I do believe in the absolute right of law-abiding people to own whatever weapon they want. If I want to buy a tank, or a grenade launcher - so what? Who's business is it?
Not enough people in the society share your
view, as I imagine you realize.
The issue is one of risk prediction, which is
why there is no correct answer, only value
judgements. For example, a completely sane
and upstanding citizen may be so infuriated
by his wife having an affair with his best
friend, he reaches for his weapon - in this
case an Apache attack helicopter - and kills
them both. Unfortunately, the Hellfire
missile also levels the neighbor's house
with a two-month old baby inside. Or perhaps
a few desperate (but otherwise law-abiding up
to that point) men get together, buy a tank,
and rob a bank.
The questions are, how often would these
things happen? How hard would it be for the
police to stop them before or after the
crime? How dangerous would it be to other
people while a bank robber and police tank
battle is ongoing? (At the very least, you
need to realize that it makes equipping a
police force much more expensive, which you
and your neighbors have to pay for.)
On the other hand, people do want to hunt,
or just learn to shoot guns. In fact, a
number of people probably want to learn to
drive a tank, or a jet fighter, to no
nefarious purpose. These interests must be
kept in mind as well, with questions such
as, how many hobbyists or hunters are there
who will be inconvenienced?
The answers to these question shape policy.
You can believe in your absolute right if
you wish, but it doesn't exist in any
human society.
So I repeat, society has to draw the line
somewhere between a toothpick and a nuclear
bomb. The question is where, regardless of
what you believe.
Come on man, its economics 101, people buy based on value.
You've exposed gross ignorance with that
statement.
In general, you do not get a discount when
you buy fewer things. You get one when you
buy in bulk. This is because the cost of
the transaction is more or less fixed
regardless of the volume you buy at, and
buying at high volume gives the store a
bigger profit and therefore some breathing
room to give a discount. This goes for
everything from toilet paper to orange juice.
You can also get a discount if you were a
regular customer, either formally (club-type
arrangement with obligations) or informally
(small restaurant that knows you personally).
This is because your regular purchases make
the business more predictable, so they're
willing to make a smaller profit as long as
it's a profit guaranteed over a longer
duration.
Either way, there's no such inherent thing
as buying in lower volumes (songs instead of
albums) and getting a better price. People who
complain about not getting the CD or album
notes are missing the fact that they are
not buying CDs, but songs. Just as the CD
replacing cassette tapes did not result in
a lower cost to consumers, downloaded music
will not necessarily result in lower costs
either.
You then completely miss the value of the
service that Apple is now providing. The
freedom to buy only what you want; the ability
to preview the song before purchase; the
(relative) freedom to burn to CD; and the
convenience of on-line purchasing. That's
all worth money. In fact, even the peace of
mind of staying legal is worth money to many
people.
Wow, there sure a lot of whining flamers around here today.
My sentiments exactly.
For those who whine about the price: note
that if you buy detergent in bulk, the unit
cost (dollar per gallon) is usually lower.
This is because packaging, transportation,
and shelving costs do not work to the same
proportions as the actual amount of detergent
in the container. If you want to buy all
16 songs, go buy a CD. Moreover, did anybody
actually expect a company that built its
fortune on selling convenience at a premium
to compete on price?
For those who whine about encoding quality:
Apple runs a website, which means that they
have to pay when you download. 128 kbps
happens to be a very good compromise among
quality, bandwidth, and disk (iPod) space.
Allowing uncompressed CD quality downloads
will multiply their bandwidth requirements
many times. If you want the highest possible
quality, surely you can spare the $20 for a
CD.
For those who compare the service to "free"
downloading: grow up. If you support Apple
here, there's a chance that this will be the
start of a revolution (recording labels are
at serious risk if artists can market directly
to listeners). If you don't, then the RIAA
stays powerful, and keeps looking for effective
DRM.
Point is, Apple is not out to replace the
CD. A CD still delivers the most quality
music to you, at the most reasonable price,
if you want every song in the album.
This service fills in a gap where you don't,
so quit whining.
The point is not that it'll make a great
game console, or a great web server, or a
great PVR. The point is that, for $700 or
whatever, you have a usable version of all
these features. This can be, with a hefty
investment in appropriate software, a
jack-of-all-trades box that can justify its
cost.
Want a really good console? Buy the PS2
or the X-Box, which is less than half the
price of this.
I shouldn't have to argue why I shouldn't have a gun any more than I should have to argue why I should have a computer or a car.
But you do have to argue. What you are
arguing (quoted below) is that the gun is
like a computer or a car, which you can own.
Since they are not identical objects, you in
fact have to argue that they are the same for
our purposes.
I do no harm to innocents by owning a
gun.
My neighbors are not influenced by me owning a gun.
I can protect my family better.
I can protect myself better.
These are all common points, so let me offer
a few points (not arguments) for consideration.
Sometimes society has to make blanket bans
because it can't distinguish good people from
bad people. For example, airports are full
of restricted areas, although 99% of the
people would not endanger an airplane. You
probably won't argue for an absolute right
to bring your gun everywhere (meeting the
President, getting on a plane, etc) either.
I imagine you accept the premise that your
good intentions may not be reelvant in some
cases determined by society.
Like I mentioned, society draws a line
somewhere. Because it's a line somewhere
in a continuum, it is necessarily arguable.
That is, if we allow semi-automatic rifles,
why not automatic rifles? Why not grenade
launchers? (Conversely, if we ban guns,
why not knives?) That line reflects majority
thinking, may not always be sane, but is
just as valid as any individual viewpoint.
It's where society finds balance between
collective comfort (if only psychological)
and individual wants.
Point is, none of your reasons apply only
to (say) an automatic rifle, but not to the
next more powerful weapon. The better
question is where you think the line should
be, and why there and not anywhere else?
If you can't find a more compelling argument
for any other point in the continuum of
weapons, then you need to accept that in
some societies you can't have some kinds of
weapons.
To defend myself from the government that attempts to confiscate my AK-47, 'nuff said.
You are aware that your government is in
possession of everything from automatic rifles
to nuclear weapons? You don't stand a chance
if the US military can be convinced to
take you down.
Instead, American civil rights rests on a
well-informed and moral military,
where political leaders do not get absolute
and personal loyalty. It does not rest upon
your puny AK-47.
That's not to say the Right to Bear Arms
wasn't a wonderful amendment. At that time,
information flows far more slowly, and it's
more likely that at least a part of the
military can be fooled or co-opted into
oppressing its own people. A well armed
citizenry, rifle against rifle, creates an
actual balance of power. That's just no
longer true today, and gun advocates are
well advised to find another reason.
Someone could kill just as many people as the DC sniper if they took a knife inside of a crowded mall and started stabbing everybody in sight.
Arguments of this sort tend to get ridiculous
as either side gives more extreme examples.
The fact, however, is that you have to draw the
line somewhere. For example,
I have every right to have a gun, just because I want to.
would obviously not apply if we're talking
about a nuclear weapon. In fact, you can't
buy tanks, missiles, or attack helicopters.
Point is, argue why you should be allowed to
own a gun, or argue why not, but don't
discuss banning knives or fists because the
same argument can be taken to an opposite
yet equally ridiculous extreme, to no real
purpose.
I wonder why no-ones talked about using this as a router? [...] price would be the limiting factor no?
Maybe because routers cost $50 to $100, and come
with easy configuration tools? This thing costs
five to ten times more, so it doesn't make much
sense to use it solely as a router.
You mean like an iPod? The 20 GB model is
exactly that price, smaller, much lighter, and
quite a bit more stylish.
The zero noise version of the M-100 makes an
obvious home web server, but the hard disk
will take it to $550 or maybe $600. The
TV out makes it an interesting set-top box,
or video game console. Either application
will have difficulty justifying its price
tag, though. An MP3 player is an even more
unnecessarily expensive idea.
What might work is if you use it for all
those purposes. A quiet and low power MP3
server/player, personal web and print server,
PVR, digital camera picture viewer, and game
console at about $700 (200 GB hard disk) can
be interesting. Unfortunately, it doesn't
have an infrared port for a remote control,
but that won't cost too much. The key will
then be software, especially with reconciling
all the real time tasks. Don't want to miss
out on a favorite show just because you were
slashdotted, no?
To be technical about it, art is "expression",
not "communication". There is no need for art
to actually communicate anything for the viewer
to appreciate the work. A shared sense of what
is beautiful will already suffice.
Apple could sell it's OS for x86 boxes at say $300 a pop.
Considering loyal Apple users are unhappy with
the $130 Jaguar, what makes you think that
price is feasible? Remember that somebody who
switches to x86 OS X has to replace all their
software, so a "switcher" can easily be looking
at $1,000 or more in software (that they
already have Windows versions of).
Secondly, Apple will have to support a thousand
drivers for various obscure peripherals. That
will dramatically increase engineering costs,
and most likely decrease the stability of the
kernel. Apple will be in the same boat as
Linux (or even worse) when it comes to drivers.
Thirdly, Microsoft just won the anti-trust
suit, and is unlikely to be bothered by the
US government again soon. You think they'll
just sit there and let OS X reach 6%? At
the very least, I would expect no native
Microsoft Office or IE for the x86 OS X, if
not for the PPC altogether. Then what?
OpenOffice.org? Then why not run Linux?
Along with Dell, which has the opposite business model. Don't be so sure something in the middle wouldn't work...
But I'm not saying that it won't work. I'm
pointing out that Apple's business plan does
work, despite your not liking it.
Unlike some other environments, things worked very well across architectures. Further, in this situation the various busses and peripherals are identical, simplifying things further.
It doesn't matter. Commercial software need
to go through full testing cycles for each
platform they support. The quality of the
API or the software does not decrease the
testing requirements, only the number of bug
fixes. It's an expensive activity, likely to
be a significant burden on the relatively
smaller Mac software vendors.
When you're done testing, you then have a
fragmented tech support team. Assembling
such a team to support the myriad
configurations of x86 hardware (as your
6% $300 OS requires) is also much more
expensive.
[...] if the new high-end PPC CPU is actually competitive with Opteron, both in price and performance.
So why are you assuming (by virtue of your
Opteron advocacy) that it can't?
At any rate, I think you are vastly
overestimating the complexity involved. Cocoa
code is very portable.
I'm a professional software developer, which
means that I'm risk averse. While I love Cocoa,
Objective C programs are just as easily made
non-portable as C programs. Moving platforms
is always
dangerous, and taken only when the alternative
is worse.
Today, the 970 is clearly a far better option,
even if it doesn't surpass the x86. Altivec
optimizations will pay off except on the G3s
which are on their way out. No additional
expenses that I point to in this post, and no
need to compete directly with Microsoft with
a $300 OS.
I don't think it will do anything but fill the needs of hobbyists.
Actually, it's professionals - particularly the
news professionals for whom time between shooting
and airing is premium - who will benefit first
from this. One main reason is that to get the
video from tape into a digital editing suite
takes time. If they're willing to pay top
dollar to minimize render times for video
effects, you can bet they'll pay even more to
save an hour of transferring from tape to
hard disk for (non-linear) editing.
When you think about it, a $500 iPod will give
you 20 GB of storage and a Firewire adaptor.
If I'm not terribly mistaken, that's about an
hour and a half's worth of plug-and-edit DV.
I think it'll be very interesting to the pros.
In fact, even a way to start transferring from
tape to iPod while driving back to the station
would probably be highly appreciated.
Apple would be like Microsoft if they had the marketshare.
That's probably right, and maybe Apple will be
even worse.
However, that's lazy thinking, because it implies
that we should support an ethical company into
monopoly marketshare, and count on it to do the
right thing all the time. That's wrongheaded,
because what we should do is to introduce and
maintain competition instead. An Apple with
95% of the PC market might be disaster, but an
Apple with 40% of the PC market might be nothing
but good news for everybody except Microsoft.
For one, many more open standards would probably
be in effect, and not only because Microsoft
neglected to butt in at the birth of the
Internet.
Apples market share could go up 10x overnight if they released Mac OSX for x86.
I think you mean MacOS X's market share, not
Apple-branded computers. In any case, why
would it?
Is it because of the iApplications? Well, a
Windows user needs to throw away all his old
apps and pay $130 to get them. I think most
switchers see them as a nice bonus, but not
a primary factor.
Is it because of Mac-only applications? I
think we can safely rule that out.
Is it because of a Unix core? Since Linux
hasn't exactly ruled the world yet, I think
we can rule that out, too.
Is it because of Aqua? Possibly, but think
about losing all your apps.
Is it because OS X can comfortably dual boot
with Windows? Oops, it can't. First Apple
will need to support VFAT and NTFS, then write
HFS drivers for Windows.
So who exactly will buy these things? People
who always wanted to run Unix on the desktop,
can't afford a (used) Mac, and can't figure
Linux out? They also have to somehow afford
OS X and repurchase all their old apps. Ten
times, overnight, you said?
Personally, I doubt even the "I'd
switch if only" subset of Slashdot would,
but that's because I'm cynical. I'd like to
see where you got your projections, though.
[Apple's] (poor in my mind) current business model.
Niche marketing can be counter-intuitive, but
it's also the classic question of whether you
want to be a big fish in a little pond, or a
little fish in a big pond. Apple chose the
former, exerts great influence in its chosen
market, and makes a profit in probably some of
the worst years ever in the industry.
There are far worse business models, and
technically it's nearly impossible to provide
the kind of hardware-software integration that
Apple currently sells without controlling the
hardware. It's not so much they like being a
hardware and software company as that they can
only distinguish themselves in the market by
also selling hardware.
Let's examine your business plan, where:
Apple could make a very nice transition to Opteron/Athlon64. [...] I also feel Apple
should stick with PPC on the notebook side.
which in effect nearly triples the development
effort for a Mac software vendor. First, you
need to build and test an Athlon version (which
is not going to be compatible with the Windows
version), build and test a PPC version, and
then test the PPC emulation version. Thereby
making Apple's already small marketshare even
more fragmented, when the obvious sensible
thing to do is to get a new high end PPC CPU,
drop the G3, and improve G4 compiler
optimizations.
If PPC 980 (or whatever) turns out to be a big win over Opteron2, it's not that big of a deal to switch back.
That would be plainly insane. Apple's third
party software vendors tend to be smaller, and
would have a very hard time hopping from
platform to platform. Even some big ones have
not completed the OS X transition, and you're
talking about going to x86 and back?
I wrote that comment mostly in jest, but there's
a ring to truth to it. The legal system in the
US is obviously never entirely fair, but it is
rule bound, and frequently the outcome is not
predictable.
Bullying an OEM into not bundling Netscape, on
the other hand, is far more effective and
predictable.
Remember folks, Linux is the kernel, not the OS. Distributions are the OS. SCO is after distributers, not the kernel. If anyone tells you Linux is an operating system, they're wrong.
...or they are aware of more than the desktop.
Linux is increasingly used in embedded systems,
without the usual init task, daemons, or user
space utilities. It is still referred to as "the
OS" in those cases, as opposed to "the
applications". Embedded systems considered to
be "OS-less" are usually far more limited in
terms of features. Linux implements the
Portable Operating System Interface (POSIX),
which surely makes it an "Operating System".
An OS usually refers to a collection of code
that does a number of the following:
hides the hardware and
presents an API to the user applications
manages memory allocation
manages CPU allocation
(launches and kills tasks)
allows tasks to
communicate with each other
runs in the CPU's
supervisor mode and handles CPU and memory
protection
provides a file system
provides networking protocols
provides user-level
applications to interact with the core OS,
such as the GNU utilities
displays web pages
There is no strict limitation to what
constitutes an OS. The term is historically
loose.
Increasing the education of the general populous and raising their standard of living
will have little effect on stopping
terrorism.
I disagree. Learning about other religions
and cultures help you understand where people
are coming from. For example, the 9/11
terrorists are Muslims, but Americans have
not called for the "Final Solution" to nuke
all Muslims, and even the Bible-quoting US
President is very careful about separating
the war against Muslim extremists from a war
against Islam. This is the result of
education. The Americans remember the
Holocaust, and they understand that Islam is
not the root cause of the problem.
Christianity, believe it or not, can be abused
in a similar way. Various acts of horror in
the Middle Ages were done in the name of God.
Unless you believe the nature of man has
really changed in the last 500 years, the
big factor is mass education.
Absolute truth does exist
Absolute truth is irrelevant. If it exists,
it's still unknowable. All human understanding
is relative to our background and experiences,
and that's another thing that education will
teach.
The question is this: "Is your side of the
conflict in sync with what is objectively true,
or is it merely your opinion that you're
fighting for?"
Folders (or subdirectories, if you wish) have
little to do with how the file is actually
stored. On a typical Unix file system, all
files are equally accessible if you know where
the i-node is. It's entirely possible to
write a complete set of user-space programs
that take only i-node numbers and no file or
directory names. Given an i-node, the nesting
level of that file in the directory tree has
nothing to do with its access speed.
Basically, the directory tree is a mechanism
that maps hierarchical names to i-nodes, little
more than an illusion.
I *am* sexist. I believe that there are distinct, insurmountable differences between men and women.
That's a somewhat uncommon definition of the
word. Usually, it refers to those who deny
choice based on sex. Unless by "insurmountable"
you mean that no specific woman can ever
excel at a particular thing, your belief does
not constitute sexism. For example, in
general, men have more upperbody strength
than women, but if you have a job involving
lifting heavy objects, a woman may in fact be
your best applicant, because certain women
are quite strong. You're not sexist unless
you reject her because she's a woman, despite
her personal abilities that differentiate her
from average members of her sex.
Sexism, like racism, is about rejection of
the individual because of the traits of a
class. Recognizing those traits (for example,
the average African-American has darker skin -
duh) is not racist or sexist.
This has nothing to do with "our oppressive white male dominated society" or whatever you lumpheads call it, and has everything to do with people doing what they like because they want to.
And then you go too far. Just because the
sexes are inherently different doesn't mean
there isn't sexism at play.
If you have any experience with foreign
cultures, you'll realize that the male/female
ratio in each course varies from country to
country. Where I took up CS, the male/female
ratio is probably near 1:1. (It's still a
sexist society, but not in this particular
way.)
Because the algorithms from the CS text will be trivial, for the most part.
Many patented algorithms aren't all that
complicated either. GIF, LZW, RSA, and JPEG
are all well explained in various books.
Idiocies like one-click are so trivial you'll
probably never find it in a book, yet the
patent is probably completely unreadable.
What we need is a way to cheaply rule out most
patents, and concentrate on the few that we
might infringe on a particular project. Note
that today, people mostly just ignore patents.
What good does that do the inventor?
The patent system is optimized to make the
most money for patent lawyers, using a secret
language only they understand, requiring
expensive and time-consuming lawsuits even
for clear cut cases. I wouldn't be surprised
if an honest inventor actually makes more
money if the patent was written clearly.
The obscure, broad language is the product of patent lawyers. That's their job!
No, it isn't. Their job is to phrase the
patent in a precise language, closed
to individual interpretation. There should
be little doubt whether a particular work
infringes on a patent or not. The fact that
just about every patent case requires a
lawsuit to clarify benefits no one except the
lawyer.
the accepted strategy is to make the application as broad as possible, expecting to lose on some points, but protecting the invention as thoroughly as possible.
The intent of the patent system, however, is not
only to protect the inventor. In this case, I
think the following reforms should happen:
Patents must be readable by someone of
ordinary skills. A patent determined to be
overly vague in court is voided and the case
summarily dismissed. The threshold for
"vague" should be low. (If someone who can
implement your patent can't read it, it's
gone.)
Patents must be narrowly defined. An
overly broad patent limits the damages the
court will allow the inventor. (Even if
you invented "e-commerce", you are not
eligible to collect a lot of money on each
of the various forms, such as on-line
auctions, that you did not actually invent.)
Patents where the inventor should
reasonably be aware of infringements (such
as publication as an international standard)
but not asserted are voided. (Submarine
patents are voided.)
Note how neither reform hurts an honest
inventor. In fact, there are two benefits:
A company is likely to be more aware of
infringement, and actively pay you. Today,
you have to find companies that infringe,
which is nearly as difficult as a patent
search.
You may actually get paid without a
lawsuit, because the violation is clear.
And of course *his* word processor is a "Killer App".
The funny thing is, a "killer app" is something
so important that people will make a major
purchase decision based on wanting it. In this
case, a killer app will make people switch to
a Mac.
Microsoft Word is available (for a cost) on both
Windows and Macs. Abiword is available (for
free) on both Windows and Macs.
Slashdot Mirror
Not enough people in the society share your view, as I imagine you realize.
The issue is one of risk prediction, which is why there is no correct answer, only value judgements. For example, a completely sane and upstanding citizen may be so infuriated by his wife having an affair with his best friend, he reaches for his weapon - in this case an Apache attack helicopter - and kills them both. Unfortunately, the Hellfire missile also levels the neighbor's house with a two-month old baby inside. Or perhaps a few desperate (but otherwise law-abiding up to that point) men get together, buy a tank, and rob a bank.
The questions are, how often would these things happen? How hard would it be for the police to stop them before or after the crime? How dangerous would it be to other people while a bank robber and police tank battle is ongoing? (At the very least, you need to realize that it makes equipping a police force much more expensive, which you and your neighbors have to pay for.)
On the other hand, people do want to hunt, or just learn to shoot guns. In fact, a number of people probably want to learn to drive a tank, or a jet fighter, to no nefarious purpose. These interests must be kept in mind as well, with questions such as, how many hobbyists or hunters are there who will be inconvenienced?
The answers to these question shape policy. You can believe in your absolute right if you wish, but it doesn't exist in any human society. So I repeat, society has to draw the line somewhere between a toothpick and a nuclear bomb. The question is where, regardless of what you believe.
You've exposed gross ignorance with that statement.
In general, you do not get a discount when you buy fewer things. You get one when you buy in bulk. This is because the cost of the transaction is more or less fixed regardless of the volume you buy at, and buying at high volume gives the store a bigger profit and therefore some breathing room to give a discount. This goes for everything from toilet paper to orange juice.
You can also get a discount if you were a regular customer, either formally (club-type arrangement with obligations) or informally (small restaurant that knows you personally). This is because your regular purchases make the business more predictable, so they're willing to make a smaller profit as long as it's a profit guaranteed over a longer duration.
Either way, there's no such inherent thing as buying in lower volumes (songs instead of albums) and getting a better price. People who complain about not getting the CD or album notes are missing the fact that they are not buying CDs, but songs. Just as the CD replacing cassette tapes did not result in a lower cost to consumers, downloaded music will not necessarily result in lower costs either.
You then completely miss the value of the service that Apple is now providing. The freedom to buy only what you want; the ability to preview the song before purchase; the (relative) freedom to burn to CD; and the convenience of on-line purchasing. That's all worth money. In fact, even the peace of mind of staying legal is worth money to many people.
My sentiments exactly.
For those who whine about the price: note that if you buy detergent in bulk, the unit cost (dollar per gallon) is usually lower. This is because packaging, transportation, and shelving costs do not work to the same proportions as the actual amount of detergent in the container. If you want to buy all 16 songs, go buy a CD. Moreover, did anybody actually expect a company that built its fortune on selling convenience at a premium to compete on price?
For those who whine about encoding quality: Apple runs a website, which means that they have to pay when you download. 128 kbps happens to be a very good compromise among quality, bandwidth, and disk (iPod) space. Allowing uncompressed CD quality downloads will multiply their bandwidth requirements many times. If you want the highest possible quality, surely you can spare the $20 for a CD.
For those who compare the service to "free" downloading: grow up. If you support Apple here, there's a chance that this will be the start of a revolution (recording labels are at serious risk if artists can market directly to listeners). If you don't, then the RIAA stays powerful, and keeps looking for effective DRM.
Point is, Apple is not out to replace the CD. A CD still delivers the most quality music to you, at the most reasonable price, if you want every song in the album. This service fills in a gap where you don't, so quit whining.
The point is not that it'll make a great game console, or a great web server, or a great PVR. The point is that, for $700 or whatever, you have a usable version of all these features. This can be, with a hefty investment in appropriate software, a jack-of-all-trades box that can justify its cost.
Want a really good console? Buy the PS2 or the X-Box, which is less than half the price of this.
$50 routers, obviously. :)
would you trust a $50 with shiny GUI, on a commercial site, like a clients?
No. I'm not sure I'd trust a PC either, though.
Imagine maintaining it? would your shiny 50$ router be a dependable firewall?
They tend to be easier to maintain than PC firewalls. Most home users simply use the default setting, where all ports are shut down.
But you do have to argue. What you are arguing (quoted below) is that the gun is like a computer or a car, which you can own. Since they are not identical objects, you in fact have to argue that they are the same for our purposes.
I do no harm to innocents by owning a gun. My neighbors are not influenced by me owning a gun. I can protect my family better. I can protect myself better.
These are all common points, so let me offer a few points (not arguments) for consideration.
Sometimes society has to make blanket bans because it can't distinguish good people from bad people. For example, airports are full of restricted areas, although 99% of the people would not endanger an airplane. You probably won't argue for an absolute right to bring your gun everywhere (meeting the President, getting on a plane, etc) either. I imagine you accept the premise that your good intentions may not be reelvant in some cases determined by society.
Like I mentioned, society draws a line somewhere. Because it's a line somewhere in a continuum, it is necessarily arguable. That is, if we allow semi-automatic rifles, why not automatic rifles? Why not grenade launchers? (Conversely, if we ban guns, why not knives?) That line reflects majority thinking, may not always be sane, but is just as valid as any individual viewpoint. It's where society finds balance between collective comfort (if only psychological) and individual wants.
Point is, none of your reasons apply only to (say) an automatic rifle, but not to the next more powerful weapon. The better question is where you think the line should be, and why there and not anywhere else? If you can't find a more compelling argument for any other point in the continuum of weapons, then you need to accept that in some societies you can't have some kinds of weapons.
You are aware that your government is in possession of everything from automatic rifles to nuclear weapons? You don't stand a chance if the US military can be convinced to take you down.
Instead, American civil rights rests on a well-informed and moral military, where political leaders do not get absolute and personal loyalty. It does not rest upon your puny AK-47.
That's not to say the Right to Bear Arms wasn't a wonderful amendment. At that time, information flows far more slowly, and it's more likely that at least a part of the military can be fooled or co-opted into oppressing its own people. A well armed citizenry, rifle against rifle, creates an actual balance of power. That's just no longer true today, and gun advocates are well advised to find another reason.
Arguments of this sort tend to get ridiculous as either side gives more extreme examples. The fact, however, is that you have to draw the line somewhere. For example,
I have every right to have a gun, just because I want to.
would obviously not apply if we're talking about a nuclear weapon. In fact, you can't buy tanks, missiles, or attack helicopters.
Point is, argue why you should be allowed to own a gun, or argue why not, but don't discuss banning knives or fists because the same argument can be taken to an opposite yet equally ridiculous extreme, to no real purpose.
Maybe because routers cost $50 to $100, and come with easy configuration tools? This thing costs five to ten times more, so it doesn't make much sense to use it solely as a router.
You mean like an iPod? The 20 GB model is exactly that price, smaller, much lighter, and quite a bit more stylish.
The zero noise version of the M-100 makes an obvious home web server, but the hard disk will take it to $550 or maybe $600. The TV out makes it an interesting set-top box, or video game console. Either application will have difficulty justifying its price tag, though. An MP3 player is an even more unnecessarily expensive idea.
What might work is if you use it for all those purposes. A quiet and low power MP3 server/player, personal web and print server, PVR, digital camera picture viewer, and game console at about $700 (200 GB hard disk) can be interesting. Unfortunately, it doesn't have an infrared port for a remote control, but that won't cost too much. The key will then be software, especially with reconciling all the real time tasks. Don't want to miss out on a favorite show just because you were slashdotted, no?
To be technical about it, art is "expression", not "communication". There is no need for art to actually communicate anything for the viewer to appreciate the work. A shared sense of what is beautiful will already suffice.
Considering loyal Apple users are unhappy with the $130 Jaguar, what makes you think that price is feasible? Remember that somebody who switches to x86 OS X has to replace all their software, so a "switcher" can easily be looking at $1,000 or more in software (that they already have Windows versions of).
Secondly, Apple will have to support a thousand drivers for various obscure peripherals. That will dramatically increase engineering costs, and most likely decrease the stability of the kernel. Apple will be in the same boat as Linux (or even worse) when it comes to drivers.
Thirdly, Microsoft just won the anti-trust suit, and is unlikely to be bothered by the US government again soon. You think they'll just sit there and let OS X reach 6%? At the very least, I would expect no native Microsoft Office or IE for the x86 OS X, if not for the PPC altogether. Then what? OpenOffice.org? Then why not run Linux?
Along with Dell, which has the opposite business model. Don't be so sure something in the middle wouldn't work...
But I'm not saying that it won't work. I'm pointing out that Apple's business plan does work, despite your not liking it.
Unlike some other environments, things worked very well across architectures. Further, in this situation the various busses and peripherals are identical, simplifying things further.
It doesn't matter. Commercial software need to go through full testing cycles for each platform they support. The quality of the API or the software does not decrease the testing requirements, only the number of bug fixes. It's an expensive activity, likely to be a significant burden on the relatively smaller Mac software vendors.
When you're done testing, you then have a fragmented tech support team. Assembling such a team to support the myriad configurations of x86 hardware (as your 6% $300 OS requires) is also much more expensive.
[...] if the new high-end PPC CPU is actually competitive with Opteron, both in price and performance.
So why are you assuming (by virtue of your Opteron advocacy) that it can't?
At any rate, I think you are vastly overestimating the complexity involved. Cocoa code is very portable.
I'm a professional software developer, which means that I'm risk averse. While I love Cocoa, Objective C programs are just as easily made non-portable as C programs. Moving platforms is always dangerous, and taken only when the alternative is worse.
Today, the 970 is clearly a far better option, even if it doesn't surpass the x86. Altivec optimizations will pay off except on the G3s which are on their way out. No additional expenses that I point to in this post, and no need to compete directly with Microsoft with a $300 OS.
Actually, it's professionals - particularly the news professionals for whom time between shooting and airing is premium - who will benefit first from this. One main reason is that to get the video from tape into a digital editing suite takes time. If they're willing to pay top dollar to minimize render times for video effects, you can bet they'll pay even more to save an hour of transferring from tape to hard disk for (non-linear) editing.
When you think about it, a $500 iPod will give you 20 GB of storage and a Firewire adaptor. If I'm not terribly mistaken, that's about an hour and a half's worth of plug-and-edit DV. I think it'll be very interesting to the pros. In fact, even a way to start transferring from tape to iPod while driving back to the station would probably be highly appreciated.
That's probably right, and maybe Apple will be even worse.
However, that's lazy thinking, because it implies that we should support an ethical company into monopoly marketshare, and count on it to do the right thing all the time. That's wrongheaded, because what we should do is to introduce and maintain competition instead. An Apple with 95% of the PC market might be disaster, but an Apple with 40% of the PC market might be nothing but good news for everybody except Microsoft. For one, many more open standards would probably be in effect, and not only because Microsoft neglected to butt in at the birth of the Internet.
I think you mean MacOS X's market share, not Apple-branded computers. In any case, why would it?
Is it because of the iApplications? Well, a Windows user needs to throw away all his old apps and pay $130 to get them. I think most switchers see them as a nice bonus, but not a primary factor.
Is it because of Mac-only applications? I think we can safely rule that out.
Is it because of a Unix core? Since Linux hasn't exactly ruled the world yet, I think we can rule that out, too.
Is it because of Aqua? Possibly, but think about losing all your apps.
Is it because OS X can comfortably dual boot with Windows? Oops, it can't. First Apple will need to support VFAT and NTFS, then write HFS drivers for Windows.
So who exactly will buy these things? People who always wanted to run Unix on the desktop, can't afford a (used) Mac, and can't figure Linux out? They also have to somehow afford OS X and repurchase all their old apps. Ten times, overnight, you said?
Personally, I doubt even the "I'd switch if only" subset of Slashdot would, but that's because I'm cynical. I'd like to see where you got your projections, though.
Niche marketing can be counter-intuitive, but it's also the classic question of whether you want to be a big fish in a little pond, or a little fish in a big pond. Apple chose the former, exerts great influence in its chosen market, and makes a profit in probably some of the worst years ever in the industry.
There are far worse business models, and technically it's nearly impossible to provide the kind of hardware-software integration that Apple currently sells without controlling the hardware. It's not so much they like being a hardware and software company as that they can only distinguish themselves in the market by also selling hardware.
Let's examine your business plan, where:
Apple could make a very nice transition to Opteron/Athlon64. [...] I also feel Apple should stick with PPC on the notebook side.
which in effect nearly triples the development effort for a Mac software vendor. First, you need to build and test an Athlon version (which is not going to be compatible with the Windows version), build and test a PPC version, and then test the PPC emulation version. Thereby making Apple's already small marketshare even more fragmented, when the obvious sensible thing to do is to get a new high end PPC CPU, drop the G3, and improve G4 compiler optimizations.
If PPC 980 (or whatever) turns out to be a big win over Opteron2, it's not that big of a deal to switch back.
That would be plainly insane. Apple's third party software vendors tend to be smaller, and would have a very hard time hopping from platform to platform. Even some big ones have not completed the OS X transition, and you're talking about going to x86 and back?
Bullying an OEM into not bundling Netscape, on the other hand, is far more effective and predictable.
The Mafia doesn't sue a whole lot either. Are you similarly impressed?
Linux is increasingly used in embedded systems, without the usual init task, daemons, or user space utilities. It is still referred to as "the OS" in those cases, as opposed to "the applications". Embedded systems considered to be "OS-less" are usually far more limited in terms of features. Linux implements the Portable Operating System Interface (POSIX), which surely makes it an "Operating System".
An OS usually refers to a collection of code that does a number of the following:
- hides the hardware and
presents an API to the user applications
- manages memory allocation
- manages CPU allocation
(launches and kills tasks)
- allows tasks to
communicate with each other
- runs in the CPU's
supervisor mode and handles CPU and memory
protection
- provides a file system
- provides networking protocols
- provides user-level
applications to interact with the core OS,
such as the GNU utilities
- displays web pages
There is no strict limitation to what constitutes an OS. The term is historically loose.I disagree. Learning about other religions and cultures help you understand where people are coming from. For example, the 9/11 terrorists are Muslims, but Americans have not called for the "Final Solution" to nuke all Muslims, and even the Bible-quoting US President is very careful about separating the war against Muslim extremists from a war against Islam. This is the result of education. The Americans remember the Holocaust, and they understand that Islam is not the root cause of the problem.
Christianity, believe it or not, can be abused in a similar way. Various acts of horror in the Middle Ages were done in the name of God. Unless you believe the nature of man has really changed in the last 500 years, the big factor is mass education.
Absolute truth does exist
Absolute truth is irrelevant. If it exists, it's still unknowable. All human understanding is relative to our background and experiences, and that's another thing that education will teach.
The question is this: "Is your side of the conflict in sync with what is objectively true, or is it merely your opinion that you're fighting for?"
Objectivity requires education.
Basically, the directory tree is a mechanism that maps hierarchical names to i-nodes, little more than an illusion.
That's a somewhat uncommon definition of the word. Usually, it refers to those who deny choice based on sex. Unless by "insurmountable" you mean that no specific woman can ever excel at a particular thing, your belief does not constitute sexism. For example, in general, men have more upperbody strength than women, but if you have a job involving lifting heavy objects, a woman may in fact be your best applicant, because certain women are quite strong. You're not sexist unless you reject her because she's a woman, despite her personal abilities that differentiate her from average members of her sex.
Sexism, like racism, is about rejection of the individual because of the traits of a class. Recognizing those traits (for example, the average African-American has darker skin - duh) is not racist or sexist.
This has nothing to do with "our oppressive white male dominated society" or whatever you lumpheads call it, and has everything to do with people doing what they like because they want to.
And then you go too far. Just because the sexes are inherently different doesn't mean there isn't sexism at play.
If you have any experience with foreign cultures, you'll realize that the male/female ratio in each course varies from country to country. Where I took up CS, the male/female ratio is probably near 1:1. (It's still a sexist society, but not in this particular way.)
Many patented algorithms aren't all that complicated either. GIF, LZW, RSA, and JPEG are all well explained in various books. Idiocies like one-click are so trivial you'll probably never find it in a book, yet the patent is probably completely unreadable.
What we need is a way to cheaply rule out most patents, and concentrate on the few that we might infringe on a particular project. Note that today, people mostly just ignore patents. What good does that do the inventor?
The patent system is optimized to make the most money for patent lawyers, using a secret language only they understand, requiring expensive and time-consuming lawsuits even for clear cut cases. I wouldn't be surprised if an honest inventor actually makes more money if the patent was written clearly.
No, it isn't. Their job is to phrase the patent in a precise language, closed to individual interpretation. There should be little doubt whether a particular work infringes on a patent or not. The fact that just about every patent case requires a lawsuit to clarify benefits no one except the lawyer.
the accepted strategy is to make the application as broad as possible, expecting to lose on some points, but protecting the invention as thoroughly as possible.
The intent of the patent system, however, is not only to protect the inventor. In this case, I think the following reforms should happen:
Note how neither reform hurts an honest inventor. In fact, there are two benefits:
The funny thing is, a "killer app" is something so important that people will make a major purchase decision based on wanting it. In this case, a killer app will make people switch to a Mac.
Microsoft Word is available (for a cost) on both Windows and Macs. Abiword is available (for free) on both Windows and Macs.
From Apple's perspective, what killer app?