"Almost nothing in the end-game instances require any skill whatsoever, and that includes raid encounters. Either you have the gear and the people and you know how to do it (note: following instructions != skill), or you don't."
Uhm, WTF? Sorry dude but this could apply to anything and absolutly everything in life. You know how to do it, or you don't. How about the learning process? See, that's the part you miss, and i get the feeling you have never stepped foot in AQ40 much less Naxx to say something like that. Sure MC/BWL involve alot of tank and spank, but AQ40 and Naxx require skill and learning to get an encounter down. What you fail to mention is that there are guilds (aka groups of people) like DnT/Drama/Nihilism ect. that go into these instances not knowing how to do it, having less gear than the guilds that follow will have, and they still manage to down these bosses. How is that, it's hard work and skill, it's knowing how to play your class, it's breaking out spreadsheets and calculating the most efficent way to acomplish something so that you can do it with less.
While alot of wow is a grind and is mindless, the real end game has developed into a rather intellectual pursuit. If you have seen the diagrams that DnT had for the 4 horsemen (when things like CT Raid Boss Mod and BigWiggs only worked up to AQ40) to calculate how much time each tank could stay on one horsemen before they would die, or if you have seen videos of the fights, you may become to realize that if you have no skill that no amount of running the fight over and over, no amount of gear currently in the game (i'm talking 40 players in full tier3 with legendary weapons and all), no amount of world buffs and flasks.. there simply isn't enough "stuff" in the game you can use to enhance your character enough to beat this encounter unless you have skill.
There are reasons why there are guilds with loads of players in full tier 1 that haven't downed Rag and loads of tier 2 but haven't downed nef or C'thun, and the reason is those guilds simply lack the skill of playing thier class or the skill of coordinating with others to accomplish a goal.
The attitude that you either know it or not, or you have the gear or you don't is the the attitude of a casual player and/or someone that gives up too easily. There are gear checks in the game (rag/vael/huhu/patchwork/Saph) but even then a group of people with the necessary amount of gear still won't down the boss if they have no skill. And for all those other bosses (literally those are pretty much the only bosses with gear checks unless you count the ony cloak) the amount of gear necessary to down them depends alot more on the skill of the players than the level of the gear they are wearing.
Yes, but you have to go way, way, way back for that version of gateway and then they were only #3 at best. See back in the day, way before Alienware produced fat ass rigs, Micron consistently produced the best boxen money could buy (talking PCs here, not Apple, SGI, Sun, or Alpha boxes). Then again, the second best scores -- and contending for the best -- were posted by none other than Dell. Yes, there was a time way back in 95-96 that Dell produced high quality, fast, top of the line boxes.
This has nothing to do with google/yahoo chewing up bandwith. The fiber companies are just mad other people are making more money.
If it was about eating up fiber, and thus creating the need for greater infrastructure:
They would not focus on two companies that pretty much provide a low bandwith, mostly text based, services.
They could focus on more bandwith intensive services, like maybe iTunes and other pay media services.
They would focus on file sharing networks that connect a bunch of $30 a month, or less, subscribers together that end up consuming disproportinatly large amounts of bandwith.
But instead they choose to pick on the guys consuming fairly little bandwith per use, but happen to be making a bundle of bones. At least they could come up with a less transparent argument.
Quite right. Bomis used to be fairly porn focused -- in my opinion -- back in the day (i had it bookmarked if that means anything). I haven't been there in years but i would say it is no longer a porn site, although i'm doing my best to find some naughty bits.
First, the chimps were given two shots to open up the box. Now i'm not sure how this could have impacted the results, but if this is to be a "scientific" test shouldn't the two groups receive basically the same instruction. I think this deviation was unnecessary and quite possibly altered the results. At the end of the day maybe human children would react differently if they had more time playing with what was basically the same puzzle. Or more importantly, maybe the human children would be able to determine that it was the same puzzle and end around the more complicated steps.
Second, i think there may be a huge problem with having humans interact with adults (maybe the poster that suggested having the chimps teach the kids was on to something). The fact is that kids are usually taught to obey adults. Not just imitate them, but listen and follow instructions -- think teachers. While not all kids do this, 3 and 4 year olds arn't always the most overtly confrontational. The kids here may not have been usuing their minds, nor imitating, but obeying. Sure the kids were told they could do whatever they wanted, but the same person just told them how to do it. (some evidence of this is that the child of the reporter reacted differently with the two different teachers). I think an interesting counter study would be to observe the reaction by kids with ODD (oppositional defiant disorder) -- problems with authority -- as those kids would seem to be less likely to obey and may, under these constraints, give a better insight in to how the human mind works.
You are quite correct about who designed the processors, but MS owns the IP and the design. People still call Dell computers Dell Computers, even though they are designed and built by Tiwaniese ODMs. People still call Lamborghini's and Ferarri's the same, even though both companies use outside design firms to design the bodies of the cars (italdesign and Penninferina for instance).
Hell, we consider OS2 an IBM operating system, when it has been worked on more by MS/outsourcing than IBM.
So, although i meant my first post as more of a joke your post and the other replies has made me think: Why is it that everyone else out there can outsource the hell out of a design and even manufacturing of something, slap their logo on it, and then call it their's, but when MS does it the ODM's get all the props?
Actually microsoft is about to release two processors in a couple of days, the CPU and GPU in the Xbox 360 are both MS processors. (although you are completly correct about the typo)
Yes, and if you take the price (360) and rearrange the numbers (306) and then add them together you get 666, the mark of the microsoft.... er... devil. Coincidence?
This really was a pointless act by the EU
on
Windows XP N a Bust
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
I'm not one to back M$, especially around here, but this whole Windows N thing just seems stupid. The EU doesn't like Media Player being coupled with the OS, so they make MS release a version of the OS sans MP, BUT then they still allow the old version to be sold AND they are the same price.
I don't know, maybe i have taken too many Econ classes, but this seems like it is a horribly inefficient punishment that will solve absolutely nothing -- hell it won't even give them those warm fuzzies you get from doing the right thing because it isn't the right thing.
The bottom line is that no rational consumer -- TFA mentioned like 2 people that this would not apply to -- would buy this version of windows. Sorry EU but you really missed the boat (or chunnel as it may be) on this one.
Yeah, Apple does have an application for "Tiger" to be trademarked.
Here is a copy of the USPTO page (since i'm not sure if i can deep link in to the USPTO):
Typed Drawing
Word Mark TIGER Goods and Services IC 009. US 021 023 026 036 038. G & S: computer operating system software Mark Drawing Code (1) TYPED DRAWING Serial Number 78269988 Filing Date July 2, 2003 Current Filing Basis 1B Original Filing Basis 1B Published for Opposition August 17, 2004 Owner (APPLICANT) Apple Computer, Inc. CORPORATION CALIFORNIA 1 Infinite Loop Cupertino CALIFORNIA 95014 Attorney of Record John Donald Type of Mark TRADEMARK Register PRINCIPAL Live/Dead Indicator LIVE
Just to clarify a bit here. The PowerPC was actually a three way venture (not two) between Apple, IBM, and Moto/freescale. It is better known as the AIM alliance.
Also, AltiVec was originally incorporated in to the G4 processor, which is currently used in the iBooks and PowerBooks. Actually, Apple no longer produces a computer that doesn't have a Velocity Engine vector unit.
A couple tidbits: The G4 was made by Moto, the G5 was supposed to be as well but they pretty much stopped development of a true fifth gen PowerPC (apparently opting for a dual core G4, which rumors put as a possibility for PowerBooks if the G5 isn't ready for primetime).
The G3 and G5 are made by IBM - although the G5 is basically a Power 4 with altivec slapped on for good measure (not a completely independent design. Then again PowerPC was not intended to be that different than Power).
The Velocity Engine on the G4 is more powerful than the one IBM put in the G5, but the difference isn't big enough to hamper the much faster G5.
Uhm, arn't the Duras sisters Klingon. If you find Klingon chicks hot, well, i guess your right. Personally I was musing about something pre-ridged forehead.
I have to agree with you and pretty much everyone else that thinks this is a bad idea. Aside from the potential for an OC/90210 nightmare, i thnk there is a bigger problem that is being overlooked.
The premis of Star Trek is to Bodly Go Where No Man[Woman/Person/Human] Has Ever Gone Before. People dug this. Sure there were other things about ST that were cool, but a big factor was the new shit. Every show moved forward in time -- even if only a little, like between TNG and DS9.
Then they give us Enterprise. Sure it's a neet concept, but we have already been there. We aren't bodly going anywhere that we haven't been by the time TOS, TNG, DS9, and Voyager have aired. We know how the story ends, that is unless they invent some lame bullshit that sidetracks the show from its purpose (which was supposed to be showing the creation of the Federation).
So Shatner wants us to go back in time again. I SAY NO!!! I want to Bodly go someplace fucking new. Someplace not littered with Shatners soiled sheets. Someplace where there are green, orange and purple chicks to tag that won't comment "Kirk was better". I want a new enemy, not genetically modified or working for someone in the future. Not the Borg, unless they all look like 7 of 9.
Speaking of that, what the fuck is wrong with having bad girls. Why always bad guys. How about hot, pissed off, mean bitches that want to kill the shit out of the federation. There is no reason that girl power and rub-out hour can't live together. [Actually, on further reflection on the mess that was Lexx, i'm probably wrong here. Let's keep the bad guys, guys, and preferably ugly]
Someplace where the engineers have something else to bitch about than a warp core breach. You know what, we fucking got it, they are sensitive. How about developing some new fucking propultion technology. The point is, it's NEW!!! That's what Star Trek used to bring to the table.
The Star Fleet Academy is a neat idea, even if i'm not behind it 100%, for one reason. It is different and new. We haven't done it. But if somethign like this is going to work it needs to be set in the future, not rehashing all the stories Kirk never got to tell during TOS or the movies. Keep it new and set it in the future, after TNG, DS9, and Voyager.
I think you are right for the most part, but there is something you say -- that a lot of people say -- that I think misses the point. The iPod may be this generation's walkman, but it is so much bigger for Apple than a "walkman" would be. THe important thing about the iPod is that without a computer it is a big paper weight. The walkman could survive with tapes and radio transmissions, it had no need for an external interface. The iPod requires this external support and that's why it is having a such a great impact on Apple's bottom line -- with the increase in computer sales, iTunes MS, ect. The walkman couldn't have accomplished this, at least the same way, because it was independent and stand alone. The iPod has the ability to be much more than the new walkman, that to me is what makes it such an intersting device from a business standpoint.
For those that don't know, Lexis is the number two research engine used by lawyers.
Personally, I want to know what this person was thinking. He/she just picked a fight with 145,000 lawyers. Someone is getting their ass sued.
Wait. 5 blades = a beowulf cluster. And everyone knows clusters are better. But i agree that using skin for your communications backbone has to create some killer latency.
Actually, AFAIK, the complaint about not using the GaAs technology (by Finkelstein, in addition to his deadness) is unwarranted.
Now it is true that GaAs were superior to silicon at one time. Way superior. They were able to hit a GHz way back in the day. I don't think their density was as high, but their speed was insane. Now it is only fair to mention that their only use (AFAIR) was in vector computers. [now this is something i don't entierly understand. Maybe it was becuase all early Crays (Cray 1 & 2, ect.) were vector, but this tech never seemed to make its way in to standard processors.]
The thing though, was that around the time silicon started making its way to 1GHz, GaAs became obsolete. They were more expensive to make, had a lower density, and a much more limited purpose. Now, even Cray uses silicon to manufacture their vector processors.
So, i find it difficult to blame some dead dude for not utilizing an old technology that has little purpose today. At one time GaAs was a cool tech, not silicon has surpassed the hell out of it, at least in computers.
Actually, the $999 12in iBook is $949 education. The $899 iBook does not have 802.11g built in (it is wireless ready) and it comes with a CD ROM drive instead of the Combo burner.
Has anyone even seen the contract?
on
Beatles vs Apple
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Everyone keeps saying that Apple has entered the music business with iTunes. You know I think so too. But that means nothing.
What matters is what the CONTRACT says. Until we see the actual wording in the CONTRACT, it is impossible to say whether Apple has breached.
Here is the point. According to Apple Corp. the music industry could mean making music. That is what the Beatles did. Right? Apple, has sold music but they have not actually made or produced any music. Maybe the point of the CONTRACT was to prevent Apple from being a producer. Maybe Apple Corp. wanted to spare the world from the sexy ballad duet of Steve and Steve.
Here is what I want to know. How in the hell is this settlement supposed to be so damn big. This is not tort, with punitive damages. It is contract. How was Apple Corp. hurt by Apple's iTunes. Where is the damage from the breach.
Apple seems to have breached a contract that runs somethign like this. "We won't make music, which won't hurt you anyhow, and you won't get pissy." So now they are pissy, but where is the damage. A few million, alright. But the largest non-mass-tort settlement in history.
This is no Pennzoil v. Texaco, and should not be. Here is what is scary. That case had a verdict somewhere in the range of Apple's total value (4 billion in cash included). So if this is going real bad (and being in England and not the US it is a possiblity) then Apple could forever be fucked.
Actually, it is IBM's power. PowerPC belongs to IBM, Moto, and Apple (that whole AIM alliance thing). Henceforth, there is only one designer of Power chips (although IBM has started to license out this tech) but two competing PowerPC shops (Moto with the G4 and IBM with the G3 and G5).
Yeah, i guess i was a little lose with my language there.
SEC Rule 12(g)(1) provides the criteria for Section 12(g) -- note the difference, 12(g)(1) is an administrative rule but 12(g) is legislative from the Securities Act of 1934 -- which is that a company with over 500 shareholders in a single class of stock and over $10 million in assets has to report (even if they are not traded on a national exchange).
In my parent post i couldn't remember the exact amount off hand -- very bad the day before the final -- so i estimated that google had tonnes of assets. Which should be a safe assumption because they have a few bucks in the bank and more computers than the NSA.
Slashdot Mirror
"Almost nothing in the end-game instances require any skill whatsoever, and that includes raid encounters. Either you have the gear and the people and you know how to do it (note: following instructions != skill), or you don't."
Uhm, WTF? Sorry dude but this could apply to anything and absolutly everything in life. You know how to do it, or you don't. How about the learning process? See, that's the part you miss, and i get the feeling you have never stepped foot in AQ40 much less Naxx to say something like that. Sure MC/BWL involve alot of tank and spank, but AQ40 and Naxx require skill and learning to get an encounter down. What you fail to mention is that there are guilds (aka groups of people) like DnT/Drama/Nihilism ect. that go into these instances not knowing how to do it, having less gear than the guilds that follow will have, and they still manage to down these bosses. How is that, it's hard work and skill, it's knowing how to play your class, it's breaking out spreadsheets and calculating the most efficent way to acomplish something so that you can do it with less.
While alot of wow is a grind and is mindless, the real end game has developed into a rather intellectual pursuit. If you have seen the diagrams that DnT had for the 4 horsemen (when things like CT Raid Boss Mod and BigWiggs only worked up to AQ40) to calculate how much time each tank could stay on one horsemen before they would die, or if you have seen videos of the fights, you may become to realize that if you have no skill that no amount of running the fight over and over, no amount of gear currently in the game (i'm talking 40 players in full tier3 with legendary weapons and all), no amount of world buffs and flasks.. there simply isn't enough "stuff" in the game you can use to enhance your character enough to beat this encounter unless you have skill.
There are reasons why there are guilds with loads of players in full tier 1 that haven't downed Rag and loads of tier 2 but haven't downed nef or C'thun, and the reason is those guilds simply lack the skill of playing thier class or the skill of coordinating with others to accomplish a goal.
The attitude that you either know it or not, or you have the gear or you don't is the the attitude of a casual player and/or someone that gives up too easily. There are gear checks in the game (rag/vael/huhu/patchwork/Saph) but even then a group of people with the necessary amount of gear still won't down the boss if they have no skill. And for all those other bosses (literally those are pretty much the only bosses with gear checks unless you count the ony cloak) the amount of gear necessary to down them depends alot more on the skill of the players than the level of the gear they are wearing.
Yes, but you have to go way, way, way back for that version of gateway and then they were only #3 at best. See back in the day, way before Alienware produced fat ass rigs, Micron consistently produced the best boxen money could buy (talking PCs here, not Apple, SGI, Sun, or Alpha boxes). Then again, the second best scores -- and contending for the best -- were posted by none other than Dell. Yes, there was a time way back in 95-96 that Dell produced high quality, fast, top of the line boxes.
This has nothing to do with google/yahoo chewing up bandwith. The fiber companies are just mad other people are making more money.
If it was about eating up fiber, and thus creating the need for greater infrastructure:
They would not focus on two companies that pretty much provide a low bandwith, mostly text based, services.
They could focus on more bandwith intensive services, like maybe iTunes and other pay media services.
They would focus on file sharing networks that connect a bunch of $30 a month, or less, subscribers together that end up consuming disproportinatly large amounts of bandwith.
But instead they choose to pick on the guys consuming fairly little bandwith per use, but happen to be making a bundle of bones. At least they could come up with a less transparent argument.
Quite right. Bomis used to be fairly porn focused -- in my opinion -- back in the day (i had it bookmarked if that means anything). I haven't been there in years but i would say it is no longer a porn site, although i'm doing my best to find some naughty bits.
First, the chimps were given two shots to open up the box. Now i'm not sure how this could have impacted the results, but if this is to be a "scientific" test shouldn't the two groups receive basically the same instruction. I think this deviation was unnecessary and quite possibly altered the results. At the end of the day maybe human children would react differently if they had more time playing with what was basically the same puzzle. Or more importantly, maybe the human children would be able to determine that it was the same puzzle and end around the more complicated steps.
Second, i think there may be a huge problem with having humans interact with adults (maybe the poster that suggested having the chimps teach the kids was on to something). The fact is that kids are usually taught to obey adults. Not just imitate them, but listen and follow instructions -- think teachers. While not all kids do this, 3 and 4 year olds arn't always the most overtly confrontational. The kids here may not have been usuing their minds, nor imitating, but obeying. Sure the kids were told they could do whatever they wanted, but the same person just told them how to do it. (some evidence of this is that the child of the reporter reacted differently with the two different teachers). I think an interesting counter study would be to observe the reaction by kids with ODD (oppositional defiant disorder) -- problems with authority -- as those kids would seem to be less likely to obey and may, under these constraints, give a better insight in to how the human mind works.
that's why I got out of computer science.
You are quite correct about who designed the processors, but MS owns the IP and the design. People still call Dell computers Dell Computers, even though they are designed and built by Tiwaniese ODMs. People still call Lamborghini's and Ferarri's the same, even though both companies use outside design firms to design the bodies of the cars (italdesign and Penninferina for instance).
Hell, we consider OS2 an IBM operating system, when it has been worked on more by MS/outsourcing than IBM.
So, although i meant my first post as more of a joke your post and the other replies has made me think: Why is it that everyone else out there can outsource the hell out of a design and even manufacturing of something, slap their logo on it, and then call it their's, but when MS does it the ODM's get all the props?
Slashdot is only falling behind because that site doesn't include all the dupes.
Actually microsoft is about to release two processors in a couple of days, the CPU and GPU in the Xbox 360 are both MS processors. (although you are completly correct about the typo)
/dotted
Yes, and if you take the price (360) and rearrange the numbers (306) and then add them together you get 666, the mark of the microsoft .... er ... devil. Coincidence?
I'm not one to back M$, especially around here, but this whole Windows N thing just seems stupid. The EU doesn't like Media Player being coupled with the OS, so they make MS release a version of the OS sans MP, BUT then they still allow the old version to be sold AND they are the same price.
I don't know, maybe i have taken too many Econ classes, but this seems like it is a horribly inefficient punishment that will solve absolutely nothing -- hell it won't even give them those warm fuzzies you get from doing the right thing because it isn't the right thing.
The bottom line is that no rational consumer -- TFA mentioned like 2 people that this would not apply to -- would buy this version of windows. Sorry EU but you really missed the boat (or chunnel as it may be) on this one.
Yeah, Apple does have an application for "Tiger" to be trademarked.
Here is a copy of the USPTO page (since i'm not sure if i can deep link in to the USPTO):
Typed Drawing
Word Mark TIGER
Goods and Services IC 009. US 021 023 026 036 038. G & S: computer operating system software
Mark Drawing Code (1) TYPED DRAWING
Serial Number 78269988
Filing Date July 2, 2003
Current Filing Basis 1B
Original Filing Basis 1B
Published for Opposition August 17, 2004
Owner (APPLICANT) Apple Computer, Inc. CORPORATION CALIFORNIA 1 Infinite Loop Cupertino CALIFORNIA 95014
Attorney of Record John Donald
Type of Mark TRADEMARK
Register PRINCIPAL
Live/Dead Indicator LIVE
Just to clarify a bit here. The PowerPC was actually a three way venture (not two) between Apple, IBM, and Moto/freescale. It is better known as the AIM alliance.
Also, AltiVec was originally incorporated in to the G4 processor, which is currently used in the iBooks and PowerBooks. Actually, Apple no longer produces a computer that doesn't have a Velocity Engine vector unit.
A couple tidbits:
The G4 was made by Moto, the G5 was supposed to be as well but they pretty much stopped development of a true fifth gen PowerPC (apparently opting for a dual core G4, which rumors put as a possibility for PowerBooks if the G5 isn't ready for primetime).
The G3 and G5 are made by IBM - although the G5 is basically a Power 4 with altivec slapped on for good measure (not a completely independent design. Then again PowerPC was not intended to be that different than Power).
The Velocity Engine on the G4 is more powerful than the one IBM put in the G5, but the difference isn't big enough to hamper the much faster G5.
Uhm, arn't the Duras sisters Klingon. If you find Klingon chicks hot, well, i guess your right. Personally I was musing about something pre-ridged forehead.
The premis of Star Trek is to Bodly Go Where No Man[Woman/Person/Human] Has Ever Gone Before. People dug this. Sure there were other things about ST that were cool, but a big factor was the new shit. Every show moved forward in time -- even if only a little, like between TNG and DS9.
Then they give us Enterprise. Sure it's a neet concept, but we have already been there. We aren't bodly going anywhere that we haven't been by the time TOS, TNG, DS9, and Voyager have aired. We know how the story ends, that is unless they invent some lame bullshit that sidetracks the show from its purpose (which was supposed to be showing the creation of the Federation).
So Shatner wants us to go back in time again. I SAY NO!!! I want to Bodly go someplace fucking new. Someplace not littered with Shatners soiled sheets. Someplace where there are green, orange and purple chicks to tag that won't comment "Kirk was better". I want a new enemy, not genetically modified or working for someone in the future. Not the Borg, unless they all look like 7 of 9.
Speaking of that, what the fuck is wrong with having bad girls. Why always bad guys. How about hot, pissed off, mean bitches that want to kill the shit out of the federation. There is no reason that girl power and rub-out hour can't live together. [Actually, on further reflection on the mess that was Lexx, i'm probably wrong here. Let's keep the bad guys, guys, and preferably ugly]
Someplace where the engineers have something else to bitch about than a warp core breach. You know what, we fucking got it, they are sensitive. How about developing some new fucking propultion technology. The point is, it's NEW!!! That's what Star Trek used to bring to the table.
The Star Fleet Academy is a neat idea, even if i'm not behind it 100%, for one reason. It is different and new. We haven't done it. But if somethign like this is going to work it needs to be set in the future, not rehashing all the stories Kirk never got to tell during TOS or the movies. Keep it new and set it in the future, after TNG, DS9, and Voyager.
rant over
I think you are right for the most part, but there is something you say -- that a lot of people say -- that I think misses the point. The iPod may be this generation's walkman, but it is so much bigger for Apple than a "walkman" would be. THe important thing about the iPod is that without a computer it is a big paper weight. The walkman could survive with tapes and radio transmissions, it had no need for an external interface. The iPod requires this external support and that's why it is having a such a great impact on Apple's bottom line -- with the increase in computer sales, iTunes MS, ect. The walkman couldn't have accomplished this, at least the same way, because it was independent and stand alone. The iPod has the ability to be much more than the new walkman, that to me is what makes it such an intersting device from a business standpoint.
For those that don't know, Lexis is the number two research engine used by lawyers. Personally, I want to know what this person was thinking. He/she just picked a fight with 145,000 lawyers. Someone is getting their ass sued.
Wait. 5 blades = a beowulf cluster. And everyone knows clusters are better. But i agree that using skin for your communications backbone has to create some killer latency.
So long as computer created girlfriends, are girlfriends... Oh, and MMORPG girlfriends, they are real too...
Look on the high side, this may actually allow most of slashdot to have active sex lives, with other people.
Actually, AFAIK, the complaint about not using the GaAs technology (by Finkelstein, in addition to his deadness) is unwarranted.
Now it is true that GaAs were superior to silicon at one time. Way superior. They were able to hit a GHz way back in the day. I don't think their density was as high, but their speed was insane. Now it is only fair to mention that their only use (AFAIR) was in vector computers. [now this is something i don't entierly understand. Maybe it was becuase all early Crays (Cray 1 & 2, ect.) were vector, but this tech never seemed to make its way in to standard processors.]
The thing though, was that around the time silicon started making its way to 1GHz, GaAs became obsolete. They were more expensive to make, had a lower density, and a much more limited purpose. Now, even Cray uses silicon to manufacture their vector processors.
So, i find it difficult to blame some dead dude for not utilizing an old technology that has little purpose today. At one time GaAs was a cool tech, not silicon has surpassed the hell out of it, at least in computers.
Actually, the $999 12in iBook is $949 education. The $899 iBook does not have 802.11g built in (it is wireless ready) and it comes with a CD ROM drive instead of the Combo burner.
What matters is what the CONTRACT says. Until we see the actual wording in the CONTRACT, it is impossible to say whether Apple has breached.
Here is the point. According to Apple Corp. the music industry could mean making music. That is what the Beatles did. Right? Apple, has sold music but they have not actually made or produced any music. Maybe the point of the CONTRACT was to prevent Apple from being a producer. Maybe Apple Corp. wanted to spare the world from the sexy ballad duet of Steve and Steve.
Here is what I want to know. How in the hell is this settlement supposed to be so damn big. This is not tort, with punitive damages. It is contract. How was Apple Corp. hurt by Apple's iTunes. Where is the damage from the breach.
Apple seems to have breached a contract that runs somethign like this. "We won't make music, which won't hurt you anyhow, and you won't get pissy." So now they are pissy, but where is the damage. A few million, alright. But the largest non-mass-tort settlement in history.
This is no Pennzoil v. Texaco, and should not be. Here is what is scary. That case had a verdict somewhere in the range of Apple's total value (4 billion in cash included). So if this is going real bad (and being in England and not the US it is a possiblity) then Apple could forever be fucked.
Actually, it is IBM's power. PowerPC belongs to IBM, Moto, and Apple (that whole AIM alliance thing). Henceforth, there is only one designer of Power chips (although IBM has started to license out this tech) but two competing PowerPC shops (Moto with the G4 and IBM with the G3 and G5).
SEC Rule 12(g)(1) provides the criteria for Section 12(g) -- note the difference, 12(g)(1) is an administrative rule but 12(g) is legislative from the Securities Act of 1934 -- which is that a company with over 500 shareholders in a single class of stock and over $10 million in assets has to report (even if they are not traded on a national exchange).
In my parent post i couldn't remember the exact amount off hand -- very bad the day before the final -- so i estimated that google had tonnes of assets. Which should be a safe assumption because they have a few bucks in the bank and more computers than the NSA.