Microsoft has every right to block someone from updating Office when it's being run from a Non-Microsoft Operating System
I'm not so sure about that. Couldn't that be construed as a monopoly illegally tying two products? In essence, features (updates) are allowed to only those who also purchase Windows -for no reason other than that you didn't also purchase Windows. They're Office updates, not Windows updates.
Some degree of software support and bug fixes are generally considered part of the purchase price -as evidenced by the lawsuits that ensue when one drops support prematurely (Hi Apple!)
What's the penalty for NOT trying in the first place?
Seriously, when the rest of the world is showing such good will - and it's not "time will tell" shotfeel - it's just another lost opportunity for U.S. to engage with the rest-of-the-world on another issue of major heartbreak potential.
What you see as good will, I see as disengenious.
So you think it would be better for the US to sign the Kyoto treaty, knowing they can't meet the requirements? Just as a show of "good will"?
IMO its more honest to say, we're not going to sign a treaty saying we're going to do something we know we can't do. But we will continue to do what we can to reduce emissions.
Signing or not signing the treaty doesn't change what the US will do, Not signing is not the same as not doing anything.
Maybe another way to ask it is, are any of the signitory countries doing anything they wouldn't have done anyway?
Each country has pledged a given reduction target. Japan doesn't even think they can meet their target but at least they're willing to try.
Of course not signing the treaty is not the same as not doing anything.
Let me ask this. Would it be better for the US to sign the treaty, knowing they couldn't meet the requirements, just to make it look like "they're willing to try"? Or is it better to just say, "No thanks, we can't do that", and continue to do what they can?
The treaty looks a lot like a bunch of countries got together to sign a document saying they're going to do something they know they can't do, just to make themselves feel better. And when it doesn't work, we all know who will be blamed -wether they sign or not.
I think he understands Europe isn't a country, but he does raise an interesting point.
For example, the state of California alone has an area, population and economy comparable to many European countries. If you compare the emmision of California to the various European countries, how do they stack up? I don't know the answer, but it would be interesting to know.
or Kyoto fails because of non-members polluting too much.
or Kyoto fails because the members are polluting too much.
From the "backgrounders" article,
"The UN says industrialised countries are now well off target for the end of the decade and predicts emissions 10% above 1990 levels by 2010. Only four EU countries are on track to meet their own targets."
However, the fact remains that the treaty as it stands is absurd.
Not only that, but IMO its pretty much a joke.
From TFA,
"Canada, one of the treaty's first signatories, has no clear plan for reaching its target emission cuts. Far from cutting back, its emissions have increased by 20% since 1990."
"And Japan is also unsure it will be able to meet its legal requirement to slash emissions by 6% from 1990 levels by 2012."
So when 2012 rolls around and none of the countries has actually reduced emmisions, what's the penalty for not meeting the "legal requirements"?
I know the US has taken a lot of flack for not signing on, but I have to wonder what it means to sign the treaty when you know you can't meet the requirements, much less even have a plan. At least the US was honest enough to admit they couldn't (wouldn't?) do it.
Same here. It'n not exactly time and fuel (=$$) efficient to drive your tractor to town to fill up (they're not the fastest beasts on the road). Most farms have a tank near where they keep the equipment. Many have both diesel and gasoline to cover all equipment and vehicles. Especially since that allows them to buy when the prices are down.
I think the cell processor is a good fit for the Mac and the way Apple is headed.
The biggest question seems to be "what do you need all that vector processing horsepower for anyway?"
Well, look at where Apple is headed and at what apps currently hit the processor the hardest -its video. If you want a computer to be the digital hub of the living room, its got to be able to throw video around, -encoding/decoding/transcoding in real time. Sure a good video card can do a lot, but its not "general purpose" enough to do everything needed.
Combine that with the next generation Macs containing the successor to PCI (whatever that end up being) and you've got a box where instead of plugging in a dedicated card to encode mpg2 to burn to DVD in real time, you have a cell processor that could do mpeg1-n or any other format with just the right software.
It's kind of a neat hack, but it doesn't seem to live up to its design goal -which (re-phrasing) to see how much PC computing power could be put into an iMac enclosure.
But then to fit everything in, the largest single component was left out -an optical drive.
No, IIRC the original code name was Macintosh. When it came time for a "real" name, Bicycle was the top contender. But then it was decided (by Jobs?) that Macintosh was a better name and they stuck with it.
I don't know any Mac users that wouldn't like Scroll wheels and second buttons.
Have you ever watched young kids with a computer? A one button mouse is waaay easier to handle.
How about someone with fine motor difficulties due to anything from advanced age to arthritus or neuological problems
The one-button mouse is easier not only in concept, but physically easier to use. So a company that wants to sell the easiest-to-use computer would bundle the easiest-to-use mouse.
Of course a Mac can be easily "upgraded" to a the latest whiz-bang mouse (buy it, plug it in). Can other OS's easily handle being "simplified" with a one-button mouse for those who need it?
If copyright shouldn't expire, why should patents? IMO expiration of both serve the same purpose -allowing others to build on what's been done before.
In my mind someone building on Mickey Mouse (like Disney did to the books "The Jungle Book" and The Little Mermaid") is no different than companies building on to such things as the transistor or velcro. Being able to do both is important for advancing society (just ask anyone who's played SimEarth).
Isn't it odd that if I write a patent application, and the patent is approved, the copyright on the desription I've written lasts longer than the patent?
Quicktime is a container format which can contain just about anything, including mpg1-4. In fact, I'd say Apple and Quicktime have been heavily biased towards using mpeg4 for a looong time now.
The Department of Homeland Security is currently seeking information on two men with "strange accents" who recently purchased a laser pointer from a local Office Depot.
The two men were overheard discussing which laser pointers were the most powerful and could "shoot the farthest." The two also paid cash for the laser pointer, leaving no paper trail.
This follows disturbing recent events in which terrorists on the ground tried to down commercial aircraft by blinding the pilots with similar laser pointers.
Actually those types of signals are quite common in physiology.
They mention calcium oscillations, which is a common response in several cell types.
Another chemically activated binary signal is the action potential that propagates down nerve and muscle cells.
The cardiac "pacemaker" cells could be considered a "binary" signal whose pace is set by a combination of factors from physical to chemical inputs.
Those are all relatively fast processes compared to what's discussed in the article. On the other end of the spectrum you could argue for cell division. The length of time a cell spends in the "resting state" between divisions is dependent on many factors, including chemical signals from the environment.
There's really nothing new in the idea that cellular process are cyclical, with rate being a function of many inputs. The "news" part seems to be trying to take better advantage of this with pharmaceuticals.
I can understand Google and Yahoo doing things the way they are, but once again, it seems MS is doing things backwards.
Its the "let's make the hard drive as easy to navigate as the web by using the same tools" that now leads to "let's make the hard drive as easy to search as the web using the same tools".
Both approaches fail in that they don't seem to understand doing these things for your hard drive should be easier than doing it on the web.
At least Apple seems to "get it" even if they don't always get it right (from Sherlock to Spotlight).
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft has every right to block someone from updating Office when it's being run from a Non-Microsoft Operating System
I'm not so sure about that. Couldn't that be construed as a monopoly illegally tying two products? In essence, features (updates) are allowed to only those who also purchase Windows -for no reason other than that you didn't also purchase Windows. They're Office updates, not Windows updates.
Some degree of software support and bug fixes are generally considered part of the purchase price -as evidenced by the lawsuits that ensue when one drops support prematurely (Hi Apple!)
What's the penalty for NOT trying in the first place?
Seriously, when the rest of the world is showing such good will - and it's not "time will tell" shotfeel - it's just another lost opportunity for U.S. to engage with the rest-of-the-world on another issue of major heartbreak potential.
What you see as good will, I see as disengenious.
So you think it would be better for the US to sign the Kyoto treaty, knowing they can't meet the requirements? Just as a show of "good will"?
IMO its more honest to say, we're not going to sign a treaty saying we're going to do something we know we can't do. But we will continue to do what we can to reduce emissions.
Signing or not signing the treaty doesn't change what the US will do, Not signing is not the same as not doing anything.
Maybe another way to ask it is, are any of the signitory countries doing anything they wouldn't have done anyway?
Just to be clear, I quoted that from TFA.
Each country has pledged a given reduction target. Japan doesn't even think they can meet their target but at least they're willing to try.
Of course not signing the treaty is not the same as not doing anything.
Let me ask this. Would it be better for the US to sign the treaty, knowing they couldn't meet the requirements, just to make it look like "they're willing to try"? Or is it better to just say, "No thanks, we can't do that", and continue to do what they can?
The treaty looks a lot like a bunch of countries got together to sign a document saying they're going to do something they know they can't do, just to make themselves feel better. And when it doesn't work, we all know who will be blamed -wether they sign or not.
I think he understands Europe isn't a country, but he does raise an interesting point.
For example, the state of California alone has an area, population and economy comparable to many European countries. If you compare the emmision of California to the various European countries, how do they stack up? I don't know the answer, but it would be interesting to know.
or Kyoto fails because of non-members polluting too much.
or Kyoto fails because the members are polluting too much.
From the "backgrounders" article,
"The UN says industrialised countries are now well off target for the end of the decade and predicts emissions 10% above 1990 levels by 2010. Only four EU countries are on track to meet their own targets."
However, the fact remains that the treaty as it stands is absurd.
Not only that, but IMO its pretty much a joke.
From TFA,
"Canada, one of the treaty's first signatories, has no clear plan for reaching its target emission cuts. Far from cutting back, its emissions have increased by 20% since 1990."
"And Japan is also unsure it will be able to meet its legal requirement to slash emissions by 6% from 1990 levels by 2012."
So when 2012 rolls around and none of the countries has actually reduced emmisions, what's the penalty for not meeting the "legal requirements"?
I know the US has taken a lot of flack for not signing on, but I have to wonder what it means to sign the treaty when you know you can't meet the requirements, much less even have a plan. At least the US was honest enough to admit they couldn't (wouldn't?) do it.
Time will tell.
Same here. It'n not exactly time and fuel (=$$) efficient to drive your tractor to town to fill up (they're not the fastest beasts on the road). Most farms have a tank near where they keep the equipment. Many have both diesel and gasoline to cover all equipment and vehicles. Especially since that allows them to buy when the prices are down.
I think the cell processor is a good fit for the Mac and the way Apple is headed.
The biggest question seems to be "what do you need all that vector processing horsepower for anyway?"
Well, look at where Apple is headed and at what apps currently hit the processor the hardest -its video. If you want a computer to be the digital hub of the living room, its got to be able to throw video around, -encoding/decoding/transcoding in real time. Sure a good video card can do a lot, but its not "general purpose" enough to do everything needed.
Combine that with the next generation Macs containing the successor to PCI (whatever that end up being) and you've got a box where instead of plugging in a dedicated card to encode mpg2 to burn to DVD in real time, you have a cell processor that could do mpeg1-n or any other format with just the right software.
I want one yesterday too!
They'll be using Macs, just like the XBox 2 Developers.
It's kind of a neat hack, but it doesn't seem to live up to its design goal -which (re-phrasing) to see how much PC computing power could be put into an iMac enclosure.
But then to fit everything in, the largest single component was left out -an optical drive.
Not only that, but then all those little "i"s (iMac, iPod, iTunes...) would have to be capitalized.
No, IIRC the original code name was Macintosh. When it came time for a "real" name, Bicycle was the top contender. But then it was decided (by Jobs?) that Macintosh was a better name and they stuck with it.
If the "slower" button doesn't do it, there's always the "stop" buttion.
I don't know any Mac users that wouldn't like Scroll wheels and second buttons.
Have you ever watched young kids with a computer? A one button mouse is waaay easier to handle.
How about someone with fine motor difficulties due to anything from advanced age to arthritus or neuological problems
The one-button mouse is easier not only in concept, but physically easier to use. So a company that wants to sell the easiest-to-use computer would bundle the easiest-to-use mouse.
Of course a Mac can be easily "upgraded" to a the latest whiz-bang mouse (buy it, plug it in). Can other OS's easily handle being "simplified" with a one-button mouse for those who need it?
Just something to think about.
The really good ones will even return all your buttons and assorted other small items that were in with the coins.
I usually let them keep the lint though.
Just FYI, in case your TV can't handle a DVI input, you can buy a Composite Video/SVideo adapter from Apple.
Video In seems to be a bit more problematic, but there are all kinds of solutions like EyeTV that can fill that need as well.
If copyright shouldn't expire, why should patents? IMO expiration of both serve the same purpose -allowing others to build on what's been done before.
In my mind someone building on Mickey Mouse (like Disney did to the books "The Jungle Book" and The Little Mermaid") is no different than companies building on to such things as the transistor or velcro. Being able to do both is important for advancing society (just ask anyone who's played SimEarth).
Isn't it odd that if I write a patent application, and the patent is approved, the copyright on the desription I've written lasts longer than the patent?
Quicktime is a container format which can contain just about anything, including mpg1-4. In fact, I'd say Apple and Quicktime have been heavily biased towards using mpeg4 for a looong time now.
No conspiracy, it was terrorists.
The Department of Homeland Security is currently seeking information on two men with "strange accents" who recently purchased a laser pointer from a local Office Depot.
The two men were overheard discussing which laser pointers were the most powerful and could "shoot the farthest." The two also paid cash for the laser pointer, leaving no paper trail.
This follows disturbing recent events in which terrorists on the ground tried to down commercial aircraft by blinding the pilots with similar laser pointers.
Notice the BSOD on one of the computers,.
Welcome to the dark ages of monochrome monitors and DOS.
That's one of the things I really like about OS X as its matured along with the hardware.
If you're running it on a old G3, it runs well.
If you're running it on a G4, many functions will be off-loaded to the vector processor to increase performance.
If you've got a video card that meets the minimum requirements, many operations will be off-loaded to the graphics card (Quartz Extreme).
Now there's the possibility of even more stuff being offloaded to the video card it it meets a higher set of requirements.
IMO, Apple has done a pretty good job of taking full advantage of increased hardware capabilities, without making the new hardware a requirement.
Actually those types of signals are quite common in physiology.
They mention calcium oscillations, which is a common response in several cell types.
Another chemically activated binary signal is the action potential that propagates down nerve and muscle cells.
The cardiac "pacemaker" cells could be considered a "binary" signal whose pace is set by a combination of factors from physical to chemical inputs.
Those are all relatively fast processes compared to what's discussed in the article. On the other end of the spectrum you could argue for cell division. The length of time a cell spends in the "resting state" between divisions is dependent on many factors, including chemical signals from the environment.
There's really nothing new in the idea that cellular process are cyclical, with rate being a function of many inputs. The "news" part seems to be trying to take better advantage of this with pharmaceuticals.
And nobody knows this better than Microsoft.
How much did IE develpment cost with no real chance of turning a profit?
How about the Xbox?
Its all jockeying for the position at the top of the hill. Then you make the money.
I can understand Google and Yahoo doing things the way they are, but once again, it seems MS is doing things backwards.
Its the "let's make the hard drive as easy to navigate as the web by using the same tools" that now leads to "let's make the hard drive as easy to search as the web using the same tools".
Both approaches fail in that they don't seem to understand doing these things for your hard drive should be easier than doing it on the web.
At least Apple seems to "get it" even if they don't always get it right (from Sherlock to Spotlight).