...the connection has to be shared with 120 Mac Biggots...
What is a "biggot"?
From the context, I think it means someone who likes Big Macs, but I'm not sure. Doesn't the story take place in Starbucks? How did Macdonalds get involved!?
Why not create a religion that simply is a negation of all other religions?
Because they members of such a religion would tend to explode at church picnics, and when near malls, television stations, and other places of worship.
I'd love to try OSX... but the hardware is too damn expensive.
I expected this as well, but when I actually priced out a Dell and a Gateway with the same specs as the custom G4 I wanted, the price difference was unremarkable. The equivalent of a superdrive on any Pee-Cee really drives the price up. As pointed out by another poster, you can't really compare a preconfigured Mac with a build-yer-own Intel/AMD box.
There is no question that this can mean a higher price, and one you may not be able to afford. The real thing to consider is that Apple has decided not to compete in the "budget" computer market. That market is sewed up pretty tight, and can be extremely cut-throat.
It looks like Apple is continuing to go after the "semi/professional" user, and the prices reflect that. Their business model precludes a budget-priced offering. The cheapest iMacs are really there to offer people the "upsell" when they are considering a budget PC, but may want a little more. Many car manufacturers work on this very same principle.
I don't expect everyone to be able to afford a $6k computer (even though I feel that the $649 difference you mention as totally worth the price!), but I suggest you save up your money to buy a real computer after college. My Mac has made computing fun again.
I don't know sex you are sexing about. I find ways to work sexy words into written conversation all sex day. For example, I've just finished a sex method in some sexy classes. I commented it sexily with plenty of sex.
...and hilarity ensued, with sexy results...
Oh, geez, my/. sense is tingling. Looks like I lost Karma.
I don't know first-hand about FireWireprinters, but the FireWire ports seem to be used more for somewhat "specialty" items that need the grunt FW gives. There are plenty of audio and video devices that utilize and depend on FireWire.
At the very least, many musicians use external FW drives to stream digitial audio to, making it very easy to take that raw data to another machine for mix-down, collaboration with other artists, &etc. I'm guessing the video production folks do the same thing.
Don't forget about the various digital media players out there. Very few of these are going to be USB in the future.
Wasn't there comparision of Apache and IIS done last year that basically found that you should use the platform that your server software is best suited for? that is, they found that if you need to run a bizniz web server on Win32, then you should use IIS, MSSQL, ASP and friends.
They found that, from a maintenance, performance and development standpoint, running Apache on Win32 (for example) was pounding a square peg into a round hole. Note that nobody was saying "you can't run Apache on Win32", just that it was not recommended for various reasons. The number one reason was performance.
Obviously, Microsoft has plenty of access to obscure or even "secret" Win32 APIs.
Just one study, AFAIK, and I don't know how dependable the source is, but it seemed to confirm some anecdotal evidence I had accumulated.
I disagree (slightly). We can, and do, continually re-invent the wheel (or hone the current wheel into something nobody expected it to do!). In your example, the real reason to fire the engineer is that we don't necessarily want to build bridges with the newest unproven technology.
The reason for slow adoption of technology in some fields is that the older tech satisfies two main criteria:
it works, and it works as expected
it is reasonably well tested; we know where the problems are, and how to work around them
So, unless there is a critical reason to adopt a newer way to build a bridge (i.e., the old methods can't solve new problems, the old methods don't scale, &etc.) the better choice is to default to the well-known solutions.
Yeah, well, unless you are ham-fisted like me. I go through mice -- about one a year. The switches usually go first, but I do put a lot of kilometers on ball mice. They don't stop working, but the switches just aren't as stiff, and the whole unit loses accuracy.
I find I wear out the optical mice a lot less, but I still give the switches a good run. I stick with Logitech, as they seem to take my abuse better than Microsoft.
Did the PS actually have more intelligence in the feedback than simply buzzing the gamepad at particular moments during the game?
Having an off-blance motor vibrate to let you know you've crashed into a wall is one thing. Actually tying this tactile gesture to finer-grained information like windows, buttons and menus is another.
I liked the idea of the iFeel mouse, but I use a Mac. I'd like to see something like this for my G4!
Be Australian: Know that anybody with a long family tree in your nation was a murderer or some other variety of thug....
Or simply owed a lot of money to some asshole land-owner. Usually after you were evicted from your land and taking a job in one of the newly industrialized factories. Working for shit pay, no doubt.
Many of the "crimes" that got a lot of poeple shipped off to the colony-du-jour by the British Empire were no more heinous than the ones that/.ers have such healthy discussions over. You know, things like: Looking at source code. Exploring firmware. Making a few copies of some songs to see if you want to buy the CD/DVD.
Most of the noise over the Jaguar upgrade price seems to be folks who have just paid for the full version with a new system. Most of us don't mind paying something, but $199 (Canadian dollars, no education discount, AFAICT [email if you know different]) is too much just 4 months after buying a full copy of 10.1.
Yes, I consider the $6K I spent on a new G4 package, and the OS X license it came with a "full purchase" of OS X 10.1.x. How is it not?
Sorry, but that is just how I feel. I would gladly pay something, but not full price. It's all in the presentation, isn't it?
Then again, if the "full price" was $299, and apple offered it $199, maybe it wouldn't sting so bad.
The point is that it might make more business sense to offer some kind of tiered pricing, especially given the "switch" compaign. I love my new Mac. Apple should be trying to encourage that warm and fuzzy feeling us UNIX geeks get with OS X.
Maybe the price is fair, and we are all being unreasonable. This doesn't change the fact that Apple could have presented the price in a better light to ease the sticker shock. Somebody fsck'd up.
In the end, only the totally honest will be the ones to pay full price. A good number of otherwise honest folk will find other ways to create their own discount. In this case, they will harangue Amazon. Others will find more creative ways. It doesn't have to be this way.
If they want to "license" me under a restrictive license, my consent would have to be gained at the time I bought said license.
Amen, brother. This is the whole idea behind free (as-in-speech) software. The problem is convincing the rest of the world.
Another problem is convincing a corporation's lawyers that "You are free to do whatever you want with it... and they have no right to stop you or hinder you".
Then again, in the bizniz world where companies really care about these licenses, there are actual contractual agreements so everyone is on the same page. Even then, things can go awry.
The simple fact is that companies can, and do, use the EULA as a big stick to get people to do what they want with their software. Judges are inclined to agree with them, AFAICT. The game is rigged from the start.
As far as they are concerned, you do not own any software that has a EULA that says you are only granted the right to "use" said software. It is essentially and provably illegal to modify, reverse-engineer or otherwise muck with the software they sell you. You have few rights because you only own the "media". Whether this is right or not is certainly open for discussion. Whether you can be sued by a publisher for breaking this agreement is not. They can, and they will.
At least, this is my understanding. I tend to disregard the EULA on everything I own, like 99.9% of us. I may not even care that much. That doesn't change the fact that it's still a binding agreement in many courts.
*shrug* I suppose this is exactly why we need alternative licensing options like Copylefts and the BSD license. Stallman wasn't just being a paranoid asshole. Not this time, anyway.
I don't know the facts about Linux, specifically, but there is a push in the *BSD world for kernel security features to be incorporated as defaults.
The only one I recall off the top of my head is "non-executable stacks" to keep stack overflow attacks from being quite as easy. I'm sure it has other advantages, as well.
All this does is "raise the bar" for attackers. I'm assuming most of the Linux kernel security tweaks do the same.
Within a timeframe (probably determined according to retail law in your area), you can certainly return it for new media. The wording of any EULA is careful to distinguish between the "media" and the "software".
I agree. However, this doesn't help you much when a cadre of lawyers with briefcases show up, frowning mightily.
The real question is, "has anyone successfully argued that standard EULA agreements on software are not contracts, and cannot be upheld if I decided to hack said software?"
I do not have an answer to this question. It's rather acedemic whether or not an end-user license or whatnot is a legal contract unless someone needs to challenge said "contract".
Many legal contraints can be placed upon individuals, whether or not they sign a formal contract.
[Offtopic] It's perfectly legal (in Canada) to make as many verbatim copies of any music production you legally own. Heck, it's a consumer right. That doesn't stop (US, Canadian, World) companies from restricting those rights whenever, and wherever, they can. Nobodies taken them to court and beat them soundly with a stout statute.
I'm not a lawyer, so I'm going to stop talking about the legalities now. My only point was that, under current conditions, it is trivial for a DVD manufacturer (&etc) to restrict almost any activity it deems unsavoury simply by invoking standard end-user agreements.
By opening this package, you agree to the following... if you don't like what this agreement says, feel free to return the opened software... our lawyers are bigger than god, so good luck getting your argument to stick... w3 0wn th3 c0d3, and give you a limited license to use it on a single CPU... all your base belong to us...
Since we can assume that this is a technical interview (given the OP), we know from anthropological studies of the North American geek that he'll know he's lucky to score with one out of the three.
He'll go out on a date with the one chooses him, save the last condom "for the future" just in case, you know, she wants to do it again.
And then goes play WarCraft.
If the interviewee *could* actually make use of 3 condoms in a single session, instead of just talking about it, the alpha-female would be sure to snag hom for herself, anyway.
I think others have touched on this, but I don't think I saw a reply that said simply: "you don't own commercial software".
You have a license agreement that allows you to use the software (with some restrictions). You don't own the software in the DVD player any more than you own your copy of Mac OS or Windows.
The hardware has patents to protect it. You can own it and do what you want with it in your own home, just don't try to use their ideas in your device. If you kill or blind yourself making your microwave into a DVD player, you agree not to sue them.
The software, however, is another thing. On a microwave, it's embedded enough to be considered "hardware". Sanyo isn't going to care (much) if an individual hacks their timer/power interface. However, a DVD player is a specialized computer system that reads and decodes information off supplied media so it can be muxed/demuxed off to a variety of data streams.
I hate to be a "meto", but I second this. Very cool app for encrypting discrete files on your Mac. It has the option of scrubbing the original file after encryption.
I've found the noise of my new G4 unacceptable for the price. The thing whistles and hums constantly. It's not the loudest box I've ever worked with, but it certainly isn't the quietest.
Well, I thought the article was a bit more thin on information than necessary. There was no indication what kind of software these companies make, which made the conclusion less than obvious.
Not to mention that the link to the company no longer holds any real information.
I appreciated the link to real information about the products Apple has just aquired. Kind of the whole point of the article, don't you think?
Slashdot Mirror
From the context, I think it means someone who likes Big Macs, but I'm not sure. Doesn't the story take place in Starbucks? How did Macdonalds get involved!?
It's a conspiracy!
Because they members of such a religion would tend to explode at church picnics, and when near malls, television stations, and other places of worship.
I expected this as well, but when I actually priced out a Dell and a Gateway with the same specs as the custom G4 I wanted, the price difference was unremarkable. The equivalent of a superdrive on any Pee-Cee really drives the price up. As pointed out by another poster, you can't really compare a preconfigured Mac with a build-yer-own Intel/AMD box.
There is no question that this can mean a higher price, and one you may not be able to afford. The real thing to consider is that Apple has decided not to compete in the "budget" computer market. That market is sewed up pretty tight, and can be extremely cut-throat.
It looks like Apple is continuing to go after the "semi/professional" user, and the prices reflect that. Their business model precludes a budget-priced offering. The cheapest iMacs are really there to offer people the "upsell" when they are considering a budget PC, but may want a little more. Many car manufacturers work on this very same principle.
I don't expect everyone to be able to afford a $6k computer (even though I feel that the $649 difference you mention as totally worth the price!), but I suggest you save up your money to buy a real computer after college. My Mac has made computing fun again.
I don't know sex you are sexing about. I find ways to work sexy words into written conversation all sex day. For example, I've just finished a sex method in some sexy classes. I commented it sexily with plenty of sex.
Oh, geez, my /. sense is tingling. Looks like I lost Karma.
I don't know first-hand about FireWire printers, but the FireWire ports seem to be used more for somewhat "specialty" items that need the grunt FW gives. There are plenty of audio and video devices that utilize and depend on FireWire.
At the very least, many musicians use external FW drives to stream digitial audio to, making it very easy to take that raw data to another machine for mix-down, collaboration with other artists, &etc. I'm guessing the video production folks do the same thing.
Don't forget about the various digital media players out there. Very few of these are going to be USB in the future.
Heh. Reminds me of a Tom the Dancing Bug comic, where he exposes the immoral trade in library books (and the evils of the Dewey Decimal System).
In the last panel the RIAA raids a guy's house because he's singing in the shower.
Wasn't there comparision of Apache and IIS done last year that basically found that you should use the platform that your server software is best suited for? that is, they found that if you need to run a bizniz web server on Win32, then you should use IIS, MSSQL, ASP and friends.
They found that, from a maintenance, performance and development standpoint, running Apache on Win32 (for example) was pounding a square peg into a round hole. Note that nobody was saying "you can't run Apache on Win32", just that it was not recommended for various reasons. The number one reason was performance.
Obviously, Microsoft has plenty of access to obscure or even "secret" Win32 APIs.
Just one study, AFAIK, and I don't know how dependable the source is, but it seemed to confirm some anecdotal evidence I had accumulated.
That depends on what kind of infinity we are talking about. Many models of infinity can be considered asymptotic.
I disagree (slightly). We can, and do, continually re-invent the wheel (or hone the current wheel into something nobody expected it to do!). In your example, the real reason to fire the engineer is that we don't necessarily want to build bridges with the newest unproven technology.
The reason for slow adoption of technology in some fields is that the older tech satisfies two main criteria:
So, unless there is a critical reason to adopt a newer way to build a bridge (i.e., the old methods can't solve new problems, the old methods don't scale, &etc.) the better choice is to default to the well-known solutions.
Yeah, well, unless you are ham-fisted like me. I go through mice -- about one a year. The switches usually go first, but I do put a lot of kilometers on ball mice. They don't stop working, but the switches just aren't as stiff, and the whole unit loses accuracy.
I find I wear out the optical mice a lot less, but I still give the switches a good run. I stick with Logitech, as they seem to take my abuse better than Microsoft.
Did the PS actually have more intelligence in the feedback than simply buzzing the gamepad at particular moments during the game?
Having an off-blance motor vibrate to let you know you've crashed into a wall is one thing. Actually tying this tactile gesture to finer-grained information like windows, buttons and menus is another.
I liked the idea of the iFeel mouse, but I use a Mac. I'd like to see something like this for my G4!
Or simply owed a lot of money to some asshole land-owner. Usually after you were evicted from your land and taking a job in one of the newly industrialized factories. Working for shit pay, no doubt.
Many of the "crimes" that got a lot of poeple shipped off to the colony-du-jour by the British Empire were no more heinous than the ones that /.ers have such healthy discussions over. You know, things like: Looking at source code. Exploring firmware. Making a few copies of some songs to see if you want to buy the CD/DVD.
Really thuggish things like that.
Most of the noise over the Jaguar upgrade price seems to be folks who have just paid for the full version with a new system. Most of us don't mind paying something, but $199 (Canadian dollars, no education discount, AFAICT [email if you know different]) is too much just 4 months after buying a full copy of 10.1.
Yes, I consider the $6K I spent on a new G4 package, and the OS X license it came with a "full purchase" of OS X 10.1.x. How is it not?
Sorry, but that is just how I feel. I would gladly pay something, but not full price. It's all in the presentation, isn't it?
Then again, if the "full price" was $299, and apple offered it $199, maybe it wouldn't sting so bad.
The point is that it might make more business sense to offer some kind of tiered pricing, especially given the "switch" compaign. I love my new Mac. Apple should be trying to encourage that warm and fuzzy feeling us UNIX geeks get with OS X.
Maybe the price is fair, and we are all being unreasonable. This doesn't change the fact that Apple could have presented the price in a better light to ease the sticker shock. Somebody fsck'd up.
In the end, only the totally honest will be the ones to pay full price. A good number of otherwise honest folk will find other ways to create their own discount. In this case, they will harangue Amazon. Others will find more creative ways. It doesn't have to be this way.
The package _was_ quality checked prior to release. A previous post mentioned that the tarball was compromised on or about July 31.
That is, the compromised package was put in place long after this release had been officially released.
Amen, brother. This is the whole idea behind free (as-in-speech) software. The problem is convincing the rest of the world.
Another problem is convincing a corporation's lawyers that "You are free to do whatever you want with it ... and they have no right to stop you or hinder you".
Then again, in the bizniz world where companies really care about these licenses, there are actual contractual agreements so everyone is on the same page. Even then, things can go awry.
The simple fact is that companies can, and do, use the EULA as a big stick to get people to do what they want with their software. Judges are inclined to agree with them, AFAICT. The game is rigged from the start.
As far as they are concerned, you do not own any software that has a EULA that says you are only granted the right to "use" said software. It is essentially and provably illegal to modify, reverse-engineer or otherwise muck with the software they sell you. You have few rights because you only own the "media". Whether this is right or not is certainly open for discussion. Whether you can be sued by a publisher for breaking this agreement is not. They can, and they will.
At least, this is my understanding. I tend to disregard the EULA on everything I own, like 99.9% of us. I may not even care that much. That doesn't change the fact that it's still a binding agreement in many courts.
*shrug* I suppose this is exactly why we need alternative licensing options like Copylefts and the BSD license. Stallman wasn't just being a paranoid asshole. Not this time, anyway.
That last part was humour. It's funny. Laugh.
I don't know the facts about Linux, specifically, but there is a push in the *BSD world for kernel security features to be incorporated as defaults.
The only one I recall off the top of my head is "non-executable stacks" to keep stack overflow attacks from being quite as easy. I'm sure it has other advantages, as well.
All this does is "raise the bar" for attackers. I'm assuming most of the Linux kernel security tweaks do the same.
Within a timeframe (probably determined according to retail law in your area), you can certainly return it for new media. The wording of any EULA is careful to distinguish between the "media" and the "software".
Now, that's the best idea I've heard all day!
M'boy, I like the cut of your jib. You're hired!
I agree. However, this doesn't help you much when a cadre of lawyers with briefcases show up, frowning mightily.
The real question is, "has anyone successfully argued that standard EULA agreements on software are not contracts, and cannot be upheld if I decided to hack said software?"
I do not have an answer to this question. It's rather acedemic whether or not an end-user license or whatnot is a legal contract unless someone needs to challenge said "contract".
Many legal contraints can be placed upon individuals, whether or not they sign a formal contract.
[Offtopic] It's perfectly legal (in Canada) to make as many verbatim copies of any music production you legally own. Heck, it's a consumer right. That doesn't stop (US, Canadian, World) companies from restricting those rights whenever, and wherever, they can. Nobodies taken them to court and beat them soundly with a stout statute.
I'm not a lawyer, so I'm going to stop talking about the legalities now. My only point was that, under current conditions, it is trivial for a DVD manufacturer (&etc) to restrict almost any activity it deems unsavoury simply by invoking standard end-user agreements.
By opening this package, you agree to the following... if you don't like what this agreement says, feel free to return the opened software... our lawyers are bigger than god, so good luck getting your argument to stick... w3 0wn th3 c0d3, and give you a limited license to use it on a single CPU... all your base belong to us...
Trick question!
Since we can assume that this is a technical interview (given the OP), we know from anthropological studies of the North American geek that he'll know he's lucky to score with one out of the three.
He'll go out on a date with the one chooses him, save the last condom "for the future" just in case, you know, she wants to do it again.
And then goes play WarCraft.
If the interviewee *could* actually make use of 3 condoms in a single session, instead of just talking about it, the alpha-female would be sure to snag hom for herself, anyway.
I think others have touched on this, but I don't think I saw a reply that said simply: "you don't own commercial software".
You have a license agreement that allows you to use the software (with some restrictions). You don't own the software in the DVD player any more than you own your copy of Mac OS or Windows.
The hardware has patents to protect it. You can own it and do what you want with it in your own home, just don't try to use their ideas in your device. If you kill or blind yourself making your microwave into a DVD player, you agree not to sue them.
The software, however, is another thing. On a microwave, it's embedded enough to be considered "hardware". Sanyo isn't going to care (much) if an individual hacks their timer/power interface. However, a DVD player is a specialized computer system that reads and decodes information off supplied media so it can be muxed/demuxed off to a variety of data streams.
I hate to be a "meto", but I second this. Very cool app for encrypting discrete files on your Mac. It has the option of scrubbing the original file after encryption.
Re: Heat and Noise
I've found the noise of my new G4 unacceptable for the price. The thing whistles and hums constantly. It's not the loudest box I've ever worked with, but it certainly isn't the quietest.
Well, I thought the article was a bit more thin on information than necessary. There was no indication what kind of software these companies make, which made the conclusion less than obvious.
Not to mention that the link to the company no longer holds any real information.
I appreciated the link to real information about the products Apple has just aquired. Kind of the whole point of the article, don't you think?