Talk about vaporware? What's to say? It doesn't exist yet. As for technology, the M$ part of it is well-known. It's the same old M$ stuff so it is easy to talk about.
We can discuss the hardware/tech once it exists...but I'll stick with Motorola or Nokia or...anyone that doesn't have an M$ finger dipped into it. I am proud that not a single penny of my money for the last 6 years has gone to M$ and I intend to keep it that way until the beast is tamed by the courts.
The strict constructionists lost during the Washington presidency in the fight between Jefferson and Hamilton on assumption. Hamilton, the correct and consistent thinking, won out over Jefferson, the illogical and incorrect strict constructionist. If the Constitution give the President or Congress to the power/authority to do X, then it IMPLIES that they have the authority/power to do it in the best way, whether it is spelled out or not.
In this case, the intent of copyright is NOT to give the creator or artistic/creative works a lifetime of control and monetary gain, and it CERTAINLY wasn't intended to give heirs a fat, lazy paycheck for doing jack squat.
I think we'd be better served by NON-strict constructionists in this case. A strict constructionist, like a fundamentalist Baptist, is full of crap, has no imagination, and usually fails to see the logical inconsistencies inherent in interpreting their preferred document(s) literally.
Nonsense. No author except, perhaps a very select few, make any real money on their books after a decade or so. It is silly to protect copyright on books for 20 beyond author's life.
As for a copyright lasting as long as the author's life, untie it from his/her lifespan by making it a flat 20 or 30 years, period. Then the author reaps the benefits of the work and there is no incentive to "bump" anyone off.
If a book is good, it will be made into a movie well before 20 or 30 years so the author or family of deceased author still benefits. If the book sucks, well it takes care of itself regardless of the length of copyright.
As for corporations, 50 years is too long too. If a company cannot make back their investment and then some within 20 or 30 years, it just isn't going to happen. Let someone else with a better plan or greater creativity take it and run in 20 to 30 years. Then you have progress, as was intended by the law. It was NOT intended to be an indefinite ossified $hakedown of the public.
2) I select a KDE theme and style because I want and like my system to look a certain way - that I set it to look like. Mozilla ignores this.
This is how M$ wrongly handles things. On Mac OS, for instance, all PROPER Mac apps look the same. Their scrollbar buttons are all consistent and PROPERLY placed together at the bottom right of any window. No unnecessary and stupid mouse dancing to select the a scroll arrow. In comes IE on the Mac, done ALL wrong with the damn buttons all over bejesus - scroll buttons top and bottom like some retard designed it and no way to correct it.
If a user on a Mac, Windoze, or Linux sets up a theme/style, then all apps that want to play there should obey the user's designs. The USER knows better how things should behave and work on their computer...not the coder.
I might actually use mozilla if it would properly integrate into my system. It has its own look, theme, etc, that is at TOTAL odds to all my other apps.
If they could fix the clipboard crap, they should also fix the Mozilla-in-its-own-theme-world crap too.
Bullcrap. If you don't like the frickin' license, go elsewhere or create you OWN code (yeah, right).
MOST people don't like the M$ "license" when they actually read it (fortunately, it doesn't have any teeth being an invalid click-thru fascist license).
You are free to NOT use code that has a license you disagree with. That is all the freedom YOU need.
Sheesh. Because we do not want to have to pay out the ass to M$ to run a few games or a couple apps that are simply not available in linux (yet). This situation DOES occur, you know.
I am morally opposed to giving a single penny of my money to M$ (when/if they are cut down to size, reigned in, I will reconsider) but I DO play games and they are ALL M$ games. I also must, on occasion, use a piece of software (fortunately, none of it M$) that needs windoze. Given the above, I am left with Wine, which does a pretty frickin' good job. There is nothing wrong with this.
YOU don't have to like or use wine but it is your tough sh*t if (many) others disagree with your attitude.
Well, M$ has always strongly fought this option. Afterall, according to M$, if people buy a blank computer, they are software pirates intending to load illegit copies of windoze on them.
We're talking about the way config files are organized, designed, placed. There is NOTHING about the way Apple does it with OS X that cannot be copied in *nix. The config file system can be done in ANY arbitrary way, with config files scattered around EVERY directory on the system so long as the app that uses it knows where it is. There is no reason at all that copying the nice way OS X does it would break or be incompatible with anything on any BSD or *nix system.
Well, to/etc,/usr/etc, and/usr/local/etc, we can also add such as/usr/share/config,/usr/local/share/config. There is all sorts of config files there as well. I would think it nice if it were narrowed down a bit: core system/os/daemon configs independent of wm or environment go into/etc (or better, rename it to/config so it is self-explanatory) and all other configs go into/usr/share/config or/usr/config. For personal settings, you have
~/config.
In the end, I don't care HOW it is organized but that it be standardized and streamlined the same way on ALL distros. I don't like having to do "find" or "locate", I want to know where I will find something upon install, be it Suse, Mandrake, Redhat, Debian, etc, etc.
It's a frickin' box. A tool. I made mine from scratch so I have a little more personal investment in it than just money...but it is still a frickin' box. Don't be so literal.
The original poster referred to a "soul" and "personality". I merely reacted with my somewhat tongue-and-cheek response. Lighten up.
Heh, the only problem hardware these days is the mobo. You can go wild with (still) rather inexpensive nice mobos or go nasty with cheap-ass mobos where the green circuit board paint rubs off on your fingers. As for other hardware, there is no real competition/variation anymore. Video cards are down to ATI and NVidia, with NVidia heavily favored to go the M$ monopoly route. So MacOS X on x86 would only need to consider NVidia or ATI, really.
Heh, not to start a war here but I take personal exception to your assertion that because "Apples have personality you care about it more..."(paraphrasing). I built my box from the ground up. ME, my labor, my money, my selection of components, everything. I know every last mm of my box, its weaknesses, its strengths. Where I had to skimp and where I went all out.
I CARE about that box a lot more than I would any cute colored berry on my desk OR some biege nasty with XP on it. Mine has penguin personality and my blood, sweat, swearing, and, well, no TEARS because I don't frickin' cry - that would make me some kind of EUROPUSSY. You get the idea.
Perhaps for most average people, a colored berry shape on their desk has more personality and doubles as a decoration and is cared about more. To those who role their own bottom-to-top, top-to-bottom, they ain't squat.
I see no reason why apple cannot do exactly what they are doing now with the PPC and simply switch CPUs. There is no magic here, afterall. This would leave you with an Apple-branded x86 box on Apple-branded motherboards (subcontracts,etc), with Apple-branded HDDs, video, etc, etc. It would be in some ways a pain it the ass like Packard Bells and others with their special propriatory mobos, but you would be buying a quality hardware package, certified to work.
Sure, you could swap out components, upgrade, etc, perhaps moreso with an x86-based design than with the PPC but take it too far and you simply void your warrantee or Apple official support.
They could still sell quality Apple hardware and quality Apple boxes all nicely integrated to work 100% together but the CPU would just not happen to be a PPC.
There is not mysterious magic to Apple using a PPC vs anything else.
Apple could do two things: make a little money selling the OS for other x86 boxes, perhaps with limited support, and make more money selling fully integrated OS X-x86-based boxes that WILL work well together (they'd be tested every bit as much as they are now with the PPC systems).
As another noted, your statement is based on said engineer having to sign an NDA. Now I would be suprized if he didn't have to sign one but your statement also presupposes that the NDA would stipulate/refer to a situation as is being discussed here.
I am skeptical of his claims but I am certainly not dismissive. Apple would (or SHOULD) want to hedge its bets against a problem with the PPC line AND explore possible future options like releasing an x86-ish based version...though the x86 line is not much longer for this world with the 64bit designs developing. I could envision an NDA that doesn't address this question at all. He gives away no trade secret here, not really. OS X is based on *BSD (and Mach, I know) which is fully supported on x86 hardware. I would think it is unlikely to take an x86-based os and forever divorce it from its roots. It would be to easy (relatively speaking) to make it work on x86 hardware NOT to do it.
It would have to be an act, at the moment. Gates is acting "panicky" about Linux, probably because it blindsided him and he cannot get his meathooks into it, has absolutely NO leverage against it at all. With Apple, he can PRETEND to panick if an antitrust suit calls for such an act, but know deep down that he owns Apple.
Course, I wonder how he felt when the US Army standardized on Macs after becoming fed up with the insessant virus and worm and hack attacks suffered via windoze?
Where the Army goes, eventually so will go the rest of the armed forces...for similar reasons. It may not be going to Macs (though that would be logical) and more into opensource alternative mixes, but it will not become a stranglehold of Gates.
As a previous poster mentioned, it is not simply "Kill as many as you can". Using clean bullets injure or kill, depending on the shot. More injuries cost the enemy more effort and resources (soldiers/personnel) to take care of the wounded vs simply burying bodies.
If you can cleanly injure when failing to get a clean kill, you cost the enemy more than certain death with every shot. It is also more humane, leaving more survivors after the fighting is over - and they are less likely to be maimed.
The Civil War is a nice example (as well as WW I) of what happens when you go all out for death and maiming. VERY costly in lives for all sides, very costly after it was all over having to deal with those horribly maimed/crippled.
So...the whole point to doing the whole bullshit WPA would be? Just for the hell of it, I s'pose. "Sure there are cracks but this WPA will not stop crackers, just stop 'honest' people from doing what they wouldn't do anyway."
So it is merely a consumer ripoff to stop people with 'legit' copies of WinblozeXP from installing it (properly and rightfully) on a couple of their personal computers? If that's it, then all these people NEED this crack so they can fairly use THEIR software.
Or it makes life like that depicted in GATTICA. Since I am in the molecular biology field, I believe I could whip up some means to confuse biosensors quite easily should the time ever come that it appears needed and useful....and I WOULD do it to protect my anonymity and privacy.
Real nice. Nightmarish, actually. When that day comes, I will be wearing wigs and other things to alter my appearance or hide it wherever I go and seek to remain unknown and unknowable.
For every piece of technocrap like that, there is a hack to defeat it.
Coolamundo. I wasn't criticizing KDE 3.0, just pointing out a few issues that existed when the beta was first released. Fast work, nice work. I may give it a shot now - but first will have to inventory my software to make sure nothing will crap out because of the incompatibility between kde 2.2.x apps and kde 3.0 apps (due to QT 3.0 yes?).
There is a movement to get it stated EXPLICITLY in the Bill of Rights. In any case, though their is no specifically enumerated right to privacy, the Supreme Court and all other courts accept that the right to privacy is implicit and implied by the Consititution. The courts (ALL of them) will accept and agree on this. You DO have a right to privacy. You can find this out for real if you want by violating someone else's privacy. Go ahead. Do it. Test your statement that you have no right to privacy because it isn't explicitly listed in the Constitution or Bill of Rights.
Slashdot Mirror
Talk about vaporware? What's to say? It doesn't exist yet. As for technology, the M$ part of it is well-known. It's the same old M$ stuff so it is easy to talk about.
We can discuss the hardware/tech once it exists...but I'll stick with Motorola or Nokia or...anyone that doesn't have an M$ finger dipped into it. I am proud that not a single penny of my money for the last 6 years has gone to M$ and I intend to keep it that way until the beast is tamed by the courts.
The strict constructionists lost during the Washington presidency in the fight between Jefferson and Hamilton on assumption. Hamilton, the correct and consistent thinking, won out over Jefferson, the illogical and incorrect strict constructionist. If the Constitution give the President or Congress to the power/authority to do X, then it IMPLIES that they have the authority/power to do it in the best way, whether it is spelled out or not.
In this case, the intent of copyright is NOT to give the creator or artistic/creative works a lifetime of control and monetary gain, and it CERTAINLY wasn't intended to give heirs a fat, lazy paycheck for doing jack squat.
I think we'd be better served by NON-strict constructionists in this case. A strict constructionist, like a fundamentalist Baptist, is full of crap, has no imagination, and usually fails to see the logical inconsistencies inherent in interpreting their preferred document(s) literally.
Nonsense. No author except, perhaps a very select few, make any real money on their books after a decade or so. It is silly to protect copyright on books for 20 beyond author's life.
As for a copyright lasting as long as the author's life, untie it from his/her lifespan by making it a flat 20 or 30 years, period. Then the author reaps the benefits of the work and there is no incentive to "bump" anyone off.
If a book is good, it will be made into a movie well before 20 or 30 years so the author or family of deceased author still benefits. If the book sucks, well it takes care of itself regardless of the length of copyright.
As for corporations, 50 years is too long too. If a company cannot make back their investment and then some within 20 or 30 years, it just isn't going to happen. Let someone else with a better plan or greater creativity take it and run in 20 to 30 years. Then you have progress, as was intended by the law. It was NOT intended to be an indefinite ossified $hakedown of the public.
I don't normally use mozilla because:
1) it is STILL huge.
2) I select a KDE theme and style because I want and like my system to look a certain way - that I set it to look like. Mozilla ignores this.
This is how M$ wrongly handles things. On Mac OS, for instance, all PROPER Mac apps look the same. Their scrollbar buttons are all consistent and PROPERLY placed together at the bottom right of any window. No unnecessary and stupid mouse dancing to select the a scroll arrow. In comes IE on the Mac, done ALL wrong with the damn buttons all over bejesus - scroll buttons top and bottom like some retard designed it and no way to correct it.
If a user on a Mac, Windoze, or Linux sets up a theme/style, then all apps that want to play there should obey the user's designs. The USER knows better how things should behave and work on their computer...not the coder.
I might actually use mozilla if it would properly integrate into my system. It has its own look, theme, etc, that is at TOTAL odds to all my other apps.
If they could fix the clipboard crap, they should also fix the Mozilla-in-its-own-theme-world crap too.
Bullcrap. If you don't like the frickin' license, go elsewhere or create you OWN code (yeah, right).
MOST people don't like the M$ "license" when they actually read it (fortunately, it doesn't have any teeth being an invalid click-thru fascist license).
You are free to NOT use code that has a license you disagree with. That is all the freedom YOU need.
Sheesh. Because we do not want to have to pay out the ass to M$ to run a few games or a couple apps that are simply not available in linux (yet). This situation DOES occur, you know.
I am morally opposed to giving a single penny of my money to M$ (when/if they are cut down to size, reigned in, I will reconsider) but I DO play games and they are ALL M$ games. I also must, on occasion, use a piece of software (fortunately, none of it M$) that needs windoze. Given the above, I am left with Wine, which does a pretty frickin' good job. There is nothing wrong with this.
YOU don't have to like or use wine but it is your tough sh*t if (many) others disagree with your attitude.
Well, M$ has always strongly fought this option. Afterall, according to M$, if people buy a blank computer, they are software pirates intending to load illegit copies of windoze on them.
We're talking about the way config files are organized, designed, placed. There is NOTHING about the way Apple does it with OS X that cannot be copied in *nix. The config file system can be done in ANY arbitrary way, with config files scattered around EVERY directory on the system so long as the app that uses it knows where it is. There is no reason at all that copying the nice way OS X does it would break or be incompatible with anything on any BSD or *nix system.
Well, to /etc, /usr/etc, and /usr/local/etc, we can also add such as /usr/share/config, /usr/local/share/config. There is all sorts of config files there as well. I would think it nice if it were narrowed down a bit: core system/os/daemon configs independent of wm or environment go into /etc (or better, rename it to /config so it is self-explanatory) and all other configs go into /usr/share/config or /usr/config. For personal settings, you have
~/config.
In the end, I don't care HOW it is organized but that it be standardized and streamlined the same way on ALL distros. I don't like having to do "find" or "locate", I want to know where I will find something upon install, be it Suse, Mandrake, Redhat, Debian, etc, etc.
It's a frickin' box. A tool. I made mine from scratch so I have a little more personal investment in it than just money...but it is still a frickin' box. Don't be so literal.
The original poster referred to a "soul" and "personality". I merely reacted with my somewhat tongue-and-cheek response. Lighten up.
Heh, the only problem hardware these days is the mobo. You can go wild with (still) rather inexpensive nice mobos or go nasty with cheap-ass mobos where the green circuit board paint rubs off on your fingers. As for other hardware, there is no real competition/variation anymore. Video cards are down to ATI and NVidia, with NVidia heavily favored to go the M$ monopoly route. So MacOS X on x86 would only need to consider NVidia or ATI, really.
Heh, not to start a war here but I take personal exception to your assertion that because "Apples have personality you care about it more..."(paraphrasing). I built my box from the ground up. ME, my labor, my money, my selection of components, everything. I know every last mm of my box, its weaknesses, its strengths. Where I had to skimp and where I went all out.
I CARE about that box a lot more than I would any cute colored berry on my desk OR some biege nasty with XP on it. Mine has penguin personality and my blood, sweat, swearing, and, well, no TEARS because I don't frickin' cry - that would make me some kind of EUROPUSSY. You get the idea.
Perhaps for most average people, a colored berry shape on their desk has more personality and doubles as a decoration and is cared about more. To those who role their own bottom-to-top, top-to-bottom, they ain't squat.
I see no reason why apple cannot do exactly what they are doing now with the PPC and simply switch CPUs. There is no magic here, afterall. This would leave you with an Apple-branded x86 box on Apple-branded motherboards (subcontracts,etc), with Apple-branded HDDs, video, etc, etc. It would be in some ways a pain it the ass like Packard Bells and others with their special propriatory mobos, but you would be buying a quality hardware package, certified to work.
Sure, you could swap out components, upgrade, etc, perhaps moreso with an x86-based design than with the PPC but take it too far and you simply void your warrantee or Apple official support.
They could still sell quality Apple hardware and quality Apple boxes all nicely integrated to work 100% together but the CPU would just not happen to be a PPC.
There is not mysterious magic to Apple using a PPC vs anything else.
Apple could do two things: make a little money selling the OS for other x86 boxes, perhaps with limited support, and make more money selling fully integrated OS X-x86-based boxes that WILL work well together (they'd be tested every bit as much as they are now with the PPC systems).
As another noted, your statement is based on said engineer having to sign an NDA. Now I would be suprized if he didn't have to sign one but your statement also presupposes that the NDA would stipulate/refer to a situation as is being discussed here.
I am skeptical of his claims but I am certainly not dismissive. Apple would (or SHOULD) want to hedge its bets against a problem with the PPC line AND explore possible future options like releasing an x86-ish based version...though the x86 line is not much longer for this world with the 64bit designs developing. I could envision an NDA that doesn't address this question at all. He gives away no trade secret here, not really. OS X is based on *BSD (and Mach, I know) which is fully supported on x86 hardware. I would think it is unlikely to take an x86-based os and forever divorce it from its roots. It would be to easy (relatively speaking) to make it work on x86 hardware NOT to do it.
It would have to be an act, at the moment. Gates is acting "panicky" about Linux, probably because it blindsided him and he cannot get his meathooks into it, has absolutely NO leverage against it at all. With Apple, he can PRETEND to panick if an antitrust suit calls for such an act, but know deep down that he owns Apple.
Course, I wonder how he felt when the US Army standardized on Macs after becoming fed up with the insessant virus and worm and hack attacks suffered via windoze?
Where the Army goes, eventually so will go the rest of the armed forces...for similar reasons. It may not be going to Macs (though that would be logical) and more into opensource alternative mixes, but it will not become a stranglehold of Gates.
As a previous poster mentioned, it is not simply "Kill as many as you can". Using clean bullets injure or kill, depending on the shot. More injuries cost the enemy more effort and resources (soldiers/personnel) to take care of the wounded vs simply burying bodies.
If you can cleanly injure when failing to get a clean kill, you cost the enemy more than certain death with every shot. It is also more humane, leaving more survivors after the fighting is over - and they are less likely to be maimed.
The Civil War is a nice example (as well as WW I) of what happens when you go all out for death and maiming. VERY costly in lives for all sides, very costly after it was all over having to deal with those horribly maimed/crippled.
Check out http://trevormarshall.com/biquad.htm
I have the dish, I have the biquad, now I just need to marry them together and VERY high gain antenna, thank you.
Quick definition please. What does SWR standfor/mean?
Bzzzzt. The "license" (read EULA) is invalid and nonbinding. Ignore it or not as you see fit.
So...the whole point to doing the whole bullshit WPA would be? Just for the hell of it, I s'pose. "Sure there are cracks but this WPA will not stop crackers, just stop 'honest' people from doing what they wouldn't do anyway."
So it is merely a consumer ripoff to stop people with 'legit' copies of WinblozeXP from installing it (properly and rightfully) on a couple of their personal computers? If that's it, then all these people NEED this crack so they can fairly use THEIR software.
Or it makes life like that depicted in GATTICA. Since I am in the molecular biology field, I believe I could whip up some means to confuse biosensors quite easily should the time ever come that it appears needed and useful....and I WOULD do it to protect my anonymity and privacy.
Real nice. Nightmarish, actually. When that day comes, I will be wearing wigs and other things to alter my appearance or hide it wherever I go and seek to remain unknown and unknowable.
For every piece of technocrap like that, there is a hack to defeat it.
Coolamundo. I wasn't criticizing KDE 3.0, just pointing out a few issues that existed when the beta was first released. Fast work, nice work. I may give it a shot now - but first will have to inventory my software to make sure nothing will crap out because of the incompatibility between kde 2.2.x apps and kde 3.0 apps (due to QT 3.0 yes?).
There is a movement to get it stated EXPLICITLY in the Bill of Rights. In any case, though their is no specifically enumerated right to privacy, the Supreme Court and all other courts accept that the right to privacy is implicit and implied by the Consititution. The courts (ALL of them) will accept and agree on this. You DO have a right to privacy. You can find this out for real if you want by violating someone else's privacy. Go ahead. Do it. Test your statement that you have no right to privacy because it isn't explicitly listed in the Constitution or Bill of Rights.