The law itself only says "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one".
On Usenet it has historically (Whow, the early days of Usenet is history now. Man, I'm old.) been used to indicate that a debate thread has become so heated that it no longer serves a useful purpose. When that happens, the thread is declared dead ("Godwin's law! I win!") and whoever made the comparison is considered the loser. It isn't valid to invoke Godwin on purpose, as it has to be a heat of the moment thing for the law to have any meaning.
The sad thing is that, with a bit more openness, Apple could have dealt a serious blow in the functionality arena as well
Definitely. If there is one thing that's really needed in the smartphone market is a proper OS instead of top-heavy embedded OSes like Symbian. I mean, Symbian and WinMobile work but they don't compare to even a scaled down desktop OS. With a good native SDK, Apple would make many 3rd party developers very happy.
Apple ought to covertly help people hack the phone. Personally, I would consider buying it as pocket computer if third party apps could be installed even if that meant not being able to use it as a cell.
If you can manage with a regular stylus instead of multitouch, check out Nokia N800. 802.11b/g, BT2.0, USB2.0, 800x480 screen. Runs Linux.
Including the 2 year service plan? I don't live in the US so can't really check the validity of the comparisons, but those I've seen show the iPhone on par or more expensive than phones like the BB Curve/Pearl and Treo 750.
I would love to know which phones are more valuable in your opinion.
That really depends on what features you want. If GUI isn't important the iPhone is dead in the water. With the iPhone, Apple is doing what Apple does best; make a device that does a few things, and do them well. But in some ways it is also very limited compared to what you expect to find on even a $200 phone.
To give a few examples:
Bluetooth can only be used to connect to a headset or car kit. In many other phones BT can be used to sync and transfer files, connect to other accessories (BT keyboard, GPS,..) and allow the PC to use the phone as a modem.
No MMS. No 3G. No memory slot. And what's the deal with ringtones? The camera is a dime a dozen in the $500 price class, and comes up very short compared to the current king of the hill (N95, 5Mpx and video recording 640x480@30fps). Only way to get pictures off the phone in full quality (email scales it down automatically) is by syncing.
No native 3rd party applications. On my current phone I have for example a SMB client, and am tinkering with an app that makes it look like a BT mouse/keyboard to the PC. No J2ME. While limited, it is the only lingua franca of cell phones and there are lots of apps written for it. AJAX replacements can be written for some, but you can't replace those that require access to the phone APIs (and if, as some have suggested, the object model of the iPhone browser will be expanded to give access to phone features that sounds like ActiveX-style security holes waiting to happen).
Even the web browser isn't unique, the latest Nokia phones also use the webkit rendering/javascript engine. They however don't have the tap/pinch user interface.
That's not to say that the iPhone isn't an interesting product. The thing is gorgeous, and when it comes to UI the traditional phone mfgs definitely have a thing or two to learn from Apple. The iPhone being a success is exactly the kind of wakeup call they need. It is a great iPod and Internet tablet, but as for cramming features into a device the traditional mfgs are better.
So it really comes down to UI vs features/expandability.
What I'd want to see is the 2000th anniversary limited edition DVD with the trinity comment tracks.
JHVH: "And here you see me resting on the seventh day." Jesus: "And you've been resting pretty much ever since, haven't you? You even sent an angel down to do your work when you made me!" JHVH: "Hey, I can rest because I built it properly the first time around. If you make a solid foundation, you don't need to rebuild the house every year." Jesus: "*cough* Noah *cough*"
If you consider that "life" is evidence of God, then you've just replaced one difficult question (how did abiogenesis happen) with a set of other at least as difficult questions (who/what is God, where did he come from and how did he create life).
I wish I could recall how Jodie Foster put it in "Contact".
You thinking of this one?
"I'll tell you one thing about the universe, though. The universe is a pretty big place. It's bigger than anything anyone has ever dreamed of before. So if it's just us... seems like an awful waste of space. Right?"
Sort of Fermi's Paradox in reverse (or perhaps more like glass half-full vs half-empty).
However, it's generally accepted as a license with which you are contractually and legally bound to obey assuming you use or modify the software;
Nope. Nix. False. Most copyright legislations give you the right to install, run and (in some countries) even modify for your own personal use as long as you've lawfully acquired a copy. No license, EULA or otherwise required - although the software industry would like you to think otherwise.
GPL comes into play when redistributing or distributing modifications, not before.
You might want to relax the validation code a bit, since people don't always follow the standards. 3com.com, 3M.com, 31337.com, 53.com...
A quick google turned up rfc1912 which says:
"Allowable characters in a label for a host name are only ASCII
letters, digits, and the `-' character. Labels may not be all
numbers, but may have a leading digit (e.g., 3com.com). Labels must
end and begin only with a letter or digit. See [RFC 1035] and [RFC
1123]. (Labels were initially restricted in [RFC 1035] to start with
a letter, and some older hosts still reportedly have problems with
the relaxation in [RFC 1123].) Note there are some Internet
hostnames which violate this rule (411.org, 1776.com). The presence
of underscores in a label is allowed in [RFC 1033], except [RFC 1033]
is informational only and was not defining a standard."
Not really. The 802.11 MAC was originally designed for short range / indoor use. For long links to work properly, some timeouts need to be relaxed. (if you follow the standard strictly, 802.11a/g runs into problems past 3KM)
Service restart isn't the problem. The problem is copying kernel state.
The kernel holds a lot of information, such as which processes are running, memory allocation, drivers etc. For a true in-place switchover to a new kernel (i.e., all programs keep running as if nothing happened), all that information has to be copied over.
The other option is to load the new kernel image to memory, shut down all processes and unload drivers, jump to new kernel and start a standard initialization. That would be the same as doing a 'shutdown -r', except that the new kernel is loaded by the old kernel instead of by the BIOS.
MS has submitted VC-1 as a standard because they wanted an alternative to h.264 (aka Mpeg4 part 10 and Mpeg4 AVC). Their main selling point was that VC-1 would have lower licensing fees. Unfortunately for them, they underestimated the number of patents held by other companies. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/04/14/microsoft_ vc-1_codec_analysis/
As for MSMPEG4v1/2/3.. MS did originally participate in the MPEG4 process, and during that time they released the MSMPEG4 codecs. Which, as we should be used to by now, did not conform with the final MPEG4 spec. As to why MS called the non-standard codecs 'MPEG4' and why they didn't immediately release a standards compliant codec when MPEG4 was finalized, well.. And when they finally did release a proper ISO MPEG4 part 2 video codec, they decided to only support Simple Profile.
Container formats is also interesting to look at. MS wanted asf to be the container format for mpeg4, but the mpeg4 working group picked Apple's Quicktime container as the basis for.mp4. Now riddle me this - why is the MSMPEG4v3 codec limited to encode to asf files only?
There is more, but I digress. Suffice to say that MS has a history of only providing token support for audio/video standards while at the same time pushing hard on their own proprietary stuff.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes.
The law itself only says "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one".
On Usenet it has historically (Whow, the early days of Usenet is history now. Man, I'm old.) been used to indicate that a debate thread has become so heated that it no longer serves a useful purpose. When that happens, the thread is declared dead ("Godwin's law! I win!") and whoever made the comparison is considered the loser. It isn't valid to invoke Godwin on purpose, as it has to be a heat of the moment thing for the law to have any meaning.
The sad thing is that, with a bit more openness, Apple could have dealt a serious blow in the functionality arena as well
Definitely. If there is one thing that's really needed in the smartphone market is a proper OS instead of top-heavy embedded OSes like Symbian. I mean, Symbian and WinMobile work but they don't compare to even a scaled down desktop OS. With a good native SDK, Apple would make many 3rd party developers very happy.
And no 3 number combination will open *that* luggage. Smart burglars just say no to sapient pearwood.
Apple ought to covertly help people hack the phone. Personally, I would consider buying it as pocket computer if third party apps could be installed even if that meant not being able to use it as a cell.
If you can manage with a regular stylus instead of multitouch, check out Nokia N800. 802.11b/g, BT2.0, USB2.0, 800x480 screen. Runs Linux.
The iPhone literally costs less than $1 per day.
Including the 2 year service plan? I don't live in the US so can't really check the validity of the comparisons, but those I've seen show the iPhone on par or more expensive than phones like the BB Curve/Pearl and Treo 750.
I would love to know which phones are more valuable in your opinion.
That really depends on what features you want. If GUI isn't important the iPhone is dead in the water. With the iPhone, Apple is doing what Apple does best; make a device that does a few things, and do them well. But in some ways it is also very limited compared to what you expect to find on even a $200 phone.
To give a few examples:
Bluetooth can only be used to connect to a headset or car kit. In many other phones BT can be used to sync and transfer files, connect to other accessories (BT keyboard, GPS,..) and allow the PC to use the phone as a modem.
No MMS. No 3G. No memory slot. And what's the deal with ringtones? The camera is a dime a dozen in the $500 price class, and comes up very short compared to the current king of the hill (N95, 5Mpx and video recording 640x480@30fps). Only way to get pictures off the phone in full quality (email scales it down automatically) is by syncing.
No native 3rd party applications. On my current phone I have for example a SMB client, and am tinkering with an app that makes it look like a BT mouse/keyboard to the PC. No J2ME. While limited, it is the only lingua franca of cell phones and there are lots of apps written for it. AJAX replacements can be written for some, but you can't replace those that require access to the phone APIs (and if, as some have suggested, the object model of the iPhone browser will be expanded to give access to phone features that sounds like ActiveX-style security holes waiting to happen).
Even the web browser isn't unique, the latest Nokia phones also use the webkit rendering/javascript engine. They however don't have the tap/pinch user interface.
That's not to say that the iPhone isn't an interesting product. The thing is gorgeous, and when it comes to UI the traditional phone mfgs definitely have a thing or two to learn from Apple. The iPhone being a success is exactly the kind of wakeup call they need. It is a great iPod and Internet tablet, but as for cramming features into a device the traditional mfgs are better.
So it really comes down to UI vs features/expandability.
[Voice = Old Man]
Forgotten all about minicomputers and mainframes, have you?
Get off my LAwN kids!
[/Voice]
What I'd want to see is the 2000th anniversary limited edition DVD with the trinity comment tracks.
JHVH: "And here you see me resting on the seventh day."
Jesus: "And you've been resting pretty much ever since, haven't you? You even sent an angel down to do your work when you made me!"
JHVH: "Hey, I can rest because I built it properly the first time around. If you make a solid foundation, you don't need to rebuild the house every year."
Jesus: "*cough* Noah *cough*"
How about "life"?
If you consider that "life" is evidence of God, then you've just replaced one difficult question (how did abiogenesis happen) with a set of other at least as difficult questions (who/what is God, where did he come from and how did he create life).
I wish I could recall how Jodie Foster put it in "Contact".
You thinking of this one?
"I'll tell you one thing about the universe, though. The universe is a pretty big place. It's bigger than anything anyone has ever dreamed of before. So if it's just us... seems like an awful waste of space. Right?"
Sort of Fermi's Paradox in reverse (or perhaps more like glass half-full vs half-empty).
However, it's generally accepted as a license with which you are contractually and legally bound to obey assuming you use or modify the software;
Nope. Nix. False. Most copyright legislations give you the right to install, run and (in some countries) even modify for your own personal use as long as you've lawfully acquired a copy. No license, EULA or otherwise required - although the software industry would like you to think otherwise.
GPL comes into play when redistributing or distributing modifications, not before.
I find it useful to think of the GPL as neither a contract nor a license, but as a promise not to sue.
I.e. I promise not to sue you for redistribution and making derivative works as long as you do the same.
Jeff Merkey, is that you?
You might want to relax the validation code a bit, since people don't always follow the standards. 3com.com, 3M.com, 31337.com, 53.com...
A quick google turned up rfc1912 which says:
"Allowable characters in a label for a host name are only ASCII
letters, digits, and the `-' character. Labels may not be all
numbers, but may have a leading digit (e.g., 3com.com). Labels must
end and begin only with a letter or digit. See [RFC 1035] and [RFC
1123]. (Labels were initially restricted in [RFC 1035] to start with
a letter, and some older hosts still reportedly have problems with
the relaxation in [RFC 1123].) Note there are some Internet
hostnames which violate this rule (411.org, 1776.com). The presence
of underscores in a label is allowed in [RFC 1033], except [RFC 1033]
is informational only and was not defining a standard."
Not really. The 802.11 MAC was originally designed for short range / indoor use. For long links to work properly, some timeouts need to be relaxed. (if you follow the standard strictly, 802.11a/g runs into problems past 3KM)
So the next social networking game will be 'six shakes of Kevin Bacon'?
Service restart isn't the problem. The problem is copying kernel state.
The kernel holds a lot of information, such as which processes are running, memory allocation, drivers etc. For a true in-place switchover to a new kernel (i.e., all programs keep running as if nothing happened), all that information has to be copied over.
The other option is to load the new kernel image to memory, shut down all processes and unload drivers, jump to new kernel and start a standard initialization. That would be the same as doing a 'shutdown -r', except that the new kernel is loaded by the old kernel instead of by the BIOS.
No it isn't. A watermark is embedded in the media itself.
Dude, use [enter] once in a while.
_ vc-1_codec_analysis/
.mp4. Now riddle me this - why is the MSMPEG4v3 codec limited to encode to asf files only?
MS has submitted VC-1 as a standard because they wanted an alternative to h.264 (aka Mpeg4 part 10 and Mpeg4 AVC). Their main selling point was that VC-1 would have lower licensing fees. Unfortunately for them, they underestimated the number of patents held by other companies. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/04/14/microsoft
As for MSMPEG4v1/2/3.. MS did originally participate in the MPEG4 process, and during that time they released the MSMPEG4 codecs. Which, as we should be used to by now, did not conform with the final MPEG4 spec. As to why MS called the non-standard codecs 'MPEG4' and why they didn't immediately release a standards compliant codec when MPEG4 was finalized, well.. And when they finally did release a proper ISO MPEG4 part 2 video codec, they decided to only support Simple Profile.
Container formats is also interesting to look at. MS wanted asf to be the container format for mpeg4, but the mpeg4 working group picked Apple's Quicktime container as the basis for
There is more, but I digress. Suffice to say that MS has a history of only providing token support for audio/video standards while at the same time pushing hard on their own proprietary stuff.
"Microsoft made the original reference encoder for MPEG-4 (hence the venerable MPEG-4v3 codec)."
The 'reference encoder' that doesn't even manage to output a valid MPEG4 bitstream? My hat off to Microsoft for the way they fragmented MPEG-4 part 2.
So if I'm reading you right, would it be correct to say that h.263 is a subset of Mpeg4 part 2 (SP/ASP)?
The downside of this model is that it eliminates much of the competition. Which is a good thing for the MSes/Adobes of the world I guess.
the owners of Microfiber Screen Wipes INC were seen drinking champagne whilst ordering a LearJet.
Joking aside, kudos to Apple for rethinking the phone UI but touch only?
That's a shame, I was so looking forward to see how Sir Humphrey Appleby would handle Ballmer.
This is the best troll I've read in a long long time. My hat off to you, sir!
See, kids? This is what happens if you watch too much Fox News.