The main draw to Apple computers are their exceptional styling and awesome operating systems. Unfortunately, this vestigial department, created back when the sugar water vendor ran the company and then ran into the ground by Amelio, is still around completely missing the point of the whole company.
On the one side we've got the Apple XServe servers which are absolutely awesome. On the other we've got client computers in the G5 towers and the iMac series. In our pockets, we've even got the amazing iPod. So where does this Powermac fit?
Well, it fits the market of those PC users who want to switch operating systems without changing their machine types. Unfortunately, that market segment is as big as the number of folks switching from Mac back to Windows. Which is to say non-existant.
Steve Jobs, despite his genius, sometimes needs to be more confident in his feelings and get rid of this outdated and completely redundant division.
It's amazing that this giant of an airplane is actually bigger than the legendary Spruce Goose. It's amazing how technology has progressed from a rudimentary wooden substructure to this bleeding edge aluminum/steel airframe. Lighter, stronger, and more economical than Hughes could ever have imagined, this Airbus A380 is a marvel of modern manufacturing.
The only issue is whether the capacity will be taken advantage of effectively. While most flights now are booked solid, will the number of passengers be high enough to make the construction of these behemoths profitable?
Is the sky open for littering to only those corporations with the deepest pockets? I suppose that's a rhetorical question because the only answer thus far is Yes.
I don't begrudge them of their money, nor do I begrudge them of their ability to send up satellites on their whim. However, I wonder what the general public is going to benefit from all this private space "littering". Is the benefit from space travel and those little bits of metal flying around the planet only available to those who pay a fee to private companies?
If it were up to me, I think satellites would only be owned by government bodies so that the services that were provided by these planetary companions would be made available to all citizens.
I know I'm going to rub a few feathers the wrong way, but I think this kind of feature creep is actually good for the Linux kernel.
The more features we can get into kernel mode, the less we need to rely on "chaining" and other Unix-way solutions and we can think more about applications and OS services as "whole units".
And since the majority of installations of this latest version will be on desktops, the more hardware support, the better the hardware support, the more seamless the hardware support, the better.
It would be nice to see some componentization of the kernel to allow for easy stripping of unnecessary features, but as the kernel will stand, the features are all necessary.
The whole anti-freedom effort on the part of the RIAA (A as in Australia) is really chafing. I'm glad someone out there is finally fighting for the rest of us, and it makes me happy that it is Apple, of all companies.
iTunes may not be the best solution, but as far as a halfway point between music slavery and music freedom, a for-pay music download site is a great step and a great way to give the finger to our rights usurpers. I'd love to have a system that didn't require any pay at all, but Apple's pioneering of this type of business method is absolutely wonderful.
And now, to have it spread to Australia, it is great to see freedom on the march. I hate to sing the praises of any company, but Apple deserves it this time.
That is true. However, in the case of an Open Source project, it is very difficult to kill off the original project. After all, the original source is still out there and still open. I guess you could have a situation where no one has a copy of the original opened source, but how many of those projects are popular/useful enough to be acquired?
In the end, for the most part, open source projects are not acquired. The licensing issues are pretty onerous and there really isn't a significant benefit to having a private closed source version of it.
That is a good example. But it's also a case of a company purposefully killing off the project (which is a feat in itself). I doubt that most project acquisitions are done specifically for that purpose, though.
You're going to have to give some concrete examples of dually licensed projects where the closed one is worse off than the open one.
That's a pretty big claim.
As for open source projects getting bought up, I think that's great for everyone. The open source stuff still remains open and the programmers who worked on the project get some real (read monetary) appreciation for their work.
The control over what webserver you will use is typically limited by your hosting provider. While many provide the choice between Unix-based servers and Windows-based servers, many do not.
For those who use hosts that do not provide these services, I don't think it appropriate to think that they are simple SOL. Rather, the better quality your website provides, the more relevant it is to the topic you discuss, the better it will fare in any search engine. The type of webserver you are using becomes nothing more than the tiniest fraction of your search ranking.
The whole concept behind the environmental movement is that humans are unable to live symbiotically with Nature. No matter where we go, we act more as parasites that strip our host of life than as beneficial citizens of Nature.
1) Population growth: Humans are the problem. Despite the shrinking birth rate, this does not bode badly for Nature which will theoretically revive itself once we are not sucking nutrients out of the ground and burning it into the sky and water.
2) Urbanization: Cities are the largest contributors to localized pollution. Air quality, sewage overflows, and general griminess ooze from cities. I don't see how environmentalists could come around to see how cities are beneficial to the environment.
3) Genetically-engineered organisms: Knee jerk reactions defines the environmental movement. If they haven't listened to real science thus far, what will convince them otherwise?
4) Nuclear power: Ethical scientists have already converged on this as a plausible renewable energy source. Too bad the environmentalists haven't.
These are issues that are bugs so far up the asses of environmentalists that it is hard to believe that they could change their minds about them. I find it more likely that this one guy came to his senses and sees conservation as a constant management of the environment rather than as political capital. The problem is that the anomie of distancing himself from his old friends is too powerful and he finds himself trying to continue associating himself and his ideas with theirs.
Swimmers with lots of experience have trouble crossing the relatively narrow English Channel. Attempting to swim from Europe to North America is out of the question, for the most part.
Without even considering the difficulties posed by currents like the Gulf Stream, the water exposure will dehydrate him severely and the constant cold temperatures will push him to hypothermia.
I wouldn't want to be him. At least unless I was swimming in a pool aboard a luxury liner.
I think that Google's old method of embedding text ads in search result pages was a little bit underhanded. While they were off in another column of the screen, they looked just like regular search results.
Adding graphics to the advertisements seems to be a logical way of extending the power of advertising while at the same time minimizing the confusion of users.
NEF file formats will continue to have support in Adobe Photoshop as a plugin. This is the current state of NEF processing, it will continue to be so in the future.
The Nikon SDK that permits decoding of the format is still available to 3rd parties.
In short, it's the same as it ever was.
If the licensing is so heinous that an open source project can't accept it, then perhaps the problem isn't on the Nikon side, but in the perception and conception of how licensing should work on the part of the project team.
Like the brave Ithacans who faced down the deadly cyclops, these legislators are facing down the awful realities of trying to legislate technological progress. And like the Ithacans, they are getting their heads dashed against the rocks and eaten.
I think that this is a lot of hot air. Apple is so far ahead of anything anyone else in the techn sector that someone copying them is only natural.
Even with the amount of development power available to Microsoft, they have never been able to catch up to Apple, the industry leader. This is not to say that Microsoft is somehow bound by their develpment skill, but rather their creativity.
Apple, in contrast to Microsoft, has taken the bold step of basing their operating system on Unix, which allows them to tap into the vast stores of development resources latent in the IBM/Solaris camps. Microsoft, unyielding, relies on their own developers who are slowly (but rapidly gaining speed) migrating to the more stable Unix-based systems.
I love Steve Jobs, but I think he's a little paranoid here. Losers always copy the winners. It'd be better to take comfort in the comfortable lead that Apple's got, rather than complain about parrots.
I believe it was Voltaire who said that imitation was the sincerest form of flattery.
I can't be alone in thinking, "holy shit, is that it?"
The paging table is the least of Window's problems.
This lack of real quality is striking me speechless. I have literally no idea what to say.
I admit it. I like Microsoft. I like a lot of their employees. I like a lot of their products. But to release this. THIS. I can't see how this relatively minor port makes big news. We aren't talking quantum leaps in computing, and that's the problem. For a company with the deep engineering backbone that Microsoft has, each release ought to be earth-shaking.
I sit here shrugging my shoulders and sighing at this release. Even the venerable Steve Jobs could spin this into something much better.
While per megabyte/second it seems very cheap, you have to consider what your internet usage actually is. If you're only using the internet for an hour or two a day (and who among us doesn't?), then this faster speed internet is a lot more expensive than normal slower service. You're paying more, but not using more. That's not a better value, that's getting ripped off.
Even if you had this faster pipe, what would you do with it? Download more porn? Upload more MP3s?
I see the benefit for a fatter pipe for businesses who need to serve up large amounts of data, but for the average user, faster does very little. It's nothing like the jump from dialup to broadband. We are as fast as we need to be. Page downloads are already instantaneous, how can you seriously improve over instantaneous.
This type of tracking system is sorely needed in order to prevent little outbreaks from turning into pandemics. Knowing where the hotspots are and using that information to take measures to prevent the spread of a pathogen is of increasing importance as we become more and more mobile as a species.
However there isn't a way to track some problematic pathogens. For many diseases, there is a political aspect that prevents authorities from excercising their ability to contain the germ. HIV is the most obvious example of a virus that is so inherently related to a specific set of behaviors that it ought to be a simple matter of monitoring infected persons and preventing the disease from spreading. Unfortunately, the bearers of the virus claim that their right to these behaviors trumps the public health and safety risk posed by the virus.
If there were an outbreak of Capt. Tripps, would the government have the political will to actually put all those infected under quarantine, dooming them and essentially stripping them of all human rights, in order to prevent the spread of the disease? They have shown in the past that they are not willing to contain infected groups. What is to say that they will be in the future?
Slashdot Mirror
The main draw to Apple computers are their exceptional styling and awesome operating systems. Unfortunately, this vestigial department, created back when the sugar water vendor ran the company and then ran into the ground by Amelio, is still around completely missing the point of the whole company.
On the one side we've got the Apple XServe servers which are absolutely awesome. On the other we've got client computers in the G5 towers and the iMac series. In our pockets, we've even got the amazing iPod. So where does this Powermac fit?
Well, it fits the market of those PC users who want to switch operating systems without changing their machine types. Unfortunately, that market segment is as big as the number of folks switching from Mac back to Windows. Which is to say non-existant.
Steve Jobs, despite his genius, sometimes needs to be more confident in his feelings and get rid of this outdated and completely redundant division.
It's amazing that this giant of an airplane is actually bigger than the legendary Spruce Goose. It's amazing how technology has progressed from a rudimentary wooden substructure to this bleeding edge aluminum/steel airframe. Lighter, stronger, and more economical than Hughes could ever have imagined, this Airbus A380 is a marvel of modern manufacturing.
The only issue is whether the capacity will be taken advantage of effectively. While most flights now are booked solid, will the number of passengers be high enough to make the construction of these behemoths profitable?
Is the sky open for littering to only those corporations with the deepest pockets? I suppose that's a rhetorical question because the only answer thus far is Yes.
I don't begrudge them of their money, nor do I begrudge them of their ability to send up satellites on their whim. However, I wonder what the general public is going to benefit from all this private space "littering". Is the benefit from space travel and those little bits of metal flying around the planet only available to those who pay a fee to private companies?
If it were up to me, I think satellites would only be owned by government bodies so that the services that were provided by these planetary companions would be made available to all citizens.
I know I'm going to rub a few feathers the wrong way, but I think this kind of feature creep is actually good for the Linux kernel.
The more features we can get into kernel mode, the less we need to rely on "chaining" and other Unix-way solutions and we can think more about applications and OS services as "whole units".
And since the majority of installations of this latest version will be on desktops, the more hardware support, the better the hardware support, the more seamless the hardware support, the better.
It would be nice to see some componentization of the kernel to allow for easy stripping of unnecessary features, but as the kernel will stand, the features are all necessary.
The whole anti-freedom effort on the part of the RIAA (A as in Australia) is really chafing. I'm glad someone out there is finally fighting for the rest of us, and it makes me happy that it is Apple, of all companies.
iTunes may not be the best solution, but as far as a halfway point between music slavery and music freedom, a for-pay music download site is a great step and a great way to give the finger to our rights usurpers. I'd love to have a system that didn't require any pay at all, but Apple's pioneering of this type of business method is absolutely wonderful.
And now, to have it spread to Australia, it is great to see freedom on the march. I hate to sing the praises of any company, but Apple deserves it this time.
An unpopular opinion! He blasphemes IBM! He doesn't praise Linux! Burn the witch! Burn the witch!
That is true. However, in the case of an Open Source project, it is very difficult to kill off the original project. After all, the original source is still out there and still open. I guess you could have a situation where no one has a copy of the original opened source, but how many of those projects are popular/useful enough to be acquired?
In the end, for the most part, open source projects are not acquired. The licensing issues are pretty onerous and there really isn't a significant benefit to having a private closed source version of it.
Black, ugly, heavy, and still using that nipple joystick in the middle of the keyboard.
Color me unimpressed.
The screen looks underwhelming as well. Most laptops these days support some really nice screens, but IBM still sticks with old LCDs.
I'm not sure what the attraction is to these Thinkpads.
That is a good example. But it's also a case of a company purposefully killing off the project (which is a feat in itself). I doubt that most project acquisitions are done specifically for that purpose, though.
You're going to have to give some concrete examples of dually licensed projects where the closed one is worse off than the open one.
That's a pretty big claim.
As for open source projects getting bought up, I think that's great for everyone. The open source stuff still remains open and the programmers who worked on the project get some real (read monetary) appreciation for their work.
And you would suggest choosing hosting providers that serve on IIS in order to boost search result rankings?
I don't understand what you're trying to say.
The control over what webserver you will use is typically limited by your hosting provider. While many provide the choice between Unix-based servers and Windows-based servers, many do not.
For those who use hosts that do not provide these services, I don't think it appropriate to think that they are simple SOL. Rather, the better quality your website provides, the more relevant it is to the topic you discuss, the better it will fare in any search engine. The type of webserver you are using becomes nothing more than the tiniest fraction of your search ranking.
The whole concept behind the environmental movement is that humans are unable to live symbiotically with Nature. No matter where we go, we act more as parasites that strip our host of life than as beneficial citizens of Nature.
1) Population growth: Humans are the problem. Despite the shrinking birth rate, this does not bode badly for Nature which will theoretically revive itself once we are not sucking nutrients out of the ground and burning it into the sky and water.
2) Urbanization: Cities are the largest contributors to localized pollution. Air quality, sewage overflows, and general griminess ooze from cities. I don't see how environmentalists could come around to see how cities are beneficial to the environment.
3) Genetically-engineered organisms: Knee jerk reactions defines the environmental movement. If they haven't listened to real science thus far, what will convince them otherwise?
4) Nuclear power: Ethical scientists have already converged on this as a plausible renewable energy source. Too bad the environmentalists haven't.
These are issues that are bugs so far up the asses of environmentalists that it is hard to believe that they could change their minds about them. I find it more likely that this one guy came to his senses and sees conservation as a constant management of the environment rather than as political capital. The problem is that the anomie of distancing himself from his old friends is too powerful and he finds himself trying to continue associating himself and his ideas with theirs.
Swimmers with lots of experience have trouble crossing the relatively narrow English Channel. Attempting to swim from Europe to North America is out of the question, for the most part.
Without even considering the difficulties posed by currents like the Gulf Stream, the water exposure will dehydrate him severely and the constant cold temperatures will push him to hypothermia.
I wouldn't want to be him. At least unless I was swimming in a pool aboard a luxury liner.
This is what happens when systems fail.
Shame on the testers who didn't catch this.
I think that Google's old method of embedding text ads in search result pages was a little bit underhanded. While they were off in another column of the screen, they looked just like regular search results.
Adding graphics to the advertisements seems to be a logical way of extending the power of advertising while at the same time minimizing the confusion of users.
NEF file formats will continue to have support in Adobe Photoshop as a plugin. This is the current state of NEF processing, it will continue to be so in the future.
The Nikon SDK that permits decoding of the format is still available to 3rd parties.
In short, it's the same as it ever was.
If the licensing is so heinous that an open source project can't accept it, then perhaps the problem isn't on the Nikon side, but in the perception and conception of how licensing should work on the part of the project team.
Like the brave Ithacans who faced down the deadly cyclops, these legislators are facing down the awful realities of trying to legislate technological progress. And like the Ithacans, they are getting their heads dashed against the rocks and eaten.
Gotta love how those Russians are willing to drop their space heros onto hard ground.
None of that fancy schmancy airplane lookalike space vehicles for them!
I think that this is a lot of hot air. Apple is so far ahead of anything anyone else in the techn sector that someone copying them is only natural.
Even with the amount of development power available to Microsoft, they have never been able to catch up to Apple, the industry leader. This is not to say that Microsoft is somehow bound by their develpment skill, but rather their creativity.
Apple, in contrast to Microsoft, has taken the bold step of basing their operating system on Unix, which allows them to tap into the vast stores of development resources latent in the IBM/Solaris camps. Microsoft, unyielding, relies on their own developers who are slowly (but rapidly gaining speed) migrating to the more stable Unix-based systems.
I love Steve Jobs, but I think he's a little paranoid here. Losers always copy the winners. It'd be better to take comfort in the comfortable lead that Apple's got, rather than complain about parrots.
I believe it was Voltaire who said that imitation was the sincerest form of flattery.
So is Serenity the movie adaptation of Firefly? Having never seen Firefly, I have to ask what the movie is about.
I've heard that Firefly is the Sci-fi fan's latest wet dream. But not getting Fox up here at the North Pole, I have to wonder what the attraction is.
The link doesn't seem to be working for me.
Microsoft also provided 64-bit Windows NT for Sparc. However, this is their up-to-date operating system ported to a 64-bit arch.
I can't be alone in thinking, "holy shit, is that it?"
The paging table is the least of Window's problems.
This lack of real quality is striking me speechless. I have literally no idea what to say.
I admit it. I like Microsoft. I like a lot of their employees. I like a lot of their products. But to release this. THIS. I can't see how this relatively minor port makes big news. We aren't talking quantum leaps in computing, and that's the problem. For a company with the deep engineering backbone that Microsoft has, each release ought to be earth-shaking.
I sit here shrugging my shoulders and sighing at this release. Even the venerable Steve Jobs could spin this into something much better.
While per megabyte/second it seems very cheap, you have to consider what your internet usage actually is. If you're only using the internet for an hour or two a day (and who among us doesn't?), then this faster speed internet is a lot more expensive than normal slower service. You're paying more, but not using more. That's not a better value, that's getting ripped off.
Even if you had this faster pipe, what would you do with it? Download more porn? Upload more MP3s?
I see the benefit for a fatter pipe for businesses who need to serve up large amounts of data, but for the average user, faster does very little. It's nothing like the jump from dialup to broadband. We are as fast as we need to be. Page downloads are already instantaneous, how can you seriously improve over instantaneous.
This type of tracking system is sorely needed in order to prevent little outbreaks from turning into pandemics. Knowing where the hotspots are and using that information to take measures to prevent the spread of a pathogen is of increasing importance as we become more and more mobile as a species.
However there isn't a way to track some problematic pathogens. For many diseases, there is a political aspect that prevents authorities from excercising their ability to contain the germ. HIV is the most obvious example of a virus that is so inherently related to a specific set of behaviors that it ought to be a simple matter of monitoring infected persons and preventing the disease from spreading. Unfortunately, the bearers of the virus claim that their right to these behaviors trumps the public health and safety risk posed by the virus.
If there were an outbreak of Capt. Tripps, would the government have the political will to actually put all those infected under quarantine, dooming them and essentially stripping them of all human rights, in order to prevent the spread of the disease? They have shown in the past that they are not willing to contain infected groups. What is to say that they will be in the future?