Oh, I think the feature is great, and I like the animation myself.
As for the $129, there are a few ways to look at it: you could not get it, split a family license with friends, or scam an educational copy.
My favourite, though, is to see if you can get $800 for your iBook, tack on the $129 you would've spent on Panther, then add another $170 to get yourself a G4 iBook. Not too shabby.
That's a good idea if you trust the voting machine. When shit like this Diebold thing happen, though, it'd be nice for the voter to confirm for himself what gets marked on the ballot for him.
Honestly, I don't understand why a pencil and machine-readable bubble sheet are insufficient.
That's not to say Napster 2.0, available to the public Oct. 29, 2003, has lost all traces of the old. The headphoned kitty logo is still there - in fact, everywhere.
Even if nothing else is the same, thank goodness the logo's still there. It clearly means Napster is exactly the same. What a relief!
Yes, but everyone except you also knows that Apple has been licensing Amazon's One-Click "technology" pretty much since.Mac came along. iPhoto's One-Click print ordering is one example.
On-demand viewing is going after the rental market, not the DVD collector market.
I share your beefs with the user experience, but those can and probably will be resolved as the technology is refined. Cable box DVR's, e.g., could allow local caching for smoother rewind and fast forward.
Well, that's fine if you are writing a web page for a language that is written vertically, but english is a right to left language, which mean horizontal scrolling is usually very very bad.
You must read and write a dialect of English with which I'm unfamiliar.
This comment isn't interesting; it's ignorant. From the article:
The service is similar to one Anonymizer provided to Chinese citizens under a previous government contract that ran-out ended earlier this year.
Cottrell and Berman agree that it's only a matter of time before the Iranonymity service winds on the official blacklist. But Berman hints that the U.S. is ready for a prolonged electronic shell game with Tehran. "In China we're continually monitoring the state of the proxy, and when we see the traffic drop off, we change the proxy's address, usually within 24 hours," says Berman.
Another interesting thing is that some researchers believe in general people are born with perfect pitch and quickly loose the ability because it's not used.
That's a really interesting concept.. I don't suppose you have a quick link handy to research? I've often wondered what sorts of psychological research has been done on perfect pitch, as it's incredibly niche and irrelevant.
You're right that perfect pitch varies. I've known people who could listen to complex polyphonic music and pretty much instantly name its key. One of them claimed that keys had specific colours to him, which must be nice for him as a Ph.D. in music analysis.
I have perfect pitch in that I can name a given note or sing a named one, but to identify the key of a tune I need to first identify the tonic using relative pitch, then identify that note.
Perfect pitch (aka absolute pitch) is not at all required for "absolute mastery" of music, and can even be a hindrance.
When you're singing or playing in an ensemble that's out of absolute tune but in tune with itself, you have the unpleasant choice of staying in absolute tune and going out of tune with the group or adjusting and hearing things out of tune, which is jarring.
For a simpler example, imagine trying to improvize in C on a clarinet and hearing the music in Bb. Now that's jarring.
Unbelievably good relative pitch is required for "absolute mastery" of music. Perfect pitch is just a party trick.
You're right about misappropriation, but trade secret is unique IP protection in that it doesn't protect against independent discovery, including (afaik, but apparently not in this DeCSS case) reverse engineering.
I believe the chance of independent discovery is the key question in whether to seek patent protection. If your product, like the Coca-Cola formula, is difficult to discover, trade secret law provides an indefinite but uncertain monopoly, as you said. If otoh your product is easy to reverse engineer, patent law provides at least a short term of certain monopoly.
I'm not mixing up my IP. I just failed to emphasize that the purpose of patents is specifically to reduce the number of trade secrets. By creating an incentive (i.e., a temporary monopoly) to disclose trade secrets as public records, patents provide an incentive for inventors to contribute their inventions to the public domain after a defined period of time.
That was my original point, which I apparently failed to make clear.
Trade secrets are a form of "IP," and are often extremely valuable (e.g., the Coca-Cola formula).
The very purpose of patent protection is to provide an incentive for the inventor to make public his invention in the form of a patent filing, thus allowing others to build on his work. In exchange for this service to society, the inventor receives exclusive rights to its commercial use for x years, where x has been around 15-20 years, currently 17 years from the date the patent is granted (iirc).
In that sense, patents are beneficial to society in that they promote the disclosure of inventions that would otherwise be kept secret. Unfortunately, the patent application, granting, and enforcement processes have gone horribly awry.
Cocoa in Panther can handle simple Word document formatting natively, and will be publicly available around September. Various folks (in this thread and others) have pointed to that feature as a precursor to either Apple or 3rd-party Word-compatible apps. But what happens when, one month later, MS Office 2k3 comes out with its new "XML" document format? How quickly can Apple release a Cocoa patch that handles it?
Would you mind providing a source for the $10 billion figure? I'm not challenging it, but I'd like to have a source before I cite the number and get challenged myself.
Slashdot Mirror
This report concerns sales of singles only, which, let's be honest, have been plummeting for a good 10-20 years.
It seems you agree perfectly with the moderation of his comment.
No.
As for the $129, there are a few ways to look at it: you could not get it, split a family license with friends, or scam an educational copy.
My favourite, though, is to see if you can get $800 for your iBook, tack on the $129 you would've spent on Panther, then add another $170 to get yourself a G4 iBook. Not too shabby.
But yeah, I hope the next update is free.
If you look at the bottom of this page, so does Apple: "Because Quartz and OpenGL can".
It's too bad Apple changed it, though. It used to read "Because we can," which was much cooler.
Try here for the firmware hack.
Honestly, I don't understand why a pencil and machine-readable bubble sheet are insufficient.
Even if nothing else is the same, thank goodness the logo's still there. It clearly means Napster is exactly the same. What a relief!
Yes, but everyone except you also knows that Apple has been licensing Amazon's One-Click "technology" pretty much since .Mac came along. iPhoto's One-Click print ordering is one example.
Oh wait, they already did that.
Get these (relatively) unimpressive updates out of the way to make room for the real ones at Apple Expo in Paris.
What do you mean "not quite 'on demand'?" Aren't pay-per-view movies considered on-demand? Do you have to order yours ahead of time or something?
I share your beefs with the user experience, but those can and probably will be resolved as the technology is refined. Cable box DVR's, e.g., could allow local caching for smoother rewind and fast forward.
You must read and write a dialect of English with which I'm unfamiliar.
RTFA.
A quick Google search, however, lists several authoratative sites which conflate the two terms.
For example:
That's a really interesting concept.. I don't suppose you have a quick link handy to research? I've often wondered what sorts of psychological research has been done on perfect pitch, as it's incredibly niche and irrelevant.
You're right that perfect pitch varies. I've known people who could listen to complex polyphonic music and pretty much instantly name its key. One of them claimed that keys had specific colours to him, which must be nice for him as a Ph.D. in music analysis.
I have perfect pitch in that I can name a given note or sing a named one, but to identify the key of a tune I need to first identify the tonic using relative pitch, then identify that note.
When you're singing or playing in an ensemble that's out of absolute tune but in tune with itself, you have the unpleasant choice of staying in absolute tune and going out of tune with the group or adjusting and hearing things out of tune, which is jarring.
For a simpler example, imagine trying to improvize in C on a clarinet and hearing the music in Bb. Now that's jarring.
Unbelievably good relative pitch is required for "absolute mastery" of music. Perfect pitch is just a party trick.
I believe the chance of independent discovery is the key question in whether to seek patent protection. If your product, like the Coca-Cola formula, is difficult to discover, trade secret law provides an indefinite but uncertain monopoly, as you said. If otoh your product is easy to reverse engineer, patent law provides at least a short term of certain monopoly.
I gotta that's the response to my sig I've seen yet.
That was my original point, which I apparently failed to make clear.
The very purpose of patent protection is to provide an incentive for the inventor to make public his invention in the form of a patent filing, thus allowing others to build on his work. In exchange for this service to society, the inventor receives exclusive rights to its commercial use for x years, where x has been around 15-20 years, currently 17 years from the date the patent is granted (iirc).
In that sense, patents are beneficial to society in that they promote the disclosure of inventions that would otherwise be kept secret. Unfortunately, the patent application, granting, and enforcement processes have gone horribly awry.
IOW, you're the devil incarnate.
(joking, joking...)
(sort of)
Cocoa in Panther can handle simple Word document formatting natively, and will be publicly available around September. Various folks (in this thread and others) have pointed to that feature as a precursor to either Apple or 3rd-party Word-compatible apps. But what happens when, one month later, MS Office 2k3 comes out with its new "XML" document format? How quickly can Apple release a Cocoa patch that handles it?
Would you mind providing a source for the $10 billion figure? I'm not challenging it, but I'd like to have a source before I cite the number and get challenged myself.