Sure, I don't have 4xFSAA enabled, but plays fine for me. Plus:
Adobe Illustrator CS; Adobe InDesign CS; Adobe Photoshop CS; Adobe Reader 8; Autodesk Maya; Delicious Library.app; DivX Converter; Final Cut Pro HD.app; Freefall.app; Google Earth.app; Google SketchUp 6; iDVD.app; iPhoto.app; iTunes.app; Logic Pro.app; MATLAB701; Microsoft Office 2004; NoteBook.app; OmniGraffle.app; OmniOutliner.app; QuickTime Broadcaster.app; Remote Desktop.app; Reunion 9.app; Skype.app; Sound Studio; SoundSoap 2.app; Soundtrack.app; TeamSpeex.app; ToonBoomStudio; Transmit.app; Ventrilo.app; VideoGlide; Virtual PC.app; VLC.app...
Plus many, many, MANY, others. All run without noticeable performance issues. And if I had more than the 2GB of RAM that's in it, it would be even better. As soon as it needs it, I'll spend the money.
If you can see past the "gotta-get-a-newer-machine-because-somebody-out-there-has-something-newer-than-mine" mentality there's no end to the things you can do with an older machine. As soon as my Dual 2.5 ceases to meet my needs It will go into my museum of dead tech with the others. Until then, it will remain my core duty machine.
Hell, not too long ago I won a $100 bet with a friend who didn't think I could get my Radius 81/110 (PowerMac 8100 Clone - circa 1995-1996) on the Internet in less than 30 minutes, from a boxed-up state. It took me 15 and that was only because I had to hunt to find a long-assed ethernet cable to reach from the garage to my office. Easy money.
So if nothing else, win bets off the naysayers until you can afford a new MacPro tower.
Nuff said.
Well, I didn't see any mention in the patent description about it being "the most efficient manner in which to effect this type of functionality", nor would it be the proper venue for it anyhow. Patents deal more in the "What" & "How", and less with the "Why" or conversely "Why Not". That, likely, would be an interogative best directed at the implementer of the feature, and not the lawyers. They tend to not involve themselves with that sort of thing.
Did you actually read the patent? The point IS that they are trying to patent a specific implementation of the transparency - to whit:
"SUMMARY
[0013] According to exemplary embodiments of the present invention, these and other drawbacks and difficulties of conventional GUIs are overcome by providing such floating windows with varying visual and manipulative qualities. For example, a floating window that has not been updated with new information within a predetermined time period will become translucent so that the underlying window or windows are then visible to the user. Other actions or omissions may also serve as a trigger for graduated translucency of windows according to the present invention. Moreover, as the floating window becomes translucent, the user can click-through to the underlying window(s) to interact with its contents. When information on the floating window is updated, it can return to being opaque until the predetermined time period has elapsed again without new information being presented."
It's not the mere translucency that is the intent of the patent, but what it does with it, and how it does it. Hope that clarifies...
I think it's interesting, all these people throwing their hands up in righteous indignation at the mere thought of a company trying to patent one of its innovations. Whether you think it's evil, or petty, or just plain lame, you need to remember that these companies are not in business to make friends, or give shit away. They're in business to make a profit. Period. And patenting things - be they real or intangible is the way they protect their profits. Apparently you think you hold some sort of moral high ground because you feel patenting somthing is a somehow base and wholly evil practice. You probably think that these companies should give away free software updates as well. Well I hate to be the one to break it to you, Sparkies, but comapnies who don't get paid for their products, CEASE TO MAKE THEM. Put the stinky shoe on the other foot for a second here. If you were a small software developer who created a killer app and that app had unique features you innovated, you'd want to protect YOUR rights to it. RIGHT? Otherwise, if you hadn't, when IBM or Microsoft came down with their winged, monkey lawyers and filed patent, effectively stealing food out of your very mouth, you'd raise holy hell to try to keep them from screwing you out of what you put long hours of your blood sweat and tears into. And you'd be lying if you said otherwise. Self-righteous, high ideals only go so far, and they go right out the window when the bottom line is at stake. Especially when you have the most to lose. Business is business, and it is frequently ugly. When you get past the shiny products and the fancy ad campaigns, the basic rule of business is "fsck your competitors out of their (ability to make) money before they fsck you out of yours." I defy you to prove otherwise. Businesses who don't go for the throats of their competitors don't get to hang around to see how it works out. Take a look at the wake of twisted wreckage and destroyed lives IBM and Microsoft have left in their wakes, and then realize it's nothing compared to Mobil Oil, Union Carbide, DuPont, AT&T, Bell Corp, GM, Ford, any tobacco company you care to name... I could go on and on and on. Once you get past the touchie-feelie marketing and spin-doctoring, it's STILL only about making money for the stockholders. Always has been, always will be. Just because you might like a company's product, or their "public persona", or image, doesn't mean they won't expend their dying breath to try to screw you out of a buck. Time to take off the rose-colored glasses. Business is a bloody, uncaring world. And much like a few Chinese protesters have found out, if you try to get in the way of the tank, you will likely end up tomorrow's dog food.
Pop quiz: Q: How can you tell when a (car salesman, lawyer, marketer, businessman, advertising executive, etc. - you pick) is trying to separate you from your money? A:They breathe.
Flush out your headgear, it's only about the money.
Some people seem to forget that there are MANY ski resorts/areas in decidedly remote locations which REQUIRE you to wear RF Tracking transmitters. In case of Avalanche and the like. Don't like it? Don't ski here. Or else don't complain when you are buried under 50 metric tons of snow, ice, and rock. On the other hand complain all you want. Nobody will hear you anyhow. Ever again.
But seriously, I think the original idea of this thread is a valid one, and were there a way to effectively anonymize the device so as to asuage the fears of the tragically paranoid, it would see little opposition. As long as the system sees that there is *somebody* clinging to a rocky crag because he was too stupid to stay on the trail and ignored the signs alerting him to loose rocks and steep cliffs, and not that it was Joe Schmuckatelli, who was too stupid to heed the aforementioned signs, it should be fine. However once he gets back to the base camp and the CNN crews flood said idiot, any anonymization of the system will be circumvented anyhow.
True, but the US govenrment and military are not restricted to the borders of the United States. It buys cell phones EVERYWHERE. Our military has bases in hundreds of foreign cities around the globe, the State Department, and the other "State Departments" (CIA, NSA,et. al.) plus all of our Consulates with all their support personnel (i.e. from the "other" State Departments"). Then there's Customs agents, BCIS (nee INS) agents, Treasury agents, DEA agents, all their support staffs - man, we're like cockroaches! We (governmentally) have people in every country on the planet. And yes, while a lot of them use encrypted satellite phones, the desk jockeys and seat polisher admin folks also get phones too and they get 'plain vanilla phones' (granted many are 'secure cell phones' that you or I could not get our hands on). Anyone who works for the government, who ever steps foot on a plane on company time gets a cell phone. The US Government is probably the largest employer of any 'company' on the planet. Don't discount its presence or its influence. All of these people have to use the system local to them, hence GSM, CDMA, whatever. Not to mention probably ALL or the world's government agencies and militaries buy cell phones and have similar security requirements as we do (at least if they are smart they do). So when you do the math, that number would appear to climb somewhat. Now, yes, I know I'm making a blanket statement here, but I'm trying to prove a point - namely that this product line is not as dead as would appear, simply because there is a whole hidden market that consumer spending analysts never see. I'm sure if you looked at the company sales figures for non-consumer/contract sales you might be very surprised.
Also, seeing as how the US Government hands out lots of large military contract every year to contractors such as Seimens, Motorola, Texas Instruments, Sony, Matsushita Electric, and literally thousands more too numerous to list, and how lots of these contractors subcontract to other contractors, I find it hard to deny that should the government want a certain product to remain in the market, they could exercise pressure in some form to persuade a manufacturer to rethink the killing off of a product line/type it wants or needs. Sure this is draconian, and sounds like a bad spy movie, but the government manipulates contractors every day, just by holding a money bag over their heads saying "jump". Its economics, pure and simple. While yes I agree there are milions of worldwide users who are not under gummint employ, I'm just saying that these companies who make the equipment would be awfully remiss to blithely kill off a product that is one: still viable, and in demand, and two: not a huge burden to keep producing, since most of these features are controlled via software, and can easily be disabled. I'm not saying that the government will never buy phones if they are not "plain vanilla", but I am saying at this time their use on secure installations has been severly curtailed (if not eliminated altogether), and if the manufacturers want to keep the government's business, they will need to seriously consider its needs, and provide it with options to mitigate what it sees as security risks.
The US Government, including the US Military buys tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of cell phones (and various other consumer-grade communications devices) for its personnel & civil servants every year. And due to security restrictions, and rules regarding communications devices within restricted work spaces (or even restricted compunds), phones with cameras, voice recorders, 'walkie-talkies', and any other features which can be utilized to physically - or even virtually - transport data/information (including SBU [Sensitive But Unclassified] and FOUO [For Official Use Only]) are strictly and unequivocally verboten. Some spaces forbid even carrying your phone into it, even if it is turned off - and irrespective of what features it has! Therefore, there will always be a market for "one-trick pony" cell phones. I highly doubt that the manufacturers would shoot themselves in their collective foot and obviate probably one of their biggest customers world wide. And it's a fairly safe assumption that other world governments/militaries have similar restrictions for their personnel's use of phones as well. So, unless they come up with a way for the government(s) to permanently 'lock out' those features that could be construed as "security risks", I can't see the simple 'entry level' cell phone/communicator going away any time soon.
Yeah, except by then the recording industry will have been destroyed by everyone gathering every song ever recorded to burn on it. Feh! One disk... DONE!
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, I don't have 4xFSAA enabled, but plays fine for me. Plus: Adobe Illustrator CS; Adobe InDesign CS; Adobe Photoshop CS; Adobe Reader 8; Autodesk Maya; Delicious Library.app; DivX Converter; Final Cut Pro HD.app; Freefall.app; Google Earth.app; Google SketchUp 6; iDVD.app; iPhoto.app; iTunes.app; Logic Pro.app; MATLAB701; Microsoft Office 2004; NoteBook.app; OmniGraffle.app; OmniOutliner.app; QuickTime Broadcaster.app; Remote Desktop.app; Reunion 9.app; Skype.app; Sound Studio; SoundSoap 2.app; Soundtrack.app; TeamSpeex.app; ToonBoomStudio; Transmit.app; Ventrilo.app; VideoGlide; Virtual PC.app; VLC.app... Plus many, many, MANY, others. All run without noticeable performance issues. And if I had more than the 2GB of RAM that's in it, it would be even better. As soon as it needs it, I'll spend the money. If you can see past the "gotta-get-a-newer-machine-because-somebody-out-there-has-something-newer-than-mine" mentality there's no end to the things you can do with an older machine. As soon as my Dual 2.5 ceases to meet my needs It will go into my museum of dead tech with the others. Until then, it will remain my core duty machine. Hell, not too long ago I won a $100 bet with a friend who didn't think I could get my Radius 81/110 (PowerMac 8100 Clone - circa 1995-1996) on the Internet in less than 30 minutes, from a boxed-up state. It took me 15 and that was only because I had to hunt to find a long-assed ethernet cable to reach from the garage to my office. Easy money. So if nothing else, win bets off the naysayers until you can afford a new MacPro tower. Nuff said.
Well, I didn't see any mention in the patent description about it being "the most efficient manner in which to effect this type of functionality", nor would it be the proper venue for it anyhow. Patents deal more in the "What" & "How", and less with the "Why" or conversely "Why Not". That, likely, would be an interogative best directed at the implementer of the feature, and not the lawyers. They tend to not involve themselves with that sort of thing.
Did you actually read the patent? The point IS that they are trying to patent a specific implementation of the transparency - to whit:
"SUMMARY
[0013] According to exemplary embodiments of the present invention, these and other drawbacks and difficulties of conventional GUIs are overcome by providing such floating windows with varying visual and manipulative qualities. For example, a floating window that has not been updated with new information within a predetermined time period will become translucent so that the underlying window or windows are then visible to the user. Other actions or omissions may also serve as a trigger for graduated translucency of windows according to the present invention. Moreover, as the floating window becomes translucent, the user can click-through to the underlying window(s) to interact with its contents. When information on the floating window is updated, it can return to being opaque until the predetermined time period has elapsed again without new information being presented."
It's not the mere translucency that is the intent of the patent, but what it does with it, and how it does it. Hope that clarifies...
I think it's interesting, all these people throwing their hands up in righteous indignation at the mere thought of a company trying to patent one of its innovations. Whether you think it's evil, or petty, or just plain lame, you need to remember that these companies are not in business to make friends, or give shit away. They're in business to make a profit. Period. And patenting things - be they real or intangible is the way they protect their profits. Apparently you think you hold some sort of moral high ground because you feel patenting somthing is a somehow base and wholly evil practice. You probably think that these companies should give away free software updates as well. Well I hate to be the one to break it to you, Sparkies, but comapnies who don't get paid for their products, CEASE TO MAKE THEM. Put the stinky shoe on the other foot for a second here. If you were a small software developer who created a killer app and that app had unique features you innovated, you'd want to protect YOUR rights to it. RIGHT? Otherwise, if you hadn't, when IBM or Microsoft came down with their winged, monkey lawyers and filed patent, effectively stealing food out of your very mouth, you'd raise holy hell to try to keep them from screwing you out of what you put long hours of your blood sweat and tears into. And you'd be lying if you said otherwise. Self-righteous, high ideals only go so far, and they go right out the window when the bottom line is at stake. Especially when you have the most to lose. Business is business, and it is frequently ugly. When you get past the shiny products and the fancy ad campaigns, the basic rule of business is "fsck your competitors out of their (ability to make) money before they fsck you out of yours." I defy you to prove otherwise. Businesses who don't go for the throats of their competitors don't get to hang around to see how it works out. Take a look at the wake of twisted wreckage and destroyed lives IBM and Microsoft have left in their wakes, and then realize it's nothing compared to Mobil Oil, Union Carbide, DuPont, AT&T, Bell Corp, GM, Ford, any tobacco company you care to name... I could go on and on and on. Once you get past the touchie-feelie marketing and spin-doctoring, it's STILL only about making money for the stockholders. Always has been, always will be. Just because you might like a company's product, or their "public persona", or image, doesn't mean they won't expend their dying breath to try to screw you out of a buck. Time to take off the rose-colored glasses. Business is a bloody, uncaring world. And much like a few Chinese protesters have found out, if you try to get in the way of the tank, you will likely end up tomorrow's dog food.
Pop quiz:
Q: How can you tell when a (car salesman, lawyer, marketer, businessman, advertising executive, etc. - you pick) is trying to separate you from your money?
A:They breathe.
Flush out your headgear, it's only about the money.
Some people seem to forget that there are MANY ski resorts/areas in decidedly remote locations which REQUIRE you to wear RF Tracking transmitters. In case of Avalanche and the like. Don't like it? Don't ski here. Or else don't complain when you are buried under 50 metric tons of snow, ice, and rock. On the other hand complain all you want. Nobody will hear you anyhow. Ever again.
:-)
But seriously, I think the original idea of this thread is a valid one, and were there a way to effectively anonymize the device so as to asuage the fears of the tragically paranoid, it would see little opposition. As long as the system sees that there is *somebody* clinging to a rocky crag because he was too stupid to stay on the trail and ignored the signs alerting him to loose rocks and steep cliffs, and not that it was Joe Schmuckatelli, who was too stupid to heed the aforementioned signs, it should be fine. However once he gets back to the base camp and the CNN crews flood said idiot, any anonymization of the system will be circumvented anyhow.
I guess there's no simple answer...
Regards,
True, but the US govenrment and military are not restricted to the borders of the United States. It buys cell phones EVERYWHERE. Our military has bases in hundreds of foreign cities around the globe, the State Department, and the other "State Departments" (CIA, NSA,et. al.) plus all of our Consulates with all their support personnel (i.e. from the "other" State Departments"). Then there's Customs agents, BCIS (nee INS) agents, Treasury agents, DEA agents, all their support staffs - man, we're like cockroaches! We (governmentally) have people in every country on the planet. And yes, while a lot of them use encrypted satellite phones, the desk jockeys and seat polisher admin folks also get phones too and they get 'plain vanilla phones' (granted many are 'secure cell phones' that you or I could not get our hands on). Anyone who works for the government, who ever steps foot on a plane on company time gets a cell phone. The US Government is probably the largest employer of any 'company' on the planet. Don't discount its presence or its influence. All of these people have to use the system local to them, hence GSM, CDMA, whatever. Not to mention probably ALL or the world's government agencies and militaries buy cell phones and have similar security requirements as we do (at least if they are smart they do). So when you do the math, that number would appear to climb somewhat. Now, yes, I know I'm making a blanket statement here, but I'm trying to prove a point - namely that this product line is not as dead as would appear, simply because there is a whole hidden market that consumer spending analysts never see. I'm sure if you looked at the company sales figures for non-consumer/contract sales you might be very surprised.
Also, seeing as how the US Government hands out lots of large military contract every year to contractors such as Seimens, Motorola, Texas Instruments, Sony, Matsushita Electric, and literally thousands more too numerous to list, and how lots of these contractors subcontract to other contractors, I find it hard to deny that should the government want a certain product to remain in the market, they could exercise pressure in some form to persuade a manufacturer to rethink the killing off of a product line/type it wants or needs. Sure this is draconian, and sounds like a bad spy movie, but the government manipulates contractors every day, just by holding a money bag over their heads saying "jump". Its economics, pure and simple. While yes I agree there are milions of worldwide users who are not under gummint employ, I'm just saying that these companies who make the equipment would be awfully remiss to blithely kill off a product that is one: still viable, and in demand, and two: not a huge burden to keep producing, since most of these features are controlled via software, and can easily be disabled. I'm not saying that the government will never buy phones if they are not "plain vanilla", but I am saying at this time their use on secure installations has been severly curtailed (if not eliminated altogether), and if the manufacturers want to keep the government's business, they will need to seriously consider its needs, and provide it with options to mitigate what it sees as security risks.
Regards,
The US Government, including the US Military buys tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of cell phones (and various other consumer-grade communications devices) for its personnel & civil servants every year. And due to security restrictions, and rules regarding communications devices within restricted work spaces (or even restricted compunds), phones with cameras, voice recorders, 'walkie-talkies', and any other features which can be utilized to physically - or even virtually - transport data/information (including SBU [Sensitive But Unclassified] and FOUO [For Official Use Only]) are strictly and unequivocally verboten . Some spaces forbid even carrying your phone into it, even if it is turned off - and irrespective of what features it has! Therefore, there will always be a market for "one-trick pony" cell phones. I highly doubt that the manufacturers would shoot themselves in their collective foot and obviate probably one of their biggest customers world wide. And it's a fairly safe assumption that other world governments/militaries have similar restrictions for their personnel's use of phones as well. So, unless they come up with a way for the government(s) to permanently 'lock out' those features that could be construed as "security risks", I can't see the simple 'entry level' cell phone/communicator going away any time soon.
Regards
Yeah, except by then the recording industry will have been destroyed by everyone gathering every song ever recorded to burn on it. Feh! One disk... DONE!