It would seem for all the intelligence attributed to their creator
is insufficient to allow for the idea the he created evolution. Their tactics sicken me, let's please do all we can to stop this.
In L.A. there are several very modern buildings called the Pacific Design Center. They house expensive furniture and the buildings themselves are generally not open to the publice save for their extensive grounds. Taking snap shots there results in being escorted away by a guard who tells you a $1000 license is required for picture taking. Inform him you aren't with a studio and that it is just family you are photographing, they will seek to take your camera. There are no signs anywhere stating this and when asked why, they refer to "their employer" of whom, if you question further, they have no idea who he/she might be.
For what it is worth, I have had this happen in several restaurants as well: I just wrote it off as an L.A. obsession with image. Who knew it was one of money and control?
The following arrived for me. Next to the Surrealist Compliment Generator, nothing tops this email (bless those german cheerleaders!):
"Thrown out by unicorns, dives the futon to worm. Blades like answers dress negatively to night, marking Kiss the picture! Strike the year! An entity returns, dressing unexpectedly to a near bush, Lifting German cheerleaders here. Upon hard torches, call not yet break pleasantly The hot theater reconciles succulently, jokingly. When explorers kiss in bouncy canisters, the branch exposes, Of keys, catch the ancient llama, walking The lamp stole concisely, elongated uncovered the textured lamp. Its moose lifted in the queen of a noose. Exposing, masquerading, solving, revolving, throwing out, Alas, the glance has reconciled quite plausibly, killing The homesick knife returns lightly, lovingly.
My Friend: suspensory palma retile millwrighting douzieme acetylfluoride"
We should have never been there in the first place. Any corporate intrusion from UK or USA will reek of carpet bagging. Help the Iraquis decide what they want- don't force more upon them.
Freud was asked a similar question as to why would he charge for therapy since his main focus was simply to help the patient. His reply was - to paraphrase- the therapy would not work as well because the patient needed to put something of value into it. Low or no cost software can and should work, but we will have to show a dollar value for it: Savings over current development plans might be just what the bean counters need to see.
Given what seems to be a backroom deal with the current administration designed to protect a convicted monopoly, the main chink in Microsofts armor is its lack of security. Hopefully this latest rhetoric will be seen as the hot air it is and in the least, remembered so as to hold them accountable at a later date.
Oracle database server hasn't run on MacOS since version 7.01 and earlier. Mayb e they mean 60 over all time. Still, a considerable effort and impressive as well.
Like Apple or not, what I want to know is why so many get disappointed when they don't break the 3MHz barrier, solve world hunger, and quite the hardware business and go Intel/AMD only? For so many to fret as such, they must secretly hold a greater belief in Apples abilities. Do other computer companies suffer such bright derision?
I'm thankful for a clear review of a book that has proved very useful. Its always hard to attract a broad audience without alienating someone yet "Programming Cocoa" has achieved a nice balance. And the reviewer is right: The frameworks are extensive (the usual learning curve) but you will be surprised at how much is taken care of for you - if you don't choose to override it.
Other nice sources for programming Cocoa are Jesse Feiler's new book "Developing for OS X" and a fine series of articles geared toward newbies (but not without solid insights) at O'Reilly Mac Devcenter written by Mike Beam.
The primary advantage to such an endevor is the creation of a set of reference standards. However, deeming these standards as the basis for licensing and claiming this to be a science is grossly mistaken. Science at its best is an art. And art, as an act of creation of something heretofor unknown, can't be proscribed by law. Please, codify software engineering- create a guild a union, an association- but don't subject it to the exclusionary class wars possible through selective licensing.
This is so similar to the tobacco company settlement that I must question who these lawyers are representing: Is it the interests of the nation/people or a lurid fascination with deep pockets? Instead of jailing the tobacco executives who lied under oath - lies that cost the lives of many- we have created a system in symbiosis with their bank accounts: This we call a 'settlement'. It should be no surprise then that something similar may be done with Microsoft. The temptation to asuage the lawyers fecklessness with the pallitive of helping poor children-and pass this off as a solution no less- is a ruse no one should perpetuate. It should not be accepted since it addresses nothing concerning the law suits.
You should read Eric's account of the case. It is quite a testament to Eric's vision and commitment to mathematics but also to the voracity of business. Though CRC did not prevail in court, they got money out of this and the rights to all future submissions. All this for data they don't own! What was Eric's fine maths site has now been co-opted into an information gathering point over which lawyers hold sway. AND, here comes the wrought irony, if you do contribute, you have to agree to the same ambiguous boilerplate contract that suckered Eric in the first place.
Thank Eric and Wolfram for their commitment, but wear garlic when around CRC.
Slashdot Mirror
It would seem for all the intelligence attributed to their creator is insufficient to allow for the idea the he created evolution. Their tactics sicken me, let's please do all we can to stop this.
In L.A. there are several very modern buildings called the Pacific Design Center. They house expensive furniture and the buildings themselves are generally not open to the publice save for their extensive grounds. Taking snap shots there results in being escorted away by a guard who tells you a $1000 license is required for picture taking. Inform him you aren't with a studio and that it is just family you are photographing, they will seek to take your camera. There are no signs anywhere stating this and when asked why, they refer to "their employer" of whom, if you question further, they have no idea who he/she might be. For what it is worth, I have had this happen in several restaurants as well: I just wrote it off as an L.A. obsession with image. Who knew it was one of money and control?
The following arrived for me. Next to the Surrealist Compliment Generator, nothing tops this email (bless those german cheerleaders!): "Thrown out by unicorns, dives the futon to worm. Blades like answers dress negatively to night, marking Kiss the picture! Strike the year! An entity returns, dressing unexpectedly to a near bush, Lifting German cheerleaders here. Upon hard torches, call not yet break pleasantly The hot theater reconciles succulently, jokingly. When explorers kiss in bouncy canisters, the branch exposes, Of keys, catch the ancient llama, walking The lamp stole concisely, elongated uncovered the textured lamp. Its moose lifted in the queen of a noose. Exposing, masquerading, solving, revolving, throwing out, Alas, the glance has reconciled quite plausibly, killing The homesick knife returns lightly, lovingly. My Friend: suspensory palma retile millwrighting douzieme acetylfluoride"
We should have never been there in the first place. Any corporate intrusion from UK or USA will reek of carpet bagging. Help the Iraquis decide what they want- don't force more upon them.
Freud was asked a similar question as to why would he charge for therapy since his main focus was simply to help the patient. His reply was - to paraphrase- the therapy would not work as well because the patient needed to put something of value into it. Low or no cost software can and should work, but we will have to show a dollar value for it: Savings over current development plans might be just what the bean counters need to see.
Given what seems to be a backroom deal with the current administration designed to protect a convicted monopoly, the main chink in Microsofts armor is its lack of security. Hopefully this latest rhetoric will be seen as the hot air it is and in the least, remembered so as to hold them accountable at a later date.
Oracle database server hasn't run on MacOS since version 7.01 and earlier. Mayb e they mean 60 over all time. Still, a considerable effort and impressive as well.
Something is wrong with this 'unbreakable' business: My shampoo is in an unbreakable bottle and yet everyday a little seems to get out. Funny, huh...
Like Apple or not, what I want to know is why so many get disappointed when they don't break the 3MHz barrier, solve world hunger, and quite the hardware business and go Intel/AMD only? For so many to fret as such, they must secretly hold a greater belief in Apples abilities. Do other computer companies suffer such bright derision?
I'm thankful for a clear review of a book that has proved very useful. Its always hard to attract a broad audience without alienating someone yet "Programming Cocoa" has achieved a nice balance. And the reviewer is right: The frameworks are extensive (the usual learning curve) but you will be surprised at how much is taken care of for you - if you don't choose to override it. Other nice sources for programming Cocoa are Jesse Feiler's new book "Developing for OS X" and a fine series of articles geared toward newbies (but not without solid insights) at O'Reilly Mac Devcenter written by Mike Beam.
The primary advantage to such an endevor is the creation of a set of reference standards. However, deeming these standards as the basis for licensing and claiming this to be a science is grossly mistaken. Science at its best is an art. And art, as an act of creation of something heretofor unknown, can't be proscribed by law. Please, codify software engineering- create a guild a union, an association- but don't subject it to the exclusionary class wars possible through selective licensing.
This is so similar to the tobacco company settlement that I must question who these lawyers are representing: Is it the interests of the nation/people or a lurid fascination with deep pockets? Instead of jailing the tobacco executives who lied under oath - lies that cost the lives of many- we have created a system in symbiosis with their bank accounts: This we call a 'settlement'. It should be no surprise then that something similar may be done with Microsoft. The temptation to asuage the lawyers fecklessness with the pallitive of helping poor children-and pass this off as a solution no less- is a ruse no one should perpetuate. It should not be accepted since it addresses nothing concerning the law suits.
You should read Eric's account of the case. It is quite a testament to Eric's vision and commitment to mathematics but also to the voracity of business. Though CRC did not prevail in court, they got money out of this and the rights to all future submissions. All this for data they don't own! What was Eric's fine maths site has now been co-opted into an information gathering point over which lawyers hold sway. AND, here comes the wrought irony, if you do contribute, you have to agree to the same ambiguous boilerplate contract that suckered Eric in the first place. Thank Eric and Wolfram for their commitment, but wear garlic when around CRC.