Eran is in a tough position. He has a fervent dislike of biased journalism. He also has a known interest in (and love of) many Apple products. This makes it difficult for him to write on these topics, and still appear detatched.
He's passionate, certainly. Angry at some Microsoft shills? Obviously. Biased? No, I don't think so. The reason I think that way is because of the way he puts his influences and beliefs up front. He doesn't hide them. He doesn't pretend they exist. He references constantly, and provides reasoned arguments to back up any claims he makes.
He's not right all the time, but he's right a whole lot more (for my money) than almost any other person writing about Apple today. I trust what he has to say because of the way he says it, and the evidence he brings to bear. I also trust him because of his track record of making big predictions that get proved right.
Disclaimer: I use and prefer Mac OS X as an operating system, and write OS X games.
Dealt with that -- my wife walked down the aisle to the strains of Handel's "Music for the Royal Fireworks", which is well and truly in the public domain.
In the very same article, however, he goes on to say:
"That doesn't mean there's not going to be software to buy that you can load on them coming from us. It doesn't mean we have to write it all, but it means it has to be more of a controlled environment."
Steve's obviously playing control freak here, but I can understand his reasoning. Sony does the same thing for the PlayStation platform. An SDK ~is~ available, if you pay the huge fee for it, and Sony still gets to decide if your title is good enough to get their PlayStation branding. If the iPhone is going to work as a product for Apple, it really does have to work just as smoothly as its demo. Just like Sony, Apple gets to vet/check software before it goes out into the wide world.
The hacker geeks aren't going to like it, but, hey, it didn't stop Sony from owning the world with this very same model for the PSX and PS2.
Oh, and you can bet your bottom dollar this isn't the only device in this area that Apple will be bringing out. Expect to see this techology in a more hackable, computer-like form very soon.
I say let the iPhone be an iPhone -- that's what's it's going to be good at.
A very good friend of mine is now a dual-platform user, running both Mac OS X and Windows XP. He says he has most of the bugs worked out of the XP setup, and he also says he uses about 10% of the power of Mac OS X.
He finds that he is most productive with a pencil and paper.:)
It's never going to be illegal to say "I like pretty flowers."
When Interflora owns the patent for the genes of those flowers, you'd better make sure you prefix that with a trademark symbol, or they'll get all DMCA on your arse.
Re:and i thought the terrorists hated us..
on
Melting Europa
·
· Score: 1, Funny
A comment in a recent article here pointed out that their upstream ISP seems to be IBM. I wouldn't want to be the IT guy at SCO who has to raise that issue.
"Uh, hi... is this IBM?"
Yes, it is; what can I do for you?"
"Uh, this is, uh, [edited] at SCO. Someone's DOSing us, and..."
[uproarious laughter from IBM rep]
[CLICK]
My very good friend Dr. Ralph Sutherland of the Australian National University has his base of ops at Mt. Stromolo. Today he'll be utterly devastated, as will all those who worked there.
I don't think it's quite as drastic as that. Good old General Relativity has still been tried, tested and confirmed time and time again on a large scale.
We might get some additions to the theory, but the fundamental observations made and the underlying maths will still hold, I think.
Being able to observe gravitational effects at such a small scale could be the key to unlocking the unification of our disparate scientific views of the universe.
Imagine being able to manipulate all the forces, not just electro-magnetic. Gravity producing devices operating on electric principles?
This sort of "silly" research has produced unexpected benefits before. I can envisage some form of high-rise, for example, that has a waterfall down the central shaft to provide temperature and humidity regulation, as well as providing the air movements to refresh the building.
Okay, so it sounds silly. But who's to say that something profound won't come of this! I say more power to people doing esoteric research.
They bitch and whine about sending a "space tourist", but they'll happily take the $ to do films rather than hard science? NASA, your hypocrisy alarm is flashing.
If you read the article, you'd see that the module is a proposed attachment to the ISS, which Russia has 'handballed' to a civilian group. Russia ran out of money (again).
NASA is on record as 'reviewing the situation', as are all the other ISS partner nations. I think NASA will be objecting as strongly to this as they did to our recent Space Tourist.
Sufficient to say, it's not a NASA initiative, and NASA hasn't even made an official comment yet.
I live in Tasmania, Australia, and this decision has been in the works for a while.
Australia has lots of legal gambling outlets. Most of them are owned by the same people who own the mass media.
Putting two and two together, I'd be willing to bet that this is not so much an attempt to stop the 'scourge' of net gambling, but to prevent leeching of profits from the casinos.
Jim Naureckas of FAIR seems concerned that this will undermine the credibility of TV news. As far as I can see, TV news already has no credibility, and print and Internet news isn't much more credible. The news is already a part of the entertainment, and is only done so long as it attracts ad revenue.
So upon what do we rely to get info on the world? slashdot relies on news services still, to a large degree. Online news agencies such as ZiffDavis are even worse than their offline counterparts, and don't have the people on the ground.
Only traditional news agencies have the manpower to get to stories fast. Yeah, they hype it, they sell it and they try to prolong the story to the detriment of others. But they're all we've got.
The alternative is clear; just look at china, or (to a lesser degree) Australia (if we're not careful).
Is it right for journalists to fake out their viewers (in this case) even when it only involves slighting the competition? I don't think so. I think it's journalistist fraud.
I agree. A journalist is a person doing a job, true, but in Western civilisation at least they're the people we rely on to get the information others don't want us to have.
I admit that I can be an apologist for journalists on occasion, and I like to think that the majority are honest and good people trying to show us the world in an unbiased fashion, but if the networks will stoop to planting their own logo over someone elses just for the sake of looking like they have better coverage, well...
BTW, if you swear at the wrong cops around most of the US, you are likely to end up in a bad way on some crazy trumped up charges. Highly not recommended, should you ever visit here.
Really? Fair crack of the whip, I say. If I couldn't tell orificers of the law where to go shove it, I think I'd just die. Bugger. Well, there goes my trip to Grand Rapids...
Australia has been copping a fair amount of flak recently for our new broadcast regs that affect our net. Fair enough; we deserve it. Most of us will try to ignore the new rules, though.
But if we're feeling pissed off at our goverment (we laugh at government) or down on ourselves about our stupidity, it always cheers us up to see what new pains you guys are inflicting upon yourselves.
Australians don't think about free speech, because it never occurred to us that we might not have it. If someone wants to take it away, we tell them to bugger off (and that goes for the new rules, too). This makes us complacent about our rights, I think.
Americans, on the other hand, appear to like crusading for free speech, as if your government is so evil that it might prevent you from talking one day. Fair enough; it might too. But I doubt it.
If you feel like a break from your stuggle, come down here. We'll knock off a few beers, swear at some cops, have a few beers with ~them~, and generally get slayed. You're always welcome.
Yeah, okay, but all I meant was that Apple's hardly alone in trying to make money. And, like I said, no-one's perfect, and most people are greedy (even when they don't want to be).
Robert Morgan of RFI has seen Firmware 1.1 machines running with G4 chips. They were running Mac OS 9 and Mac OS X Client. These two OSes contain code to allow a machine to use a G4. The firmware was implemented to make sure that no non-OS 9/X G3 uses a G4 chip, because the machine will die... in a big way. The G4 does things really differently to the G3, and OS 8 of any version just cannot handle it. So it's not a block. It's a bug fix. Get a copy of Mac OS 9 or Mac OS X Client, and you'll be sweet. all the best, base2_celtic (pipeline 256)
Slashdot Mirror
...I thought that we were now subject to any anti-modchipping clauses that might be present in the DMCA?
Eran is in a tough position. He has a fervent dislike of biased journalism. He also has a known interest in (and love of) many Apple products. This makes it difficult for him to write on these topics, and still appear detatched.
He's passionate, certainly. Angry at some Microsoft shills? Obviously. Biased? No, I don't think so. The reason I think that way is because of the way he puts his influences and beliefs up front. He doesn't hide them. He doesn't pretend they exist. He references constantly, and provides reasoned arguments to back up any claims he makes.
He's not right all the time, but he's right a whole lot more (for my money) than almost any other person writing about Apple today. I trust what he has to say because of the way he says it, and the evidence he brings to bear. I also trust him because of his track record of making big predictions that get proved right.
Disclaimer: I use and prefer Mac OS X as an operating system, and write OS X games.
Dealt with that -- my wife walked down the aisle to the strains of Handel's "Music for the Royal Fireworks", which is well and truly in the public domain.
Agreed -- that does change the equation. I'd still be willing to bet that it won't change it enough to matter, though.
In the very same article, however, he goes on to say:
"That doesn't mean there's not going to be software to buy that you can load on them coming from us. It doesn't mean we have to write it all, but it means it has to be more of a controlled environment."
Steve's obviously playing control freak here, but I can understand his reasoning. Sony does the same thing for the PlayStation platform. An SDK ~is~ available, if you pay the huge fee for it, and Sony still gets to decide if your title is good enough to get their PlayStation branding. If the iPhone is going to work as a product for Apple, it really does have to work just as smoothly as its demo. Just like Sony, Apple gets to vet/check software before it goes out into the wide world.
The hacker geeks aren't going to like it, but, hey, it didn't stop Sony from owning the world with this very same model for the PSX and PS2.
Oh, and you can bet your bottom dollar this isn't the only device in this area that Apple will be bringing out. Expect to see this techology in a more hackable, computer-like form very soon.
I say let the iPhone be an iPhone -- that's what's it's going to be good at.
A very good friend of mine is now a dual-platform user, running both Mac OS X and Windows XP. He says he has most of the bugs worked out of the XP setup, and he also says he uses about 10% of the power of Mac OS X.
:)
He finds that he is most productive with a pencil and paper.
I, for one, welcome our new algae overlords.
A comment in a recent article here pointed out that their upstream ISP seems to be IBM. I wouldn't want to be the IT guy at SCO who has to raise that issue.
"Uh, hi... is this IBM?"
Yes, it is; what can I do for you?"
"Uh, this is, uh, [edited] at SCO. Someone's DOSing us, and..."
[uproarious laughter from IBM rep]
[CLICK]
My very good friend Dr. Ralph Sutherland of the Australian National University has his base of ops at Mt. Stromolo. Today he'll be utterly devastated, as will all those who worked there.
I don't think it's quite as drastic as that. Good old General Relativity has still been tried, tested and confirmed time and time again on a large scale.
We might get some additions to the theory, but the fundamental observations made and the underlying maths will still hold, I think.
Being able to observe gravitational effects at such a small scale could be the key to unlocking the unification of our disparate scientific views of the universe.
Imagine being able to manipulate all the forces, not just electro-magnetic. Gravity producing devices operating on electric principles?
This is going to be fun!
This sort of "silly" research has produced unexpected benefits before. I can envisage some form of high-rise, for example, that has a waterfall down the central shaft to provide temperature and humidity regulation, as well as providing the air movements to refresh the building.
Okay, so it sounds silly. But who's to say that something profound won't come of this! I say more power to people doing esoteric research.
If you read the article, you'd see that the module is a proposed attachment to the ISS, which Russia has 'handballed' to a civilian group. Russia ran out of money (again).
NASA is on record as 'reviewing the situation', as are all the other ISS partner nations. I think NASA will be objecting as strongly to this as they did to our recent Space Tourist.
Sufficient to say, it's not a NASA initiative, and NASA hasn't even made an official comment yet.
I live in Tasmania, Australia, and this decision has been in the works for a while.
Australia has lots of legal gambling outlets. Most of them are owned by the same people who own the mass media.
Putting two and two together, I'd be willing to bet that this is not so much an attempt to stop the 'scourge' of net gambling, but to prevent leeching of profits from the casinos.
---
Only traditional news agencies have the manpower to get to stories fast. Yeah, they hype it, they sell it and they try to prolong the story to the detriment of others. But they're all we've got.
The alternative is clear; just look at china, or (to a lesser degree) Australia (if we're not careful).
all the best,
base2_celtic
Is it right for journalists to fake out their viewers (in this case) even when it only involves slighting the competition? I don't think so. I think it's journalistist fraud.
I agree. A journalist is a person doing a job, true, but in Western civilisation at least they're the people we rely on to get the information others don't want us to have.
I admit that I can be an apologist for journalists on occasion, and I like to think that the majority are honest and good people trying to show us the world in an unbiased fashion, but if the networks will stoop to planting their own logo over someone elses just for the sake of looking like they have better coverage, well...
Who watches the watchers?
All the best,
base2_celtic
BTW, if you swear at the wrong cops around most of the US, you are likely to end up in a bad way on some crazy trumped up charges. Highly not recommended, should you ever visit here.
Really? Fair crack of the whip, I say. If I couldn't tell orificers of the law where to go shove it, I think I'd just die. Bugger. Well, there goes my trip to Grand Rapids...
best to ya,
base2_celtic...
Australia has been copping a fair amount of flak recently for our new broadcast regs that affect our net. Fair enough; we deserve it. Most of us will try to ignore the new rules, though.
But if we're feeling pissed off at our goverment (we laugh at government) or down on ourselves about our stupidity, it always cheers us up to see what new pains you guys are inflicting upon yourselves.
Australians don't think about free speech, because it never occurred to us that we might not have it. If someone wants to take it away, we tell them to bugger off (and that goes for the new rules, too). This makes us complacent about our rights, I think.
Americans, on the other hand, appear to like crusading for free speech, as if your government is so evil that it might prevent you from talking one day. Fair enough; it might too. But I doubt it.
If you feel like a break from your stuggle, come down here. We'll knock off a few beers, swear at some cops, have a few beers with ~them~, and generally get slayed. You're always welcome.
The chips weren't ready (not in volume, anyway). AltiVec issues, mainly. Second, didn't you hear what I said? The block doesn't function on a new OS.
So, it's either a block against upgrading a processor, or it's to force people to upgrade their OS. Which one is more likely to generate money?
best to you.
Yeah, okay, but all I meant was that Apple's hardly alone in trying to make money. And, like I said, no-one's perfect, and most people are greedy (even when they don't want to be).
best to ya,
p 256
Rob was debunking Apple/Disney rumors. And what he knows, he don't tell for damned good reasons.
You'd read AppleInsider, then? ROFL.
p 256
Try to relax. Calm, deep breaths. BTW, Apple is a business. Can you say that? B-u-s-i-n-e-s-s. They sell things.
Look, all businesses make bad decisions. People do too. Find me the perfect person/company, and I'll show you Starfleet.
all the best,
p SuDuVi
Robert Morgan of RFI has seen Firmware 1.1 machines running with G4 chips. They were running Mac OS 9 and Mac OS X Client. These two OSes contain code to allow a machine to use a G4. The firmware was implemented to make sure that no non-OS 9/X G3 uses a G4 chip, because the machine will die... in a big way. The G4 does things really differently to the G3, and OS 8 of any version just cannot handle it. So it's not a block. It's a bug fix. Get a copy of Mac OS 9 or Mac OS X Client, and you'll be sweet. all the best, base2_celtic (pipeline 256)