Sony is a Japanese company. You might have had a point had you cited Microsoft, although they do charge subscriptions, so that might explain why they release new features in firmware updates.
Firmware updates are generally bugfixes that don't add major new features. Lenovo isn't a US company. Hope that helps answer your questions. Next time, it might be a good idea to not insult others by claiming their points are "lame excuses," though. Especially since your own knowledge of the matter is so obviously lacking.
I bought a lifetime subscription to Tivo 6 years ago.
The word subscription being the important part here.
Anyway, SOx has never been tried in court, so different companies interpret it differently. Apple's on the save side, which is kind of understandable, given the issues they had with stock option backdating. They probably want to avoid a similar brouhaha, since they're likely to be one of the first companies sued if anything goes wrong, due to their visibility. Sue Apple and you're on every news show. Sue Tivo and nobody gives a shit.
No, they don't handle Leopard that way, which is why you'll only see minor changes (mainly bugfixes) and no major free updates until the next version of OS X comes out.
Get real people. Stop blaming the software for the faults of the idiot users.
The software is always to blame. When designing the UI, you already knwo that most users aren't going to be experts at your software. There's no excuse to creating crappy user interfaces.
You're probably used to Windows' mouse acceleration curve. Spend a week with a Mac and you'll do just as well there as you do on Windows. You're right about the lack of space between the close and resize buttons on the Mac. Pre-X versions of Mac OS did this a lot better.
As a consumer, his stupid rotoscoping patent only means I don't get to see thousands of awesome movies which could have been made, had he not patented it. For himself, it only means his idea will remain obscure forever.
Rumor sites publish unfounded rumors about how Apple will introduce sexbots at Macworld, and they'll cost 400 bucks and fuck your brains out and also cook dinner and clean out the garage
Apple then actually announced sexbots which will cost 600 bucks, and will "only" fuck your brains out and not also cook dinner; cleaning out the garage is not yet ready, but expected in a later update
Everyone is disappointed because they cost more than expected and won't cook dinner and won't clean out the garage yet, so Apple's stock tanks despite of the fact that they just announced fucking sexbots
Tons of competitors announce their own version of sexbots, which only look like Apple's but can't really fuck your brains out, but they only cost 500 bucks, so people claim that these are the sexbot killers who will put Apple out of business; Apple's stock tanks further
These rumors hurt Apple's business. They publish Apple's trade secrets so their competitors know what Apple's up to. Rumor sites basically sell Apple's trade secrets for ad money, and they hurt Apple's business. You can hardly blame Apple for trying to go after them.
Yes, it does. Mac OS X is updated via OS X's update mechanism. So is Safari. Every time the internal APIs change, so does Safari, and the update to both is delivered automatically.
The fact that you can also get Safari outside of OS X updates does not mean that Apple doesn't deliver Safari with OS X updates.
The problem with third-party apps using internal APIs is that it hinders OS development. If Photoshop uses some undocumented API and Apple changes the API, everyone is going to whine about how Apple breaks Photoshop.
So should Apple simply not use its own internal APIs? That's not such a great idea, either. Somebody has to iron out the bugs. In OS X, traditionally, APIs started out as internal APIs that were used by Apple's apps. As the individual APIs started to settle down, Apple documented and published them.
So this is a pretty hard issue. It's obvious that nobody intended to do anything wrong here, though, so the/. article is laughably false.
What can a "superstar" programmer expect to be doing in 10 years at your company? Hopefully not still programming.
What? Is that some kind of joke? The worst thing you can do with a great programmer is to promote him (or her) out of programming. Great programmers want to program. What you need to provide is not a career path out of programming, but a good career path withing programming. For most great programmers, going from programming to non-programming is not a promotion, it's a demotion. If you want to retain great programmers, be able to promote them while letting them be programmers.
What does talent even mean? I'm actually not sure such a thing exists at all. To get a good product, you need a working process and developers with knowledge and experience. Maybe talent helps you attain knowledge and experience (if it even exists), but talent alone is worthless.
Compared to quantum field theory or category theory, C++ or Java hacking is freaking child's play.
...if you want a hacker (somebody who gets a task and gets it done), sure. If you want a software engineer, somebody who knows how to design a system, no.
Learning how to program is easy. You and (I would guess) about 30% of the population can probably teach themselves how to program in a week. Learning how to design systems, on the other hand, is hard. You can't learn that in a week, and many people probably can't learn it on their own at all. Which is why you go to a university for four years to learn it.
You don't study Computer Science to learn how to program. You study computer science to learn how to design systems. You write whole operating systems, databases and compilers, you learn about chip design and assembly and how to design and implement a script runtime, and all that fun, hard stuff. That's not hacking, that's designing systems. Hiring hackers is great, but you'll still need at least one architect to tell them what and how to hack.
I don't know, I think that actually works a lot better than pretty much any other remote control scheme. No need to look at the remote, you've got all the controls on the screen.
And why can't the music be used on the server? Even though the files are DRM'd, they're just files. You can put them wherever you want; of course, if you want to play them on the server, you need either iTunes or Quicktime and authorize the server.
By the way, burning to CD and reimporting files doesn't mess up their metadata. iTunes properly keeps track of that for you.
3000 bucks isn't that much for a laptop. My first notebook cost twice that much; that was when I still was a student. Back then, I never would have bought anything but the cheapest plane ticket, but having a notebook to take to classes was worth my money (actually, my parents' money:-).
Slashdot Mirror
As soon as there's an open phone that's remotely as pleasant and easy to use as the iPhone.
If you will publish my app on something of similar profile as Apple's installer, I will give you 99 bucks.
Sony is a Japanese company. You might have had a point had you cited Microsoft, although they do charge subscriptions, so that might explain why they release new features in firmware updates.
Nokia is not an American company. Firmware updates generally fix bugs and don't add major features. That's why.
Firmware updates are generally bugfixes that don't add major new features. Lenovo isn't a US company. Hope that helps answer your questions. Next time, it might be a good idea to not insult others by claiming their points are "lame excuses," though. Especially since your own knowledge of the matter is so obviously lacking.
The word subscription being the important part here.
Anyway, SOx has never been tried in court, so different companies interpret it differently. Apple's on the save side, which is kind of understandable, given the issues they had with stock option backdating. They probably want to avoid a similar brouhaha, since they're likely to be one of the first companies sued if anything goes wrong, due to their visibility. Sue Apple and you're on every news show. Sue Tivo and nobody gives a shit.
No, they don't handle Leopard that way, which is why you'll only see minor changes (mainly bugfixes) and no major free updates until the next version of OS X comes out.
It's not an obscure accounting rule, it's the very much non-obscure Sarbanes-Oxley Act.
Please inform yourself about this law. It might help clear up a few confusions you seem to have, such as your question about iTunes.
IE owns 80% of the web browser market. Are you saying that the iPhone will own 80% of the cell phone market?
The software is always to blame. When designing the UI, you already knwo that most users aren't going to be experts at your software. There's no excuse to creating crappy user interfaces.
You're probably used to Windows' mouse acceleration curve. Spend a week with a Mac and you'll do just as well there as you do on Windows. You're right about the lack of space between the close and resize buttons on the Mac. Pre-X versions of Mac OS did this a lot better.
As a consumer, his stupid rotoscoping patent only means I don't get to see thousands of awesome movies which could have been made, had he not patented it. For himself, it only means his idea will remain obscure forever.
- Rumor sites publish unfounded rumors about how Apple will introduce sexbots at Macworld, and they'll cost 400 bucks and fuck your brains out and also cook dinner and clean out the garage
- Apple then actually announced sexbots which will cost 600 bucks, and will "only" fuck your brains out and not also cook dinner; cleaning out the garage is not yet ready, but expected in a later update
- Everyone is disappointed because they cost more than expected and won't cook dinner and won't clean out the garage yet, so Apple's stock tanks despite of the fact that they just announced fucking sexbots
- Tons of competitors announce their own version of sexbots, which only look like Apple's but can't really fuck your brains out, but they only cost 500 bucks, so people claim that these are the sexbot killers who will put Apple out of business; Apple's stock tanks further
These rumors hurt Apple's business. They publish Apple's trade secrets so their competitors know what Apple's up to. Rumor sites basically sell Apple's trade secrets for ad money, and they hurt Apple's business. You can hardly blame Apple for trying to go after them.MS does do it. Yet I don't see an article called "Windows secretly cripples non-Microsoft Software" on Slashdot, now do I?
Newsflash: MS is doing the same thing.
The code itself isn't experimental, but the interface to it may not yet be something suitable for general adaption.
Yes, it does. Mac OS X is updated via OS X's update mechanism. So is Safari. Every time the internal APIs change, so does Safari, and the update to both is delivered automatically.
The fact that you can also get Safari outside of OS X updates does not mean that Apple doesn't deliver Safari with OS X updates.
The problem with third-party apps using internal APIs is that it hinders OS development. If Photoshop uses some undocumented API and Apple changes the API, everyone is going to whine about how Apple breaks Photoshop.
/. article is laughably false.
So should Apple simply not use its own internal APIs? That's not such a great idea, either. Somebody has to iron out the bugs. In OS X, traditionally, APIs started out as internal APIs that were used by Apple's apps. As the individual APIs started to settle down, Apple documented and published them.
So this is a pretty hard issue. It's obvious that nobody intended to do anything wrong here, though, so the
You're wrong. These are precisely the people you want. Programmers who like to communicate are rare. If you can get them, do. These are the people who
Programmers who also like to write, talk and communicate are rare. Get them when you can.
What? Is that some kind of joke? The worst thing you can do with a great programmer is to promote him (or her) out of programming. Great programmers want to program. What you need to provide is not a career path out of programming, but a good career path withing programming. For most great programmers, going from programming to non-programming is not a promotion, it's a demotion. If you want to retain great programmers, be able to promote them while letting them be programmers.
Maybe their estimation of your capabilities does not match yours?
What does talent even mean? I'm actually not sure such a thing exists at all. To get a good product, you need a working process and developers with knowledge and experience. Maybe talent helps you attain knowledge and experience (if it even exists), but talent alone is worthless.
...if you want a hacker (somebody who gets a task and gets it done), sure. If you want a software engineer, somebody who knows how to design a system, no.
Learning how to program is easy. You and (I would guess) about 30% of the population can probably teach themselves how to program in a week. Learning how to design systems, on the other hand, is hard. You can't learn that in a week, and many people probably can't learn it on their own at all. Which is why you go to a university for four years to learn it.
You don't study Computer Science to learn how to program. You study computer science to learn how to design systems. You write whole operating systems, databases and compilers, you learn about chip design and assembly and how to design and implement a script runtime, and all that fun, hard stuff. That's not hacking, that's designing systems. Hiring hackers is great, but you'll still need at least one architect to tell them what and how to hack.
I don't know, I think that actually works a lot better than pretty much any other remote control scheme. No need to look at the remote, you've got all the controls on the screen.
And why can't the music be used on the server? Even though the files are DRM'd, they're just files. You can put them wherever you want; of course, if you want to play them on the server, you need either iTunes or Quicktime and authorize the server.
By the way, burning to CD and reimporting files doesn't mess up their metadata. iTunes properly keeps track of that for you.
3000 bucks isn't that much for a laptop. My first notebook cost twice that much; that was when I still was a student. Back then, I never would have bought anything but the cheapest plane ticket, but having a notebook to take to classes was worth my money (actually, my parents' money :-).