Except that you don't get rid of excess inventory by halting sales -which is what Apple has done. You can no longer buy iMacs from Apple (at least online) because they don't have any to sell you. If they had any they would sell them.
Re:Think through what you're saying
on
Apple Delays New iMac
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Or it may be that since there still seems to be a shortage of G5's for Apple's high-end gear, there may also be a shortage of G5's suitable for iMacs.
I assume the G5's for iMacs don't need to be as fast but they may need to be more conservative in the power consumption/heat generation category. If the new iMac was designed based on IBM saying a 2 GHz G5 will consume xx amount of power, generating yy amound of heat, and it ends up consuming 20% more power and generating more heat, that's a big problem.
Hitting the clock speed and power consumption requirements simultaneously really seems to be a problem everyone's having with the 90 nm process.
i've been thinking this would be a good time for Apple to release that Safari for Windows that's been rumored to be in the works.
Re:I may screw this up...
on
P2P Bits
·
· Score: 1
This reply is so late, I'm sure nobody will see it, but...
No, I think you're missing my point.
Its a hard sell for someone ("star" or executive) who's taking home $millions to stand up and cry about how the people who "put the music together" aren't getting paid a good living wage because of file sharing networks.
Re:I may screw this up...
on
P2P Bits
·
· Score: 1
Yes, its perfectly clear now that those people can't earn a decent living because of P2P networks. Its not like payiing the big stars $9 million instead of $10 million and using that money to pay "the little people" would be any kind of solution.
As someone pointed out elsewhere, this law is a step towards making the VCR illegal. Good luck getting re-elected if you voted for a law that makes the VCR illegal. Hatch may be able to get away with it, but most congressmen/women can't take that kind of chance.
Re:Not my area of expertise (legal or IP)
on
P2P Bits
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Sure they can. IIRC somewhere in the decision it also says that congress is free to change the law to make it illegal, but as the law stands now (now being now and then), it is not illegal.
Unless the courts find the new law to be unconstitutional, they are bound by it in making their decisions. That's part of the separation of powers/checks and balances mojo.
So technically, they can't overrule a court decision, but they can make it moot by changing the law.
So what kind of regulations do you think should be on a rocket that "can be 30 feet long and weigh hundreds of pounds" and travel "more than 60 miles"?
We're not talking about the little model rockets that kids build in school and launch from the playground. Those you can stil buy in your local hobby store (or Wal-Mart) just like you always could.
Just FYI, this isn't about the little model rockets that I believe you're referring to -the ones we used to fire from school playgrounds and parks and can stil be purchased from hobby stroes around the country with nothing more than a little cash.
From the article, these are "high powered rockets, which can be 30 feet long and weight hundreds of pounds -- with some flying more than 60 miles...". This is a completely different class of rocket.
I'm still trying to separate the fact fromt the FUD. At first I thought this was covering things like the little Estes model rockets my sons' Cub Scouts Pack built and fired, but these rockets are a whole different class.
"While the vast majority of model rocketeers are not subject to regulation, high-powered rockets, which can be 30 feet long and weigh hundreds of pounds -- with some flying more than 60 miles or reaching speeds over 1,000 miles per hour -- do need to comply with the requirements of federal explosives law."
We're talking real rockets here! And even if you ignore potential terrorist use, it does seem reasonable to have limitations on how much rocket fuel can be stored by a hobbiest (or anyone) in a residential neighborhood.
So it does seem like the regulations are over the top (story hype doesn't help), but I'm still trying to figure out it they are really all that unreasonable.
I don't remember which article had it, but they pointed out this differnce and the reason -what the army is doing is much more processor intensive than bandwidth intensive. You spend your money where the bottleneck is.
I can go to an art gallery, buy two paintings and take them home. I can then cut up one of them to paste parts on another painting, therebye creating something completely different, and hang it on my living room wall.
I can go the the bookstore and buy a book. I take it home, cross off some of the parts I don't like and write stuff in wherever I want.
When its time to move, I have a garage sale and put both up for sale.
AFAIK, I've broken no laws. If any of the artists involved are offended by my compromising their artistic vision, that's their problem.
So why do some people seem to think that music or movies deserve any more protection than paintings or books?
Well funded lobbying groups is the only thing that pops into mind.
Not much. The biggest part of the price difference is the flatscreen monitor vs. CRT. Other than that its parts/materials/labor differences. I don't know that the profit margin is really any different on them.
That's where they lost me too. Open Source software works because the individuals involved already have all the equipment they need at home (a computer, some software, and a lot of time), and there are really no consumables to account for (unless you count the caffeinated beverages and junk food). Then you get into the cost of the equipment which can range from thousands to millions...
The truth is that much of the research does need to be done in "wet labs" which means real costs Its not like everybody has the equipment necessary to actually synthesize and purify a new drug in their living room, much less test it.
I think the description of the genome project being like an open source project is somewhat misleading. The people involved were paid, and used equipment paid for, by grants from various institutions. Yes the information was pooled for the common good, but its not like these people did the work at home on their free time. Essentially as "open source" as publicly funded research has been for decades.
I had the same problem, but I'm wondering if the confusion is between "open source" and "done for free". I don't think the way the article was written helped much.
For example, they cite the human genome project. This work was done by paid individuals using millions of dollars worth of specialized equipment and going through millions of dollars worth of consumables (tubes, reagents...) in the process. The work was not done for free (we paid for it) but the information gleaned is open for all to see.
In the end, I'm left wondering what exacly the article is calling for that isn't already being done. Other than more of the IP being placed into the public domain.
And I will take that one step farther. Who will pay to develop the drug?
Non profit/publicly funded entities have the same problem for profit companies do, limited funding. So let's take the case of tax-payer funded research. Do you spend millions to try to develop a safe, effective drug to cure a rare disease, or would that money be better spent on basic preventive health care or going after a more prevalent disease? For any type of research entity the question has to be asked about where you're going to get the most return for your research dollar. Considering we're talking life and quality of life its a very difficult issue.
You're right about that. OTOH there have been a lot of benchmarks run with a dual G5 vs. a single processor AMD or Intel system showing the the dual G5 wasn't much faster than the single processor systems at the same clock speed.
Funny thing is all these benchmarks use single threaded code -but they don't bother to mention that or use the free Dev tools that come with the Mac to turn off one processor and rerun the benchmark.
That pretty well sums up what I was thinking. I don't understand why some seem to think everything needs to be rolled into Linux. I actually think it would be great if there was more "competition" in the OS front, especially if the competitors are willing to stick to standards and make software that interoperates as well as possible.
If you are doing nothing wrong then there will be no probable cause to get the info.
IMO that's wrong on a couple levels.
First, not commiting a crime and not being investigated for a crime are two different things.
Second, you're not necessarily the one who had to do something wrong. There just needs to be "probable cause" that something you have may be relavent -say you videotape a crime or have other information that may be important. Presumably neither Kobe's accuser or the people she sent messages to did anything wrong.
And it also explains why Apple is using their own "proprietary" lossless codec -the one recently added to iTunes. They needed a codec that could be easily decoded with a minimum of hardware and for a minimal cost. I don't know that any other lossless codecs around were designed with that in mind.
Slashdot Mirror
Except that you don't get rid of excess inventory by halting sales -which is what Apple has done. You can no longer buy iMacs from Apple (at least online) because they don't have any to sell you. If they had any they would sell them.
Or it may be that since there still seems to be a shortage of G5's for Apple's high-end gear, there may also be a shortage of G5's suitable for iMacs.
I assume the G5's for iMacs don't need to be as fast but they may need to be more conservative in the power consumption/heat generation category. If the new iMac was designed based on IBM saying a 2 GHz G5 will consume xx amount of power, generating yy amound of heat, and it ends up consuming 20% more power and generating more heat, that's a big problem.
Hitting the clock speed and power consumption requirements simultaneously really seems to be a problem everyone's having with the 90 nm process.
i've been thinking this would be a good time for Apple to release that Safari for Windows that's been rumored to be in the works.
This reply is so late, I'm sure nobody will see it, but...
No, I think you're missing my point.
Its a hard sell for someone ("star" or executive) who's taking home $millions to stand up and cry about how the people who "put the music together" aren't getting paid a good living wage because of file sharing networks.
Yes, its perfectly clear now that those people can't earn a decent living because of P2P networks. Its not like payiing the big stars $9 million instead of $10 million and using that money to pay "the little people" would be any kind of solution.
As someone pointed out elsewhere, this law is a step towards making the VCR illegal. Good luck getting re-elected if you voted for a law that makes the VCR illegal. Hatch may be able to get away with it, but most congressmen/women can't take that kind of chance.
Sure they can. IIRC somewhere in the decision it also says that congress is free to change the law to make it illegal, but as the law stands now (now being now and then), it is not illegal.
Unless the courts find the new law to be unconstitutional, they are bound by it in making their decisions. That's part of the separation of powers/checks and balances mojo.
So technically, they can't overrule a court decision, but they can make it moot by changing the law.
So what kind of regulations do you think should be on a rocket that "can be 30 feet long and weigh hundreds of pounds" and travel "more than 60 miles"?
We're not talking about the little model rockets that kids build in school and launch from the playground. Those you can stil buy in your local hobby store (or Wal-Mart) just like you always could.
Just FYI, this isn't about the little model rockets that I believe you're referring to -the ones we used to fire from school playgrounds and parks and can stil be purchased from hobby stroes around the country with nothing more than a little cash.
From the article, these are "high powered rockets, which can be 30 feet long and weight hundreds of pounds -- with some flying more than 60 miles...". This is a completely different class of rocket.
I'm still trying to separate the fact fromt the FUD. At first I thought this was covering things like the little Estes model rockets my sons' Cub Scouts Pack built and fired, but these rockets are a whole different class.
"While the vast majority of model rocketeers are not subject to regulation, high-powered rockets, which can be 30 feet long and weigh hundreds of pounds -- with some flying more than 60 miles or reaching speeds over 1,000 miles per hour -- do need to comply with the requirements of federal explosives law."
We're talking real rockets here! And even if you ignore potential terrorist use, it does seem reasonable to have limitations on how much rocket fuel can be stored by a hobbiest (or anyone) in a residential neighborhood.
So it does seem like the regulations are over the top (story hype doesn't help), but I'm still trying to figure out it they are really all that unreasonable.
I don't remember which article had it, but they pointed out this differnce and the reason -what the army is doing is much more processor intensive than bandwidth intensive. You spend your money where the bottleneck is.
Along those same lines..
I can go to an art gallery, buy two paintings and take them home. I can then cut up one of them to paste parts on another painting, therebye creating something completely different, and hang it on my living room wall.
I can go the the bookstore and buy a book. I take it home, cross off some of the parts I don't like and write stuff in wherever I want.
When its time to move, I have a garage sale and put both up for sale.
AFAIK, I've broken no laws. If any of the artists involved are offended by my compromising their artistic vision, that's their problem.
So why do some people seem to think that music or movies deserve any more protection than paintings or books?
Well funded lobbying groups is the only thing that pops into mind.
Not much. The biggest part of the price difference is the flatscreen monitor vs. CRT. Other than that its parts/materials/labor differences. I don't know that the profit margin is really any different on them.
That's where they lost me too. Open Source software works because the individuals involved already have all the equipment they need at home (a computer, some software, and a lot of time), and there are really no consumables to account for (unless you count the caffeinated beverages and junk food). Then you get into the cost of the equipment which can range from thousands to millions...
The truth is that much of the research does need to be done in "wet labs" which means real costs Its not like everybody has the equipment necessary to actually synthesize and purify a new drug in their living room, much less test it.
I think the description of the genome project being like an open source project is somewhat misleading. The people involved were paid, and used equipment paid for, by grants from various institutions. Yes the information was pooled for the common good, but its not like these people did the work at home on their free time. Essentially as "open source" as publicly funded research has been for decades.
I had the same problem, but I'm wondering if the confusion is between "open source" and "done for free". I don't think the way the article was written helped much.
For example, they cite the human genome project. This work was done by paid individuals using millions of dollars worth of specialized equipment and going through millions of dollars worth of consumables (tubes, reagents...) in the process. The work was not done for free (we paid for it) but the information gleaned is open for all to see.
In the end, I'm left wondering what exacly the article is calling for that isn't already being done. Other than more of the IP being placed into the public domain.
And I will take that one step farther. Who will pay to develop the drug?
Non profit/publicly funded entities have the same problem for profit companies do, limited funding. So let's take the case of tax-payer funded research. Do you spend millions to try to develop a safe, effective drug to cure a rare disease, or would that money be better spent on basic preventive health care or going after a more prevalent disease? For any type of research entity the question has to be asked about where you're going to get the most return for your research dollar. Considering we're talking life and quality of life its a very difficult issue.
Are we talking about a company that's got a monopoly or a company that's just trying to survive?
The answer is different depending on the business.
You're right about that. OTOH there have been a lot of benchmarks run with a dual G5 vs. a single processor AMD or Intel system showing the the dual G5 wasn't much faster than the single processor systems at the same clock speed.
Funny thing is all these benchmarks use single threaded code -but they don't bother to mention that or use the free Dev tools that come with the Mac to turn off one processor and rerun the benchmark.
IOW, we all know how reliable bencharks are.
That pretty well sums up what I was thinking. I don't understand why some seem to think everything needs to be rolled into Linux. I actually think it would be great if there was more "competition" in the OS front, especially if the competitors are willing to stick to standards and make software that interoperates as well as possible.
I just use the good old Cone of Silence.
For security. My 11 year old doesn't have her own cell phone, but I'll often send mine with her when she's off doing things away from home.
Well they've got to do something with all that money we keep paying them.
If you are doing nothing wrong then there will be no probable cause to get the info.
IMO that's wrong on a couple levels.
First, not commiting a crime and not being investigated for a crime are two different things.
Second, you're not necessarily the one who had to do something wrong. There just needs to be "probable cause" that something you have may be relavent -say you videotape a crime or have other information that may be important. Presumably neither Kobe's accuser or the people she sent messages to did anything wrong.
And it also explains why Apple is using their own "proprietary" lossless codec -the one recently added to iTunes. They needed a codec that could be easily decoded with a minimum of hardware and for a minimal cost. I don't know that any other lossless codecs around were designed with that in mind.
But, just out of curiosity, is it running Win XP?