Oh, yeah, that's right! Now I remember seeing them at BestBuy a few years ago. Right next to the SGI Onyx boxes.
And my local computer shop doesn't sell Macs, so I guess they're not personal computers. If we're discounting machines on the basis of popularity, then Apple loses out too.
Where do you get the idea that personal computers means only home computers?
For years, PCs were almost entirely only used in business and only over the last decade have they become the dominant platform in the home too. Even now, far more are sold for business use. Are you trying to say that the dual processor computer I'm using here at work isn't a PC?
I only have one problem with the whole dyson sphere idea. Assuming you are trying to walk around inside it, what is going to keep you on the ground?
It wouldn't be a solid sphere. If it's made up of a large number of asteroids/planets, then people can live on them, and the star is still mostly surrounded.
The idea of a dyson sphere that is a solid shell is a bad idea. Partly because of gravity problems (spinning helps, but that would only work near the equator), and it would be much harder to build.
He who is willing to sacrifice liberty for the temporary promise of safety deserves neither liberty nor safety.
It's fine if you're willing to take a risk for yourself to preserve liberty, which is the context this quote is usually used in. But it's another thing entirely to risk other people's safety, just for your own personal gain.
I don't know whether being able to jump red lights is a right or not, but in my opinion, rights should not come at the expense of others.
Aside from the issues surrounding copyright infringement, there's the worrying situation that education is being controlled by those able to bribe teachers and schools.
Given that it seems that the material presented can be entirely one-sided, and doesn't have to be accurate (they should really go back to school themselves and learn what "theft" and "stealing" really mean) - imagine if a Christian fundamentalist group started bribing teachers to teach the story of genesis in science lessons, or to not teach evolution?
Though if the pupils are allowed to argue back rather than being lectured without a chance to respond, as the article seems to suggest, then at least there is some hope.
..or the next "Mac" brand, or the next "Windows" brand, or the next "Ford" brand.. (none of which have anything to do with the original, or at least, no more than Amiga).
I think you're confusing things. It's perfectly commonplace (especially outside of computers) to use brandnames for a range of related products (eg, cars), even though the design of those products may be entirely different. What is different here with Netscape is that it's not just a case of using the name for an entirely different web browser, but something that isn't even a web browser at all.
Apple markets the G5 as a desktop, to the general public (not admins, not geeks, ordinary people). The previous 64-bit systems have been marketed as workstations or servers.
Ie, Apple produced a 64-bit computer that was marketed towards the general public more so than previous 64-bit computers. This is not the same as producing the first 64-bit computer - that suggests a technical feat, independant of marketing.
Apple doesn't care what you call the G5, or what anyone else does. They call it a desktop.
Ie, when Apple define "desktop" to include Macs, but to not include other 64-bit computers, then Apple produced the first 64-bit desktop. What a surprise. Just like when they defined desktop/personal-computer to include Macs, but not other computers that were faster than Macs, they were producing the fastest desktop/PC.
Is going by Apple's definitions really fair or accurate? AMD could pull the same trick - I bet that the marketing for 64-bit Windows based machines will at some point become far greater than that for Macs, so we could discount Macs on that ground - or possibly on cost too. Or perhaps just define desktop not to include Macs for no reason at all - after all, AMD/etc can define it however they like, just like Apple do.
You may not agree that that's what a Personal Computer is, but I, and many others, think it's a reasonable definition, so to talk about Apple's statement, you simply have to accept it.
So you'll accept people saying that other computers were, or will be, in fact the first 64-bit Personal Computer?
I support everyone's right to refrain from saying the Pledge, or those parts that bother them. I do think it is appropriate for them to stand quietly in respect of other peoples' beliefs, however.
So you'll be happy to pop round to my place every morning, and stand quietly whilst I recite my beliefs to you, without allowing you to say anything in return to me?
Here in the UK we don't have a pledge, but I did have to go through years of Christian-oriented school assemblies, including preaching, hymns and prayer. Yes, I was never forced to say anything, but I don't believe I should have been subjected to them either. This isn't saying that I have a right to never hear about Christianity at all - but I shouldn't be put in a position where I have to stand there and listen.
Kazaa Lite was just a window dressing. And now it's gone from the memory of google, which is just about as good as wiping it from the face of the internet for your average user now days
I wouldn't be so sure. I mean, how did this average user find out about google in the first place? I doubt it was through advertising, or because google was a top link on MSN Search. In my experience, awareness of using KazaaLite instead of Kazaa through word of mouth seems to be just great as how people find out about Google.
We do pay to listen to the radio. Assuming you've ever bought a CD
If you're going to look at it that way, then at least you get a free CD when you pay to listen to stuff on the radio. Will Kazaa be giving out CDs when people pay for their downloads?
why should software be treated differently than other products?
It shouldn't be. But remember it's not just a case of either being liable or not being liable; products are sold (or given away) for a specific purpose.
For example, whilst car manufacturers might be liable if the brakes were faulty, if I bought a car, drove it into the sea and then sued the company because it didn't make a very good boat, do you think I would win?
More generally, I would hope that as long as the intended purpose for a product is described, and done so before any purchasing is done (so EULAs don't count), then that should be enough to be free of liabilities if the software is used for something else. Plenty of open source and freeware says something to the effect of not being fit for any purpose.
Now, if commercial companies had to put a sticky label on their products saying that this software isn't intended to be used for any purpose, then they're taking a risk that people might not want to buy those products, and instead go to a company that is prepared to take some legal responsibility.
Using "theft" helps to remind people, on both sides, that the stuff we're talking about is ILLEGAL
Just because two things are illegal doesn't make them the same. Do we need to refer to sexual harrassment as rape, in order to remind people that both are illegal? Or perhaps it's okay for people to refer to abortion as murder? (Abortion is illegal in some places, and calling it murder is a common "pro life" tactic.)
If copyright infringement is so obviously a terrible crime, why do people need to instead call it a different crime? Copyright infringement will never be seen as a negative term if people always use the word "theft".
"Property" in the sense of "intellectual property" and "theft" in the sense of "copyright violation" are pretty well known in the US and other predominantly English speaking countries. It's entered common usage.
As far is theft is concerned, it's not a usage that's in the dictionary. And yes, common usage will come before dictionary definitions, but I only ever hear theft being used to mean copyright infringement by people making an anti-piracy argument. I can't say I've heard it generally being used as an umbrella term of both theft of physical objects and copyright infringement.
Pubs usually get shutdown *after* illegal activities have been taking place on the premises (drug dealing, late drinking, serving minors, etc.) The MSN chatrooms are being taken offline for similar reasons...
But do all pubs owned by the same person or company get shut down? I thought it was just that specific pub? Not to mention that few people suggest shutting down all pubs everywhere.
Who cares if unmoderated chat rooms get taken off line - it's hardly a loss of personal freedom - it's not a right, its a service that has been provided free of charge by a profit making company.
I don't care if someone providing a chatroom decides to take it down - of course I don't have a right to that. But the government banning all private unmoderated chats is something I would care about, and would be a loss of my freedom.
If you can tear yourself away from the internet, Why don't you enjoy your freedom to go down the pub tonight and have some unmoderated chat with a real person.
Would you mind if your local pub was shut down for fear that an underage person might visit there? Would you keep quiet when others were suggesting that all pubs should be shut down because of this?
I'd like to see them try to stop access to IRC. I simply don't think there's a way of them being able to do that.
They might not be able to do it technically, but I'm not sure I'd be so eager to go on IRC if it was illegal, and I faced prison for my unlawful chatting.
Whilst the main talking point covers Microsoft in particular, there is the more general vote they have asking "Should chatrooms be closed down?" I know that votes like this should be treated as unreliable, but I find it worrying that almost half the four thousand or so people who have currently voted answer Yes.
I'm rather displeased with the (allegedly non-biased, and funded by my taxes) BBC's reporting on this as a whole - for example, they quote some statistics about how teenagers engage in sex talk or meet up - but um, with dodgy old men, or simply other teenagers? It hardly surprises me that plenty of teenagers engage in sex chat or meet up with other teenagers, but the context of that survey implies it is the former.
It also seems that they believe the laughable idea that M$ are switching to subscription based services so that it isn't anonymous, and that it is the "free, unmoderated chatrooms" that are a bad thing. Um, so making money from it has nothing to do with it of course.
I'm not sure if it's a case of M$ reacting from the existing witch-hunt paranoia or not, but the whole thing just adds further fuel to it.
Most parents are clueless about the Net as a whole.
Agreed. I wonder how many people thinking that chatrooms should be outlawed have actually used one. Also it's amusing how many of those on the talking point seem to think that chats are only provided by companies, who can then close them down..
Well, it's clearly wrong to say that all of computing comes from the Amiga, but I never understood those who think it all comes from Apple either.
They brought the GUI to the masses,
So we agree that they weren't first with it, but who were "the masses"? I would have thought that most people's first experience of a GUI was with Windows. Similarly with the other things; they only got there "first" from the point of view of a Mac fanatic.
They will more than likely ape what Apple has done and introduce a more flexible shell than CMD.
Erm, it wasn't until Mac OS X that Apple had a shell - their previous one didn't have one at all! Plenty of operating systems (including AmigaOS) successfully combined a GUI with a shell, that was more flexible than Windows/DOS.
1) Because BSD doesn't run Aqua. (it's not open source)
2) Tivo is proprietary, and I have other things to do with my time than figure out what Tivo already figured out.
And AmigaOS is proprietary, and runs software that Linux doesn't. So even if AmigaOS was Linux based (it isn't), the original example is just as stupid.
And you can emulate the Amiga environment on top of Linux just fine to boot. Which is really what they're doing with OS 4 , I'm afraid!
No it isn't.
If you're a real Amiga enthusiast out of a sense of nostalgia, there's always eBay. I think nostalgia is a perfectly fine reason to be collecting hardware, I can totally appreciate that sentiment. What I would most definitely *NOT* do is try to use this old hardware to get any real work done. I know what time it is!
No one is suggesting using old hardware for "real work". But this machine, whilst a G3 may not be cutting edge, is still more than adequate for plenty of real work.
But is this new Amiga hardware really "Amiga" just because a buncha German folk are saying it is? To me, what makes an Amiga is chips. Chips that are highly specialized and each of them doing their jobs very well, robustly and with gusto. Does this new Amiga board have modern analogue of those wonderful old chips?
If you prefer the old machines, then follow your own advice and pick an A500 up from ebay. And yes, the new machine will have specialised chips, just like any modern computer does.
According to Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, megalo and mega can both mean either a million times, or of great size. Both come from the Greek megas, meaning great, according to The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language.
Think of megascope and megacosm if you don't like megalopolis.
Exactly! It's common for words to mean something different to the literal meaning of the words they were derived from. If someone talks about a catfish, you don't hear people complaining that a cat is a four legged cute fluffy mammal.
I'm not even sure that byte is an SI unit at all (and surely it would make more sense for the fundamental unit to be the bit?)
However, if you are going to talk about the American military, it's our aircraft carriers that let us rule the world. That is how we can project power across the globe. It let's us send air power anywhere.
I look at things in Europe and the US the way children and adults see life. Children see the next purchase as a video game, and that their parents should pay for it.
Video games? Like, video games where you play at being soldiers, or perhaps ones where you have to acquire a large military in order to control the world?
You expect others to pay for your desires, we understand that we need to pay our own way.
Funny, I pay for the national health service through taxes. I'm still glad we have it, however.
You would think that 50 years of the US subsidizing Europes existance, plus the thousand year head start on civilization would put your standard of living tremendously beyond our own. However, the opposite is the case.
You do realise that Europeans colonised America? They didn't suddenly start from the stone age again.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, yeah, that's right! Now I remember seeing them at BestBuy a few years ago. Right next to the SGI Onyx boxes.
And my local computer shop doesn't sell Macs, so I guess they're not personal computers. If we're discounting machines on the basis of popularity, then Apple loses out too.
Where do you get the idea that personal computers means only home computers?
For years, PCs were almost entirely only used in business and only over the last decade have they become the dominant platform in the home too. Even now, far more are sold for business use. Are you trying to say that the dual processor computer I'm using here at work isn't a PC?
I only have one problem with the whole dyson sphere idea. Assuming you are trying to walk around inside it, what is going to keep you on the ground?
It wouldn't be a solid sphere. If it's made up of a large number of asteroids/planets, then people can live on them, and the star is still mostly surrounded.
The idea of a dyson sphere that is a solid shell is a bad idea. Partly because of gravity problems (spinning helps, but that would only work near the equator), and it would be much harder to build.
He who is willing to sacrifice liberty for the temporary promise of safety deserves neither liberty nor safety.
It's fine if you're willing to take a risk for yourself to preserve liberty, which is the context this quote is usually used in. But it's another thing entirely to risk other people's safety, just for your own personal gain.
I don't know whether being able to jump red lights is a right or not, but in my opinion, rights should not come at the expense of others.
Aside from the issues surrounding copyright infringement, there's the worrying situation that education is being controlled by those able to bribe teachers and schools.
Given that it seems that the material presented can be entirely one-sided, and doesn't have to be accurate (they should really go back to school themselves and learn what "theft" and "stealing" really mean) - imagine if a Christian fundamentalist group started bribing teachers to teach the story of genesis in science lessons, or to not teach evolution?
Though if the pupils are allowed to argue back rather than being lectured without a chance to respond, as the article seems to suggest, then at least there is some hope.
..or the next "Mac" brand, or the next "Windows" brand, or the next "Ford" brand.. (none of which have anything to do with the original, or at least, no more than Amiga).
I think you're confusing things. It's perfectly commonplace (especially outside of computers) to use brandnames for a range of related products (eg, cars), even though the design of those products may be entirely different. What is different here with Netscape is that it's not just a case of using the name for an entirely different web browser, but something that isn't even a web browser at all.
Apple markets the G5 as a desktop, to the general public (not admins, not geeks, ordinary people). The previous 64-bit systems have been marketed as workstations or servers.
Ie, Apple produced a 64-bit computer that was marketed towards the general public more so than previous 64-bit computers. This is not the same as producing the first 64-bit computer - that suggests a technical feat, independant of marketing.
Apple doesn't care what you call the G5, or what anyone else does. They call it a desktop.
Ie, when Apple define "desktop" to include Macs, but to not include other 64-bit computers, then Apple produced the first 64-bit desktop. What a surprise. Just like when they defined desktop/personal-computer to include Macs, but not other computers that were faster than Macs, they were producing the fastest desktop/PC.
Is going by Apple's definitions really fair or accurate? AMD could pull the same trick - I bet that the marketing for 64-bit Windows based machines will at some point become far greater than that for Macs, so we could discount Macs on that ground - or possibly on cost too. Or perhaps just define desktop not to include Macs for no reason at all - after all, AMD/etc can define it however they like, just like Apple do.
You may not agree that that's what a Personal Computer is, but I, and many others, think it's a reasonable definition, so to talk about Apple's statement, you simply have to accept it.
So you'll accept people saying that other computers were, or will be, in fact the first 64-bit Personal Computer?
I support everyone's right to refrain from saying the Pledge, or those parts that bother them. I do think it is appropriate for them to stand quietly in respect of other peoples' beliefs, however.
So you'll be happy to pop round to my place every morning, and stand quietly whilst I recite my beliefs to you, without allowing you to say anything in return to me?
Here in the UK we don't have a pledge, but I did have to go through years of Christian-oriented school assemblies, including preaching, hymns and prayer. Yes, I was never forced to say anything, but I don't believe I should have been subjected to them either. This isn't saying that I have a right to never hear about Christianity at all - but I shouldn't be put in a position where I have to stand there and listen.
Kazaa Lite was just a window dressing. And now it's gone from the memory of google, which is just about as good as wiping it from the face of the internet for your average user now days
I wouldn't be so sure. I mean, how did this average user find out about google in the first place? I doubt it was through advertising, or because google was a top link on MSN Search. In my experience, awareness of using KazaaLite instead of Kazaa through word of mouth seems to be just great as how people find out about Google.
We do pay to listen to the radio. Assuming you've ever bought a CD
If you're going to look at it that way, then at least you get a free CD when you pay to listen to stuff on the radio. Will Kazaa be giving out CDs when people pay for their downloads?
why should software be treated differently than other products?
It shouldn't be. But remember it's not just a case of either being liable or not being liable; products are sold (or given away) for a specific purpose.
For example, whilst car manufacturers might be liable if the brakes were faulty, if I bought a car, drove it into the sea and then sued the company because it didn't make a very good boat, do you think I would win?
More generally, I would hope that as long as the intended purpose for a product is described, and done so before any purchasing is done (so EULAs don't count), then that should be enough to be free of liabilities if the software is used for something else. Plenty of open source and freeware says something to the effect of not being fit for any purpose.
Now, if commercial companies had to put a sticky label on their products saying that this software isn't intended to be used for any purpose, then they're taking a risk that people might not want to buy those products, and instead go to a company that is prepared to take some legal responsibility.
And this is different from Microsoft's disclaimer of all liabilities how?
You only find out about the disclaimer after you've already bought it.
Using "theft" helps to remind people, on both sides, that the stuff we're talking about is ILLEGAL
Just because two things are illegal doesn't make them the same. Do we need to refer to sexual harrassment as rape, in order to remind people that both are illegal? Or perhaps it's okay for people to refer to abortion as murder? (Abortion is illegal in some places, and calling it murder is a common "pro life" tactic.)
If copyright infringement is so obviously a terrible crime, why do people need to instead call it a different crime? Copyright infringement will never be seen as a negative term if people always use the word "theft".
"Property" in the sense of "intellectual property" and "theft" in the sense of "copyright violation" are pretty well known in the US and other predominantly English speaking countries. It's entered common usage.
As far is theft is concerned, it's not a usage that's in the dictionary. And yes, common usage will come before dictionary definitions, but I only ever hear theft being used to mean copyright infringement by people making an anti-piracy argument. I can't say I've heard it generally being used as an umbrella term of both theft of physical objects and copyright infringement.
Pubs usually get shutdown *after* illegal activities have been taking place on the premises (drug dealing, late drinking, serving minors, etc.) The MSN chatrooms are being taken offline for similar reasons...
But do all pubs owned by the same person or company get shut down? I thought it was just that specific pub? Not to mention that few people suggest shutting down all pubs everywhere.
Who cares if unmoderated chat rooms get taken off line - it's hardly a loss of personal freedom - it's not a right, its a service that has been provided free of charge by a profit making company.
I don't care if someone providing a chatroom decides to take it down - of course I don't have a right to that. But the government banning all private unmoderated chats is something I would care about, and would be a loss of my freedom.
If you can tear yourself away from the internet, Why don't you enjoy your freedom to go down the pub tonight and have some unmoderated chat with a real person.
Would you mind if your local pub was shut down for fear that an underage person might visit there? Would you keep quiet when others were suggesting that all pubs should be shut down because of this?
I'd like to see them try to stop access to IRC. I simply don't think there's a way of them being able to do that.
They might not be able to do it technically, but I'm not sure I'd be so eager to go on IRC if it was illegal, and I faced prison for my unlawful chatting.
I've seen several comments here and here
Whilst the main talking point covers Microsoft in particular, there is the more general vote they have asking "Should chatrooms be closed down?" I know that votes like this should be treated as unreliable, but I find it worrying that almost half the four thousand or so people who have currently voted answer Yes.
I'm rather displeased with the (allegedly non-biased, and funded by my taxes) BBC's reporting on this as a whole - for example, they quote some statistics about how teenagers engage in sex talk or meet up - but um, with dodgy old men, or simply other teenagers? It hardly surprises me that plenty of teenagers engage in sex chat or meet up with other teenagers, but the context of that survey implies it is the former.
It also seems that they believe the laughable idea that M$ are switching to subscription based services so that it isn't anonymous, and that it is the "free, unmoderated chatrooms" that are a bad thing. Um, so making money from it has nothing to do with it of course.
I'm not sure if it's a case of M$ reacting from the existing witch-hunt paranoia or not, but the whole thing just adds further fuel to it.
Most parents are clueless about the Net as a whole.
Agreed. I wonder how many people thinking that chatrooms should be outlawed have actually used one. Also it's amusing how many of those on the talking point seem to think that chats are only provided by companies, who can then close them down..
Well, it's clearly wrong to say that all of computing comes from the Amiga, but I never understood those who think it all comes from Apple either.
They brought the GUI to the masses,
So we agree that they weren't first with it, but who were "the masses"? I would have thought that most people's first experience of a GUI was with Windows. Similarly with the other things; they only got there "first" from the point of view of a Mac fanatic.
They will more than likely ape what Apple has done and introduce a more flexible shell than CMD.
Erm, it wasn't until Mac OS X that Apple had a shell - their previous one didn't have one at all! Plenty of operating systems (including AmigaOS) successfully combined a GUI with a shell, that was more flexible than Windows/DOS.
1) Because BSD doesn't run Aqua. (it's not open source)
2) Tivo is proprietary, and I have other things to do with my time than figure out what Tivo already figured out.
And AmigaOS is proprietary, and runs software that Linux doesn't. So even if AmigaOS was Linux based (it isn't), the original example is just as stupid.
And you can emulate the Amiga environment on top of Linux just fine to boot. Which is really what they're doing with OS 4 , I'm afraid!
No it isn't.
If you're a real Amiga enthusiast out of a sense of nostalgia, there's always eBay. I think nostalgia is a perfectly fine reason to be collecting hardware, I can totally appreciate that sentiment. What I would most definitely *NOT* do is try to use this old hardware to get any real work done. I know what time it is!
No one is suggesting using old hardware for "real work". But this machine, whilst a G3 may not be cutting edge, is still more than adequate for plenty of real work.
But is this new Amiga hardware really "Amiga" just because a buncha German folk are saying it is? To me, what makes an Amiga is chips. Chips that are highly specialized and each of them doing their jobs very well, robustly and with gusto. Does this new Amiga board have modern analogue of those wonderful old chips?
If you prefer the old machines, then follow your own advice and pick an A500 up from ebay. And yes, the new machine will have specialised chips, just like any modern computer does.
What's the attraction over Linux, FreeBSD, Windows, or Apple??
What's the attraction of say, FreeBSD over Linux, Windows or Apple?
According to Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, megalo and mega can both mean either a million times, or of great size. Both come from the Greek megas, meaning great, according to The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language.
Think of megascope and megacosm if you don't like megalopolis.
Exactly! It's common for words to mean something different to the literal meaning of the words they were derived from. If someone talks about a catfish, you don't hear people complaining that a cat is a four legged cute fluffy mammal.
I'm not even sure that byte is an SI unit at all (and surely it would make more sense for the fundamental unit to be the bit?)
However, if you are going to talk about the American military, it's our aircraft carriers that let us rule the world. That is how we can project power across the globe. It let's us send air power anywhere.
I look at things in Europe and the US the way children and adults see life. Children see the next purchase as a video game, and that their parents should pay for it.
Video games? Like, video games where you play at being soldiers, or perhaps ones where you have to acquire a large military in order to control the world?
You expect others to pay for your desires, we understand that we need to pay our own way.
Funny, I pay for the national health service through taxes. I'm still glad we have it, however.
You would think that 50 years of the US subsidizing Europes existance, plus the thousand year head start on civilization would put your standard of living tremendously beyond our own. However, the opposite is the case.
You do realise that Europeans colonised America? They didn't suddenly start from the stone age again.