Now that the idea has been leaked Apple won't do it even if they were planning to. Yeah. Because that's exactly how it worked with the leak of the PowerMac G5, Tiger, the switch to Intel chips.
Yeah, Apple is a lot more than just a hardware company. The whole iTunes Music Store is proof of that, to say nothing of its development of OS X, Quicktime, etc. Its hardware is peerless, but Jobs' strength is not only understanding cool hardware but seeing the potential of what people can do with it, and developing cool, trendy ways to make that happen.
The only way for Apple to get people to buy its hardware is to make most of the rest of the widget, too.
The reason no MoC worth anything has a "non-binding internet poll" on his/her website is because it will, by its nature, skew to the vocal minority who has an axe to grind on a particular piece of legislation.
I happen to live in a state where the largest political party is "Unenrolled." Our two senators are both moderate Republican women who have broken with both the Bush administration and GOP Congressional leadership often enough (not every time I would, but often enough) to let me know that while I might not agree with every vote they cast, they're at least voting their conscience.
If you read the U.S. Constitution, the President has the authority to sign or veto any bill passed by Congress. It is exactly the President's authority to decide what passes and what does not. Congress has, however, figured out that they can get what they want (e.g., spending Federal money in their state, which will help them win reelection) by attaching it indivisibly to other items that the President wants.
Yes. The President has the authority to sign or veto any bill passed by Congress.
Line-item veto is unconstitutional.
The reason you're not going to get 38 states to amend the Constitution to give POTUS line-item is the same reason you're not going to get 38 states to put FMA in it.
Maybe think of real reasons instead of hypothetical opinions made by people specifically trying to make you see only 1 side.
I see more than one side. It's all about national interests. Yes, US companies stood to profit from the war in Iraq. And yes, French, Russian, and German companies stood to profit from both the continuance of Oil-For-Food and the lifting of sanctions.
To claim that the US wanted nothing other than to enrich political supporters while "finishing Daddy's war" while turning a blind eye to THE SAME FUCKING THING happening in France, Germany, and Russia is, quite possibly, the pinnacle of retardation.
Hence why the security council need changing so that there are no permanent members and no veto power. Yes, it will seriously piss off the five that has veto power, especially the two that use it the most (US and UK), but it has to be done.
Because they'd rather talk than kill? Because they'd rather try diplomatic methods before testing out our new weapon systems?
George W. wanted to finish what his dad started 10 years earlier. Dick Cheney wanted to make some serious $$$ for his company.
And the widespread corruption in the UN Oil-For-Food program that directly benefitted French, German, and Russian companies had absolutely nothing to do with their opposition to the war.
How monumentally naive. Thousands of people have stood up to do something about the ridiculous drug laws in this country. NORML has been working for 30 years to repeal the marijuana laws. They have had no success at the federal level. Imagine spending half of your life to overturn ONE stupid law, and meeting with failure. Face it. The system is unresponsive to the needs or desires or will of the people.
When you begin a point with the phrase "how monumentally naive" and then continue on to discuss a small faction of society pushing to get weed legalized, highlighting their failure as indicative of "the system" being "unresponsive to the needs or desires or the will of the people," you make me want to cry for the people who have to deal with you every day.
Society, as a whole, doesn't give a fuck that weed is illegal.
Get over it, start complying with the law, or be prepared to face the consequences.
The number of our international problems that have derived from the fact that we drive SUVs and demand massive amounts of cheap oil is just stupid.
I don't drive an SUV (I drive a sport wagon because I have musical instruments that are large), but I still have to fill my gas tank up about once a week for about $30.
High fuel taxes work great in places like Europe where everything's close to everything else and there's mass transit between just about any two points you would need to visit.
Things are completely different here, however, and attempting to adopt Europe's solution to attack arbitrary American problems is short-sighted idiocy. Higher (3x) fuel taxes will only put an even larger burden on the rural/suburban poor than already exists.
Any government computers I have ever heard of require you to give consent to be monitored BEFORE you are authorized to use them. It's usually part of the IT policy which must be signed as part of employee indoctrination.
Do these policies give non-management sysadmins the right to install spyware on users' (especially management) computers, even to expose douchebaggery?
(No.)
Yeah, the boss was a retard and shouldn't have been employed any longer if he was wasting time. But the guy seriously overstepped his bounds, and I wouldn't trust him on my network.
iPod plays ACC encoded files. ACC is not apples format. Other people could technically encoded in ACC if the licensed that. The ACC licensing I believe is handled by a devision of Dolby.
Maybe that's why Duke's giving an iPod to every incoming Freshman.
Well, if you had read the fscking post, you'd realize that there is no mention of normal mail between hotmail and gmail: it's referring specifically to gmail invites.
Okay. Let's read the first sentence of the article body:
Emails and invitations sent to Hotmail from Gmail accounts do not bounce, but nor do they arrive in the recipient's Inbox - they vanish mysteriously into the aether.
Wait. So the article asserts that not only are invitations being eaten, but also regular e-mails?
Perhaps if you looked at a mirror, you'd realize that you're a worthless sack of shit who failed third-grade reading comprehension.
Ironically, this is one area where patents may be particularly well justified; there is literally hundreds of millions of dollars of research into human perceptivity and colorspace matching that arguably would not have occurred if the investment could not be recouped
I'm not sure why that's ironic. That's why the USPTO was set up in the first place.
Yes, but nearly all inudstrial activities require some education, but software development is among the few that doesn't have significant recurring expenses (raw materials, etc).
Bugfixes and version upgrades do not appear out of thin air.
No, the financial barrier to entry in software is significantly lower than other industries. Why do you think countries like India are able to outcompete western programmers? They aren't rich countries, quite on the contrary, poverty is quite rife.
You just proved his point. Programmers in India cost less than programmers in the United States. Therefore, companies that use Indian programmers are winning more contracts. If software was software not profit-driven, this would not be the case.
In terms of quantity you may be correct, but tell me, so what? And how does this observation affect the extant restrictions? It does not.
Not just in terms of quantity. While there are some very good open-source/free software packages, most of the professional ones are commercial. Almost all software innovation happens on the commercial level, and is done by companies.
Most open-source/free software is reactive. The Gimp is reactive to Photoshop. It isn't doing anything innovative. KDE is reactive to Windows and Mac OS. Linux was started because Linus didn't want to pay for Minix. Little innovation there.
Open Source is demonstrating that you can perform the same tasks slightly differently, and for less money. However, for the most part, it is not showing us any radically different ways to perform the same tasks. This is what defines innovation.
Visicalc was innovative. Mac OS was innovative. Unix was innovative. These (and other!) innovations cost money to develop. Their creators should, if they desire, be able to enjoy the fruits of their labors for a certain amount of time.
However, the ideal solution in my opinion, would be to allow the inventor to choose (patents or public domain) for himself on a case-by-case basis. Perhaps we should have an Office of Public Domain Ideas to streamline the process of establishing prior art so that Free ideas don't get patented?
Steps for the altrustic inventor:
1) Create something. 2) Patent it. 3) License it to anybody at all for free. At the very least, don't sue people for infringing upon your patent.
You see, Mr. Doughnut, when you hold the patent, you get to license it to anybody you want under whatever terms the two parties negotiate. It's not an all-or-nothing proposition.
Slashdot Mirror
Now that the idea has been leaked Apple won't do it even if they were planning to.
Yeah. Because that's exactly how it worked with the leak of the PowerMac G5, Tiger, the switch to Intel chips.
Retard.
Yeah, Apple is a lot more than just a hardware company. The whole iTunes Music Store is proof of that, to say nothing of its development of OS X, Quicktime, etc. Its hardware is peerless, but Jobs' strength is not only understanding cool hardware but seeing the potential of what people can do with it, and developing cool, trendy ways to make that happen.
The only way for Apple to get people to buy its hardware is to make most of the rest of the widget, too.
Yeah. They benchmarked the Pentium emulating PPC code.
That gives a real good idea on how well Mac OS X will perform!
Retard.
The reason no MoC worth anything has a "non-binding internet poll" on his/her website is because it will, by its nature, skew to the vocal minority who has an axe to grind on a particular piece of legislation.
I happen to live in a state where the largest political party is "Unenrolled." Our two senators are both moderate Republican women who have broken with both the Bush administration and GOP Congressional leadership often enough (not every time I would, but often enough) to let me know that while I might not agree with every vote they cast, they're at least voting their conscience.
If you read the U.S. Constitution, the President has the authority to sign or veto any bill passed by Congress. It is exactly the President's authority to decide what passes and what does not. Congress has, however, figured out that they can get what they want (e.g., spending Federal money in their state, which will help them win reelection) by attaching it indivisibly to other items that the President wants.
Yes. The President has the authority to sign or veto any bill passed by Congress.
Line-item veto is unconstitutional.
The reason you're not going to get 38 states to amend the Constitution to give POTUS line-item is the same reason you're not going to get 38 states to put FMA in it.
If elected officials always voted the whim of their constituents, we'd have had President Benjamin Wade.
There's a reason they're in Washington and we're not. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.
If you have a real problem with how Congress is working and the most you're doing about it is whining online, you have nobody to blame but yourself.
Um, yes it is.
I suggest you re-read the Constitution, buddy.
If you want line-item, get 38 states to agree.
Apple is transitioning from PPC to Intel.
They expect this transition to be complete by the end of 2007.
The sentences don't have to contain the word "entire" for the meaning conveyed by "entire" to be accurate.
Retard.
I suspect that Mommy and Daddy make a bigger dent in the tuition bill than ThinkSecret ad revenue does.
I see more than one side. It's all about national interests. Yes, US companies stood to profit from the war in Iraq. And yes, French, Russian, and German companies stood to profit from both the continuance of Oil-For-Food and the lifting of sanctions.
To claim that the US wanted nothing other than to enrich political supporters while "finishing Daddy's war" while turning a blind eye to THE SAME FUCKING THING happening in France, Germany, and Russia is, quite possibly, the pinnacle of retardation.
As an aside, I voted (absentee) for Kerry.
Go read the UN Charter.
Done? Okay.
Now tell me how you're going to change the composition of the security council without the approval of the five permanent members.
And the widespread corruption in the UN Oil-For-Food program that directly benefitted French, German, and Russian companies had absolutely nothing to do with their opposition to the war.
With humans eliminated from the system, the safe gap between cars can be shortened greatly.
Until winter. Or it rains.
How monumentally naive. Thousands of people have stood up to do something about the ridiculous drug laws in this country. NORML has been working for 30 years to repeal the marijuana laws. They have had no success at the federal level. Imagine spending half of your life to overturn ONE stupid law, and meeting with failure. Face it. The system is unresponsive to the needs or desires or will of the people.
When you begin a point with the phrase "how monumentally naive" and then continue on to discuss a small faction of society pushing to get weed legalized, highlighting their failure as indicative of "the system" being "unresponsive to the needs or desires or the will of the people," you make me want to cry for the people who have to deal with you every day.
Society, as a whole, doesn't give a fuck that weed is illegal.
Get over it, start complying with the law, or be prepared to face the consequences.
I wish we Americans had such a fuel tax.
The number of our international problems that have derived from the fact that we drive SUVs and demand massive amounts of cheap oil is just stupid.
I don't drive an SUV (I drive a sport wagon because I have musical instruments that are large), but I still have to fill my gas tank up about once a week for about $30.
High fuel taxes work great in places like Europe where everything's close to everything else and there's mass transit between just about any two points you would need to visit.
Things are completely different here, however, and attempting to adopt Europe's solution to attack arbitrary American problems is short-sighted idiocy. Higher (3x) fuel taxes will only put an even larger burden on the rural/suburban poor than already exists.
That's what Apple gets for playing the First To Market Blues every goddamned time.
Any government computers I have ever heard of require you to give consent to be monitored BEFORE you are authorized to use them. It's usually part of the IT policy which must be signed as part of employee indoctrination.
Do these policies give non-management sysadmins the right to install spyware on users' (especially management) computers, even to expose douchebaggery?
(No.)
Yeah, the boss was a retard and shouldn't have been employed any longer if he was wasting time. But the guy seriously overstepped his bounds, and I wouldn't trust him on my network.
Hi America, this is England. We just noticed that your war of independance was illegal and we'd like our colony back.
Come and get it.
Not just fraud. He's been busted at least once for OUI after causing a bodily-injury accident.
iPod plays ACC encoded files. ACC is not apples format. Other people could technically encoded in ACC if the licensed that. The ACC licensing I believe is handled by a devision of Dolby.
Maybe that's why Duke's giving an iPod to every incoming Freshman.
Well, if you had read the fscking post, you'd realize that there is no mention of normal mail between hotmail and gmail: it's referring specifically to gmail invites.
Okay. Let's read the first sentence of the article body:
Emails and invitations sent to Hotmail from Gmail accounts do not bounce, but nor do they arrive in the recipient's Inbox - they vanish mysteriously into the aether.
Wait. So the article asserts that not only are invitations being eaten, but also regular e-mails?
Perhaps if you looked at a mirror, you'd realize that you're a worthless sack of shit who failed third-grade reading comprehension.
Ironically, this is one area where patents may be particularly well justified; there is literally hundreds of millions of dollars of research into human perceptivity and colorspace matching that arguably would not have occurred if the investment could not be recouped
I'm not sure why that's ironic. That's why the USPTO was set up in the first place.
Yes, but nearly all inudstrial activities require some education, but software development is among the few that doesn't have significant recurring expenses (raw materials, etc).
Bugfixes and version upgrades do not appear out of thin air.
No, the financial barrier to entry in software is significantly lower than other industries. Why do you think countries like India are able to outcompete western programmers? They aren't rich countries, quite on the contrary, poverty is quite rife.
You just proved his point. Programmers in India cost less than programmers in the United States. Therefore, companies that use Indian programmers are winning more contracts. If software was software not profit-driven, this would not be the case.
In terms of quantity you may be correct, but tell me, so what? And how does this observation affect the extant restrictions? It does not.
Not just in terms of quantity. While there are some very good open-source/free software packages, most of the professional ones are commercial. Almost all software innovation happens on the commercial level, and is done by companies.
Most open-source/free software is reactive. The Gimp is reactive to Photoshop. It isn't doing anything innovative. KDE is reactive to Windows and Mac OS. Linux was started because Linus didn't want to pay for Minix. Little innovation there.
Open Source is demonstrating that you can perform the same tasks slightly differently, and for less money. However, for the most part, it is not showing us any radically different ways to perform the same tasks. This is what defines innovation.
Visicalc was innovative. Mac OS was innovative. Unix was innovative. These (and other!) innovations cost money to develop. Their creators should, if they desire, be able to enjoy the fruits of their labors for a certain amount of time.
However, the ideal solution in my opinion, would be to allow the inventor to choose (patents or public domain) for himself on a case-by-case basis. Perhaps we should have an Office of Public Domain Ideas to streamline the process of establishing prior art so that Free ideas don't get patented?
Steps for the altrustic inventor:
1) Create something.
2) Patent it.
3) License it to anybody at all for free. At the very least, don't sue people for infringing upon your patent.
You see, Mr. Doughnut, when you hold the patent, you get to license it to anybody you want under whatever terms the two parties negotiate. It's not an all-or-nothing proposition.
Actually, it's more along the lines of:
"Hey, I hear Ford Explorers used to roll over a lot."
"That's okay. Most people drive a Toyota Camry."
Now stop being such a goddamned retard.