I didn't know this website existed, that is until I read the article on SMH.com.au. While they don't mention the website's url a quick google for "school teacher rating" pulled up the right page.. a few links down and I was writing reviews for some of the poorest teachers I had ever experienced.
Just like the HD-DVD hex code, once you start giving these things publicity (no matter how you direct it) you'll always get people doing whatever they want with the newly found information.
If they wanted this problem to go away they should have ignored it, not plea with the government to have the website banned.
I was also concerned for Steve's health, noting that he made no mention of his new baby the iPhone.
I did a little poking and prodding... then some research and discovered his omission of the iPhone was deliberate.. it's because ladies and gentlemen, the iPhone contains dead puppies. That's right DEAD PUPPIES ooh and some of that bromide stuff, that sounds hot.
I agree very much with this point. Making this portion of the chain vertical isn't useful... after all microprocessors are still a field with a lot of competitive advancement.
Apple would hate to be stuck with a latent AMD should Intel remain strong on the chip front. It would be a parallel situation to Apple being at the mercy of Motorola's very slow G4 product development. (I still think the ROKR phone was Apple's way of taking revenge on Motorola for giving them rubbish for the last few years...hehehe)
We all know what we're going to see if we look at these images at their native resolutions.
The tiny lenses and aperatures of the camera phones will reveal minimal pixel differentiation between pixels(making the large 5 megapixel number meaningless) while the dSLR for example even on it's lowest aperature setting, will still have superior pixel differentiation... However it's not something we wouldn't expect.. one is a true mineral glass camera made from a number of lenses each designed to minimalise photographic abberations, the other is, depending on the phone model, fitted with one or two plastic (sometimes glass) lenses designed to take impromptu images of puppy dogs and drunk friends.
The article does show how well the camera phones are coming along(the noise processing on the digital cameras has come a long way) Each phone's post processing usually returning a usable image which a consumer might find desirable. Keeping in mind here that it's ideal for people who are more interested in the subject matter than an accurate photograph.
Other than using a camera phone as an artists tool (similar to small toy fish eye cameras.) They're obviously not useful as a dSLR replacement as the images were aberration city when it came to photographic quality. Even in this ideal lighting condition some of the phones' post processing went nuts.
Also of note is that dSLR cameras are designed to emulate a real photographers camera. I trust the 400d's image to look closest to reality in it's portrayal and not just serving up an auto-balanced image of what the consumer would prefer to see. (I doubt this article was shot under 5500K proof lighting rig.)
Your argument is completely ignorant to how Hitler came into power. It's also ignorant to the fact that the amendment by the founding fathers was written long before Nazi Germany, and rather it was written (if you read the amendment in full) to specifically apply to those serving in the state-run armies(there was no federal army at the time) these were known as militia in the day.
Also your comparison is particularlly irrelevant considering that USA is a rich country and not a struggling country with an imagined enemy living inside it's borders. Which is one of the mechanisms Hitler used to gain the goodwill of the people.
America is, unfortunately, behind in the world, not because of some intellectual fad, but because America has the most gun related deaths of this kind in the world, it's a number, not a fashionable theory.(It's also a number that is disproportionate to the population, you might not realise this but 300M people is far from the most populous country in the world.) Similarly populous countries don't have the reoccuring problem that was sadly demonstrated at VT.
However with a political system as corrupted as the USA is experiencing right now, you're going to need a bit more than guns to fix it. (It has been lime-washed for a very long time that the 2nd amendment was some how related to ensuring the government stays free of corruption/or other nazi-germany type embroilment. This is often cited as an excuse for why the amendment still exists today.
Also, for your reference, the only European country I listed in the examples was England. This is hardly an USA bashing, it's a realisation that when it comes to gun laws, the USA is behind the curve. (Also of interest, is that some American states -already- do have these stricter gun laws with the positive results having been known for quite a few years. These states are neither being overrun by criminals, nor are they at threat of being enslaved by the government or foreign nation.
What you wrote reads exactly like a piece of fuddle the NRA have been spreading for a very long time.
There is a lot of pettish resistance in the USA to gun laws(which were really introduced to protect Americans in the times where civil war was abundant.) We can understand why USA citizens are against gun laws, humans as a whole are against change (it's a scary thing to us mortals.) There is this wide belief that removing guns will somehow make the community more susceptible to external gun attacks. (This is FUD, and extensively disproven in other countries.)
However the USA has fallen behind with the rest of the world with it's attitude to gun ownership. It's definitely behind with it's "fear" of tougher gun regulation.
Numerous other countries have introduced tougher gun laws(England, Australia, Canada, etc) and introduced programs that allow certain types of weaponry but not extreme items such as semi automatics, which aren't required to hunt deer for example.
The trend that has been observed in these countries is this: Increasing gun related crimes leads criminals to seek more aggressive weapons to stay ahead of the curve.
The gun restrictions are introduced with programs to cash in guns for money or desirable items (such as the Guns for Guitars program.)
Criminals begin to brandish lesser weapons such as knives, because they are cheaper, easier to obtain, and the criminal realises that their target won't be packing a semi-automatic. The strongest upside to this is that you can't massacre a crowd with a knife in the same way that you can a semi-automatic weapon.
What is observed here is instead of one-upmanship: where individuals are trying to get more sophisticated weapons so they stay on top of the arsenal game. There is an erosion of the basic level of arsenal held by the community, defense is still possible with simpler items, but the ability to do massive damage such as rampage shootings is reduced. The easy access to wilful weaponry is removed, making it difficult for a regular person to carry out large scale massacres. Yes, a massacre can still be co-ordinated, but it requires a great deal more work, often with elaborate criminal connections to obtain the weapons, this gives policing organisations time to prevent the act from happening(and a psychologically enraged person is not likely to complete these steps before calming down). This contrasts to a situation where excessive weaponry is freely commerced, where an enraged person has easy access to a high-end weapon, which allows them to quickly carry out a massacre.
Google buying double click is no worst than Microsoft buying it.. after all MSN & Messenger alone is an elaborate portal of advertising.
Re:"Sold" probably includes them all
on
100 Million iPods
·
· Score: 1
I agree with you there, it's a modern version of something humans have had since the gramophone. It's not a device of subterfuge to leak the human race of it's financial wealth. There is a lot to be said about money anyway, it's not all it's cracked up to be.
It's only people poor with their finances that think that money is the solution to all their problems: There is no conspiracy to steal our last dollar, if I'm always hitting zero it's my own fault. Once a person is secure in their finances there is very little benefit in having any more money than what is needed to sustain a comfortable lifestyle. No one needs an excessive celebrity lifestyle.. usually the people that live out these lifestyles are trying to cure some other psychological f-up in their life. Let's list some celebrities who fall into this category: Elton John, Britney Spears, Paris Hilton, Michael Jackson, etc, etc. They're all loaded to the teeth with cash, but who knows if any of them will even live to the average lifespan of a human. Anna Nicole Smith certainly didn't, her child stands to inherit millions.
So no when I listen to my music player, I have no urge to stick it to the man. Some brilliant people I don't know came up with something they thought was universally liked. They were right, and I awarded their good thinking with CASH. Spurring hopefully more good thinking on their behalf... In a way I'm their employer.
I have 40 iTunes Store songs... over my collection of approx 1k songs.
By Apple's own admission this is almost double the average of 22 out of 1000 songs
The overwhelming majority use their music players with music they have ripped themselves (or copied from other sources.)
For this reason no one took any notice of the napster adverts which showed how expensive it was to fill an iPod with purchased music. (Although what is the price of paying nearly $20 every single month until you no longer want your entire music collection?)
1. Take one mobile phone which you enjoy the user interface and functionality.
2. Take one MP3 player which you also enjoy the quality, interface and music availability
3. Apply a thin smear of 5 minute aryldyte to the backs of each device. Wait 30 seconds and ensure tacky.
4. Firmly press each device together. Hold in place with soft jaws, wait 10 minutes.
5. Enjoy new Samsung Upstage.
I feel that there is confusion in that a lot of people on -all- platforms think they're impervious.(Historically you just get proven wrong quicker on Windows.) Also I believe if a person has had no issues with viruses or spyware, then they do have a small right to elaborate on that point in conversation. After all that has been their personal experience.
I don't agree that there is this overwhelming majority of mac users that blindly and zealot like rampage through forums proclaiming they are wielding the golden sword in security. I think it is just particularly note-worthy when you do see someone ranting on in such a malignant way.
There is also a rubbish argument that 12 million active mac osx users are too small a target for malware creators. (When in reality, it would be an ideal target as their systems aren't already weighed down with competiting spyware.
While I congratulate slashdot on trying to post the story from the "other side". The researchers, for the most part, did all the smearing on their own behalf. The whole affair basically started with a digg article which read "Hijacking a Macbook in 60 seconds or less." This sensational headlining story was slowly diluted over time to a remote exploit on a 3rd party card. The authors claimed it could be done with the built in card, but claimed that Apple had pressured them not to demonstrate this.
No one believed this story about Apple pressuring the security researchers for 2 reasons. No security company would actually let their name be dragged through the dirt by the internet community for the sake of saving face for another company especially Apple. Secondly their story changed by the day and requests to see an exploit/method/code release were constantly denied. The only demonstration was highly dubious as it was presented as a video.
Since the fiasco came about Apple did then commission an external company to look for bugs in their airport drivers, while some bugs were found they were unrelated to the publicised "macbook remote exploit" (the security researchers gave such little information anyway.)
Then finally once all the patches were out by Apple, the security researchers piped up again claiming that the exploits they discovered were the ones that Apple had patched. (When in all reality they probably just examined the old and new drivers and looked for the differences.)
Suggestions that Apple users are blind, security unaware dummies is what caused most of the outrage. Going out claiming that the Apple user base believe they are impervious to spyware/viruses/etc. is an invitation for negative feedback. It has very little to do with "Attacking the mac-zealots precious platform"... after all much of the operating system is open source darwin, a BSD implementation.
As for the followup month-of-apple-bugs and other negative security feedback, those are most definitely not solely rooted by this sole affair. Ou is merely trying to spin them this way to provide some kind of grass-roots response to his purported conspiracy.
Her comments are like saying "I'm upset my CD doesn't play in my microwave.." it's a digital file designed for a particular device in mind, in this case the iPod and iTunes ecosystem.. bitching and whining that it won't play in your $5 "happy-happy-sounder-MP3-PLUS!-extreme-2000" is her own stupidity.
Meanwhile if they cared so much about DRM then they'd pressure the music companies that exist in their own backyard and not a foreign company who has no choice other than to pull out of any country that prosecutes DRM. At the end of the day they're not going to complain to their locally based music companies because their use of DRM is possibly earning their local economy megabucks. Instead they'll pressure the market leader who's profits aren't benefitting their local economies (While simultaneously forgetting the fact that the iPods market share hasn't grown much since the launch of the iTunes Music Store.)
I'd like to see a ground swell of actual consumers and not political related figures deciding what the consumer wants.. for all that I can see this is just about as a legitimate operation as the RIAA buying off American senators.
In Australia we have a law against advertising which involves displaying driving activity which is technically illegal.
The law was made because the major "australian" car manufacturer and their primary opposition (ford) were both glamourising speeding, burn outs, doughnuts etc. in car advertisements. I doubt the law was ever meant to cover situations which are technically difficult to reproduce.. afterall hyperbole is permitted in advertising (as long as it's evidently hyperbole and thus not misleading.)
I agree to the obvious argument that cheaper pro cameras out sell the more expensive model cameras. I'd also like to note that the company that buys the 15K camera also probably charges a lot more for their work than joe around the corner with his digital rebel xt.
The point really here is that Apple know in the future their products will ship with better video cards. Apple like selling new hardware, and often price down software to do so.
Adobe on the other hand, like selling software and they do that on many platforms.. There is no hardware bundling incentive and they have to make a good portion of their code portable to the array of windows machines out there. This means it's CPU dependent software. We all know the future trend in computing is the "GPU", particularly with nvidia's announcement this week which further expands on processing that can be handled in the "GPU".
The review is good, however a real "pro" (i.e the camera is already $15k+) is wise enough(and cashed up enough) to understand that a core-image dependant program requires an exceptional video card.
Those of you with amafessional cameras (priced around $1500 AUD) are not the target market for Aperature and probably don't need anything more than a recent copy of photoshop and a generic image manager such as iPhoto (which too supports RAW).
In short, if you're an amafessional who likes what RAW can do for your business then pickup a copy of lightroom. If you're a heavy pro user who will spend all day in this program.. then buy a copy of Aperature. Both do a good job and both are made from companies who regularly update their software regardless of competition. Neither will disappoint in the long term. This isn't a market which is easy to monopolise, and as such the programs will compete on their merits for a good long while. Plus if you're running Windows(the land of zillions of software titles).. then you already have only one choice anyway.
I think there is a better(i.e more logical) way of looking at this. Apple aren't interested in supporting Mac OS X usage on non-apple hardware. Particularly when it only can do harm to Apple's bottom line.
Apple have no intention of actively supporting 3rd party "x86 machines" (for the list of obvious reasons I won't bother writing here.)
So since Apple can't possibly offer "support" for OS X on non-apple hardware they simply include a basic statement forbidding virtualising and the running of Mac OS on non-apple branded hardware. This has a double benefit to Apple, as it dually serves their business model of selling hardware. Now think about Windows Vista, who on the other hand, already support virtualising but only if you are to purchase the more expensive volume: It's sheer geek profiteering, there is clearly no technical reason for this. They have the support structure already in place to support masses of 3rd party hardware.
Now usher in Parallels/etc: There is no way Parallels can "support" their customers without for breaking the OS X EULA, and recognising that their customers are also breaking the OS X EULA. There is no way a business environment can run software with broken EULAs. Home users tend to ignore EULAs because there is no one checking up on them, but in the real world they are an important legal document. There is no way to test their software without clearly admitting that they have broken the OS X EULA. Macs use the TPM and other goodies all manged through "Dont Steal Mac OS X.kext" It's not a straight forward task of merely getting together the required hardware in virtualisation.. in fact in the real world it's easier to build a PowerPC machine to run Mac OS, than it is to get Mac OS running on a generic x86 machine.
All companies involved here are right in taking their various stances, Parallels et. al. shouldn't open themselves to the obvious problems of supporting a virtualisation which is against the software's EULA. Likewise Apple shouldn't be worried about supporting virtualised installs.
There seems to be some conspiracy thoughts about this, when the answer is much more simple. The cost/benefit assessment already lends that this isn't a profitable business model for Apple. Plus there is little money for Parallels from the business market, since an open source project already handles this function. So what does this mean? It means Apple aren't going to shut you down if you if you decide to run OS X on your dell.. but it also means they're not going to help you when a random update *accidently* breaks your install.(Something they make sure of to ensure that a ground-swell never develops.)
At the end of the day the target market is enthusiasts, a Windows monopoly for more than a decade has ensured that any software which Mac OS was famous for has been ported to Windows. If you're hooked on Final Cut Pro, then you can probably already afford to buy a legitimate Macintosh (and will appreciate the speed of a non-virtualised machine.)
In this world it's far easier to just blame someone else, when all that a company like Parallels needs to say is: "We would.. but for the development and support, there is just no money in it."
If this is overly upsetting to you, then join osx86project.org and do something about it. Sitting around feigning ignorance that Apple and Parallels are businesses that are trying to make a buck while keeping the consumer happy isn't going to fix anything.
Apple already had their falling.. they were once the dominating platform. Windows zealots will point out that their market share today is closer to a rounding error than a platform. The important part of the Apple market share is that, when a consumer chooses an Apple, they've made a choice against the ubiquity of the windows platform. I'm not suggesting at all that all windows users simply chose the microsoft platform by default. I am however suggesting that a person who chooses a mac usually has a good idea of what they want to do with their computer, and aren't just buying a "computer" because it's the biggest buzz word since clock radio.
For this reason, that 2 to 5 percent market share is worth far more than what a single-digit market share is from any other generic x86 company.
At the end of the day you can't run a monopoly on 5 percent market share - you can however with 95 percent.. in fact most of what you do can be interpretted as an attempt to be anticompetitive with market share that high.
While I wouldn't call it a conspiracy, it's far too public for that, it's definitely rotten.
It's a well documented business practice of MS to lower the licensing cost to vendors who only bundle the MS operating system with new PC sales. Bigger companies such as dell and hp can afford to forgo the "bonus savings" to keep their customers happy, also they bundle so many copies of Windows that MS can't play hardball with them. Their customers are asking for computers without Windows bundled. It's now at a critical mass where the likes of dell and hp will be losing out on a growing market (potentially an overwhelming market) if they refuse to offer computers without the MS operating system bundled.
There are so many reports about the topic that listing any single one over another is useless. Plus I'm pretty certain any regular slashdotter worth their salt would have already known of at least one. Here is a list of a few different websites running basically the same story.
ahh, I see the misinterpretation here. The study referred to when Vista would be dominant over XP. As such it included new computer sales and upgrades. Transition referred to the market share figure.
Slashdot Mirror
Just like the HD-DVD hex code, once you start giving these things publicity (no matter how you direct it) you'll always get people doing whatever they want with the newly found information.
If they wanted this problem to go away they should have ignored it, not plea with the government to have the website banned.
I did a little poking and prodding... then some research and discovered his omission of the iPhone was deliberate.. it's because ladies and gentlemen, the iPhone contains dead puppies. That's right DEAD PUPPIES ooh and some of that bromide stuff, that sounds hot.
Apple would hate to be stuck with a latent AMD should Intel remain strong on the chip front. It would be a parallel situation to Apple being at the mercy of Motorola's very slow G4 product development. (I still think the ROKR phone was Apple's way of taking revenge on Motorola for giving them rubbish for the last few years...hehehe)
The tiny lenses and aperatures of the camera phones will reveal minimal pixel differentiation between pixels(making the large 5 megapixel number meaningless) while the dSLR for example even on it's lowest aperature setting, will still have superior pixel differentiation... However it's not something we wouldn't expect.. one is a true mineral glass camera made from a number of lenses each designed to minimalise photographic abberations, the other is, depending on the phone model, fitted with one or two plastic (sometimes glass) lenses designed to take impromptu images of puppy dogs and drunk friends.
Other than using a camera phone as an artists tool (similar to small toy fish eye cameras.) They're obviously not useful as a dSLR replacement as the images were aberration city when it came to photographic quality. Even in this ideal lighting condition some of the phones' post processing went nuts.
Also of note is that dSLR cameras are designed to emulate a real photographers camera. I trust the 400d's image to look closest to reality in it's portrayal and not just serving up an auto-balanced image of what the consumer would prefer to see. (I doubt this article was shot under 5500K proof lighting rig.)
Unlike the Real patent case, where Real's rather wide-netted patent stung Apple, Apple winning this one will be a cakewalk.
Also your comparison is particularlly irrelevant considering that USA is a rich country and not a struggling country with an imagined enemy living inside it's borders. Which is one of the mechanisms Hitler used to gain the goodwill of the people.
America is, unfortunately, behind in the world, not because of some intellectual fad, but because America has the most gun related deaths of this kind in the world, it's a number, not a fashionable theory.(It's also a number that is disproportionate to the population, you might not realise this but 300M people is far from the most populous country in the world.) Similarly populous countries don't have the reoccuring problem that was sadly demonstrated at VT.
However with a political system as corrupted as the USA is experiencing right now, you're going to need a bit more than guns to fix it. (It has been lime-washed for a very long time that the 2nd amendment was some how related to ensuring the government stays free of corruption/or other nazi-germany type embroilment. This is often cited as an excuse for why the amendment still exists today.
Also, for your reference, the only European country I listed in the examples was England. This is hardly an USA bashing, it's a realisation that when it comes to gun laws, the USA is behind the curve. (Also of interest, is that some American states -already- do have these stricter gun laws with the positive results having been known for quite a few years. These states are neither being overrun by criminals, nor are they at threat of being enslaved by the government or foreign nation.
What you wrote reads exactly like a piece of fuddle the NRA have been spreading for a very long time.
You can run away from a knife. A weaker person with a knife can be overwhelmed. It's also difficult to quickly kill someone with a knife.
However the USA has fallen behind with the rest of the world with it's attitude to gun ownership. It's definitely behind with it's "fear" of tougher gun regulation.
Numerous other countries have introduced tougher gun laws(England, Australia, Canada, etc) and introduced programs that allow certain types of weaponry but not extreme items such as semi automatics, which aren't required to hunt deer for example.
The trend that has been observed in these countries is this:
Increasing gun related crimes leads criminals to seek more aggressive weapons to stay ahead of the curve.
The gun restrictions are introduced with programs to cash in guns for money or desirable items (such as the Guns for Guitars program.)
Criminals begin to brandish lesser weapons such as knives, because they are cheaper, easier to obtain, and the criminal realises that their target won't be packing a semi-automatic.
The strongest upside to this is that you can't massacre a crowd with a knife in the same way that you can a semi-automatic weapon.
What is observed here is instead of one-upmanship: where individuals are trying to get more sophisticated weapons so they stay on top of the arsenal game. There is an erosion of the basic level of arsenal held by the community, defense is still possible with simpler items, but the ability to do massive damage such as rampage shootings is reduced. The easy access to wilful weaponry is removed, making it difficult for a regular person to carry out large scale massacres. Yes, a massacre can still be co-ordinated, but it requires a great deal more work, often with elaborate criminal connections to obtain the weapons, this gives policing organisations time to prevent the act from happening(and a psychologically enraged person is not likely to complete these steps before calming down). This contrasts to a situation where excessive weaponry is freely commerced, where an enraged person has easy access to a high-end weapon, which allows them to quickly carry out a massacre.
Google buying double click is no worst than Microsoft buying it.. after all MSN & Messenger alone is an elaborate portal of advertising.
It's only people poor with their finances that think that money is the solution to all their problems: There is no conspiracy to steal our last dollar, if I'm always hitting zero it's my own fault. Once a person is secure in their finances there is very little benefit in having any more money than what is needed to sustain a comfortable lifestyle. No one needs an excessive celebrity lifestyle.. usually the people that live out these lifestyles are trying to cure some other psychological f-up in their life. Let's list some celebrities who fall into this category: Elton John, Britney Spears, Paris Hilton, Michael Jackson, etc, etc. They're all loaded to the teeth with cash, but who knows if any of them will even live to the average lifespan of a human. Anna Nicole Smith certainly didn't, her child stands to inherit millions.
So no when I listen to my music player, I have no urge to stick it to the man. Some brilliant people I don't know came up with something they thought was universally liked. They were right, and I awarded their good thinking with CASH. Spurring hopefully more good thinking on their behalf... In a way I'm their employer.
By Apple's own admission this is almost double the average of 22 out of 1000 songs
The overwhelming majority use their music players with music they have ripped themselves (or copied from other sources.)
For this reason no one took any notice of the napster adverts which showed how expensive it was to fill an iPod with purchased music. (Although what is the price of paying nearly $20 every single month until you no longer want your entire music collection?)
GoogleConvert: Ballmer, I'm leaving you for google.
Ballmer: Hang on what's that, someone set us up the bomb!!
*Chair throw*
1. Take one mobile phone which you enjoy the user interface and functionality.
2. Take one MP3 player which you also enjoy the quality, interface and music availability
3. Apply a thin smear of 5 minute aryldyte to the backs of each device. Wait 30 seconds and ensure tacky.
4. Firmly press each device together. Hold in place with soft jaws, wait 10 minutes.
5. Enjoy new Samsung Upstage.
Here is one we made earlier.
I don't agree that there is this overwhelming majority of mac users that blindly and zealot like rampage through forums proclaiming they are wielding the golden sword in security. I think it is just particularly note-worthy when you do see someone ranting on in such a malignant way.
There is also a rubbish argument that 12 million active mac osx users are too small a target for malware creators. (When in reality, it would be an ideal target as their systems aren't already weighed down with competiting spyware.
No one believed this story about Apple pressuring the security researchers for 2 reasons. No security company would actually let their name be dragged through the dirt by the internet community for the sake of saving face for another company especially Apple. Secondly their story changed by the day and requests to see an exploit/method/code release were constantly denied. The only demonstration was highly dubious as it was presented as a video.
Since the fiasco came about Apple did then commission an external company to look for bugs in their airport drivers, while some bugs were found they were unrelated to the publicised "macbook remote exploit" (the security researchers gave such little information anyway.)
Then finally once all the patches were out by Apple, the security researchers piped up again claiming that the exploits they discovered were the ones that Apple had patched. (When in all reality they probably just examined the old and new drivers and looked for the differences.)
Suggestions that Apple users are blind, security unaware dummies is what caused most of the outrage. Going out claiming that the Apple user base believe they are impervious to spyware/viruses/etc. is an invitation for negative feedback. It has very little to do with "Attacking the mac-zealots precious platform"... after all much of the operating system is open source darwin, a BSD implementation.
As for the followup month-of-apple-bugs and other negative security feedback, those are most definitely not solely rooted by this sole affair. Ou is merely trying to spin them this way to provide some kind of grass-roots response to his purported conspiracy.
Meanwhile if they cared so much about DRM then they'd pressure the music companies that exist in their own backyard and not a foreign company who has no choice other than to pull out of any country that prosecutes DRM. At the end of the day they're not going to complain to their locally based music companies because their use of DRM is possibly earning their local economy megabucks. Instead they'll pressure the market leader who's profits aren't benefitting their local economies (While simultaneously forgetting the fact that the iPods market share hasn't grown much since the launch of the iTunes Music Store.)
I'd like to see a ground swell of actual consumers and not political related figures deciding what the consumer wants.. for all that I can see this is just about as a legitimate operation as the RIAA buying off American senators.
The law was made because the major "australian" car manufacturer and their primary opposition (ford) were both glamourising speeding, burn outs, doughnuts etc. in car advertisements. I doubt the law was ever meant to cover situations which are technically difficult to reproduce.. afterall hyperbole is permitted in advertising (as long as it's evidently hyperbole and thus not misleading.)
I agree to the obvious argument that cheaper pro cameras out sell the more expensive model cameras. I'd also like to note that the company that buys the 15K camera also probably charges a lot more for their work than joe around the corner with his digital rebel xt.
Adobe on the other hand, like selling software and they do that on many platforms.. There is no hardware bundling incentive and they have to make a good portion of their code portable to the array of windows machines out there. This means it's CPU dependent software. We all know the future trend in computing is the "GPU", particularly with nvidia's announcement this week which further expands on processing that can be handled in the "GPU".
The review is good, however a real "pro" (i.e the camera is already $15k+) is wise enough(and cashed up enough) to understand that a core-image dependant program requires an exceptional video card.
Those of you with amafessional cameras (priced around $1500 AUD) are not the target market for Aperature and probably don't need anything more than a recent copy of photoshop and a generic image manager such as iPhoto (which too supports RAW).
In short, if you're an amafessional who likes what RAW can do for your business then pickup a copy of lightroom. If you're a heavy pro user who will spend all day in this program.. then buy a copy of Aperature. Both do a good job and both are made from companies who regularly update their software regardless of competition. Neither will disappoint in the long term. This isn't a market which is easy to monopolise, and as such the programs will compete on their merits for a good long while. Plus if you're running Windows(the land of zillions of software titles).. then you already have only one choice anyway.
Apple have no intention of actively supporting 3rd party "x86 machines" (for the list of obvious reasons I won't bother writing here.)
So since Apple can't possibly offer "support" for OS X on non-apple hardware they simply include a basic statement forbidding virtualising and the running of Mac OS on non-apple branded hardware. This has a double benefit to Apple, as it dually serves their business model of selling hardware. Now think about Windows Vista, who on the other hand, already support virtualising but only if you are to purchase the more expensive volume: It's sheer geek profiteering, there is clearly no technical reason for this. They have the support structure already in place to support masses of 3rd party hardware.
Now usher in Parallels/etc: There is no way Parallels can "support" their customers without for breaking the OS X EULA, and recognising that their customers are also breaking the OS X EULA. There is no way a business environment can run software with broken EULAs. Home users tend to ignore EULAs because there is no one checking up on them, but in the real world they are an important legal document. There is no way to test their software without clearly admitting that they have broken the OS X EULA. Macs use the TPM and other goodies all manged through "Dont Steal Mac OS X.kext" It's not a straight forward task of merely getting together the required hardware in virtualisation.. in fact in the real world it's easier to build a PowerPC machine to run Mac OS, than it is to get Mac OS running on a generic x86 machine.
All companies involved here are right in taking their various stances, Parallels et. al. shouldn't open themselves to the obvious problems of supporting a virtualisation which is against the software's EULA. Likewise Apple shouldn't be worried about supporting virtualised installs.
There seems to be some conspiracy thoughts about this, when the answer is much more simple. The cost/benefit assessment already lends that this isn't a profitable business model for Apple. Plus there is little money for Parallels from the business market, since an open source project already handles this function.
So what does this mean? It means Apple aren't going to shut you down if you if you decide to run OS X on your dell.. but it also means they're not going to help you when a random update *accidently* breaks your install.(Something they make sure of to ensure that a ground-swell never develops.)
At the end of the day the target market is enthusiasts, a Windows monopoly for more than a decade has ensured that any software which Mac OS was famous for has been ported to Windows. If you're hooked on Final Cut Pro, then you can probably already afford to buy a legitimate Macintosh (and will appreciate the speed of a non-virtualised machine.)
In this world it's far easier to just blame someone else, when all that a company like Parallels needs to say is: "We would.. but for the development and support, there is just no money in it."
If this is overly upsetting to you, then join osx86project.org and do something about it. Sitting around feigning ignorance that Apple and Parallels are businesses that are trying to make a buck while keeping the consumer happy isn't going to fix anything.
For this reason, that 2 to 5 percent market share is worth far more than what a single-digit market share is from any other generic x86 company.
At the end of the day you can't run a monopoly on 5 percent market share - you can however with 95 percent.. in fact most of what you do can be interpretted as an attempt to be anticompetitive with market share that high.
It's a well documented business practice of MS to lower the licensing cost to vendors who only bundle the MS operating system with new PC sales. Bigger companies such as dell and hp can afford to forgo the "bonus savings" to keep their customers happy, also they bundle so many copies of Windows that MS can't play hardball with them. Their customers are asking for computers without Windows bundled. It's now at a critical mass where the likes of dell and hp will be losing out on a growing market (potentially an overwhelming market) if they refuse to offer computers without the MS operating system bundled.
http://reseller.co.nz/reseller.nsf/news/163C59DFD6 12CE53CC257272007D4D72
http://software.silicon.com/os/0,39024651,391645 63,00.htm
http://www.errorforum.com/microsoft-win dows-vista-error/1492-todays-vista-uptake-predicti on-slow-again.html
http://it.moldova.org/stiri/en g/22246/
ahh, I see the misinterpretation here. The study referred to when Vista would be dominant over XP. As such it included new computer sales and upgrades. Transition referred to the market share figure.