I'm too lazy to provide links but they're readilly available through simple googling around Mac related news sites, like MacSurfer.com.
Anyhow, there's some litigation that's brought up by some Apple resellers as to how Apple handles it's accounting regarding it's own Apple stores.
It would seem that Apple basically hands Apple software to their AppleStore for the mere cost of shipping so that the stores can boost it's revenu figures by racking all the profits under it's balance sheet.
Not like a big scandal (it's the same back account anyhow), but this might prove that although then entire operation is successful, once the big Apple factored out, suggests that the stores themselves might not do that good on their own.
The plot of the story was that one of these robots made it into a large population of robots with all three laws and Susan Calvin had to sort it out (while of course saying that these lesser roboticists were morons for creating robots without the first law). You're referring to "Isaac Asimov's Caliban", actually written by Roger MacBride Allen. Also, there's no presence of Suzan "mega dry" Calvin in there.
It's a frickin' good think Asimov is dead because this movie would turn this pacific jovial mass that he was into one hell of an angry non-kosher ruskie.
The trailer shows one trashy script that has not much to do with any of the short stories in the I Robot book.
Alas. I thought we'd have something good of Asimov on screen. Bicentennial Man was OK. But I Robots should have deserved something better than what the trailer suggest.
And where's Caves of steel?? Help us Cameron! Ridley Scott!
Regardless if you like them or not, weither they need your money or not and weither you have pity or not for MicroSoft, no software developer should be punished by pirating their work.
If you dont support MS, then fine. Don't buy their product. But using their product (pirated or otherwise rented where legal), you're just indirectly supporting them by telling your friends and relations that it's OK to send you MS -formated documents (Word, XCell etc). You're not accomplishing much, in a show of disapproving their products or business model, by using their products.
The best protest you can make is categorically not using their stuff, and returning send documents to the sender and asking them to save it as an open format (RTF or PDF to name just two).
I don't use any MS product--even those that came with my Macs (including but not limited to Explorer) for this precise reason. For those very rare occasion where I simply can't escape it, I resort to an open source product that can read or convert said documents.
If I say that you are a troll who is making overbroad generalisations without backing them up with even a single example, and attempting to abuse the moderation system with ultra-lame reverse psychology then, I'd be right, but it wouldn't really help anything.
Of course I was trolling. But even trolls can be right at times. This time, I was labeled a troll because I directly pinned the workmanship of thousands of Linux developers. I'd say the overall usability of Linux, as far as functionality goes, is fine. But the packaging really sucks, as far as end users are concerned.
What is your suggestion?
I don't claim to have analysed all the needs. Besides, every distro (so many by now) all have their own package sets and intricate diversities. The one and first thing that, I think, should be worked on at this point is a standardisation of an installer package; and NO, neither Fink or other package managers should be considered descent user interface. Gee. Just trying to figure out what needs to be installed in order to use something is a pain. Want Foo.app? One should be able to install it with an installer that has a predictable interface and click one (two, three at most) buttons and have the dang thing installed. Libraries and runtime support? Either distribute along, or make the installer download and install them. Right now, you require intimate knowledge of Linux to accomplish any descent administration of your machine.
Give Linux a simple installer (for both the OS and applications), and you'll have made it much better. Give it a simpler interface, cutting down of featuritus, and you'll have a rocking OS.
MS has always had a field at copying Apple for a number of UI issues. What they do is copy the paint job of the OS. But when it somes to it's internals, it's a whole damn mess.
Instead of doing the same, Linux could start copying what Apple does under the hood. Check out, for example, Panther's preference panels. They're amazingly simple, and shield the user from much more complexity.
There was another comment in this thread about BeOS. When they started out (I nearly bought a BeBox--they were cool), they had some things right. Their database file system was the first real inovation in file systems in eons. Their interface was pure boredom--just the same as anyone else. Their API was nicer, though, than anything widely available. Usability was pretty high in BeOS. Installation a breeze.
No, I think we should make Linux better than Windows. Look at the steps necessary to adjust resolution, bit depth and refresh rates of a monitor on Windows. It's ridiculous. Thing is, it's no more rosy on Linux. OpenOffice (and friends) are nice clones of MS Office. But they're just that: clones that have as much uselessness and screen-cluttering palettes and widgets that just get in the way. There's no reason to implement clones that improve on usability. One case to the point: the moderation to my post. Any time someone points out any Linux flaw (in this case, usability), it's gets vehement responses. That's linux. Compare telling a Mac user (me) he's an idiot for having chosen a platform with only one mouse button.
That's true of any new job, and does not necessarily involves job recruitment companies.
I work in Montreal, in a company that, before being bought by a big US multi-national, was doing OK when one of our co-workers was lured at ZeroKnowledge. Remember them?
Months later, he had ZeroEmployment.
The company he feared was going down is now a multi-national and he's out of the loop.
Anti-US sentiment is rife, even in those countries whose governments had backed the US invasion of Iraq: In Britain 85 percent were opposed to war, In Australia it was over 80 percent and in Spain it was over 90 percent, and most of those in opposition were highly critical of Bush's motives. It turns out that they (and the rest of the World) were right to be.
One of the problem is that the American public took this anti-US sentiment personally. As much as I can tell (from my part of the world, and people I chat to in Europe), it's not a sentiment against the citizens of the US. but ratter it's current government, and also the American media.
Most US citizens get their news from US-only news sources. Worse of all, CNN. You wouldn't believe how toned-down US newscasts are comparatively to other news sources.
Have more complex/complete single-cycle instructions. Create better instruction scheduling pipes (aka, on the fly reordering of instruction for optimisation in the many sub cores of a single processor, like instruction units, integer units and floating point units)
But this really depends on the processor itself. You'll find a lot of differences between a PowerPC 970 (aka, G5) and an AMD 64. So much that you can make any benchmark say pretty much anything. What really counts is the processor's performance and it's ability to communicate outside of it's silicon. If the G5 can cream many machines that are inherently faster (Mghz wise), it's because it's main bus runs faster than most system (1/2 processor speed, in the case of my G5, the bus runs at 1Ghz while most high-end PCs top at 800Mghz--and you pay a hefty premium for that).
The average number of cycles typical instructions require also account for a lot. A G4 will require a single cycle in most operations whereas a P4 will require up to 7. That slows the end result.
IBM did release publicly the Common Hardware Reference Platform, also known as CHRP
That upcoming (we're told...) Amiga thing is loosely based on this. But there are a number of commercially available mother boards based on CHRP, including a Linux vendor. Ports are available.
AppleScript, through it's scripting roots, is often and wrongfully associated with scripting the system.
While this is still true, AppleScript has evolved into something much more useful: small application and application prototyping.
There was a tool, FaceSpawn, that started it it all. Just like Visual Basic on Windows (and now, RealBasic on Mac), it allowed the creation of complete applications, UI and all, with AppleScript as a back-end.
Apple leveraged this idea with AppleScript Studio, wich is now rolled into XCode.
Basically, you use Interface Builder to create your UI, with the same widgets and capabilities a Cocoa would (and unlike Carbon-based Interface Builder NIB files).
Basically, XCode allows you to create complete AppleScript applications that are actually hosted by a Cocoa application. Therefore allowing you to mesh both languages (and runtime environment) into a single executable. Similarly, this also allows regular Cocoa applications to have AppleScripts embedded in their UI.
Easy and powerful scripting and application programming for the masses.
And if this isn't enough for your typical Unix geek, just pipe your AppleScripts to the BSD command line with scripts like
Slashdot Mirror
Pff. Looser! I'll just steel one myself.
hope i can score some cheap shit!
Yeah. Cheap shit.
I'm too lazy to provide links but they're readilly available through simple googling around Mac related news sites, like MacSurfer.com.
Anyhow, there's some litigation that's brought up by some Apple resellers as to how Apple handles it's accounting regarding it's own Apple stores.
It would seem that Apple basically hands Apple software to their AppleStore for the mere cost of shipping so that the stores can boost it's revenu figures by racking all the profits under it's balance sheet.
Not like a big scandal (it's the same back account anyhow), but this might prove that although then entire operation is successful, once the big Apple factored out, suggests that the stores themselves might not do that good on their own.
Giving away the source code of HyperCard would give away the back-end to AppleScript's OSA architecture. It's not something they want to do.
Not that cloning this is not feasible, it's "safer" for Apple to keep it shush.
First fool!
(I actually believed it)
Besides, the government already has a thing for suing Microsoft and winning
Winning? You call that winning?
We wouldn't want to let them know that there's extramartian intelligence just yet
I think we covered our tracks pretty well on that with Beagle 2, Surveyor 98, Amundsen & Scott, Phobos, Mars Observer, Zond 2 and countless others.
How many companies these days are willing to drop money into some technology that may not turn a profit for many years?
Judging from the Windows market share, I'd say a lot.
It sounds like these robots had the same problem as HAL in 2001... ...just about 25 years before.
The plot of the story was that one of these robots made it into a large population of robots with all three laws and Susan Calvin had to sort it out (while of course saying that these lesser roboticists were morons for creating robots without the first law).
You're referring to "Isaac Asimov's Caliban", actually written by Roger MacBride Allen. Also, there's no presence of Suzan "mega dry" Calvin in there.
It's a frickin' good think Asimov is dead because this movie would turn this pacific jovial mass that he was into one hell of an angry non-kosher ruskie.
The trailer shows one trashy script that has not much to do with any of the short stories in the I Robot book.
Alas. I thought we'd have something good of Asimov on screen. Bicentennial Man was OK. But I Robots should have deserved something better than what the trailer suggest.
And where's Caves of steel?? Help us Cameron! Ridley Scott!
Regardless if you like them or not, weither they need your money or not and weither you have pity or not for MicroSoft, no software developer should be punished by pirating their work.
If you dont support MS, then fine. Don't buy their product. But using their product (pirated or otherwise rented where legal), you're just indirectly supporting them by telling your friends and relations that it's OK to send you MS -formated documents (Word, XCell etc). You're not accomplishing much, in a show of disapproving their products or business model, by using their products.
The best protest you can make is categorically not using their stuff, and returning send documents to the sender and asking them to save it as an open format (RTF or PDF to name just two).
I don't use any MS product--even those that came with my Macs (including but not limited to Explorer) for this precise reason. For those very rare occasion where I simply can't escape it, I resort to an open source product that can read or convert said documents.
Act, on your beliefs.
If I say that you are a troll who is making overbroad generalisations without backing them up with even a single example, and attempting to abuse the moderation system with ultra-lame reverse psychology then, I'd be right, but it wouldn't really help anything.
Of course I was trolling. But even trolls can be right at times. This time, I was labeled a troll because I directly pinned the workmanship of thousands of Linux developers.
I'd say the overall usability of Linux, as far as functionality goes, is fine. But the packaging really sucks, as far as end users are concerned.
What is your suggestion?
I don't claim to have analysed all the needs. Besides, every distro (so many by now) all have their own package sets and intricate diversities.
The one and first thing that, I think, should be worked on at this point is a standardisation of an installer package; and NO, neither Fink or other package managers should be considered descent user interface. Gee. Just trying to figure out what needs to be installed in order to use something is a pain.
Want Foo.app? One should be able to install it with an installer that has a predictable interface and click one (two, three at most) buttons and have the dang thing installed. Libraries and runtime support? Either distribute along, or make the installer download and install them.
Right now, you require intimate knowledge of Linux to accomplish any descent administration of your machine.
Give Linux a simple installer (for both the OS and applications), and you'll have made it much better. Give it a simpler interface, cutting down of featuritus, and you'll have a rocking OS.
MS has always had a field at copying Apple for a number of UI issues. What they do is copy the paint job of the OS. But when it somes to it's internals, it's a whole damn mess.
Instead of doing the same, Linux could start copying what Apple does under the hood. Check out, for example, Panther's preference panels. They're amazingly simple, and shield the user from much more complexity.
There was another comment in this thread about BeOS. When they started out (I nearly bought a BeBox--they were cool), they had some things right. Their database file system was the first real inovation in file systems in eons. Their interface was pure boredom--just the same as anyone else. Their API was nicer, though, than anything widely available. Usability was pretty high in BeOS. Installation a breeze.
This is what Linux should shoot at.
No, I think we should make Linux better than Windows.
Look at the steps necessary to adjust resolution, bit depth and refresh rates of a monitor on Windows. It's ridiculous.
Thing is, it's no more rosy on Linux.
OpenOffice (and friends) are nice clones of MS Office. But they're just that: clones that have as much uselessness and screen-cluttering palettes and widgets that just get in the way.
There's no reason to implement clones that improve on usability.
One case to the point: the moderation to my post. Any time someone points out any Linux flaw (in this case, usability), it's gets vehement responses.
That's linux. Compare telling a Mac user (me) he's an idiot for having chosen a platform with only one mouse button.
Every-time someone mentions the poor usability of Linux, they get maimed.
Witness moderation to this post.
Linux sucks as far as end user are concerned. The UI is clumsy at best in most cases, or tries so much to be like Windows that it fails to be better.
Installation and administration is pissy.
Dont get me wrong. It's a good OS. But you can't force it down userland without them bitching about it. At least for now.
PowerBooks are already cooled by heat collectors and gaz pipes, wich is far more efficient at moving heat than by using a heat-generating water pump.
That's true of any new job, and does not necessarily involves job recruitment companies.
I work in Montreal, in a company that, before being bought by a big US multi-national, was doing OK when one of our co-workers was lured at ZeroKnowledge. Remember them?
Months later, he had ZeroEmployment.
The company he feared was going down is now a multi-national and he's out of the loop.
Sometimes, your worse enemy is yourself.
Anti-US sentiment is rife, even in those countries whose governments had backed the US invasion of Iraq: In Britain 85 percent were opposed to war, In Australia it was over 80 percent and in Spain it was over 90 percent, and most of those in opposition were highly critical of Bush's motives. It turns out that they (and the rest of the World) were right to be.
One of the problem is that the American public took this anti-US sentiment personally. As much as I can tell (from my part of the world, and people I chat to in Europe), it's not a sentiment against the citizens of the US. but ratter it's current government, and also the American media.
Most US citizens get their news from US-only news sources. Worse of all, CNN. You wouldn't believe how toned-down US newscasts are comparatively to other news sources.
Plans include firing hypervelocity rods from space to targets on the ground
Fuhk 'em rods! Let's throw the entire ISS down!
Just load up Canadarm with Eric Gagne software and WhAm!
Oh wait. That would consist mostly a Canadian weapon with with an international bullet. An American one if we throw Hubbles first.
- More more data at once.
But this really depends on the processor itself. You'll find a lot of differences between a PowerPC 970 (aka, G5) and an AMD 64. So much that you can make any benchmark say pretty much anything.Have more complex/complete single-cycle instructions.
Create better instruction scheduling pipes (aka, on the fly reordering of instruction for optimisation in the many sub cores of a single processor, like instruction units, integer units and floating point units)
What really counts is the processor's performance and it's ability to communicate outside of it's silicon. If the G5 can cream many machines that are inherently faster (Mghz wise), it's because it's main bus runs faster than most system (1/2 processor speed, in the case of my G5, the bus runs at 1Ghz while most high-end PCs top at 800Mghz--and you pay a hefty premium for that).
The average number of cycles typical instructions require also account for a lot. A G4 will require a single cycle in most operations whereas a P4 will require up to 7. That slows the end result.
IBM did release publicly the Common Hardware Reference Platform, also known as CHRP
That upcoming (we're told...) Amiga thing is loosely based on this. But there are a number of commercially available mother boards based on CHRP, including a Linux vendor. Ports are available.
Forget THAT.
I'm waiting for this!
Pure Asimov... gawwhh... next best thing to a Caves of Steel movie.
My Apple Lisa 2 (aka, Mac XL) dated 1984 had that feature.
The Lisa 2 machine was the first to come out, alont with the original 128k Mac, with those 3 inch floppies. both had auto-insert detection features.
Besides, any VHS player would fall into that category. Inserting a broken-tab VHS tape into a player automatically triggers a Play command.
Also, inserting a coin into a Vib-O-Matic bed automatically starts up the mating process.
Coupons.
While this is still true, AppleScript has evolved into something much more useful: small application and application prototyping.
There was a tool, FaceSpawn, that started it it all. Just like Visual Basic on Windows (and now, RealBasic on Mac), it allowed the creation of complete applications, UI and all, with AppleScript as a back-end.
Apple leveraged this idea with AppleScript Studio, wich is now rolled into XCode.
Basically, you use Interface Builder to create your UI, with the same widgets and capabilities a Cocoa would (and unlike Carbon-based Interface Builder NIB files).
Basically, XCode allows you to create complete AppleScript applications that are actually hosted by a Cocoa application. Therefore allowing you to mesh both languages (and runtime environment) into a single executable. Similarly, this also allows regular Cocoa applications to have AppleScripts embedded in their UI.
Easy and powerful scripting and application programming for the masses.
And if this isn't enough for your typical Unix geek, just pipe your AppleScripts to the BSD command line with scripts likeand voila.