or do you pay a flat monthly fee for all the bandwidth you can eat?
it's more accurate to say they're getting paid from one customer for using another customer's ISP's bandwidth. which might very well cause a seismic shift in the ISP business if this thing gets big. but it won't, because it'll be clumsily implemented and only available on certain flavors of Windows, ignoring the entire Mac and Linux communities (and a chunk of the windows community who just can't afford an applicable version of windows and/or the hardware to run same) and the open source community will heave a collective shrug as they release the latest non-tracable alternative to BitTorrent on the masses.
MGM was purchased by Sony Entertainment some months ago.
Meaning that MGM no longer exists as an independent corporate entity.
Given that, couldn't the Grokster team argue that since MGM no longer exists, Grokster by definition cannot be causing harm?
(The Wade team in Roe v. Wade presented a similar argument, saying that since Jane Roe had already given birth, whether or not she could have access to an abortion after the fact was a moot point.)
if Apple doesn't sue Real, there isn't legal confirmation of anything.
IANAL but I work in the distribution end of the entertainment industry so I've had to pick up a more or less working understadning of copyright law.
if that understanding is correct, if Apple chooses not to sue, it does set a precedent. Not suing can be used by lawyers as a de facto acceptance of the practice, which in turn can be construted to be evidence that it isn't illegal. This is why Disney sues elementary schools that paint murals with Mickey Mouse; if they didn't, and someone made a hentai Minnie Does the Matterhorn film, Disney would have established a precedent that using their characters without permission is fine with them, and would have a much harder time in their lawsuit.
When the DMCA was written and adopted, it was acknowledged by the government as likely overbroad and that it would be up to the courts to work out the exact issues. So if Apple chooses not to sue, the courts then likely find that what Real did was not reverse engineering - they just don't work that out until the next time someone gets sued for a similar feat of reverse engineering.
So this is the Hobson's choice the DCMA visits upon Apple - either file an expensive lawsuit that will likely have backlash from industry intelligencia, or let it go and possibly open the door for all sorts of reverse engineering down the road - which is certainly good for consumers and engineers, but gives Apple less protection over its profit margins down the road, and could even lead to a class action lawsuit on behalf of the shareholders for not taking "vigorous" enough steps to protect intellectual property.
(Whether those protections are valid or not is left as an excercise to the reader, because it's sort of beside the point in terms of this discussion.)
"Could we see a similar performance improvement as we did upgrading from Jaguar to Panther?"
Am I the only one who never saw the vaunted improvement from Jaguar to Panther?
While a few operations do seem to happen marginally faster, my Sawtooh G4/466, since upgrading to Panther, seems in fact more likely to give me the spinning beach ball, and is more prone to throwing a tantrum and not switch between applications while one of them is exercising a particularly trying task (hello, Gausian Blur in Photoshop 7!). This was particularly surprising to me since all the reports I'd seen suggested that lower end hardware like my own would see more benefit from the gain.
Anyone else experience this, or does my machine just hate me?
GIMP also doesn't have a CMYK mode. Which, for most graphic designers, is a pratical, day to day limitation, as opposed to the creative limitation Photoshop is imposing here.
Doesn't make Adobe's actions right. Does make GIMP a completely non-viable option for a good chunk of the content industry.
CinePaint is catching on for use in special effects houses because RGB is fine for digital filmmaking. Lack of CMYK is not a limitation there. In the print world, it's a very real limitation, which is why the GIMP is not catching on there.
In his article, Bray uses the example of Halo, a game which was originally promised for the PC, was bought by Microsoft for Xbox exclusivity, and is now once again due for a PC port.
Can anyone think of any other examples of this sort of a life cycle? Cuz it seems to be the whole basis for this article, but to my mind it's a somewhat anomolous development situation.
Which is great, but Classic can't talk to the hardware. So you can't run:
a program with a hardware dongle that isn't recognized in Classic (many older 3D and music programs especially have this as a limitation, and artists that still use them do so because they cannot recreate the specific artistic effects elsewhere)
a favorite video game that tries to draw directly to the screen
Any peripheral that doesn't yet have an OS X driver (an issue with many scanners and even a few video and SCSI cards, along with the more obscure add-ons)
Any other custom software, critical to your workflow, that for whatever reason is not happy in Classic.
Of course, I suppose, you could keep an older machine around to do any of that, but...
I'm a longtime OS 9 user in the process of migrating to OS X. I have two older video cards and have had mixed success. One is the ixMicro Twin Turbo, the other is the GraphicVillage MacPicasso 540. Neither card is officially supported under OS X, either through Apple or through the card vendors. The TwinTurbo, however, performs flawlessly under OS X, while the MP540 doesn't work at all in that environment. (Which is funny, given that the MP was specifically designed for Macs and the TwinTurbo is cross-platform, but I digress.)
Surprisingly, pretty much the only after-market dual header options come from ATI; nVidia is making Apple-happy GeForce cards, but as far as I know you can only get them as BTO purchase options from the online Apple store or from an Apple reseller that supports BTO sales.
Isn't it about time John Dvorak's column was simply discontinued--put down like an old dog? Why, exactly, does PC Magazine maintain this irascible naysayer of contrary viewpoints instead hiring someone with fresh ideas? Dvorak has become the Andy Rooney of desktop computing, except for the fact that he's more technologically savvy.
I'm not writing this essay as a Dvorak basher to get attention, although plenty of people will accuse me of doing that. I recently noticed a lull in the Dvorak buzz, however, and I'm now beginning to see Dvorak as an old commentator that needs to retire.
Let's look at the recent Dvorak offerings. The columnist's rant against the DMCA, usually a "gimme" topic for tech-industry pundits, garnered and underwhelming 59 posts. He also attempted to lambaste Microsoft's mistakes, and predictably cited opinions that many agree with but no one seems to be able to do anything about. The obvious next iteration of his ratings grab was to smear Apple for no good reason in particular. After that, what is Dvorak going to do?
Remember that in 1999, Dvorak drew eyeballs the Internet over by accusing the iBook of being too "girly" a computer to survive. This rant was an improvement, but there hasn't been a new idea since.
There was a moment early in the new millennium when it looked like Dvorak was going to stop taking unfounded pot shots at Apple. This was actually a good idea, but eventually it fell apart, leaving PC Magazine with a neutered opinion column from which it never fully recovered.
The most interesting aspect with Dvorak is the way he's able to consistently attack everything under the sun with little support beyond his own worldview and not only get away with it, but receive attention and praise for his efforts. Curiously, no other columnist has been able to manage anything like this. Hiawatha Bray is said to have legions of anti-Mac fans in his pockets, but after playing with an iMac DV in late 1999 he changed his mind. Apparently Apple has done the impossible.
Having said that, why can't Dvorak take his griping to the next level and bring out a completely valid complaint against the Macintosh? Here's the problem. This supposedly creative business of technology journalism has been completely co-opted by Microsoft for over 10 years. All the alternative approaches to computing have been sabotaged, absorbed by Microsoft, or simply wasted, withered, and died in the anticompetitive marketplace. Most of the big alternative computing publications have been closed or cut back. In that environment, unfounded accusations against all things non-Microsoft are the easiest way to collect a paycheck.
So perhaps I have answered my own question regarding putting down the old dog called Dvorak. PC Magazine has no one it could possibly replace him with. There is no new idea out there short of a Linux desktop for grandma. And the technology for a Linux desktop for grandma is decades away.
In fact, the old dog will not be shot, but propped up with ads, and patched with reconstructive PR, instead. Dvorak will go in the only direction possible: increased cynicism. In fact this is the only direction for tech industry commentary in general.
Slashdot Mirror
are you paying by the gig of thruput?
are you paying by the minute of server access?
or do you pay a flat monthly fee for all the bandwidth you can eat?
it's more accurate to say they're getting paid from one customer for using another customer's ISP's bandwidth. which might very well cause a seismic shift in the ISP business if this thing gets big. but it won't, because it'll be clumsily implemented and only available on certain flavors of Windows, ignoring the entire Mac and Linux communities (and a chunk of the windows community who just can't afford an applicable version of windows and/or the hardware to run same) and the open source community will heave a collective shrug as they release the latest non-tracable alternative to BitTorrent on the masses.
I'm not a lawyer, but...
MGM was purchased by Sony Entertainment some months ago.
Meaning that MGM no longer exists as an independent corporate entity.
Given that, couldn't the Grokster team argue that since MGM no longer exists, Grokster by definition cannot be causing harm?
(The Wade team in Roe v. Wade presented a similar argument, saying that since Jane Roe had already given birth, whether or not she could have access to an abortion after the fact was a moot point.)
if Apple doesn't sue Real, there isn't legal confirmation of anything.
IANAL but I work in the distribution end of the entertainment industry so I've had to pick up a more or less working understadning of copyright law.
if that understanding is correct, if Apple chooses not to sue, it does set a precedent. Not suing can be used by lawyers as a de facto acceptance of the practice, which in turn can be construted to be evidence that it isn't illegal. This is why Disney sues elementary schools that paint murals with Mickey Mouse; if they didn't, and someone made a hentai Minnie Does the Matterhorn film, Disney would have established a precedent that using their characters without permission is fine with them, and would have a much harder time in their lawsuit.
When the DMCA was written and adopted, it was acknowledged by the government as likely overbroad and that it would be up to the courts to work out the exact issues. So if Apple chooses not to sue, the courts then likely find that what Real did was not reverse engineering - they just don't work that out until the next time someone gets sued for a similar feat of reverse engineering.
So this is the Hobson's choice the DCMA visits upon Apple - either file an expensive lawsuit that will likely have backlash from industry intelligencia, or let it go and possibly open the door for all sorts of reverse engineering down the road - which is certainly good for consumers and engineers, but gives Apple less protection over its profit margins down the road, and could even lead to a class action lawsuit on behalf of the shareholders for not taking "vigorous" enough steps to protect intellectual property.
(Whether those protections are valid or not is left as an excercise to the reader, because it's sort of beside the point in terms of this discussion.)
"Could we see a similar performance improvement as we did upgrading from Jaguar to Panther?"
Am I the only one who never saw the vaunted improvement from Jaguar to Panther?
While a few operations do seem to happen marginally faster, my Sawtooh G4/466, since upgrading to Panther, seems in fact more likely to give me the spinning beach ball, and is more prone to throwing a tantrum and not switch between applications while one of them is exercising a particularly trying task (hello, Gausian Blur in Photoshop 7!). This was particularly surprising to me since all the reports I'd seen suggested that lower end hardware like my own would see more benefit from the gain.
Anyone else experience this, or does my machine just hate me?
True.
GIMP also doesn't have a CMYK mode. Which, for most graphic designers, is a pratical, day to day limitation, as opposed to the creative limitation Photoshop is imposing here.
Doesn't make Adobe's actions right. Does make GIMP a completely non-viable option for a good chunk of the content industry.
CinePaint is catching on for use in special effects houses because RGB is fine for digital filmmaking. Lack of CMYK is not a limitation there. In the print world, it's a very real limitation, which is why the GIMP is not catching on there.
Can anyone think of any other examples of this sort of a life cycle? Cuz it seems to be the whole basis for this article, but to my mind it's a somewhat anomolous development situation.
- a program with a hardware dongle that isn't recognized in Classic (many older 3D and music programs especially have this as a limitation, and artists that still use them do so because they cannot recreate the specific artistic effects elsewhere)
- a favorite video game that tries to draw directly to the screen
- Any peripheral that doesn't yet have an OS X driver (an issue with many scanners and even a few video and SCSI cards, along with the more obscure add-ons)
- Any other custom software, critical to your workflow, that for whatever reason is not happy in Classic.
Of course, I suppose, you could keep an older machine around to do any of that, but...I'm a longtime OS 9 user in the process of migrating to OS X. I have two older video cards and have had mixed success. One is the ixMicro Twin Turbo, the other is the GraphicVillage MacPicasso 540. Neither card is officially supported under OS X, either through Apple or through the card vendors. The TwinTurbo, however, performs flawlessly under OS X, while the MP540 doesn't work at all in that environment. (Which is funny, given that the MP was specifically designed for Macs and the TwinTurbo is cross-platform, but I digress.)
Surprisingly, pretty much the only after-market dual header options come from ATI; nVidia is making Apple-happy GeForce cards, but as far as I know you can only get them as BTO purchase options from the online Apple store or from an Apple reseller that supports BTO sales.
I'm not writing this essay as a Dvorak basher to get attention, although plenty of people will accuse me of doing that. I recently noticed a lull in the Dvorak buzz, however, and I'm now beginning to see Dvorak as an old commentator that needs to retire.
Let's look at the recent Dvorak offerings. The columnist's rant against the DMCA, usually a "gimme" topic for tech-industry pundits, garnered and underwhelming 59 posts. He also attempted to lambaste Microsoft's mistakes, and predictably cited opinions that many agree with but no one seems to be able to do anything about. The obvious next iteration of his ratings grab was to smear Apple for no good reason in particular. After that, what is Dvorak going to do?
Remember that in 1999, Dvorak drew eyeballs the Internet over by accusing the iBook of being too "girly" a computer to survive. This rant was an improvement, but there hasn't been a new idea since.
There was a moment early in the new millennium when it looked like Dvorak was going to stop taking unfounded pot shots at Apple. This was actually a good idea, but eventually it fell apart, leaving PC Magazine with a neutered opinion column from which it never fully recovered.
The most interesting aspect with Dvorak is the way he's able to consistently attack everything under the sun with little support beyond his own worldview and not only get away with it, but receive attention and praise for his efforts. Curiously, no other columnist has been able to manage anything like this. Hiawatha Bray is said to have legions of anti-Mac fans in his pockets, but after playing with an iMac DV in late 1999 he changed his mind. Apparently Apple has done the impossible.
Having said that, why can't Dvorak take his griping to the next level and bring out a completely valid complaint against the Macintosh? Here's the problem. This supposedly creative business of technology journalism has been completely co-opted by Microsoft for over 10 years. All the alternative approaches to computing have been sabotaged, absorbed by Microsoft, or simply wasted, withered, and died in the anticompetitive marketplace. Most of the big alternative computing publications have been closed or cut back. In that environment, unfounded accusations against all things non-Microsoft are the easiest way to collect a paycheck.
So perhaps I have answered my own question regarding putting down the old dog called Dvorak. PC Magazine has no one it could possibly replace him with. There is no new idea out there short of a Linux desktop for grandma. And the technology for a Linux desktop for grandma is decades away.
In fact, the old dog will not be shot, but propped up with ads, and patched with reconstructive PR, instead. Dvorak will go in the only direction possible: increased cynicism. In fact this is the only direction for tech industry commentary in general.