It is hard to be inconsistent with something as simple as 'God created it'.
Its actually quite easy, considering that the traditional Judeo-Christian definition of God, and for that matter any definition of God that includes the concept of being supernatural, is self-contradictory.
>> 1 - Confusing interface
>Really? I expect that most people wouldn't agree
How to run any program in Windows
Window-Key R (Windows, Run. Run Windows Run.) type in path to program. In Win2K+ the OS is INSANLY intelligent about picking out what program you are trying to type in, it actualy does not just file name completion but it will actualy guess for RELVENCY. Meaning that it will first pop up a suggestion for a program or path that you have acceced RECENTLY or that you access OFTEN before it will just do standard alphapetical file name completion.
Which totaly and compleatly rocks.:) Really, it does! I can access almost ANY file on either of my HDs (a combined over 60GB of files, well over ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND files) in 15 keystrokes or less.
Now try and tell me that THAT is not exceedingly cool. Not to mention a miracle of UI design. (They may not be the first to implement it, but regardless it is a damn spiffy implementation!)
I will admit that is pretty cool, but a miracle of UI design it is not. Good UI design is characterized by two things, intuitiveness and consistency, neither of which that feature has. Features designed for power users are by definition not well designed UI features. I also don't see how it has any relevancy to the claim that MacOS has a confusing interface.
>> 2 - One Button Mouse
>The OS supports two-button mice, and pretty much >any USB mouse should work.
Applications do not always support two button mice, this is neccisary since a two button mouse can NEVER be assumed to be ALWAYS installed on a mac machine. On a PC applications CAN make this assumption, and thus have access to additional meta-key + mouse key combinations. (the 2nd mouse button on macs is mostly used to act as meta-key + mouse1)
All native X apps support two button and scroll mice.
>> 3 - Customization and configuration is hard to grasp
>I don't understand what you mean by this.
How to configure damn nearly ANYTHING on a windows machine:
Start--> SETTINGS--->control panel. Click on the item. EVERYTHING for that subject is there.
on the macs you have things kind of spread about a bit. . . . configure half of your color settings here, another half there. . . . the layout and design is NOT standardized.
For Classic Mac OSes, go Apple menu, Control Panel sub-menu, pick your Control Panel. For OS X, go Apple menu, System Preferences, pick your topic. I don't see how this is any different than Windows.
>> 4 - Expensive Hardware
>For what you get, it's been shown to be fairly >comparable with brand-name windows hardware.
BZZT! wrong. Try again. For what you get on a low end mac you can get a medium end PC. A medium end mac (~2k) will get you the HIGHEST end PC. (well, ok, minus SCSI everything, but hell, that is just. . . . hehe. SCSI rocks.:) )
I won't try to argue this point, but you can look at any of the myriad other posts on this subject. The key word you have to remember in this discussion is brand name. You can certainly build your own computer for cheaper, but this requires you to know a crapload of stuff about what RAM you can use with your motherboard, etc. This gets back to the whole issue with good UI design reducing the amount of otherwise useless knowledge you need to do something.
>> 6 - Proprietary platform
>Like Windows?
No jack ass, like the damn ENITRE FUCKING COMPUTER.
Apple has been able to HAMPER *nix development on their platform. Sure it exists, but only because people had to reverse engineer a bunch of crap. (Apple WAS supporting Linux development on the PC for awhile, and then they changed their minds. . . )
On the PC I can run ANY damn OS that I feel like because there is this huge thing called a CHOICE out there. Sure my main box runs windows, but I have shoved some awfuly weird shit on my OTHER boxs.
Or hell, ANYBODY can go out and make their OWN OS for the x86. All open spec. Intel and AMD have whitepapers that give exacting detail on the platform availble for free from their respective websites.
I've got a suggestion, too. Apple should merge with AOL. It makes perfect sense.
You do know that AOL is an Apple spin off don't you? AOL started off life as AppleLink.
They both made their sucess by dumbing down computers to the point where anyone could use them.
There is a BIG difference between dumbing down computers and making UIs better. Dumbing down is making UIs easier to use through the removal of features. Better UIs are made through making the existing features less confusing and more consistent to operate.
There are already UI engineers describing how ergonomic and intuitive really big buttons in the middle of the screen with wasted space on both sides makes users work faster
I don't know about being ergonomic, but a really big button is certainly more intuitive than a tiny button hidden in the corner. And it is also faster. A bigger button means you can be less precise with your mouse movements. Its the same logic behind why one menubar at the top of the screen is much faster than each window having a menubar. A menubar at the top of the screen has an effective infinite height and is much easier to hit with the cursor.
Re:This arguement needs to be put to rest
on
Apple Wants Your Input
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
For $3500 I bought a 1988 Toyota Cressida. It does everything that a BMW does and it cost about 1/10th of the price. Why should I spend $40,000 on this BMW when a cheaper car does everything that it does. Why, maybe my penis is too small and I need to compensate by buying an expensive car. I've got as much money as I want so i'll blow off an extra 20% on this Macintosh. Sure its slower and more proprietary than an equivalently priced PC, but its got "the sex".
You have obviously either never driven a BMW or think that driving is just for getting you places. There is nothing like driving a BMW, except maybe driving a Porsche (where you trade handling for performance) or driving a Lexus (where you trade handling for comfort and an amazing stereo system). Yes, it will get you to the same places, but it certainly won't be as fun, and it sure as hell won't last you as long.
No, a gun's primary purpose is to kill people and/or animals. This is why they make hunting rifles and AK-47s. Self-defense is secondary and is purely a result of its ability to do its primary purpose well.
Your argument is like saying the primary purpose of a nuclear weapon is national defense, and thats absurd. The primary purpose of a nuclear weapon is to blow up. The fact that a nuclear weapon blows up pretty well lets it accomplish its secondary purpose, which is deterrance. The same applies to a gun.
By the way, policemen defending other people is not SELF-defense as you seem to believe.
That makes no more sense than assuming the same of people who carry nail clippers. A gun is a tool. The rest of the emotional baggage they seem to carry for you is all in your head
Except that a gun is a tool for KILLING people, nail clippers are a tool for clipping nails. By your logic, it would be dumb to assume that people who carry around vials of anthrax or suitcase nukes are dangerous.
Given the current socio-political atmosphere relating to guns, I would say it is quite valid to assume that someone carrying a gun is either clumsy or fanatical, either way dangerous.
He wasn't trying to Enter Canada. He was already there (and got in no problem.) He was trying to LEAVE.
He wasn't trying to leave either. He had flown from Toronto to St. John with no problem, and was trying to fly back. Both of those cities are in Canada.
Not only that, but it's just the Canadian music industry that gets the profits. Nothing against Bryan Adams, but who do you think sells more albums, him or N'Sync? Who do you think gets copied more, him or Britney Spears? So not only does he get a cut if I copy Slackware, he gets some cash every time I copy American/English/Swedish/Zimbabwean/Japanese music. Laughing all the way to the bank.
Somehow I doubt that Bryan Adams, or for that matter any artist, will ever see a single red cent of the money collected from these taxes. Its the record labels that get the money, and its the record labels that will keep the money.
Slavery was going on in various place, not none compare with Europe and America's exploitation of it. Except maybe the Egyptians enslavement of the Jews.
I think you mean the Hebrews not the Jews, and it never happened anyway. There is not a single mention of a large Hebrew slave population at any time in any of the ancient Egyptian documents we have unearthed. The only historical record of it is in the Bible, and we all know how reliable that is *eyes roll*
if the indies want to sell dsl or anything else for that matter let them build their own centers and sell from there and stop leeching on the back of those who have spent the capital in the first place.
Leeching on the back of those who spent the capital? You mean the government? Oh? you didn't know that the telephone lines were built of public land and funded by government subsidies? Do a little reasearch before you comment on things you don't know about next time.
Sheesh. If you want a truely free market, remove the Bells control of the wires and return ownership of them to the public. They were built on public land with public money, they should be publicly owned. Let the Bells compete on an even playing field and then see what the free market determines.
Let me dispel a few myths you seem to have. First of all, Data CD-Rs do have a tax on them, its just a smaller tax than the Audio CD-Rs. Secondly, there is absolutely no difference between Audio and Data CD-Rs. There is no device that requires Audio CD-Rs. Data CD-Rs work just fine in stand alone audio burners.
But it has - US customs has begun seizing these items, according to the link in the story. It's not the first item seized in this way for this reason.
Ok, I didn't see that. But that still isn't the same as being enforced by a court order. And if precedents are any indication (Nintendo vs. Galoob and Sega vs. Accolade), it won't be either.
The IP concerning the ROM cartridge isn't just the edge connector, it's the whole specification of how to make something that connects to the GBA. Ignoring that, how about the IP that VIA and Intel hold over the chipsets that a x86 processor needs? You're free to make your own chipset but then again you're free to design your own handheld game machine.
Pinouts are not APIs and are not copyrightable (IANAL). If you are free to make your own chipset to interface to an Intel x86 chip, then you are free to make your own circut to interface to a GBA cart edge connector.
Final question. If This is completely different, because an API is copyrightable when referring to AMX, why doesn't that apply to Nintendo?
It doesn't apply to Nintendo because the API isn't being accessed here. All this device does is read the ROM in game carts, and write to Flash/EEPROM in empty carts.
Surely they can copyright the API of the GBA firmware? Just like the RTOS, it must be licensed.
I'm sure they can and have copyrighted the API, but as I said above, that isn't an issue here. The API isn't being accessed here, all the device does is read and write ROMs. If they could show that the distributers of GBA dev libraries stole the API from a Nintendo dev kit (which I don't believe is the case, but I could be mistaken), then they could go after them. But thats not who they are going after.
Nobody is offering to do that. Visoly just want to flog something that presents a simple choice between big $ and free games. They don't give a shit about whether it promotes piracy or not. At over $100 per unit they're little better than Nintendo!
There are plenty of people offering to do that. Just look at gbadev.org for examples. The people being threatened here are not offering that because it isn't necessary for what they are doing to access any API.
And as for the piracy bit, no one in their right mind would buy one of these solely to pirate games, it would be way too expensive (at $100 a cart) and they could just play the games on an emulator on their computer for free. The fact is that this device has a very legitamite and very prevalent use that NOA is trying to prevent just to make some more money, and that isn't right.
What part of reality don't you get? It already happened.
No it didn't already happen. All that has happened is that NOA has sent this company a threatening letter. It hasn't been enforced.
They do have the right to tell people that they may not make and sell things that plug into their device
No, they don't. They have the right to stop them from using the Game Boy or Nintendo name in a fashion that implies the product is associated with Nintendo, but they don't not have the right to tell people what they can and cannot plug into hardware they sold. Just like Intel or Motorola do not have the right to tell motherboard manufacturers that they cannot make a motherboard that can use a processor of theirs. Nor do they have the right to tell someone they cannot develop software that can run on one of their processors.
The connector and firmware (among other things) are their intellectual property which they do not allow anyone to use unless they are licensed.
The connector is Nintendo's IP?! Its a freaking edge connector! I guess Nintendo should sue every producer of PCI cards in existence. And there shouldn't be any firmware in this device that is IP of Nintendo. What would it be needed for? All this device is is a FlashROM/EEPROM reader/writer.
Here's another example - if you want to do low-level hacking on a Palm OS device, even if you know Kadak AMX you still have to pay because unless you are licensed you cannot write to that API.
This is completely different, because an API is copyrightable. And even then, if you could show that you reverse engineered the API without any knowledge of it, then yes it would be legal.
Wouldn't it be nice if IP was free, and everybody donated their time and effort to advance the human condition!
This has absolutely nothing to do with IP. It is purely a case of a company trying to control things they have no right to control in an effort to squeeze more money from developers.
"developers" who refuse to comply with Nintendo's terms for developing on that platform.
I'm sorry, but unless you signed an agreement with Nintendo, which I have never done, you don't have to comply with any of their terms regarding anything. Just because Nintendo created the hardware does not mean they have the right to tell the people who bought the hardware what cartridges they can or cannot put into that hardware.
Hm... and if you don't need a license to operate a fork, why should you be required to have a license to operate a car?
You don't need a license to operate a vehicle, you only need one if you want to operate that vehicle on public roads. Anyone can drive a vehicle on private property without a license as long as you have permission of the property owner.
Bullshit. There are a lot of amatuer GBA developers out there that use this kind of hardware to test theirs and others games on a real system instead of an emulator. This is a perfectly legal use of the device that has none of the grayness of making backups.
And besides, how are EULAs for GBAs and GBA games valid anyway? On a computer program, you at least have to click a button that says "Agree". There is nothing I signed or agreed to when I bought and used my GBA or my games, so no contract should apply, just the standard copyright laws.
You know, it is legal to sell drug paraphanilia, even though the use of it is illegal
Actually, this is incorrect. Selling drug paraphenalia is only legal if there is a significant legal use for the item. Unfortunately, federal courts have decided this is not the case for bongs, hookahs, and other water pipes. There were some major crackdowns on national manufacurers of bongs a couple of years ago. That is why you only see locally made pipes and bongs in head shops nowadays.
IMO, that's like saying, "OK, we found you had drugs in your car. So in addition to taking the drugs and your car, we're going to take your garage, toolshed, vacuum cleaner, and all your other cars too!"
This is, in fact, legal in some states (California being one). If you are suspected of smuggling drugs, they can and will take your car, boat, house, or anything else you possibly could have bought with money from selling drugs, and you will not get it back, ever. They won't even pretend you will eventually get it back. They will sell it and use the proceeds to fund the police department. It is absolutely disgusting and should be unconstitional.
Currently, while Darwin does run on Intel, it's limited to only a few Intel motherboards and essentially one harddisk controller. Check out the installation notes [apple.com].
I stand corrected. However, my point still remains. If the Darwin people are already doing the work of porting to x86, what does Apple need to do? Maybe Apple would need to help out the Darwin guys more than they already do until they have a sizable portion of the hardware market supported, and then just let the magic of open source do the rest.
Until Jobs took over, all software at Apple was available for free except for the products that came out of Clarus, so what you're saying is that Clarus held up Apple.
The system software hasn't been free since the days of System 5 (or was it System 6, I don't remember). System 7.5 - 9 were all $99, and they've had AppleShare Server, and its later incarnation, AppleShareIP being sold at several hundred dollars for the longest time.
And P.S. Its Claris not Clarus. Claris was the software company, Clarus was the dogcow.
If you'd done a little research, the most common explanation for that $150 million donation from Microsoft was that Apple had a pretty good case against Microsoft for stealing a bundle of Quicktime code. Since this was right when the whole anti-trust thing was rearing its ugly head, Microsoft didn't want anything really damning to be coming up. Apple probably wouldn't have been able to support the legal fees needed to push the case anyway, and the two of them came up with a little deal whereby Apple was kept afloat due to public perception of Microsoft stepping in, and in exchange they agree not to sue or make any press releases about Microsoft's misappropriation of code.
This, however, is just about as speculative as your explanation, although there is some circumstantial evidence in its favor.
Everyone is saying that supporting all the hardware is going to be a real chore, but I disagree. I think the Darwin people will be able to take care of that. Darwin has already been ported to x86, and I think it supports a rather large set of hardware. All the hardware support, except for maybe video card specific graphics acceleration, would be done at that level anyway. Another option would be for Apple to sanction a line of existing or yet to be made x86 hardware that is MacOS compatible.
The real problem porting would be Quartz. From what I understand, Quartz is rather heavily optimized for AltiVec. They might be able to help the x86 version along with better video card acceleration, but they would probably have to settle for slower speeds there anyway. The other problem would be Classic. If Apple even bothered porting Classic to x86, it would run incredibly slow because it would have to emulate a PowerPC as well as a 68K chip.
However, a port to x86 would bring up some very interesting possibilities, such as a WINE type system for running Windows binaries, rather than a Virtual PC type full emulation. Or perhaps an end to this stigma MacOS has in the eyes of game developers.
Well, you have the good fortune to live in a country where the majority of people are sensible. Those of us who live in the US have to deal with states banning the teaching of evolution in public schools and other nonsense. I don't expect this to cause all the nuts to go away overnight, but hopefully this will speed their departure.
Short pulses mean higher frequency/lower wavelength. Since a pulse of light has to be at least one photon, and a photon is one wave packet, then the duration of a pulse determines the minimum frequency/maximum wavelength of the light in that pulse. A one zeptosecond (10^-21 s) pulse would mean that the largest possible wavelength of a photon in that pulse whould be 3x10^-13 meters. This is somewhat smaller than an atom (approx 10^-9 meters), but still larger than a nucleus (approx 10^-15 meters). So with a pulse of this duration, we would definately be able to see an atom, and we might get a rater fuzzy picture of a nucleus.
Slashdot Mirror
Its actually quite easy, considering that the traditional Judeo-Christian definition of God, and for that matter any definition of God that includes the concept of being supernatural, is self-contradictory.
I will admit that is pretty cool, but a miracle of UI design it is not. Good UI design is characterized by two things, intuitiveness and consistency, neither of which that feature has. Features designed for power users are by definition not well designed UI features. I also don't see how it has any relevancy to the claim that MacOS has a confusing interface.
>> 2 - One Button Mouse >The OS supports two-button mice, and pretty much >any USB mouse should work. Applications do not always support two button mice, this is neccisary since a two button mouse can NEVER be assumed to be ALWAYS installed on a mac machine. On a PC applications CAN make this assumption, and thus have access to additional meta-key + mouse key combinations. (the 2nd mouse button on macs is mostly used to act as meta-key + mouse1)
All native X apps support two button and scroll mice.
>> 3 - Customization and configuration is hard to grasp >I don't understand what you mean by this. How to configure damn nearly ANYTHING on a windows machine: Start--> SETTINGS--->control panel. Click on the item. EVERYTHING for that subject is there. on the macs you have things kind of spread about a bit. . . . configure half of your color settings here, another half there. . . . the layout and design is NOT standardized.
For Classic Mac OSes, go Apple menu, Control Panel sub-menu, pick your Control Panel. For OS X, go Apple menu, System Preferences, pick your topic. I don't see how this is any different than Windows.
>> 4 - Expensive Hardware >For what you get, it's been shown to be fairly >comparable with brand-name windows hardware. BZZT! wrong. Try again. For what you get on a low end mac you can get a medium end PC. A medium end mac (~2k) will get you the HIGHEST end PC. (well, ok, minus SCSI everything, but hell, that is just. . . . hehe. SCSI rocks. :) )
I won't try to argue this point, but you can look at any of the myriad other posts on this subject. The key word you have to remember in this discussion is brand name. You can certainly build your own computer for cheaper, but this requires you to know a crapload of stuff about what RAM you can use with your motherboard, etc. This gets back to the whole issue with good UI design reducing the amount of otherwise useless knowledge you need to do something.
>> 6 - Proprietary platform >Like Windows? No jack ass, like the damn ENITRE FUCKING COMPUTER. Apple has been able to HAMPER *nix development on their platform. Sure it exists, but only because people had to reverse engineer a bunch of crap. (Apple WAS supporting Linux development on the PC for awhile, and then they changed their minds. . . ) On the PC I can run ANY damn OS that I feel like because there is this huge thing called a CHOICE out there. Sure my main box runs windows, but I have shoved some awfuly weird shit on my OTHER boxs. Or hell, ANYBODY can go out and make their OWN OS for the x86. All open spec. Intel and AMD have whitepapers that give exacting detail on the platform availble for free from their respective websites.
Apple has been running an open platform ever since the original iMac back in '98. The only reverse engineering that the Linux developers had to do was to get Linux running on older Macs. And yes, Apple does have whitepapers on their platform, such as Fundamentals of Open Firmware, Part I: The User Interface, Fundamentals of Open Firmware, Part II: The Device Tree, and Fundamentals of Open Firmware, Part III: Understanding PCI ..., among many others. Just go to Apple's developer section of their website and do a search on Open Transport.
You do know that AOL is an Apple spin off don't you? AOL started off life as AppleLink.
They both made their sucess by dumbing down computers to the point where anyone could use them.
There is a BIG difference between dumbing down computers and making UIs better. Dumbing down is making UIs easier to use through the removal of features. Better UIs are made through making the existing features less confusing and more consistent to operate.
I don't know about being ergonomic, but a really big button is certainly more intuitive than a tiny button hidden in the corner. And it is also faster. A bigger button means you can be less precise with your mouse movements. Its the same logic behind why one menubar at the top of the screen is much faster than each window having a menubar. A menubar at the top of the screen has an effective infinite height and is much easier to hit with the cursor.
You have obviously either never driven a BMW or think that driving is just for getting you places. There is nothing like driving a BMW, except maybe driving a Porsche (where you trade handling for performance) or driving a Lexus (where you trade handling for comfort and an amazing stereo system). Yes, it will get you to the same places, but it certainly won't be as fun, and it sure as hell won't last you as long.
Your argument is like saying the primary purpose of a nuclear weapon is national defense, and thats absurd. The primary purpose of a nuclear weapon is to blow up. The fact that a nuclear weapon blows up pretty well lets it accomplish its secondary purpose, which is deterrance. The same applies to a gun.
By the way, policemen defending other people is not SELF-defense as you seem to believe.
Except that a gun is a tool for KILLING people, nail clippers are a tool for clipping nails. By your logic, it would be dumb to assume that people who carry around vials of anthrax or suitcase nukes are dangerous.
Given the current socio-political atmosphere relating to guns, I would say it is quite valid to assume that someone carrying a gun is either clumsy or fanatical, either way dangerous.
He wasn't trying to leave either. He had flown from Toronto to St. John with no problem, and was trying to fly back. Both of those cities are in Canada.
Somehow I doubt that Bryan Adams, or for that matter any artist, will ever see a single red cent of the money collected from these taxes. Its the record labels that get the money, and its the record labels that will keep the money.
I think you mean the Hebrews not the Jews, and it never happened anyway. There is not a single mention of a large Hebrew slave population at any time in any of the ancient Egyptian documents we have unearthed. The only historical record of it is in the Bible, and we all know how reliable that is *eyes roll*
Leeching on the back of those who spent the capital? You mean the government? Oh? you didn't know that the telephone lines were built of public land and funded by government subsidies? Do a little reasearch before you comment on things you don't know about next time.
Sheesh. If you want a truely free market, remove the Bells control of the wires and return ownership of them to the public. They were built on public land with public money, they should be publicly owned. Let the Bells compete on an even playing field and then see what the free market determines.
Let me dispel a few myths you seem to have. First of all, Data CD-Rs do have a tax on them, its just a smaller tax than the Audio CD-Rs. Secondly, there is absolutely no difference between Audio and Data CD-Rs. There is no device that requires Audio CD-Rs. Data CD-Rs work just fine in stand alone audio burners.
Ok, I didn't see that. But that still isn't the same as being enforced by a court order. And if precedents are any indication (Nintendo vs. Galoob and Sega vs. Accolade), it won't be either.
The IP concerning the ROM cartridge isn't just the edge connector, it's the whole specification of how to make something that connects to the GBA. Ignoring that, how about the IP that VIA and Intel hold over the chipsets that a x86 processor needs? You're free to make your own chipset but then again you're free to design your own handheld game machine.
Pinouts are not APIs and are not copyrightable (IANAL). If you are free to make your own chipset to interface to an Intel x86 chip, then you are free to make your own circut to interface to a GBA cart edge connector.
Final question. If This is completely different, because an API is copyrightable when referring to AMX, why doesn't that apply to Nintendo?
It doesn't apply to Nintendo because the API isn't being accessed here. All this device does is read the ROM in game carts, and write to Flash/EEPROM in empty carts.
Surely they can copyright the API of the GBA firmware? Just like the RTOS, it must be licensed.
I'm sure they can and have copyrighted the API, but as I said above, that isn't an issue here. The API isn't being accessed here, all the device does is read and write ROMs. If they could show that the distributers of GBA dev libraries stole the API from a Nintendo dev kit (which I don't believe is the case, but I could be mistaken), then they could go after them. But thats not who they are going after.
Nobody is offering to do that. Visoly just want to flog something that presents a simple choice between big $ and free games. They don't give a shit about whether it promotes piracy or not. At over $100 per unit they're little better than Nintendo!
There are plenty of people offering to do that. Just look at gbadev.org for examples. The people being threatened here are not offering that because it isn't necessary for what they are doing to access any API.
And as for the piracy bit, no one in their right mind would buy one of these solely to pirate games, it would be way too expensive (at $100 a cart) and they could just play the games on an emulator on their computer for free. The fact is that this device has a very legitamite and very prevalent use that NOA is trying to prevent just to make some more money, and that isn't right.
No it didn't already happen. All that has happened is that NOA has sent this company a threatening letter. It hasn't been enforced.
They do have the right to tell people that they may not make and sell things that plug into their device
No, they don't. They have the right to stop them from using the Game Boy or Nintendo name in a fashion that implies the product is associated with Nintendo, but they don't not have the right to tell people what they can and cannot plug into hardware they sold. Just like Intel or Motorola do not have the right to tell motherboard manufacturers that they cannot make a motherboard that can use a processor of theirs. Nor do they have the right to tell someone they cannot develop software that can run on one of their processors.
The connector and firmware (among other things) are their intellectual property which they do not allow anyone to use unless they are licensed.
The connector is Nintendo's IP?! Its a freaking edge connector! I guess Nintendo should sue every producer of PCI cards in existence. And there shouldn't be any firmware in this device that is IP of Nintendo. What would it be needed for? All this device is is a FlashROM/EEPROM reader/writer.
Here's another example - if you want to do low-level hacking on a Palm OS device, even if you know Kadak AMX you still have to pay because unless you are licensed you cannot write to that API.
This is completely different, because an API is copyrightable. And even then, if you could show that you reverse engineered the API without any knowledge of it, then yes it would be legal.
Wouldn't it be nice if IP was free, and everybody donated their time and effort to advance the human condition!
This has absolutely nothing to do with IP. It is purely a case of a company trying to control things they have no right to control in an effort to squeeze more money from developers.
I'm sorry, but unless you signed an agreement with Nintendo, which I have never done, you don't have to comply with any of their terms regarding anything. Just because Nintendo created the hardware does not mean they have the right to tell the people who bought the hardware what cartridges they can or cannot put into that hardware.
You don't need a license to operate a vehicle, you only need one if you want to operate that vehicle on public roads. Anyone can drive a vehicle on private property without a license as long as you have permission of the property owner.
And besides, how are EULAs for GBAs and GBA games valid anyway? On a computer program, you at least have to click a button that says "Agree". There is nothing I signed or agreed to when I bought and used my GBA or my games, so no contract should apply, just the standard copyright laws.
Actually, this is incorrect. Selling drug paraphenalia is only legal if there is a significant legal use for the item. Unfortunately, federal courts have decided this is not the case for bongs, hookahs, and other water pipes. There were some major crackdowns on national manufacurers of bongs a couple of years ago. That is why you only see locally made pipes and bongs in head shops nowadays.
This is, in fact, legal in some states (California being one). If you are suspected of smuggling drugs, they can and will take your car, boat, house, or anything else you possibly could have bought with money from selling drugs, and you will not get it back, ever. They won't even pretend you will eventually get it back. They will sell it and use the proceeds to fund the police department. It is absolutely disgusting and should be unconstitional.
I stand corrected. However, my point still remains. If the Darwin people are already doing the work of porting to x86, what does Apple need to do? Maybe Apple would need to help out the Darwin guys more than they already do until they have a sizable portion of the hardware market supported, and then just let the magic of open source do the rest.
The system software hasn't been free since the days of System 5 (or was it System 6, I don't remember). System 7.5 - 9 were all $99, and they've had AppleShare Server, and its later incarnation, AppleShareIP being sold at several hundred dollars for the longest time.
And P.S. Its Claris not Clarus. Claris was the software company, Clarus was the dogcow.
This, however, is just about as speculative as your explanation, although there is some circumstantial evidence in its favor.
The real problem porting would be Quartz. From what I understand, Quartz is rather heavily optimized for AltiVec. They might be able to help the x86 version along with better video card acceleration, but they would probably have to settle for slower speeds there anyway. The other problem would be Classic. If Apple even bothered porting Classic to x86, it would run incredibly slow because it would have to emulate a PowerPC as well as a 68K chip.
However, a port to x86 would bring up some very interesting possibilities, such as a WINE type system for running Windows binaries, rather than a Virtual PC type full emulation. Or perhaps an end to this stigma MacOS has in the eyes of game developers.
Well, you have the good fortune to live in a country where the majority of people are sensible. Those of us who live in the US have to deal with states banning the teaching of evolution in public schools and other nonsense. I don't expect this to cause all the nuts to go away overnight, but hopefully this will speed their departure.
Short pulses mean higher frequency/lower wavelength. Since a pulse of light has to be at least one photon, and a photon is one wave packet, then the duration of a pulse determines the minimum frequency/maximum wavelength of the light in that pulse. A one zeptosecond (10^-21 s) pulse would mean that the largest possible wavelength of a photon in that pulse whould be 3x10^-13 meters. This is somewhat smaller than an atom (approx 10^-9 meters), but still larger than a nucleus (approx 10^-15 meters). So with a pulse of this duration, we would definately be able to see an atom, and we might get a rater fuzzy picture of a nucleus.