That statement is literally true, in the same lawyerly, weaseling way that Bill Clinton didn't have sex with Monical Lewinsky, if you define having sex specifically as intercourse.
However, take for example, this quote from Bush in 2003, "Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained." Now you can't say the average person wouldn't read an implied link between SH and 9/11 there. But, he's safe on the technicality.
Actually, I'm not sure you're correct and that he hasn't slipped up once or twice. Cheney certainly has directly made that link.
Isn't this a classic political "solution?" Instead of dealing with an inconvenience that might cost a little money, push to problem off to someone else, preferrably long enough away that you won't be around to be blamed.
Do they really think that people will test for something that won't happen for 500 years? Better to deal with the small problem now than create a big mess later.
You'll also be shelling out for more software. Yes, I know about Rosetta, but it you really care about speed, then you'll want the native code. Now if you think that Adobe, Microsoft, and all the rest are just going to send you a free upgrade, you're sadly deluded.
The native release will be free, of course, but only when you purchase the next version. So, you can buy the last generation PPC and run with existing software, or buy the first Intel generation and pay for the software upgrades (or live with the Rosetta performance penalty.)
Indeed. And even the technology/web aspect is bogus. In many cases, a mere phone book is that would be required to do what he did, though perhaps without the maps. He also makes the assumption that the information he found via Lexis/Nexis would have been availble two years ago. It might well have, but his methodology is suspect.
At any rate, until Novak and Rove, however, no one would have known that Plame was a CIA agent, and anyway Bush said he'd fire the person responsible for the leaks, he made no caveat about being convicted or not.
Of course, all this "did he/didn't he" stuff obscures the original intent, which was a cynical attempt by Rove et al to discredit Wilson because he'd called them on their bogus use of the Niger memo. That was the first crime and one that is mostly lost in all the technical arguments.
Putting up an unprotected web site is akin to putting up a billboard. If I take a picture of the billboard and publish it in a textbook that kids read for the next 20 years, should I be expected to be sued by the billboard company?
Sadly, the answer to this is probably yes. Two examples: 1) Coke sues a photographer for including one of its billboards in a picture. 2) The filmmakers of "Bewitched" were forced to edit the Transamerica pyramid out of their shots of the San Francisco skyline because the building is a registered trademark.
Our IP laws seem destined to be controlled by corporate greed and congressional stupidity.
Not only that, it's a steaming load of bull. For one thing, this "phenomenon" hardly new, writers and musicians have been borrowing from one another since writing and music started.
Secondly, the passive audience is much more prevalent now than a few hundred years ago. Before iPods and TVs and hand-crank Victrolas, people actually learned to play instruments themselves and read aloud to one another.
I thought the Coke/Pepsi example was pretty clear.
Your premise (you'll never see another Apple) is not illegal as it does not allow Apple to acquire or maintain a monopoly. Now, if you could convince the Justice department that Apple has a monopoly, because only they sell Macs, you might have an argument, but the definition is typically not so narrow. After all, you don't say that Ford has a monopoly on Fords.
OK, since we're talking about Microsoft, we're talking about maintaining a monopoly. Compare:
You run a restaurant. Coke comes to you and says, "We'll sell you Coke, but you can't sell Pepsi, and if you do, you'll never see another drop of Coke again." This is legal.
You run a computer store. Microsoft comes to you and says, "We'll sell you Windows, but you can't sell OS|2, and if you do, you'll never see another MS product again." This is not legal, and the law would consider this "unreasonable."
In the case of business, it's a matter of law, so it's not my definition, but that of the United States.
As to your sports metaphor, look to wrestling and boxing. The reason they have weight classes is because a 110# boxer would get beaten to a pulp by a 220# boxer, no matter how good he was. They are required to compete separately.
Microsoft has been shown to be a monopoly. What is "fair" for a generic corporation is not necessarily fair practise for a monopoly becuase of the extraordinary power they wield in the market.
``I guess I've made it very clear that we view an Intel investment in Go as an anti-Microsoft move, both because Go competes with our systems software and because we think it will weaken the 386 PC standard. . . I'm asking you not to make any investment in Go Corporation,''
In his book, Startup, Kaplan describes how they shared trade secrets with Microsoft, something they were not keen on doing, but Microsoft promised to set a "Chinese wall" between their app division and the OS division, so only the applications people would know and that they'd be able to produce software in support of Go. In this excerpt from Startup, Kaplan details how Microsoft's app division made us of confidential information Go had shared with them to create Pen Windows, which, even as vapourware, effectively killed Go.
In a company I used to work for, we had a stuffed bear that we used to synchronize large changes I you were going to do massive cvs checkin you had to go get the bear.
Speaking of bandwidth, AppleInsider is reporting that 4.9 is the version with iTunes phone support, and that the resources bundles have lots of messages like these:
Eject mobile phone
iPod Phone Prefs
iPodPhoneiTunes Setup
PhoneUpdating contacts
iTunes will automatically fill your mobile phone with a random selection of songs from your library. You may fill your mobile phone with a different selection of songs by pressing Autofill in the mobile phone playlist
I wonder what the phone charges to download a song will be.
While BitTorrent made the technology widely available, I don't think it was the first implementation either. Kontiki was using peer-based delivery in the late 1990's, albeit in a highly controlled environment.
Oh man. One look at that cover and I thought, "Written by the Unibomber." Not a good sales tool, folks. Maybe a simple abstract pattern on the next edition?
You've got to be kidding. Most DVDs aren't released until months after the movies are gone from the theatres. There's no way to see the film again, so there's no loss of ticket sales.
Now there may be a set of people who won't see the movie in theatres but who wait for the DVD. I'd argue that those might be dollars gained rather than lost, since when I go through that argument, it's usually for a movie that I consider marginal, and won't pay $10 to see, but will pay $2. So that's an extra $2 they wouldn't have gotten in the first place.
Really. Remember the Osborne II? Pre-announcing killed the company.
It seems to me it would be more sensible to say "We're going to deliver both Intel and PPC machines" for now, and then slowly phase out PPC. Plus that way they wouldn't have to eat crow if IBM made a Power5 or Cell that made it worth it to Apple to keep the PPC version alive.
The point was that rumours about MacOS X on Intel didn't have anything to do with Darwin. Darwin on Intel is a fact. OS X on Intel is hearsay, though it seems likely.
Slashdot Mirror
That statement is literally true, in the same lawyerly, weaseling way that Bill Clinton didn't have sex with Monical Lewinsky, if you define having sex specifically as intercourse.
However, take for example, this quote from Bush in 2003, "Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained." Now you can't say the average person wouldn't read an implied link between SH and 9/11 there. But, he's safe on the technicality.
Actually, I'm not sure you're correct and that he hasn't slipped up once or twice. Cheney certainly has directly made that link.
Isn't this a classic political "solution?" Instead of dealing with an inconvenience that might cost a little money, push to problem off to someone else, preferrably long enough away that you won't be around to be blamed.
Do they really think that people will test for something that won't happen for 500 years? Better to deal with the small problem now than create a big mess later.
What do you mean? Americans have been misspelling "colour" for a couple hundred years, and now "color" is the standard.
In addition to getting a faster toy, you get...
You'll also be shelling out for more software. Yes, I know about Rosetta, but it you really care about speed, then you'll want the native code. Now if you think that Adobe, Microsoft, and all the rest are just going to send you a free upgrade, you're sadly deluded.
The native release will be free, of course, but only when you purchase the next version. So, you can buy the last generation PPC and run with existing software, or buy the first Intel generation and pay for the software upgrades (or live with the Rosetta performance penalty.)
"We're really having to ... think through the whole end-to-end experience and make it better,' Gates said.
If they only had this attitude towards Windows. Amazing what a little competition does.
Indeed. And even the technology/web aspect is bogus. In many cases, a mere phone book is that would be required to do what he did, though perhaps without the maps. He also makes the assumption that the information he found via Lexis/Nexis would have been availble two years ago. It might well have, but his methodology is suspect.
At any rate, until Novak and Rove, however, no one would have known that Plame was a CIA agent, and anyway Bush said he'd fire the person responsible for the leaks, he made no caveat about being convicted or not.
Of course, all this "did he/didn't he" stuff obscures the original intent, which was a cynical attempt by Rove et al to discredit Wilson because he'd called them on their bogus use of the Niger memo. That was the first crime and one that is mostly lost in all the technical arguments.
Putting up an unprotected web site is akin to putting up a billboard. If I take a picture of the billboard and publish it in a textbook that kids read for the next 20 years, should I be expected to be sued by the billboard company?
Sadly, the answer to this is probably yes. Two examples:
1) Coke sues a photographer for including one of its billboards in a picture.
2) The filmmakers of "Bewitched" were forced to edit the Transamerica pyramid out of their shots of the San Francisco skyline because the building is a registered trademark.
Our IP laws seem destined to be controlled by corporate greed and congressional stupidity.
I've since learned to associate vehement spirituality with mental instability.
When you talk to God, it's called prayer. When God talks to you, it's called schizophrenia.
Not only that, it's a steaming load of bull. For one thing, this "phenomenon" hardly new, writers and musicians have been borrowing from one another since writing and music started.
Secondly, the passive audience is much more prevalent now than a few hundred years ago. Before iPods and TVs and hand-crank Victrolas, people actually learned to play instruments themselves and read aloud to one another.
I thought the Coke/Pepsi example was pretty clear.
Your premise (you'll never see another Apple) is not illegal as it does not allow Apple to acquire or maintain a monopoly. Now, if you could convince the Justice department that Apple has a monopoly, because only they sell Macs, you might have an argument, but the definition is typically not so narrow. After all, you don't say that Ford has a monopoly on Fords.
OK, since we're talking about Microsoft, we're talking about maintaining a monopoly. Compare:
You run a restaurant. Coke comes to you and says, "We'll sell you Coke, but you can't sell Pepsi, and if you do, you'll never see another drop of Coke again." This is legal.
You run a computer store. Microsoft comes to you and says, "We'll sell you Windows, but you can't sell OS|2, and if you do, you'll never see another MS product again." This is not legal, and the law would consider this "unreasonable."
It's not necessarily speculation. There is signifcant evidence to the contrary, though it has not been ruled out completely.
In the case of business, it's a matter of law, so it's not my definition, but that of the United States.
As to your sports metaphor, look to wrestling and boxing. The reason they have weight classes is because a 110# boxer would get beaten to a pulp by a 220# boxer, no matter how good he was. They are required to compete separately.
Except.
Microsoft has been shown to be a monopoly. What is "fair" for a generic corporation is not necessarily fair practise for a monopoly becuase of the extraordinary power they wield in the market.
Kaplan is hardly a kook. He is claiming that new information has come out in the recent antitrust trials, in particular, that Gates pushed Intel into dropping plans to invest in Go.
``I guess I've made it very clear that we view an Intel investment in Go as an anti-Microsoft move, both because Go competes with our systems software and because we think it will weaken the 386 PC standard. . . I'm asking you not to make any investment in Go Corporation,''
In his book, Startup, Kaplan describes how they shared trade secrets with Microsoft, something they were not keen on doing, but Microsoft promised to set a "Chinese wall" between their app division and the OS division, so only the applications people would know and that they'd be able to produce software in support of Go. In this excerpt from Startup, Kaplan details how Microsoft's app division made us of confidential information Go had shared with them to create Pen Windows, which, even as vapourware, effectively killed Go.
In a company I used to work for, we had a stuffed bear that we used to synchronize large changes I you were going to do massive cvs checkin you had to go get the bear.
I wonder what the phone charges to download a song will be.
It's not an unknown research center. They specifically named the Safar Center in the article, which you ought to be able to find by yourself.
While BitTorrent made the technology widely available, I don't think it was the first implementation either. Kontiki was using peer-based delivery in the late 1990's, albeit in a highly controlled environment.
Oh man. One look at that cover and I thought, "Written by the Unibomber." Not a good sales tool, folks. Maybe a simple abstract pattern on the next edition?
You've got to be kidding. Most DVDs aren't released until months after the movies are gone from the theatres. There's no way to see the film again, so there's no loss of ticket sales.
Now there may be a set of people who won't see the movie in theatres but who wait for the DVD. I'd argue that those might be dollars gained rather than lost, since when I go through that argument, it's usually for a movie that I consider marginal, and won't pay $10 to see, but will pay $2. So that's an extra $2 they wouldn't have gotten in the first place.
Really. Remember the Osborne II? Pre-announcing killed the company.
It seems to me it would be more sensible to say "We're going to deliver both Intel and PPC machines" for now, and then slowly phase out PPC. Plus that way they wouldn't have to eat crow if IBM made a Power5 or Cell that made it worth it to Apple to keep the PPC version alive.
You could buy the book. It's available here for $150.
The point was that rumours about MacOS X on Intel didn't have anything to do with Darwin. Darwin on Intel is a fact. OS X on Intel is hearsay, though it seems likely.
Darwin != MacOS.
...
No Quartz, no Cocoa, no Aqua, no QuickTime, no Finder, no iTunes,