Man, the slashdot icon for Microsoft gets modded +1 insightful. I shall be henceforth known as 100 Of 255 of subjunction 83 of unimatrix 72 in quadrant 9. Must, the individual identity suffer more to the corporate bottom line. I, for one, don't really welcome our new corporate overlords. Read the sig for further enlightenment.
Isn't the major point of an good gui is consistency. What may be called languishing here could be just as easily interpreted as not reinventing the wheel. Anyways, Apple is putting more research into developing human interface guidelines for embedded OSX and small touch-devices like the iPhone.
Have you ever heard of the word called bookkeeping. Granted, the average individual does not keep receipts for very long. But, business keep a receipt of every dime that is spent for a multitude of reasons not the least of which is to simply know if they actually made a profit. They will keep of record of licenses and software receipt so that there is no question about piracy.
Biomatter that was fixed into the groung for millions of years will be release in to the atmosphere. That carbon is once again apart of the life cycle which means that there will be a bloom plant species will send nutrients right up the food chain. That may cause an explosion of species that both good and bad.
They are talking about Washington State not Washington D.C. I don't think the politics there warrant larger contibutions that would be require by members of the US Congress.
This has nothing to do with security. Microsoft wants Windows to be the primary OS on home users computers. They already get the sale of a single-user license but they want more. They want to be able to sell license to prorietary formats that IE, WMP, and the like use to content-provider. For that to be successful, they have to guarantee that the audience is using Windows and the default content applications. If Windows is running as just a guest OS, then they lose the control because the user is probably using other alternatives. The don't need that control with business because delivering content isn't a selling point and they have a good lockin with Office.
I agree as for sulfur but silicon is stretching things a bit. In contrast to carbon, silicon dioxide is a non soluble solid. The gaseous solublity properties of carbon means that it can distribute in water and in cells where it can be fixed into sugars and biological compounds by life. Silicon can't be distributed that way and thus least likely to be the basis of life. There are other reasons however it is suffice to say that silicon based life would have a smaller occurrence in the universe than that of carbon. Thus, with limited resources, the scientist will look first for the compounds ( carbon and oxygen) that they have the best evidence as supporting life. They are just relying on what know. I am sure that no one is making presumptions on the nature of life in the universe.
Wait for the SP1 to be release and then purchase only with a new computer.
I still don't understand why that logic is still valid today. XP is basically stable and fit for use. It has quirks but they are manageable. Here comes Vista and we are back to square one with a whole new host of problems! I don't understand why these issues are not resolve in the beta phase. By definition, the upgrade is suppose to be better than the current version and not potentially better.
I don't think crushing Microsoft is part the business plan. Let's put aside Apple's consumer electronics push as symbolized by the dropping of "Computer" from the company name for a moment. First, Apple can happily double its market share off the switchers disgruntled with Microsoft woeful security issues or its convoluted and belated Vista solution. Apple would not rule the market but it would show growth and delight investors. Second, Apple has not or does it show any intention of partnering with the other big OEMs to offer OSX with their desktops. Moreover, they show no signs of switching the kernel to Linux to take advantage of the pool of OS drivers necessary for releasing Leopard in the wild. They are not including a win32 compatibilty layer, releasing a fully feature office suite, making a concerted push into enterprise computing, or doing any other action to throw down with Microsoft. Lets not forget that Microsoft can afford to screw up for a long time before there is any appreciable exodus. Thus, I don't the see logic behind any assertion of the end of Microsoft dominance but I understand the sentiment. Microsoft has woefully proven it does not deserve to be the de facto desktop standard and Apple arguably does have a better OS. But, all the posting on slashdot will never change the status quo.
I understand completely as that is the world we live in. However, do you realized that your problem with Mac is seems to really be with Microsoft. Word 2004 is not completely compatible with Word 2003 yet both are made by the same company on the same campus. Moreover, Microsoft always delays or release of Office for Mac behind Office for Windows so you are still waiting on that universal version. The weak compatibility that Entourage has with Exchange is yet another problem. Now, Microsoft should not have such issues with Office for Mac yet they do. Though I don't know the reason for the deficiencies, I can't help but wonder if this is a case of defective by design as a means to keep Apple out of the enterprise. If that is true, then Microsoft truely does have problems.
I am not going to pay $500 for just a phone, but I would pay $500 for a mobile computer. I am not an early adaopter by any stretch. Even if I was I would still not pay for the iPhone. It has to be open to developers so it can expand with my needs. The most resounding feature is how much it is limited. It is limited to Cingular with 2 year contract, no new apps unless Apple makes them, and the lifetime of the battery (they don't last forever). Ill pass for now.
Let see where technology is now. We have 80 GB mini hard drives used in iPod. We have NAND flash memeory approaching 32 GB. Intel is putting out low voltage processors. OQO has hit the market that runs a full version of VISTA. We have the iPhone which runs OSX. I was wondering when Apple would bless us with a subnotebook. Today's Macbooks are really just desktop replacements (esp the pro). Apple has to redefine the notebook.
I guess Apple subsidizes the development of Mac OSX with the hardware sales (price premium?). Now if Apple were to let OSX to be distributed independent of the hardware, the software would have to be sold at a higher price. Moreover, Apple may have to protect against piracy with the much loathe activation schemes that Microsoft currently employs. Be careful what you wish for? Besides I don't believe that OSX has enough mindshare to get many more users to make that model work. OSX link to Apple hardware is not only thing holding back the mass exodus from Wndows.
The short answer is that IBM (like all companies) only invest with the hope of a return. Like you stated, it will take IBM billions of dollars to fill in the gaps. IBM won't commit billions of dollars just because you don't like Microsft. IBM needs returns on its investment and an all out assault won't guarantee a break in the status quo.
From a materialist point it is absolutely possible and in fact has happen. We transmit information wirelessly with great ease nowadays. People I have never met or people who are not in immediate vicinity can communicate idea to me albeit through technology. But, you should not forget that very technology was built using our intelligence with is evolutionarily derived. Bypassing our natural sense altogether, we may one day be able to tramsit that information straight to our brains. We are everyday decoding how our brains work and should be able to do it. That will be true telepathy derive indirectly through evolution ( a form of hacking for you/.ers). As for direct evolution, we have to look at the basic requirements of communications. Whatever form it takes, you need a reciever and a transmitter. For exmaple, the human vocal cord and the ear perform those functions. All evolution has to do is provide an organ that encode information from the brain in the form of light and transmit. Then, in another organism, an organ has to be there to receive and decode. The problem is that mechanism is higly improbable (not impossible) in that the encoding and decoding have to be agreement and the two organisms have to be in close enough to discover each other. It may have occurred in human or in another species but the advantage it gives is relative to that species. It may not be a selective advantage in ours because we have already develop ways of quick communication available to those without the trait. We are communicating are we not.
Take it more fundamental than that. Temperature arise from the motion of atoms in a material. Switching transistor the way they do, allows those electrons to really get those atoms moving.
Calling companies evil is somewhat problematic and inaccurate. The sole existence of companies is to make a profit. Companies have to do that in a competive market economy. So long as the market is competive, companies will usually set policies to appease the consumer. The real problem is the existence of a monopoly. The monopoly is a problem for both consumer and the company. If a company has a monopoly, then the company has no room to grow in that market (esp. if the market stop growing) and naturally sets policies that are anti-consumer. This manifest itself in many ways such as degrading product quality, decreasing competition in other markets by leveraging the monopoly, and raising prices. Apple does not have a monopoly in any market. For example, DRM is very much the desire of media companies. The music market seems more like a monopoly with its cartel of the big four. Apple had nothing to gain when it implemented DRM except right to sell from that cartel's library. However, Apple did somewhat responded to consumer by providing a water down DRM and has recently come out against it all together. As for the iPhone and iTV, both face an uphill battle to gain market dominance. Thus, the real evil is not the companies but we as the consumer allowing monopolies to exist. Apple may become "evil" but we will ultimately put it in that position.
Slashdot Mirror
Man, the slashdot icon for Microsoft gets modded +1 insightful. I shall be henceforth known as 100 Of 255 of subjunction 83 of unimatrix 72 in quadrant 9. Must, the individual identity suffer more to the corporate bottom line. I, for one, don't really welcome our new corporate overlords. Read the sig for further enlightenment.
To go on a diet. I feel the pounds melting off already.
Isn't the major point of an good gui is consistency. What may be called languishing here could be just as easily interpreted as not reinventing the wheel. Anyways, Apple is putting more research into developing human interface guidelines for embedded OSX and small touch-devices like the iPhone.
Have you ever heard of the word called bookkeeping. Granted, the average individual does not keep receipts for very long. But, business keep a receipt of every dime that is spent for a multitude of reasons not the least of which is to simply know if they actually made a profit. They will keep of record of licenses and software receipt so that there is no question about piracy.
Biomatter that was fixed into the groung for millions of years will be release in to the atmosphere. That carbon is once again apart of the life cycle which means that there will be a bloom plant species will send nutrients right up the food chain. That may cause an explosion of species that both good and bad.
If it is not porn, then myspace, then youtube, then IM, then video games...Come on, what were they thinking?
Give him an A in computer class.
They are talking about Washington State not Washington D.C. I don't think the politics there warrant larger contibutions that would be require by members of the US Congress.
This has nothing to do with security. Microsoft wants Windows to be the primary OS on home users computers. They already get the sale of a single-user license but they want more. They want to be able to sell license to prorietary formats that IE, WMP, and the like use to content-provider. For that to be successful, they have to guarantee that the audience is using Windows and the default content applications. If Windows is running as just a guest OS, then they lose the control because the user is probably using other alternatives. The don't need that control with business because delivering content isn't a selling point and they have a good lockin with Office.
I agree as for sulfur but silicon is stretching things a bit. In contrast to carbon, silicon dioxide is a non soluble solid. The gaseous solublity properties of carbon means that it can distribute in water and in cells where it can be fixed into sugars and biological compounds by life. Silicon can't be distributed that way and thus least likely to be the basis of life. There are other reasons however it is suffice to say that silicon based life would have a smaller occurrence in the universe than that of carbon. Thus, with limited resources, the scientist will look first for the compounds ( carbon and oxygen) that they have the best evidence as supporting life. They are just relying on what know. I am sure that no one is making presumptions on the nature of life in the universe.
Wait for the SP1 to be release and then purchase only with a new computer.
I still don't understand why that logic is still valid today. XP is basically stable and fit for use. It has quirks but they are manageable. Here comes Vista and we are back to square one with a whole new host of problems! I don't understand why these issues are not resolve in the beta phase. By definition, the upgrade is suppose to be better than the current version and not potentially better.
I don't think crushing Microsoft is part the business plan. Let's put aside Apple's consumer electronics push as symbolized by the dropping of "Computer" from the company name for a moment. First, Apple can happily double its market share off the switchers disgruntled with Microsoft woeful security issues or its convoluted and belated Vista solution. Apple would not rule the market but it would show growth and delight investors. Second, Apple has not or does it show any intention of partnering with the other big OEMs to offer OSX with their desktops. Moreover, they show no signs of switching the kernel to Linux to take advantage of the pool of OS drivers necessary for releasing Leopard in the wild. They are not including a win32 compatibilty layer, releasing a fully feature office suite, making a concerted push into enterprise computing, or doing any other action to throw down with Microsoft. Lets not forget that Microsoft can afford to screw up for a long time before there is any appreciable exodus. Thus, I don't the see logic behind any assertion of the end of Microsoft dominance but I understand the sentiment. Microsoft has woefully proven it does not deserve to be the de facto desktop standard and Apple arguably does have a better OS. But, all the posting on slashdot will never change the status quo.
I understand completely as that is the world we live in. However, do you realized that your problem with Mac is seems to really be with Microsoft. Word 2004 is not completely compatible with Word 2003 yet both are made by the same company on the same campus. Moreover, Microsoft always delays or release of Office for Mac behind Office for Windows so you are still waiting on that universal version. The weak compatibility that Entourage has with Exchange is yet another problem. Now, Microsoft should not have such issues with Office for Mac yet they do. Though I don't know the reason for the deficiencies, I can't help but wonder if this is a case of defective by design as a means to keep Apple out of the enterprise. If that is true, then Microsoft truely does have problems.
Buy enough servers to handle the load when story of a one single laptop being sold for 1,000,000 dollars broke on Slashdot.
Sounds like they FUBARred your iPOD trying to replace battery. Your story doesn't make me feel better about the battery.
I am not going to pay $500 for just a phone, but I would pay $500 for a mobile computer. I am not an early adaopter by any stretch. Even if I was I would still not pay for the iPhone. It has to be open to developers so it can expand with my needs. The most resounding feature is how much it is limited. It is limited to Cingular with 2 year contract, no new apps unless Apple makes them, and the lifetime of the battery (they don't last forever). Ill pass for now.
We don't have a billion years. There will be little water on this planet by then due to expansion of the sun.
Let see where technology is now. We have 80 GB mini hard drives used in iPod. We have NAND flash memeory approaching 32 GB. Intel is putting out low voltage processors. OQO has hit the market that runs a full version of VISTA. We have the iPhone which runs OSX. I was wondering when Apple would bless us with a subnotebook. Today's Macbooks are really just desktop replacements (esp the pro). Apple has to redefine the notebook.
how an average user is going to figure that out ?
I guess Apple subsidizes the development of Mac OSX with the hardware sales (price premium?). Now if Apple were to let OSX to be distributed independent of the hardware, the software would have to be sold at a higher price. Moreover, Apple may have to protect against piracy with the much loathe activation schemes that Microsoft currently employs. Be careful what you wish for? Besides I don't believe that OSX has enough mindshare to get many more users to make that model work. OSX link to Apple hardware is not only thing holding back the mass exodus from Wndows.
The short answer is that IBM (like all companies) only invest with the hope of a return. Like you stated, it will take IBM billions of dollars to fill in the gaps. IBM won't commit billions of dollars just because you don't like Microsft. IBM needs returns on its investment and an all out assault won't guarantee a break in the status quo.
Read it, learn it, apply it.
From a materialist point it is absolutely possible and in fact has happen. We transmit information wirelessly with great ease nowadays. People I have never met or people who are not in immediate vicinity can communicate idea to me albeit through technology. But, you should not forget that very technology was built using our intelligence with is evolutionarily derived. Bypassing our natural sense altogether, we may one day be able to tramsit that information straight to our brains. We are everyday decoding how our brains work and should be able to do it. That will be true telepathy derive indirectly through evolution ( a form of hacking for you /.ers). As for direct evolution, we have to look at the basic requirements of communications. Whatever form it takes, you need a reciever and a transmitter. For exmaple, the human vocal cord and the ear perform those functions. All evolution has to do is provide an organ that encode information from the brain in the form of light and transmit. Then, in another organism, an organ has to be there to receive and decode. The problem is that mechanism is higly improbable (not impossible) in that the encoding and decoding have to be agreement and the two organisms have to be in close enough to discover each other. It may have occurred in human or in another species but the advantage it gives is relative to that species. It may not be a selective advantage in ours because we have already develop ways of quick communication available to those without the trait. We are communicating are we not.
Take it more fundamental than that. Temperature arise from the motion of atoms in a material. Switching transistor the way they do, allows those electrons to really get those atoms moving.
Calling companies evil is somewhat problematic and inaccurate. The sole existence of companies is to make a profit. Companies have to do that in a competive market economy. So long as the market is competive, companies will usually set policies to appease the consumer. The real problem is the existence of a monopoly. The monopoly is a problem for both consumer and the company. If a company has a monopoly, then the company has no room to grow in that market (esp. if the market stop growing) and naturally sets policies that are anti-consumer. This manifest itself in many ways such as degrading product quality, decreasing competition in other markets by leveraging the monopoly, and raising prices. Apple does not have a monopoly in any market. For example, DRM is very much the desire of media companies. The music market seems more like a monopoly with its cartel of the big four. Apple had nothing to gain when it implemented DRM except right to sell from that cartel's library. However, Apple did somewhat responded to consumer by providing a water down DRM and has recently come out against it all together. As for the iPhone and iTV, both face an uphill battle to gain market dominance. Thus, the real evil is not the companies but we as the consumer allowing monopolies to exist. Apple may become "evil" but we will ultimately put it in that position.