These people get paid to teach and do research. If you don't like your tax dollars being spent on that, then I guess your option is to cut funding for universities and let the students pay higher tuition. Oh, that's already happening. Nevermind.
I use WiFi, I buy coffee when I am at the coffee shop on the weekend. Lots of coffee and also food. If they do not have WiFi, I leave and go somewhere else. And I'm only going to buy a finite amount of coffee and I am going to buy it where they have WiFi.
So, a rule like this would screw some "ethical" WiFi users.
The PowerPC architecture was originally intended to be clonable. What was that company that was going to make some high end chips for Apple at one time? I forget their name - they ended up suing Apple when it was all done, but the G3 ended up being faster than their fastest chip and that killed them. But, Intel could make PowerPC chips. Maybe even make an x86/PowerPC hybrid chip.
More likely Apple was having a regular conversation with Intel (since Apple uses several Intel parts) and someone misinterpreted the purpose of the meeting and leaked incorrect info.
If the *IAA is unhappy with the way copyright works, they should change the law instead of spreading lies such as "all p2p is illegal", "all music is RIAA property", and using mafia tactics to get professors fired for speaking the truth.
There are some reasons why cell phones aren't playing MP3s right now.
First off, the service providers killed Motorola's iTunes phone because they still think they can make a zillion dollars selling music to people. That's not going to happen. A lot of people will not buy music from their cell phone company.
Second, most people replace their phone much more often than their iPod. You've got to consider the cost of the hard disk and what that would add to the phone. The fact that the service provider will have to provide some technical support for the thing. The reduced reliability of the phone because of the HD. I just don't see cell phone companies wanting to be involved in all that in the near future.
Yes, convergence, but not real soon. By that time, perhaps the music is stored on a network and streamed to my phone by Google?
You will see wireless headsets that can be used with iPod before you see convergence.
The radio station did the calculation. ASCAP and BMI take the check and (supposedly) distribute the royalties. Or at least that's how it used to work. One problem that radio stations had that played independent music was writing the zillions of checks to small independent labels instead of one big one to ASCAP and one big one to BMI.
You know damn well when you download "Star Wars Episode III.wmv" that it's a copyrighted work.
When I saw such a file on eDonkey I naturally assumed it was a public domain commentary on what a bozo George Lucas is. Imagine my shock (my shock!) when I discovered that it wasn't.
Re:Yes, the world could be Apple II based, not PC-
on
Apple's First Flops
·
· Score: 1
Yeah, but it was several years too late for the kind of world dominance I'm talking about. They would have needed to start looking for and/or developing such a chip prior to 1979. And its not like Apple's management didn't realize the Apple II needed replacing by then. They had the Lisa and Mac and Apple III projects running full tilt. Instead they should have been working on improving the Apple II by running a 6502 replacement project (which is the thesis of this thread) and developing the GUI for Apple II instead of Mac.
They sold more Newtons the first year it was out than they sold Macs in the first year the Mac was out.
They sold more Newtons the first year it was out than they sold Apple IIs the first year the Apple II was out.
The Newton engineers didn't flop it - Apple's senior management, specifically their CEO, was a bunch of fucking idiots.
Re:Yes, the world could be Apple II based, not PC-
on
Apple's First Flops
·
· Score: 1
You are absolutely right... and I've very impressed with your having worked at Beagle Bros. You guys were awesome!
The main thing going against the Apple II was that the processor was owned by MOS and then later by Commodore.
What Apple *should* have done is either work with another chip company to clone and improve the 6502, or else figure a way to migrate the Apple II platform onto another chip. The Mac OS could have been implemented on top of Apple II instead of as a separate computer.
You are correct that they would (could) not port Office to MacOS X on x86. OSX for x86 would require Apple to give up Carbon - at least everything I've read has said they would require you to use the Cocoa APIs for everything on x86. Office for Mac is Carbon based and is a very difficult codebase to maintain.
Slashdot Mirror
According to the article, Linux servers are not counted as Unix. They make up 10%.
Another chunk would probably be IBM mainframes running MVS. I would think this would be replacement hardware and license maintenance, etc.
I would guess that servers running MacOS X are counted as Unix sales.
How much of the hospital revenue is spent on patient care?
Most schools aren't associted with or running hospitals.
Not without a model release signed by her.
These people get paid to teach and do research. If you don't like your tax dollars being spent on that, then I guess your option is to cut funding for universities and let the students pay higher tuition. Oh, that's already happening. Nevermind.
Who are you to tell me how to live?
I use WiFi, I buy coffee when I am at the coffee shop on the weekend. Lots of coffee and also food. If they do not have WiFi, I leave and go somewhere else. And I'm only going to buy a finite amount of coffee and I am going to buy it where they have WiFi.
So, a rule like this would screw some "ethical" WiFi users.
"Big Ol' Jed had a light on"
Oh! I'm so glad you pointed this out. I always thought it was "Bingo Jed kept a light on!"
The reason we don't have systems like that is because there isn't any financial incentive to implement them.
The reason we don't have this is because, in the USA, the crooks are writing our laws.
Muahahaha!
Star Wars is not cool -
and it hasn't been for about a decade.
That would mean that it was cool in 1995? Um, I guess I was sick that day when it was cool.
The PowerPC architecture was originally intended to be clonable. What was that company that was going to make some high end chips for Apple at one time? I forget their name - they ended up suing Apple when it was all done, but the G3 ended up being faster than their fastest chip and that killed them. But, Intel could make PowerPC chips. Maybe even make an x86/PowerPC hybrid chip.
More likely Apple was having a regular conversation with Intel (since Apple uses several Intel parts) and someone misinterpreted the purpose of the meeting and leaked incorrect info.
Not only that, but when non-corporates do try to use the copyright laws fairly like using the GPL, they all say it is "communist".
If the *IAA is unhappy with the way copyright works, they should change the law instead of spreading lies such as "all p2p is illegal", "all music is RIAA property", and using mafia tactics to get professors fired for speaking the truth.
Sure, simply remove the law that prevents us from hunting down and killing the spammer.
Move out of that crappy town.
There are some reasons why cell phones aren't playing MP3s right now.
First off, the service providers killed Motorola's iTunes phone because they still think they can make a zillion dollars selling music to people. That's not going to happen. A lot of people will not buy music from their cell phone company.
Second, most people replace their phone much more often than their iPod. You've got to consider the cost of the hard disk and what that would add to the phone. The fact that the service provider will have to provide some technical support for the thing. The reduced reliability of the phone because of the HD. I just don't see cell phone companies wanting to be involved in all that in the near future.
Yes, convergence, but not real soon. By that time, perhaps the music is stored on a network and streamed to my phone by Google?
You will see wireless headsets that can be used with iPod before you see convergence.
Microsoft isn't that great of a place to work. And actually they pay less than Google.
Depends on what form these weapons take.
The radio station did the calculation. ASCAP and BMI take the check and (supposedly) distribute the royalties. Or at least that's how it used to work. One problem that radio stations had that played independent music was writing the zillions of checks to small independent labels instead of one big one to ASCAP and one big one to BMI.
You know damn well when you download "Star Wars Episode III.wmv" that it's a copyrighted work.
When I saw such a file on eDonkey I naturally assumed it was a public domain commentary on what a bozo George Lucas is. Imagine my shock (my shock!) when I discovered that it wasn't.
Yeah, but it was several years too late for the kind of world dominance I'm talking about. They would have needed to start looking for and/or developing such a chip prior to 1979. And its not like Apple's management didn't realize the Apple II needed replacing by then. They had the Lisa and Mac and Apple III projects running full tilt. Instead they should have been working on improving the Apple II by running a 6502 replacement project (which is the thesis of this thread) and developing the GUI for Apple II instead of Mac.
Not just that it made noise, but also I think he thought (thinks?) fans are a kludge.
They sold more Newtons the first year it was out than they sold Macs in the first year the Mac was out.
They sold more Newtons the first year it was out than they sold Apple IIs the first year the Apple II was out.
The Newton engineers didn't flop it - Apple's senior management, specifically their CEO, was a bunch of fucking idiots.
You are absolutely right... and I've very impressed with your having worked at Beagle Bros. You guys were awesome!
The main thing going against the Apple II was that the processor was owned by MOS and then later by Commodore.
What Apple *should* have done is either work with another chip company to clone and improve the 6502, or else figure a way to migrate the Apple II platform onto another chip. The Mac OS could have been implemented on top of Apple II instead of as a separate computer.
You are correct that they would (could) not port Office to MacOS X on x86. OSX for x86 would require Apple to give up Carbon - at least everything I've read has said they would require you to use the Cocoa APIs for everything on x86. Office for Mac is Carbon based and is a very difficult codebase to maintain.