"I was up and running in less than one day, Girl Scout's honor."
No, she's telling the truth. It just took 23 hours and 45 minutes. That's pretty good for a windows box.
The "G" in the G* processors is supposed to mean "Generation" i.e. a G3 is a "Generation 3 PowerPC". The PowerPC 601 and 603 would have been the G1 and G2, had they followed the same naming pattern. (What about the 603e?)
While the new chips are not strictly PowerPC chips, Apple could really call then whatever the hell they want when they put them in their machines.
I wonder if they could use the wobble of the orbit of our sun to look for intelligent life this planet? It really would be just as interesting to find out.
I really hate this generation-ism crap. The most pompous evidence of this comes watching the media *struggle* to come up with a good label for the next generation. They fooled themselves into saying Generation X is the generation without classification! It denies all bounds! They have no direct, immediate, defining stereotype. How unique! Now Generation Y is um, the non-generic, non-specific generation that comes after generation X. Or, um, maybe it's the digital generation, because they like have computers and stuff. Can someone call the buzzword department and get a decision on this?
That may be, but the problem with class action suits is that they are almost always brought in order to benefit the lawyers. It's rare indeed that the actual plaintiffs in such suits gain anything significant from them.
The reasoning behind this is that the damages from such cases cannot reasonably be returned perfectly and appropriately to everyone who was hurt. Additionally not every case which should be brought up is.
Damages in this case are meant therefore not primarily to recompensate the victims but is primarily a punitive measure: to punish the assailants and try to dissuade other corporations from doing the same. So, the reasoning is, it doesn't matter that the lawyers get all the money because they are taking the money from even more evil corporation to stop them from undertaking civil wrongs.
Software costs so much because it becomes more valuable to society the more people that use it. It becomes a platform on which everyone can stardardize, and as a result the company that owns it *cough* can start charging well above the actual average cost of the piece of software without having to worry about competition.
But you're ignoring the Total Cost of Ownership. If the windoze box crashes every five minutes, you're wasting valuable time that will quickly exceed the difference in price between your PC shitbox and the Mac running MS Office on Mach BSD that never crashes.
Of course it is wrong. The purpose of science is to confirm what is politically correct, and bush policies are *not* politically correct. This is the opposite of science.
I have to say, I probably wouldn't have my $50/hour programming job if I hadn't discovered HyperCard in 6th grade. My friends and I would spend hours and hours making whole interactive games on it. It got me interesting in programming. It was fun, and as it turned out, profitable.
You've hit a major point here: that open source source software is not radically inexplicable to modern economics. But here is an error.
Open source software is not "free" in an economic sense. Open source software has costs involved with using it, even though they might not be monetary. Economists call this the "Total Cost of Ownership" (TCO) and is the relevant factor here, not purchase price. These costs might include the time it takes to install, configure and learn how to use a piece of software.
The problem with (a lot of) open source is that it does not produce enough documentation and has no company to provide support, which would lower the TCO. So in fact, the real, relevant economic cost *may* turn out to be comparable with proprietary software.
Economics is still largely based on theorisation of 19th century economics.
No, it isn't. There have been 3 major phases in economics, and none of them were in the 19th century.
1) Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations (1776) -- still at a time when economists were really philosophers. Virtually invented modern microeconomics. Also created largely to refute "mercantalism" employed by colonial powers. Smith was joined by some of the other major philosophers of the time, including David Hume and John Locke (or was it Hobbes?).
2) John Maynard Keynes' The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money (1936) totally reinvented economics, mainly creating what we now call macroeconomics, or how a societal economy as a whole functions. He established the relationship between interest rates and the supply of money. It was created mostly to explain the failure of most of the world's capitalist economies during the time period.
3) Neo-classicism (1960s-70s) -- Neo-classicists like Robert Lucas added a lot of math and calculus to economics and brought game theory to the fold. This area is much more technical and still being explored today.
Yes, but if 200 people all wanted the same feature for $100 each.....
Why can't more than one person by the same feature at the same time? It seems economically efficient. I mean, if only one person could buy one feature at a time, everyone else who would have paid for it "free ride" on that one person who paid. On the other hand, if everyone who ever used a piece of software paid for a new feature by the exact amount it was worth to them, even if each the amount for each individual was small the sum could be very large.
Yes, you can update software update using software update.
Here's it's description of the path: Security Update 7-12-02 delivers a more secure Software Update service to verify that future updates originate from Apple. If you would prefer to download this manually from a secure Apple server you can download the package at http://www.info.apple.com/kbnum/n75304
I can do the same thing with my Titanium Powerbook and an extra LCD screen (I'm using this setup as we speak, BTW). It has a built-in plug for a second monitor which can be used in mirroring or side-by-side mode, where you can move across the two screens as if they were joined along that side.
Of course, you can't fold it up like that cool thing but you can use it in lieu of a kevlar vest in combat situations and it looks like a small gray file folder when it's closed and sitting on a desk.
money is a substantial part of their identification with their national identity.
No, it only means that people have strong feelings about their money. It makes people feel good or powerful. Whatever it was you were babbling about was something that you wanted to believe anyway..
Maybe what you said says more about our self-loathing. Non-Americans are saying fsck the US, they should learn to use the colors. Americans are saying it isn't worth the effort. (How many times have I confused a $10 for a $1? Maybe twice in my whole life, and that was with the old, smaller portrait money.)
Slashdot Mirror
"I was up and running in less than one day, Girl Scout's honor." No, she's telling the truth. It just took 23 hours and 45 minutes. That's pretty good for a windows box.
oops, I don't know what I was talking about. Forget about it.
While the new chips are not strictly PowerPC chips, Apple could really call then whatever the hell they want when they put them in their machines.
Color me stupid, but what is blender and why is it important?
I wonder if they could use the wobble of the orbit of our sun to look for intelligent life this planet? It really would be just as interesting to find out.
Just give it up, please, and do us all a favor.
NO, because these people are probably not going to be within your local calling area.
Actually, AppleWorks is only bundled with i(Book|Mac)s. Power(Book|Mac)s don't, though they come with other neat goodies like GraphicConverter.
The reasoning behind this is that the damages from such cases cannot reasonably be returned perfectly and appropriately to everyone who was hurt. Additionally not every case which should be brought up is.
Damages in this case are meant therefore not primarily to recompensate the victims but is primarily a punitive measure: to punish the assailants and try to dissuade other corporations from doing the same. So, the reasoning is, it doesn't matter that the lawyers get all the money because they are taking the money from even more evil corporation to stop them from undertaking civil wrongs.
Software costs so much because it becomes more valuable to society the more people that use it. It becomes a platform on which everyone can stardardize, and as a result the company that owns it *cough* can start charging well above the actual average cost of the piece of software without having to worry about competition.
But you're ignoring the Total Cost of Ownership. If the windoze box crashes every five minutes, you're wasting valuable time that will quickly exceed the difference in price between your PC shitbox and the Mac running MS Office on Mach BSD that never crashes.
Of course it is wrong. The purpose of science is to confirm what is politically correct, and bush policies are *not* politically correct. This is the opposite of science.
If you chose the former, you probably don't live in NYC.
I have to say, I probably wouldn't have my $50/hour programming job if I hadn't discovered HyperCard in 6th grade. My friends and I would spend hours and hours making whole interactive games on it. It got me interesting in programming. It was fun, and as it turned out, profitable.
You've hit a major point here: that open source source software is not radically inexplicable to modern economics. But here is an error.
Open source software is not "free" in an economic sense. Open source software has costs involved with using it, even though they might not be monetary. Economists call this the "Total Cost of Ownership" (TCO) and is the relevant factor here, not purchase price. These costs might include the time it takes to install, configure and learn how to use a piece of software.
The problem with (a lot of) open source is that it does not produce enough documentation and has no company to provide support, which would lower the TCO. So in fact, the real, relevant economic cost *may* turn out to be comparable with proprietary software.
No, it isn't. There have been 3 major phases in economics, and none of them were in the 19th century.
1) Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations (1776) -- still at a time when economists were really philosophers. Virtually invented modern microeconomics. Also created largely to refute "mercantalism" employed by colonial powers. Smith was joined by some of the other major philosophers of the time, including David Hume and John Locke (or was it Hobbes?).
2) John Maynard Keynes' The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money (1936) totally reinvented economics, mainly creating what we now call macroeconomics, or how a societal economy as a whole functions. He established the relationship between interest rates and the supply of money. It was created mostly to explain the failure of most of the world's capitalist economies during the time period.
3) Neo-classicism (1960s-70s) -- Neo-classicists like Robert Lucas added a lot of math and calculus to economics and brought game theory to the fold. This area is much more technical and still being explored today.
So there you have it.
Why can't more than one person by the same feature at the same time? It seems economically efficient. I mean, if only one person could buy one feature at a time, everyone else who would have paid for it "free ride" on that one person who paid. On the other hand, if everyone who ever used a piece of software paid for a new feature by the exact amount it was worth to them, even if each the amount for each individual was small the sum could be very large.
Here's it's description of the path:
Security Update 7-12-02 delivers a more secure Software Update service to verify that future updates originate from Apple. If you would prefer to download this manually from a secure Apple server you can download the package at http://www.info.apple.com/kbnum/n75304
What does the 403 Forbidden or 500 Internal server error look like?
... Step 17: [laughs] There's no step 17! There's no step 17! [laughs]
Of course, you can't fold it up like that cool thing but you can use it in lieu of a kevlar vest in combat situations and it looks like a small gray file folder when it's closed and sitting on a desk.
No, it only means that people have strong feelings about their money. It makes people feel good or powerful. Whatever it was you were babbling about was something that you wanted to believe anyway..
Maybe what you said says more about our self-loathing. Non-Americans are saying fsck the US, they should learn to use the colors. Americans are saying it isn't worth the effort. (How many times have I confused a $10 for a $1? Maybe twice in my whole life, and that was with the old, smaller portrait money.)
post-it notes are probably more expensive per amount of memory than modern computer RAM