Isn't the biggest video hassle with Linux on MacBooks the hybrid graphics?
Rather than being able to switch back and forth, I'd prefer just disabling use of the onboard Intel graphics altogether, assuming fan control was well in hand.
That will affect battery life though, assuming that matters to you. For day to day desktop tasks, the HD3000/HD4000 is more than adequate and sucks down much less power than the dedicated GPU. Were I running Linux on a hybrid GPU system I'd want it to be able to use the integrated GPU when the demand was low.
The money doesn't go to the UK government, so I'm not sure how it's "just another one of the UK government's stealth taxes".
Well, I imagine a great majority of the other money that goes to the UK government doesn't actually go to the government either. It goes to people, businesses, and whatnot, that just happen to be, like the BBC, doing stuff that the government decided to force their citizens to pay for.
But that's the point - the BBC is independent of the government very specifically. The money collected for running it is not from or collected by the government. It is not a tax in that sense. It's set up this way to ensure that the BBC is not just a state-owned and controlled media arm of whatever government happens to be in charge at the time.
The TV licence is very definitely not a "stealth tax" in any sense of the definition whatsoever. It is not part of the government.
You might as well say that water rates are a stealth tax - the water companies are not part of the government, but you must pay water rates if you want to receive piped water into your house, and the collection of this fee is enforced by law.
Much of that thanks to the tireless efforts of the Daily Mail turning middle class opinion against it, for the very reason that it was a thorn in the Tory government's side.
If you can't kill it directly, go for a propaganda war. The Daily Hate Mail is very good at that sort of thing.
The crucial thing is not to let Sky and its parent company know how they are checking who has licences.
Sky paid people to break ITV Digital's viewing cards and release "pirate" cards and the method for obtaining free TV without paying on the internet in order to drive ITV Digital out of business (it directly competed with Sky for Pay TV services), so I certainly wouldn't put it past them to "help" people dodge the TV licence to starve another competitor - the BBC.
Direct bribery and cosy relations with politicians are getting a little too high profile for them.
It would ok with me if you could avoid the TV license if you didn't use any BBC content, but the TV license applies to all live TV. Even if I only ever watch commercial TV, I still need to pay the TV license. Perhaps that made sense when there were only a few channels, but not today. It's just another one of the UK government's stealth taxes.
The money doesn't go to the UK government, so I'm not sure how it's "just another one of the UK government's stealth taxes".
They were purchasing stolen goods to return them to the rightful owner - after the thorough inspection of course. Kinda like a government does when someone flies a foreign airplane into their territory.
Oh that's funny!
Totally altruistic motive! Of course! Will they buy my stolen bike from the cocksucker who stole it so they can rightfully return it to me?;)
My university and it's popular chemistry Youtube channel (winner of a webby, no less) is doing a "one day, one video per hour" celebration of one of the early pioneers of chemistry, Jons Jacob Berzellius - it's his birthday tomorrow.
If you're interested in the elements, molecules and chemistry in general you should have a look at the channel - it has a video for every element on the table, along with many videos on chemistry itself including topical subjects that show up in the news. Come for the chemistry, stay for the explosions, or the dissolving of a Big Mac in conc. HCl.
The videos feature many of my friends and former lecturers and are put together by a nice guy called Brady.
It makes up for the fact that the Nobel Prize for Chemistry keeps being handed out to non-chemists I suppose.
We were all shocked that the recent one was given to Suzuki for his eponymous palladium coupling reactions since it was actually awarded to a chemist for once.
I know it's because there is no Nobel for biology etc, but you think they'd correct that rather than shoehorn everything into the one prize at the expense of chemists all over the place.
Although, I'm unlikely to ever have to worry about being denied winning one, although I did invent a method for holding a round bottom in my f/h without having to clamp it and without needing a cork ring, I'm sure it's not unique and certainly not world-renowned research. It just saves me time.
Apple laptops have glossy screens, so they are useless for serious work anyway.
Not all of them have glossy screens, so you can do "serious work" on those if you want. I'm sure all the other people doing "non-serious work" on machines with glossy screens will be pleased to know that their work is so insignificant.
I'm surprised you forgot to log in? Was the glare on your screen obscuring the log in button? Oh right, matte screen, so no excuse - it must be a PEBKAC error.
I don't think it's fair to look at the market share of Android versus the share of iOS devices, due to the fact that Google doesn't manufacture the majority of Android devices. Apple is the sole provider of iOS, so their 25% or whatever it is now of market share is entirely theirs. Whatever share Android controls is divided among every other smartphone manufacturer, and when you do that Apple is very far ahead of Google's Nexus phones.
Why not? That is exactly how the two are compared when people point out that Android is "beating" Apple and showing "clear evidence" of how Apple is in trouble.
If it can be used one way, it can be used the other way too. You can't simultaneously be the plucky underdog and the market leader.
Whoa, an AC confirmed your conspiracy theory, call the press!
I couldn't give a rats ass who made feature X first, "stealing" features dates back to stone age. However, Apple directly hurts my interests as the consumer - by blocking competing products, which is why they don't deserve my money(even though their hardware is nice).
You seem to miss my sarcasm.
I'd post a "whooosh" but I fear you'd assume you had a leaking pipe in your house.
Lighten up folks, it was a joke. I guess the painfully obvious cliche punchline was too subtle. I'll use the html blink tag next time.
I guess they are just looking for some more FRAND abuse smackdown.
Just because these are FRAND patents doesn't mean you don't have to license them. My understanding is that Apple is basically the only manufactuer that doesn't license these patents.
What I don't understand is why Apple expects others to respect patents to shapes and colors while the radio technology in their phones isn't worth their dime.
Then your understanding is misplaced. Apple do licence the FRAND patents required to create a working mobile phone.
The lawsuits relating to the FRAND abuse/licensing issues revolve around the argument that Apple are being unfairly charged more because they don't want to cross licence other patents that they hold (they have no obligation to - you can pay for FRAND patents in cash, goats, cheese or cross licensing deals or anything else you can barter with), and some FRAND holders are crying foul.
The entire Nokia case was one huge clusterfuck of that. There was never any doubt *at all* that Apple was trying to avoid licensing FRAND patents - it's an absolute requirement for the creation of a functioning GSM phone - the argument was over the costs associated with it and the long, drawn out negotiations over the value of things that Apple was offering (and/or Nokia was requesting) in exchange. The value of the stuff on Nokia's side is fixed - it;s whatever everyone else paid. Apple argued Nokia was asking too much, Nokia argued Apple was over-valuing what it was offering and also crying foul that certain patents Apple held were off the table since it really wanted them.
Apple absolutely *does* licence all of the necessary FRAND patents required to make the radios in the iPhone work - that was likely the very first thing they put into the "things to do" column, since you need GSM hardware and various other chips to be able to make a phone, which they bought from third party manufacturers like Qualcomm. The various patents that they had to licence and their cost will have all been in the early projections - it's hardly complex, since it's the exact same set of patents everyone else who makes a phone has to licence.
And, did we miss the part where the Google/Motorola Mobility deal was finalized? Last I knew, it was still being held up by regulators and Google wasn't in charge of them...
Oh, no, forgot about Apple fanbois. Google must be smeared by any means necessary to stop the heretical Green Beast from spreading impurity. That's right. The will of Jobs is just, the will of Jobs is righteous, sosumi. Carry on.
But the whole "anything Skype does is Microsoft's doing" stuff on slashdot, long before the deal was finalised was just peachy, right?
Aren't you glad you're in the walled garden? Look who you've been walled in with...
Yes, I am worried we're walled in with the GSM standard...
That's the issue here, of course.
But mentioning the iPhone in relation to stuff like this is this season's "on a computer!!!!" appended to the end of a "new" patent that was all the rage a few years ago.
Spoofed headers in SMS messages have been possible since the adoption of the GSM standard - the SMS system was simply never designed with its eventual use in mind in the first place. No one imagined users would be using it to send messages to each other.
Slashdot Mirror
Isn't the biggest video hassle with Linux on MacBooks the hybrid graphics?
Rather than being able to switch back and forth, I'd prefer just disabling use of the onboard Intel graphics altogether, assuming fan control was well in hand.
That will affect battery life though, assuming that matters to you. For day to day desktop tasks, the HD3000/HD4000 is more than adequate and sucks down much less power than the dedicated GPU. Were I running Linux on a hybrid GPU system I'd want it to be able to use the integrated GPU when the demand was low.
The money doesn't go to the UK government, so I'm not sure how it's "just another one of the UK government's stealth taxes".
Well, I imagine a great majority of the other money that goes to the UK government doesn't actually go to the government either. It goes to people, businesses, and whatnot, that just happen to be, like the BBC, doing stuff that the government decided to force their citizens to pay for.
But that's the point - the BBC is independent of the government very specifically. The money collected for running it is not from or collected by the government. It is not a tax in that sense. It's set up this way to ensure that the BBC is not just a state-owned and controlled media arm of whatever government happens to be in charge at the time.
The TV licence is very definitely not a "stealth tax" in any sense of the definition whatsoever. It is not part of the government.
You might as well say that water rates are a stealth tax - the water companies are not part of the government, but you must pay water rates if you want to receive piped water into your house, and the collection of this fee is enforced by law.
Much of that thanks to the tireless efforts of the Daily Mail turning middle class opinion against it, for the very reason that it was a thorn in the Tory government's side.
If you can't kill it directly, go for a propaganda war. The Daily Hate Mail is very good at that sort of thing.
The crucial thing is not to let Sky and its parent company know how they are checking who has licences.
Sky paid people to break ITV Digital's viewing cards and release "pirate" cards and the method for obtaining free TV without paying on the internet in order to drive ITV Digital out of business (it directly competed with Sky for Pay TV services), so I certainly wouldn't put it past them to "help" people dodge the TV licence to starve another competitor - the BBC.
Direct bribery and cosy relations with politicians are getting a little too high profile for them.
It would ok with me if you could avoid the TV license if you didn't use any BBC content, but the TV license applies to all live TV. Even if I only ever watch commercial TV, I still need to pay the TV license. Perhaps that made sense when there were only a few channels, but not today. It's just another one of the UK government's stealth taxes.
The money doesn't go to the UK government, so I'm not sure how it's "just another one of the UK government's stealth taxes".
Fuck off, you miserably biased troll.
I might, if you log in.
Until then, those who are logged in can do whatever they want.
What about leaks? Not just Wikileaks?
All leaks are stolen information, stolen goods. Explain that please.
Log in please.
They were purchasing stolen goods to return them to the rightful owner - after the thorough inspection of course. Kinda like a government does when someone flies a foreign airplane into their territory.
Oh that's funny!
Totally altruistic motive! Of course! Will they buy my stolen bike from the cocksucker who stole it so they can rightfully return it to me? ;)
I guess you don't know enough women well enough for them to trust you with that information.
I can well believe 1 in 3.
I can't drink vodka. It's just nasty.
Now, a nice drop of whiskey might go down more smoothly.
How does the First Amendment protect you from purchasing known-stolen goods?
As far as my "limited understanding" that may need refreshing, the first Amendment protects your right to free speech in the face of the government.
Buying stolen goods that you know are stolen is not free speech.
My university and it's popular chemistry Youtube channel (winner of a webby, no less) is doing a "one day, one video per hour" celebration of one of the early pioneers of chemistry, Jons Jacob Berzellius - it's his birthday tomorrow.
If you're interested in the elements, molecules and chemistry in general you should have a look at the channel - it has a video for every element on the table, along with many videos on chemistry itself including topical subjects that show up in the news. Come for the chemistry, stay for the explosions, or the dissolving of a Big Mac in conc. HCl.
The videos feature many of my friends and former lecturers and are put together by a nice guy called Brady.
http://www.youtube.com/user/periodicvideos?feature=g-all-bul
It makes up for the fact that the Nobel Prize for Chemistry keeps being handed out to non-chemists I suppose.
We were all shocked that the recent one was given to Suzuki for his eponymous palladium coupling reactions since it was actually awarded to a chemist for once.
I know it's because there is no Nobel for biology etc, but you think they'd correct that rather than shoehorn everything into the one prize at the expense of chemists all over the place.
Although, I'm unlikely to ever have to worry about being denied winning one, although I did invent a method for holding a round bottom in my f/h without having to clamp it and without needing a cork ring, I'm sure it's not unique and certainly not world-renowned research. It just saves me time.
It's interesting that only one of these is really "chemical." Old school chemistry is dead.
Everything is a chemical.
Anyone who makes anything, or studies something that is made of "stuff" is really just an applied chemist.
(and yes, yes, us chemists are just applied physicists...) ;)
Jesus fucking Christ, is there any particular reason you decided to be a dickhead without provocation? Why is this fashionable on Slashdot?
You forgot to log in again!
D'oh!
"Without provocation" hah. You're funny.
Apple laptops have glossy screens, so they are useless for serious work anyway.
Not all of them have glossy screens, so you can do "serious work" on those if you want. I'm sure all the other people doing "non-serious work" on machines with glossy screens will be pleased to know that their work is so insignificant.
I'm surprised you forgot to log in? Was the glare on your screen obscuring the log in button? Oh right, matte screen, so no excuse - it must be a PEBKAC error.
It seems like you already know the answer, but your prejudice is getting in the way.
I don't think it's fair to look at the market share of Android versus the share of iOS devices, due to the fact that Google doesn't manufacture the majority of Android devices. Apple is the sole provider of iOS, so their 25% or whatever it is now of market share is entirely theirs. Whatever share Android controls is divided among every other smartphone manufacturer, and when you do that Apple is very far ahead of Google's Nexus phones.
Why not? That is exactly how the two are compared when people point out that Android is "beating" Apple and showing "clear evidence" of how Apple is in trouble.
If it can be used one way, it can be used the other way too. You can't simultaneously be the plucky underdog and the market leader.
I see you didn't read the rest of my post.
I wrote more than just that opening line that had you rushing for the reply button.
You should probably read those paragraphs - it won't take long.
Whoa, an AC confirmed your conspiracy theory, call the press!
I couldn't give a rats ass who made feature X first, "stealing" features dates back to stone age.
However, Apple directly hurts my interests as the consumer - by blocking competing products, which
is why they don't deserve my money(even though their hardware is nice).
You seem to miss my sarcasm.
I'd post a "whooosh" but I fear you'd assume you had a leaking pipe in your house.
Lighten up folks, it was a joke. I guess the painfully obvious cliche punchline was too subtle. I'll use the html blink tag next time.
Wait, is Google really an underdog?
I thought Android was doing much better than iOS? Higher marketshare, more advanced, on better phones etc?
They can't simultaneously be beating Apple (as we are told on slashdot all the time) and be the underdog. You can't have your cake and eat it.
From my perspective neither one is really an underdog in this fight.
I guess they are just looking for some more FRAND abuse smackdown.
Just because these are FRAND patents doesn't mean you don't have to license them. My understanding is that Apple is basically the only manufactuer that doesn't license these patents.
What I don't understand is why Apple expects others to respect patents to shapes and colors while the radio technology in their phones isn't worth their dime.
Then your understanding is misplaced. Apple do licence the FRAND patents required to create a working mobile phone.
The lawsuits relating to the FRAND abuse/licensing issues revolve around the argument that Apple are being unfairly charged more because they don't want to cross licence other patents that they hold (they have no obligation to - you can pay for FRAND patents in cash, goats, cheese or cross licensing deals or anything else you can barter with), and some FRAND holders are crying foul.
The entire Nokia case was one huge clusterfuck of that. There was never any doubt *at all* that Apple was trying to avoid licensing FRAND patents - it's an absolute requirement for the creation of a functioning GSM phone - the argument was over the costs associated with it and the long, drawn out negotiations over the value of things that Apple was offering (and/or Nokia was requesting) in exchange. The value of the stuff on Nokia's side is fixed - it;s whatever everyone else paid. Apple argued Nokia was asking too much, Nokia argued Apple was over-valuing what it was offering and also crying foul that certain patents Apple held were off the table since it really wanted them.
Apple absolutely *does* licence all of the necessary FRAND patents required to make the radios in the iPhone work - that was likely the very first thing they put into the "things to do" column, since you need GSM hardware and various other chips to be able to make a phone, which they bought from third party manufacturers like Qualcomm. The various patents that they had to licence and their cost will have all been in the early projections - it's hardly complex, since it's the exact same set of patents everyone else who makes a phone has to licence.
Google copied Apple's work, and thought they could get away with it.
Yeah, in fanboi land. In the real world, none of the 'copied' features were original to Apple in the first place.
So you concede that Android was copied from iOS then, even if iOS was not the ultimate original source?
You heard it here first folks.
And, did we miss the part where the Google/Motorola Mobility deal was finalized? Last I knew, it was still being held up by regulators and Google wasn't in charge of them...
Oh, no, forgot about Apple fanbois. Google must be smeared by any means necessary to stop the heretical Green Beast from spreading impurity. That's right. The will of Jobs is just, the will of Jobs is righteous, sosumi. Carry on.
But the whole "anything Skype does is Microsoft's doing" stuff on slashdot, long before the deal was finalised was just peachy, right?
What's good for the goose...
Aren't you glad you're in the walled garden? Look who you've been walled in with...
Yes, I am worried we're walled in with the GSM standard...
That's the issue here, of course.
But mentioning the iPhone in relation to stuff like this is this season's "on a computer!!!!" appended to the end of a "new" patent that was all the rage a few years ago.
Spoofed headers in SMS messages have been possible since the adoption of the GSM standard - the SMS system was simply never designed with its eventual use in mind in the first place. No one imagined users would be using it to send messages to each other.