c128 = Commodore 128, one of the great computers that came out of the 80s. However, as you can imagine, it didn't make all that great of graphics (at least compared to today's images) so the point is that special effects rendered on a c128 wouldn't look very good.
Not to mention that Java is the latest buzzword in web applications. Most company executives are completely clueless when you say PHP, but their ears will perk up when you say Java Server Pages. The branding's just not there with PHP. (Related note: I favor PHP a lot more than JSP, but that's just my opinion, for what it's worth)
Umm...how is it the "same...thing" when Winamp doesn't even run on Linux natively? You're comparing a VM that runs natively on Windows with a program that doesn't even run natively on Linux and saying that the principle's the same. And, the point is, Microsoft specifically violated certain agreements it had with Sun. In doing so, it severely harmed Sun's market, and therefore the whole point is to get Microsoft to live up to their end of the bargain. If you think Microsoft's living up to their bargain is telling Aunt Mildred to download Java when she can barely install her $5 Walmart solitaire game, I'm afraid you might be sadly mistaken.
Try reasonably fitting more than 8 sticks of 1GB DDR on a board and then we can talk about why Apple doesn't have any more memory. As it stands now, they're already packing 8 sockets on the logic board, and there's only so much space you can take on the board before it becomes excessive and requires too much in terms of electronics and cost.
Are you going to have 160GB SATA, Firewire 400 and 800, USB 2.0, a Radeon 7600, DDR400 memory, a high-quality sound card with optical-out, and a full-fledged OS for the $1400 you quote? I would think not, but you're free to prove me wrong if you are able to.
Jaguar sells for $69 with educational discount right now, so it's possible you might pay less than that even.
In the interest of gloating, I'll revise that to say "it's possible both you and I might pay less than that", what with myself being eligible for educational discounts as well;)
He didn't say it costs $3 billion to fab it, he only said that their new fab (in Fishkill, NY I believe it was said) cost $3 billion to build. I'm sure they'll be running more than just G5s at the plant.
Don't know, but I do note that the boxed version of Jaguar under the educational discount program is almost half of the price of the standard priced Jaguar ($129 vs. $69) so even at that rate, it's pretty cheap for educational users to upgrade (assuming they do edu. discounts on Panther, which I believe they probably will).
But the receptionist wasn't engaging in any illegal activities. They weren't being asked to cover up debts, shred papers (at least, as far as I know) or lie to investors. They just happened to work at the wrong place at the wrong time. Likewise, SCO's coders aren't being asked to go out and harass companies and programmers associated with Linux. They just happen to work for a company where other people above them are deciding to sue IBM, etc. I could see if they were actively involved in tainting code or investigating behind-the-scenes, but most of the coders are honest workers who work on SCO products and probably could care less about the whole controversy (well, except for the future of their jobs). That's where I see the difference.
That's like saying the receptionist at Enron at the time of their collapse is an undesirable employee at any other company. They didn't have any power over company policy, so why blame them for the indiscretions of their bosses? The coders at SCO, likewise, have nothing to do with the fact that their CEO and board decided to sue.
Well, Larry Ewing is the creator, so assumedly he has copyright over the image of Tux. However, his site specifically states that you can use the image for whatever you'd like, as long as you give credit to him if anyone asks who drew Tux. In other words, SCO can use the image of Tux however they want; they're allowed to by the creator, just like everyone else who uses the image.
Actually, considering the kind of music that Justin Timberlake's been coming out with lately, I can see as to how we need to protect people from that;)
That doesn't hurt the spammer any. The only people it hurts are the owners of abc.com and xyz.com, who have to perpetually send email between their servers until one of them decides to give up for whatever reason. The spammer doesn't have to see any of it. Forwarding is done without any response or notification to the original sender, so the spammer just sees it as another email that got delivered and doesn't have to worry about the bandwidth that's being generated on innocent servers that's not even harming him/her.
Yes, it's supported GIF for a long time, but you had to download an additional file that was marked as intended only for countries where GIF wasn't patented. Now the MacGIMP people are distributing the GIF code with the actual software, removing the need for us in the US to download an additional file that before today we weren't even supposed to download at all.
FireWire 400. Why stick with this? Good question. I think I agree with you here since the 800 ports would be backwards compatible with any 400 device. 1 point impossible
Actually, I can see why they'd want to keep 400s. The 800 connector is different from the standard 400 cable, and even with the availability of adapters to convert from 400->800, it's still easier for them to simply include 400s on the computer so people who buy it can plug their devices in as soon as they assemble the computer, rather than having to go out and buy a special cable just to use their cameras, etc.
Basically all that law says is that a web site operator has to get verifiable permission from parents to collect personal information about someone under 13. There are a couple of loopholes to this rule as well, so it's really not all that major of a law. In any case, since spammers aren't collecting personal information from anyone (usually) I don't really see how this specific law could be applied in this case. I can see the need for some regulation against this sort of spam, but it doesn't seem like this law is the one that will be it.
Small nitpick: Copyright is conferred on a work upon creation; there's no need to prove that it was actually registered because it's not necessary to register copyrights anymore. You are correct about everything else, though.
No and no. Packet sniffing is reading information that's deliberately exposed to the outside; the DMCA wouldn't prohibit you from viewing the contents of your own communications (well, at least in this case). And an ISP can't find out you're doing packet sniffing because all sniffing does is hook onto your networking layer and read the raw data coming from the packets. In most cases it's pretty much invisible.
California has an anti-SLAPP statute, Code of Civil Procedure, Section 425.16. A judge can dismiss a SLAPP lawsuit at the beginning of the case, and require the filer to pay court costs. See CASP.net for more information on it.
Linkified: CASP.net
Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation - they're court cases that companies wage against people for speaking out against them. For instance, if people campaign against building an industrial center in the middle of town, a company could try to sue someone for interference with a contract, defamation of character, or conspiracy. It's easy to get someone to settle and shut up so that they don't have to pay lawyers to defend against a frivolous lawsuit.
No, because the remote Phoenix server has to send back the command to delete the data. It doesn't do it based solely on the lack of a response. And, indeed, here's where the flaw is. Never allow that "ping" to get to the Phoenix server, and you can use the computer normally. Not only that, but most people that steal computers from corporate offices are interested in either the data on it (which can be retrieved by just connecting the hard drive to another computer) or for the value of the equipment (in which case, the software on the hard drive is inconsequential, as that's not where the main value of the system is). It's another of those what I call "feel-good features" that doesn't actually do much of anything.
No, but the RIAA can make life a living nightmare for Apple if they encourage the record labels to cripple iTunes Music Store in the future. Think about it: with the Microsoft plan coming up for creating an alternate purchasing system that would compete with iTunes, the labels could easily break off some ties with Apple and go on Microsoft's side if that's what they want. Either way is equally likely to create revenue streams, and if Apple doesn't want to go along with the RIAA's demands, there will be an alternative that will still allow the labels to make money in the face of not having iTMS.
Apple has put significant investment into iTMS, and they're not willing to give up their first-out advantage due to some issues on semi-unrelated issues of music sharing. If in fact it was the RIAA that requested these changes, they really have no prudent option but to go along with the people that can truly make-or-break one of their now-core businesses.
ZoneAlarm (the free version, not the Pro) and TrendMicro's PC-Cillin (AVG and Norton AV are also good if you want something that's a little easier to find in stores or, in AVG's case, that you can download online).
This brings up a common misconception. "Free" software, as the old adage goes, is "free as in speech, not free as in beer". In other words, free software manufacturers can most definitely sell their works for a profit. Think of Red Hat. They sell a boxed version of free software for $69.95, and what is the user buying? Not only the collection of free software, but also the support contracts, warranty, and other features that you can only get in a boxed version.
Another example is MySQL. One company sells support contracts for that software and makes quite a bit doing just that. But MySQL is free both in speech and beer. Yet they still make money helping people fix problems that they have with it.
Free software can make companies money, it's as simple as that. It's not that the companies are developing programs they pass around without any cost whatsoever. Programmers still earn money because their work still profits the company. In other words, the exact same thing that goes on with proprietary software, just shifting the philosophy around. The money is still there.
The sad thing about this comment is that it's true. It's amazing what you can do when faced with a combination of sleep deprivation and extreme caffeination;)
Slashdot Mirror
c128 = Commodore 128, one of the great computers that came out of the 80s. However, as you can imagine, it didn't make all that great of graphics (at least compared to today's images) so the point is that special effects rendered on a c128 wouldn't look very good.
Not to mention that Java is the latest buzzword in web applications. Most company executives are completely clueless when you say PHP, but their ears will perk up when you say Java Server Pages. The branding's just not there with PHP. (Related note: I favor PHP a lot more than JSP, but that's just my opinion, for what it's worth)
Umm...how is it the "same...thing" when Winamp doesn't even run on Linux natively? You're comparing a VM that runs natively on Windows with a program that doesn't even run natively on Linux and saying that the principle's the same. And, the point is, Microsoft specifically violated certain agreements it had with Sun. In doing so, it severely harmed Sun's market, and therefore the whole point is to get Microsoft to live up to their end of the bargain. If you think Microsoft's living up to their bargain is telling Aunt Mildred to download Java when she can barely install her $5 Walmart solitaire game, I'm afraid you might be sadly mistaken.
Try reasonably fitting more than 8 sticks of 1GB DDR on a board and then we can talk about why Apple doesn't have any more memory. As it stands now, they're already packing 8 sockets on the logic board, and there's only so much space you can take on the board before it becomes excessive and requires too much in terms of electronics and cost.
Are you going to have 160GB SATA, Firewire 400 and 800, USB 2.0, a Radeon 7600, DDR400 memory, a high-quality sound card with optical-out, and a full-fledged OS for the $1400 you quote? I would think not, but you're free to prove me wrong if you are able to.
Jaguar sells for $69 with educational discount right now, so it's possible you might pay less than that even. In the interest of gloating, I'll revise that to say "it's possible both you and I might pay less than that", what with myself being eligible for educational discounts as well ;)
He didn't say it costs $3 billion to fab it, he only said that their new fab (in Fishkill, NY I believe it was said) cost $3 billion to build. I'm sure they'll be running more than just G5s at the plant.
Don't know, but I do note that the boxed version of Jaguar under the educational discount program is almost half of the price of the standard priced Jaguar ($129 vs. $69) so even at that rate, it's pretty cheap for educational users to upgrade (assuming they do edu. discounts on Panther, which I believe they probably will).
But the receptionist wasn't engaging in any illegal activities. They weren't being asked to cover up debts, shred papers (at least, as far as I know) or lie to investors. They just happened to work at the wrong place at the wrong time. Likewise, SCO's coders aren't being asked to go out and harass companies and programmers associated with Linux. They just happen to work for a company where other people above them are deciding to sue IBM, etc. I could see if they were actively involved in tainting code or investigating behind-the-scenes, but most of the coders are honest workers who work on SCO products and probably could care less about the whole controversy (well, except for the future of their jobs). That's where I see the difference.
That's like saying the receptionist at Enron at the time of their collapse is an undesirable employee at any other company. They didn't have any power over company policy, so why blame them for the indiscretions of their bosses? The coders at SCO, likewise, have nothing to do with the fact that their CEO and board decided to sue.
Well, Larry Ewing is the creator, so assumedly he has copyright over the image of Tux. However, his site specifically states that you can use the image for whatever you'd like, as long as you give credit to him if anyone asks who drew Tux. In other words, SCO can use the image of Tux however they want; they're allowed to by the creator, just like everyone else who uses the image.
Actually, considering the kind of music that Justin Timberlake's been coming out with lately, I can see as to how we need to protect people from that ;)
That doesn't hurt the spammer any. The only people it hurts are the owners of abc.com and xyz.com, who have to perpetually send email between their servers until one of them decides to give up for whatever reason. The spammer doesn't have to see any of it. Forwarding is done without any response or notification to the original sender, so the spammer just sees it as another email that got delivered and doesn't have to worry about the bandwidth that's being generated on innocent servers that's not even harming him/her.
Yes, it's supported GIF for a long time, but you had to download an additional file that was marked as intended only for countries where GIF wasn't patented. Now the MacGIMP people are distributing the GIF code with the actual software, removing the need for us in the US to download an additional file that before today we weren't even supposed to download at all.
FireWire 400. Why stick with this? Good question. I think I agree with you here since the 800 ports would be backwards compatible with any 400 device. 1 point impossible
Actually, I can see why they'd want to keep 400s. The 800 connector is different from the standard 400 cable, and even with the availability of adapters to convert from 400->800, it's still easier for them to simply include 400s on the computer so people who buy it can plug their devices in as soon as they assemble the computer, rather than having to go out and buy a special cable just to use their cameras, etc.
Basically all that law says is that a web site operator has to get verifiable permission from parents to collect personal information about someone under 13. There are a couple of loopholes to this rule as well, so it's really not all that major of a law. In any case, since spammers aren't collecting personal information from anyone (usually) I don't really see how this specific law could be applied in this case. I can see the need for some regulation against this sort of spam, but it doesn't seem like this law is the one that will be it.
Small nitpick: Copyright is conferred on a work upon creation; there's no need to prove that it was actually registered because it's not necessary to register copyrights anymore. You are correct about everything else, though.
No and no. Packet sniffing is reading information that's deliberately exposed to the outside; the DMCA wouldn't prohibit you from viewing the contents of your own communications (well, at least in this case). And an ISP can't find out you're doing packet sniffing because all sniffing does is hook onto your networking layer and read the raw data coming from the packets. In most cases it's pretty much invisible.
California has an anti-SLAPP statute, Code of Civil Procedure, Section 425.16. A judge can dismiss a SLAPP lawsuit at the beginning of the case, and require the filer to pay court costs. See CASP.net for more information on it. Linkified: CASP.net
Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation - they're court cases that companies wage against people for speaking out against them. For instance, if people campaign against building an industrial center in the middle of town, a company could try to sue someone for interference with a contract, defamation of character, or conspiracy. It's easy to get someone to settle and shut up so that they don't have to pay lawyers to defend against a frivolous lawsuit.
No, because the remote Phoenix server has to send back the command to delete the data. It doesn't do it based solely on the lack of a response. And, indeed, here's where the flaw is. Never allow that "ping" to get to the Phoenix server, and you can use the computer normally. Not only that, but most people that steal computers from corporate offices are interested in either the data on it (which can be retrieved by just connecting the hard drive to another computer) or for the value of the equipment (in which case, the software on the hard drive is inconsequential, as that's not where the main value of the system is). It's another of those what I call "feel-good features" that doesn't actually do much of anything.
No, but the RIAA can make life a living nightmare for Apple if they encourage the record labels to cripple iTunes Music Store in the future. Think about it: with the Microsoft plan coming up for creating an alternate purchasing system that would compete with iTunes, the labels could easily break off some ties with Apple and go on Microsoft's side if that's what they want. Either way is equally likely to create revenue streams, and if Apple doesn't want to go along with the RIAA's demands, there will be an alternative that will still allow the labels to make money in the face of not having iTMS. Apple has put significant investment into iTMS, and they're not willing to give up their first-out advantage due to some issues on semi-unrelated issues of music sharing. If in fact it was the RIAA that requested these changes, they really have no prudent option but to go along with the people that can truly make-or-break one of their now-core businesses.
ZoneAlarm (the free version, not the Pro) and TrendMicro's PC-Cillin (AVG and Norton AV are also good if you want something that's a little easier to find in stores or, in AVG's case, that you can download online).
This brings up a common misconception. "Free" software, as the old adage goes, is "free as in speech, not free as in beer". In other words, free software manufacturers can most definitely sell their works for a profit. Think of Red Hat. They sell a boxed version of free software for $69.95, and what is the user buying? Not only the collection of free software, but also the support contracts, warranty, and other features that you can only get in a boxed version.
Another example is MySQL. One company sells support contracts for that software and makes quite a bit doing just that. But MySQL is free both in speech and beer. Yet they still make money helping people fix problems that they have with it.
Free software can make companies money, it's as simple as that. It's not that the companies are developing programs they pass around without any cost whatsoever. Programmers still earn money because their work still profits the company. In other words, the exact same thing that goes on with proprietary software, just shifting the philosophy around. The money is still there.
The sad thing about this comment is that it's true. It's amazing what you can do when faced with a combination of sleep deprivation and extreme caffeination ;)