I recently (well, 7 months ago, but it still never leaves my side) bought a TiBook, and I'll never look back. I still use Windows and UNIX at home, but I'll never look back in terms of mobile computing. I've absolutely never thought that the physical or software interface was clunky at all. Chances are pretty good that if I'm using my laptop, I'll have a table of some sort, and if I do..I carry a USB wheel mouse with a short cord (Thank you HP, for giving me a DESKTOP mouse with a 1.5' cord, now I can actually use it). If I don't have a place for a mouse (airport terminals, planes, park bench), I have no problem with one button mouse with control keys. The keyboard layout is a little funky (don't bother with numlock), but I've had no problem with it, I don't consider it a drawback. The keyboard itself I love too, I don't keep anyone up with incessant clicking, and I type faster with it.
Oh, and no I'm not an Apple Zealot, I've never owned one before February of this year.
OS X (by default) uses TCSH, though when I bought my TiBook with 10.1, Bash was preinstalled. The command prompt is probably just a mock-up (albeit a poor one), the command prompt isn't as annoying by default, it shows your hostname where "macosx" is, though I don't remember if that's your hostname out of the box. Also, you don't need to change your environment variables to have your shell tell you the working directory, that's done by default too (which is why I assumed it was a mockup for display purposes).
When describing interfacing I/O devices, my digital design professor picked up an eraser and said "Without any use for it, I could contend that this was the most powerful supercomputer on the face of the Earth, and you would have no way to disprove that." Quite similar, in that a product that doesn't have much use as a product isn't a product.
That site makes me even angrier. The banner says "Click here for the.NET source code!"...after clicking, you get dumped on a storefront that says "Sure you can view the source...for US$25!"
Jeez. I can understand paying for a website engine, maybe...but at $25, it's quite obviously just for you to view (you could use it, but enterprise code would seemingly be a lot more than $25). Also, do they really think their e-zine could compete with Slash, Everything, LiveJournal, Blog, etc? Come on. And THOSE are all free.
By your token, because I buy a book, I should therefore own all the contents of the book. This is the reason that copyright law exists--to protect the people who create things.
No...you should have the right to buy a slightly more expensive copy that has some words whited out, paying the seller the larger fee, who in turn pays the author the full price of the book. I can buy a t-shirt and iron on an image, then sell it to someone without having Hanes sue me, where's the difference? Adding value to an "unfinished" product can just as easily be editing it.
Also, Utah is very conservative. It would be a ridiculous notion that a company couldn't use their own rights as a buyer to tailor products to the morals of their area.
Since I program, I think in terms of software. Libraries exist, but I can create a new routine that uses the functions. Just because all I did was find a new application for libraries does not mean I did not create something, nor that what I did not have value.
Your right, your program does have value, WHICH IS WHY THE KIND FOLKS AT THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE ALLOW YOU TO SELL YOUR CODE/SOFTWARE/PRODUCT AND MAKE A PROFIT. If you're too lazy to try to compete and create the best product that you can, then no, I (this is a judgement call) don't believe you should be able to kick back and make a profit just because you thought of it first. Henry Ford must have made much more money making cars than royalties on the assembly line if they're still making cars today.
I do agree that "do X with a computer", where X has been around forever does not seem very innovative. On the other hand, if it was not innovative, why was it not done earlier?
Sure, I'll take the first part. The second part is irrelevant. In a lot of Amazon patent applications we've seen...it HAS been done earlier. One-click-shopping? I remember a lot of sites that did that. Honor system user-to-user transactions? Gee, eBay's been around since probably '98, a good 36 months before Bezos' patent.
There are pocket keychains avalable at ThinkGeek that contain drives (On a tangent: how does that work? Flash RAM with a little battery inside? That'd be my guess) which hold maybe 50 megs of data on them. If that can't hold all of your bookmarks, phone numbers, calendars...then there's something wrong with you. On the minus side, if you lost your keys, you'd be shit outta luck. On the plus side, there's about as little a chance of that as there is that you get your personal info stolen/sold anyway.
That is completely erroneous logic. Completely. Did he remove the publisher/developer logos in the programs, place in his own images, and re-SELL the software? NO. There goes that (tell me if you recorded the Simpsons, remove the commercials put in your own adds and rebroadcast it, is it theft?) one.
Did he re-make the software using reverse engineering or the source (if you owned a furniture store, it is semi-plausible you might catch a glimpse of your neighbor's blueprints), then distribute that? NO.
Yes, he committed crimes. Yes, he violated copyrights. But no, neither of you accurately described the situation.
This has been done before. In 1998, preview copies of Radiohead's album "OK Computer" were sent out in sealed cassette players. And in 2000, preview copies of "Kid A" were sent out in an encrypted format on Sony VAIO digital players.
Which makes me wonder why we're making such a big stink over *this* instance, as no one of intellectual worth or social consequence listens to Pearl Jam or Tori Amos.
"For example, imagine that the RIAA compiled a list of IP addresses which, it contended, had at some time used peer-to-peer file sharing programs. Because these peer-to-peer systems could transmit copyrighted materials in a way that infringes on the copyright owner's rights, the RIAA could argue, those IP addresses should be blocked."
*cough* what? have their ip blocked from what? the p2p system? no, that's why he's blacklisted in the first place. blocked from the ISP? no, the ISP is the entity that owns the IP address in the first place. jeez. someone at NA needs to hire some REAL editors
it's annoying for those who have thousansd in software that will only run in OS9, they get a bit of a cold shoulder from Apple is seems as of late.
This is not relevant for two reasons:
One, the Mac that your thousand dollar software on will not cease to boot OS 9 on Jan 1, 2003. This is only for new Apples. I still have a copy of OS 9 and X, I can still dual boot without a problem.
Two, there are two types of people affected with the thousand dollar problem. The first are corporations looking to buy new Apple equipment and run legacy software for which they have licenses left. The performance of the new Apples will compensate for booting up Classic, and then some. The other group is home users (whom you're presumably talking about): who paid thousands of dollars for single licenses. Unless you bought licenses for computers you didn't have, or bought unlimited licenses for yourself...chances are good you're not legally allowed to put it on another computer, your old one (booting OS 9 now) will do just fine.
OS X remains "the most widely-distributed UNIX-based operating system"
Surely this cannot be right?
it is. what he RESTATED was that since OS X has such a large marketshare, yet is only distributed by ONE company it can be the most widely-distributed. Linux is not because it is chopped up and farmed out by probably hundreds of companies. Apple doesn't have to beat Linux for the title, only RedHat.
woo! i remember hand-typing program listings from hmm..3-2-1 Contact (magazine)? on my Apple ][. and i'm only 20! the school district my mom works for used them until about 6 years ago. scary.
"How many IBM engineers does it take to use the bathroom?"
Apparently, four.
Inventors: Boies; Stephen J. (Mahopac, NY); Dinkin; Samuel (Austin, TX); Moskowitz; Paul Andrew (Yorktown Heights, NY); Yu; Philip Shi-Lung (Chappaqua, NY)
Agreed, that's easy, it's a simple redirect or alias on the previous email that is resident on their system. However. that is *not* what the patent is for (although admittedly that's what it sounded like before a read the abstract). The first line of the abstract states, "Systems and methods for automatically determining if the recipient of electronic mail that is unknown at the receiving server has left a "forwarding address" with a forwarding address server", which is significantly harder than setting up an alias on your own server. Also, this patent explicitly requires the use of a separate "forwarding address server" for them to be able to cry foul on someone else. While the idea itself is redundant, at least this patent seems somewhat unenforceable, as I can't imagine that populating one central database of bogus and their corresponding new addresses would prove feasible.
Re:Why does perl suck so badly?
on
Ask Larry Wall
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
*Cough* underrated? Perl can be written simply so that a C programmers(or yes, even Fortran programmers here where I work) can understand what's going on. Not many other langauges have that sort of versatility. Also, if you would *RAFM*, you could quickly pick up its idiosyncracies and write things a lot quicker than in most other languages. And difficult to install? That's funny...it's standard on just about every UNIX distribution, has a Mac port, and has a company (that successfully makes money) that backs it, selling tools and offering free-for-enterprise-solutions interpreters for Windows. Install? I just double-clicked and hit enter a few times.
Slashdot Mirror
how do you run three different instruction sets? especially 2 CISC and one RISC?
Not even an intelligent one! just one who saw Hackers!
That joke is *SO* 4 minutes ago.
I recently (well, 7 months ago, but it still never leaves my side) bought a TiBook, and I'll never look back. I still use Windows and UNIX at home, but I'll never look back in terms of mobile computing. I've absolutely never thought that the physical or software interface was clunky at all. Chances are pretty good that if I'm using my laptop, I'll have a table of some sort, and if I do..I carry a USB wheel mouse with a short cord (Thank you HP, for giving me a DESKTOP mouse with a 1.5' cord, now I can actually use it). If I don't have a place for a mouse (airport terminals, planes, park bench), I have no problem with one button mouse with control keys. The keyboard layout is a little funky (don't bother with numlock), but I've had no problem with it, I don't consider it a drawback. The keyboard itself I love too, I don't keep anyone up with incessant clicking, and I type faster with it.
Oh, and no I'm not an Apple Zealot, I've never owned one before February of this year.
OS X (by default) uses TCSH, though when I bought my TiBook with 10.1, Bash was preinstalled. The command prompt is probably just a mock-up (albeit a poor one), the command prompt isn't as annoying by default, it shows your hostname where "macosx" is, though I don't remember if that's your hostname out of the box. Also, you don't need to change your environment variables to have your shell tell you the working directory, that's done by default too (which is why I assumed it was a mockup for display purposes).
When describing interfacing I/O devices, my digital design professor picked up an eraser and said "Without any use for it, I could contend that this was the most powerful supercomputer on the face of the Earth, and you would have no way to disprove that." Quite similar, in that a product that doesn't have much use as a product isn't a product.
That site makes me even angrier. The banner says "Click here for the .NET source code!" ...after clicking, you get dumped on a storefront that says "Sure you can view the source...for US$25!"
Jeez. I can understand paying for a website engine, maybe...but at $25, it's quite obviously just for you to view (you could use it, but enterprise code would seemingly be a lot more than $25). Also, do they really think their e-zine could compete with Slash, Everything, LiveJournal, Blog, etc? Come on. And THOSE are all free.
By your token, because I buy a book, I should therefore own all the contents of the book. This is the reason that copyright law exists--to protect the people who create things.
No...you should have the right to buy a slightly more expensive copy that has some words whited out, paying the seller the larger fee, who in turn pays the author the full price of the book. I can buy a t-shirt and iron on an image, then sell it to someone without having Hanes sue me, where's the difference? Adding value to an "unfinished" product can just as easily be editing it.
Also, Utah is very conservative. It would be a ridiculous notion that a company couldn't use their own rights as a buyer to tailor products to the morals of their area.
Since I program, I think in terms of software. Libraries exist, but I can create a new routine that uses the functions. Just because all I did was find a new application for libraries does not mean I did not create something, nor that what I did not have value.
Your right, your program does have value, WHICH IS WHY THE KIND FOLKS AT THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE ALLOW YOU TO SELL YOUR CODE/SOFTWARE/PRODUCT AND MAKE A PROFIT. If you're too lazy to try to compete and create the best product that you can, then no, I (this is a judgement call) don't believe you should be able to kick back and make a profit just because you thought of it first. Henry Ford must have made much more money making cars than royalties on the assembly line if they're still making cars today.
I do agree that "do X with a computer", where X has been around forever does not seem very innovative. On the other hand, if it was not innovative, why was it not done earlier?
Sure, I'll take the first part. The second part is irrelevant. In a lot of Amazon patent applications we've seen...it HAS been done earlier. One-click-shopping? I remember a lot of sites that did that. Honor system user-to-user transactions? Gee, eBay's been around since probably '98, a good 36 months before Bezos' patent.
There are pocket keychains avalable at ThinkGeek that contain drives (On a tangent: how does that work? Flash RAM with a little battery inside? That'd be my guess) which hold maybe 50 megs of data on them. If that can't hold all of your bookmarks, phone numbers, calendars...then there's something wrong with you. On the minus side, if you lost your keys, you'd be shit outta luck. On the plus side, there's about as little a chance of that as there is that you get your personal info stolen/sold anyway.
One note though, that would require an intermediary which magically one day we would all Need©. I don't like that idea. Do you like Microsoft? Their empire came out of necessity (and some stupidity). They threw together everything that was getting popular in one inexpensive product and ran with it. Now it's immensely hard to do create or write anything for the home PC market without going through them in some way (be it using their tools, apis,etc.), even if that is just a means to subvert their efforts. If this single point of failure were to be government organized, great. But now other countries would either have to set up their own service or pay to go through ours (no one works for free). If not, what company would you trust? Microsoft? Verisign? They all have their problems. Another existing company that you may have heard of, but John J. Bluecollar hasn't, why should he trust them more than Microsoft? Or, better, why don't we start a new company to do this. Well, now it's definitely a pay service, and as we've mentioned this service is something we all Need©, so they've got us by the balls. Granted that this company would be government (whose government? is this thing global?) regulated, but by that time, I'm sure it would have enough money to buy off a few senators, they don't cost that much, as we've found out.
There are just too many holes in this plan for me to agree with, and I've already given my personal information out many times.
That is completely erroneous logic. Completely. Did he remove the publisher/developer logos in the programs, place in his own images, and re-SELL the software? NO. There goes that (tell me if you recorded the Simpsons, remove the commercials put in your own adds and rebroadcast it, is it theft?) one.
Did he re-make the software using reverse engineering or the source (if you owned a furniture store, it is semi-plausible you might catch a glimpse of your neighbor's blueprints), then distribute that? NO.
Yes, he committed crimes. Yes, he violated copyrights. But no, neither of you accurately described the situation.
This has been done before. In 1998, preview copies of Radiohead's album "OK Computer" were sent out in sealed cassette players. And in 2000, preview copies of "Kid A" were sent out in an encrypted format on Sony VAIO digital players.
Which makes me wonder why we're making such a big stink over *this* instance, as no one of intellectual worth or social consequence listens to Pearl Jam or Tori Amos.
"For example, imagine that the RIAA compiled a list of IP addresses which, it contended, had at some time used peer-to-peer file sharing programs. Because these peer-to-peer systems could transmit copyrighted materials in a way that infringes on the copyright owner's rights, the RIAA could argue, those IP addresses should be blocked."
*cough* what? have their ip blocked from what? the p2p system? no, that's why he's blacklisted in the first place. blocked from the ISP? no, the ISP is the entity that owns the IP address in the first place. jeez. someone at NA needs to hire some REAL editors
Commodore64, baby! Woo!
it's annoying for those who have thousansd in software that will only run in OS9, they get a bit of a cold shoulder from Apple is seems as of late.
This is not relevant for two reasons:
One, the Mac that your thousand dollar software on will not cease to boot OS 9 on Jan 1, 2003. This is only for new Apples. I still have a copy of OS 9 and X, I can still dual boot without a problem.
Two, there are two types of people affected with the thousand dollar problem. The first are corporations looking to buy new Apple equipment and run legacy software for which they have licenses left. The performance of the new Apples will compensate for booting up Classic, and then some. The other group is home users (whom you're presumably talking about): who paid thousands of dollars for single licenses. Unless you bought licenses for computers you didn't have, or bought unlimited licenses for yourself...chances are good you're not legally allowed to put it on another computer, your old one (booting OS 9 now) will do just fine.
OS X remains "the most widely-distributed UNIX-based operating system"
Surely this cannot be right?
it is. what he RESTATED was that since OS X has such a large marketshare, yet is only distributed by ONE company it can be the most widely-distributed. Linux is not because it is chopped up and farmed out by probably hundreds of companies. Apple doesn't have to beat Linux for the title, only RedHat.
If you're dropping $50-100 for a copy of Linux, you need more help than Tech Support can provide.
woo! i remember hand-typing program listings from hmm..3-2-1 Contact (magazine)? on my Apple ][. and i'm only 20! the school district my mom works for used them until about 6 years ago. scary.
"What I'd like to see compared is two oranges, a wheelbarrow, the city of Texarkana, AK, and Dennis Miller."
See those black helicopters in the sky?
Snipers.
"How many IBM engineers does it take to use the bathroom?"
Apparently, four.
Inventors: Boies; Stephen J. (Mahopac, NY); Dinkin; Samuel (Austin, TX); Moskowitz; Paul Andrew (Yorktown Heights, NY); Yu; Philip Shi-Lung (Chappaqua, NY)
Agreed, that's easy, it's a simple redirect or alias on the previous email that is resident on their system. However. that is *not* what the patent is for (although admittedly that's what it sounded like before a read the abstract). The first line of the abstract states, "Systems and methods for automatically determining if the recipient of electronic mail that is unknown at the receiving server has left a "forwarding address" with a forwarding address server", which is significantly harder than setting up an alias on your own server. Also, this patent explicitly requires the use of a separate "forwarding address server" for them to be able to cry foul on someone else. While the idea itself is redundant, at least this patent seems somewhat unenforceable, as I can't imagine that populating one central database of bogus and their corresponding new addresses would prove feasible.
*Cough* underrated? Perl can be written simply so that a C programmers(or yes, even Fortran programmers here where I work) can understand what's going on. Not many other langauges have that sort of versatility. Also, if you would *RAFM*, you could quickly pick up its idiosyncracies and write things a lot quicker than in most other languages. And difficult to install? That's funny...it's standard on just about every UNIX distribution, has a Mac port, and has a company (that successfully makes money) that backs it, selling tools and offering free-for-enterprise-solutions interpreters for Windows. Install? I just double-clicked and hit enter a few times.