Unlikely, unless VMWare decides to emulate the hardware that is going to restrict OS X to Apple x86 hardware. A move that would certainly get them sued into oblivion both civilly and criminally. The DMCA makes it a crime to emulate a proprietary piece of hardware designed to handle the piracy of the OS.
I doubt just because News Corp. (not Fox News, you shmuck) wants to own a highly successful site that has millions of people looking at it per day so they can plaster 20th Century Fox (the movie studio) and Fox (the tv network) ads all over it that they'll seriously start claiming they own everything that every user posts on the site. That's quite simply ludicris and they'd be violating many laws when they did it. The nature of that crime makes it pretty easy to hold them responsible for. So take off your tin-foil hat please.
Um. Ok, clarify something for me then.. you say this:
I've released my first novel Star Dragon online under CC. It's a real, published novel, still available in hardback and paperback, by Tor, a major U.S. publisher of science fiction and fantasy. No one can distribute my book under "fair use" copyright law, because it wouldn't be, and certainly commercial distribution is right out.
How is this different from a regular copyright? Everything you said in that sentence has nothing CC specific that I can tell.
You even admit that your book is already covered by copyright without you having to do anything whatsoever. So, my question is: Whats the need for CC?
Re:Why haven't I heard of the 5th most popular sit
on
Fox to Purchase Myspace
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Perhaps you've not heard of the "Social Networking" catagory?
The point is you have a large site with thousands and thousands of members and then have those members "mingle" with each other and prominately display their connections.
Yes, it is a bit high school.. but the reason why it's the fifth most popular site: because it's huge among high schoolers.
But it does serve it's purpose I guess. Now, if only they could a) afford decent programmers and b) stop loading the site up with flash animations that suck my cpu dry.
This doesn't have anything to do with security. They're not taking your fingerprint at all, and even if they were I don't think they'd be comparing it against fingerprints of known terrorists.
This is just a fuzzy form of authentication. Other people are bound to have the same hand measurements as you but it's unlikely they your friend or family member will have something close.
They've been using this for a while now. The point of it is to prevent other people from using your ticket, even if you're not even using it that particular day. The multi-day tickets have had "Non-transferable" written on them since practically the beginning of time. This is finally a way to enforce it.
I think it's really a shame that it's come to this. Does Disney _really_ need the extra revenue that comes from not allowing people to use other people's ticket? Most people think when they buy the ticket that they're buying X days in the park. You're not, you're buying X days in the park for you. Now, they're really driving the point home.
To put it another way, it costs Disney the same for a 3-day ticket whether or not you personally use all 3 days or if you lend/give it to another person. The difference now is that they're forcing the other person to buy another ticket instead of using unused days of another ticket.
Anyway, I was there in February this year. I had a ticket left over from the end of 2001. I still had a few days left on it. I only had one ticket though so my friend had to buy a new ticket. His ticket forced him to do the finger thing. Mine did not. So to answer your last statement, pre-authentication tickets do not force you to authenticate and in practice (not legitimately) are transferable.
It's nice though that these false statements in the summary really do show who RTFAs.:)
Everyday theres another one of these stories... WHY? After I've thought about this for a while, it makes no sense for anybody to worry one way or the other. The reason I say this is because a Mac will still be a Mac and a beige box will still be a beige box after the arch switch.
Macs will still be priced much higher than the average beige PC. OS X will still (officially) be locked down to Macs. Those are the two things that could effect Linux. Even then, I don't think either of those things happening will hurt much because grandma is still going to buy a Mac and little teen geek is still probably going to buy a beige box with Linux.
So could we please stop with these stories that are so anxious to see Linux take a hit.
Always assume that any hardware you don't own and isn't in your control is insecure.
It's just good rule of thumb. And to be even more paranoid, you should assume the same about any hardware that isn't in a locked room 100% of the time.
If you're really concerned about this, make sure the passwords on things you do access aren't the same as other passwords you use and make sure you change it when you're done from a "secure" location.
Since we seem to have hit a wall as far as ramping up the actual clock speeds of processors, adding more cores so the processor can do more work will be where Intel and AMD will be focusing their development the next few years. So yes, we do need more cores otherwise Intel and AMD will have a hard time selling you a chip that's only 3-5% faster.
You're right, Power means "Professional" basically as in Apple speak "i" means consumer. But maybe they really want to drive the point home this time?;)
The fact that they will most likely cost significantly less will be an added bonus for them, and likely attract even more customers than the switch chased away.
You honestly expect Apple to charge less because they _might_ cost less. I highly doubt the cost will be reduced significantly at all and doubt even more that Apple will pass it on to us. I suspect that PowerMacs (if they're still called that) will be the same price if not a tiny bit less (read: $100-$200) than what they currently are, just to coax consumers that "HEY THIS ARCH SWITCH THING ISN'T SO BAD".
> I'm really not sure how this impacts the user base
To claim that this will be a completely 100% transparent change is pretty heavy-handed optimism. Has major transitions such as this every been completely 100% transparent? Why specifically will it start now? Because they've told us it will be?
> So the real issue is $$$, but all computers > depreciate and while Apples do tend to hold > value longers, most computer owners hold on to > and use computers long past the time that retain > any real value.
I don't know why you would compare me with "most computer owners". "Most computer owners" do not read slashdot and therefore were not in the scope of my comments. I was speaking for myself. Since I pay more for the hardware, yes, I do expect it to hold it's value longer and resell for more, otherwise, the economics go from horrible (of a PC) to disasterous (in this situation). Apple's hardware economics situation before this announcement I'd rate as just "bad".
> Do you really expect to sell your new computer > before it's worth very little? or do you just > like the IDEA that it hold it's value longer?
I do expect to sell my computer before it's worth very little, because as I said, I am not most computer users and I have to think that most Slashdotters aren't either. I have a pretty short technology retension cycle.
> Do you only buy top end cars that also hold > their value and increase while most cars > decrease?
How cars and computers are related beyond depreciation is beyond me but since you're intent on using the analogy...
I don't buy cars on a nearly as frequent basis because they don't increase in speed or usefulness near as much as a computer. They also cost a significant more amount of money and therefore the absolute value of the depreciation is much more than a PC even thou... you know what, fuck you. Comparing cars and computers is just plain pretty silly.
If you make a product and one of your suppliers is falling down on the job, then you change suppliers.
They're not just changing suppliers though, they're changing the whole damn thing. The switch to a painful (they say painless, I say bullshit) transition to a new arch is nothing less than failure in engineering on Apple, IBM and Motorola's part. If you find this switch comforting, then I guarantee Apple will take advantage of you in the future when they want to make another quick fix to it's product line.
I'm not saying dropping IBM wasn't justified, I'm saying it was a little (just a little) premature to drop PowerPC.
Re:You know what this means, Power PC Apple Users?
on
Apple Switching to Intel
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Possibly not - the new version of XCode builds universal binaries for both Intel and PPC. So, what's the problem again?
The problem is when some "smart" developer decides to save space on his binary by simply not compiling in PowerPC support because "his userbase doesn't have that significant of a percentage of PowerPC users anymore". That's fine and dandy to the majority of x86 Mac users, but what about those left with a perfectly good aging PowerPC system?
They're suddenly unsupported and that's a horrible worthless feeling with nobody to blame it on except Apple for making, at worst, an arbitrary platform shift. At best, it's a failure of engineering which isn't terribly reassuring either.
I have to agree, locking us into a platform for OS X and then switching that platform at will every 5-10 years is completely and utter bullshit. Granted the 68k transition was necessary but this one isn't and who's to say the next one won't be either.
A far better "don't piss off anybody" approach would've been to gradually prepare us for this by telling developers to think about writting their code for portability to something like x86 just in case. And to make fat binaries, even though we don't support other platforms YET.
Instead, we get this typical Apple SURPRISE guerilla style bullshit. I've been an Apple supporter for almost two years now when I switched but now... their arrogance is really starting to wear on me and quite frankly I'm tired of them making sweeping decisions that affect the userbase and taking for granted that consumers will put up with the hassle.
I don't particularly want to see all my expensive Apple hardware depreciate spectacularly when the first x86 Macs appear so I'll probably be dumping all of it off within the next 6 months and be going fully to Althon 64s. It's debatable if after that I'll see value in going back to OS X after having settled in on my Unix of choice.
There's a whole ton of comments here so I haven't read them all but... isn't anyone else but me thinking that this and the tablet rumors are related?
My prediction is an Apple Tablet running an Intel CPU... most probably XScale based. Anyone? Anyone? Bueler?
If isn't the case and I'm way off base and Apple does switch to some other architecture (not necessarily x86), I'm thinking this is where fat binaries come in. Sure, sure, they're already used for making OS X applications work with older version of OS X and/or making binaries with both 32-bit and 64-bit versions in one file, but isn't it also possible to have multiple completely different architecture code in one file?
In any case, WWDC should be interesting, as usual!
Those both sound like good places to donate open-source related funds and I doubt anybody would be severely against it even if they can think of a better place to donate it.
The sound quality on Sirius is noticably better than on XM. I'd liken Sirius to an 128k mp3 stream whereas XM I'd be kind to rate it 96k stream. I took the sound quality on Sirius for granted until I got a new Acura with XM built-in and a free trial.
Overall, XM is horrible IMO. Moronic DJs, smaller channel line-up, tiny tiny song descriptions that often had to be mangled to fit and to top it off, poor sound quality. Contributing factor why I had no problem letting go of the car 6 months later. I'm much happier with Sirius in another car.
If you're going to put the ability to tune into Sirius on an iPod, why not go all the way and put the streaming radio stations from iTunes onto the iPod? Or even Shoutcast stations (which work in iTunes)?
Uh, because Sirius is a proprietary satellite radio network. Not some IP-based satellite radio service. Your understanding of the technology needs some work.
To say that a dinner between Mel and Steve amounts to being "in talks" is jumping the gun a bit. More of a "feeling out" perhaps. It would take months of negotiations to get a deal hammered out, not just a few dinners between the head honchos. Further, I highly doubt they could cram the necessary hardware into an iPod and still have the chicness that Steve requires with a decent battery time.
Wishful thinking in my eyes and who knows, Apple has suprised us before with their outsourced engineering.;)
That said I have Sirius and a whole lot of Apple hardware. It would be neat this happened but as unlikely as it would be for the hardware to become a reality, it would be even hard for them to make it work on an iPod mini which I much prefer to the (in my opinion) bulky iPod.
I have three 300GB FW800 drives running at RAID 5 via software and I never ever have had a problem. I rarely see the drives access unless I actually use them.
Granted, a disable feature seems like a no-brainer. I have no idea why Apple is forcing people to use Spotlight. That's kinda shady if you like ze porn and want to show someone something and accidentally end up exposing that you watched "All Anal Babes 4.mpg".
Slashdot Mirror
Unlikely, unless VMWare decides to emulate the hardware that is going to restrict OS X to Apple x86 hardware. A move that would certainly get them sued into oblivion both civilly and criminally. The DMCA makes it a crime to emulate a proprietary piece of hardware designed to handle the piracy of the OS.
Finish the quote! ... in both second and third fiscal quarters. i.e. since the begining of the year.
200,000 per quarter = 400,000.
I hope you didn't get that diploma this year...
Wow, that _is_ severely conspiracy theory.
I doubt just because News Corp. (not Fox News, you shmuck) wants to own a highly successful site that has millions of people looking at it per day so they can plaster 20th Century Fox (the movie studio) and Fox (the tv network) ads all over it that they'll seriously start claiming they own everything that every user posts on the site. That's quite simply ludicris and they'd be violating many laws when they did it. The nature of that crime makes it pretty easy to hold them responsible for. So take off your tin-foil hat please.
Um. Ok, clarify something for me then.. you say this:
I've released my first novel Star Dragon online under CC. It's a real, published novel, still available in hardback and paperback, by Tor, a major U.S. publisher of science fiction and fantasy. No one can distribute my book under "fair use" copyright law, because it wouldn't be, and certainly commercial distribution is right out.
How is this different from a regular copyright? Everything you said in that sentence has nothing CC specific that I can tell.
You even admit that your book is already covered by copyright without you having to do anything whatsoever. So, my question is: Whats the need for CC?
Touche! I stand corrected.
Perhaps you've not heard of the "Social Networking" catagory?
The point is you have a large site with thousands and thousands of members and then have those members "mingle" with each other and prominately display their connections.
Yes, it is a bit high school.. but the reason why it's the fifth most popular site: because it's huge among high schoolers.
But it does serve it's purpose I guess. Now, if only they could a) afford decent programmers and b) stop loading the site up with flash animations that suck my cpu dry.
All I heard was "dork dork dork dork dork..."
This doesn't have anything to do with security. They're not taking your fingerprint at all, and even if they were I don't think they'd be comparing it against fingerprints of known terrorists.
:)
This is just a fuzzy form of authentication. Other people are bound to have the same hand measurements as you but it's unlikely they your friend or family member will have something close.
They've been using this for a while now. The point of it is to prevent other people from using your ticket, even if you're not even using it that particular day. The multi-day tickets have had "Non-transferable" written on them since practically the beginning of time. This is finally a way to enforce it.
I think it's really a shame that it's come to this. Does Disney _really_ need the extra revenue that comes from not allowing people to use other people's ticket? Most people think when they buy the ticket that they're buying X days in the park. You're not, you're buying X days in the park for you. Now, they're really driving the point home.
To put it another way, it costs Disney the same for a 3-day ticket whether or not you personally use all 3 days or if you lend/give it to another person. The difference now is that they're forcing the other person to buy another ticket instead of using unused days of another ticket.
Anyway, I was there in February this year. I had a ticket left over from the end of 2001. I still had a few days left on it. I only had one ticket though so my friend had to buy a new ticket. His ticket forced him to do the finger thing. Mine did not. So to answer your last statement, pre-authentication tickets do not force you to authenticate and in practice (not legitimately) are transferable.
It's nice though that these false statements in the summary really do show who RTFAs.
Theres high paying jobs in the tech industry?! Damn, I'm getting screwed.
Everyday theres another one of these stories... WHY? After I've thought about this for a while, it makes no sense for anybody to worry one way or the other. The reason I say this is because a Mac will still be a Mac and a beige box will still be a beige box after the arch switch.
Macs will still be priced much higher than the average beige PC. OS X will still (officially) be locked down to Macs. Those are the two things that could effect Linux. Even then, I don't think either of those things happening will hurt much because grandma is still going to buy a Mac and little teen geek is still probably going to buy a beige box with Linux.
So could we please stop with these stories that are so anxious to see Linux take a hit.
Always assume that any hardware you don't own and isn't in your control is insecure.
It's just good rule of thumb. And to be even more paranoid, you should assume the same about any hardware that isn't in a locked room 100% of the time.
If you're really concerned about this, make sure the passwords on things you do access aren't the same as other passwords you use and make sure you change it when you're done from a "secure" location.
Since we seem to have hit a wall as far as ramping up the actual clock speeds of processors, adding more cores so the processor can do more work will be where Intel and AMD will be focusing their development the next few years. So yes, we do need more cores otherwise Intel and AMD will have a hard time selling you a chip that's only 3-5% faster.
You're right, Power means "Professional" basically as in Apple speak "i" means consumer. But maybe they really want to drive the point home this time? ;)
The fact that they will most likely cost significantly less will be an added bonus for them, and likely attract even more customers than the switch chased away.
You honestly expect Apple to charge less because they _might_ cost less. I highly doubt the cost will be reduced significantly at all and doubt even more that Apple will pass it on to us. I suspect that PowerMacs (if they're still called that) will be the same price if not a tiny bit less (read: $100-$200) than what they currently are, just to coax consumers that "HEY THIS ARCH SWITCH THING ISN'T SO BAD".
Ala Email Reply Style...
> I'm really not sure how this impacts the user base
To claim that this will be a completely 100% transparent change is pretty heavy-handed optimism. Has major transitions such as this every been completely 100% transparent? Why specifically will it start now? Because they've told us it will be?
> So the real issue is $$$, but all computers
> depreciate and while Apples do tend to hold
> value longers, most computer owners hold on to
> and use computers long past the time that retain > any real value.
I don't know why you would compare me with "most computer owners". "Most computer owners" do not read slashdot and therefore were not in the scope of my comments. I was speaking for myself. Since I pay more for the hardware, yes, I do expect it to hold it's value longer and resell for more, otherwise, the economics go from horrible (of a PC) to disasterous (in this situation). Apple's hardware economics situation before this announcement I'd rate as just "bad".
> Do you really expect to sell your new computer
> before it's worth very little? or do you just
> like the IDEA that it hold it's value longer?
I do expect to sell my computer before it's worth very little, because as I said, I am not most computer users and I have to think that most Slashdotters aren't either. I have a pretty short technology retension cycle.
> Do you only buy top end cars that also hold
> their value and increase while most cars
> decrease?
How cars and computers are related beyond depreciation is beyond me but since you're intent on using the analogy...
I don't buy cars on a nearly as frequent basis because they don't increase in speed or usefulness near as much as a computer. They also cost a significant more amount of money and therefore the absolute value of the depreciation is much more than a PC even thou... you know what, fuck you. Comparing cars and computers is just plain pretty silly.
If you make a product and one of your suppliers is falling down on the job, then you change suppliers.
They're not just changing suppliers though, they're changing the whole damn thing. The switch to a painful (they say painless, I say bullshit) transition to a new arch is nothing less than failure in engineering on Apple, IBM and Motorola's part. If you find this switch comforting, then I guarantee Apple will take advantage of you in the future when they want to make another quick fix to it's product line.
I'm not saying dropping IBM wasn't justified, I'm saying it was a little (just a little) premature to drop PowerPC.
Possibly not - the new version of XCode builds universal binaries for both Intel and PPC. So, what's the problem again?
The problem is when some "smart" developer decides to save space on his binary by simply not compiling in PowerPC support because "his userbase doesn't have that significant of a percentage of PowerPC users anymore". That's fine and dandy to the majority of x86 Mac users, but what about those left with a perfectly good aging PowerPC system?
They're suddenly unsupported and that's a horrible worthless feeling with nobody to blame it on except Apple for making, at worst, an arbitrary platform shift. At best, it's a failure of engineering which isn't terribly reassuring either.
I have to agree, locking us into a platform for OS X and then switching that platform at will every 5-10 years is completely and utter bullshit. Granted the 68k transition was necessary but this one isn't and who's to say the next one won't be either.
A far better "don't piss off anybody" approach would've been to gradually prepare us for this by telling developers to think about writting their code for portability to something like x86 just in case. And to make fat binaries, even though we don't support other platforms YET.
Instead, we get this typical Apple SURPRISE guerilla style bullshit. I've been an Apple supporter for almost two years now when I switched but now... their arrogance is really starting to wear on me and quite frankly I'm tired of them making sweeping decisions that affect the userbase and taking for granted that consumers will put up with the hassle.
I don't particularly want to see all my expensive Apple hardware depreciate spectacularly when the first x86 Macs appear so I'll probably be dumping all of it off within the next 6 months and be going fully to Althon 64s. It's debatable if after that I'll see value in going back to OS X after having settled in on my Unix of choice.
There's a whole ton of comments here so I haven't read them all but... isn't anyone else but me thinking that this and the tablet rumors are related?
My prediction is an Apple Tablet running an Intel CPU... most probably XScale based. Anyone? Anyone? Bueler?
If isn't the case and I'm way off base and Apple does switch to some other architecture (not necessarily x86), I'm thinking this is where fat binaries come in. Sure, sure, they're already used for making OS X applications work with older version of OS X and/or making binaries with both 32-bit and 64-bit versions in one file, but isn't it also possible to have multiple completely different architecture code in one file?
In any case, WWDC should be interesting, as usual!
Those both sound like good places to donate open-source related funds and I doubt anybody would be severely against it even if they can think of a better place to donate it.
The sound quality on Sirius is noticably better than on XM. I'd liken Sirius to an 128k mp3 stream whereas XM I'd be kind to rate it 96k stream. I took the sound quality on Sirius for granted until I got a new Acura with XM built-in and a free trial.
Overall, XM is horrible IMO. Moronic DJs, smaller channel line-up, tiny tiny song descriptions that often had to be mangled to fit and to top it off, poor sound quality. Contributing factor why I had no problem letting go of the car 6 months later. I'm much happier with Sirius in another car.
If you're going to put the ability to tune into Sirius on an iPod, why not go all the way and put the streaming radio stations from iTunes onto the iPod? Or even Shoutcast stations (which work in iTunes)?
Uh, because Sirius is a proprietary satellite radio network. Not some IP-based satellite radio service. Your understanding of the technology needs some work.
To say that a dinner between Mel and Steve amounts to being "in talks" is jumping the gun a bit. More of a "feeling out" perhaps. It would take months of negotiations to get a deal hammered out, not just a few dinners between the head honchos. Further, I highly doubt they could cram the necessary hardware into an iPod and still have the chicness that Steve requires with a decent battery time.
;)
Wishful thinking in my eyes and who knows, Apple has suprised us before with their outsourced engineering.
That said I have Sirius and a whole lot of Apple hardware. It would be neat this happened but as unlikely as it would be for the hardware to become a reality, it would be even hard for them to make it work on an iPod mini which I much prefer to the (in my opinion) bulky iPod.
I have three 300GB FW800 drives running at RAID 5 via software and I never ever have had a problem. I rarely see the drives access unless I actually use them.
Granted, a disable feature seems like a no-brainer. I have no idea why Apple is forcing people to use Spotlight. That's kinda shady if you like ze porn and want to show someone something and accidentally end up exposing that you watched "All Anal Babes 4.mpg".
Er, Uh, not like that's ever happened to me.
I'm sorry, I did mean compound bow. I'm obviously not the expert on this subject but was just trying to defend the stance nonetheless. :)