uch law should have a provision that it only applies to commercial software (i.e. software that is sold for a price, or on the base of signed license contracts). Free (as in speech) software should be excluded from such liability.
You realise of course that even this would kill free software in commercial settings. Under your proposal if am running Windows and some flaw in the software deletes all my data I can sue Micro$oft and be compensated for my loss. If on the other hand I use Linux and some flaw in the software deletes my data I am stuck with my losses. Which software will I use? If my data has any value I will use Windows, not because it is better (though faced with potential financial losses Windows WILL get better - probably quite a bit better), but more importantly because I will be compensated for any failure.
He wrote a few Applescripts, downloaded a few more, and now he can control his computer from anywhere in the house.
I played around with the same thing. The one problem I had was when I said" "Computer play classical music" (which would launch iTunes the desired playlist) that was the last command I could give it. Once it was playing music it would get confused by it's own audio output. I would think that would be a pretty easy thing to fix - just have the computer cancel out it's own output when processing audio input. Unfortunately Apple does not seem so interested with speech recognition - which is too bad, with their control over hardware and software they could probably put together a machine with a very powerful speech UI.
To each his own. As for me while I'm using my right hand for the mouse my left hand is sitting idle on the keyboard anyway so I might as well be using it to press modifier keys.
Actually I shouldn't say 'mouse' since I only rarely use a mouse at all no matter how many buttons. I use a Wacom tablet most of the time. For a lot of my work I need the pressure sensitivity and a more natural "drawing" input. The rest of the time I've just grown to prefer the tablet and don't bother with the mouse unless I'm playing a game.
I'm actually using a five-button mouse on Mac OS X (Kensington MouseWorks), and guess what - all buttons are tied to some modifier-click-combination! It's really great, I feel much more productive now. Of course, it takes some time to get used to it.
I should have pointed out in my original post - I only use a mouse occasionally. No I'm not a keyboard using CLI geek. I use a Wacom tablet almost exclusively. Which adds one more (and for me absolutely indespensible) piece of functionality: pressure sensitivity. I also think it's hilarious that you can turn the stylus around and use the "eraser" even in text editors like BBEdit.
Actually, Apple has been selling unix based servers for years, well before OS X Server.
I heard a story - most likely apocryphal but funny if it was true. Supposedly Apple sold a few UNIX workstations beyond the ones you mentioned. Apparently the internal art department in some company wanted macs but there was a corporate policy mandating Windows with a small loophole for the occasional UNIX workstation. Solution: sell the Macs through a subsidiary with MkLinux preinstalled as a "Unix Workstation" neither MacIntosh nor Apple appear on the invoice and the purchase is approved. Once the box arrives wipe Linux of the machine install MacOS from the CD and presto chango the designers are happily running their preferred OS despite company policy. Suposedly this was not a one time thing but a trick they used on a few occasions when trying to sell to large corporations with "Microsoft only" purchasing polices.
It's too late now, but if they had licensed the original MacOS so that people could build cheap clones of MacIntoshes back in the 80's when the only competition on the desk top would have been MS-DOS 4.xx
True. That was the time when their OS advantage was so great they could have succesfully made the transition. Yet even then Apple was already a very large business, with decent marketshare and 50% gross profit margins on their boxes. It still would have been a very risky plan to go from a large and successful hardware maker to (initially at least) much smaller (if potentially more profitable) software company. At that time licensing an OS was an untried business plan - Microsoft was puny compared to Apple (and remained so for a lot longer than most realize) and was looking get out of the OS business itself - ironically to focus on selling MacOS applications. In hindsight Apple obviously should have licensed it's OS to clone manufacturers or at least cut it's gross margins to compete with cheaper IBM clones and killed the Windows market in it's infancy. But it wasn't obvious at the time and Apple chose to enjoy those huge profit margins rather than to dominate the industry. Oh well.
However, we would all be talking about the evil empire of Steve Jobs
Too true - he likes closed boxes and control over everything which is not necessarily bad (IMO) in a niche product but would be a disaster for the industry as a whole.
All of this rests on the aforementioned War Powers Resolution of 1973 [cornell.edu], which has never to my knowledge faced a Constitutional challenge.
You will recall though that the war powers act was passed to LIMIT the authority of the President and to reassert the sole authority of Congress when it came to the use of military force. I also mentioned the Quasi-war with France during the administration of John Adams which predates the War Powers Act of 1973 by just a teensy bit;) There was no declaration of war from Congress (though Adams could have gotten one had he wanted it) there was not even any specific statutory authority (aside from increased spending on the navy and the reinstitution of a standing army). In that instance the vagueness of an undeclared war was a virtue since a few skirmishes at sea and a military build-up let the French know that they couldn't just harass our shipping without any response yet an all out declared war would have been a disaster to our fledgeling republic.
But I see no particular advantage in being vague in our current situation. Congress should have declared war against the Taliban regime as well as against Al Queada as well as displayed a willingness to add to that list should other nations unwisely choose to ally themselves with Al Queada. Al Queada is a shadowy and vague entity itself but it seems to have just enough of a definite form to make itself a definable target - especially in Afghanistan where it had a sizeable military force.
I share your concerns about the potential for abuse in an open-ended and poorly defined war. In my opinion we should remove the Taliban regime from power - done. Destroy Al Queada's infrastructure and capabilities - partly done? and declare victory. Hunting down Al Queada war criminals can continue after the war is declared over and the campaign against terrorism can revert to a largely law enforcement matter (though occasionally utitilizing the military). But that law enforcement role will be reinforced by a foreign policy doctrine that holds states responsible for the actions of their proxies. If you are foolhardy enough to support a terrorist you had better pray he doesn't do something foolish like attack the US. While terrorists make difficult targets their sponsors do not and without their sponsors they ineffective and only negligible threats to national security.
Can you live with only one button, sure, but its easier with 3 , I honestly belive most mac users adhere to the use of one button mice for two reasons, Mac users are adverse to change, 2 they feel as most mac people they are unique a one button mouse is a seperation from the norm somehow make them special, individuals rather than part of some drummed up MS conspiracy crap.
My own observations as a fairly biased mac user: It is largely a matter of what you are used to. I find two button mice to be no great advantage when I use them. I suppose for a one handed person (or perhaps someone who's other hand is 'busy') a two-button mouse is a great increase in functionality and ease. But for two handed computing it is a step down in functionality (if not in ease) since now a mouse click is only modified by one other button rather than by the four modifier buttons a mac user is accustomed to (Command, option, control and shift). To gain the equivalent functionality that a mac user is accustomed to having at their left hand while their right hand manages the mouse you would need a 5-button mouse which seems like it would be unweildy and awkward (how would you move the thing with all five fingers up on the surface of it pushing buttons?).
A scroll wheel on the other hand is a huge advantage and something I wish Apple would either adopt or create a reasonable (or better) subsitute for. Of course their is no reason I couldn't get a mouse with more buttons and a scroll wheel.
Apple is really only going to expand if it can start making software for PCs...
This is the constant advice Apple gets and fortunately Apple wisely disregards it. Apple is very successful when considered as a hardware company. It's marketshare is comperable to it's hardware competitors. It has better gross profit margins, and far better customer loyalty. It has been expanding while it's hardware competitors are laying people off. And considering it's share of the overall market if they can convince just 5 more consumers out of 100 to buy macs they will double in size. Apple is a large, profitable hardware company with a lot of room to grow.
When considered purely as an OS vendor they do horrible with only 3% worldwide marketshare and pitifully small percent of their revenue coming from OS licenses.
When considered more broadly as a software company Apple does OK with several successful software titles in a wide variety of markets - A multimedia file standard and authoring software (Quicktime), Office productivity (Appleworks), Video editting (Final Cut Pro), DVD Authoring (DVD Studio Pro), Web Application Server (Web Objects) and database software (FileMaker) as well as a bunch of applications they give away for free to spur hardware sales. Still with all of their success in software it accounts for less than 1/6th of their revenue. The Year 2000 number I found had software revenue of $966 million out of total revenues of $6.135 billion.
Why would a company severely undermine a hardware business that brings in $5.168 billion dollars ion revenue to pursue a software business that only brings in $966 million? Yes they could start selling the software they currently give away for free and maybe expand MacOS marketshare - lets be generous and say that despite the enormous risks and costs they TRIPLE their software revenues by the time the completely transition from a hardware company to a software company - they would still by only HALF the size they currently are. It just doesn't seem worth the risk especially when the current business plan of using the software business to enhance the hardware business has proven to be quite profitable even in a recession.
that said, i want one of those cinema screens. also, i don't do print, so i don't worry about colorsync issues.
I don't do much print anymore either. Mostly I do web stuff now. This is key to which platform is best for you. The PC is much more viable if you are not doing print and color management is no longer a concern. And the PC has a lot more software for HTML markup though I still swear by BBEdit.
We, America, didn't declare war. The President of the United States declared war. There is a difference. In order for America to declare war, Congress, not the President, must declare war.
Which Congress has effectively done. The congress interprets it's war powers authority to include both formally declaring war and also giving the President "specific statutory authority" to use armed force without a formal declaration. This is precisely the phrase used in the War Powers Act and refered to in the Use of Force Authorisation passed by Congress. We have had many such conflicts going back to the quasi-war with France during the administration of John Adams.
Now I happen to think that it was a mistake NOT to declare war on the Al Queada organization and the Taliban Regime along with a willingness to issue ultimatums to any other nation which aids or shelters Al Queada and it's subsidiaries. While the use of force without formal declarations is clearly an established principle in constitutional law, it is also a vague principle. This vagueness makes it an invitation for abuse both by the administration (which has no guidance on what limits there are to it's powers) and by it's critics (which can provide such "guidance" after the fact) Congress, particularly opponents of the administration, like such vaguenss because it leaves them off the hook for having to make any hard decisions until after the act is accomplished when they will be free to either attack the president (it things go poorly or he makes an unpopular decision) or share in his glory (if things go well)
Some Democrats tried to avoid giving the President the Use of Force Authorisation - NOT because of any pacifist principle but on the spurious grounds that "As commander in chief he has the authority to use force without any congressional authorisation" since the terrorists are a "clear and present danger." Of course had the war gone poorly or become unpopular these formerly obliging congressmen with an expansive view of Presidential authority would be free to drastically narrow their view of his authority and cast any act of his as not only bad policy but as an illegal usurpation of their power. Fortunately the President took a more constitutionally sound and politically astute view of his own powers and insisted that the congress grant him war powers up front.
I wouldn't expect anything significant in February re: the G4 towers.
You may be right I don't expect a major upgrade to G5's until summer. But I would expect at least a speed bump at Sybold or MacWorld Japan. For marketing reasons they can't have their consumer machines kicking the ass of their professional machines.
Created a myth that their products are the only thing that can do certain things.... Anything you can do on a Mac you can do on any PC (Lin/WIN). You could even be... creative.
Part of the prevelance of this myth is that it used to be quite true. Several years ago if a freelancer claiming to be a professional designer came to me looking for a job but told me he used a PC he would not get the job. Why? because he was not and could not be a professional. Professional art and design software simply wasn't available on the PC. Since those days Adobe, Quark etc. have all ported their apps to the PC and now it is not only possible to be a professional designer using a PC there are actually some that do.
Today the advantages are subtler and found in smaller details. First off there is simply the inertia of the industry and compatiblity with that industries standard. nearly all of your professional peers and all the vendors you need are primarily mac based. Designers, photographers, service bureaus, printers etc. are all using macs - You are on the wrong side of whatever (ususually minor - but still there) compatiblity issues remain between PC's and Macs.
Secondly: ColorSync. Systemwide and well supported color management is HUGE for a visual artist. Particularly the art-director or designer who is responsible for making sure that the photo looks the same to the photographer, to the designer, to the client, to the proofsheet, to the final printed piece. You have no idea what a big, important, potentially costly issue this is. You would be amazed at how much color can change each step along the way without good color management and how screwed you are if it comes out wrong.
Finally, and this advantage is not limited to artists though they are perhaps more impacted by it than most, ease-of-use, "intuitive" UI and that cohession the article spoke of. Artists, designers, musicians etc. are "right-brained" they tend to be more intuitive than deductive. The computer is only a tool to them, they often have a love/hate relationship with it. They love it for the creative power it gives them. They hate it's fussiness and the technical crap they need to learn to get it to work. The less technical crap the better - the more that technical crap is hidden away or the better they are able pursue their real goals (the creative stuff they love and get paid for.) Linux and Unix in general are complete failures at "intuitive" UI. Everything is learned jargon and technical details - great and natural for the "left-brained" engineer or Programmer but an unnecessary nightmare for the creative professional. Windows is not so bad and is always getting better. But it still isn't quite as natural to an intuitive thinker than the Mac - it still carries some of the baggage of it's more technically minded past. One of my favorite quotes from "Triumph of the Nerds" was when Jobs said that Gates' problem was that "he had no taste - and I mean that in a large way" Jobs also made the point that Apple had (because Jobs hired them) programmers that were also artists and musicians - people that in his mind were not only technically astute but who had "taste" or a sense of aesthetics. Gates hired people like himself - technical astute but without any aesthetic sensibilities whatsoever. The initial products from each company reflected that. It has changed over time, Apple after Jobs became less of a creative place, Microsoft as it grew learned to appreciate the value of good design (and hired away many UI people from Apple). But the products still reflect the philosophies that went into their creation.
The REAL use for this baby would be to mount it upside down from the top of the shelf on my cubicle. Combined with a wireless keyboard and mouse, and my desk will be so incredibly CLEAN!
That would require a little hardware hacking but is a GREAT idea! (flipping the DVD-RW drive, and of course the logo, maybe have to alter or reposition the arm?) I'm seriously going to look into doing that. Thanks.
And you are not too far off as to the "REAL" use (as *intended* by Apple). Obviously a small footprint on the desk was one of the primary goals of the design.
Re:First the cube.... More over-heat potential?
on
New iMac Announced
·
· Score: 2
Form is great as long as it FOLLOWS functionality.
This is why the new iMac is so good. The form factor is different BECAUSE it follows function. What is the function of a flat panel? To have a small footprint, to be light and easily adjustable. Then why strap it to an entire computer and lose all of those advantages? Puting the flat panel on an articulated arm is form FOLLOWING function. Having it on that arm even enhances the "function" of positioning. You can move the monitor around even more freely than if it was a seperate component. Even the choice to make the base a half sphere probably has some functional advantages of stability.
Now there were trade-offs between features. The decision was made that the form would have small size as a feature at the expense of expandability as a feature. There is no "right" answer here - especially since Apple makes another machine that makes the same trade-off the other way. Choose which feature you prefer. In a certain way even limited access to the "guts" and limited upgradability can itself be a "feature" to a non tech-savvy consumer who doesn't want to be bothered with technical detail, or even made to feel an implicit responsiblity to do so.
but it is clear that innovation for Apple (at least with this iLamp) is more centered around form than function.
It is about form AND function - even about form FOLLOWING function. Moving to a UNIX based OS is function. Highly integrated software bundles that are "best of breed" (don't you hate that term - but these really are) in their respective niches is function. And while alot of the decisions about form factor are about what Steve Jobs finds aesthetically pleasing if you listened to the key-note the fundamental decisions about form were made so that form would FOLLOW function. The initial designs were like the "20th anniversary mac" a flat panel with the guts of the computer positioned vertically on the back of the panel. Jobs didn't like it BECAUSE it was form over function. Mounting it vertically lost you many of the advantages of having a flat screen (which was no longer flat) made the monitor difficult to adjust, entailed a perfomance hit on drives because they had to be mounted vertically. Having a flat screen that can be positioned however you like is FUNCTION having a very small footprint is FUNCTION. Having few wires is FUNCTION. Even where "function" was "sacrificed" to form it was a deliberate decision based on the specific functions required by the target market. Limited access to the guts of the computer and limited upgradability is a very deliberate, thought out decision based on the fact that the target - non tech-savvy consumers - don't tinker with the internals of their computers. They WANT it to be a "black box" that "just works" without bothering them about the details. That is an anathema to geeks but then this isn't meant for geeks, get the mini-tower if you want upgradeablity and access to the guts. And if a geek really likes the iMac for it's other features I'm sure if he truly is a geek he will hack around the limitations and even have more fun and a greater sense of accomplishment for having done so.
Exactly what software is it lacking? Yes it doesn't have hundreds of different titles in each and every niche. But for just about every one of those niches it has four or five solid competitors. You may indeed be in a niche where lack of software really is an issue but in most cases "lack of software" is more FUD than fact.
I really don't think it would be a bad idea for Apple port Windows to the mac.
It might be a selling point in the short run but in the long run it would be suicide.
1) Windows software would always be slow because the mac would have to emulate an intel chip. There is just no getting around this. *(but see note below)
2) If a developer can sell to the mac market through the only so-so emulation why would the undertake the added expense of actually developing their software for the mac? Apple would get a lot of slow probably less than stable software rather than relatively few but faster and more stable software. Considering thier philosophy and their business strategy this will just never happen.
*Your idea would have more merit if Apple switched to Intel CPU's. In the long run if PowerPC can't at least catch up in the gigahertz race Apple will probably look very seriously at switching to Intel. These would be Macs though, NOT wintel clones. Apple would keep, and possibly even add more, proprietary stuff so that you could only run the Mac OS on an Apple branded machine. A move like this would remove CPU speed as a competitive factor. Apple would lose the purely theoretical potential advantage of having a better/faster CPU than it's wintel rivals but it would also lose the not-so-theoretical DISadvantage of in fact having a slower (if better?) CPU.
But such a move would have to be in the long run. Apple is already handling a difficult transition from OS 9 to OS X. That switch would have to be FULLY completed and recuperated from before Apple could even consider starting another difficult transition.
I've had to give it to Apple in the past, they have come out with some damn nice looking machines. However, this time, I looks like they have run out of idea.
This is exactly what I thought when the original iMac first came out. I thought it looked like an ugly cheap plastic joke and I was sure I was witnessing the end of Apple Computer. At the time the initial reaction of many geeks was the same as mine. Of course as it turns out that the target audience loved the look, it looked better in person than it did in pictures and it sold like hotcakes singlehandedly bringing Apple back from the financial grave. It just goes to show why Steve Job's net worth is counted in hundreds of millions and mine is $3.67 after taxes.
Now I see the *new* iMac and my initial reaction is the same - what an ugly (not so)cheap plastic joke. But this time I'll reserve my judgement until I get a chance to see it in person and see the reaction of the people who are it's intended audience (not me, or people like me.) Don't get me wrong I'm not deferring all sense of aesthetic tast to Steve Jobs. He and Apple have certainly gotten it wrong before both with looks (the original iBook) and with price (the Cube) But I hope as I look at this thing that despite my initial reaction that they have again hit it out of the park in a way that I wouldn't have dared with my more conventional sense of aesthetics.
You are judging slashdot by all the wrong criteria. You seem to be under the misapprehension that Slashdot is a news site staffed by journalists and find it lacking. Well, slashdot is not about reporting the news, it is a discussion forum and that's all. The editor's role is not to be an investigative reporter and develop stories but simply to provide grist for the mill by notifying the participants of the ongoing discussion of what other sites (presumably with real journalists) are reporting. The value in slashdot is not in the quality, uniqueness, or depth of it's content but that you (and I) get to throw in our two cents. And that we get to see and engage others who are throwing in their own thoughts.
As for your comments on the apparent lack of a work ethic on the part of the editors. All I can say is I hope your right - and God bless them. If slackers like that can not only make a living but actually strike it rich then there is hope for me. Though to be fair I do see your point. To the very small degree that Slashdot IS a journalistic endevour - pretty much limited to finding out what other sites are reporting - I agree with you that they should make at least some minimal effort to check facts (or maybe limit their sources to sites that do so) and professionally edit their own tiny editorial blurb.
Jon Katz is not the BEST writer on slashdot he is the ONLY writer on slashdot.
I'm not sure why other people can't stand John Katz but I don't think it is because he is too challenging for them. Since he is a writer and slashdot is not about the writing he is not adding much of value. For my part I don't bother with him because he is an opinion writer who's opinions are sophmoric and who's writing is rambling and longwinded. That would all be forgivable if it he wasn't apparently under the misguided notion that his observations are insightful and important Deep Thoughts(TM) of wide ranging importance when they are actually rather vague, insular and shallow. I suppose like the stories from other sites he adds grist to the mill of discussion. I think of him as the staff flamebaiter instructed to blather on with his insipid insights to provoke outraged responses and inject meaningless contentions in to the discussion.
Re:If it isn't a fake ...
on
Apple PDA?
·
· Score: 2
Which would strike me as being the second dumbest thing they've done (the first being making the iPod Apple only).
I don't know that that was really a dumb thing. There are a couple of reasons to make it Mac only and a couple of related reasons to NOT make it crossplatform. A short term reason for not making iPod's cross platform is that they might have been overwhelmed with demand.
A likely long term reason to make it Mac only is that the iPod is not in a vaccum intended only to make money through it's own sales. It is part of a larger strategy to increase the Mac's market share and hardware sales. Of course nobody would buy a mac just for its integration with the iPod. But they might buy a mac to get into a whole 'mac world' of well designed and highly integrated software and hardware of which the iPod is just one component.
If they make it compatible with PC's and as easy and seamlessly integrated (assuming thats even possible) what then is the Mac's advantage. If they don't (or can't) make it as seamlessly integrated and easy then the iPod has lost at least a portion of what makes it a superior product and Apple has undermined it's reputation.
This is the sort of thing that really pisses me off. Not to say that virus writers don't do damage or even that they are not criminals but how can you compare a computer glitch to killing 3000+ people?
I totally agree, the terms are important. A terrorist is someone who commits acts designed to paralyse and undermine the society through fear. Obviously a virus or worm writer does NOT really fit that description. They are saboteurs a different but in some cases almost as serious crime.
The more common computer sabotage commited by individuals with various motivations are still significant crimes. Some people compare it to the relatively minor crimes of grafitti or willful destruction of property - but the scale of it can be so much larger and more widespread as to make it different in kind from, and more serious than most such crimes in the physical world.
But sabotage has also always been a technique of warfare, particularly assymetrical warfare. We will see computer sabotage used by terrorist organizations. In a state of war (declared or not) and in support of a declared enemy a saboteur in our borders or in the borders of our allies would be a war criminal - either an unlawful belligerant (if he is not a citizen) or a traitor (if he is a citizen.) In either case such a crime of sabotage is still potentially a capital offense - it doesn't matter if you as an enemy agent disrupt communications by blowing up the telephone exchange or by writing a virus, you are legally in a world of hurt. Yhe possibilty of commiting acts of sabotage through the internet while physically not in the targetted country is an interesting possiblity. If war is declared it would not be a war crime but a perfectly legitimage act of war, an attack on an enemies communications.
Unfortunately "terrorist" will probably be applyed to people commiting such acts of sabotage. People will use the term "terrorist" loosely to mean most forms of assymetrical warfare since "assymetrical warrior" seems unlikely to catch on. For instance a conventional act of sabotage analogous to a successful virus attack (blowing up a telephone exchange for instance) would probably be popularly termed a "terrorist attack" even if no one is killed and the goal was disruption of communictions rather than psychological damage.
Economic damages, bandwidth loss, destroyed data, and wasted time are harder for a cop to take seriously than, for instance, a body on the ground... It is an interesting thought experiment to consider what will happen when a teenager playing in an advanced biology course cultures a virulent bacteria or virus.
I'm all for considering computer crimes as "real" crimes. The damages you mention are real, the crime is real. The motivation whether it's greed, political activism, or just being a "prankster" is irrelevant. Such attacks on computer systems and networks can do enormous economic damage and should be treated as serious crimes.
But you undermine the argument by overstating it and picking examples of even more serious crimes to compare them to. A cop takes a body on the ground more seriously than economic damage, bandwidth loss, destroyed data and lost time because it IS much much more serious. A microbiology student infecting people with a real virus would be a far more serious crime than even the most damaging computer virus.
...Or consider if "goner" had been tracked to the other side of the tanks... to a group a Palestinians.
That is a very interesting thought experiment. I'm a little torn on this since in general I think the act is what should be considered illegal not the motivation behind it. The "not guilty by reason of sincerity" defense (if we approve of your cause) as well as "EXTRA guilty by reason of sincerity" (if we don't approve of your cause) are abhorant to me. They raise the specter of state sanctioned lawlessness and "thought crimes" - It is a mix I associate with tyranny, think of the mutually reinforcing state sponsored lawlessness of kristalnacht and the totalitarian state control of everything else.
On the other hand being blind to considerations of motivation and association could be taken too far. Society, if only to protect itself must take them into account. A lone hacker causing massive economic damage as a prank is a different kind of *threat* than an ideologically driven organization with a stated goal of destroying the society - even if the *crime* is identical. The organization is treated more seriously not because the crime is more serious but because the threat is more serious.
Slashdot Mirror
uch law should have a provision that it only applies to commercial software (i.e. software that is sold for a price, or on the base of signed license contracts). Free (as in speech) software should be excluded from such liability.
You realise of course that even this would kill free software in commercial settings. Under your proposal if am running Windows and some flaw in the software deletes all my data I can sue Micro$oft and be compensated for my loss. If on the other hand I use Linux and some flaw in the software deletes my data I am stuck with my losses. Which software will I use? If my data has any value I will use Windows, not because it is better (though faced with potential financial losses Windows WILL get better - probably quite a bit better), but more importantly because I will be compensated for any failure.
He wrote a few Applescripts, downloaded a few more, and now he can control his computer from anywhere in the house.
I played around with the same thing. The one problem I had was when I said" "Computer play classical music" (which would launch iTunes the desired playlist) that was the last command I could give it. Once it was playing music it would get confused by it's own audio output. I would think that would be a pretty easy thing to fix - just have the computer cancel out it's own output when processing audio input. Unfortunately Apple does not seem so interested with speech recognition - which is too bad, with their control over hardware and software they could probably put together a machine with a very powerful speech UI.
I am very into more than one mouse button
To each his own. As for me while I'm using my right hand for the mouse my left hand is sitting idle on the keyboard anyway so I might as well be using it to press modifier keys.
Actually I shouldn't say 'mouse' since I only rarely use a mouse at all no matter how many buttons. I use a Wacom tablet most of the time. For a lot of my work I need the pressure sensitivity and a more natural "drawing" input. The rest of the time I've just grown to prefer the tablet and don't bother with the mouse unless I'm playing a game.
Umm... You're responding to the wrong post.
I'm actually using a five-button mouse on Mac OS X (Kensington MouseWorks), and guess what - all buttons are tied to some modifier-click-combination! It's really great, I feel much more productive now. Of course, it takes some time to get used to it.
I should have pointed out in my original post - I only use a mouse occasionally. No I'm not a keyboard using CLI geek. I use a Wacom tablet almost exclusively. Which adds one more (and for me absolutely indespensible) piece of functionality: pressure sensitivity. I also think it's hilarious that you can turn the stylus around and use the "eraser" even in text editors like BBEdit.
So i could pull a "Unix" application off the web, do a "make" on it and it will run flawlessly on OS X?
Yes.
Actually, Apple has been selling unix based servers for years, well before OS X Server.
I heard a story - most likely apocryphal but funny if it was true. Supposedly Apple sold a few UNIX workstations beyond the ones you mentioned. Apparently the internal art department in some company wanted macs but there was a corporate policy mandating Windows with a small loophole for the occasional UNIX workstation. Solution: sell the Macs through a subsidiary with MkLinux preinstalled as a "Unix Workstation" neither MacIntosh nor Apple appear on the invoice and the purchase is approved. Once the box arrives wipe Linux of the machine install MacOS from the CD and presto chango the designers are happily running their preferred OS despite company policy. Suposedly this was not a one time thing but a trick they used on a few occasions when trying to sell to large corporations with "Microsoft only" purchasing polices.
It's too late now, but if they had licensed the original MacOS so that people could build cheap clones of MacIntoshes back in the 80's when the only competition on the desk top would have been MS-DOS 4.xx
True. That was the time when their OS advantage was so great they could have succesfully made the transition. Yet even then Apple was already a very large business, with decent marketshare and 50% gross profit margins on their boxes. It still would have been a very risky plan to go from a large and successful hardware maker to (initially at least) much smaller (if potentially more profitable) software company. At that time licensing an OS was an untried business plan - Microsoft was puny compared to Apple (and remained so for a lot longer than most realize) and was looking get out of the OS business itself - ironically to focus on selling MacOS applications. In hindsight Apple obviously should have licensed it's OS to clone manufacturers or at least cut it's gross margins to compete with cheaper IBM clones and killed the Windows market in it's infancy. But it wasn't obvious at the time and Apple chose to enjoy those huge profit margins rather than to dominate the industry. Oh well.
However, we would all be talking about the evil empire of Steve Jobs
Too true - he likes closed boxes and control over everything which is not necessarily bad (IMO) in a niche product but would be a disaster for the industry as a whole.
All of this rests on the aforementioned War Powers Resolution of 1973 [cornell.edu], which has never to my knowledge faced a Constitutional challenge.
;) There was no declaration of war from Congress (though Adams could have gotten one had he wanted it) there was not even any specific statutory authority (aside from increased spending on the navy and the reinstitution of a standing army). In that instance the vagueness of an undeclared war was a virtue since a few skirmishes at sea and a military build-up let the French know that they couldn't just harass our shipping without any response yet an all out declared war would have been a disaster to our fledgeling republic.
You will recall though that the war powers act was passed to LIMIT the authority of the President and to reassert the sole authority of Congress when it came to the use of military force. I also mentioned the Quasi-war with France during the administration of John Adams which predates the War Powers Act of 1973 by just a teensy bit
But I see no particular advantage in being vague in our current situation. Congress should have declared war against the Taliban regime as well as against Al Queada as well as displayed a willingness to add to that list should other nations unwisely choose to ally themselves with Al Queada. Al Queada is a shadowy and vague entity itself but it seems to have just enough of a definite form to make itself a definable target - especially in Afghanistan where it had a sizeable military force.
I share your concerns about the potential for abuse in an open-ended and poorly defined war. In my opinion we should remove the Taliban regime from power - done. Destroy Al Queada's infrastructure and capabilities - partly done? and declare victory. Hunting down Al Queada war criminals can continue after the war is declared over and the campaign against terrorism can revert to a largely law enforcement matter (though occasionally utitilizing the military). But that law enforcement role will be reinforced by a foreign policy doctrine that holds states responsible for the actions of their proxies. If you are foolhardy enough to support a terrorist you had better pray he doesn't do something foolish like attack the US. While terrorists make difficult targets their sponsors do not and without their sponsors they ineffective and only negligible threats to national security.
Can you live with only one button, sure, but its easier with 3 , I honestly belive most mac users adhere to the use of one button mice for two reasons, Mac users are adverse to change, 2 they feel as most mac people they are unique a one button mouse is a seperation from the norm somehow make them special, individuals rather than part of some drummed up MS conspiracy crap.
My own observations as a fairly biased mac user: It is largely a matter of what you are used to. I find two button mice to be no great advantage when I use them. I suppose for a one handed person (or perhaps someone who's other hand is 'busy') a two-button mouse is a great increase in functionality and ease. But for two handed computing it is a step down in functionality (if not in ease) since now a mouse click is only modified by one other button rather than by the four modifier buttons a mac user is accustomed to (Command, option, control and shift). To gain the equivalent functionality that a mac user is accustomed to having at their left hand while their right hand manages the mouse you would need a 5-button mouse which seems like it would be unweildy and awkward (how would you move the thing with all five fingers up on the surface of it pushing buttons?).
A scroll wheel on the other hand is a huge advantage and something I wish Apple would either adopt or create a reasonable (or better) subsitute for. Of course their is no reason I couldn't get a mouse with more buttons and a scroll wheel.
Apple is really only going to expand if it can start making software for PCs...
This is the constant advice Apple gets and fortunately Apple wisely disregards it. Apple is very successful when considered as a hardware company. It's marketshare is comperable to it's hardware competitors. It has better gross profit margins, and far better customer loyalty. It has been expanding while it's hardware competitors are laying people off. And considering it's share of the overall market if they can convince just 5 more consumers out of 100 to buy macs they will double in size. Apple is a large, profitable hardware company with a lot of room to grow.
When considered purely as an OS vendor they do horrible with only 3% worldwide marketshare and pitifully small percent of their revenue coming from OS licenses.
When considered more broadly as a software company Apple does OK with several successful software titles in a wide variety of markets - A multimedia file standard and authoring software (Quicktime), Office productivity (Appleworks), Video editting (Final Cut Pro), DVD Authoring (DVD Studio Pro), Web Application Server (Web Objects) and database software (FileMaker) as well as a bunch of applications they give away for free to spur hardware sales. Still with all of their success in software it accounts for less than 1/6th of their revenue. The Year 2000 number I found had software revenue of $966 million out of total revenues of $6.135 billion.
Why would a company severely undermine a hardware business that brings in $5.168 billion dollars ion revenue to pursue a software business that only brings in $966 million? Yes they could start selling the software they currently give away for free and maybe expand MacOS marketshare - lets be generous and say that despite the enormous risks and costs they TRIPLE their software revenues by the time the completely transition from a hardware company to a software company - they would still by only HALF the size they currently are. It just doesn't seem worth the risk especially when the current business plan of using the software business to enhance the hardware business has proven to be quite profitable even in a recession.
that said, i want one of those cinema screens. also, i don't do print, so i don't worry about colorsync issues.
I don't do much print anymore either. Mostly I do web stuff now. This is key to which platform is best for you. The PC is much more viable if you are not doing print and color management is no longer a concern. And the PC has a lot more software for HTML markup though I still swear by BBEdit.
We, America, didn't declare war. The President of the United States declared war. There is a difference. In order for America to declare war, Congress, not the President, must declare war.
Which Congress has effectively done. The congress interprets it's war powers authority to include both formally declaring war and also giving the President "specific statutory authority" to use armed force without a formal declaration. This is precisely the phrase used in the War Powers Act and refered to in the Use of Force Authorisation passed by Congress. We have had many such conflicts going back to the quasi-war with France during the administration of John Adams.
Now I happen to think that it was a mistake NOT to declare war on the Al Queada organization and the Taliban Regime along with a willingness to issue ultimatums to any other nation which aids or shelters Al Queada and it's subsidiaries. While the use of force without formal declarations is clearly an established principle in constitutional law, it is also a vague principle. This vagueness makes it an invitation for abuse both by the administration (which has no guidance on what limits there are to it's powers) and by it's critics (which can provide such "guidance" after the fact) Congress, particularly opponents of the administration, like such vaguenss because it leaves them off the hook for having to make any hard decisions until after the act is accomplished when they will be free to either attack the president (it things go poorly or he makes an unpopular decision) or share in his glory (if things go well)
Some Democrats tried to avoid giving the President the Use of Force Authorisation - NOT because of any pacifist principle but on the spurious grounds that "As commander in chief he has the authority to use force without any congressional authorisation" since the terrorists are a "clear and present danger." Of course had the war gone poorly or become unpopular these formerly obliging congressmen with an expansive view of Presidential authority would be free to drastically narrow their view of his authority and cast any act of his as not only bad policy but as an illegal usurpation of their power. Fortunately the President took a more constitutionally sound and politically astute view of his own powers and insisted that the congress grant him war powers up front.
I wouldn't expect anything significant in February re: the G4 towers.
You may be right I don't expect a major upgrade to G5's until summer. But I would expect at least a speed bump at Sybold or MacWorld Japan. For marketing reasons they can't have their consumer machines kicking the ass of their professional machines.
Created a myth that their products are the only thing that can do certain things.... Anything you can do on a Mac you can do on any PC (Lin/WIN). You could even be... creative.
Part of the prevelance of this myth is that it used to be quite true. Several years ago if a freelancer claiming to be a professional designer came to me looking for a job but told me he used a PC he would not get the job. Why? because he was not and could not be a professional. Professional art and design software simply wasn't available on the PC. Since those days Adobe, Quark etc. have all ported their apps to the PC and now it is not only possible to be a professional designer using a PC there are actually some that do.
Today the advantages are subtler and found in smaller details. First off there is simply the inertia of the industry and compatiblity with that industries standard. nearly all of your professional peers and all the vendors you need are primarily mac based. Designers, photographers, service bureaus, printers etc. are all using macs - You are on the wrong side of whatever (ususually minor - but still there) compatiblity issues remain between PC's and Macs.
Secondly: ColorSync. Systemwide and well supported color management is HUGE for a visual artist. Particularly the art-director or designer who is responsible for making sure that the photo looks the same to the photographer, to the designer, to the client, to the proofsheet, to the final printed piece. You have no idea what a big, important, potentially costly issue this is. You would be amazed at how much color can change each step along the way without good color management and how screwed you are if it comes out wrong.
Finally, and this advantage is not limited to artists though they are perhaps more impacted by it than most, ease-of-use, "intuitive" UI and that cohession the article spoke of. Artists, designers, musicians etc. are "right-brained" they tend to be more intuitive than deductive. The computer is only a tool to them, they often have a love/hate relationship with it. They love it for the creative power it gives them. They hate it's fussiness and the technical crap they need to learn to get it to work. The less technical crap the better - the more that technical crap is hidden away or the better they are able pursue their real goals (the creative stuff they love and get paid for.) Linux and Unix in general are complete failures at "intuitive" UI. Everything is learned jargon and technical details - great and natural for the "left-brained" engineer or Programmer but an unnecessary nightmare for the creative professional. Windows is not so bad and is always getting better. But it still isn't quite as natural to an intuitive thinker than the Mac - it still carries some of the baggage of it's more technically minded past. One of my favorite quotes from "Triumph of the Nerds" was when Jobs said that Gates' problem was that "he had no taste - and I mean that in a large way" Jobs also made the point that Apple had (because Jobs hired them) programmers that were also artists and musicians - people that in his mind were not only technically astute but who had "taste" or a sense of aesthetics. Gates hired people like himself - technical astute but without any aesthetic sensibilities whatsoever. The initial products from each company reflected that. It has changed over time, Apple after Jobs became less of a creative place, Microsoft as it grew learned to appreciate the value of good design (and hired away many UI people from Apple). But the products still reflect the philosophies that went into their creation.
The REAL use for this baby would be to mount it upside down from the top of the shelf on my cubicle. Combined with a wireless keyboard and mouse, and my desk will be so incredibly CLEAN!
That would require a little hardware hacking but is a GREAT idea! (flipping the DVD-RW drive, and of course the logo, maybe have to alter or reposition the arm?) I'm seriously going to look into doing that. Thanks.
And you are not too far off as to the "REAL" use (as *intended* by Apple). Obviously a small footprint on the desk was one of the primary goals of the design.
Form is great as long as it FOLLOWS functionality.
This is why the new iMac is so good. The form factor is different BECAUSE it follows function. What is the function of a flat panel? To have a small footprint, to be light and easily adjustable. Then why strap it to an entire computer and lose all of those advantages? Puting the flat panel on an articulated arm is form FOLLOWING function. Having it on that arm even enhances the "function" of positioning. You can move the monitor around even more freely than if it was a seperate component. Even the choice to make the base a half sphere probably has some functional advantages of stability.
Now there were trade-offs between features. The decision was made that the form would have small size as a feature at the expense of expandability as a feature. There is no "right" answer here - especially since Apple makes another machine that makes the same trade-off the other way. Choose which feature you prefer. In a certain way even limited access to the "guts" and limited upgradability can itself be a "feature" to a non tech-savvy consumer who doesn't want to be bothered with technical detail, or even made to feel an implicit responsiblity to do so.
but it is clear that innovation for Apple (at least with this iLamp) is more centered around form than function.
It is about form AND function - even about form FOLLOWING function. Moving to a UNIX based OS is function. Highly integrated software bundles that are "best of breed" (don't you hate that term - but these really are) in their respective niches is function. And while alot of the decisions about form factor are about what Steve Jobs finds aesthetically pleasing if you listened to the key-note the fundamental decisions about form were made so that form would FOLLOW function. The initial designs were like the "20th anniversary mac" a flat panel with the guts of the computer positioned vertically on the back of the panel. Jobs didn't like it BECAUSE it was form over function. Mounting it vertically lost you many of the advantages of having a flat screen (which was no longer flat) made the monitor difficult to adjust, entailed a perfomance hit on drives because they had to be mounted vertically. Having a flat screen that can be positioned however you like is FUNCTION having a very small footprint is FUNCTION. Having few wires is FUNCTION. Even where "function" was "sacrificed" to form it was a deliberate decision based on the specific functions required by the target market. Limited access to the guts of the computer and limited upgradability is a very deliberate, thought out decision based on the fact that the target - non tech-savvy consumers - don't tinker with the internals of their computers. They WANT it to be a "black box" that "just works" without bothering them about the details. That is an anathema to geeks but then this isn't meant for geeks, get the mini-tower if you want upgradeablity and access to the guts. And if a geek really likes the iMac for it's other features I'm sure if he truly is a geek he will hack around the limitations and even have more fun and a greater sense of accomplishment for having done so.
Only problems are :
a) Cost
Granted
b) Lack of software..
Exactly what software is it lacking? Yes it doesn't have hundreds of different titles in each and every niche. But for just about every one of those niches it has four or five solid competitors. You may indeed be in a niche where lack of software really is an issue but in most cases "lack of software" is more FUD than fact.
I really don't think it would be a bad idea for Apple port Windows to the mac.
It might be a selling point in the short run but in the long run it would be suicide.
1) Windows software would always be slow because the mac would have to emulate an intel chip. There is just no getting around this. *(but see note below)
2) If a developer can sell to the mac market through the only so-so emulation why would the undertake the added expense of actually developing their software for the mac? Apple would get a lot of slow probably less than stable software rather than relatively few but faster and more stable software. Considering thier philosophy and their business strategy this will just never happen.
*Your idea would have more merit if Apple switched to Intel CPU's. In the long run if PowerPC can't at least catch up in the gigahertz race Apple will probably look very seriously at switching to Intel. These would be Macs though, NOT wintel clones. Apple would keep, and possibly even add more, proprietary stuff so that you could only run the Mac OS on an Apple branded machine. A move like this would remove CPU speed as a competitive factor. Apple would lose the purely theoretical potential advantage of having a better/faster CPU than it's wintel rivals but it would also lose the not-so-theoretical DISadvantage of in fact having a slower (if better?) CPU.
But such a move would have to be in the long run. Apple is already handling a difficult transition from OS 9 to OS X. That switch would have to be FULLY completed and recuperated from before Apple could even consider starting another difficult transition.
I've had to give it to Apple in the past, they have come out with some damn nice looking machines. However, this time, I looks like they have run out of idea.
This is exactly what I thought when the original iMac first came out. I thought it looked like an ugly cheap plastic joke and I was sure I was witnessing the end of Apple Computer. At the time the initial reaction of many geeks was the same as mine. Of course as it turns out that the target audience loved the look, it looked better in person than it did in pictures and it sold like hotcakes singlehandedly bringing Apple back from the financial grave. It just goes to show why Steve Job's net worth is counted in hundreds of millions and mine is $3.67 after taxes.
Now I see the *new* iMac and my initial reaction is the same - what an ugly (not so)cheap plastic joke. But this time I'll reserve my judgement until I get a chance to see it in person and see the reaction of the people who are it's intended audience (not me, or people like me.) Don't get me wrong I'm not deferring all sense of aesthetic tast to Steve Jobs. He and Apple have certainly gotten it wrong before both with looks (the original iBook) and with price (the Cube) But I hope as I look at this thing that despite my initial reaction that they have again hit it out of the park in a way that I wouldn't have dared with my more conventional sense of aesthetics.
You are judging slashdot by all the wrong criteria. You seem to be under the misapprehension that Slashdot is a news site staffed by journalists and find it lacking. Well, slashdot is not about reporting the news, it is a discussion forum and that's all. The editor's role is not to be an investigative reporter and develop stories but simply to provide grist for the mill by notifying the participants of the ongoing discussion of what other sites (presumably with real journalists) are reporting. The value in slashdot is not in the quality, uniqueness, or depth of it's content but that you (and I) get to throw in our two cents. And that we get to see and engage others who are throwing in their own thoughts.
As for your comments on the apparent lack of a work ethic on the part of the editors. All I can say is I hope your right - and God bless them. If slackers like that can not only make a living but actually strike it rich then there is hope for me. Though to be fair I do see your point. To the very small degree that Slashdot IS a journalistic endevour - pretty much limited to finding out what other sites are reporting - I agree with you that they should make at least some minimal effort to check facts (or maybe limit their sources to sites that do so) and professionally edit their own tiny editorial blurb.
Jon Katz is not the BEST writer on slashdot he is the ONLY writer on slashdot. I'm not sure why other people can't stand John Katz but I don't think it is because he is too challenging for them. Since he is a writer and slashdot is not about the writing he is not adding much of value. For my part I don't bother with him because he is an opinion writer who's opinions are sophmoric and who's writing is rambling and longwinded. That would all be forgivable if it he wasn't apparently under the misguided notion that his observations are insightful and important Deep Thoughts(TM) of wide ranging importance when they are actually rather vague, insular and shallow. I suppose like the stories from other sites he adds grist to the mill of discussion. I think of him as the staff flamebaiter instructed to blather on with his insipid insights to provoke outraged responses and inject meaningless contentions in to the discussion.
Which would strike me as being the second dumbest thing they've done (the first being making the iPod Apple only).
I don't know that that was really a dumb thing. There are a couple of reasons to make it Mac only and a couple of related reasons to NOT make it crossplatform. A short term reason for not making iPod's cross platform is that they might have been overwhelmed with demand.
A likely long term reason to make it Mac only is that the iPod is not in a vaccum intended only to make money through it's own sales. It is part of a larger strategy to increase the Mac's market share and hardware sales. Of course nobody would buy a mac just for its integration with the iPod. But they might buy a mac to get into a whole 'mac world' of well designed and highly integrated software and hardware of which the iPod is just one component.
If they make it compatible with PC's and as easy and seamlessly integrated (assuming thats even possible) what then is the Mac's advantage. If they don't (or can't) make it as seamlessly integrated and easy then the iPod has lost at least a portion of what makes it a superior product and Apple has undermined it's reputation.
Read you question again slowly and you will see that you have already answered it.
This is the sort of thing that really pisses me off. Not to say that virus writers don't do damage or even that they are not criminals but how can you compare a computer glitch to killing 3000+ people?
I totally agree, the terms are important. A terrorist is someone who commits acts designed to paralyse and undermine the society through fear. Obviously a virus or worm writer does NOT really fit that description. They are saboteurs a different but in some cases almost as serious crime.
The more common computer sabotage commited by individuals with various motivations are still significant crimes. Some people compare it to the relatively minor crimes of grafitti or willful destruction of property - but the scale of it can be so much larger and more widespread as to make it different in kind from, and more serious than most such crimes in the physical world.
But sabotage has also always been a technique of warfare, particularly assymetrical warfare. We will see computer sabotage used by terrorist organizations. In a state of war (declared or not) and in support of a declared enemy a saboteur in our borders or in the borders of our allies would be a war criminal - either an unlawful belligerant (if he is not a citizen) or a traitor (if he is a citizen.) In either case such a crime of sabotage is still potentially a capital offense - it doesn't matter if you as an enemy agent disrupt communications by blowing up the telephone exchange or by writing a virus, you are legally in a world of hurt. Yhe possibilty of commiting acts of sabotage through the internet while physically not in the targetted country is an interesting possiblity. If war is declared it would not be a war crime but a perfectly legitimage act of war, an attack on an enemies communications.
Unfortunately "terrorist" will probably be applyed to people commiting such acts of sabotage. People will use the term "terrorist" loosely to mean most forms of assymetrical warfare since "assymetrical warrior" seems unlikely to catch on. For instance a conventional act of sabotage analogous to a successful virus attack (blowing up a telephone exchange for instance) would probably be popularly termed a "terrorist attack" even if no one is killed and the goal was disruption of communictions rather than psychological damage.
Economic damages, bandwidth loss, destroyed data, and wasted time are harder for a cop to take seriously than, for instance, a body on the ground... It is an interesting thought experiment to consider what will happen when a teenager playing in an advanced biology course cultures a virulent bacteria or virus.
...Or consider if "goner" had been tracked to the other side of the tanks... to a group a Palestinians.
I'm all for considering computer crimes as "real" crimes. The damages you mention are real, the crime is real. The motivation whether it's greed, political activism, or just being a "prankster" is irrelevant. Such attacks on computer systems and networks can do enormous economic damage and should be treated as serious crimes.
But you undermine the argument by overstating it and picking examples of even more serious crimes to compare them to. A cop takes a body on the ground more seriously than economic damage, bandwidth loss, destroyed data and lost time because it IS much much more serious. A microbiology student infecting people with a real virus would be a far more serious crime than even the most damaging computer virus.
That is a very interesting thought experiment. I'm a little torn on this since in general I think the act is what should be considered illegal not the motivation behind it. The "not guilty by reason of sincerity" defense (if we approve of your cause) as well as "EXTRA guilty by reason of sincerity" (if we don't approve of your cause) are abhorant to me. They raise the specter of state sanctioned lawlessness and "thought crimes" - It is a mix I associate with tyranny, think of the mutually reinforcing state sponsored lawlessness of kristalnacht and the totalitarian state control of everything else.
On the other hand being blind to considerations of motivation and association could be taken too far. Society, if only to protect itself must take them into account. A lone hacker causing massive economic damage as a prank is a different kind of *threat* than an ideologically driven organization with a stated goal of destroying the society - even if the *crime* is identical. The organization is treated more seriously not because the crime is more serious but because the threat is more serious.