; you're only setting youreself up for disappointment.
Does anyone know if this will impact Camino (the Mac OS X front-end using a Gecko backend). It sounds like they've already had to make a leap similar to what the SeaMonkey effort appears to be contemplating now, but even with just a voluntary effort these changes may be significant.
Josh (one of Mozilla's recent hires) posted what sounded like great news about Camino's short and medium term release cycle back on March 5. But these latest revelations may have raised some employment questions for guys like him and Mike. Camino is mostly (completely?) volunteer right now, but even in that light job insecurity can raise questions in how much one can volunteer.
Though I'm tempted, I think I'll avoid seeing this movie in the theatres for at least a month (if not completely). Why?
It'll do well enough without my money. LucasFilm doesn't pay attention to customers today; giving them more money on opening weekend won't change that.
There's almost no chance that the theatre version will be the same version released to DVD or in any other form in the future. Why become attached to an unfinished version of the film?
Hear the true reviews. I don't mean shills like my local newspaper reviewer, but the sci-fi fan sites that have similar values in film as mine. Will seeing the movie further ruin my appreciation of Star Wars and Empire? That's a bigger concern than whether this episode is any good.
Inevitability of Boredom or Disappointment. We know what will happen in the sequels, yet after two attempts no plots or characters have been developed in the first two prequels that I really care about. More than likely any "surprises" will undermine the movies that follow.
I'm posting this on slashdot in case enough disappointed fans and geeks will join me in waiting at least a month after the debut to go see the film. I can't deny there's a curiousity about how this story will be finished, but my expectations are set very low and really only amount to knowing whether it will expectorate, urinate, or defecate on Episodes 4-6.
Like a good watercolor painter, I think Ray Ozzie's talent I admire most is knowing when to stop. In the technology world, it's easy to get consumed by adding just one more thing or moving just a bit more. Knowing when is the best time to abandon ship or to keep going is tough. In some ways it's the lesson that makes Steve Jobs a good marketer in my mind.
On the other hand, I think this sale shows that Ray Ozzy's main interest is in satisfying Ray Ozzy. A title is just a title; will Ray have real power and be happy? Will he really be able to do things that he wants to do? Is his goal really to help Microsoft or just to help his own business goals by making a bigger name for himself and abandoning them in 5 years time to start his own super-company?
Personally, I use the iTunes store to listen to those thirty second previews of songs far more than I download music. I have a quirky set of tastes where I'll often want to find just the right version of a song. For example, after seeing the end of the Dead Like Me pilot and wanting to find that version of Que Sera, Sera that was played in a minor key toward the end, I found the iTunes music store's preview function invaluable.
I heard many, many different variations. And most of them were sung in the style of Doris Day's version (giddy and happy and making me want to slap the singer). There were some versions that came close, but I couldn't decide whether that was what I wanted or not. Ultimately at the $1 price per song I didn't download any of my "candidates" since I didn't hear enough to convince me before the sale that that was the type I was looking for. Had the price been $0.05 per song I probably would have downloaded most of the candidates and not given the price much thought.
While this wouldn't help sell the big name artists at all, it would get the casual music listener like me. Whether there are enough of my type around is a completely different question and one that I can't begin to answer.
(As an aside, I never found the right version of Que Sera, Sera and in general that isn't the type of music I listen to. Just something that struck a nerve at that particular moment.)
While I think this has no real significance in terms of kernel development, I think it may go a long way in promoting the cross-platform, fashionable traits of Linux.
Some of my previous employers think of Linux (unfairly) as nothing more than a DOS knock-off. I'd love to see their jaws drop when they read about this. (Perhaps Vogue might do a fashion shoot with Linux on a Mac Mini?)
When these become commonplace, I bet we'll be hearing press releases announcing premature failure of a space rover after incorrectly installing the proper physics chip.
"Nasa is sorry to announce that the latest lunar rover had a Mars physics chip installed which resulted in behavior akin to a Nascar hot rod. After breaking the moon's gravitational pull, the rover struck the Hubbel telescope. South Korean residents are instructed to saty indoors in case the re-entering space junk is mistaken for a missle attack by the North Korean army."
The leak might help the publicity of the show, but don't think for a moment that this was intentional. My bet is that if it were a calculated publicity stunt would not have been a complete copy of the show. For example...
"Someone got hold of the first 16 minutes of the new Doctor Who and made it available on the internet. If you're dying to know what the new show is like, take a look! But be warned, they weren't able to snag the ending so it will definitely leave you hanging just before a critical point in the story. If it seems intriguing, you'll definitely want to watch it when it's broadcast."
There was a book published in 2004 by two classic Mac aficionados called Mac Toys. It seems like the Replica I would have made a better project in the sequel to this book (or a competitor's). The Mac hacks/case mods at the end of the book strengthen this impression in my mind. I liked the Apple ][+ (though I actually owned a clone by Franklin) and I still have tons of Nibble magazines, Beagle Brothers manuals, Beneath Apple DOS, and various programming guides. I've always had a curiousity about the Apple I, but none of the significant "improvements" (e.g. the Apple/// or Apple//gs) really piqued my interest. There are probably very few of my type around to market this book to, my guess is that the nostalgia and Mac projects were aimed at the Mac fan-boys who may have had zero interest in the Apple I without these additions.
I do like the idea to make a functional replica with newer parts. And as much as modern replicas focus on aesthetics, I was actually expecting 3/4 of the book to talk about how to lathe the wooden case and apply a nice varnish stain. Even with these changes and updates, it does appear to have more than I expected. As a hardware hacking project though, I'm a bit disappointed that this book doesn't appear to go into further details with how to make a true clone. I routinely see 1970's era electronics (still apparently working well) made available for the price of hauling the stuff away. I was expecting some deviations, but pointers about what is a deviation, why it was made, and how to do it the right way might have been even better.
I'm a bit disappointed that the author doesn't talk about using one of the Apple I emulation projects (such as Sim6502 or Cocoa Pom I to offer a reference platform to introduce the programming. (Just in case the user gave up with the hardware hacking). Admittedly half the fun in programming old hardware are the tribulations in doing it, but the emulator would give the reader a better introduction to concepts without tossing the reader straight in to the confusing world of the old tools as well. Most programming books teach the user how to user the compiler and debugger separately from teaching the language; it seems like a natural way to do it if it's possible.
I thought this reviewer was excellent and remained fairly objective despite his disappointment. If someone such as Griffin or MacAlly got a kit together, and Wiley or some other publisher overhauled the text, and one of the emulator projects were able to make the software available, then it sounds like this would be an incredible project. As it is, it sounds like it would sate some of my curiousity about the Apple I, but perhaps not in a good way.
Recently, I started having to use a Mac on a very small table where there was no room to put the mouse to the side of the keyboard. The mouse was bluetooth enabled so I started putting it between my chest and keyboard.
Though I set the mouse up headed vertically at 12:00 on the desk, I found that after a week of use the mouse was aimed at 10:00 and looked almost horizontal. My mouse finger was aimed at 11:00 or so. Yet despite the odd position, it was very nice to be able to slide my hand from my home row of keys to using the mouse with almost no rotation or wrist torque.
What's even stranger is that I didn't really even notice the problem of the mouse movement angle not matching the cursor movement angle on screen. Even though my hand was almost moving left-right to go up-down on screen, it all was very natural and went unnoticed until I tried to reposition the mouse back to 12:00 and having it feel awkward.
I'm very strongly right handed and have never been able to use the mouse with my left hand at all in the past. Even more strange is that on some occasions I'm using my right hand for something else (e.g. data entry on the keypad) and I've found that if I flip the mouse along the y-axis so it's facing 2:00 it becomes usable to my left hand for some very simple mouse clicks and movements.
The corded mouse aimed moving in the same direction as the screen pointer seems so natural an idea, so I'm still finding it strange that removing the cord and allowing your hand to find the comfortable angle does much more to make a comfortable mousing experience.
If users who get their computer knowledge from fashion magazines see a change, it will be from Windows to a marketed, hip, device. The Mac being currently marketed to such segments almost as an "internet attachment" to your iPod makes it the most likely candidate for the fashionistas who are tech-clueless.
The class of managers and marketers who are tech-clueless and perceive the PC as a fancy addition to their typewriter or calculator may very well perceive Linux as the new and better upgrade to the PC.
One thing that's frequently downplayed is that Linux will run on both Mac and PC hardware. Showing off Linux running on these two hardware platforms will go a long way toward telling the tech-clueless that Linux goes well beyond traditional personal computers: both in abilities and in their lack of turf wars and platform exclusive tricks. (And if it helps enlighten a few politicians, judges, or patent attorneys about what an OS is, all the better)
Linux is the tech of tomorrow that can replace the dodgier tech that's being pushed today.
And the next set of bounties will be offered for cleaning up bugs introduced by rapidly encouraging people motivated only by money to make changes to Gnome without fully considering the ramifications of these memory reductions.:-)
It's not intended to increase security. There have already been people who create fake ATM's. A person comes up, puts the card in the mag stripe reader, and enters a 4 digit pin, when suddenly the machine issues a "error" and ejects the card. No matter the level of patience, the person eventually gives up and goes away. An ATM that has a familiar and trusted "look and feel" might be made into a safe place to do business one might not want to do over the web.
My guess is that this isn't an attempt at increasing security at Wells Fargo ATM's but of being able to offer web ads while your transaction is in progress. In addition they'll probably add a menu of things you can buy and have sent to you. Additionally, Wells Fargo gets ad revenue and can start sending you spam to your physical mailbox (which is not a legal problem since you have a business relationship with them).
"New Baldness Cure! Nervous about using the web? Go to an ATM, put your card in, and choose option 4 from the services menu! It couldn't be easier!"
The Mac's version numbering system isn't quite as wonderful a model as Apache's APR or some other better adherent to the Major.Minor.Patch version numbering scheme. When you start mixing end user expectations and marketing dictives with the numbers you'll wind up with a confusing system. Mac OS X may have started with sane motives, but it's started mixing policy with numbering and that is starting to cause erroneous expectations and possibly confusion down the line.
The first integer (the major release number) is about incompatibility. Data structures, file formats, programs, plug-ins, and hardware are all possibilities. Other things have been added or stabilized, but it's only with the major release number changing does a user have to worry about converting all of his data or find that programs have stopped working. 10.0.0 was an unexpectedly major change from 9.x. for many users. Incompatability infuriated the Mac marketplace. Line endings in text files. International support standards. Font libraries. Disk formatting schemes. Whole classes of programs that stopped working. The end of extensions and control panels. This scale of "incompatibility" could not be hinted at again in future releases. As a result you won't see that first version number change for marketing reasons for a long time to come.
Originally, when the minor revision number changed the end user might have some new functionality, speed increases, or new improvement possibilities to take advantage of, but barring unexpected stability issues, you don't need to worry about backward compatability issues. It is important to pay attention to forward compatability issues if you're looking to install new software or make changes to what you have, your old stuff will still work but lusting after new programs may mean you need to upgrade to a newer version. When Puma (v 10.1.x) came out, there were major improvements, but other than some inadvertant bugs no compatibility issues. It was a free upgrade and many say it was significantly improved to be the first usable version of Mac OS X. Unfortunately that didn't continue to hold. Upgrading the minor revision number was a postive thing in terms of market expectations, just as the major number meant icky problems with incompatibility and lower expectations. With Jaguar (10.2.x) and Panther (10.3.x) Apple has been using the second number as "major release" number where they'll change backward compatibility and now it's even more obvious since Apple was now marketing and charging for these minor revision number upgrades in just as big a spectacle as the upgrades to Mac OS 7 and 8 and 9 before. (though there use of older version numbers pre-OS X had even more marketing influence).
When the third number (the patch number) changes that was only supposed to say that the set of bugs and stability of the version has changed. Whether customers and developers have found them or not, a release has a set of bugs and errors. The patch number simply says that this set has changed. Hopefully for the better, but making changes can sometimes cause things to become more unstable. No features should be intentionally added or removed. During the release of Cougar (10.0.x) and Puma (10.1.x) there were some major bugs and fixes would often bring increases in functionality when a whole technology or sub-system started working or had huge speed boosts. Now the third number says nothing about bugs and stability but due to marketing use of the first and second numbers has become the feature release number.
So what happened to that third number as a marker of the bugs and stability? This is now pushed down into the Build number. Do 9 out of 10 Mac users know what the build number is or how to find it? Click on the version number in the "About This Mac" dialog box (or look at the System Profiler app). This probably isn't a bad decision on the part of marketing: "Obfuscate the level of instability" but it does make it harder for support people to diagnos
One of the arguments used in the past against gun control was that the populace in general has to be ready to take up arms against an invasion.
It would seem that the banning of first person shooters or other forms of virtual gun usage would be a threat in the same manner that gun control threatens both our civil liberties and national security (but doesn't everything post-9/11 do so).
In fact the pro-control advocates would appear to have even a weaker argument because this crosses over two civil liberties in the bill of rights and doesn't directly endanger others from accidental use or abuse like a real gun can be argued to do.
(Note that I don't own a gun, nor do I play video games made after 1983. I find this an intriguing debate of civil rights that curiously already seems influenced by money and lobbying.)
You are not correct here. A patent gives you a right to restrict others but no right to produce. At best a patent gives you a date to say you were the first to invent and might stop others after you
My writing in those sentences Mr. Coward referred to was more vague than normal for me (sorry).
Below I've written a longer "lifecycle" of the way it seems the altruistic intentions with patent owners become corrupted. (Substitute the square bracketed term "doorknob" with "bitmap graphic compression", "blood pressure medication", "user interface device", or other patentable idea.
We've patented this new implementation of [doorknob] technology. Some may claim (after reading our patent) that a crude form of [doorknob] has been around for years, but our patent shows that we are the first to create a new take on an unprecedented, unobvious, unpatented implementation of this [doorknob].
Our business model doesn't depend on profiting directly from this patent, but we would never be able to create our products or services if we had to license this from [Bigmoney Corp]. We benefit if this idea is free to use in our products and services.
Though our idea was unprecendented, we were legally advised to patent it in order to pre-emptively reduce legal costs of others who (after seeing our new take) tried to patent a similar idea. While our precedent alone should be enough to invalidate their later patent claim, we would not have the legal funding to do so against an agressive company like [Bigmoney Corp]. The investment of time and patent filing fees now might significantly reduce the cost of a legal threat against a better-funded and represented legal team later.
On further analysis, we've decided that [doorknob] usage, research, and markets would benefit by switching to our new patented ideas and implementations. By standardizing on our patented idea, we will modernize, simplify, and unify the entire concept of a [doorknob]. Today, our public relations department has also issued a [legally insignificant document] saying that our company has no intent to enforce this patent and all are free to use it.
After three board of directors turnovers, two stock market crashes, and realizing that we established and own the standard in [doorknob] usage and reference, we've decided we can make more money by enforcing our patents, ending our own skanky products and services, and joining in political licensing games to eliminate or promote work which others do.
After making billions from these tricks, our patent is about to expire. We'd like to make public these additional patents we've bought or developed ourselves that you may not realize you're already in violation of.
The original owner of the patent may have been motivated by things other than money, but if simply owning a patent starts making money there are many who will dump those nobler intentions.
Companies which get "defensive" patents to protect themselves from a bigger, more agressive, richer company seem to be merely an altruistic charade. If the owners ever get tempted by the money, then it will be enforced.
If a company had no desire to ever enforce the patent, then turn it over to the public domain. You'd still create the legal precedent that allows your products to exist.
If a company holds on to the patent, it's simply to be able to pull it out of popular use at a later time (no matter who cooperative they seem now).
If a patent becomes the shoulders for your patent or product to stand on, then you're setting yourself up for a fall no matter how solid that ground seems now.
WARNING: THIS HARLOT HAS NOT BEEN CHECKED FOR CRIMES OF ADULTERY, MURDER, CONSENSUAL SODOMY, OR SLEEPING WITH THE DEVIL!
Hello! Most of my attempts to post to Tru.commie are rejected because of similarities to my last name and my mother's. I'm posting here on slashdot, blacksonblondes, and goat.six because I've just turned 18 and am unable to find a man that is completely unlike dear old dad. Please help! Pearl Prynn
Leo was right for pointing out my mistake. A memorial shouldn't tolerate a slip of memory. And Hamlet being freely available in multiple, searchable editions doesn't help matters.
Is there someway that we can see the planned route or route-in-progress via some data feed in GPSylon?
Besides just being cool to see this with a free tool, I'd like to see what sort of path qualifies as circumnavigation.
Obviously a round the world flight over Antarctica wouldn't qualify, but by staying in the Northern hemisphere and using the jet stream it would seem to abbreviate the full distance of the earth's circumference. (No doubt I'll get flamed by some people better informed than I, but I'm just asking for more info than the article and most entertainment-based media will give.)
Slashdot Mirror
- Motivation - without this (or a contract binding you) the work inevitably languishes
- Ability - An idea may be great but if it's not already something I can do or think I can learn to do, it's not feasible for me to do it.
- Resources - Other things (health, family, paying jobs) have higher priority. Is it realistic of me to volunteer for this?
I frequently hear from users who want something but have no idea how it would be implemented. They throw out the idea (e.g. "a voice driven paint program!") and instantly expect the same fervor that struck them will strike me.What's worse is when they don't take "No" as an acceptable answer. There are so many times I've seen people be bullied in to saying "Yes" and then only get a half-implemented, half-assed, crappy result. Thus disappointing everyone involved, hurting their own reputation, and discouraging other developers who want to work on the same idea if they have to follow in your failed precedent.
I like development ideas. I really hate it when I have developed a new skill or mastered a new api and I have zero idea about how I could usefully work with it. But for working on someone else's idea, the motivation, ability, and resources have to be there or I'm just going to end up screwing yet another pooch. (so to speak)
The rumor mongers are jeopardizing that free and easy access to tomorrow's CHUD tools for some half-baked speculation they dug out of strings in the version recently released. The fact that people are bragging that this access was:
- easy
- anonymous
- Apple's fault for not being more careful
implies to me that we'll no longer see a useful version of CHUD tools made available to the public. Many of those who benefit from those tools will be pissed if the tools disappear because of this meaningless, speculative "evidence"Apple is a market driven company, not a tech driven one. We might see reference to an undisclosed chip, an octuple processor arrangement, or a 6502 in those strings. Trying to predict Apple's marketing from a tech tool is not effective.
CHUD tools are most useful for testing products, but they happen to have some utility for those of us who want to tweak our computers at home. The latest release indicates that the developers have modularized the product and made it more adaptable when chips change.
What's likely happened is that Apple will get hot under the collar about the way these tools can inadvertantly indicate possible future plans. They used to release WWDC sessions on Quicktime CD's for free (back in 98 or 99). They used to not make developers sign their life away in non-disclosure agreements. They used to allow more access to developer docs, tools, and seeds to the dedicated hobbyist. Now these are all restricted because of leaks that have come from eager fans searching resource forks, out of context remarks, and misunderstood uses as "evidence of Apple's future plans".
If no quad processors are actually in the production pipeline, this rumor will be forgotten. If there is something that has been revealed by the Chud tools, it's more likely that Chud tools will be even more restricted and difficult to get hold of. Slowing down development as developers fear for their jobs for accidentally including a reference to a product they may know nothing about (e.g. Asteroid, a cpu number, a code name, etc.)
It's not like these strings tell you any useful information. Since Apple has a lengthy design, testing and production pipeline all it really says is we might have some new tech in a couple of years if it seems like a good marketing move. There's no pricing, case design, release dates, or anything marketing related in these leaks. In fact, since Apple is strongly dependent on a suprising and innovative marketing aura these leaks and speculations probably worsen that marketability.
One other example: the rumors sites have seen some "evidence" in seed releases that Apple will be making a push to release OS X on x86 chips. That may be the case, but more than likely they're confusing efforts to make a Window's user's transition to a Mac easier as "evidence" that Apple is moving to x86. All that happens is that OS X users will be disappointed that future releases don't run on the x86 line as their speculative "evidence" promised.
Get over the obsession with the rumors; you're only setting youreself up for disappointment.
Josh (one of Mozilla's recent hires) posted what sounded like great news about Camino's short and medium term release cycle back on March 5. But these latest revelations may have raised some employment questions for guys like him and Mike. Camino is mostly (completely?) volunteer right now, but even in that light job insecurity can raise questions in how much one can volunteer.
- It'll do well enough without my money. LucasFilm doesn't pay attention to customers today; giving them more money on opening weekend won't change that.
- There's almost no chance that the theatre version will be the same version released to DVD or in any other form in the future. Why become attached to an unfinished version of the film?
- Hear the true reviews. I don't mean shills like my local newspaper reviewer, but the sci-fi fan sites that have similar values in film as mine. Will seeing the movie further ruin my appreciation of Star Wars and Empire? That's a bigger concern than whether this episode is any good.
- Inevitability of Boredom or Disappointment. We know what will happen in the sequels, yet after two attempts no plots or characters have been developed in the first two prequels that I really care about. More than likely any "surprises" will undermine the movies that follow.
I'm posting this on slashdot in case enough disappointed fans and geeks will join me in waiting at least a month after the debut to go see the film. I can't deny there's a curiousity about how this story will be finished, but my expectations are set very low and really only amount to knowing whether it will expectorate, urinate, or defecate on Episodes 4-6.Like a good watercolor painter, I think Ray Ozzie's talent I admire most is knowing when to stop. In the technology world, it's easy to get consumed by adding just one more thing or moving just a bit more. Knowing when is the best time to abandon ship or to keep going is tough. In some ways it's the lesson that makes Steve Jobs a good marketer in my mind.
On the other hand, I think this sale shows that Ray Ozzy's main interest is in satisfying Ray Ozzy. A title is just a title; will Ray have real power and be happy? Will he really be able to do things that he wants to do? Is his goal really to help Microsoft or just to help his own business goals by making a bigger name for himself and abandoning them in 5 years time to start his own super-company?
I heard many, many different variations. And most of them were sung in the style of Doris Day's version (giddy and happy and making me want to slap the singer). There were some versions that came close, but I couldn't decide whether that was what I wanted or not. Ultimately at the $1 price per song I didn't download any of my "candidates" since I didn't hear enough to convince me before the sale that that was the type I was looking for. Had the price been $0.05 per song I probably would have downloaded most of the candidates and not given the price much thought.
While this wouldn't help sell the big name artists at all, it would get the casual music listener like me. Whether there are enough of my type around is a completely different question and one that I can't begin to answer.
(As an aside, I never found the right version of Que Sera, Sera and in general that isn't the type of music I listen to. Just something that struck a nerve at that particular moment.)
While I think this has no real significance in terms of kernel development, I think it may go a long way in promoting the cross-platform, fashionable traits of Linux.
Some of my previous employers think of Linux (unfairly) as nothing more than a DOS knock-off. I'd love to see their jaws drop when they read about this. (Perhaps Vogue might do a fashion shoot with Linux on a Mac Mini?)
When these become commonplace, I bet we'll be hearing press releases announcing premature failure of a space rover after incorrectly installing the proper physics chip.
"Nasa is sorry to announce that the latest lunar rover had a Mars physics chip installed which resulted in behavior akin to a Nascar hot rod. After breaking the moon's gravitational pull, the rover struck the Hubbel telescope. South Korean residents are instructed to saty indoors in case the re-entering space junk is mistaken for a missle attack by the North Korean army."
I do like the idea to make a functional replica with newer parts. And as much as modern replicas focus on aesthetics, I was actually expecting 3/4 of the book to talk about how to lathe the wooden case and apply a nice varnish stain. Even with these changes and updates, it does appear to have more than I expected. As a hardware hacking project though, I'm a bit disappointed that this book doesn't appear to go into further details with how to make a true clone. I routinely see 1970's era electronics (still apparently working well) made available for the price of hauling the stuff away. I was expecting some deviations, but pointers about what is a deviation, why it was made, and how to do it the right way might have been even better.
I'm a bit disappointed that the author doesn't talk about using one of the Apple I emulation projects (such as Sim6502 or Cocoa Pom I to offer a reference platform to introduce the programming. (Just in case the user gave up with the hardware hacking). Admittedly half the fun in programming old hardware are the tribulations in doing it, but the emulator would give the reader a better introduction to concepts without tossing the reader straight in to the confusing world of the old tools as well. Most programming books teach the user how to user the compiler and debugger separately from teaching the language; it seems like a natural way to do it if it's possible.
I thought this reviewer was excellent and remained fairly objective despite his disappointment. If someone such as Griffin or MacAlly got a kit together, and Wiley or some other publisher overhauled the text, and one of the emulator projects were able to make the software available, then it sounds like this would be an incredible project. As it is, it sounds like it would sate some of my curiousity about the Apple I, but perhaps not in a good way.
Trademarks (unlike patents and copyrights) have to be defended against misuse and abuse or they may be judged to be unenforcible later.
This is probably a harder thing to do in the open source world, and also much more important to establish a trustworthy brand and indentity.
I agree that mouse ergonomics needs work.
Recently, I started having to use a Mac on a very small table where there was no room to put the mouse to the side of the keyboard. The mouse was bluetooth enabled so I started putting it between my chest and keyboard.
Though I set the mouse up headed vertically at 12:00 on the desk, I found that after a week of use the mouse was aimed at 10:00 and looked almost horizontal. My mouse finger was aimed at 11:00 or so. Yet despite the odd position, it was very nice to be able to slide my hand from my home row of keys to using the mouse with almost no rotation or wrist torque.
What's even stranger is that I didn't really even notice the problem of the mouse movement angle not matching the cursor movement angle on screen. Even though my hand was almost moving left-right to go up-down on screen, it all was very natural and went unnoticed until I tried to reposition the mouse back to 12:00 and having it feel awkward.
I'm very strongly right handed and have never been able to use the mouse with my left hand at all in the past. Even more strange is that on some occasions I'm using my right hand for something else (e.g. data entry on the keypad) and I've found that if I flip the mouse along the y-axis so it's facing 2:00 it becomes usable to my left hand for some very simple mouse clicks and movements.
The corded mouse aimed moving in the same direction as the screen pointer seems so natural an idea, so I'm still finding it strange that removing the cord and allowing your hand to find the comfortable angle does much more to make a comfortable mousing experience.
If users who get their computer knowledge from fashion magazines see a change, it will be from Windows to a marketed, hip, device. The Mac being currently marketed to such segments almost as an "internet attachment" to your iPod makes it the most likely candidate for the fashionistas who are tech-clueless.
The class of managers and marketers who are tech-clueless and perceive the PC as a fancy addition to their typewriter or calculator may very well perceive Linux as the new and better upgrade to the PC.
One thing that's frequently downplayed is that Linux will run on both Mac and PC hardware. Showing off Linux running on these two hardware platforms will go a long way toward telling the tech-clueless that Linux goes well beyond traditional personal computers: both in abilities and in their lack of turf wars and platform exclusive tricks. (And if it helps enlighten a few politicians, judges, or patent attorneys about what an OS is, all the better)
Linux is the tech of tomorrow that can replace the dodgier tech that's being pushed today.
And the next set of bounties will be offered for cleaning up bugs introduced by rapidly encouraging people motivated only by money to make changes to Gnome without fully considering the ramifications of these memory reductions. :-)
It's not intended to increase security. There have already been people who create fake ATM's. A person comes up, puts the card in the mag stripe reader, and enters a 4 digit pin, when suddenly the machine issues a "error" and ejects the card. No matter the level of patience, the person eventually gives up and goes away. An ATM that has a familiar and trusted "look and feel" might be made into a safe place to do business one might not want to do over the web.
My guess is that this isn't an attempt at increasing security at Wells Fargo ATM's but of being able to offer web ads while your transaction is in progress. In addition they'll probably add a menu of things you can buy and have sent to you. Additionally, Wells Fargo gets ad revenue and can start sending you spam to your physical mailbox (which is not a legal problem since you have a business relationship with them).
"New Baldness Cure! Nervous about using the web? Go to an ATM, put your card in, and choose option 4 from the services menu! It couldn't be easier!"
The Mac's version numbering system isn't quite as wonderful a model as Apache's APR or some other better adherent to the Major.Minor.Patch version numbering scheme. When you start mixing end user expectations and marketing dictives with the numbers you'll wind up with a confusing system. Mac OS X may have started with sane motives, but it's started mixing policy with numbering and that is starting to cause erroneous expectations and possibly confusion down the line.
The first integer (the major release number) is about incompatibility. Data structures, file formats, programs, plug-ins, and hardware are all possibilities. Other things have been added or stabilized, but it's only with the major release number changing does a user have to worry about converting all of his data or find that programs have stopped working. 10.0.0 was an unexpectedly major change from 9.x. for many users. Incompatability infuriated the Mac marketplace. Line endings in text files. International support standards. Font libraries. Disk formatting schemes. Whole classes of programs that stopped working. The end of extensions and control panels. This scale of "incompatibility" could not be hinted at again in future releases. As a result you won't see that first version number change for marketing reasons for a long time to come.
Originally, when the minor revision number changed the end user might have some new functionality, speed increases, or new improvement possibilities to take advantage of, but barring unexpected stability issues, you don't need to worry about backward compatability issues. It is important to pay attention to forward compatability issues if you're looking to install new software or make changes to what you have, your old stuff will still work but lusting after new programs may mean you need to upgrade to a newer version. When Puma (v 10.1.x) came out, there were major improvements, but other than some inadvertant bugs no compatibility issues. It was a free upgrade and many say it was significantly improved to be the first usable version of Mac OS X. Unfortunately that didn't continue to hold. Upgrading the minor revision number was a postive thing in terms of market expectations, just as the major number meant icky problems with incompatibility and lower expectations. With Jaguar (10.2.x) and Panther (10.3.x) Apple has been using the second number as "major release" number where they'll change backward compatibility and now it's even more obvious since Apple was now marketing and charging for these minor revision number upgrades in just as big a spectacle as the upgrades to Mac OS 7 and 8 and 9 before. (though there use of older version numbers pre-OS X had even more marketing influence).
When the third number (the patch number) changes that was only supposed to say that the set of bugs and stability of the version has changed. Whether customers and developers have found them or not, a release has a set of bugs and errors. The patch number simply says that this set has changed. Hopefully for the better, but making changes can sometimes cause things to become more unstable. No features should be intentionally added or removed. During the release of Cougar (10.0.x) and Puma (10.1.x) there were some major bugs and fixes would often bring increases in functionality when a whole technology or sub-system started working or had huge speed boosts. Now the third number says nothing about bugs and stability but due to marketing use of the first and second numbers has become the feature release number.
So what happened to that third number as a marker of the bugs and stability? This is now pushed down into the Build number. Do 9 out of 10 Mac users know what the build number is or how to find it? Click on the version number in the "About This Mac" dialog box (or look at the System Profiler app). This probably isn't a bad decision on the part of marketing: "Obfuscate the level of instability" but it does make it harder for support people to diagnos
It would seem that the banning of first person shooters or other forms of virtual gun usage would be a threat in the same manner that gun control threatens both our civil liberties and national security (but doesn't everything post-9/11 do so).
In fact the pro-control advocates would appear to have even a weaker argument because this crosses over two civil liberties in the bill of rights and doesn't directly endanger others from accidental use or abuse like a real gun can be argued to do.
(Note that I don't own a gun, nor do I play video games made after 1983. I find this an intriguing debate of civil rights that curiously already seems influenced by money and lobbying.)
Below I've written a longer "lifecycle" of the way it seems the altruistic intentions with patent owners become corrupted. (Substitute the square bracketed term "doorknob" with "bitmap graphic compression", "blood pressure medication", "user interface device", or other patentable idea.
- We've patented this new implementation of [doorknob] technology. Some may claim (after reading our patent) that a crude form of [doorknob] has been around for years, but our patent shows that we are the first to create a new take on an unprecedented, unobvious, unpatented implementation of this [doorknob].
- Our business model doesn't depend on profiting directly from this patent, but we would never be able to create our products or services if we had to license this from [Bigmoney Corp]. We benefit if this idea is free to use in our products and services.
- Though our idea was unprecendented, we were legally advised to patent it in order to pre-emptively reduce legal costs of others who (after seeing our new take) tried to patent a similar idea. While our precedent alone should be enough to invalidate their later patent claim, we would not have the legal funding to do so against an agressive company like [Bigmoney Corp]. The investment of time and patent filing fees now might significantly reduce the cost of a legal threat against a better-funded and represented legal team later.
- On further analysis, we've decided that [doorknob] usage, research, and markets would benefit by switching to our new patented ideas and implementations. By standardizing on our patented idea, we will modernize, simplify, and unify the entire concept of a [doorknob]. Today, our public relations department has also issued a [legally insignificant document] saying that our company has no intent to enforce this patent and all are free to use it.
- After three board of directors turnovers, two stock market crashes, and realizing that we established and own the standard in [doorknob] usage and reference, we've decided we can make more money by enforcing our patents, ending our own skanky products and services, and joining in political licensing games to eliminate or promote work which others do.
- After making billions from these tricks, our patent is about to expire. We'd like to make public these additional patents we've bought or developed ourselves that you may not realize you're already in violation of.
The original owner of the patent may have been motivated by things other than money, but if simply owning a patent starts making money there are many who will dump those nobler intentions.Companies which get "defensive" patents to protect themselves from a bigger, more agressive, richer company seem to be merely an altruistic charade. If the owners ever get tempted by the money, then it will be enforced.
If a company had no desire to ever enforce the patent, then turn it over to the public domain. You'd still create the legal precedent that allows your products to exist.
If a company holds on to the patent, it's simply to be able to pull it out of popular use at a later time (no matter who cooperative they seem now).
If a patent becomes the shoulders for your patent or product to stand on, then you're setting yourself up for a fall no matter how solid that ground seems now.
My apologies for this distraction.
Remember though, Peace is a homophone of Piece. Perhaps they really meant:
- Our way is [a declaration of opinion].
- Our way is [a firearm].
- Our way is [tearing a part from a whole].
I can see most of the executive branch saying this.But considering that:
- Raskin attacked the Mac in an October 2004 interview in The Guardian.
- He wasn't a current employee
- Corporate death notices sting corporations stock prices
- There's further suspected but unpublicized animosity between Apple and Raskin
My guess is that it probably won't be mentioned on Apple's website on Monday, but it will be all over many mac community websites by then.Besides just being cool to see this with a free tool, I'd like to see what sort of path qualifies as circumnavigation.
Obviously a round the world flight over Antarctica wouldn't qualify, but by staying in the Northern hemisphere and using the jet stream it would seem to abbreviate the full distance of the earth's circumference. (No doubt I'll get flamed by some people better informed than I, but I'm just asking for more info than the article and most entertainment-based media will give.)