If you leave your front door open and I take a look inside your house, what crime have I committed? At most, I am told, trespass. If you left the keys under the mat and I opened the door, it's breaking and entering.
Similarly, if I take your car with the clearly stated intention to return it when I am done (e.g. if I desperately needed to drive someone to the hospital), I haven't stolen it, I've borrowed it -- with or without your permission.
Theft, burglary, etc. are crimes defined in part by the intention of the alleged perpetrator and the damages suffered by the alleged victim.
OTOH we live in a world where one of the first "terrorist" groups targeted by the government after 9/11 were Environmental Activists who destroy machinery but have been careful never to hurt anyone.
The idea was probably stolen from Xerox Parc in the first place, of course.
The mouse and many fundamental GUI concepts were invented at UC Berkeley by Douglas Englebart. Xerox added non-overlapping windows, buttons, icons. Apple added dragging, overlapping windows, and many other concepts we take for granted now while improving on ideas they stole. It seems reasonable to accord Apple with the credit for inventing the modern GUI along with Xerox Parc and Englebart. But the big aha goes to Englebart, not Xerox or Apple.
"Anyone can see a wheel and come up with the car. It takes a good science fiction writer to see a wheel and come up with traffic jams and parking tickets." (Source forgotten.)
Re: Ian Fleming's Bond
on
Bay of Souls
·
· Score: 1
I've read all the Bond novels, and they're terrible. If you think they're written for a "very intelligent and mature adult audience" you have a dim view of intelligent and mature adults.
The most faithful film adaptation *by far* is "From Russia With Love" (the only major differences from the book are that in the book the idiotic boat chase doesn't happen, the bad guys are from SMERSH not SPECTER, the KGB woman is explicitly a lesbian, and the wrestling gypsy girls are naked.)
Isn't that pining for the fjords? Anyway...
on
Java vs .NET
·
· Score: 5, Funny
...the best comment from Kuro5hin was that the only thing he likes about.NET is that VB's backwards compatibility is broken so maybe folks will learn a real language...
Presumably all this only makes sense if we can't print or copy and paste unless the DRM says so. Cripes.
At the moment when I print from any application on my Mac I can save as PDF. Will this be disabled in Office? Will the equivalent (Adobe Acrobat Distiller / PDFWriter) be disabled as well?
It seems to me that DRM should be handled at OS level and work on documents and directories rather than file formats (obviously this might not suit Microsoft's plans to lock us in to Office). Yes, this means that I can drag a document out of a directory if I have access to it, but fundamentally, if I can open the document I can do stuff to it that you may not want me to -- just as I can play a Windows Media audio file into an analog tape recorder no matter what DRM is on it.
There's no special reason why Linux can't have as many UI APIs as you like, as long as an application written using KDE looks like (to the extent that makes sense) an application written using Gnome and you don't need to make decisions during installation that will prevent you from using one or the other.
Creating a single set of user interface standards is a good start. (I thought this was in fact underway, but I find no evidence of it via a casual visit to gnome.org).
Even funky riffs on the standard Mac user interface (such as we see in applications like Bryce) are easier to pick up and more intuitive than most Linux apps.
The organizational causes of this accident are rooted in the Space Shuttle Program?s history and culture, including the original compromises that were required to gain approval for the Shuttle, subsequent years of resource constraints, fluctuating priorities, schedule pressures, mischaracterization of the Shuttle as operational rather than developmental, and lack of an agreed national vision for human space flight.
...bugs me as well as some others, but let's look at Microsoft's record in various markets dominated by other companies:
0) Identify an important market (e.g. databases, web browsers, digital video, development tools, operating systems) 1) Release a product that sucks and no-one wants for that market (e.g. Access, IE, Video for Windows, 2) Lose money on it like there's no tomorrow. 3) Release a slightly improved version and give it away (Access, IE, VFW) or force people to buy it (development tools, Windows). 4) Kill off all your competitors. (Borland, NetScape, Apple, Borland, OS/2.) 5) Profit!
I think that 3 & 4 correspond to the ? in most dotcom business plans. The difference between the way MS works and the way most dotcoms work is step 0.
Steve Jobs returned to Apple in January 1997, so claiming that Apple claimed that Rhapsody would run on all Macs in 1996 is patently ludicrous.
Second -- Rhapsody was the codename for OS X, so implying that Rhapsody was never delivered is also bogus.
I like your plan though: Apple buys me a Dell to make up for their "near-decade of bullshit" and Microsoft can buy me a new car for the crap they've done. Maybe IBM can buy me a house, and HP > Compaq > DEC can buy me a yacht.
First Defense -- everyone claims this. "We did nothing wrong so there's nothing we need to fix."
Second Defense -- "We did nothing wrong AND we had the absolute right to do the things we did do that SCO is complaining about"
Third Defense -- SCO hasn't met the requirements for this to be heard in Federal court. It's a contract dispute so it should be in a state court.
Fourth Defense -- The stuff SCO is complaining about happened too long ago.
Fifth Defense -- SCO is claiming breach of contract, which means that it can't use tort law and must use remedies as per the contract it claims has been breached.
Sixth Defense -- SCO waited an unreasonably long time before taking action (like statute of limitations but based on fairness rather than some specific legal limit).
Seventh Defense -- Estoppel: this is the argument that the rights have been given away and can't be taken back; Unclean hands: this is the argument that SCO is not without sin.
Eighth Defense -- the writer doesn't know why this is there, but gives copyright as an example of Federal law that can't be resolved in a State court.
Ninth Defense -- IBM doesn't want to fight the case in Utah and appears to be in good shape here. The AT&T contracts claim to operate under NY law. Other documents cite CA law. And IBM's HQ is not in Utah.
So in summary, SCO wants us to pay to use software they claim uses stuff they own but won't tell us what it is so we can stop using it and the rights to which they gave away but claim they can take back because they didn't know what they were giving away when they gave it.
Actually this is hardly something IBM invented, popularized, or was the first to benefit from.
Check out the history of the steel industry, the banking industry, the phone companies, power generation, the oil industry, the tobacco industry, etc. etc.
There are other companies trying to make money from media players, eg Apple, Real
Microsoft is denying them this opportunity by bundling their own software with the OS. Punters are less likely to go and buy from Apple or Real.
Competition is good. This is bad.
It's worse than that. When you install Windows Media Player it modifies the registry to claim that it can play QuickTime movies (for example) and then when you open a QuickTime movie it crashes, damaging the perceived stability of QuickTime. Likewise Microsoft modified their browser architecture at some point to break the QuickTime plugin.
Again, if you go through Microsoft's history, its actions are quite clearly malicious and anticompetitive...
Yeah, you're right... what the US needs is a good dictator.
I don't seem to recall "the right to sue MacDonalds because they serve hot coffee" being enshrined in the bill of rights. Somehow Australia seems pretty free and yet its -- glacially slow -- legal system seems a little nimbler than the US system on this.
Snapster 2.0 is a subscription library (which is perfectly legal and which has existed for hundreds of years). The technical details are all but irrelevant.
The real question is:
Should a right that no longer makes sense be perpetuated at great cost to society? Before recording equipment there was no recording industry. If you wanted music you played it yourself or hired a musician.
Today, recording and duplicating stuff is trivial but we want to create complicated laws and technologies in order to force ourselves into a virtual past where recording and duplication were expensive. This seems stupid (as in both wrong and ultimately ineffectual) to me.
It seems stupid to me that it's even legal to sell DVDs that can be legally purchased in Europe and then not be played in the USA (and vice versa), especially when the technology has intentionally been crippled (it's not like the PAL/NTSC incompatibility we have with video tape).
In theory, when you photocopy a book you are infringing copyright. But "fair use" means that if you don't do it with bad intentions or on an industrial scale, you don't go to jail. In practice, the main reason that people don't photocopy expensive books instead of buying them is that the copies are ugly and inferior. Likewise, avid fans of star trek prefer DVDs to home made video recordings with ads and poor reception etc. When the copies are sufficiently perfect and cheap, the market will ignore copyright, as well it should!
In theory, I probably "own" the air around my house. Exerting any ownership rights is essentially pointless, arguing that my trees are converting my neighbour's carbon dioxide into oxygen that her large family and pets are consuming is similarly pointless. But sometimes residents band together to stop large companies building factories, or creating pollution standards for cars.
Economists -- should any read Slashdot -- will point out that I'm confusing a "commons" (the air) with a "public good" (Intellectual Property). But Economists would also note that IP should, theoretically be FREE and that patents and copyrights are a kludge to encourage people to produce IP and publish it in exchange for a temporary and limited monopoly.
When companies are able to perpetuate their copyrights (e.g. the way Disney can remaster the audio in Snow White and extend copyright for 75 more years having NEVER provided the public with a master copy of the original version to duplicate once copyright on that version expired) the system has failed and needs to be fixed. Fortunately, digital copying gives us a de-facto fix for this big problem and we should resist any attempts to subvert it by making it more complex and expensive than it needs to be.
I would argue that intellectual property is in the process of moving from being "like a manufactured good" to being "like the air". The law needs to move from managing trivial transactions (e.g. do I own more Nelly CDs than I play simultaneously) to large scale infractions (e.g. SPAM is large scale pollution and abuse of the internet and it's reasonable to regulate it).
We can argue all we like about how to micromanage the collapse of intellectual property as we know it, or instead we can start planning for what the world is really going to be like down the track. We never figured out fair or intelligent systems for dealing with the threat to IP posed by VHS, compact audio cassettes, or photocopying. We got over it.
Seems to me that $5 kits to convert them into reusable cameras will probably make this idea economically unfeasible -- unless people are forced to put a $50 deposit down or somesuch.
IMHO AppleCare and extended warranties in general are not worth it (unless you cannot afford to replace the thing warranted if it fails).
Very few of my Macs have ever needed any repairs, and in every case the cost of the repairs was either (a) covered by the original warranty, (b) less than AppleCare for that computer would have cost, or (c) the cost of AppleCare for that computer would have exceeded its resale or replacement cost at the time it went wrong.
In general a computer is worth 50% as much a year after you buy it. AppleCare costs -- say -- $249 for a $1200 iBook, say 15-25% of the new computer cost, or 30-50% of the year old computer's cost. So you need between one in three and one in two computers to die in their useful lifespan to justify AppleCare.
Finally, AppleCare won't necessarily recover your lost data, which is the expensive part of losing a computer. Keep your data backed up and don't sweat the occasional dead box.
apple coined the term PDA the first psion palmtops predated apple's newton by almost TEN years
Thanks for mentioning that. Before posting I tried (not very hard) to find out when the first Psion came out. A second search today revealed the answer -- 1984.
I think that certainly shows that the first Psion came out before the first Newton. Whether the psion was a "PDA" or an electronic organiser is another question -- the Newton was designed as a "PDA" (whatever that means) and its functionality has yet to be matched by any "replacement" technology. The Filofax predates the Newton too, but it wasn't a PDA either.
The Newton was designed from the ground up to do what it did. E.g. it was designed to conserve memory (e.g. using on-the-fly compression for storage). A Newton can do with 2MB of RAM things that many more modern organisers fail to do with far more.
The Newton had a UI designed specifically for handheld use. Once the handwriting recognition was improved (far far beyond Graffiti) it was a highly usable system.
I don't really use my Newton any more. For four years, however, I took all my meeting notes (and I attended a LOT of meetings) on my Newton, and could search through them instantly. I still can't take notes effectively on any current PDA.
I don't really see what most modern "PDAs" do that my phone's built in electronic organiser can't do just as well in far less space, with better battery life, and in one less gadget.
Contrary to some replies, Gauss Rifles (under that name) were originally in the Traveller Book 4 "Mercenary" which predates BattleTech by quite some time. (Indeed, I think the term "Gauss Rifle" predates the oft-used term "Railgun".)
BattleTech was a far more commercially successful game than Traveller, though.
The G5 could go into a Powerbook if you lowered the clockspeed enough. Currently a top-of-the-line G4 Macs runs at 1.42 GHz (dual processor) versus 1GHz for a G4 Powerbook. From the power dissipation figures mentioned at WWDC it sounds like a 1.2-1.3 GHz G5's power consumption would be manageable in a powerbook; this is not quite as good relative to the 2.0 GHz top-of-the-line G5 and 1.0 is as to 1.4.
Slashdot Mirror
When I was in college we didn't get 8h of class per day, but maybe that's just me. My iBook doesn't need boot time, it wakes from sleep in 2s.
OTOH the Newton had all these properties and excellent handwriting recognition.
If you leave your front door open and I take a look inside your house, what crime have I committed? At most, I am told, trespass. If you left the keys under the mat and I opened the door, it's breaking and entering.
Similarly, if I take your car with the clearly stated intention to return it when I am done (e.g. if I desperately needed to drive someone to the hospital), I haven't stolen it, I've borrowed it -- with or without your permission.
Theft, burglary, etc. are crimes defined in part by the intention of the alleged perpetrator and the damages suffered by the alleged victim.
OTOH we live in a world where one of the first "terrorist" groups targeted by the government after 9/11 were Environmental Activists who destroy machinery but have been careful never to hurt anyone.
But I'm no lawyer.
Surely it was RPGs that started the online boom, certainly the pay to play online boom.
The idea was probably stolen from Xerox Parc in the first place, of course.
The mouse and many fundamental GUI concepts were invented at UC Berkeley by Douglas Englebart. Xerox added non-overlapping windows, buttons, icons. Apple added dragging, overlapping windows, and many other concepts we take for granted now while improving on ideas they stole. It seems reasonable to accord Apple with the credit for inventing the modern GUI along with Xerox Parc and Englebart. But the big aha goes to Englebart, not Xerox or Apple.
"Anyone can see a wheel and come up with the car. It takes a good science fiction writer to see a wheel and come up with traffic jams and parking tickets." (Source forgotten.)
I've read all the Bond novels, and they're terrible. If you think they're written for a "very intelligent and mature adult audience" you have a dim view of intelligent and mature adults.
The most faithful film adaptation *by far* is "From Russia With Love" (the only major differences from the book are that in the book the idiotic boat chase doesn't happen, the bad guys are from SMERSH not SPECTER, the KGB woman is explicitly a lesbian, and the wrestling gypsy girls are naked.)
...the best comment from Kuro5hin was that the only thing he likes about .NET is that VB's backwards compatibility is broken so maybe folks will learn a real language...
Presumably all this only makes sense if we can't print or copy and paste unless the DRM says so. Cripes.
At the moment when I print from any application on my Mac I can save as PDF. Will this be disabled in Office? Will the equivalent (Adobe Acrobat Distiller / PDFWriter) be disabled as well?
It seems to me that DRM should be handled at OS level and work on documents and directories rather than file formats (obviously this might not suit Microsoft's plans to lock us in to Office). Yes, this means that I can drag a document out of a directory if I have access to it, but fundamentally, if I can open the document I can do stuff to it that you may not want me to -- just as I can play a Windows Media audio file into an analog tape recorder no matter what DRM is on it.
There's no special reason why Linux can't have as many UI APIs as you like, as long as an application written using KDE looks like (to the extent that makes sense) an application written using Gnome and you don't need to make decisions during installation that will prevent you from using one or the other.
Creating a single set of user interface standards is a good start. (I thought this was in fact underway, but I find no evidence of it via a casual visit to gnome.org).
Even funky riffs on the standard Mac user interface (such as we see in applications like Bryce) are easier to pick up and more intuitive than most Linux apps.
The organizational causes of this accident are rooted in the Space Shuttle Program?s history and culture, including the original compromises that were required to gain approval for the Shuttle, subsequent years of resource constraints, fluctuating priorities, schedule pressures, mischaracterization of the Shuttle as operational rather than developmental, and lack of an agreed national vision for human space flight.
Emphasis mine.
I dunno, it also seems pretty annoying that they still don't have call waiting or voicemail.
...bugs me as well as some others, but let's look at Microsoft's record in various markets dominated by other companies:
0) Identify an important market (e.g. databases, web browsers, digital video, development tools, operating systems)
1) Release a product that sucks and no-one wants for that market (e.g. Access, IE, Video for Windows,
2) Lose money on it like there's no tomorrow.
3) Release a slightly improved version and give it away (Access, IE, VFW) or force people to buy it (development tools, Windows).
4) Kill off all your competitors. (Borland, NetScape, Apple, Borland, OS/2.)
5) Profit!
I think that 3 & 4 correspond to the ? in most dotcom business plans. The difference between the way MS works and the way most dotcoms work is step 0.
I'm hoping your post was supposed to be funny.
Steve Jobs returned to Apple in January 1997, so claiming that Apple claimed that Rhapsody would run on all Macs in 1996 is patently ludicrous.
Second -- Rhapsody was the codename for OS X, so implying that Rhapsody was never delivered is also bogus.
I like your plan though: Apple buys me a Dell to make up for their "near-decade of bullshit" and Microsoft can buy me a new car for the crap they've done. Maybe IBM can buy me a house, and HP > Compaq > DEC can buy me a yacht.
There's an explanation of these terms by a paralegal with an interest in the case (and no great love of SCO) here:
weblogs.com
My summary
First Defense -- everyone claims this. "We did nothing wrong so there's nothing we need to fix."
Second Defense -- "We did nothing wrong AND we had the absolute right to do the things we did do that SCO is complaining about"
Third Defense -- SCO hasn't met the requirements for this to be heard in Federal court. It's a contract dispute so it should be in a state court.
Fourth Defense -- The stuff SCO is complaining about happened too long ago.
Fifth Defense -- SCO is claiming breach of contract, which means that it can't use tort law and must use remedies as per the contract it claims has been breached.
Sixth Defense -- SCO waited an unreasonably long time before taking action (like statute of limitations but based on fairness rather than some specific legal limit).
Seventh Defense -- Estoppel: this is the argument that the rights have been given away and can't be taken back; Unclean hands: this is the argument that SCO is not without sin.
Eighth Defense -- the writer doesn't know why this is there, but gives copyright as an example of Federal law that can't be resolved in a State court.
Ninth Defense -- IBM doesn't want to fight the case in Utah and appears to be in good shape here. The AT&T contracts claim to operate under NY law. Other documents cite CA law. And IBM's HQ is not in Utah.
Tenth Defense -- no comment.
So in summary, SCO wants us to pay to use software they claim uses stuff they own but won't tell us what it is so we can stop using it and the rights to which they gave away but claim they can take back because they didn't know what they were giving away when they gave it.
Seems reasonable enough to me.
Actually this is hardly something IBM invented, popularized, or was the first to benefit from.
Check out the history of the steel industry, the banking industry, the phone companies, power generation, the oil industry, the tobacco industry, etc. etc.
There are other companies trying to make money from media players, eg Apple, Real
Microsoft is denying them this opportunity by bundling their own software with the OS. Punters are less likely to go and buy from Apple or Real.
Competition is good. This is bad.
It's worse than that. When you install Windows Media Player it modifies the registry to claim that it can play QuickTime movies (for example) and then when you open a QuickTime movie it crashes, damaging the perceived stability of QuickTime. Likewise Microsoft modified their browser architecture at some point to break the QuickTime plugin.
Again, if you go through Microsoft's history, its actions are quite clearly malicious and anticompetitive...
"DOS 2 ain't done 'til Lotus won't run"
Yeah, you're right... what the US needs is a good dictator.
I don't seem to recall "the right to sue MacDonalds because they serve hot coffee" being enshrined in the bill of rights. Somehow Australia seems pretty free and yet its -- glacially slow -- legal system seems a little nimbler than the US system on this.
Snapster 2.0 is a subscription library (which is perfectly legal and which has existed for hundreds of years). The technical details are all but irrelevant.
The real question is:
Should a right that no longer makes sense be perpetuated at great cost to society? Before recording equipment there was no recording industry. If you wanted music you played it yourself or hired a musician.
Today, recording and duplicating stuff is trivial but we want to create complicated laws and technologies in order to force ourselves into a virtual past where recording and duplication were expensive. This seems stupid (as in both wrong and ultimately ineffectual) to me.
It seems stupid to me that it's even legal to sell DVDs that can be legally purchased in Europe and then not be played in the USA (and vice versa), especially when the technology has intentionally been crippled (it's not like the PAL/NTSC incompatibility we have with video tape).
In theory, when you photocopy a book you are infringing copyright. But "fair use" means that if you don't do it with bad intentions or on an industrial scale, you don't go to jail. In practice, the main reason that people don't photocopy expensive books instead of buying them is that the copies are ugly and inferior. Likewise, avid fans of star trek prefer DVDs to home made video recordings with ads and poor reception etc. When the copies are sufficiently perfect and cheap, the market will ignore copyright, as well it should!
In theory, I probably "own" the air around my house. Exerting any ownership rights is essentially pointless, arguing that my trees are converting my neighbour's carbon dioxide into oxygen that her large family and pets are consuming is similarly pointless. But sometimes residents band together to stop large companies building factories, or creating pollution standards for cars.
Economists -- should any read Slashdot -- will point out that I'm confusing a "commons" (the air) with a "public good" (Intellectual Property). But Economists would also note that IP should, theoretically be FREE and that patents and copyrights are a kludge to encourage people to produce IP and publish it in exchange for a temporary and limited monopoly.
When companies are able to perpetuate their copyrights (e.g. the way Disney can remaster the audio in Snow White and extend copyright for 75 more years having NEVER provided the public with a master copy of the original version to duplicate once copyright on that version expired) the system has failed and needs to be fixed. Fortunately, digital copying gives us a de-facto fix for this big problem and we should resist any attempts to subvert it by making it more complex and expensive than it needs to be.
I would argue that intellectual property is in the process of moving from being "like a manufactured good" to being "like the air". The law needs to move from managing trivial transactions (e.g. do I own more Nelly CDs than I play simultaneously) to large scale infractions (e.g. SPAM is large scale pollution and abuse of the internet and it's reasonable to regulate it).
We can argue all we like about how to micromanage the collapse of intellectual property as we know it, or instead we can start planning for what the world is really going to be like down the track. We never figured out fair or intelligent systems for dealing with the threat to IP posed by VHS, compact audio cassettes, or photocopying. We got over it.
...for flash capacitors etc.?
Seems to me that $5 kits to convert them into reusable cameras will probably make this idea economically unfeasible -- unless people are forced to put a $50 deposit down or somesuch.
The 5% number is just skewed heavily by the fact that any poorly written app that crashes is counted
Are you including Microsoft's bug-reporting app in this category? It seems to be the buggiest program of all.
IMHO AppleCare and extended warranties in general are not worth it (unless you cannot afford to replace the thing warranted if it fails).
Very few of my Macs have ever needed any repairs, and in every case the cost of the repairs was either (a) covered by the original warranty, (b) less than AppleCare for that computer would have cost, or (c) the cost of AppleCare for that computer would have exceeded its resale or replacement cost at the time it went wrong.
In general a computer is worth 50% as much a year after you buy it. AppleCare costs -- say -- $249 for a $1200 iBook, say 15-25% of the new computer cost, or 30-50% of the year old computer's cost. So you need between one in three and one in two computers to die in their useful lifespan to justify AppleCare.
Finally, AppleCare won't necessarily recover your lost data, which is the expensive part of losing a computer. Keep your data backed up and don't sweat the occasional dead box.
apple coined the term PDA the first psion palmtops predated apple's newton by almost TEN years
Thanks for mentioning that. Before posting I tried (not very hard) to find out when the first Psion came out. A second search today revealed the answer -- 1984.
I think that certainly shows that the first Psion came out before the first Newton. Whether the psion was a "PDA" or an electronic organiser is another question -- the Newton was designed as a "PDA" (whatever that means) and its functionality has yet to be matched by any "replacement" technology. The Filofax predates the Newton too, but it wasn't a PDA either.
The Newton was designed from the ground up to do what it did. E.g. it was designed to conserve memory (e.g. using on-the-fly compression for storage). A Newton can do with 2MB of RAM things that many more modern organisers fail to do with far more.
The Newton had a UI designed specifically for handheld use. Once the handwriting recognition was improved (far far beyond Graffiti) it was a highly usable system.
I don't really use my Newton any more. For four years, however, I took all my meeting notes (and I attended a LOT of meetings) on my Newton, and could search through them instantly. I still can't take notes effectively on any current PDA.
I don't really see what most modern "PDAs" do that my phone's built in electronic organiser can't do just as well in far less space, with better battery life, and in one less gadget.
Surely Apple not only virtually but actually invented the PDA including coining the term.
And frankly, the Newton MP2000 / 2100 kicks the ass of any PDA ever shipped (so far) except for its size.
Contrary to some replies, Gauss Rifles (under that name) were originally in the Traveller Book 4 "Mercenary" which predates BattleTech by quite some time. (Indeed, I think the term "Gauss Rifle" predates the oft-used term "Railgun".)
BattleTech was a far more commercially successful game than Traveller, though.
The G5 could go into a Powerbook if you lowered the clockspeed enough. Currently a top-of-the-line G4 Macs runs at 1.42 GHz (dual processor) versus 1GHz for a G4 Powerbook. From the power dissipation figures mentioned at WWDC it sounds like a 1.2-1.3 GHz G5's power consumption would be manageable in a powerbook; this is not quite as good relative to the 2.0 GHz top-of-the-line G5 and 1.0 is as to 1.4.