Your reasoning is correct, if you had actually 'bought' Mac OS X. You have not. You have licensed it. Therein lies the rub. That's why they can get away with denial of resale restrictions for instance. The real question is when will 'licensing' vs. purchasing software be adequately tested in court.
I agree. With one caveat. There are FreeBSD based systems, Avid Airspeed for instance. Is a splendid, very powerful playback to air device.
You would be better off spending your budget on something like this, with a support contract, backed by a company that knows what they are doing. Run Linux for everything else. If you are a 'real' tv station, then you cannont contemplate failure in the last hurdle.
Try to bear in mind that running a TV station is not an IT job. It is a broadcast engineering job.
I think it is a fair conclusion to draw that the value the book publisher places on the intact book is far less than the value the publisher places on the content. Otherwise the whole book would be returned.
A friend of mine owned a bookshop. I was in the shop once when her daughter expressed interest in a particular book. The owner took the book off the shelf, tore the cover off and handed it to her: "Here you are. Have it."
Wow, you have no clue about business. For many tech companies today, being bought out replaces "*PROFIT*" as item three on the business plan. Then there are the companies that get bought out and take over the parent company: NeXT for instance - how was that a bad thing for anyone concerned ?..OK, Gil Amelio perhaps, but then he had it coming regardless - and I should be so lucky to "lose" in the way he did.
It's not about winning and losing. It is about business. Losing is when the company goes bankrupt, can't make the payroll and leaves creditors weeping in the streets. "Buy Outs" by definition, avoid this.
Actually, I think it is more likely that companies will change their purchasing policies to exclude Apple and Dell if this remains anything more than a temporary measure.
Funny. He's so 1337 he can't code at night - Honey, that's what caffeine is for... Must be hard typing under the bedcovers after mummy has turned out the lights.
Highly multi-threaded programs are the natural result of certain programming paradigms, such as the actor model.
As an engineer who now concentrates on embedded programming, I can emphatically tell you that just because a programming model looks great on a Turing machine, it does not follow that it is useful on machines constrained by the laws of physics. Indeed the motivation for the actor model was the prospect of massivelly parallel systems: i.e. ones that would effectively have NO context switching since each thread is running on a seperate execution unit (and ideally one where message passing is free). NT/x86 would suck almost as badly.
Bullshit.
Calm down man. I'm practically agreeing with you.
Virtual memory isn't implemented any more crudely in x86/NT than it is in OS X/PPC. The "crude" implementation certainly isn't a performance advantage. Indeed, x86 lacks many of the features that other architectures have for implementing fast context switches. For example, a context switch on x86 results in a TLB flush, because x86 lacks support for tagged TLBs.
Well, perhaps this is a matter of taste. I don't think that the kernel is the right place for a window manager. I prefer OS X's true seperation of process address space, rather than NT's "low 2GB reserved for kernel" business. However, I'll grant you that NT's implementation is faster...it's also more prone to catastrophic failure. Yup, mach IPC is slow, but as a fan of the actor model, why should you care ? The point is, you have strong protection between processes. Sometimes you get away with invalid memory access on NT that ALWAYS cause acc-vios on OS X. I really do think that NT's model is more crude, for instance, kernel threads having to worry about the user mode context that they are executing in...just not an issue on OS X...on multiprocessor systems you have to worry MUCH less about which processor you are executing on...sure there's a performance cost, but surely the Mach approach is more elegant and useful to the programmer. How many times have you seen NT code that locks threads to a particular processor ? How many times have I had to do that on OS X ? Zero...
Again, not that this is really a problem on the desktop, but I never claimed that it was. OS X is an excellent desktop OS with very good performance for desktop apps. It just so happens that the performance of the underlying kernel is largely irrelevent for desktop apps, so you can get away with a pretty shitty kernel (which Darwin is), as long as you have good userspace libraries (fast toolkits, etc).
I pretty much agree with you. Although I'm not sure I'd call the kernel shitty, or if it is, it is just shitty in a different way than NT: Darwin: elegant/slow, NT: inelegant/fast
OK, I think I get your point now, and you are correct in a fairly narrow use case: cases where context switching is a more significant cost, than other factors, and that means essentially server applications that spawn VERY large numbers of threads. Yup, user mode threads a-la OS X have lower performance than say linux kernel threads. On the other hand, they're much less likely to take your machine down if used innapropriately.
For typical desktop situations, I dispute your claim: no one should be writing real world desktop applications that spawn huge numbers of threads.
Overall, the benefit of a threading API, is not merely the implementation, it is also the convenience and protection it offers the programmer. I don't believe that applications with, say, tens of threads are significantly poorer performers on OS X than NT (especially with true SMP PPC systems vs. multicore x86). Indeed there's a reason why NT threads can switch faster, and that is largely due to the crude implementation of virtual memory.
Erm, can you explain this: behind NT, Solaris, AIX, HP-UX, Linux, BeOS, and FreeBSD.
By my reckoning, that's one proprietory threading model: NT, five POSIX implementations, and one that is pretty much POSIX: BeOS. And, the threading API that anyone with any sense uses on OS X, is of course, also POSIX.
For that matter, I write threaded code for NT (alright XP), Linux and OS X. The windows API sucks, as does it's implementation, it's a hack. Linux and OS X are much better both in implementation, code portability and cleanliness of API.
You know what ? I ported (made cross platform) a shitload of Windows code to OS X. OS X's well thought out threading model, and cleaner vm system fixed a whole bunch of corner case bugs in the Windows code. Bugs that would cause a bluescreen once in a blue moon on the PC were either fixed by adopting the better threading model, or caused errors immediately on the MAC.
"Imagine someone builds a lighthouse," argued Psiaki. "And I've gone by and see how often the light flashes and measured where the coordinates are. Can the owner charge me a licensing fee for looking at the light?... No. How is looking at the Galileo satellite any different?"
If DirecTV have the gall to flood my rooftop with radio waves, how can it be illegal for me to decrypt them ?
Can anyone point me to a service that will cut out all the non-naughty bits from movies and just supply the naughty bits ? Did the judge rule on the legality of this ?
Thank you for that Hohfeld link. Most interesting and thought provoking thing I have read recently. Admittedly, I've been concentrating on embedded processor data sheets recently, but still, props.
Well, the exchange rate is rapidly eroding the benefit of higher a higher US wage.
I'd be interested to know what you count as the 'social costs'. I recently moved back to the UK from the US, and frankly regret it. I earn more than I did in the US, but my standard of living is vastly lower: my house is half the size and cost more than my US one, I can't believe how bad the NHS has become in my absence. The health care alone is enough to guarantee we'll move back ASAP.
Then again, I lived in 'Taxachusetts' we had a good (for the US) education system, fabulous health care provision and (for the US) a pretty liberal politcal environment.
I'd say that if you can live without decent beer, bread, cheese, television, the British sense of humour, dont mind paying $20 for a bottle of marmite and work in the tech sector, I guarantee that you would have a higher standard of living in the US.
Except that this is an 'End User License Agreement' not an 'End User Sale Agreement' The difference, from Apple's point of view, is everything. The further difficulty under English Law is that Post Priori conditions on contracts are invalid. If for instance a receipt had a condition printed on it that was not made evident to you before purchased the item, that condition is meaningless.
The question is, did you buy or license the OS ?
UK consumer protection rocks by the way. By law anything sold has to be fit for the purpose and should have a reasonable lifespan. Most electronics are sold with a '12 month guarantee. Your statutory rights are unaffected' What that means is for 12 months you get an easy ride, after that you still have comeback if the goods could reasonably be expected to last longer than that. Sadly few retailers pretend to understand this, and may need reminding from the trading standards authorities. But it does work for the persistent.
Exactly. A phone transmitting "silence" is essentially transmitting a periodic "I'm still here" signal. The power output averaged over time is miniscule compared with continuous transmission of audio, or GPRS data for that matter.
You are correct. In essence transmitted power is variable with respect to distance from the cell tower: which is a function of the received signal strength. How that conflicts with what I said, though, baffles me. Unless the experiment is happening in a moving vehicle, the power output, FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES, is constant.
FM modulation is relevant since the same cannot be said of Amplitude Modulation. Which I presume is what confused the parent poster. AM output power, by definition, varies in proportion to the input signal.
A funny thing I noted is the "if you're giving a strong (audio) input the phone will emit with more power"... come on, this would be true with pure analog phones, but GSM is not and that make this claim plain wrong
Erm, not true. Analog phone are Frequency Modulated, power output is, for all intents and purposes, constant during transmit. The purpose of the radio is to ensure that both phones are transmitting continuously: a digital phone transmitting "silence" will have a much lower signal to noise ratio, and therefore less power output.
Excuse me while my head assplodes: the US is bogged down in a thankless war in Iraq because Clinton got a blowjob ? If there are prizes for right wing lunacy, then you deserve one.
You know, things happen for a reason [...] But all the Clinton supporters STILL will not face this fact
I think that there is a fairly straightforward reason why most people get blowjobs...when you've had one perhaps you'll understand why. I'll give you a clue: it has nothing to do with what Bush is doing. Indeed, I honestly believe that if Bush got a few more blowjobs, we'd all be better off.
Erm, I really don't think that Irish terrorism went away when international communism went away. If it has gone away, it is surely for two reasons: a British government willing to put "principles" aside and negotiate with terrorists and a population weary of living under terrorism. Just as in Northern Ireland, America's problem with terrorism will not not go away until politicians are able to address the social and political causes of terrorism. The "keep shooting until there are no terrorists left" approach will not work.
Slashdot Mirror
No need for slavery: minimum wage, no unions and no healthcare is much cheaper.
Nickel_and_Dimed
Your reasoning is correct, if you had actually 'bought' Mac OS X. You have not. You have licensed it. Therein lies the rub. That's why they can get away with denial of resale restrictions for instance.
The real question is when will 'licensing' vs. purchasing software be adequately tested in court.
I agree. With one caveat. There are FreeBSD based systems, Avid Airspeed for instance. Is a splendid, very powerful playback to air device. You would be better off spending your budget on something like this, with a support contract, backed by a company that knows what they are doing. Run Linux for everything else. If you are a 'real' tv station, then you cannont contemplate failure in the last hurdle. Try to bear in mind that running a TV station is not an IT job. It is a broadcast engineering job.
I think it is a fair conclusion to draw that the value the book publisher places on the intact book is far less than the value the publisher places on the content. Otherwise the whole book would be returned.
A friend of mine owned a bookshop. I was in the shop once when her daughter expressed interest in a particular book. The owner took the book off the shelf, tore the cover off and handed it to her: "Here you are. Have it."
Sadly I never benefitted from this retail model.
Wow, you have no clue about business. For many tech companies today, being bought out replaces "*PROFIT*" as item three on the business plan.
Then there are the companies that get bought out and take over the parent company: NeXT for instance - how was that a bad thing for anyone concerned ?..OK, Gil Amelio perhaps, but then he had it coming regardless - and I should be so lucky to "lose" in the way he did.
It's not about winning and losing. It is about business. Losing is when the company goes bankrupt, can't make the payroll and leaves creditors weeping in the streets. "Buy Outs" by definition, avoid this.
Actually, I think it is more likely that companies will change their purchasing policies to exclude Apple and Dell if this remains anything more than a temporary measure.
You do.
Funny. He's so 1337 he can't code at night - Honey, that's what caffeine is for...
Must be hard typing under the bedcovers after mummy has turned out the lights.
Since when has doing 60 in a 55 zone been "violent crmie" ?
As an engineer who now concentrates on embedded programming, I can emphatically tell you that just because a programming model looks great on a Turing machine, it does not follow that it is useful on machines constrained by the laws of physics. Indeed the motivation for the actor model was the prospect of massivelly parallel systems: i.e. ones that would effectively have NO context switching since each thread is running on a seperate execution unit (and ideally one where message passing is free). NT/x86 would suck almost as badly.
Bullshit.
Calm down man. I'm practically agreeing with you.
Virtual memory isn't implemented any more crudely in x86/NT than it is in OS X/PPC. The "crude" implementation certainly isn't a performance advantage. Indeed, x86 lacks many of the features that other architectures have for implementing fast context switches. For example, a context switch on x86 results in a TLB flush, because x86 lacks support for tagged TLBs.
Well, perhaps this is a matter of taste. I don't think that the kernel is the right place for a window manager. I prefer OS X's true seperation of process address space, rather than NT's "low 2GB reserved for kernel" business. However, I'll grant you that NT's implementation is faster...it's also more prone to catastrophic failure. Yup, mach IPC is slow, but as a fan of the actor model, why should you care ? The point is, you have strong protection between processes. Sometimes you get away with invalid memory access on NT that ALWAYS cause acc-vios on OS X. I really do think that NT's model is more crude, for instance, kernel threads having to worry about the user mode context that they are executing in...just not an issue on OS X...on multiprocessor systems you have to worry MUCH less about which processor you are executing on...sure there's a performance cost, but surely the Mach approach is more elegant and useful to the programmer. How many times have you seen NT code that locks threads to a particular processor ? How many times have I had to do that on OS X ? Zero...
Again, not that this is really a problem on the desktop, but I never claimed that it was. OS X is an excellent desktop OS with very good performance for desktop apps. It just so happens that the performance of the underlying kernel is largely irrelevent for desktop apps, so you can get away with a pretty shitty kernel (which Darwin is), as long as you have good userspace libraries (fast toolkits, etc).
I pretty much agree with you. Although I'm not sure I'd call the kernel shitty, or if it is, it is just shitty in a different way than NT: Darwin: elegant/slow, NT: inelegant/fast
Cheers, and goodnight.
OK, I think I get your point now, and you are correct in a fairly narrow use case: cases where context switching is a more significant cost, than other factors, and that means essentially server applications that spawn VERY large numbers of threads. Yup, user mode threads a-la OS X have lower performance than say linux kernel threads. On the other hand, they're much less likely to take your machine down if used innapropriately.
For typical desktop situations, I dispute your claim: no one should be writing real world desktop applications that spawn huge numbers of threads.
Overall, the benefit of a threading API, is not merely the implementation, it is also the convenience and protection it offers the programmer. I don't believe that applications with, say, tens of threads are significantly poorer performers on OS X than NT (especially with true SMP PPC systems vs. multicore x86). Indeed there's a reason why NT threads can switch faster, and that is largely due to the crude implementation of virtual memory.
By my reckoning, that's one proprietory threading model: NT, five POSIX implementations, and one that is pretty much POSIX: BeOS.
And, the threading API that anyone with any sense uses on OS X, is of course, also POSIX.
For that matter, I write threaded code for NT (alright XP), Linux and OS X. The windows API sucks, as does it's implementation, it's a hack.
Linux and OS X are much better both in implementation, code portability and cleanliness of API.
You know what ? I ported (made cross platform) a shitload of Windows code to OS X. OS X's well thought out threading model, and cleaner vm system fixed a whole bunch of corner case bugs in the Windows code. Bugs that would cause a bluescreen once in a blue moon on the PC were either fixed by adopting the better threading model, or caused errors immediately on the MAC.
"Imagine someone builds a lighthouse," argued Psiaki. "And I've gone by and see how often the light flashes and measured where the coordinates are. Can the owner charge me a licensing fee for looking at the light? ... No. How is looking at the Galileo satellite any different?"
If DirecTV have the gall to flood my rooftop with radio waves, how can it be illegal for me to decrypt them ?
Can anyone point me to a service that will cut out all the non-naughty bits from movies and just supply the naughty bits ? Did the judge rule on the legality of this ?
Thank you for that Hohfeld link. Most interesting and thought provoking thing I have read recently. Admittedly, I've been concentrating on embedded processor data sheets recently, but still, props.
Well, the exchange rate is rapidly eroding the benefit of higher a higher US wage.
I'd be interested to know what you count as the 'social costs'. I recently moved back to the UK from the US, and frankly regret it. I earn more than I did in the US, but my standard of living is vastly lower: my house is half the size and cost more than my US one, I can't believe how bad the NHS has become in my absence. The health care alone is enough to guarantee we'll move back ASAP.
Then again, I lived in 'Taxachusetts' we had a good (for the US) education system, fabulous health care provision and (for the US) a pretty liberal politcal environment.
I'd say that if you can live without decent beer, bread, cheese, television, the British sense of humour, dont mind paying $20 for a bottle of marmite and work in the tech sector, I guarantee that you would have a higher standard of living in the US.
Ah yes, the Internet, where SCOTUS reigns supreme.
Sadly there's not much weight given to SCOTUS decisions in UK trading standards decisions.
Except that this is an 'End User License Agreement' not an 'End User Sale Agreement' The difference, from Apple's point of view, is everything.
The further difficulty under English Law is that Post Priori conditions on contracts are invalid. If for instance a receipt had a condition printed on it that was not made evident to you before purchased the item, that condition is meaningless.
The question is, did you buy or license the OS ?
UK consumer protection rocks by the way. By law anything sold has to be fit for the purpose and should have a reasonable lifespan. Most electronics are sold with a '12 month guarantee. Your statutory rights are unaffected' What that means is for 12 months you get an easy ride, after that you still have comeback if the goods could reasonably be expected to last longer than that. Sadly few retailers pretend to understand this, and may need reminding from the trading standards authorities. But it does work for the persistent.
Exactly. A phone transmitting "silence" is essentially transmitting a periodic "I'm still here" signal. The power output averaged over time is miniscule compared with continuous transmission of audio, or GPRS data for that matter.
You are correct. In essence transmitted power is variable with respect to distance from the cell tower: which is a function of the received signal strength. How that conflicts with what I said, though, baffles me. Unless the experiment is happening in a moving vehicle, the power output, FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES, is constant.
FM modulation is relevant since the same cannot be said of Amplitude Modulation. Which I presume is what confused the parent poster. AM output power, by definition, varies in proportion to the input signal.
A funny thing I noted is the "if you're giving a strong (audio) input the phone will emit with more power" ... come on, this would be true with pure analog phones, but GSM is not and that make this claim plain wrong
Erm, not true. Analog phone are Frequency Modulated, power output is, for all intents and purposes, constant during transmit. The purpose of the radio is to ensure that both phones are transmitting continuously: a digital phone transmitting "silence" will have a much lower signal to noise ratio, and therefore less power output.
Excuse me while my head assplodes: the US is bogged down in a thankless war in Iraq because Clinton got a blowjob ?
If there are prizes for right wing lunacy, then you deserve one.
You know, things happen for a reason [...] But all the Clinton supporters STILL will not face this fact
I think that there is a fairly straightforward reason why most people get blowjobs...when you've had one perhaps you'll understand why. I'll give you a clue: it has nothing to do with what Bush is doing. Indeed, I honestly believe that if Bush got a few more blowjobs, we'd all be better off.
Erm, I really don't think that Irish terrorism went away when international communism went away. If it has gone away, it is surely for two reasons: a British government willing to put "principles" aside and negotiate with terrorists and a population weary of living under terrorism. Just as in Northern Ireland, America's problem with terrorism will not not go away until politicians are able to address the social and political causes of terrorism. The "keep shooting until there are no terrorists left" approach will not work.
This can't be the same plan. This document seems to think that invading Iraq is a good idea.
s/perogative/prerogative/