In my comment, I never once mentioned price. In fact, I specifically said value. The problem is the value of the book is subjective: The value to the library is the cost of replacing it, including effort (if they calculate replacement cost correctly). The value to me may be much lower or much higher.
If the value of the book is less valuable to the borrower than the collateral, there's no problem. The borrower will return the book.
If the value of the book is more valuable to the borrower than the collateral, a rational (in the strictest economic sense) person will not return the book.
Now, in a traditional system, the collateral includes one's reputation. In an anonymous, cash-only collateral system, the collateral does not include one's reputation, but only the cash that is associated with the card.
Whether people not returning books is a problem or not is up to the library, I suppose. I mean, you could argue that if they took into account the full cost of replacing the book it isn't a problem. But I think that's at least a somewhat silly argument.
I hope that's clearer. I think it's the same thing I said before, but hopefully phrased better.
And C) Libraries have out of print books. Foundation and Earth by Isaac Asimov (the chronological end of the Foundation series) was out of print for years following his death. For some reason, hard cover supplies ran out and a paperback form was not introduced for several years -- the two prequels (written later) were available in paperback long before it. I think it went back into print a few years ago.
I lusted for this book for most of my teenage years (yes, I was warped). Were I the rational, self-maximizing type that economists assume (and a lot of people actually are), I'd have plopped down $25 or whatever, "borrowed" the book, and thrown the library card in the trash on my way out.
This scheme assumes a book's value is the same to the library and the borrower, or at least that the book's value to the borrower can be predicted by the library. This is often not true. I'd have paid an awful lot to complete my Foundation set.
Yes. Melonpool at least is hilarious. probably the most consistent chuckle I get when the author updates regularly (which he's been doing for a while now). ShortPacked is not very old, but it's turning out nicely. I'm not really familiar with the others, although Checkerboard Nightmare seems promising...
Re:So, you programmers ready to give up your jobs?
on
McVoy Strikes Back
·
· Score: 1
You are making a fundamental (and frequent) mistake here. The job of Ford Motor Company is not to make money. It is to make cars.
I'd love to see this argument backed up with something. It seems to me that it is the job of a public corporation to make money in legal (and, ideally, ethical) ways.
Were I a shareholder in Ford, I would not care if they made their moeny by making cars or standing in a small river catching fish with bare hands.
I didn't like Mac OS X 10.0 or 10.1's look, but since then it's looked pretty good to me. It's worth mentioning there are theme changers available, although I'm not sure how well they work since I've been fairly happy with Aqua. I think there are some alternate themes over at www.resexcellence.com, you might wnat to start looking over there.
I, um, haven't actually read anything about PalmOne going to Linux by themselves. So I have no comment on that.
However, I would expect PalmOS-built-on-Linux (hypothetical or planned, whatever) to be 100% compatible with all existing PalmOS 5 applications, so long as the processor remains the same. PalmOS 5 offers very few services to ARM code, and those are made available through a procedure pointer.
Moving forward, there'd be ways around the processor limitation as well.
Yes, the previous Palm has screwed up so royally that we can't even point the finger at a single company anymore. As a developer of Palm OS applications, I nearly quake in fury when I think of what has become of the platform over the past couple years. And yes, I port my software to Pocket PC or whatever it will be called next week. (Well, actually, I get someone else to. I'm not touching the @#$%ing things.)
This latest move is interesting, but I think it completely fails to solve the core problem: One of PalmOne or PalmSource needs to buy the other, and then they need to focus on creating a great mobile platform... operating system and hardware.
I agree in the case of your analogy, it'd be reasonable. But your analogy is flawed in this case. It's a bit more like getting with bolt cutters... and having the fact that the cops found a ski mask (and skis) in your closet be entered as evidence against you.
Okay, granted, that might be a little extreme the other way, since they had browser history available to show the computer was at least somewhat involved in this guy's obsession. But I certainly consider this a dangerous precedent.
I had one of those. We bought it new, and it spent a few years in the box in a closet. It has a battery life of about 3 seconds, the digitzer didn't work, and the USB connection didn't work with any modern computer.
I fiddled with it for three days then put it back in the box.
You'd be surprised how architecturally different Apple's regular offerings are from one another. I believe even Apple's latest PowerBooks use technologies considered obsolete in the rest of the line, such as ADB for the internal bus used for the keyboard and pointing device.
To here:
The latest powerbooks actually have a USB interface for keyboard and mouse. however you are correct, the ibooks, and all previous powerbooks used ADB.
And then you said this:
No, PowerBooks dropped ADB in favor of USB back with the Bronze keyboard G3 - 1999? That generation still had SCSI, but the last pre-Titanium had FireWire and AirPort. All the G4 PowerBooks have been USB/1394/802.11.
Do you really not see how your post is not only incorrect in context, but incorrect in absolute terms? Until the last generation, PowerBooks used ADB for internal connections. Nobody ever suggested that they didn't have USB ports.
Sorry, but you're wrong. PowerBooks prior to the most recent revision connect to their internal trackpad via the power management IC. I am not sure if it is exactly ADB, although it looks like ADB at the driver level.
Old block diagram vs. new block diagram. Note that in the older diagram, the trackpad connects via the Power Management IC. In the new one, the trackpad connects via the USB bus.
You can also verify this on an older Powerbook by using Apple System Profiler. Neither keyboard nor trackpad show up in the list of ADB devices, although a BlueTooth adapter will.
(It actually looks like the new Powerbooks still use ADB for the keyboard. Interesting. I suppose this makes sense, given that they're still turned on via keyboard.)
For day to day work in a cross-platform office, Word owns Pages. For doing really nice-looking documents where cross platform compatibility is not important, I'll grant you that Pages kicks serious ass.
Put it this way: I do design documents in HTML or Word. I keep my resume updated in Pages.
As I recall, the low end PowerPC Macintosh (the 6100/60) was about 60% of the high end 68040 system when it came to running 68LC040 code. Of course, it couldn't emulate 68040 code at all.
Later, Apple switched to an emulator that supported dynamic recompilation, and even the 6100/60 could beat out the Quadra. There's lots of conspiracy theories over this -- some thing the DR emulator was ready from the start, and Apple held it back so that developers would actually port their code to PowerPC. Who knows? But I don't really believe this. Probably the DR emulator needed more tuning before it was ready to go.
Not completely, agreed, but I remember it felt less painful than the 68030->68040 transition. In fact, I seem to remember some of the things that the 68040 had broken came back to life... while new things that relied on the new features of the 68040 broke.
No, they are not. The PPC does not support m68k code.
m68k support was done through a software emulator in the Mac OS, similiar to Virtual PC for emulating Windows on the Mac or something like MAME for emulating arcade games. The difference is that Apple did such a good job on the emulator that people like you didn't realize it existed.:)
Firefox is a trademark. Thus, distributing custom builds using the logos is a violation of trademarks, GPL or no. GPL covers copyright law, it does not cover trademark law.
Well, first, I expect people who fork get several emails even if there is a security issue. Even if the emails are not from Mozilla. Secondly, how much effort does it take to watch Mozilla's RSS feed?
Sorry, but this seems an awful lot like whining to me.
Priorities are not the same all over, and Mozilla should be focused on supporting their users. Those several days of warning are extra days of end-user vulnerability. As a Firefox user, I would feel my trust was misplaced if they did something else..
One other comment:
indirectly -- it still displays their branding
Correct me if I'm wrong, but other builds are not supposed to use Mozilla's branding anyway. The PowerPC G4-optimized build of Firefox contains only compiler/linker changes, and apparently can not use the same icon.
And attempting to trademark DSPAM would seem to be flicking a wet towel at a bovine's love tackle. Hormel has to take action now. This should come as a surprise to no one.
Slashdot Mirror
In my comment, I never once mentioned price. In fact, I specifically said value. The problem is the value of the book is subjective: The value to the library is the cost of replacing it, including effort (if they calculate replacement cost correctly). The value to me may be much lower or much higher.
If the value of the book is less valuable to the borrower than the collateral, there's no problem. The borrower will return the book.
If the value of the book is more valuable to the borrower than the collateral, a rational (in the strictest economic sense) person will not return the book.
Now, in a traditional system, the collateral includes one's reputation. In an anonymous, cash-only collateral system, the collateral does not include one's reputation, but only the cash that is associated with the card.
Whether people not returning books is a problem or not is up to the library, I suppose. I mean, you could argue that if they took into account the full cost of replacing the book it isn't a problem. But I think that's at least a somewhat silly argument.
I hope that's clearer. I think it's the same thing I said before, but hopefully phrased better.
And C) Libraries have out of print books. Foundation and Earth by Isaac Asimov (the chronological end of the Foundation series) was out of print for years following his death. For some reason, hard cover supplies ran out and a paperback form was not introduced for several years -- the two prequels (written later) were available in paperback long before it. I think it went back into print a few years ago.
I lusted for this book for most of my teenage years (yes, I was warped). Were I the rational, self-maximizing type that economists assume (and a lot of people actually are), I'd have plopped down $25 or whatever, "borrowed" the book, and thrown the library card in the trash on my way out.
This scheme assumes a book's value is the same to the library and the borrower, or at least that the book's value to the borrower can be predicted by the library. This is often not true. I'd have paid an awful lot to complete my Foundation set.
Yes. Melonpool at least is hilarious. probably the most consistent chuckle I get when the author updates regularly (which he's been doing for a while now). ShortPacked is not very old, but it's turning out nicely. I'm not really familiar with the others, although Checkerboard Nightmare seems promising...
You are making a fundamental (and frequent) mistake here. The job of Ford Motor Company is not to make money. It is to make cars.
I'd love to see this argument backed up with something. It seems to me that it is the job of a public corporation to make money in legal (and, ideally, ethical) ways.
Were I a shareholder in Ford, I would not care if they made their moeny by making cars or standing in a small river catching fish with bare hands.
I didn't like Mac OS X 10.0 or 10.1's look, but since then it's looked pretty good to me. It's worth mentioning there are theme changers available, although I'm not sure how well they work since I've been fairly happy with Aqua. I think there are some alternate themes over at www.resexcellence.com, you might wnat to start looking over there.
The real problem is that the story is in the mainstream media now.
I, um, haven't actually read anything about PalmOne going to Linux by themselves. So I have no comment on that.
However, I would expect PalmOS-built-on-Linux (hypothetical or planned, whatever) to be 100% compatible with all existing PalmOS 5 applications, so long as the processor remains the same. PalmOS 5 offers very few services to ARM code, and those are made available through a procedure pointer.
Moving forward, there'd be ways around the processor limitation as well.
In short, I believe you're 100% correct.
Yes, the previous Palm has screwed up so royally that we can't even point the finger at a single company anymore. As a developer of Palm OS applications, I nearly quake in fury when I think of what has become of the platform over the past couple years. And yes, I port my software to Pocket PC or whatever it will be called next week. (Well, actually, I get someone else to. I'm not touching the @#$%ing things.)
This latest move is interesting, but I think it completely fails to solve the core problem: One of PalmOne or PalmSource needs to buy the other, and then they need to focus on creating a great mobile platform... operating system and hardware.
I agree in the case of your analogy, it'd be reasonable. But your analogy is flawed in this case. It's a bit more like getting with bolt cutters... and having the fact that the cops found a ski mask (and skis) in your closet be entered as evidence against you.
Okay, granted, that might be a little extreme the other way, since they had browser history available to show the computer was at least somewhat involved in this guy's obsession. But I certainly consider this a dangerous precedent.
Windows XP Pro encryption does work, believe me. A little too well. I even knew my password and still couldn't decrypt my files. :)
This would get my vote, too.
I had one of those. We bought it new, and it spent a few years in the box in a closet. It has a battery life of about 3 seconds, the digitzer didn't work, and the USB connection didn't work with any modern computer.
I fiddled with it for three days then put it back in the box.
The thread went from here:
You'd be surprised how architecturally different Apple's regular offerings are from one another. I believe even Apple's latest PowerBooks use technologies considered obsolete in the rest of the line, such as ADB for the internal bus used for the keyboard and pointing device.
To here:
The latest powerbooks actually have a USB interface for keyboard and mouse. however you are correct, the ibooks, and all previous powerbooks used ADB.
And then you said this:
No, PowerBooks dropped ADB in favor of USB back with the Bronze keyboard G3 - 1999? That generation still had SCSI, but the last pre-Titanium had FireWire and AirPort. All the G4 PowerBooks have been USB/1394/802.11.
Do you really not see how your post is not only incorrect in context, but incorrect in absolute terms? Until the last generation, PowerBooks used ADB for internal connections. Nobody ever suggested that they didn't have USB ports.
Sorry, but you're wrong. PowerBooks prior to the most recent revision connect to their internal trackpad via the power management IC. I am not sure if it is exactly ADB, although it looks like ADB at the driver level.
Old block diagram vs. new block diagram. Note that in the older diagram, the trackpad connects via the Power Management IC. In the new one, the trackpad connects via the USB bus.
You can also verify this on an older Powerbook by using Apple System Profiler. Neither keyboard nor trackpad show up in the list of ADB devices, although a BlueTooth adapter will.
(It actually looks like the new Powerbooks still use ADB for the keyboard. Interesting. I suppose this makes sense, given that they're still turned on via keyboard.)
I'm confused. You do know that the 680x0 is a CISC processor, right...? You might be confusing the 680x0 with the 88000.
For day to day work in a cross-platform office, Word owns Pages. For doing really nice-looking documents where cross platform compatibility is not important, I'll grant you that Pages kicks serious ass.
Put it this way: I do design documents in HTML or Word. I keep my resume updated in Pages.
As I recall, the low end PowerPC Macintosh (the 6100/60) was about 60% of the high end 68040 system when it came to running 68LC040 code. Of course, it couldn't emulate 68040 code at all.
Later, Apple switched to an emulator that supported dynamic recompilation, and even the 6100/60 could beat out the Quadra. There's lots of conspiracy theories over this -- some thing the DR emulator was ready from the start, and Apple held it back so that developers would actually port their code to PowerPC. Who knows? But I don't really believe this. Probably the DR emulator needed more tuning before it was ready to go.
Not completely, agreed, but I remember it felt less painful than the 68030->68040 transition. In fact, I seem to remember some of the things that the 68040 had broken came back to life... while new things that relied on the new features of the 68040 broke.
I can't believe the replies you're getting. Thanks for the laugh. :)
No, they are not. The PPC does not support m68k code.
m68k support was done through a software emulator in the Mac OS, similiar to Virtual PC for emulating Windows on the Mac or something like MAME for emulating arcade games. The difference is that Apple did such a good job on the emulator that people like you didn't realize it existed. :)
Firefox is a trademark. Thus, distributing custom builds using the logos is a violation of trademarks, GPL or no. GPL covers copyright law, it does not cover trademark law.
...to the guys lining up at the wrong theatre? Did they get a showing?
Well, first, I expect people who fork get several emails even if there is a security issue. Even if the emails are not from Mozilla. Secondly, how much effort does it take to watch Mozilla's RSS feed?
Sorry, but this seems an awful lot like whining to me.
Priorities are not the same all over, and Mozilla should be focused on supporting their users. Those several days of warning are extra days of end-user vulnerability. As a Firefox user, I would feel my trust was misplaced if they did something else..
One other comment:
indirectly -- it still displays their branding
Correct me if I'm wrong, but other builds are not supposed to use Mozilla's branding anyway. The PowerPC G4-optimized build of Firefox contains only compiler/linker changes, and apparently can not use the same icon.
And attempting to trademark DSPAM would seem to be flicking a wet towel at a bovine's love tackle. Hormel has to take action now. This should come as a surprise to no one.