1) Apple announces iTools account holders immediately gain access to 5 Universal songs per month. Access to more will require a nominal fee.
2) With the release of their fifth film, Pixar announces their deal with Disney has been fulfilled and they have formed a new alliance with Apple as the distributor for future releases. Soundtracks will be available on Universal Records.
3) In a surprise move, Dell acquires Apple Records, only to discover afterwards that the entire Beatles catalog is owned by Michael Jackson. Begins ad campaign with interns explaining why Wings was better.
4) Bill Gates announces new behind-the-ear implant that will allow streaming music directly into a persons brain. Sharp-eyed consumers discover Terms-Of-Service includes clause allowing device to record thoughts that immediately become his property.
The main crux of this comparison, as far as I can tell, should be made in reference to other aspects of business. Consider a manufacturing plant of some kind. In this plant they have equipment that they built, equipment they bought on contract and have serviced, and equipment that they bought but maintain themselves. The equipment they build or maintain is directly related to their business, and the operators/engineers are sufficiently trained and experienced to cover the majority of their needs. Over the years they have filled each equipment need they've had with the solution that was best at the time, and presumably address their solutions over time when difficulties or cost concerns come up.
This is roughly analogous to in-house software, proprietary software, and open source software. A company is free to pick and choose which solutions work best to remain in business. The main difference is very few companies naturally have Software Engineers/Designers/What Have You in the course of their normal business developments. Whereas a small manufacturing company is likely to have been founded by people making the product by hand, rarely are office environments founded by programmers (Exception: software companies which by this analogy are manufacturers of software and would fit with them).
The important thing to remember is that software isn't the only third party products these offices, or even manufacturers, use. There aren't many advocates for Open Source Copiers, or Open Source Pens, or Open Source Coffee Makers, all calling for GPL'd blueprints. The significant difference with software is that the only real resources required are the source code (or blue prints) and the person capable of understanding and modifying them. Virtually everything else would require a parts supply chain which, if not part of the main business, usually isn't an economical path to follow.
In conclusion, the cost of maintaining anything utilized by an organization that isn't directly related to the organization should be compared with the costs of outside solutions, whether talking about software or coffee makers, and whether talking about businesses, governments, or even your own house.
Do you know where a good BSD client source can be found, possibly with useful instructions? I'm thinking it could probably built against OS X w/XDarwin. I've spend some time looking and many links are dead, or I've gotten Linux builds. I have found a BSD source that may work if I can figure out where to get libXpm, or if I have it and it just isn't correct for this build.
If I get it built I'd host it somewhere, but first I need to get it built.
Ignoring the implication that people are incapable of writing their own music, a gathering of family and friends is not a public performance. If it were, we'd all owe Warner communications a bit: Fun Facts - Happy Birthday To You.
For the record, this is why chain restaurants sing their own versions. They are either afraid to lose or have already lost that it would be a public performance. And I have heard on the radio someone comment about how they'd have to pay because a mic picked someone up singing it. As it is 110 years old, this is a much more obvious abuse of copyright than the 'Free the Mouse' thing vs. Disney.
1) Since when does having more information cause the loss of freedom? Right now, people can't choose because they don't generally know. This is analagous to the Explicit Lyrics warning label. Sure, times have changed and most people don't care, but if they do care they can make the choice. (This is especially important now with how hard it is to preview or return CDs.)
2) <Political, offtopic rant deleted. Gist: we oppose war, but we're now afraid of our "free speech". Look at the Dixie Chicks. Look at Michael Moore. And so on.>
3) When CD's won't play, we'll go to books. Or plays. Or local concerts. Or invite friends over for Parcheesi. Or, here's a stretch, pick up a guitar/trumpet/harmonica/whatever ourselves. The RIAA isn't OPEC, you know. We can survive without their wares. Of course, this could turn into a large sociological/economical question concerning the emphasis of sports over arts in lower levels of school, and conspiracy theories thereof, but it is still possible.
I think the they was merely refuting the implied absolute of 'inherently inferior'. In other words:
1. All Open Source implementations are inferior because of the lack of formal development process
2. Comparing the TCP/IP handling, we found that the Open Source implementations are superior to proprietary implementations
Ergo: The common belief is not an absolute truth.
I don't think it was their intent to show that a lock of formal development is more or less likely to produce inferior code, only that it isn't an absolute result.
Of course, moving from pure logic to statistics it is clear that one test result isn't really enough to disprove the original assertion. However, it is enough to plant doubt and possibly lead to more comparisons along these lines.
There was one worm going around about a year and a half ago, that would get launched from the preview screen without the email being specifically opened. Well, we had finally gotten it mostly cleaned from our systems and one guy was checking his hard drive. He clicked on a file he didn't recognize, it tried to show the web-formatted document in a preview, and launched the script again.
i guess my point is that many people will launch the script without opening the email, simply because as soon as the header is clicked on it will be displayed in the preview window. And yes, the preview window can be turned off; I'm just pointed out that reasonably responsible people using a standard feature would be hit without doing anything that could be labeled as dumb.
Our software is an extended accounting package (to keep it simple). People reporting bugs generally view themselves as the only customer. Generally, whatever they find as a bug is in some way holding them up. Whether it is a legitimate holdup (can post end of month numbers) or one that merely is perceived as such (a report that suddenly doesn't print, but the information is on screen). So until it is fixed, they can be annoying.
This may actually be an interesting point of research for a socialogist. Some kind of 'I'm important, validate me' thing. Degrading into rudeness could be an extension of this.
Sony's consumers aren't 'left in the position...', they just don't get the Live benefit. The current Sony model is the same as the current PC model - a publisher/developer decides on a server & subscription method, and you have different logins for each game.
As for the consistency factor, yes there is currently a wide void for a consistant server base for PS2. But this is probably a semi-temporary condition. Smart developers are probably designing their servers such that future games can use them as well, possibly with features similar to XBLs. Also, some may decide to side-market their solution, helping recoup costs and helping other developers.
As others have pointed out, XBL's subscription could legally be changed at anytime. Personally, I like the idea of only paying for online games one at a time. Some are overpriced (EQonline comes to mind), but some are going to be free. And as time goes on more probably will be free, or publishers will offer group rates for their games. I think one could look at Blizzard (who've managed to make a free service profitable even with piracy) and see that the model can work.
And, as I recall, it was the number one seller, numbers-wise, for a while.
Not that it didn't also require a lot of graphic work, but it is just one example of "silly basic stuff" that, as the saying could go, is more impressive than what it was made with.
For the record, Apple had a visually oriented Basic that Microsoft forced them to kill, as it would compete with their Basic (which wasn't visually oriented.) Hypercard was created to replace it, and from what I understand there are still many users who haven't gone to OS X simply because of Hypercard.
You missed the most important part - obscure software that isn't normally carried, even at CompUSA. It's gotten better with the boxes shrinking to DVD-cases (more titles/shelf), but they still only order what they think will sell & rotate out quickly. Also, broadband isn't nearly as prolific as you think. The Kiosk would be able to demo the software, which you can't do without downloading the full install. In addition, you'd get a CD and case, whereas from the 'net you'd have to spend even more time burning a CD or keep the original installer hanging around in case of incidents.
Personally, I'm more interested in the End-Of-Life titles. I'd like to pick up older games like Full Throttle or Sam & Max, or the Infocom collections, without relying on eBay. I'm hoping once a publisher has buy-in they'll release the majority of their backlog, possibly as sets of games. They'll understandably be wary of an increase support calls from trying to run old games in Classic, but hopefully they release the most popular from olden days.
In addition, the 'copy protection' scheme seems reasonable. It seems more designed to remind people 'Hey you paid for this. If you copy it for someone, you'll have to give them your unlocking key.' Of course, it could be stronger than it appears, but I'm looking forward to trying it out.
No, sharing music via P2P helps show that sales have declined due to sharing music via P2P.
The cause I'm trying to prove is that I'm willing to pay fair prices, or do without. This isn't bread or water or even literature we are talking about, this is entertainment. There are dozens of ways to be entertained, so if one has an unfair pricing scheme than the moral road is to avoid it. Read a book. See a play. See an orchestra. Or even go back to the days when families would gather around pianos. But don't try to pass off not paying for entertainment as a means for anything other than not paying for entertainment.
Actually, I saw this and the first thing I thought was "Maybe it is time to get AOL." Many people have said that they would pay for songs if they could. Well, here's a chance. Hopefully they will release what their catalog plan is before long, as not many will jump on without know what is available. And their count of burnable seems low. But if it works out that they have the songs I want, and in a year it comes out to better than a per CD cost (especially since it may take 8 CDs at $15 a pop to get what 10 songs I want), then I will seriously consider it.
If we want our entertainment companies to take us seriously, we must in effect stage personal strikes. I don't buy CDs not simply because I can't get the mix I want, but because I think it is ridiculous that 25 year old albums cost $14+, especially when they're sometimes of LPs of less than 40 minutes of music. They can argue all they want about how much it costs to produce new albums, but if it went platinum over 15 years ago I'm pretty sure the costs are now negligible.
Actually, aspirin is an excellent example of a trademark that was not enforced and suffered 'trademark dilution' (thanks Uart). Now anyone can market aspirin. However, not anyone can market xeroxes. Granted, part of that is the fact it is a company name and not simply a product name, and it would risk confusing the consumers into buying an actual Xerox, but the point I am trying (with mixed results) to make remains:
Trademarks apply in context. They do not apply out of context. Google's request that the fact it is a trademark be noted is mainly to prevent what happened to aspirin. While they can't stop people from saying 'I'm going to google for my keys', they can stop other internet search sites from saying 'Perform your googles here!' There is a difference between a trademark losing its affect in common speech, and a trademark losing its legal standing. Aspirin has lost both xerox has lost only the second. And to switch to your example (since even I am growing weary of my use of xerox), while large segments of the population may say 'coke' for any soft drink, the Coca Cola company would never allow an ad that says 'Drink Our-Brand Cola: The Best Coke Ever!'
Unless, of course, Our-Brand actually did contain coke, either cocaine or the smelting kind. They could probably use the term coke since it would be part of the product, though eventually some grumps at the FDA or DEA would start tossing their weight around.
(On a side note, this coke business can get annoying to traveling Pepsi drinkers, but that's another discussion entirely. )
When Apple first formed as such, they were involved in a trademark dispute with the British recording label Apple (the Beatles label, BTW). They settled because Apple Computer would be in a different business. (For more, search on 'Apple+sosumi'.) Furthermore, it has also been resolved that 'Apple' can not be used as a trademark when selling the actual fruit.
Google does NOT mean to search for something online. Check here or your closest paper dictionary. In the vernacular it has come to mean search in much the same way xerox has come to mean copy documents, kleenex has come to mean tissue, and scotch tape has come to mean transparent tape.
Ergo, if another internet search engine uses the term 'google' it would be as much as fault as a copier company advertising with the word 'xerox'. The fact that 'Word Spy' has noted that it is now in common use to mean search is irrelavent.
Their lawyer's intent is to ensure that the dictionary mentions the trademark; if they let the definition go other sites can use it as evidence that they don't care about protecting it.
As to you're other point, no. It is a generic word when used genericly in speech, it is a trademark violation when used directly with what the trademark is for. "xerox" has become a common term for making copies, but I'm pretty certain Xerox would complain if Canon released the new "TR-11 Xerox Machine". Even common use words are defendable as trademarks - witness Apple. It is only a trademark violation if in the given context someone could reasonably believe what is being discussed has something to do directly with the trademark holders. So I would think that other search engines could be prevented from using the term 'google' to describe what they do, in much the same way that Canon would be in trouble if their slogan were to change to 'for all of your xeroxing needs'.
That editor would "voom" if you put 4 million volts through it. It's bleeding demised. It's passed on. It has ceased to be. It has expired and gone to meet its maker. It's a stiff. Bereft of life, it rests in peace. If they hadn't nailed it to the server it'd be pushing up the daisies. It's curled up its tootsies, it's shuffled off this mortal coil. It's brung down the curtain and joined the bleeding choir invisible! Vis a Vis the metabolic processes, he's had his lot! All statements to the effect that this editor is still a going concern are from now on inoperative!
I've found a worse problem with Windows taskbars are logins to apps that don't register in it. With how many things that like to pop in front of what you're actually typing in, I often find myself minimizing windows until I find the one I need that I can't Alt-Tab to, because some idiot decided it didn't need to be seen in the task bar. (It usually happens when I click on something else while it should authenticate and it pops a message in front of whatever I'm doing saying only "Authentication failed", that is rude enough to interrupt and not switch to the problem window.)
And to continue with a related rant, at least once a week I'll double click an email in Outlook, so I can double click on a name so I can copy an email address. If I forget to cancel out of that little box immediately, I usually end up trying to click on Outlook's main window. Instead of bringing all of it's windows forward in proper order, it brings the main window and the yells (read: beeps) at you when you click on anything. I hate it.
</RANT>
Maybe I should change my.sig: Slashdot. Therapy for nerds, rants that clear.
Cocoa for Intel Darwin is far more likely, though moving to the intel platform would introduce new fights with cloners. As near as I can tell since Apple is using fairly standard components as it is, there wouldn't be much financial incentive to move to intel. I'm not in the know, but keeping OSX up to date means that if PowerPC advancement officially stopped they wouldn't have to start from scratch to move on. In fact, one outside possibility is pentium & powerpc on the same board - hey, 68K on the same chip wasn't that much crazier, and it's just a variant of Dual processors. (OK, I'm glossing over a lot, that's just a thinking point.)
Anyway, I would argue that moving to intel may be relatively easy for the entire, properly written, OS X environment, but Classic would definately be out, and there would still be numerous programs that took short cuts that wouldn't work.
But I'm all over the place there. I guess what I'm saying is that I don't think the market on Windows would support another photo manager, and those for people that want to use iMovie or iDVD Apple would much rather entice onto a new Mac with other software to make the transition easier, rather than make a hundred bucks after porting them to Windows. And while they may be planning everything to be able to switch the motherboard, that has to be a Worst Case Scenario. Look at how much slack they're taking between supporting OS X and OS 9 and people are still using OS 8.6. They aren't throwing a whole nother conversion in unless it's sink or swim.
I've found that a better distinction between scripting languages and programming languages lies in the definition of "script". Even allowing for loops, all scripting lanuages (TIHSIANO*) produce something that has an entrance and an exit with no direct, external, interactive interaction. This holds true from what I've seen for php, perl, sql, vbscript, javascript... On the flip side while programming languages can be used to write programs that process something and quit, many are designed to run continuously and react to direct input.
Note that by "direct, external, interactive interaction" I mean that either they maintain some kind of user interface, or they are a background process running continually and monitoring something. This does not mean processes that are repeatedly launched, do their thing based on what was passed to them or current conditions, and quit.
*TIHSIANO - That I Have Seen, I Am Not Omnipotent. Not very catchy, but while I'd like to learn of counter-examples I don't wan't to be flamed for ignorance.
Umm... no. They wrote a Windows interface for the iPod because a) it is a relatively simple, specialized file manager and b) it sold iPods. Apple is a hardware company. The iLife apps exist as a bonus to Mac users, an incentive to upgrade or switch to new Macs. It costs money and time to port software, and you know that iPhoto and iMovie are heavily invested in Cocoa, Quartz and other Mac-exclusive properties. Porting even just iPhoto would involve porting all the exporting/publishing options, plus support hundreds of camera/hardware combinations. They do not have the software engineers to do any of these ports, which would in the end on deter people from buying Macs since the price difference with PC's is much more than the $100 or even $150 you suggest.
Given the overall progress on the iApps, not to mention Safari and OS X in general, I personally think they are managing their development projects pretty well. They are riding out the recession better than most companies, and the more distinct software solutions they develop will make their products look even better when the recession ending combines with Windows DRM backlash. OK, that last was an unprovoked slam, but it is something to be aware of when looking at the big picture. Apple has said and acted in varying degrees that they want to give customers tools, not restrictions, and I think they just keep subtly positioning themselves to jump when the axe falls.
Of course, that's just my hop^H^H^Hopinion. I could be wrong.
I think you should close Chimera and reopen it between tests. You may just have found memory leaks or even an active memory cache which goes up with each site, tabbed or not. And yes, it could exist for each even if the same site - you'd need a seperate history for each, wouldn't you? I assume Back on each tab would take you to the last page on that tab. In order to do that the browser needs a seperate list per page, whether tabbed or not.
I'm not saying that that is the only source for the difference, I just wanted to point out that without quitting the results are even less accurate than you think. I will admit your other test does support your argument, I just think the 50% you saw at first could have been inflated.
Slashdot Mirror
1) Apple announces iTools account holders immediately gain access to 5 Universal songs per month. Access to more will require a nominal fee.
2) With the release of their fifth film, Pixar announces their deal with Disney has been fulfilled and they have formed a new alliance with Apple as the distributor for future releases. Soundtracks will be available on Universal Records.
3) In a surprise move, Dell acquires Apple Records, only to discover afterwards that the entire Beatles catalog is owned by Michael Jackson. Begins ad campaign with interns explaining why Wings was better.
4) Bill Gates announces new behind-the-ear implant that will allow streaming music directly into a persons brain. Sharp-eyed consumers discover Terms-Of-Service includes clause allowing device to record thoughts that immediately become his property.
The specific 10.2.5 changes are here.
And by gum we liked it!
Never could get my granpap to stop bleating on about rock tablets and hieroglyphics, mind you.
The main crux of this comparison, as far as I can tell, should be made in reference to other aspects of business. Consider a manufacturing plant of some kind. In this plant they have equipment that they built, equipment they bought on contract and have serviced, and equipment that they bought but maintain themselves. The equipment they build or maintain is directly related to their business, and the operators/engineers are sufficiently trained and experienced to cover the majority of their needs. Over the years they have filled each equipment need they've had with the solution that was best at the time, and presumably address their solutions over time when difficulties or cost concerns come up.
This is roughly analogous to in-house software, proprietary software, and open source software. A company is free to pick and choose which solutions work best to remain in business. The main difference is very few companies naturally have Software Engineers/Designers/What Have You in the course of their normal business developments. Whereas a small manufacturing company is likely to have been founded by people making the product by hand, rarely are office environments founded by programmers (Exception: software companies which by this analogy are manufacturers of software and would fit with them).
The important thing to remember is that software isn't the only third party products these offices, or even manufacturers, use. There aren't many advocates for Open Source Copiers, or Open Source Pens, or Open Source Coffee Makers, all calling for GPL'd blueprints. The significant difference with software is that the only real resources required are the source code (or blue prints) and the person capable of understanding and modifying them. Virtually everything else would require a parts supply chain which, if not part of the main business, usually isn't an economical path to follow.
In conclusion, the cost of maintaining anything utilized by an organization that isn't directly related to the organization should be compared with the costs of outside solutions, whether talking about software or coffee makers, and whether talking about businesses, governments, or even your own house.
Well, there was a hint.
Jobs: OS 9 is Dead, Long Live OS X
Do you know where a good BSD client source can be found, possibly with useful instructions? I'm thinking it could probably built against OS X w/XDarwin. I've spend some time looking and many links are dead, or I've gotten Linux builds. I have found a BSD source that may work if I can figure out where to get libXpm, or if I have it and it just isn't correct for this build. If I get it built I'd host it somewhere, but first I need to get it built.
Ignoring the implication that people are incapable of writing their own music, a gathering of family and friends is not a public performance. If it were, we'd all owe Warner communications a bit: Fun Facts - Happy Birthday To You.
For the record, this is why chain restaurants sing their own versions. They are either afraid to lose or have already lost that it would be a public performance. And I have heard on the radio someone comment about how they'd have to pay because a mic picked someone up singing it. As it is 110 years old, this is a much more obvious abuse of copyright than the 'Free the Mouse' thing vs. Disney.
1) Since when does having more information cause the loss of freedom? Right now, people can't choose because they don't generally know. This is analagous to the Explicit Lyrics warning label. Sure, times have changed and most people don't care, but if they do care they can make the choice. (This is especially important now with how hard it is to preview or return CDs.)
2) <Political, offtopic rant deleted. Gist: we oppose war, but we're now afraid of our "free speech". Look at the Dixie Chicks. Look at Michael Moore. And so on.>
3) When CD's won't play, we'll go to books. Or plays. Or local concerts. Or invite friends over for Parcheesi. Or, here's a stretch, pick up a guitar/trumpet/harmonica/whatever ourselves. The RIAA isn't OPEC, you know. We can survive without their wares. Of course, this could turn into a large sociological/economical question concerning the emphasis of sports over arts in lower levels of school, and conspiracy theories thereof, but it is still possible.
I think the they was merely refuting the implied absolute of 'inherently inferior'. In other words:
1. All Open Source implementations are inferior because of the lack of formal development process
2. Comparing the TCP/IP handling, we found that the Open Source implementations are superior to proprietary implementations
Ergo: The common belief is not an absolute truth.
I don't think it was their intent to show that a lock of formal development is more or less likely to produce inferior code, only that it isn't an absolute result.
Of course, moving from pure logic to statistics it is clear that one test result isn't really enough to disprove the original assertion. However, it is enough to plant doubt and possibly lead to more comparisons along these lines.
There was one worm going around about a year and a half ago, that would get launched from the preview screen without the email being specifically opened. Well, we had finally gotten it mostly cleaned from our systems and one guy was checking his hard drive. He clicked on a file he didn't recognize, it tried to show the web-formatted document in a preview, and launched the script again.
i guess my point is that many people will launch the script without opening the email, simply because as soon as the header is clicked on it will be displayed in the preview window. And yes, the preview window can be turned off; I'm just pointed out that reasonably responsible people using a standard feature would be hit without doing anything that could be labeled as dumb.
Our software is an extended accounting package (to keep it simple). People reporting bugs generally view themselves as the only customer. Generally, whatever they find as a bug is in some way holding them up. Whether it is a legitimate holdup (can post end of month numbers) or one that merely is perceived as such (a report that suddenly doesn't print, but the information is on screen). So until it is fixed, they can be annoying.
This may actually be an interesting point of research for a socialogist. Some kind of 'I'm important, validate me' thing. Degrading into rudeness could be an extension of this.
Sony's consumers aren't 'left in the position...', they just don't get the Live benefit. The current Sony model is the same as the current PC model - a publisher/developer decides on a server & subscription method, and you have different logins for each game.
As for the consistency factor, yes there is currently a wide void for a consistant server base for PS2. But this is probably a semi-temporary condition. Smart developers are probably designing their servers such that future games can use them as well, possibly with features similar to XBLs. Also, some may decide to side-market their solution, helping recoup costs and helping other developers.
As others have pointed out, XBL's subscription could legally be changed at anytime. Personally, I like the idea of only paying for online games one at a time. Some are overpriced (EQonline comes to mind), but some are going to be free. And as time goes on more probably will be free, or publishers will offer group rates for their games. I think one could look at Blizzard (who've managed to make a free service profitable even with piracy) and see that the model can work.
And, as I recall, it was the number one seller, numbers-wise, for a while.
Not that it didn't also require a lot of graphic work, but it is just one example of "silly basic stuff" that, as the saying could go, is more impressive than what it was made with.
For the record, Apple had a visually oriented Basic that Microsoft forced them to kill, as it would compete with their Basic (which wasn't visually oriented.) Hypercard was created to replace it, and from what I understand there are still many users who haven't gone to OS X simply because of Hypercard.
You missed the most important part - obscure software that isn't normally carried, even at CompUSA. It's gotten better with the boxes shrinking to DVD-cases (more titles/shelf), but they still only order what they think will sell & rotate out quickly. Also, broadband isn't nearly as prolific as you think. The Kiosk would be able to demo the software, which you can't do without downloading the full install. In addition, you'd get a CD and case, whereas from the 'net you'd have to spend even more time burning a CD or keep the original installer hanging around in case of incidents.
Personally, I'm more interested in the End-Of-Life titles. I'd like to pick up older games like Full Throttle or Sam & Max, or the Infocom collections, without relying on eBay. I'm hoping once a publisher has buy-in they'll release the majority of their backlog, possibly as sets of games. They'll understandably be wary of an increase support calls from trying to run old games in Classic, but hopefully they release the most popular from olden days.
In addition, the 'copy protection' scheme seems reasonable. It seems more designed to remind people 'Hey you paid for this. If you copy it for someone, you'll have to give them your unlocking key.' Of course, it could be stronger than it appears, but I'm looking forward to trying it out.
No, sharing music via P2P helps show that sales have declined due to sharing music via P2P.
The cause I'm trying to prove is that I'm willing to pay fair prices, or do without. This isn't bread or water or even literature we are talking about, this is entertainment. There are dozens of ways to be entertained, so if one has an unfair pricing scheme than the moral road is to avoid it. Read a book. See a play. See an orchestra. Or even go back to the days when families would gather around pianos. But don't try to pass off not paying for entertainment as a means for anything other than not paying for entertainment.
Actually, I saw this and the first thing I thought was "Maybe it is time to get AOL." Many people have said that they would pay for songs if they could. Well, here's a chance. Hopefully they will release what their catalog plan is before long, as not many will jump on without know what is available. And their count of burnable seems low. But if it works out that they have the songs I want, and in a year it comes out to better than a per CD cost (especially since it may take 8 CDs at $15 a pop to get what 10 songs I want), then I will seriously consider it.
If we want our entertainment companies to take us seriously, we must in effect stage personal strikes. I don't buy CDs not simply because I can't get the mix I want, but because I think it is ridiculous that 25 year old albums cost $14+, especially when they're sometimes of LPs of less than 40 minutes of music. They can argue all they want about how much it costs to produce new albums, but if it went platinum over 15 years ago I'm pretty sure the costs are now negligible.
Actually, aspirin is an excellent example of a trademark that was not enforced and suffered 'trademark dilution' (thanks Uart). Now anyone can market aspirin. However, not anyone can market xeroxes. Granted, part of that is the fact it is a company name and not simply a product name, and it would risk confusing the consumers into buying an actual Xerox, but the point I am trying (with mixed results) to make remains:
Trademarks apply in context. They do not apply out of context. Google's request that the fact it is a trademark be noted is mainly to prevent what happened to aspirin. While they can't stop people from saying 'I'm going to google for my keys', they can stop other internet search sites from saying 'Perform your googles here!' There is a difference between a trademark losing its affect in common speech, and a trademark losing its legal standing. Aspirin has lost both xerox has lost only the second. And to switch to your example (since even I am growing weary of my use of xerox), while large segments of the population may say 'coke' for any soft drink, the Coca Cola company would never allow an ad that says 'Drink Our-Brand Cola: The Best Coke Ever!'
Unless, of course, Our-Brand actually did contain coke, either cocaine or the smelting kind. They could probably use the term coke since it would be part of the product, though eventually some grumps at the FDA or DEA would start tossing their weight around.
(On a side note, this coke business can get annoying to traveling Pepsi drinkers, but that's another discussion entirely. )
No.
When Apple first formed as such, they were involved in a trademark dispute with the British recording label Apple (the Beatles label, BTW). They settled because Apple Computer would be in a different business. (For more, search on 'Apple+sosumi'.) Furthermore, it has also been resolved that 'Apple' can not be used as a trademark when selling the actual fruit.
Google does NOT mean to search for something online. Check here or your closest paper dictionary. In the vernacular it has come to mean search in much the same way xerox has come to mean copy documents, kleenex has come to mean tissue, and scotch tape has come to mean transparent tape.
Ergo, if another internet search engine uses the term 'google' it would be as much as fault as a copier company advertising with the word 'xerox'. The fact that 'Word Spy' has noted that it is now in common use to mean search is irrelavent.
Their lawyer's intent is to ensure that the dictionary mentions the trademark; if they let the definition go other sites can use it as evidence that they don't care about protecting it.
As to you're other point, no. It is a generic word when used genericly in speech, it is a trademark violation when used directly with what the trademark is for. "xerox" has become a common term for making copies, but I'm pretty certain Xerox would complain if Canon released the new "TR-11 Xerox Machine". Even common use words are defendable as trademarks - witness Apple. It is only a trademark violation if in the given context someone could reasonably believe what is being discussed has something to do directly with the trademark holders. So I would think that other search engines could be prevented from using the term 'google' to describe what they do, in much the same way that Canon would be in trouble if their slogan were to change to 'for all of your xeroxing needs'.
That editor would "voom" if you put 4 million volts through it. It's bleeding demised. It's passed on. It has ceased to be. It has expired and gone to meet its maker. It's a stiff. Bereft of life, it rests in peace. If they hadn't nailed it to the server it'd be pushing up the daisies. It's curled up its tootsies, it's shuffled off this mortal coil. It's brung down the curtain and joined the bleeding choir invisible! Vis a Vis the metabolic processes, he's had his lot! All statements to the effect that this editor is still a going concern are from now on inoperative!
Hopefully the replacement isn't a talking slug.
I've found a worse problem with Windows taskbars are logins to apps that don't register in it. With how many things that like to pop in front of what you're actually typing in, I often find myself minimizing windows until I find the one I need that I can't Alt-Tab to, because some idiot decided it didn't need to be seen in the task bar. (It usually happens when I click on something else while it should authenticate and it pops a message in front of whatever I'm doing saying only "Authentication failed", that is rude enough to interrupt and not switch to the problem window.)
.sig: Slashdot. Therapy for nerds, rants that clear.
And to continue with a related rant, at least once a week I'll double click an email in Outlook, so I can double click on a name so I can copy an email address. If I forget to cancel out of that little box immediately, I usually end up trying to click on Outlook's main window. Instead of bringing all of it's windows forward in proper order, it brings the main window and the yells (read: beeps) at you when you click on anything. I hate it.
</RANT>
Maybe I should change my
Cocoa for Intel Darwin is far more likely, though moving to the intel platform would introduce new fights with cloners. As near as I can tell since Apple is using fairly standard components as it is, there wouldn't be much financial incentive to move to intel. I'm not in the know, but keeping OSX up to date means that if PowerPC advancement officially stopped they wouldn't have to start from scratch to move on. In fact, one outside possibility is pentium & powerpc on the same board - hey, 68K on the same chip wasn't that much crazier, and it's just a variant of Dual processors. (OK, I'm glossing over a lot, that's just a thinking point.)
Anyway, I would argue that moving to intel may be relatively easy for the entire, properly written, OS X environment, but Classic would definately be out, and there would still be numerous programs that took short cuts that wouldn't work.
But I'm all over the place there. I guess what I'm saying is that I don't think the market on Windows would support another photo manager, and those for people that want to use iMovie or iDVD Apple would much rather entice onto a new Mac with other software to make the transition easier, rather than make a hundred bucks after porting them to Windows. And while they may be planning everything to be able to switch the motherboard, that has to be a Worst Case Scenario. Look at how much slack they're taking between supporting OS X and OS 9 and people are still using OS 8.6. They aren't throwing a whole nother conversion in unless it's sink or swim.
I've found that a better distinction between scripting languages and programming languages lies in the definition of "script". Even allowing for loops, all scripting lanuages (TIHSIANO*) produce something that has an entrance and an exit with no direct, external, interactive interaction. This holds true from what I've seen for php, perl, sql, vbscript, javascript... On the flip side while programming languages can be used to write programs that process something and quit, many are designed to run continuously and react to direct input.
Note that by "direct, external, interactive interaction" I mean that either they maintain some kind of user interface, or they are a background process running continually and monitoring something. This does not mean processes that are repeatedly launched, do their thing based on what was passed to them or current conditions, and quit.
*TIHSIANO - That I Have Seen, I Am Not Omnipotent. Not very catchy, but while I'd like to learn of counter-examples I don't wan't to be flamed for ignorance.
Umm... no. They wrote a Windows interface for the iPod because a) it is a relatively simple, specialized file manager and b) it sold iPods. Apple is a hardware company. The iLife apps exist as a bonus to Mac users, an incentive to upgrade or switch to new Macs. It costs money and time to port software, and you know that iPhoto and iMovie are heavily invested in Cocoa, Quartz and other Mac-exclusive properties. Porting even just iPhoto would involve porting all the exporting/publishing options, plus support hundreds of camera/hardware combinations. They do not have the software engineers to do any of these ports, which would in the end on deter people from buying Macs since the price difference with PC's is much more than the $100 or even $150 you suggest.
Given the overall progress on the iApps, not to mention Safari and OS X in general, I personally think they are managing their development projects pretty well. They are riding out the recession better than most companies, and the more distinct software solutions they develop will make their products look even better when the recession ending combines with Windows DRM backlash. OK, that last was an unprovoked slam, but it is something to be aware of when looking at the big picture. Apple has said and acted in varying degrees that they want to give customers tools, not restrictions, and I think they just keep subtly positioning themselves to jump when the axe falls.
Of course, that's just my hop^H^H^Hopinion. I could be wrong.
I think you should close Chimera and reopen it between tests. You may just have found memory leaks or even an active memory cache which goes up with each site, tabbed or not. And yes, it could exist for each even if the same site - you'd need a seperate history for each, wouldn't you? I assume Back on each tab would take you to the last page on that tab. In order to do that the browser needs a seperate list per page, whether tabbed or not.
I'm not saying that that is the only source for the difference, I just wanted to point out that without quitting the results are even less accurate than you think. I will admit your other test does support your argument, I just think the 50% you saw at first could have been inflated.