For what it's worth, I remember an accident on the D.C. Metro in Bethesda when I was living there, sometime through 94 and 97. I couldn't find anything in my admitedly short search, but essentially it was on a shared part of the track during slightly wet weather. The Metro slammed into the read of a slower freight train, and the only death was the driver. An investigation showed that the train was being controlled remotely. He had radioed in they were travelling too fast, but couldn't stop it. I think he may have warned the travellers to move to rear cars, but he had no door into the cabin for security reasons.
Sudden inspiration to use WashingtonPost.com and not Google
Well, I did a search of WashingtonPost archives for 95-98. It was January 7th of 1996, the tracks were icy, and the control was by a central computer. It kept it at 75mph and when it did brake for the station it slid into a parked train. Other than later articles discussing various probes into whether the possibility of the problem was known and ignored, I can't give much more info. The full text in the archives is only available for a fee, but the relevant facts were in each's first two paragraphs.
I guess my point is even the brakes didn't help, once the train was doing 75mph. Don't assume that human intervention will overcome computer error. a) They can make the errors a lot more quickly than humans can compensate. b) Sometimes we misread the errors.
If interested, archive search. I used Metro, Train, accident, from Jan 96 - Mar 96. If you expand to later dates you will see the followups.
a) Since he has exhibited a clearly warped since of copyright law, it was more of a deduction than an assumption. The article gave no information either way.
b) It also was an oblique reference to the MPAA/RIAA stance of attacking individuals over large pirating groups which SCO emulated with their licensing Linux emails, with a slight nod to annoyance the warnings on every movie have become.
Umm... free speech protects content, not delivery, and only that Congress won't enact laws to persecute content indiscriminately. It was intended to prevent the American Government from shutting down newspapers that complain about things, something the British Government kept doing. It has been expanded into other medias, but always at a balance determined by the courts in session at the time the cases are brought up. (For example, complaining about the war is one thing, reporting on exact troop movements is another.)
Before going too far, this is all irrelavent. The 'expect texting to be banned' is obviously excessive editorializing, as text messaging is very lucrative for the phone industry, and they don't answer to the MPAA. (Well, maybe Sony Ericsson.) It's not a speech issue, it's a money issue. Unless they start some 'texters are terrorists' campaign, it ain't going anywhere and would just bring more attention to their 'release stinkers and hope for good 1st weekends' traits.
Well, that's just it. Their 'Trustworthy computing' slogan is all about making sure they can trust your computer to only run what they feel you have rights to. However, this goes against what it sounds like it means, and possibly even how they market it. In other words, a person would find their own computer trustworthy if they could trust it to not screw itself up, but this is not what Microsoft means.
So I viewed the 'trustworthy computing' statement more of a comment on the irony of the difference of what they mean by it, and what users probably would want it to mean.
So, where do we inform the FBI that he publicly showed MGM's property without permission? Does he think those warnings when you put in the disc are just a GPL and can be ignored?
Road Rage is pretty fun in 2 player mode. It does get repetitive, and while I'm no slacker I can't seem to get much more than $10,000 in a game, so I don't expect to unlock those last two cars anytime soon. So I guess my biggest complaint is the low maximum starting times.
I'm borderline on Skateboarding. I rented it, and it seemed decent enough, but I'm not a big fan of skateboarding to begin with so until it's ~15-20 I'm not likely to buy, being a big Simpsons fan notwithstanding.
Personally, I'm looking forward to this game. Other previews have indicated that not only is it voiced by the actors, but it is scripted by the show's writers and Matt Groening to stay true to the characters and history.
Umm... it's from the Autumnal Equinox on August 21st to the Winter Solstice on December 21st. Northern Hemisphere, obviously.
To recap (Northern; had Solstice confused with Equinox):
Summer: June 21st to September 21st (Autumnal Equinox)
Fall: September 21st to December 21st (Winter Solstice)
Winter: December 21st to March 21st (Vernal Equinox)
Spring: March 21st to June 21st (Summer Solstice)
(Allowing for Leap Years and other fluctuations, of course.)
So for Apple to deliver in August, they have easily made 'late summer'.
Sorry, I did not mean to seem flippant. While there are many degrees to this and other diseases, unless you know someone who is going through it all you can go by is what is publicly known*. However, in a way you somewhat validate my point. I have recently seen commercials indicating a new method of testing that seems to imply that "Look how good life is now that we've done this!" From my point of view, and what I know of how drug companies are working with radiation cancer research, they are probably researching how to have diabetes treatments with lower risks, but are not researching how to prevent it altogether.
For Devil's Advocate purposes, it really isn't in their perview: the best preventions for diabetes, as well as cancer, M.S. and certain other diseases, lie in genetic research. This really isn't something the drug companies directly persue. Also, they have made many advances that have helped many live, and at least have a life. However, what is most bothersome is how much they overcharge to fund research into drugs simply to compete with each other, and how much that is throwing off the entire health care pricing.
(*For what it's worth, I have an uncle and father-in-law with diabetes. They must have mild/not advanced forms though, as all I've seen of it is that they have to watch what they eat, and eat at certain times.)
Really? Are they part of a throwback campaign to the multi-colored Apple? I thought only Microsoft was turning people colors for their commercials nowadays, and even that was a blue butterfly.
Virus-checker companies are becoming more and more analogous to real drug companies. Without viruses or worms, or the exploitability of Windows, they wouldn't really have much to do. After all, if Microsoft really cared they would buy one and have a whole division devoted solely to finding these exploits BEFORE the public and getting them patched.
On a parallel note, you don't really think they're looking for a cure for cancer, AIDS, or even the common cold? They're researching treatments - in other words, their dream is find drugs that would turn cancer and AIDS into herpes or diabetes - annoying, and requiring constant drug treatments for a normal life. The irony is that if they succeed they will be hailed as benefactors, and they will probably use patent law and FUD to prevent research into actual cures.
While waiting a couple of months for flaws to be found is always a good idea for new, expensive items (c.f. new model cars), simply waiting a year for faster chips isn't. If they have new models in a year, won't you have to wait again for the early users to find the flaws? And once they work them out, won't there be newer, faster models coming?
While I agree with not buying the first release (especially since Panther isn't out yet - might as well get it pre-installed), a year is definitely excessive. Based on previous Apple models, 4-5 months is more than enough time to see how they hold up, and for software incompatibilities to be fixed or at least noted so you aren't caught unawares.
Re:it's about freaking time!
on
G5s Start Shipping
·
· Score: 2, Informative
doh...apple said they would ship at the end of the summer.
For the record, Summer ends with the Solstice around Sept. 20/21. So they're actually a month early.
They are refunding them, and doing so to settle a lawsuit. Taking responsibility would be adding full support to OS X.
You've missed the posts they speculate that they tried at the time to add the support, but found that the systems in question were simply incapable of handling it.
I don't have a perfect memory, but it was my impression that they said from the start that OS X wouldn't run on certain systems. It is possible that while that was known on the websites I frequented, it wasn't included on advertising or on the boxes. Thus in court they wouldn't have had a clear case. By settling, they are effectively saying "We don't think we were completely in the wrong, but we see how some might think so and would rather come to an amiable solution and move on".
It is a minor black eye, in that any negative publicity for Apple always risks bringing out the worst in mainstream journalism. However, it is offset by the fact that their manner of settling can not be called 'shady' by any means. Compared to Microsoft's proposed settlements of selling more software and Apple looks down right decent.
It's still moving. Erie, PA, flickered when it happened and just went out (5:10 PM Eastern). It's on the lake between New York and Ohio, so it's on the cusp of whatever grid we have here in Pittsburgh. I think I'll go turn off my air conditioning.
I hope that artists do not become driven to work on "hits" and ignore the practice of making the songs that they themselves enjoy.
Umm... that happened over 20 years ago. A good song that brings this out is The Entertainer by Billy Joel: "It was a beautiful song/but it ran to long/if you're going to have a hit/ya gotta make it fit/so they cut it down to 3:05". (I think he was referring to The Pianoman; the 45 was missing at least one verse.) Or a good biography of Pink Floyd will cover they're fights with labels over releasing singles - the didn't particularly want to release any, as Roger Waters viewed the albums as single pieces and view it analogous to releasing individual chapters from books. Their song Have A Cigar is a good analysis of their working relationship with their label - "The band is just fantastic/that is really what I think/Oh by the way/Which one is Pink?" (For those that don't know, Syd Barret chose the name from combining Georgia blues musicians Pinkney "Pink" Anderson and Floyd Council.)
Historically, record companies have released singles only as a means to move higher-margin albums. A big part of the planning of an album was the ordering so that people would listen to other than the 'best' two songs. The advent of CDs reduced the relavency of the order, since people could reorder them willy-nilly.
I think artists that are capable of putting out an albums worth of good material will still do so, and fans will buy the whole set (especially through iTunes simpler purchase method of mostly $9.90 or.99 a track if fewer than 10). Pop artists that can't will still produce singles BUT the people who will only buy the single but not an album may make up the difference; e.g. if 10 people buy the single as opposed to 1 person buying the album, the bottom line works itself out.
Old distributions exist that can be checked against newly compiled builds to see if they match. In other words, if code segment 'A' was added later there would be no way to compile it to match a preexisting build.
And older builds could be gotten from old clients, if nowhere else. It may be complicated to get them, but they exist to be checked.
The key word is 'risk'. To expand: if a company allows a ROM of a game to exist on an easily accessible public server, and can be shown to do so, it is possible that this can be interpreted as placing it in the public domain. It is not automatic, and would require the right set of lawyers, judge, and timing; but it is possible. If the companies take even a half-assed approach of Cease and Desist letters they probably avoid this problem.
I think part of it is either a game was fun to play, or it wasn't. There were very few that looked good but weren't fun.
And Pac Man, and to a greater degree Ms. Pac Man, opened up video games into the main stream. Whatever you may think of their game play now, they were relatively simple and accessible. And the point wasn't that every second something new and entertaining happened. It was a challenge. How far could you last, how high could you score, in a single setting. That was it. Very few modern games have that feel - by which I mean progress is always saveable as you move through the game. Eventually, with a guide and enough time anyone can get through them entirely, and removing the guide just means with more time.
I'm not trying to come down too harsh on modern games - I play and enjoy many of them. But sometimes I miss the simple challange of having to start over each game and trying to do better.
From an objective point of view it does look like the rights owners are overprotective. But look at it from their point of view. Not only is can the original games be repackaged, but they can also yield sequels. The license for Spy Hunter isn't so another company can put out the same exact game, but a derivative game. There's another Ultima game coming, based on those before. Mario has come a long way from Donkey Kong. Pac Man is still chomping away.
If the rights owners don't assert themselves over the original, they risk losing the rights to control the derivatives. What degree the risk is over old ROMs may seem debatable, but each company/rights owner must decide that for themselves.
And I don't really see the 'vanishing forever' argument. There are plenty of restoration organizations, that watch and pay for older non working games to fix up. Also, have you seen the Ms. Pac Man/Galaga cabinet? Or the 20-in-1 cabinets? I've seen them in Dave & Busters. Technically, not the same controls, but the games are being put out there still. (Obviously, only those that would be deemed to do well. I doubt Stocker will be re-released.)
Irony: An add for the 10-in-1 Atari Joystick on the same page for this story.
Slashdot Mirror
For what it's worth, I remember an accident on the D.C. Metro in Bethesda when I was living there, sometime through 94 and 97. I couldn't find anything in my admitedly short search, but essentially it was on a shared part of the track during slightly wet weather. The Metro slammed into the read of a slower freight train, and the only death was the driver. An investigation showed that the train was being controlled remotely. He had radioed in they were travelling too fast, but couldn't stop it. I think he may have warned the travellers to move to rear cars, but he had no door into the cabin for security reasons.
Sudden inspiration to use WashingtonPost.com and not Google
Well, I did a search of WashingtonPost archives for 95-98. It was January 7th of 1996, the tracks were icy, and the control was by a central computer. It kept it at 75mph and when it did brake for the station it slid into a parked train. Other than later articles discussing various probes into whether the possibility of the problem was known and ignored, I can't give much more info. The full text in the archives is only available for a fee, but the relevant facts were in each's first two paragraphs.
I guess my point is even the brakes didn't help, once the train was doing 75mph. Don't assume that human intervention will overcome computer error. a) They can make the errors a lot more quickly than humans can compensate. b) Sometimes we misread the errors.
If interested, archive search. I used Metro, Train, accident, from Jan 96 - Mar 96. If you expand to later dates you will see the followups.
That's all we need. The MPAA and RIAA getting involved in the Middle East. I wonder if Big Oil will like the competition.
I think we'd rather imagine a Beowulf cluster dropping on Darl McBride.
a) Since he has exhibited a clearly warped since of copyright law, it was more of a deduction than an assumption. The article gave no information either way.
b) It also was an oblique reference to the MPAA/RIAA stance of attacking individuals over large pirating groups which SCO emulated with their licensing Linux emails, with a slight nod to annoyance the warnings on every movie have become.
Umm... free speech protects content, not delivery, and only that Congress won't enact laws to persecute content indiscriminately. It was intended to prevent the American Government from shutting down newspapers that complain about things, something the British Government kept doing. It has been expanded into other medias, but always at a balance determined by the courts in session at the time the cases are brought up. (For example, complaining about the war is one thing, reporting on exact troop movements is another.)
Before going too far, this is all irrelavent. The 'expect texting to be banned' is obviously excessive editorializing, as text messaging is very lucrative for the phone industry, and they don't answer to the MPAA. (Well, maybe Sony Ericsson.) It's not a speech issue, it's a money issue. Unless they start some 'texters are terrorists' campaign, it ain't going anywhere and would just bring more attention to their 'release stinkers and hope for good 1st weekends' traits.
Well, that's just it. Their 'Trustworthy computing' slogan is all about making sure they can trust your computer to only run what they feel you have rights to. However, this goes against what it sounds like it means, and possibly even how they market it. In other words, a person would find their own computer trustworthy if they could trust it to not screw itself up, but this is not what Microsoft means.
So I viewed the 'trustworthy computing' statement more of a comment on the irony of the difference of what they mean by it, and what users probably would want it to mean.
I think their business is being hurt a lot by being built around the need to sell their proprietary hardware.
So, their business of selling hardware is being hurt by their need to sell hardware? No wonder they're always beleaguered.
So, where do we inform the FBI that he publicly showed MGM's property without permission? Does he think those warnings when you put in the disc are just a GPL and can be ignored?
Road Rage is pretty fun in 2 player mode. It does get repetitive, and while I'm no slacker I can't seem to get much more than $10,000 in a game, so I don't expect to unlock those last two cars anytime soon. So I guess my biggest complaint is the low maximum starting times.
I'm borderline on Skateboarding. I rented it, and it seemed decent enough, but I'm not a big fan of skateboarding to begin with so until it's ~15-20 I'm not likely to buy, being a big Simpsons fan notwithstanding.
Personally, I'm looking forward to this game. Other previews have indicated that not only is it voiced by the actors, but it is scripted by the show's writers and Matt Groening to stay true to the characters and history.
I thought we were just going with
"Hey McBride! I thought I told you not to distribute this code!"
and
"Think, McBride! Think! I have to have time to put my copyright notices in!"
Umm... it's from the Autumnal Equinox on August 21st to the Winter Solstice on December 21st. Northern Hemisphere, obviously.
To recap (Northern; had Solstice confused with Equinox):
Summer: June 21st to September 21st (Autumnal Equinox)
Fall: September 21st to December 21st (Winter Solstice)
Winter: December 21st to March 21st (Vernal Equinox)
Spring: March 21st to June 21st (Summer Solstice)
(Allowing for Leap Years and other fluctuations, of course.)
So for Apple to deliver in August, they have easily made 'late summer'.
Sorry, I did not mean to seem flippant. While there are many degrees to this and other diseases, unless you know someone who is going through it all you can go by is what is publicly known*. However, in a way you somewhat validate my point. I have recently seen commercials indicating a new method of testing that seems to imply that "Look how good life is now that we've done this!" From my point of view, and what I know of how drug companies are working with radiation cancer research, they are probably researching how to have diabetes treatments with lower risks, but are not researching how to prevent it altogether.
For Devil's Advocate purposes, it really isn't in their perview: the best preventions for diabetes, as well as cancer, M.S. and certain other diseases, lie in genetic research. This really isn't something the drug companies directly persue. Also, they have made many advances that have helped many live, and at least have a life. However, what is most bothersome is how much they overcharge to fund research into drugs simply to compete with each other, and how much that is throwing off the entire health care pricing.
(*For what it's worth, I have an uncle and father-in-law with diabetes. They must have mild/not advanced forms though, as all I've seen of it is that they have to watch what they eat, and eat at certain times.)
I'm afraid Apple is dying my friends.
Really? Are they part of a throwback campaign to the multi-colored Apple? I thought only Microsoft was turning people colors for their commercials nowadays, and even that was a blue butterfly.
Virus-checker companies are becoming more and more analogous to real drug companies. Without viruses or worms, or the exploitability of Windows, they wouldn't really have much to do. After all, if Microsoft really cared they would buy one and have a whole division devoted solely to finding these exploits BEFORE the public and getting them patched.
On a parallel note, you don't really think they're looking for a cure for cancer, AIDS, or even the common cold? They're researching treatments - in other words, their dream is find drugs that would turn cancer and AIDS into herpes or diabetes - annoying, and requiring constant drug treatments for a normal life. The irony is that if they succeed they will be hailed as benefactors, and they will probably use patent law and FUD to prevent research into actual cures.
While waiting a couple of months for flaws to be found is always a good idea for new, expensive items (c.f. new model cars), simply waiting a year for faster chips isn't. If they have new models in a year, won't you have to wait again for the early users to find the flaws? And once they work them out, won't there be newer, faster models coming?
While I agree with not buying the first release (especially since Panther isn't out yet - might as well get it pre-installed), a year is definitely excessive. Based on previous Apple models, 4-5 months is more than enough time to see how they hold up, and for software incompatibilities to be fixed or at least noted so you aren't caught unawares.
doh...apple said they would ship at the end of the summer.
For the record, Summer ends with the Solstice around Sept. 20/21. So they're actually a month early.
Hubble Altitude = 370 statute miles
Space Station Altitude = 240 statute miles
Difference = Waaaaay too much.
Having no idea of the difference between statute miles and normal miles or how they relate to shuttle orbits = Priceless
They are refunding them, and doing so to settle a lawsuit. Taking responsibility would be adding full support to OS X.
You've missed the posts they speculate that they tried at the time to add the support, but found that the systems in question were simply incapable of handling it.
I don't have a perfect memory, but it was my impression that they said from the start that OS X wouldn't run on certain systems. It is possible that while that was known on the websites I frequented, it wasn't included on advertising or on the boxes. Thus in court they wouldn't have had a clear case. By settling, they are effectively saying "We don't think we were completely in the wrong, but we see how some might think so and would rather come to an amiable solution and move on".
It is a minor black eye, in that any negative publicity for Apple always risks bringing out the worst in mainstream journalism. However, it is offset by the fact that their manner of settling can not be called 'shady' by any means. Compared to Microsoft's proposed settlements of selling more software and Apple looks down right decent.
Umm... what? Do you have a reference for that? Using Jaguar.6 on an iMac, I'd really like to know what the heck you're talking about.
1977 Power Outage
It's still moving. Erie, PA, flickered when it happened and just went out (5:10 PM Eastern). It's on the lake between New York and Ohio, so it's on the cusp of whatever grid we have here in Pittsburgh. I think I'll go turn off my air conditioning.
I hope that artists do not become driven to work on "hits" and ignore the practice of making the songs that they themselves enjoy.
.99 a track if fewer than 10). Pop artists that can't will still produce singles BUT the people who will only buy the single but not an album may make up the difference; e.g. if 10 people buy the single as opposed to 1 person buying the album, the bottom line works itself out.
Umm... that happened over 20 years ago. A good song that brings this out is The Entertainer by Billy Joel: "It was a beautiful song/but it ran to long/if you're going to have a hit/ya gotta make it fit/so they cut it down to 3:05". (I think he was referring to The Pianoman; the 45 was missing at least one verse.) Or a good biography of Pink Floyd will cover they're fights with labels over releasing singles - the didn't particularly want to release any, as Roger Waters viewed the albums as single pieces and view it analogous to releasing individual chapters from books. Their song Have A Cigar is a good analysis of their working relationship with their label - "The band is just fantastic/that is really what I think/Oh by the way/Which one is Pink?" (For those that don't know, Syd Barret chose the name from combining Georgia blues musicians Pinkney "Pink" Anderson and Floyd Council.)
Historically, record companies have released singles only as a means to move higher-margin albums. A big part of the planning of an album was the ordering so that people would listen to other than the 'best' two songs. The advent of CDs reduced the relavency of the order, since people could reorder them willy-nilly.
I think artists that are capable of putting out an albums worth of good material will still do so, and fans will buy the whole set (especially through iTunes simpler purchase method of mostly $9.90 or
Old distributions exist that can be checked against newly compiled builds to see if they match. In other words, if code segment 'A' was added later there would be no way to compile it to match a preexisting build.
And older builds could be gotten from old clients, if nowhere else. It may be complicated to get them, but they exist to be checked.
The key word is 'risk'. To expand: if a company allows a ROM of a game to exist on an easily accessible public server, and can be shown to do so, it is possible that this can be interpreted as placing it in the public domain. It is not automatic, and would require the right set of lawyers, judge, and timing; but it is possible. If the companies take even a half-assed approach of Cease and Desist letters they probably avoid this problem.
I think part of it is either a game was fun to play, or it wasn't. There were very few that looked good but weren't fun.
And Pac Man, and to a greater degree Ms. Pac Man, opened up video games into the main stream. Whatever you may think of their game play now, they were relatively simple and accessible. And the point wasn't that every second something new and entertaining happened. It was a challenge. How far could you last, how high could you score, in a single setting. That was it. Very few modern games have that feel - by which I mean progress is always saveable as you move through the game. Eventually, with a guide and enough time anyone can get through them entirely, and removing the guide just means with more time.
I'm not trying to come down too harsh on modern games - I play and enjoy many of them. But sometimes I miss the simple challange of having to start over each game and trying to do better.
From an objective point of view it does look like the rights owners are overprotective. But look at it from their point of view. Not only is can the original games be repackaged, but they can also yield sequels. The license for Spy Hunter isn't so another company can put out the same exact game, but a derivative game. There's another Ultima game coming, based on those before. Mario has come a long way from Donkey Kong. Pac Man is still chomping away.
If the rights owners don't assert themselves over the original, they risk losing the rights to control the derivatives. What degree the risk is over old ROMs may seem debatable, but each company/rights owner must decide that for themselves.
And I don't really see the 'vanishing forever' argument. There are plenty of restoration organizations, that watch and pay for older non working games to fix up. Also, have you seen the Ms. Pac Man/Galaga cabinet? Or the 20-in-1 cabinets? I've seen them in Dave & Busters. Technically, not the same controls, but the games are being put out there still. (Obviously, only those that would be deemed to do well. I doubt Stocker will be re-released.)
Irony: An add for the 10-in-1 Atari Joystick on the same page for this story.