...done that. Lenina Huxley: That is correct, money is out-moded. All transactions are through code. John Spartan: Alright, so he can't buy food or a place to stay for the night. And, it would be a waste of time to mug somebody. Unless he rips off somebody's hand, and let's hope he doesn't figure that one out.
I just had to call today to about display flakiness on my almost year-old iBook. Not only could I understand the American tech perfectly, he actually listened to my description of the problem and adjusted his responses accordingly instead of just sticking to the script like the Dell people did the last time I had to call them about a client issue.
After he made sure I tried a few things, he agreed with my assessment that the it was a hardware problem, and arranged for the box to be shipped to my office.
No fuss, no muss, and no ridiculously convoluted phone tree to get to him in the first place, either. And the hold time was less than 5 minutes.
According to Cringely's book "Accidental Empires," the Tandy 2000 debacle lies right at the feet of Bill Gates. Even though the 2000 was not 100% IBM PC-compatible, which in those days was the kiss of death, he encouraged Tandy to go ahead with the machine because it used the 80186 processor and was much more capable of running the then-current incarnation of Windows than the 8086/8088-based PCs of the time.
Tandy went ahead with production at Gates' urging. When the machine flopped, Jon Shirley, the Tandy executive who listened to Gates and probably expected to be shitcanned for it, made a quick exit from the company and took the President/COO job at Microsoft.
~Philly
Re:sharing jacks is Lame, we need wireless.
on
iPod-Jacked
·
· Score: 1
wake me up when the iPOD is able to transmit via bluetooth ( or similar ) and a ppl with in a short radius are able to share.
Yeah, you'd better rest up-- you'll need your energy to carry around the battery the iPod will need to give you a full day of listening pleasure and wirelessly transmitting your music to others nearby.
However, that's money they could be sending into the U.S. in terms of software licenses, which would then trickle down to the rest of us.
So you're saying that money from Brazil that would go to Microsoft would eventually trickle down to everyone in the U.S.??? Maybe if you're a lawyer who is suing or defending MS, but otherwise, no-- Microsoft is sitting on over 50 billion dollars right now as a hedge fund against lawsuits-- their shareholders are actually complaining about the cash hoard.
Apple and Microsoft teamed up against Adobe in the late 80's-- this while they were locked in battle over the infamous "look and feel" lawsuit. I believe that particular alliance is what gave us TrueType fonts.
I not only read the blockquote, I read a fair bit of the Google-cached patent application. The behavior IS the same, you twit, the Keychain is an OS-level service that can be used by anyone who wants to use it in their apps.
When a Keychain-aware Mac application wants a password and I have previously indicated that I want it to use the Keychain services, a Keychain dialog pops up and asks for my Keychain password. Upon correct authentication, the Keychain passes the application-specific password to the requesting application.
Do you think IBM's system will just automatically sniff out instances where it should assert itself? Because I don't-- I think apps will have to be changed to be at least minimally aware of the password wallet service.
So the question is does IBM have a new and unique way of doing password management.
No, they don't. Because their description is exactly what Apple's Keychain does. Just replace "wallet" with "keychain" in this passage from IBM's own description of their system:
"An existing password field on a device display is overlaid with password wallet pop-up field which allows a wallet "master" key to unlock the wallet. An application-specific and/or user-specific password is automatically retrieved from the wallet and entered into the password field with no other user action required."
The Keychain has been around since System 7 Pro, which dates back to October of 1993 or thereabouts. Whether Apple patented it or back then not, I don't think they'll have any choice but to contest this IBM patent attempt-- because if it goes through, Apple will have to pay licensing fees to IBM to continue using Keychain in OS X.
I don't know what kind of volume deal Toshiba is giving Apple on those 1.8" HDDs, but when iPods first came out only cost the same as the retail price of the hard drive contained inside them.
I can't find anybody online selling the 10, 20 or 40GB drives currently used in iPods to see if that still holds true, but newegg.com has the 5GB drive from the original iPod for $179. Perhaps an el cheapo iPod model at that price point with that 5GB drive would further increase the iPod's market share, but I don't know if such a beast would be economical for Apple to manufacture.
What could Apple possibly gain by cooking their books to make the iTMS look unprofitable? There are plenty of other tax loopholes a large corporation could use, ones that won't make the shareholders question a venture that appears to be costing the company money.
Organizations like record companies and movie studios, on the other hand, DO have something to gain by making things appear unprofitable-- it means they don't have to pay a dime to people who are promised a percentage of something's net profits. Just ask Winston Groom, the guy who wrote "Forrest Gump." Despite the movie grossing almost $700M (not including merchandise sales), the studio claims they somehow still haven't made a profit on it, and thus don't have to pay Groom a cent. (Just think, these are the very same people who are trying to lecture US on ethics regarding piracy!)
The iTMS is fulfilling the goals it was designed for-- to give people a place to legally download music, and to be a loss-leader that drives iPod sales, which do make Apple a tidy profit.
...to label a product that won't be released for THREE YEARS a "[competing product]-killer"?
Plus, now that Microsoft has essentially shown their cards, Macromedia will be motivated to improve Flash in the intervening time so as not to lose customers to Microsoft's product when it finally appears.
Get LaunchBar, you won't regret it. I now keep a minimum of things in my dock for the purposes of launching them, but everything's still just a couple keystrokes away no matter how deeply it's buried in subdirectories.
The worm/virus debacles this summer cost them over $700 million in unearned income in the form of future contracts. Since their usual PR spinning didn't stem the flow this time, stronger measures needed to be taken. Of course, since actually spending sufficient money to tighten up Windows is out of the question, they're just taking the easy route and putting prices on the heads of a couple virus writers.
People are finally getting really fed up with Microsoft security issues, and I don't think they'll fall for this cheesy ploy. At least, I hope they don't.
As someone who fondly remembers the MTV of the 80's, when they actually showed videos from diverse acts for most of the day, I agree wholeheartedly with the parent poster. These days on the rare occasions when they do play music, it's the same ten or so shit videos every time, and the segments between them are supremely irritating.
The iPod has serious street cred (and market share) amongst MTV-watching teens. For MTV to make their service acceptable to the record companies, it will have to have ham-handed, crippling DRM. For MTV to make their service successful, they'll have to make it work with the iPod, arguably the most popular/cool MP3 player amongst their viewers (I mean, OMG, 50 Cent had one in his video!!!)
Without both sides of that above equation in place, the service will be a failure right out of the gate. And with the iTMS now available for Windows, it's not in Apple's interest to assist a third-party music service by making the iPod work with it. People will have a more seamless experience with their iPods if they just stick with the iTMS, and Apple will make a few more bucks out of it that way.
So, the MTV online music service is analogous to a racehorse that drops dead while being walked to the starting gate.
Anyway, I find it very humorous you can talk about the entire history of rap and not mention MC Hammer.
I am aware of his work, thank you.
He was even indirectly responsible for large amounts of rap music that were created specifically to diss him.
Like who? The only diss I can recall was in 3rd Bass' "The Gas Face." By far the best diss those guys ever laid down, though, was when they beat "Vanilla Ice" with baseball bats in their "Pop Goes the Weasel" video.
Now, the L.L. Cool J-Kool Moe Dee feud, I can remember that one.:-)
If nothing else, he primed the scene for gangsta rap
How so? His first album wasn't great, and it was released in 1988, the same year as the two albums I regard as the dawn of gangsta rap, N.W.A.'s "Straight Outta Compton" and Eazy-E's solo album. Hammer's real success didn't come until '90 when he did "Please Hammer Don't Hurt 'Em," when he had damn near every white high school kid in the country wearing parachute pants-- and by 1990, gangsta rap was growing on its own.
Here's a basic history of rap as I, a 30 year-old white guy, know it:
Modern rap goes back to NYC in the late 70's. "Rapper's Delight" by the Sugar Hill Gang dates back to then. Also, around the same time, DJ Kool Herc was the first guy known to use two turntables to cut seamlessly back and forth between songs.
Things picked up in the early to mid 80's, when we saw NYC-based acts like L.L. Cool J, Public Enemy, and Run-DMC. The Beastie Boys became the first white rappers to hit it big. Rap crossed over to young, white America (the MTV generation) mostly thanks to Run-DMC collaborating with Aerosmith on the remake of "Walk This Way" in 1986. Most pre-1988 rap was innocent (and mostly clean) braggadocio of the "I'm cooler than you [and here's why]" variety.
In the late 80's and early 90's, gangsta rap got big with acts like Ice-T, Eazy-E and N.W.A., and later Snoop Doggy Dogg, who were actually gang members/criminals, whose violent lyrics raised the ire of older whitebread America. It was around this time that the whole east coast rapper vs. west coast rapper war broke out. At the same time, Vanilla Ice gave white rappers a bad name.
Around 1994 I felt that most new rap that was coming out was shit, so it is at this point that my history gets sketchy. In the late 90's there was essentially a cavalcade of mush-mouthed, lowlife bastards like Notorious B.I.G., DMX, Ja Rule, 50-Cent, Busta Rhymes, etc, whose already-incoherent words were further drowned out by overly-thunderous bass. Oh, and Tupac, who became quite prolific and released more albums after he was dead than he did while alive. Videos became nothing but pissing contests to see who could squeeze the most whorish-looking women and the most garish Cadillac Escalades into a few minutes of video. The music became secondary because every fucking rapper on the planet was too busy trying to do movies. It was also around this time that we got the highly-annoying Eminem. Oh, and let's not forget shitty rap-rock acts like Kid Rock, Limp Bizkit, etc. Yuck.
My iPod has about 400 rap/hip-hop songs on it, and very damn few of them are dated after 1995-- but I still listen to and enjoy almost everything that came before.
Has everyone forgotten that Microsoft invested a large sum of money in Apple
That is a long-moot point, and I wish people would stop throwing it out there in discussions-- especially when they manage to twist into variations of Microsoft owning Apple (which thankfully wasn't done here).
Microsoft sold that $150M of non-voting AAPL stock ages ago-- at a significant profit, I might add. IIRC, their agreement with Apple required them to hold that stock for a certain time, and they sold it ASAP once that time had elapsed.
I did read the post and see the photo, retard, and I read it before it showed up on/., because it was on MacNN first.
The photo is completely innocuous, and so is the fact that Microsoft has a loading dock and internal copy shop. So, too, is the fact that a company who makes software for the Mac is buying Macs. In my opinion, termination was an overreaction, and my previous post was sarcastic in tone to demonstrate that.
Next time I guess I'll have to include the <sarcasm> tags for the mentally-challenged/. readers, like yourself.
Microsoft Security doesn't want anyone to know that somewhere on their sprawling campus, they have a loading dock for the purposes of shipping and receiving goods from the outside world?
Yes, I can see how the disclosure of this confidential information will cause the destruction of the company. As we speak, hordes of Linux-loving commandos are probably filing into semi trailers purporting to be carrying cases of Jolt Cola or some such, in a classic "trojan horse" maneuver.
I've read through most of the stuff on his site, and it seems to presume the reader has basic NetBoot working just fine. That's where I get stuck. I know the damn theory of it so well from all my attempts, that I got all the questions on it correct on my ACTC exam-- but I can't get it to actually work in a test environment.
Please do your detailed tutorial. While I have a fairly decent grasp of the concept of Netbooting, I have only gotten it to work once in my test lab and never been able to duplicate the feat since through skill or luck.
The only half-decent docs i've ever found on it were that huge OS X Server 10.1 Admin Guide PDF, which is hopelessly out of date and not detailed enough.
I would love to be able to stash an ASR image somewhere on a client's network and set up new machines as easily as connecting them to the network and holding down a key on initial boot.
Slashdot Mirror
...done that.
Lenina Huxley: That is correct, money is out-moded. All transactions are through code.
John Spartan: Alright, so he can't buy food or a place to stay for the night. And, it would be a waste of time to mug somebody. Unless he rips off somebody's hand, and let's hope he doesn't figure that one out.
~Philly
I just had to call today to about display flakiness on my almost year-old iBook. Not only could I understand the American tech perfectly, he actually listened to my description of the problem and adjusted his responses accordingly instead of just sticking to the script like the Dell people did the last time I had to call them about a client issue.
After he made sure I tried a few things, he agreed with my assessment that the it was a hardware problem, and arranged for the box to be shipped to my office.
No fuss, no muss, and no ridiculously convoluted phone tree to get to him in the first place, either. And the hold time was less than 5 minutes.
~Philly
On the other hand, having hotel offices for the person who comes in everyday, works 9-ot-5, ... is dumb. And I doubt many companies would do that.
Renowned advertising firm TBWA Chiat/Day tried it back in 1994. According to a Wired article about it, things didn't go so well.
~Philly
According to Cringely's book "Accidental Empires," the Tandy 2000 debacle lies right at the feet of Bill Gates. Even though the 2000 was not 100% IBM PC-compatible, which in those days was the kiss of death, he encouraged Tandy to go ahead with the machine because it used the 80186 processor and was much more capable of running the then-current incarnation of Windows than the 8086/8088-based PCs of the time.
Tandy went ahead with production at Gates' urging. When the machine flopped, Jon Shirley, the Tandy executive who listened to Gates and probably expected to be shitcanned for it, made a quick exit from the company and took the President/COO job at Microsoft.
~Philly
wake me up when the iPOD is able to transmit via bluetooth ( or similar ) and a ppl with in a short radius are able to share.
Yeah, you'd better rest up-- you'll need your energy to carry around the battery the iPod will need to give you a full day of listening pleasure and wirelessly transmitting your music to others nearby.
~Philly
As for the name, how about "retroPod"? It's a little more descriptive, and the domain is currently available.
~Philly
However, that's money they could be sending into the U.S. in terms of software licenses, which would then trickle down to the rest of us.
So you're saying that money from Brazil that would go to Microsoft would eventually trickle down to everyone in the U.S.??? Maybe if you're a lawyer who is suing or defending MS, but otherwise, no-- Microsoft is sitting on over 50 billion dollars right now as a hedge fund against lawsuits-- their shareholders are actually complaining about the cash hoard.
~Philly
These sort of things happen all the time.
Apple and Microsoft teamed up against Adobe in the late 80's-- this while they were locked in battle over the infamous "look and feel" lawsuit. I believe that particular alliance is what gave us TrueType fonts.
~Philly
I not only read the blockquote, I read a fair bit of the Google-cached patent application. The behavior IS the same, you twit, the Keychain is an OS-level service that can be used by anyone who wants to use it in their apps.
When a Keychain-aware Mac application wants a password and I have previously indicated that I want it to use the Keychain services, a Keychain dialog pops up and asks for my Keychain password. Upon correct authentication, the Keychain passes the application-specific password to the requesting application.
Do you think IBM's system will just automatically sniff out instances where it should assert itself? Because I don't-- I think apps will have to be changed to be at least minimally aware of the password wallet service.
~Philly
No, they don't. Because their description is exactly what Apple's Keychain does. Just replace "wallet" with "keychain" in this passage from IBM's own description of their system:
The Keychain has been around since System 7 Pro, which dates back to October of 1993 or thereabouts. Whether Apple patented it or back then not, I don't think they'll have any choice but to contest this IBM patent attempt-- because if it goes through, Apple will have to pay licensing fees to IBM to continue using Keychain in OS X.
~Philly
I don't know what kind of volume deal Toshiba is giving Apple on those 1.8" HDDs, but when iPods first came out only cost the same as the retail price of the hard drive contained inside them.
I can't find anybody online selling the 10, 20 or 40GB drives currently used in iPods to see if that still holds true, but newegg.com has the 5GB drive from the original iPod for $179. Perhaps an el cheapo iPod model at that price point with that 5GB drive would further increase the iPod's market share, but I don't know if such a beast would be economical for Apple to manufacture.
~Philly
What could Apple possibly gain by cooking their books to make the iTMS look unprofitable? There are plenty of other tax loopholes a large corporation could use, ones that won't make the shareholders question a venture that appears to be costing the company money.
Organizations like record companies and movie studios, on the other hand, DO have something to gain by making things appear unprofitable-- it means they don't have to pay a dime to people who are promised a percentage of something's net profits. Just ask Winston Groom, the guy who wrote "Forrest Gump." Despite the movie grossing almost $700M (not including merchandise sales), the studio claims they somehow still haven't made a profit on it, and thus don't have to pay Groom a cent. (Just think, these are the very same people who are trying to lecture US on ethics regarding piracy!)
The iTMS is fulfilling the goals it was designed for-- to give people a place to legally download music, and to be a loss-leader that drives iPod sales, which do make Apple a tidy profit.
~Philly
...to label a product that won't be released for THREE YEARS a "[competing product]-killer"?
Plus, now that Microsoft has essentially shown their cards, Macromedia will be motivated to improve Flash in the intervening time so as not to lose customers to Microsoft's product when it finally appears.
~Philly
Get LaunchBar, you won't regret it. I now keep a minimum of things in my dock for the purposes of launching them, but everything's still just a couple keystrokes away no matter how deeply it's buried in subdirectories.
~Philly
...but only about their bottom line.
The worm/virus debacles this summer cost them over $700 million in unearned income in the form of future contracts. Since their usual PR spinning didn't stem the flow this time, stronger measures needed to be taken. Of course, since actually spending sufficient money to tighten up Windows is out of the question, they're just taking the easy route and putting prices on the heads of a couple virus writers.
People are finally getting really fed up with Microsoft security issues, and I don't think they'll fall for this cheesy ploy. At least, I hope they don't.
~Philly
As someone who fondly remembers the MTV of the 80's, when they actually showed videos from diverse acts for most of the day, I agree wholeheartedly with the parent poster. These days on the rare occasions when they do play music, it's the same ten or so shit videos every time, and the segments between them are supremely irritating.
~Philly
Here's why: the iPod.
The iPod has serious street cred (and market share) amongst MTV-watching teens. For MTV to make their service acceptable to the record companies, it will have to have ham-handed, crippling DRM. For MTV to make their service successful, they'll have to make it work with the iPod, arguably the most popular/cool MP3 player amongst their viewers (I mean, OMG, 50 Cent had one in his video!!!)
Without both sides of that above equation in place, the service will be a failure right out of the gate. And with the iTMS now available for Windows, it's not in Apple's interest to assist a third-party music service by making the iPod work with it. People will have a more seamless experience with their iPods if they just stick with the iTMS, and Apple will make a few more bucks out of it that way.
So, the MTV online music service is analogous to a racehorse that drops dead while being walked to the starting gate.
~Philly
Anyway, I find it very humorous you can talk about the entire history of rap and not mention MC Hammer.
:-)
I am aware of his work, thank you.
He was even indirectly responsible for large amounts of rap music that were created specifically to diss him.
Like who? The only diss I can recall was in 3rd Bass' "The Gas Face." By far the best diss those guys ever laid down, though, was when they beat "Vanilla Ice" with baseball bats in their "Pop Goes the Weasel" video.
Now, the L.L. Cool J-Kool Moe Dee feud, I can remember that one.
If nothing else, he primed the scene for gangsta rap
How so? His first album wasn't great, and it was released in 1988, the same year as the two albums I regard as the dawn of gangsta rap, N.W.A.'s "Straight Outta Compton" and Eazy-E's solo album. Hammer's real success didn't come until '90 when he did "Please Hammer Don't Hurt 'Em," when he had damn near every white high school kid in the country wearing parachute pants-- and by 1990, gangsta rap was growing on its own.
~Philly
Here's a basic history of rap as I, a 30 year-old white guy, know it:
Modern rap goes back to NYC in the late 70's. "Rapper's Delight" by the Sugar Hill Gang dates back to then. Also, around the same time, DJ Kool Herc was the first guy known to use two turntables to cut seamlessly back and forth between songs.
Things picked up in the early to mid 80's, when we saw NYC-based acts like L.L. Cool J, Public Enemy, and Run-DMC. The Beastie Boys became the first white rappers to hit it big. Rap crossed over to young, white America (the MTV generation) mostly thanks to Run-DMC collaborating with Aerosmith on the remake of "Walk This Way" in 1986. Most pre-1988 rap was innocent (and mostly clean) braggadocio of the "I'm cooler than you [and here's why]" variety.
In the late 80's and early 90's, gangsta rap got big with acts like Ice-T, Eazy-E and N.W.A., and later Snoop Doggy Dogg, who were actually gang members/criminals, whose violent lyrics raised the ire of older whitebread America. It was around this time that the whole east coast rapper vs. west coast rapper war broke out. At the same time, Vanilla Ice gave white rappers a bad name.
Around 1994 I felt that most new rap that was coming out was shit, so it is at this point that my history gets sketchy. In the late 90's there was essentially a cavalcade of mush-mouthed, lowlife bastards like Notorious B.I.G., DMX, Ja Rule, 50-Cent, Busta Rhymes, etc, whose already-incoherent words were further drowned out by overly-thunderous bass. Oh, and Tupac, who became quite prolific and released more albums after he was dead than he did while alive. Videos became nothing but pissing contests to see who could squeeze the most whorish-looking women and the most garish Cadillac Escalades into a few minutes of video. The music became secondary because every fucking rapper on the planet was too busy trying to do movies. It was also around this time that we got the highly-annoying Eminem. Oh, and let's not forget shitty rap-rock acts like Kid Rock, Limp Bizkit, etc. Yuck.
My iPod has about 400 rap/hip-hop songs on it, and very damn few of them are dated after 1995-- but I still listen to and enjoy almost everything that came before.
Has everyone forgotten that Microsoft invested a large sum of money in Apple
That is a long-moot point, and I wish people would stop throwing it out there in discussions-- especially when they manage to twist into variations of Microsoft owning Apple (which thankfully wasn't done here).
Microsoft sold that $150M of non-voting AAPL stock ages ago-- at a significant profit, I might add. IIRC, their agreement with Apple required them to hold that stock for a certain time, and they sold it ASAP once that time had elapsed.
~Philly
I did read the post and see the photo, retard, and I read it before it showed up on /., because it was on MacNN first.
/. readers, like yourself.
The photo is completely innocuous, and so is the fact that Microsoft has a loading dock and internal copy shop. So, too, is the fact that a company who makes software for the Mac is buying Macs. In my opinion, termination was an overreaction, and my previous post was sarcastic in tone to demonstrate that.
Next time I guess I'll have to include the <sarcasm> tags for the mentally-challenged
~Philly
Microsoft Security doesn't want anyone to know that somewhere on their sprawling campus, they have a loading dock for the purposes of shipping and receiving goods from the outside world?
Yes, I can see how the disclosure of this confidential information will cause the destruction of the company. As we speak, hordes of Linux-loving commandos are probably filing into semi trailers purporting to be carrying cases of Jolt Cola or some such, in a classic "trojan horse" maneuver.
~Philly
I've read through most of the stuff on his site, and it seems to presume the reader has basic NetBoot working just fine. That's where I get stuck. I know the damn theory of it so well from all my attempts, that I got all the questions on it correct on my ACTC exam-- but I can't get it to actually work in a test environment.
~Philly
Please do your detailed tutorial. While I have a fairly decent grasp of the concept of Netbooting, I have only gotten it to work once in my test lab and never been able to duplicate the feat since through skill or luck.
The only half-decent docs i've ever found on it were that huge OS X Server 10.1 Admin Guide PDF, which is hopelessly out of date and not detailed enough.
I would love to be able to stash an ASR image somewhere on a client's network and set up new machines as easily as connecting them to the network and holding down a key on initial boot.
~Philly
I want a tablet that is about 1/2 an inch thick, has good wireless and lasts for 8 hours on a charge.
If Microsoft hadn't killed Go Corp off for sport ("It wasn't about 'grow the market,' it was about 'block that kick'), we might have had one of those by now. If Jerry Kaplan reads The Reg, I'm sure he's grinning in a fit of schadenfreude.
~Philly