Why read someone's paraphrasing of the GPL when you can easily read the GPL itself. Note third party servers are an option. The distributor does not have to make the source available himself.
"If the place to copy the object code is a network server, the Corresponding Source may be on a different server (operated by you or a third party) that supports equivalent copying facilities, provided you maintain clear directions next to the object code saying where to find the Corresponding Source." http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.txt
I suggested reading the GPL itself, you cite someone's paraphrasing of the GPL instead. At least you had the brains to post anonymously. Here is an excerpt of the GPL that discusses one of the methods by which you may convey source code. Note "third party".
"If the place to copy the object code is a network server, the Corresponding Source may be on a different server (operated by you or a third party) that supports equivalent copying facilities, provided you maintain clear directions next to the object code saying where to find the Corresponding Source."
That's bs. Even if you distribute an unmodified GPL program, the onus is on you to provide the source code if the entities (people or organisations) who you distribute the program to request it.
Read the GPL, the distributor of the executable does not have to distribute the source themselves. A third party may do so, the distributor merely needs to tell the recipient where they can find the source.
The iPhone does not get to define what is intuitive, however I agree that there could be a problem. I've developed software for both Windows and Mac. I've noticed Mac users complain about Windows doing things wrong and Windows users complain about Mac doing things wrong. While there are occasional cases where they were correct, such complaints were usually just exhibiting a legitimate difference in implementation. It is common for people to believe that what they are conditioned to do is intuitive, that what they are used to us right.
Tracking every call and email but STILL not properly tracking aircraft? Somebody remind Bush that we weren't attacked by email or phone on 9-11.
Actually I think you need to be reminded that Bush's plan is to catch folks while they are planning, i.e. when the are talking, emailing, etc, before they actually start the flying. That seems like a pretty good plan. I'm not saying this plan is being well implemented, just that the broad plan seems like a good one. And I'm not against a *backup* plan that does track aircraft well.
That's only half of it. The second half is sticking to the plan. Flying, hiking, scuba diving, etc, its the second half that makes the first half work.
"Moving the fingers apart to zoom out makes sense to me, you are enlarging the piece of the world/map to be displayed on the display."
What you are describing is known to us normal humans as 'zooming in', not 'zooming out'. Think of it as if you were hovering far above the Earth and you wanted to get closer to a particular area. You would zoom in, that is, you would get closer to the Earth.
And you are shrinking the piece of the world/map to be displayed. In my original comment, enlarging the piece of the world/map does *not* mean magnifying the map, it means enlarging the portion of the map being shown on the display. The screen size is fixed, there is a rectangular portion of the map being shown on the display, fingers apart expands that map rectangle (zoom out), fingers together shrinks that map rectangle (zoom in). In the real world fingers apart is like unfolding the map, you are "zooming out" as more of the map becomes visible. Fingers together is like folding the map, "zooming in". Fingers together to zoom in also makes intuitive sense in the you are zooming in on the intersection, pointing at a point in a way.
I believe the usage is intuitive, the problem is describing the process to each other in words.:-)
The problem with the instruction set is not due to the chipmakers but because there is an awful lot of proprietary software ( in particular windows ) which relies on it. Just have a look at Linux, the BSDs and Solaris. They have all been ported to numerous architectures, but this just isn't possible with a closed source application unless the vendor decides to do it....
Proprietary is largely a non-issue. The Windows NT 4 retail CD contained x86, MIPS, Alpha, and PowerPC binaries. Customers who wanted performance, very few, went Alpha. Customers who wanted price, nearly all, went ix86. Vendors of proprietary software that catered to these two markets developed accordingly. Also, the vast majority of proprietary software that locks businesses into Windows and hampers migration to Linux is internally developed. Businesses could have ported their software to whatever CPU they preferred. Hardly anyone was locked into x86, they chose x86. Much as those who chose Linux and BSD overwhelmingly chose x86.
... As a consequence Intel and AMD has no choice but to continue using x86 because so much software depends on it, and it would be suicidal for them to stop supporting it.
Not true. Intel tried to drop x86 and move on to something new. Under Intel's "plan" if you wanted 64-bit you were supposed to go to Itanium. It was AMD that relegated us to x86 by introducing 64-bit x86 and continuing to innovate that line, forcing Intel to do likewise. I've commented on this in a different thread, http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=29147 1&cid=20522223, perhaps it would be best to discuss this subtopic there rather than have a redundant thread.
Has anyone else noticed how great the AMD-Intel marketshare battle has been for consumers?... AMD/Intel should stand as a primary example of why honest competition is great for a market.
AMD is no friend in the sense that they relegated us to the x86 architecture, hampering the periodic move from one CPU architecture to another. Intel tried to drop x86 and move on to something new. Under Intel's "plan" if you wanted 64-bit you were supposed to go to Itanium. It was AMD that relegated us to x86 by introducing 64-bit x86 and continuing to innovate that line, forcing Intel to do likewise. Whether or not Itanium was a good design is irrelevant. Intel would have put pressure on developers and businesses to migrate off of x86, and some may have moved to Alpha, PowerPC, etc rather than Itanium. We would have had a more diverse and healthier CPU architecture ecosystem.
... Intel, in particular, seems to have woken up and begun providing really good CPU's, as well as trying to reach out to the community through things like this...
I don't think so. While AMD caused Intel to continue x86 development, I don't think AMD had that great of an effect on the progress of this development once it was undertaken. I think Intel stumbled with the Pentium 4, it turned out to be a limited design. I believe they would have backed up and continued down the Pentium 3 path, Core Duo originates from the P3 line not the P4, regardless of what AMD was doing in their CPUs. What AMD did was make things go a little faster.
"two fingers moving apart zooms it out; and two fingers moving together zooms it in"
This strikes me as counterintuitive. Perhaps actual testing proved this was the best way, but it seems to me that it's exactly backwards. If you wanted to zoom out, would it not be more logical to place two fingers on two points on the map (say) six inches apart, then have the map zoom out as you "dragged" the two points closer together, and vice-versa?
Disclaimer, I'm a software developer who has done graphics, perhaps I share the same warped perspective as the designers. Moving the fingers apart to zoom out makes sense to me, you are enlarging the piece of the world/map to be displayed on the display.
"Lie" detectors are very useful tools. First they should really be called stress detectors. Second, knowing what questions are introducing stress can be very useful information to an investigator. No way should it be used against a person in court, but investigators are often called upon to make educated guesses as to whether someone is being truthful or not. Reading non-verbal cues is art not science and it has practical value every day to law enforcement and investigators.
DNA evidence shifts the burden of proof - no longer do the police have to prove you actually committed the crime to the jury, now you have to somehow explain why your DNA was at the crime scene but despite other circumstantial evidence you didn't do it.
Nonsense. Nothing has changed with respect to the burden of proof or having to establish the various elements of a crime (motive, opportunity, etc.) DNA is just a type of evidence. Fingerprints are left all over the place as well, people understand this, defense attorneys will have even more opportunity to refute DNA given that it is spread more easily than fingerprints. In short, determining suspects has changed, not prosecution of those charged.
* A. When DNA is matched, as others have said, the entire genome is not sequenced, only a snippet. This leads to a much higher rate of duplicates. However, this still doesn't completely rule DNA evidence out as a likely use for proving innocence/guilt.
* B. As the database grows, the number of potential duplicates grows with it. This is the biggest weakness to the "collect everyone's DNA" theory of prosecution. True, its not likely that any one person in 1,000 has similar enough DNA for a criminal match, but if the database is 1,000,000, or the population of England (last check on Wikipedia over 50 million)chances are a lot higher. Factor in similarities between relatives and you have a big mess of false positives.
I would expect that simpler less expensive tests are performed first in order to rule out people. I expect that by the time DNA is used as evidence against a person in court it has been through several increasingly comprehensive levels of testing. A level where parents and sibling could be differentiated.
A DNA match does not mean that other elements of a crime do not have to be proven. For example that the person with the match had the opportunity, i.e. that the person was in about the same place at about the same time.
They did, with the original iPod. The difference was that the time interval was greater and that they introduced a newer model to occupy the original high price point rather than completely eliminate the price point. Of course, Apple may yet announce a new and improved model for the $5xx price point.
... even granting your insinuation that hardcore Apple fans are idiots, this tactic will reduce the field, not expand it.... if their business plan only included the supertrendy and the hardcore fan base, it wouldn't have the rather expensive marketing campaign, or the goal of 10 million units.
You grossly misrepresent my position regarding those who purchased iPhones immediately. They are not idiots, just impatient or vain in the pissing contest sense, and they are very forgiving so this price drop will not diminish their numbers.
You also misrepresent Apple's business plan. The supertrendy and/or hardcore don't represent the 10 million unit target, merely the initial round of buying. That 10 million will predominantly represent the patient who have waited. The price drop will be a triggering event for many, validating their patience in their mind.
Your argument is that the iPhone only aims to be a cult device...
Uh, no. I argue that Apple is walking down the price curve to sell to each person at their willingness to pay in order to maximize iPhone revenue. Mass market products do this, not niche products.
... I maintain that the Mac fans who hold sway over so many mod points think different(ly).
That's a foolish argument, Mac fans with mod points have not really been known for their open minded and non-cultlike mods.:-)
Dude, I hear you, but as you no doubt also know, part of business and economics is also reinforcing the sense of value for those who already bought in. Deflating the price 33% is pretty aggressive, and likely to alienate early adopters.
The flaw with your logic is that your are assuming that these early iPhone buyers are part of a rational market. They are not. Those early adopters already got want they wanted, winning the pissing contest, first on their block, attention, etc. Anyone with half a brain new that these high prices were temporary. Also, may were hard core Apple fans. Some of these people may kick themselves for not waiting, but they will not abandon Apple.
That truly is a steep drop in price. Have their supply and production costs dropped that much, or are they sacrificing margin in the expectation of recovering it in subscription fees? I tend to suspect the latter, which amounts to subsidized pricing.
No, Apple is maximizing revenue. It is called walking down the price curve. Everyone has a different willingness to pay, some much higher than others. If you make a product available to everyone at a widely acceptable price you lose revenue from those who would have paid more. So you introduce a product at a high price point that only a few are willing to pay and slowly reduce the price over time. This way all sales are closer to what the various individuals were willing to pay. Note that there needs to be an absence of substitute products. Sometimes this strategy fits in well with initial production and supply problems. However in this case I expect it is mostly revenue maximization.
Not necessarily. You can always put a green roof on the building. You can also use corner offices for greenhouses. Especially Southwest and Southeast corners.
I was thinking of green roofs, but corner office green houses had not occurred to me. I would like to add the backyard victory gardens of World War 2 as well.
Except they have some DNA evidence that points to you. And in the eyes of most juries, DNA is the magic bullet for a prosecutor. According to TV, DNA is alway 100% sure that you are the father.
Today is September 5, 2007. Where were you last Tuesday, August 28... of 2006? Can you prove it? Why not? Why don't you remember? Are you lying to us?
Don't recall. Can't prove it. I have a poor memory, especially for dates. Not lying. And none of this means a damn thing since the burden of proof is upon you to prove that I am guilty. I do not need to prove my innocence. I merely need to cooperate to the best of my ability and I have done so.
Slashdot Mirror
Why read someone's paraphrasing of the GPL when you can easily read the GPL itself. Note third party servers are an option. The distributor does not have to make the source available himself.
"If the place to copy the object code is a network server, the Corresponding Source may be on a different server (operated by you or a third party) that supports equivalent copying facilities, provided you maintain clear directions next to the object code saying where to find the Corresponding Source."
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.txt
I suggested reading the GPL itself, you cite someone's paraphrasing of the GPL instead. At least you had the brains to post anonymously. Here is an excerpt of the GPL that discusses one of the methods by which you may convey source code. Note "third party".
"If the place to copy the object code is a network server, the Corresponding Source may be on a different server (operated by you or a third party) that supports equivalent copying facilities, provided you maintain clear directions next to the object code saying where to find the Corresponding Source."
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.txt
That's bs. Even if you distribute an unmodified GPL program, the onus is on you to provide the source code if the entities (people or organisations) who you distribute the program to request it.
Read the GPL, the distributor of the executable does not have to distribute the source themselves. A third party may do so, the distributor merely needs to tell the recipient where they can find the source.
The iPhone does not get to define what is intuitive, however I agree that there could be a problem. I've developed software for both Windows and Mac. I've noticed Mac users complain about Windows doing things wrong and Windows users complain about Mac doing things wrong. While there are occasional cases where they were correct, such complaints were usually just exhibiting a legitimate difference in implementation. It is common for people to believe that what they are conditioned to do is intuitive, that what they are used to us right.
Tracking every call and email but STILL not properly tracking aircraft? Somebody remind Bush that we weren't attacked by email or phone on 9-11.
Actually I think you need to be reminded that Bush's plan is to catch folks while they are planning, i.e. when the are talking, emailing, etc, before they actually start the flying. That seems like a pretty good plan. I'm not saying this plan is being well implemented, just that the broad plan seems like a good one. And I'm not against a *backup* plan that does track aircraft well.
Could have also filed a flight plan. Oh well.
That's only half of it. The second half is sticking to the plan. Flying, hiking, scuba diving, etc, its the second half that makes the first half work.
"Moving the fingers apart to zoom out makes sense to me, you are enlarging the piece of the world/map to be displayed on the display."
:-)
What you are describing is known to us normal humans as 'zooming in', not 'zooming out'. Think of it as if you were hovering far above the Earth and you wanted to get closer to a particular area. You would zoom in, that is, you would get closer to the Earth.
And you are shrinking the piece of the world/map to be displayed. In my original comment, enlarging the piece of the world/map does *not* mean magnifying the map, it means enlarging the portion of the map being shown on the display. The screen size is fixed, there is a rectangular portion of the map being shown on the display, fingers apart expands that map rectangle (zoom out), fingers together shrinks that map rectangle (zoom in). In the real world fingers apart is like unfolding the map, you are "zooming out" as more of the map becomes visible. Fingers together is like folding the map, "zooming in". Fingers together to zoom in also makes intuitive sense in the you are zooming in on the intersection, pointing at a point in a way.
I believe the usage is intuitive, the problem is describing the process to each other in words.
The problem with the instruction set is not due to the chipmakers but because there is an awful lot of proprietary software ( in particular windows ) which relies on it. Just have a look at Linux, the BSDs and Solaris. They have all been ported to numerous architectures, but this just isn't possible with a closed source application unless the vendor decides to do it. ...
... As a consequence Intel and AMD has no choice but to continue using x86 because so much software depends on it, and it would be suicidal for them to stop supporting it.
7 1&cid=20522223, perhaps it would be best to discuss this subtopic there rather than have a redundant thread.
Proprietary is largely a non-issue. The Windows NT 4 retail CD contained x86, MIPS, Alpha, and PowerPC binaries. Customers who wanted performance, very few, went Alpha. Customers who wanted price, nearly all, went ix86. Vendors of proprietary software that catered to these two markets developed accordingly. Also, the vast majority of proprietary software that locks businesses into Windows and hampers migration to Linux is internally developed. Businesses could have ported their software to whatever CPU they preferred. Hardly anyone was locked into x86, they chose x86. Much as those who chose Linux and BSD overwhelmingly chose x86.
Not true. Intel tried to drop x86 and move on to something new. Under Intel's "plan" if you wanted 64-bit you were supposed to go to Itanium. It was AMD that relegated us to x86 by introducing 64-bit x86 and continuing to innovate that line, forcing Intel to do likewise. I've commented on this in a different thread, http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2914
Has anyone else noticed how great the AMD-Intel marketshare battle has been for consumers? ... AMD/Intel should stand as a primary example of why honest competition is great for a market.
... Intel, in particular, seems to have woken up and begun providing really good CPU's, as well as trying to reach out to the community through things like this ...
AMD is no friend in the sense that they relegated us to the x86 architecture, hampering the periodic move from one CPU architecture to another. Intel tried to drop x86 and move on to something new. Under Intel's "plan" if you wanted 64-bit you were supposed to go to Itanium. It was AMD that relegated us to x86 by introducing 64-bit x86 and continuing to innovate that line, forcing Intel to do likewise. Whether or not Itanium was a good design is irrelevant. Intel would have put pressure on developers and businesses to migrate off of x86, and some may have moved to Alpha, PowerPC, etc rather than Itanium. We would have had a more diverse and healthier CPU architecture ecosystem.
I don't think so. While AMD caused Intel to continue x86 development, I don't think AMD had that great of an effect on the progress of this development once it was undertaken. I think Intel stumbled with the Pentium 4, it turned out to be a limited design. I believe they would have backed up and continued down the Pentium 3 path, Core Duo originates from the P3 line not the P4, regardless of what AMD was doing in their CPUs. What AMD did was make things go a little faster.
"two fingers moving apart zooms it out; and two fingers moving together zooms it in"
This strikes me as counterintuitive. Perhaps actual testing proved this was the best way, but it seems to me that it's exactly backwards. If you wanted to zoom out, would it not be more logical to place two fingers on two points on the map (say) six inches apart, then have the map zoom out as you "dragged" the two points closer together, and vice-versa?
Disclaimer, I'm a software developer who has done graphics, perhaps I share the same warped perspective as the designers. Moving the fingers apart to zoom out makes sense to me, you are enlarging the piece of the world/map to be displayed on the display.
Shouldn't the zoom go the other way, as if you're stretching or shrinking the image?
Fingers apart is widening the rectangle of terrain being viewed, fingers together is reducing the rectangle of terrain.
"Lie" detectors are very useful tools. First they should really be called stress detectors. Second, knowing what questions are introducing stress can be very useful information to an investigator. No way should it be used against a person in court, but investigators are often called upon to make educated guesses as to whether someone is being truthful or not. Reading non-verbal cues is art not science and it has practical value every day to law enforcement and investigators.
Worse, they tend to work worse when the subject is already under stress
My understanding is that they are really stress detectors. The flawed assumption is that stress indicates deception.
I was thinking about moving to a different State, but hadn't figured out which one. Now I'm down to 49 possibilities.
:-)
Wouldn't that be 48 possibilities? 48 + Current + Ohio. Or is DC being counted?
DNA evidence shifts the burden of proof - no longer do the police have to prove you actually committed the crime to the jury, now you have to somehow explain why your DNA was at the crime scene but despite other circumstantial evidence you didn't do it.
Nonsense. Nothing has changed with respect to the burden of proof or having to establish the various elements of a crime (motive, opportunity, etc.) DNA is just a type of evidence. Fingerprints are left all over the place as well, people understand this, defense attorneys will have even more opportunity to refute DNA given that it is spread more easily than fingerprints. In short, determining suspects has changed, not prosecution of those charged.
So, twice the drop in price 4 1/2 times as quickly?
In part because iPods had far less effective competition than the iPhone.
* A. When DNA is matched, as others have said, the entire genome is not sequenced, only a snippet. This leads to a much higher rate of duplicates. However, this still doesn't completely rule DNA evidence out as a likely use for proving innocence/guilt.
* B. As the database grows, the number of potential duplicates grows with it. This is the biggest weakness to the "collect everyone's DNA" theory of prosecution. True, its not likely that any one person in 1,000 has similar enough DNA for a criminal match, but if the database is 1,000,000, or the population of England (last check on Wikipedia over 50 million)chances are a lot higher. Factor in similarities between relatives and you have a big mess of false positives.
I would expect that simpler less expensive tests are performed first in order to rule out people. I expect that by the time DNA is used as evidence against a person in court it has been through several increasingly comprehensive levels of testing. A level where parents and sibling could be differentiated.
A DNA match does not mean that other elements of a crime do not have to be proven. For example that the person with the match had the opportunity, i.e. that the person was in about the same place at about the same time.
Why hasn't Apple done this in the past then?
They did, with the original iPod. The difference was that the time interval was greater and that they introduced a newer model to occupy the original high price point rather than completely eliminate the price point. Of course, Apple may yet announce a new and improved model for the $5xx price point.
... even granting your insinuation that hardcore Apple fans are idiots, this tactic will reduce the field, not expand it. ... if their business plan only included the supertrendy and the hardcore fan base, it wouldn't have the rather expensive marketing campaign, or the goal of 10 million units.
...
... I maintain that the Mac fans who hold sway over so many mod points think different(ly).
:-)
You grossly misrepresent my position regarding those who purchased iPhones immediately. They are not idiots, just impatient or vain in the pissing contest sense, and they are very forgiving so this price drop will not diminish their numbers.
You also misrepresent Apple's business plan. The supertrendy and/or hardcore don't represent the 10 million unit target, merely the initial round of buying. That 10 million will predominantly represent the patient who have waited. The price drop will be a triggering event for many, validating their patience in their mind.
Your argument is that the iPhone only aims to be a cult device
Uh, no. I argue that Apple is walking down the price curve to sell to each person at their willingness to pay in order to maximize iPhone revenue. Mass market products do this, not niche products.
That's a foolish argument, Mac fans with mod points have not really been known for their open minded and non-cultlike mods.
Dude, I hear you, but as you no doubt also know, part of business and economics is also reinforcing the sense of value for those who already bought in. Deflating the price 33% is pretty aggressive, and likely to alienate early adopters.
The flaw with your logic is that your are assuming that these early iPhone buyers are part of a rational market. They are not. Those early adopters already got want they wanted, winning the pissing contest, first on their block, attention, etc. Anyone with half a brain new that these high prices were temporary. Also, may were hard core Apple fans. Some of these people may kick themselves for not waiting, but they will not abandon Apple.
Dropping the price 1/3 in two months, and killing the cheap version translates to: "We're not selling the numbers we need".
4 84913.
Not for those who have studied business and economics, they may see revenue maximization. To avoid a redundant thread see: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=289019&cid=20
That truly is a steep drop in price. Have their supply and production costs dropped that much, or are they sacrificing margin in the expectation of recovering it in subscription fees? I tend to suspect the latter, which amounts to subsidized pricing.
No, Apple is maximizing revenue. It is called walking down the price curve. Everyone has a different willingness to pay, some much higher than others. If you make a product available to everyone at a widely acceptable price you lose revenue from those who would have paid more. So you introduce a product at a high price point that only a few are willing to pay and slowly reduce the price over time. This way all sales are closer to what the various individuals were willing to pay. Note that there needs to be an absence of substitute products. Sometimes this strategy fits in well with initial production and supply problems. However in this case I expect it is mostly revenue maximization.
Not necessarily. You can always put a green roof on the building. You can also use corner offices for greenhouses. Especially Southwest and Southeast corners.
I was thinking of green roofs, but corner office green houses had not occurred to me. I would like to add the backyard victory gardens of World War 2 as well.
Except they have some DNA evidence that points to you. And in the eyes of most juries, DNA is the magic bullet for a prosecutor. According to TV, DNA is alway 100% sure that you are the father.
...
Actually, that would be according to science
Today is September 5, 2007. Where were you last Tuesday, August 28... of 2006? Can you prove it? Why not? Why don't you remember? Are you lying to us?
Don't recall. Can't prove it. I have a poor memory, especially for dates. Not lying. And none of this means a damn thing since the burden of proof is upon you to prove that I am guilty. I do not need to prove my innocence. I merely need to cooperate to the best of my ability and I have done so.