Do you mean 'references' to www.apple.com as in... <!DOCTYPE plist PUBLIC "-//Apple Computer//DTD PLIST 1.0//EN" "http://www.apple.com/DTDs/PropertyList-1.0.dtd" >
This is the bit of an XML document that links it to the DTD, so that a program knows what 'type' it is. The reason that there is a URL to apple in there is that this DTD is held on apples server, as you would expect with a file format designed by apple for apple's operating system. How does this 'link' make the file unlikely to have been put there by 'whoever made the disc' with APPLES iTunes?
What Clean Flicks are doing is really just about expanding the choices consumers have.
Directors do not really get the final say on the cut of films anyway, the studios do, thats why there are so many 'directors cut' editions released when a film becomes 'big'.
They are marketing the films in a completly upfront way and they are not selling via 'normal' outlets. People are not going to confuse these films with the 'real thing'(tm) so its a non-problem.
Whats next, fast forwarding and leaving the room being made illegal as you may not get the directors true 'vision'?
I believe that Sony do make money from games, they charge a license fee to people who want to make/sell playstation games. Thats one of the reasons ALL the games boxes have the same style on the spine.
Also Microsoft make most of there 'workstation' money from selling Office.
As Homer has already been mentioned, time for a quote, Du-oh. I miss read the "Companies are working on lithium ion batteries that are efficient but very expensive.".
From the article it looks like they are quoting "hundreds of miles without recharging". A perpetual motion car would go erm... a infinite amount (as in not finite like hundreds).
They seem to be using some kind of extra high capacity battery and "a rather elegant battery charger".
I'm still unsure if its legit, but it would be nice if Slashdot didn't poo, poo, the idea without reading the links first.
The post is called Xserve Competes With High-End Unix Servers. It is true that the article does not call Apple servers high-end, but the post does hence my comment.
Also I am not sure about calling companies high-end vendors, it just doesn't sit right. You have large companies who sell large expensive systems to other large companies. I wouldn't call the vendors 'high-end', they sell computer systems some of which are high-end.
I've never tried this on monitors, but, you can get spray for use when taking photographs of 'shiny' things, which stops the flash from refecting straight back at the camera.
I did a quick google search and found this. It would certainly be a cheap place to start.
If Mac OS X.2 features GCC 3.1, with GCC 3.2 having just been released to 'stabilize the C++ ABI' are Apple setting developers up for a bunch of problems by shipping a buggy compiler?
Also is there likly to be any fallout with 3.1 ABI not being compatable with the 3.2 one? I would guess not until apple release next mac os toolkit?
How fsck runs at bootup is determined by the boot-scripts, so its a 'distribution' (ie RedHat / Debian) thing as opposed to the 'kernel' (Darwin / Linux).
Also while darwin does run on x86 it would make much more sense to use one of the more established 'FreeOSs' for the architecture, as you are more likely to find support.
Finally saying that Mac OS X does not have the steep licencing that Windows does is just plain wrong, it still costs $129 for a client and $499/$999 for a server. And you have to buy apple hardware, which is, often, more expensive than x86 equivilents.
Finally if there is already software for DOS, why not use FreeDOS http://www.freedos.org/. It maybe basic but it would not require a bunch of retraining, and rewriting code to do the same things in a different way.
I'm sure thats true (i haven't got Apples figures), but I never said that they make MOST of there money by selling software...
However I'm not sure what the split would be, when you buy a Mac you are buying Mac OS X and the other bundled software (AppleWorks, iDVD...) so you cannot just say that the $1500 for you iMac is for the hardware.
Also Apple to produce software for 'standard' sale like Final Cut Pro.
If you have got more info on the actual percentages I'd love to see it.
Apple make shed loads of money from selling OpenSource.
Mac OS X is just Darwin (yes I know its Apples own project), Apache... With the Mac OS X Desktop and Utils on top. They get $130 a go....
So the way to make money from OpenSource is to make the product modular and open somebits (read base of the system) but then sell the good/purty bits...
One of the main areas which Linux (and OSS in general) suffers is marketing. Unfortunatly the desktop computer buying population's opinions are formed from what they see and hear. Currently they are bombarded by MacOS and Windows adverts, and unsuprisingly they demand Mac's and WinTel boxes and hence have there desktops...
There isn't a good solution to this, OSS companies cannot compeate with money the like Apple & MS do.
On a side note marketing like this doesn't help either:
Lindows.com pricing follows the broadband model.. Applications can all be digitally downloaded and installed...
mmm...
Or maybe I overestimate peoples ability to filter bullshit.
I'm not sure about 'altering' the kernel but Sony's PS2 Linux offering uses a 'runtime' enviroment to 'hide' (or should that be emulate to aid compatability?) some of the PS2's hardware from the linux kernel. That way they do not have to opensource drivers for the hardware.
That runtime is commercal 'payware' (although is bundled with the kit) so I guess something simliar would be legal.
Whether it would make sense to do so though is another matter.
This kind of thing seems to happen again and again. The major problem seems to be that the legal system has a REALLY poor grasp of what the internet is and how it ticks.
I do think that is is entirely reasonable (and right) to be able to take action against information that is detremental / dangerous... but the people who enforce these 'laws' need to educate themselves so they can make informed descisions about how to handel these problems.
The fact that if this judgement was taken literally would make search engines illegal shows this gap in knowledge perfectly.
The web is not like the rest of the media, and the legal profession needs to learn more about it.
The thing is that the govenment have rolled out a massive high speed network, it doesn't mean that they have to use it for Internet access, and if it is could be easily censorsed as they 'own' the whole sebang. But its interesting that they had the forsight to do it.
I think it was mainly an attempt to help them 'catch-up' before they opened themselves upto world markets.
One of the things it maybe used for is to compeate with the govement owned telephone company (whoops).
Also its something that only a contry with a stucture like china could do. In a western country the cost would be massive, for china it was not very high (all being relative) because they were just redeploying staff.
I seem to remember an article in wired an while back sbout how china rolled out fiber to the entire country in the space of a few years.
The just decided that it would be a good thing so they went for it, as the goverment owns everything they just got the railway workers to all the fiber, and hired an Ex-Pat from the US to run the thing.
They now have villages with no schools or doctors but with massive IP connectivity, which they hope to use to solve the problems of no schools etc..
It certainly puts companies like BT with there rubbish ADSL role out to shame.
I used to work for a IT company with a creative vent, as a result they hired project managers with ZERO understanding of the tech side, and knew more about making things purty.
We got by because the project managers knew that they didn't know anything, so they would ask about everything, but that did put a major strain on the tech department as we ended up being consulted about EVERYTHING.
I am a strong believer that project managers should understand the area that the project is in, they don't have to be a guru but it makes sense that they should at least understand whats going on.
However I also know that a project manager needs to understand more than 'joe programmer', as business(tm) (as in harvard business school) comes more into there jobs. And of corse they should be able to buffer the programmers from the clients, I know a lot of hackers who cannot comunicate with each other, let alone a suit.
But as long as the hardware is the bit that is the 'same' but the state of the 'versions?' of the hardware is different its a winner.
If fact if you had an infinate number of machines all sightly different from each other the processing task would be done (at least on one of the machines) before you even executed the task. Thats a real time saver.
Maybe the system could adapt IMPS for finding the correct answer...
c.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't normally do this but...
Do you mean 'references' to www.apple.com as in...
<!DOCTYPE plist PUBLIC "-//Apple Computer//DTD PLIST 1.0//EN" "http://www.apple.com/DTDs/PropertyList-1.0.dtd" >
This is the bit of an XML document that links it to the DTD, so that a program knows what 'type' it is. The reason that there is a URL to apple in there is that this DTD is held on apples server, as you would expect with a file format designed by apple for apple's operating system. How does this 'link' make the file unlikely to have been put there by 'whoever made the disc' with APPLES iTunes?
c.
Java 1.4 previews are available at http://developer.apple.com/ you need to register to download tho.
What Clean Flicks are doing is really just about expanding the choices consumers have.
Directors do not really get the final say on the cut of films anyway, the studios do, thats why there are so many 'directors cut' editions released when a film becomes 'big'.
They are marketing the films in a completly upfront way and they are not selling via 'normal' outlets. People are not going to confuse these films with the 'real thing'(tm) so its a non-problem.
Whats next, fast forwarding and leaving the room being made illegal as you may not get the directors true 'vision'?
c.
Mmm...
I believe that Sony do make money from games, they charge a license fee to people who want to make/sell playstation games. Thats one of the reasons ALL the games boxes have the same style on the spine.
Also Microsoft make most of there 'workstation' money from selling Office.
c.
As Homer has already been mentioned, time for a quote, Du-oh. I miss read the "Companies are working on lithium ion batteries that are efficient but very expensive.".
Still its not claiming perpetual motion.
From the article it looks like they are quoting "hundreds of miles without recharging". A perpetual motion car would go erm... a infinite amount (as in not finite like hundreds).
They seem to be using some kind of extra high capacity battery and "a rather elegant battery charger".
I'm still unsure if its legit, but it would be nice if Slashdot didn't poo, poo, the idea without reading the links first.
c.
The post is called Xserve Competes With High-End Unix Servers. It is true that the article does not call Apple servers high-end, but the post does hence my comment.
Also I am not sure about calling companies high-end vendors, it just doesn't sit right. You have large companies who sell large expensive systems to other large companies. I wouldn't call the vendors 'high-end', they sell computer systems some of which are high-end.
c.
Erm... I'm confused.
I thought that the Apple Xserve boxes were 1U Dual 1GHz G4 machines with ATA/100 7200rpm Hard drives.
How exactly does this compare with the type of High-End systems that companies like IBM and Sun sell?
These machines rank along side the Entry Level / Workgroup type machines and are hardly the cutting edge of power.
I like Apples kit, but please call it what it is.
Can anyone recommend a good book for learning 32bit PPC assember?
I've never tried this on monitors, but, you can get spray for use when taking photographs of 'shiny' things, which stops the flash from refecting straight back at the camera.
I did a quick google search and found this. It would certainly be a cheap place to start.
I really wish that apple would build this...
Its a shame that technology isn't as cutting edge as peoples dreams...
If Mac OS X.2 features GCC 3.1, with GCC 3.2 having just been released to 'stabilize the C++ ABI' are Apple setting developers up for a bunch of problems by shipping a buggy compiler?
Also is there likly to be any fallout with 3.1 ABI not being compatable with the 3.2 one? I would guess not until apple release next mac os toolkit?
How fsck runs at bootup is determined by the boot-scripts, so its a 'distribution' (ie RedHat / Debian) thing as opposed to the 'kernel' (Darwin / Linux).
Also while darwin does run on x86 it would make much more sense to use one of the more established 'FreeOSs' for the architecture, as you are more likely to find support.
Finally saying that Mac OS X does not have the steep licencing that Windows does is just plain wrong, it still costs $129 for a client and $499/$999 for a server. And you have to buy apple hardware, which is, often, more expensive than x86 equivilents.
Finally if there is already software for DOS, why not use FreeDOS http://www.freedos.org/. It maybe basic but it would not require a bunch of retraining, and rewriting code to do the same things in a different way.
I'm sure thats true (i haven't got Apples figures), but I never said that they make MOST of there money by selling software...
However I'm not sure what the split would be, when you buy a Mac you are buying Mac OS X and the other bundled software (AppleWorks, iDVD...) so you cannot just say that the $1500 for you iMac is for the hardware.
Also Apple to produce software for 'standard' sale like Final Cut Pro.
If you have got more info on the actual percentages I'd love to see it.
c.
Apple make shed loads of money from selling OpenSource.
Mac OS X is just Darwin (yes I know its Apples own project), Apache... With the Mac OS X Desktop and Utils on top. They get $130 a go....
So the way to make money from OpenSource is to make the product modular and open somebits (read base of the system) but then sell the good/purty bits...
One of the main areas which Linux (and OSS in general) suffers is marketing. Unfortunatly the desktop computer buying population's opinions are formed from what they see and hear. Currently they are bombarded by MacOS and Windows adverts, and unsuprisingly they demand Mac's and WinTel boxes and hence have there desktops...
.. Applications can all be digitally downloaded and installed ...
There isn't a good solution to this, OSS companies cannot compeate with money the like Apple & MS do.
On a side note marketing like this doesn't help either:
Lindows.com pricing follows the broadband model
mmm...
Or maybe I overestimate peoples ability to filter bullshit.
I thought MPEG does use JPEG compression?
The 'Key Frames' are JPEG, not something like, but accually the same compression.
I'm not sure about 'altering' the kernel but Sony's PS2 Linux offering uses a 'runtime' enviroment to 'hide' (or should that be emulate to aid compatability?) some of the PS2's hardware from the linux kernel. That way they do not have to opensource drivers for the hardware.
That runtime is commercal 'payware' (although is bundled with the kit) so I guess something simliar would be legal.
Whether it would make sense to do so though is another matter.
This kind of thing seems to happen again and again. The major problem seems to be that the legal system has a REALLY poor grasp of what the internet is and how it ticks.
I do think that is is entirely reasonable (and right) to be able to take action against information that is detremental / dangerous... but the people who enforce these 'laws' need to educate themselves so they can make informed descisions about how to handel these problems.
The fact that if this judgement was taken literally would make search engines illegal shows this gap in knowledge perfectly.
The web is not like the rest of the media, and the legal profession needs to learn more about it.
c.
The thing is that the govenment have rolled out a massive high speed network, it doesn't mean that they have to use it for Internet access, and if it is could be easily censorsed as they 'own' the whole sebang. But its interesting that they had the forsight to do it.
I think it was mainly an attempt to help them 'catch-up' before they opened themselves upto world markets.
One of the things it maybe used for is to compeate with the govement owned telephone company (whoops).
Also its something that only a contry with a stucture like china could do. In a western country the cost would be massive, for china it was not very high (all being relative) because they were just redeploying staff.
c.
I seem to remember an article in wired an while back sbout how china rolled out fiber to the entire country in the space of a few years.
The just decided that it would be a good thing so they went for it, as the goverment owns everything they just got the railway workers to all the fiber, and hired an Ex-Pat from the US to run the thing.
They now have villages with no schools or doctors but with massive IP connectivity, which they hope to use to solve the problems of no schools etc..
It certainly puts companies like BT with there rubbish ADSL role out to shame.
c.
I used to work for a IT company with a creative vent, as a result they hired project managers with ZERO understanding of the tech side, and knew more about making things purty.
We got by because the project managers knew that they didn't know anything, so they would ask about everything, but that did put a major strain on the tech department as we ended up being consulted about EVERYTHING.
I am a strong believer that project managers should understand the area that the project is in, they don't have to be a guru but it makes sense that they should at least understand whats going on.
However I also know that a project manager needs to understand more than 'joe programmer', as business(tm) (as in harvard business school) comes more into there jobs. And of corse they should be able to buffer the programmers from the clients, I know a lot of hackers who cannot comunicate with each other, let alone a suit.
c.
But whats the question?
But as long as the hardware is the bit that is the 'same' but the state of the 'versions?' of the hardware is different its a winner. If fact if you had an infinate number of machines all sightly different from each other the processing task would be done (at least on one of the machines) before you even executed the task. Thats a real time saver. Maybe the system could adapt IMPS for finding the correct answer... c.
You must have a VERY big desk!!! What do you keep under there at the moment a couple of starfires?