Unfortunately for the RBOCs, there are alternatives to their mediocre DSL. If you think a consumer will pay $55 for partial Internet when they can get complete service from the cable or wireless provider for the same fee, they're gone.
Excuse me, but do you think Cox/Comcast/TimeWarner are the white hats here? If the telephone companies can extort the content providers, are the cable companies far behind? I doubt it.
The only person who should be shaping and/or prioritizing my Internet traffic bandwidth is myself.
Of course. The left hand realized that the right hand wasn't also collecting money for them at the same time. Two hands, two ends of the wire, two different groups benefiting from the connection = two pots of money to raid. And here we were thinking that the RIAA/MPAA were the only villains out there on the Internet.
Of course, how much of this will go to true infrastructure improvements -- and how much to lawyers and executive salaries?
justified content charging companies by saying they are using the telco's network without paying for it.
Excuse me, but I'm paying for it, and I expect you deliver all my content equally!
The only advantage a citizen has in dealing with a regulated utility verses an equally sized -- and equally uncaring -- company is your ability to put pressure on you regulatory body and elected representatives. In this regard, you are the shareholders.
On one level, that makes sense: Apple doesn't share its DRM, and Microsoft is Google's biggest competition. However, inflicting yet another flavor of DRM on the public goes against the desire of many in Congress and in the consumer electronics industry to see a single, unified standard emerge."
I don't see the big deal. By the time I'm ready for this I should be able to run each DRM system in its own virtualized partition well away from everything else.
And I'll keep another partition available for running DRM-laden Sony CD's, all of which I will only purchase at secondhand used music stores.
Afterwards, bye bye DRM crap until I'm ready to watch something new.
What I don't want is Congress legislating the DRM we all have to use.
When was the last time either of those guys released an interesting, innovative product?
What exactly is innovative about an identical looking laptop with a different, somewhat faster processor? That's like putting a different engine in your Ford.
Or another spin on the iPod? How long until iPod Pico arrives?
And was anyone actually surprised that they both actually arrived at this show?
Clearly the news media is dominated by people who use Apple computers. This is a well-known fact, and I actually recall reading an article a while back about the fact that Apple gets a disproportionate amount of computer press when the vast majority of the computer-using population doesn't care about Apple, much less actually owns one.
I'd say the same thing about a liberal point of view. So is it true that:
His expertise is reliability and customer support.
I think his expertise is in getting it right the first time. Unlike the DIY home PC builder who boasts about how he saved $150 and gets 3% better performance than the comparable Dell box, Dell builds tens of thousands of identical computers. While the DIY guy may never figure out why his particular combination of MB, memory, graphics card, and drive freeze every 32 hours and 17 minutes, Dell can afford to spend the time to ensure that everything plays well together. This is a significantly important feature.
For that, and support reasons (It's real easy when calling about a software problem to say, "Hey, this is a Dell. Don't tell me the problem is in my hardware."), I recommend them sometimes.
For their lack of AMD systems, I recommend against them sometimes.
If Michael Dell wants a high-priority press release, I offer him this one for free:
Dell announces new systems built using AMD processors. Declares that customers should have a choice of the best systems available at the best prices available with full Dell support.
People complain that Apple's hardware is expensive NOW and you want to add $300-$400 to the price tag for a target market of a couple hundred people?
Of course you've misunderstood me in the very moment you attacked me.
Proposed Apple prices are already ~$300-$400 over Windows equivalent systems. I argued that since the hardware is already mostly identical, that you can justify that price premium to some buyers by allowing them to run OSX/Windows/Linux all on the same platform, which will not be possible -- initally at least -- with cheaper non-Apple notebooks.
Given that such an ability should exist unless you work expressly to prohibit it, it would be foolish since it would remove such a valuable feature from an already more expensive laptop or desktop computer unless you intended to lock the user into your operating system upgrade system only.
Nowhere at all did I speak of adding additional costs to an already expensive system. You simply misunderstood, and then posted.
Surely you jest. Apple wouldn't be putting out 32-bit systems still, nor would Intel be building them. Just because they don't mention it doesn't mean it isn't there, along with Execute Disable, which is mentioned and is part of the 64-bit specification.
Unfortunately, this is not the case; due to Apple's use of the extensible firmware interface (EFI) rather than BIOS, current Windows releases will not run on the systems."
If true, would be a foolish move on Apple's part, diminishing the appeal of their systems for some. After all, many people would consider it a desirable feature that for approximately $300-$400 more in h/w costs they can run two different operating systems on the same hardware. Three if Linux becomes installable. And Apple does make a good piece of their money on hardware sales.
Does Apple really think no one wants to run any operating systems except their own?
This is not "Damage Control". They did make it clear. The knowledge base article, available the day iTunes 6.0.2 was release, specifically said:
Yeah, I always go to the KB when I'm installing new software. Doesn't everybody?
Discover new music as you enjoy your collection or import new CDs -- with MiniStore.
No doubt BabelFish translates that to: This app sends back all the information to Apple on everything you play so that they can guess about what they might be able to sell you next. But they promise somewhere not to actually keep it afterwards, give it to anybody else -- or most of all, try to sell you iTunes legal DRM versions of your ripped/downloaded MP3 files. I'll be able to verify this as soon as I can find the translation option of from Jobs RDF to English.
Looking for some new tunes? Tap into the 2-million-song treasure chest of the iTunes Music Store through the new MiniStore. While you're browsing your own library or importing a new CD, MiniStore appears at the bottom of the iTunes window and shows you other albums from your favorite artists and artists like them. You can even see reviews of these albums plus what other listeners who like this artist purchased -- so you'll never be at a loss for new music to discover. When you're ready to go back to full-screen mode, click an icon and MiniStore tucks away, ready to pop up again later when you want to explore some more.
Oh yeah, anyone can figure out from that how they're sending personally identifying information (your IP address at minimum, and probably some iTunes identifier wouldn't you think, along with your music choice and whether or not you've bought it from them I suspect) about your music choices to Apple, with no comment at on what Apple might do with such valuable information -- besides trying to sell you more DRM-laden music, that is. Does Apple not share at least some of this information with the record companies supplying their content?
As the Original Poster, you haven't made your case very well here I must say.
Not arguing with you, but I think the idea is that most users will not enable it, and it will be difficult to perform the statistical (as clarified now) data collection and analysis that Apple does.
Hey, they already know what you bought from iTunes. Is it even their business what you play otherwise? And without giant warnings of what they're doing? I don't think so.
Since when did you ever think Apple was your friend in the first place?
An Apple spokesman (reliable word has it that it was Steve Jobs himself) told MacWorld that Apple discards the personal information that the iTunes Ministore transmits to Apple while you use iTunes.
Got to believe it now, since Steve himself might have said it.
Wouldn't want to think there could ever be logs of illegal MP3's being played that the RIAA could subpoena.
The original fat file system was based on the cp/m filesystem. Remember that the original MS-DOS was based on an 8086 operating system that was in turn based on cp/m. So the non-long file name file system is covered (or should be) by prior art. However MS DID invent the extensions for long file names.
Allow me to correct here.
It's not the 8.3 length filenames that are patented. It's the way directories are structured and free space are handled in the FAT (File Allocation Table) file system.
As for MS-DOS being based on CP/M (Control Program for Microprocessors), PC-DOS (first incarnation) and MS-DOS (non-IBM version) are based on QDOS (Quick & Dirty Operating System) which was written as a CP/M work-alike that Bill Gates was able to purchase rights to on very short notice. While it is likely that QDOS used the CP/M file format on floppy discs so that it could read CP/M discs, I've never heard that confirmed.
But if MS-DOS, by way of QDOS, was based on CP/M floppy discs, than that should be more than sufficient prior art to invalidate at least the original FAT system, which was originally FAT12 (FAT 12-bit). And FAT16/32 are very obvious extensions of FAT12.
But there's another reason MS doesn't deserve a FAT file patent. IMHO and IANAL, they waited far too long to file for it. You shouldn't be able to patent something so far after the fact that everyone has adopted using it because it wasn't patented. That's just Malum In Se (wrong in itself).
The Inquirer is reporting that this game may have been rushed into release because its Save Game feature seems buggy enough to delete entire saved games in some cases. As usual, buyer beware.
Would you like iTunes to track your listening preferences and recommend additional music other users with similar tastes to your own have enjoyed. Warning: This will require sending of the following data back to Apple servers. View our Privacy Policy here.
And this option should initially be unchecked. Then there never would have been a problem in the first place. Why don't companies realize they can just be open about a lot of this stuff?
I'd say the FAT patent is non-obvious if (and only if) no prior computer operating system or intelligent disc storage system was already using it -- and no CS textbook published prior to 1981 described it. There was plenty time from the first RAMDAC drives through the IBM PC for anyone else to have developed such an obvious way to track disc sector availability. If no one did, then it wasn't obvious.
Slashdot Mirror
Excuse me, but do you think Cox/Comcast/TimeWarner are the white hats here? If the telephone companies can extort the content providers, are the cable companies far behind? I doubt it.
The only person who should be shaping and/or prioritizing my Internet traffic bandwidth is myself.
Of course. The left hand realized that the right hand wasn't also collecting money for them at the same time. Two hands, two ends of the wire, two different groups benefiting from the connection = two pots of money to raid. And here we were thinking that the RIAA/MPAA were the only villains out there on the Internet.
Of course, how much of this will go to true infrastructure improvements -- and how much to lawyers and executive salaries?
Just a crazy thought: I wonder if he has figured out how to bill KaZaA yet for their network usage?
Excuse me, but I'm paying for it, and I expect you deliver all my content equally!
The only advantage a citizen has in dealing with a regulated utility verses an equally sized -- and equally uncaring -- company is your ability to put pressure on you regulatory body and elected representatives. In this regard, you are the shareholders.
Stop this now before it spreads more widely.
75W through the PCI slot, and 75W each through two additional power connectors.
That doesn't jib with what I've heard that this affects every Windows OS back to 3.0.
If so, where is the non-MS patch now?
Is this a sneaky way to force upgrades on older OS's?
You forgot to mention that it's also compatible across all platforms -- even Linux!
I don't see the big deal. By the time I'm ready for this I should be able to run each DRM system in its own virtualized partition well away from everything else.
And I'll keep another partition available for running DRM-laden Sony CD's, all of which I will only purchase at secondhand used music stores.
Afterwards, bye bye DRM crap until I'm ready to watch something new.
What I don't want is Congress legislating the DRM we all have to use.
That wouldn't even power my video card.
Mod Parent OVER-THE-TOP -1.
What exactly is innovative about an identical looking laptop with a different, somewhat faster processor? That's like putting a different engine in your Ford.
Or another spin on the iPod? How long until iPod Pico arrives?
And was anyone actually surprised that they both actually arrived at this show?
I'd say the same thing about a liberal point of view. So is it true that:
Apples == Liberals?
I think his expertise is in getting it right the first time. Unlike the DIY home PC builder who boasts about how he saved $150 and gets 3% better performance than the comparable Dell box, Dell builds tens of thousands of identical computers. While the DIY guy may never figure out why his particular combination of MB, memory, graphics card, and drive freeze every 32 hours and 17 minutes, Dell can afford to spend the time to ensure that everything plays well together. This is a significantly important feature.
For that, and support reasons (It's real easy when calling about a software problem to say, "Hey, this is a Dell. Don't tell me the problem is in my hardware."), I recommend them sometimes.
For their lack of AMD systems, I recommend against them sometimes.
Dell announces new systems built using AMD processors. Declares that customers should have a choice of the best systems available at the best prices available with full Dell support.
Of course you've misunderstood me in the very moment you attacked me.
Proposed Apple prices are already ~$300-$400 over Windows equivalent systems. I argued that since the hardware is already mostly identical, that you can justify that price premium to some buyers by allowing them to run OSX/Windows/Linux all on the same platform, which will not be possible -- initally at least -- with cheaper non-Apple notebooks.
Given that such an ability should exist unless you work expressly to prohibit it, it would be foolish since it would remove such a valuable feature from an already more expensive laptop or desktop computer unless you intended to lock the user into your operating system upgrade system only.
Nowhere at all did I speak of adding additional costs to an already expensive system. You simply misunderstood, and then posted.
Surely you jest. Apple wouldn't be putting out 32-bit systems still, nor would Intel be building them. Just because they don't mention it doesn't mean it isn't there, along with Execute Disable, which is mentioned and is part of the 64-bit specification.
If true, would be a foolish move on Apple's part, diminishing the appeal of their systems for some. After all, many people would consider it a desirable feature that for approximately $300-$400 more in h/w costs they can run two different operating systems on the same hardware. Three if Linux becomes installable. And Apple does make a good piece of their money on hardware sales.
Does Apple really think no one wants to run any operating systems except their own?
Yeah, I always go to the KB when I'm installing new software. Doesn't everybody?
Discover new music as you enjoy your collection or import new CDs -- with MiniStore.
No doubt BabelFish translates that to: This app sends back all the information to Apple on everything you play so that they can guess about what they might be able to sell you next. But they promise somewhere not to actually keep it afterwards, give it to anybody else -- or most of all, try to sell you iTunes legal DRM versions of your ripped/downloaded MP3 files. I'll be able to verify this as soon as I can find the translation option of from Jobs RDF to English.
Looking for some new tunes? Tap into the 2-million-song treasure chest of the iTunes Music Store through the new MiniStore. While you're browsing your own library or importing a new CD, MiniStore appears at the bottom of the iTunes window and shows you other albums from your favorite artists and artists like them. You can even see reviews of these albums plus what other listeners who like this artist purchased -- so you'll never be at a loss for new music to discover. When you're ready to go back to full-screen mode, click an icon and MiniStore tucks away, ready to pop up again later when you want to explore some more.
Oh yeah, anyone can figure out from that how they're sending personally identifying information (your IP address at minimum, and probably some iTunes identifier wouldn't you think, along with your music choice and whether or not you've bought it from them I suspect) about your music choices to Apple, with no comment at on what Apple might do with such valuable information -- besides trying to sell you more DRM-laden music, that is. Does Apple not share at least some of this information with the record companies supplying their content?
As the Original Poster, you haven't made your case very well here I must say.
Hey, they already know what you bought from iTunes. Is it even their business what you play otherwise? And without giant warnings of what they're doing? I don't think so.
Since when did you ever think Apple was your friend in the first place?
Got to believe it now, since Steve himself might have said it.
Wouldn't want to think there could ever be logs of illegal MP3's being played that the RIAA could subpoena.
Allow me to correct here.
It's not the 8.3 length filenames that are patented. It's the way directories are structured and free space are handled in the FAT (File Allocation Table) file system.
As for MS-DOS being based on CP/M (Control Program for Microprocessors), PC-DOS (first incarnation) and MS-DOS (non-IBM version) are based on QDOS (Quick & Dirty Operating System) which was written as a CP/M work-alike that Bill Gates was able to purchase rights to on very short notice. While it is likely that QDOS used the CP/M file format on floppy discs so that it could read CP/M discs, I've never heard that confirmed.
But if MS-DOS, by way of QDOS, was based on CP/M floppy discs, than that should be more than sufficient prior art to invalidate at least the original FAT system, which was originally FAT12 (FAT 12-bit). And FAT16/32 are very obvious extensions of FAT12.
But there's another reason MS doesn't deserve a FAT file patent. IMHO and IANAL, they waited far too long to file for it. You shouldn't be able to patent something so far after the fact that everyone has adopted using it because it wasn't patented. That's just Malum In Se (wrong in itself).
The Inquirer is reporting that this game may have been rushed into release because its Save Game feature seems buggy enough to delete entire saved games in some cases. As usual, buyer beware.
Would you like iTunes to track your listening preferences and recommend additional music other users with similar tastes to your own have enjoyed. Warning: This will require sending of the following data back to Apple servers. View our Privacy Policy here.
And this option should initially be unchecked. Then there never would have been a problem in the first place. Why don't companies realize they can just be open about a lot of this stuff?
I'd say the FAT patent is non-obvious if (and only if) no prior computer operating system or intelligent disc storage system was already using it -- and no CS textbook published prior to 1981 described it. There was plenty time from the first RAMDAC drives through the IBM PC for anyone else to have developed such an obvious way to track disc sector availability. If no one did, then it wasn't obvious.