I think the market has improved since then, but that still doesn't mitigate the non-support on Apple's part.
The 1999 period was about the time Apple sales "crashed", just after the original iMac boom. It wasn't until a year or two ago that Mac sales recovered to a point that exceeded the "iMac boom".
I just found a couple charts, the first chart is of actual Mac sales, the second shows market share fraction:
Scuttlebutt from WWDC (from a guest on Leo Laport's MacBreak Weekly) is that it's also to grab search engine referral money. Take note that Google sent Mozilla over $25 Million for the favor of referring to Google. I think that amount goes a long way towards app development.
It doesn't hurt that it might increase Safari's market share. This helps ease checking pages in Safari, not having a Mac is no longer an excuse for not testing for it.
I remember the time when Republicans complained about unfunded mandates back before they took power of the legislatures in the early 90's, now it looks like they are happy with making them.
It doesn't look like much of a company either. It looks like they didn't even bother to put up a web page until January 1, that's the oldest entry. The site does not turn up on Archive.org's Wayback Machine. Their oldest blog entry is Dec 2006. That leads me to believe that they are looking for free advertising to drive interest in their services, on the coat tails of the day's most (in)famous company.
Why should he even bother to discover the hole? He's not getting money for it. He's doing it for the attention, I guess. Does that attention net him any more customers? I don't know, but given that most white-hat security researchers have an ethos to report security flaws, I guess that puts this guy as likely being in the gray-hat category, and I wouldn't want to support him.
I know that companies should put out better software, but this is a beta. Very buggy for beta, but still. I don't know why Apple released it, I think they too just needed PR or to prove that it's not a vaporware product. I'm pretty sure that they are aware that it's still a seriously flawed, premature product.
Given the complaints I've seen elsewhere, I think that the quality is closer to alpha stage development. Usually, "public beta" is done on software that's almost ready for use, but has minor bugs. The reports I've seen are that there are a lot of serious bugs in rendering and stability, and now, major security problems.
I'm pretty sure that copyright infringement to the tune of $700k is criminal in the US. I don't know where the boundary is, but after a certain dollar amount, it becomes a criminal matter.
I'm not so sure it is so clear-cut. Yahoo has employees in China, and those employees might be subject to prosecution because they didn't follow Chinese law with respect to investigations.
I think the expectation of 100 launches a year was probably known at the time as being a fantasy. The shuttle was also expected to be cheap entry into space and at a cost of over half a billion per launch, it's probably the most expensive launch platform, short of Apollo's Saturn V, which was a lot more potent.
It was claimed that they would launch a lot of satellites using the orbiter platform, but that was just dumb when unmanned rockets can do the same for a lot cheaper. The orbiter's only decent selling point is the ability to return large amounts of cargo back to Earth, which was only done on one occasion of significance, and also for repairing things in space, which was done a handful of times with the Hubble. Even the Hubble wasn't necessarily a good thing because NASA has since figured out that for the cost of a Hubble repair mission, they can send up brand-new specialized telescope designed for a specific task.
IIRC, the manufacturing productivity of the US is about as high as it's always been, a lot fewer people are needed to do the same value of work. It's mostly just the low skill jobs that went to China.
Either way Sony really should have asked for permission, if only to be kind. You can be sure that, if any game included a model of, say, the White House, without permission it would be attacked venomously.
Let's explore that a bit. Is a video game different from a movie? Did 20th Century Fox get permission to simulate the destruction of the White House for Independence Day? I think the White House was "destroyed" in Amerika too, but I don't remember any legal wrangling. One key difference is that the White House is government property, and government property is often not given intellectual property rights in the same way private enterprise might. Intellectual property of a centuries-old building basically doesn't exist that I'm aware.
I can see why people don't like it and might complain about it, but it sounds to me that the validity of a legal case is shaky. I think it's possible to derive the interior of a building from photographs without any sort of invasive acquisition methods, and as far as I know, in most cases, the photo belongs to the photographer.
Gateway claims that he got a second computer, and that the buyer kept the first computer. If that's true, then I can see how the company might think that he wheedled himself a free computer.
If the computer didn't work initially, and he really couldn't get help from the company, then I think that's grounds for a chargeback with the credit card issuer. I forget the deadline for a chargeback, but I think it's 90 days. That's a lot of time to resolve a problem.
The ratio of nut jobs in the US currently willing to go serial killer on something vs other people seems to be a lot less than 1:10,000,000. It might seem like there are a lot of violent nut jobs, but to suggest that is fallacy of misleading vividness, for one thing. One nut job killing two or three dozen can be the subject of news for several weeks, enough of them and it seems like it happens everywhere and all the time. In reality, it's a very rare and unpredictable event such that wholesale shifts in society would generally be a needless and overbearing knee-jerk reaction.
It's never about what people deserve, that would be a naive view. When you sell the full rights to something, you only get what you negotiate. The seller and buyer never fully knows what happens to a business or product after it's sold. With the meritocratic view that the seller should bask in the successes after sale should also mean that the seller should take a beating if it's a failure, but that's naive, because it's in the hands of new management out of the seller's control.
It also isn't as if the Knoll work wasn't heavily extended, with added polish and such. The Knolls apparently weren't able to market the project to the general public themselves, given the few hundred copies they managed to sell on their own.
Even under Rosetta, I like Photoshop Elements better than GIMP or GIMPShop. I don't use much by the way of advanced features, but I appreciate how Photoshop & PSE generally requires fewer button clicks to perform a given operation.
The marketing is a problem though. Microsoft's marketing seems to push the mature games to the extent that it almost seems there aren't any children's games.
Also, while I do respect their interest in keeping the platform affordable, it would be nice to get an XB360 offered with built-in HDDVD without having to buy the ridiculous side car add-on.
A G5 what? PowerMac? G5 PowerMacs were largely workstation class machines. They aren't even sold anymore, the Mac Pros are dual socket workstation class systems which should not be compared to single socket consumer systems. A Mac Pro is best comparable to Dell's Precision 590 or 690 (really, 690 with 1kW PSU).
I think it's lamentable that they don't offer a large single-socket desktop or a cheaper budget desktop, but that doesn't excuse poor comparisons.
There are pro photo printers by Epson and other companies that have very long life. Epson claims 108 years for color, 200 years for B&W. Their printers are pretty expensive, starting from $500 and I've seen a model going for $1500.
The currently shipping version of OS X doesn't support ZFS. The developer version of Leopard doesn't really support ZFS very well yet, you can't boot from it and the Disk Utility just crashes, last I heard. Leopard won't ship until October.
What do you think a person with talents in the material science can do with cancer? That's about as dumb as going into McDonalds and asking the cashier why she isn't out curing cancer - because biology might not necessarily be where her talents lie.
That looks like a false dichotomy to me. I don't think either of those two systems is desirable, and there are plenty of other options. I think you understate the difficulty in installing and setting up MythTV. I am using EyeTV and its setup was, without hyperbole, a hundred times faster and a hundred times easier than my experience trying to set up MythTV.
I don't think analog broadcast HDTV is in any more than a niche/legacy broadcast mode anymore, there's no point in saying "Digital HDTV", it's almost always redundant. Besides, even though ATSC is always digital, it's not always HDTV. It is mostly just prime time that is in HD, but at least the PVR just records a bitstream rather than to capture and compress video.
In my area, there is *no* reason to fallback to analog, unless you want to see a touch of ghosting or snow. ALL my area TV stations are broadcasting in the digital, even if it might not be HD, at least it's in a fairly clean digital transmission. I live in a ~#50 ranked "metro" area hastily defined by the feds to lump three counties together, but the cities have a lot of rural area between them in this allegedly metro area, so it's not as if I'm in a high density urban region.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the market has improved since then, but that still doesn't mitigate the non-support on Apple's part.
The 1999 period was about the time Apple sales "crashed", just after the original iMac boom. It wasn't until a year or two ago that Mac sales recovered to a point that exceeded the "iMac boom".
I just found a couple charts, the first chart is of actual Mac sales, the second shows market share fraction:
http://www.systemshootouts.org/mac_sales.html
So I guess it would be a pretty tough thing unless TransGaming technology works well, which is really an encapsulization of the Windows binary.
Scuttlebutt from WWDC (from a guest on Leo Laport's MacBreak Weekly) is that it's also to grab search engine referral money. Take note that Google sent Mozilla over $25 Million for the favor of referring to Google. I think that amount goes a long way towards app development.
It doesn't hurt that it might increase Safari's market share. This helps ease checking pages in Safari, not having a Mac is no longer an excuse for not testing for it.
I remember the time when Republicans complained about unfunded mandates back before they took power of the legislatures in the early 90's, now it looks like they are happy with making them.
It doesn't look like much of a company either. It looks like they didn't even bother to put up a web page until January 1, that's the oldest entry. The site does not turn up on Archive.org's Wayback Machine. Their oldest blog entry is Dec 2006. That leads me to believe that they are looking for free advertising to drive interest in their services, on the coat tails of the day's most (in)famous company.
Why should he even bother to discover the hole? He's not getting money for it. He's doing it for the attention, I guess. Does that attention net him any more customers? I don't know, but given that most white-hat security researchers have an ethos to report security flaws, I guess that puts this guy as likely being in the gray-hat category, and I wouldn't want to support him.
I know that companies should put out better software, but this is a beta. Very buggy for beta, but still. I don't know why Apple released it, I think they too just needed PR or to prove that it's not a vaporware product. I'm pretty sure that they are aware that it's still a seriously flawed, premature product.
Given the complaints I've seen elsewhere, I think that the quality is closer to alpha stage development. Usually, "public beta" is done on software that's almost ready for use, but has minor bugs. The reports I've seen are that there are a lot of serious bugs in rendering and stability, and now, major security problems.
I'm pretty sure that copyright infringement to the tune of $700k is criminal in the US. I don't know where the boundary is, but after a certain dollar amount, it becomes a criminal matter.
I'm not so sure it is so clear-cut. Yahoo has employees in China, and those employees might be subject to prosecution because they didn't follow Chinese law with respect to investigations.
I think the expectation of 100 launches a year was probably known at the time as being a fantasy. The shuttle was also expected to be cheap entry into space and at a cost of over half a billion per launch, it's probably the most expensive launch platform, short of Apollo's Saturn V, which was a lot more potent.
It was claimed that they would launch a lot of satellites using the orbiter platform, but that was just dumb when unmanned rockets can do the same for a lot cheaper. The orbiter's only decent selling point is the ability to return large amounts of cargo back to Earth, which was only done on one occasion of significance, and also for repairing things in space, which was done a handful of times with the Hubble. Even the Hubble wasn't necessarily a good thing because NASA has since figured out that for the cost of a Hubble repair mission, they can send up brand-new specialized telescope designed for a specific task.
IIRC, the manufacturing productivity of the US is about as high as it's always been, a lot fewer people are needed to do the same value of work. It's mostly just the low skill jobs that went to China.
Where are the naughty bits?
Either way Sony really should have asked for permission, if only to be kind. You can be sure that, if any game included a model of, say, the White House, without permission it would be attacked venomously.
Let's explore that a bit. Is a video game different from a movie? Did 20th Century Fox get permission to simulate the destruction of the White House for Independence Day? I think the White House was "destroyed" in Amerika too, but I don't remember any legal wrangling. One key difference is that the White House is government property, and government property is often not given intellectual property rights in the same way private enterprise might. Intellectual property of a centuries-old building basically doesn't exist that I'm aware.
I can see why people don't like it and might complain about it, but it sounds to me that the validity of a legal case is shaky. I think it's possible to derive the interior of a building from photographs without any sort of invasive acquisition methods, and as far as I know, in most cases, the photo belongs to the photographer.
I really don't understand the situation.
Gateway claims that he got a second computer, and that the buyer kept the first computer. If that's true, then I can see how the company might think that he wheedled himself a free computer.
If the computer didn't work initially, and he really couldn't get help from the company, then I think that's grounds for a chargeback with the credit card issuer. I forget the deadline for a chargeback, but I think it's 90 days. That's a lot of time to resolve a problem.
The ratio of nut jobs in the US currently willing to go serial killer on something vs other people seems to be a lot less than 1:10,000,000. It might seem like there are a lot of violent nut jobs, but to suggest that is fallacy of misleading vividness, for one thing. One nut job killing two or three dozen can be the subject of news for several weeks, enough of them and it seems like it happens everywhere and all the time. In reality, it's a very rare and unpredictable event such that wholesale shifts in society would generally be a needless and overbearing knee-jerk reaction.
It's never about what people deserve, that would be a naive view. When you sell the full rights to something, you only get what you negotiate. The seller and buyer never fully knows what happens to a business or product after it's sold. With the meritocratic view that the seller should bask in the successes after sale should also mean that the seller should take a beating if it's a failure, but that's naive, because it's in the hands of new management out of the seller's control.
It also isn't as if the Knoll work wasn't heavily extended, with added polish and such. The Knolls apparently weren't able to market the project to the general public themselves, given the few hundred copies they managed to sell on their own.
Even under Rosetta, I like Photoshop Elements better than GIMP or GIMPShop. I don't use much by the way of advanced features, but I appreciate how Photoshop & PSE generally requires fewer button clicks to perform a given operation.
The music keeps selling, but the sales are going down, though admittedly, for many complex reasons, not for this or one other reason.
The marketing is a problem though. Microsoft's marketing seems to push the mature games to the extent that it almost seems there aren't any children's games.
Also, while I do respect their interest in keeping the platform affordable, it would be nice to get an XB360 offered with built-in HDDVD without having to buy the ridiculous side car add-on.
A G5 what? PowerMac? G5 PowerMacs were largely workstation class machines. They aren't even sold anymore, the Mac Pros are dual socket workstation class systems which should not be compared to single socket consumer systems. A Mac Pro is best comparable to Dell's Precision 590 or 690 (really, 690 with 1kW PSU).
I think it's lamentable that they don't offer a large single-socket desktop or a cheaper budget desktop, but that doesn't excuse poor comparisons.
Still, hiding it behind an undocumented command flag screams "easter egg".
There are pro photo printers by Epson and other companies that have very long life. Epson claims 108 years for color, 200 years for B&W. Their printers are pretty expensive, starting from $500 and I've seen a model going for $1500.
The currently shipping version of OS X doesn't support ZFS. The developer version of Leopard doesn't really support ZFS very well yet, you can't boot from it and the Disk Utility just crashes, last I heard. Leopard won't ship until October.
What do you think a person with talents in the material science can do with cancer? That's about as dumb as going into McDonalds and asking the cashier why she isn't out curing cancer - because biology might not necessarily be where her talents lie.
That looks like a false dichotomy to me. I don't think either of those two systems is desirable, and there are plenty of other options. I think you understate the difficulty in installing and setting up MythTV. I am using EyeTV and its setup was, without hyperbole, a hundred times faster and a hundred times easier than my experience trying to set up MythTV.
I don't think analog broadcast HDTV is in any more than a niche/legacy broadcast mode anymore, there's no point in saying "Digital HDTV", it's almost always redundant. Besides, even though ATSC is always digital, it's not always HDTV. It is mostly just prime time that is in HD, but at least the PVR just records a bitstream rather than to capture and compress video.
In my area, there is *no* reason to fallback to analog, unless you want to see a touch of ghosting or snow. ALL my area TV stations are broadcasting in the digital, even if it might not be HD, at least it's in a fairly clean digital transmission. I live in a ~#50 ranked "metro" area hastily defined by the feds to lump three counties together, but the cities have a lot of rural area between them in this allegedly metro area, so it's not as if I'm in a high density urban region.