The thing is everyone here saying that the Mac Pro is safe is not even aware of what the protection is about. They think it's about protecting from users poking their fingers in. Whereas actually it's about what happens when fans with manufacturing defects fragment. It applies to fans that qualify under a formula of mass and top-speed.
The inside of a Mac Pro is an operator accessible area - it's made easy to open because users are expected to replace parts. Such operators are being given protection against flying fan fragents.
It maybe that those criticising have never seen a big, fast fan fragment. But safety standards are created from experience of actual accidents that do happen.
Safety standards have saved countless lives, and many more injuries. They are one of the good things that governments do. People who think they are worthless just haven't thought them through. It's just the usual anti-government knee jerk from the unthinking.
It can also be easily LOCKED to prevent theft AND OPENING. So NOW who's got the responsibility?
The requirements is for 2 levels of protection from faults, not 2 levels of protection from users.
The inside of a Pac Pro is a operator area - it's expected for users to open them to replace parts. And when doing so, standards are there to guard their safety against faulty parts.
So being able to lock the case with a padlock is irrelevant.
Also, a standard has to put rules in pace to cover all products. It's not right to just judge each case on it's merits. That's the way substandard and dangerous products get through.
The fans appear to qualify based on an objective mass/max speed formula as ones that could be dangerous if they broke, and thus they need protection from flying fragments. It's not probing fingers that's the issue.
Whether or not someone judges that likely or not for a specific product is irrelevant. Safety standards have to be written generically. And products must be manufactured to meet those safety standards.
Hey regulators, do you realize that if someone opens a chassis of a power supply and licks the circuit boards, they'll get electrocuted with line voltage?
To be fair, anything with mains voltage (power supplies) has to have two layers of protection from faults. Either double insulated, or single insulated plus ground.
So they are only applying the same approach to heavy/fast spinning fans as they are to mains. Two layers of protection from faults not just one.
It should also be noted that the Mac Pro has user replaceable parts, so the insides are classed as operator accessible areas, not service only areas.
I realise this is a troll, but for anyone thinking it might be real:
He's just need to restart Textedit, and all the documents he had open will still be there, still opened, in exactly the state they were in seconds before the crash. Snow Leopard documents don't need saving, they are constantly persisted whilst editing. Even if you have't yet given them a filename.
but nonetheless, this is something people are definitely going to run into occasionally.
Looks like a very embarrassing bug to me. But it's taken 6 months for anyone to spot it. So, surprising though it may seem, the chances of any one individual ever getting it accidentally are slim.
(Intriguingly the third slash it not necessary. Typing random letters after 2 slashes also tends to crash it. It just takes a few more. It'll be interesting to get the diagnosis of exactly what's going on here.)
And the father said "yes". That is permission, i.e. a license, to produce modified works.
You're confused. Because you're so desperate for licenses to be necessary. But they're not.
A license might contain permissions, but a permission is not a license. When a father gives a son permission to leave the table, that's just permission, it's not a license. If the father created a document to say the son could leave the table any time he liked, only then would it be a license.
"I post code to the internet for others to learn from. If they want to take snippets, then good for them, that's what people do with open source. If they want to use the whole thing, then fine." you weren't exactly being honest.
Not understanding can cause people to think others are being dishonest. I'm being completely honest. They have permission to do those things. They just don't have a license to do them.
The man replies, "No, it is not. You may have it now, if you would enjoy it. But should you choose to eat it, in the future I may come calling and demand you pay any price I like."
Unfortunately your parable doesn't reflect real life. The man has no such hold over someone who accepts a cookie. Nor do I over anyone who accepts my gift.
If instead he tried to make a business out of selling my recipe, then he's have a problem.
See how it's only people who try to abuse the gift that have a problem.
And how many Air Jordans are sold each year? it would be hard to argue that Air Jordans are in any way "better" than any other sneaker but its the BRANDING that allows them to sell at a premium.
A brand is a promise of quality. Brands can only be maintained over the long term if the customer experience is a good one. If Air Jordans were bad sneakers, they wouldn't have maintained themselves as a desirable brand for 30 years.
Now sneakers aren't my style, so I've never had Air Jordans. But I do buy Camper shoes, even though they are more expensive than the average shoe, because they are comfy, durable and look good. In that order. I can assess any shoe in the shop for how it looks, but the long term comfort and durability is only gaugeable by the brand.
It isn't that a low priced item in a brand diminishes the brand because of the price. It's that a low priced item has to be manufactured cheaply, and that affects it's quality. The evidence for that is that many high priced fashion brands also sell T-Shirts. They are low priced compared to the primary products, but high enough to be well manufactured. And so the low-priced T-Shirts don't hurt the high end product brand.
If you think Apple just chanced upon a desirable brand, and maintain it by fluke, you don't understand how brands work.
It you think they do it by marketing, then you didn't look at my link in the previous post that shows their marketing is a fraction of Samsung's - AND you don't understand how brands work.
Obviously there are lots of "deep" gameplay games that work better with joypad and buttons than touch, and benefit from larger screens. And that's exactly where an Apple TV console would come in. Apple already has the casual mobile games market. This move would let them take the more serious game market too.
The problem is that developing these mobile casual games is basically a lottery where millions play and only a few very lucky people ever actually the big money.
And how likely is it that people will buy a $430 Apple TV/iPad mini bundle instead of, say, a $350 Wii U console?
No chance whatsoever. But that's not what's going to happen. The Apple TV will undoubtably still be standalone. There's no need to stream the games. Apple TV is an iOS device in itself. The app can run there.
And the games will undoubtably need their input method modifying for Apple TV. Some game types will work worse for being controlled with a controller rather than touch. Some will work better. Some games lend themselves more to touch, some lend themselves more to button presses. Some work just as well with either input type.
However, it's an iOS variant, so all it would take is adding a games controller and giving it access to the iTunes App Store, and it'll become the most interesting console there is. Less powerful than all the others, but an unbeatable range of games from 99c to about $9.99.
That's why Gabe Newell sees it as their biggest threat. And he knows an awful lot more about the business than you do.
The truth is Apple is successful because, uniquely in the tech business, they value design above everything.
âoeMost people make the mistake of thinking design is what it looks like. Thatâ(TM)s not what we think design is. Itâ(TM)s not just what it looks like and feels like. Design is how it works.â -- Steve Jobs.
Like the "simplified" trackpads that Apple innovated and everybody else has adopted that are beautiful because they have no buttons but suck really, really badly for drag-drop or select-single-pixel operations.
They don't suck for either of those things. It's actually easier to do both those things than on a trackpad with separate buttons, because the surface area is greater.
It could be that you don't realise it's a forefinger and thumb operation. Forefinger to point, thumb to click.
Sounds like you were too conservative to get away from the mouse at all. Like any change of input device, it takes a couple of days to get used to.
Nope. A weakness is not the same thing as a vulnerability. Weaknesses are things that already have gone wrong and are already accounted for in market share; vulnerabilities are things that haven't gone wrong yet. Weaknesses don't kill market-dominating platforms; vulnerabilities do. Fragmentation and lack of updates are not new things that are going to suddenly appear and kill Android.
Fragmentation isn't a constant. Android fragmentation is getting worse.
And you seem to think that Android is safe from vulnerabilities because there are many vendors. That's never been true. Multiple vendors didn't save the horse-drawn carriage. It didn't save the portable cassette player. And it's not saving the PC. Something better is what kills products, not a single manufacturer.
The multiple hardware vendor does not in general have any advantage over the singular vendor. MSX didn't beat any of the 80s home computers. Plays For Sure didn't beat iPod. The mass of mobile cassette players didn't beat the Walkman. Symbian didn't beat Apple iPhone.
There are many different stories of product rises and falls, and what you seem to think is an invulnerability, a deciding factor, doesn't stand the test of history.
No. He simply gave a gift, and the son was polite enough to ask to modify it. And that was in part because he WASN'T given a license. If he's had a license, he's have felt he had the RIGHT to modify it, and wouldn't have asked.
But he was right. the Father had not given him the right to produce modified versions of the story.
No, his father didn't give him any rights. Just a gift. There's nothing to stop him modifying a gift to suit him better. It's no breach of copyright or anything else to go through a book and white out "leopard" when it occurs and replace it with "lion". But he doesn't have the right to copy and distribute such modifications. That wasn't the gift.
Apple's been selling iPhones in China since the iPhone 3. And yes, they sell the iPhone 5. Your rumour link is about a new model, not the already existing models.
Android is vulnerable because of fragmentation. And the very things you describe make that worse. It's also vulnerable because users are frustrated with the lack of software updates for existing phones.
Slashdot Mirror
It's none of those. It's that they already redesigned the Mac Pro, and it's going to be out later in the year. The smart bet is at the WWDC in June.
It's simply not worth doing a modification on the old model for the EU when the next model is not far away.
It's not about the Macbook Pro. It's about the Mac Pro. Very different.
The thing is everyone here saying that the Mac Pro is safe is not even aware of what the protection is about. They think it's about protecting from users poking their fingers in. Whereas actually it's about what happens when fans with manufacturing defects fragment. It applies to fans that qualify under a formula of mass and top-speed.
The inside of a Mac Pro is an operator accessible area - it's made easy to open because users are expected to replace parts. Such operators are being given protection against flying fan fragents.
It maybe that those criticising have never seen a big, fast fan fragment. But safety standards are created from experience of actual accidents that do happen.
Safety standards have saved countless lives, and many more injuries. They are one of the good things that governments do. People who think they are worthless just haven't thought them through. It's just the usual anti-government knee jerk from the unthinking.
There are several problems in your post. I've covered some in previous posts, so I'll just cover this one here:
The USA also has safety standards. So your implication that having safety standards is an EU problem* is extremely misguided.
(* Not that safety standards are a problem. They are one of the good things that governments do.)
Dyson's brilliance is in marketing, not engineering.
Actually the bagless vacuum certainly was an engineering achievement. And one that had escaped the existing vac manufacturers for decades.
They are also good at marketing.
Just because something is well marketed doesn't mean it isn't an engineering achievement as well.
It's simply not worth retooling for, just for Europe, when their new Mac Pro will only be 3 months away.
And it's not about fingers. It's about fragments if the fan breaks.
It can also be easily LOCKED to prevent theft AND OPENING. So NOW who's got the responsibility?
The requirements is for 2 levels of protection from faults, not 2 levels of protection from users.
The inside of a Pac Pro is a operator area - it's expected for users to open them to replace parts. And when doing so, standards are there to guard their safety against faulty parts.
So being able to lock the case with a padlock is irrelevant.
Also, a standard has to put rules in pace to cover all products. It's not right to just judge each case on it's merits. That's the way substandard and dangerous products get through.
The fans appear to qualify based on an objective mass/max speed formula as ones that could be dangerous if they broke, and thus they need protection from flying fragments. It's not probing fingers that's the issue.
Whether or not someone judges that likely or not for a specific product is irrelevant. Safety standards have to be written generically. And products must be manufactured to meet those safety standards.
Hey regulators, do you realize that if someone opens a chassis of a power supply and licks the circuit boards, they'll get electrocuted with line voltage?
To be fair, anything with mains voltage (power supplies) has to have two layers of protection from faults. Either double insulated, or single insulated plus ground.
So they are only applying the same approach to heavy/fast spinning fans as they are to mains. Two layers of protection from faults not just one.
It should also be noted that the Mac Pro has user replaceable parts, so the insides are classed as operator accessible areas, not service only areas.
I realise this is a troll, but for anyone thinking it might be real:
He's just need to restart Textedit, and all the documents he had open will still be there, still opened, in exactly the state they were in seconds before the crash. Snow Leopard documents don't need saving, they are constantly persisted whilst editing. Even if you have't yet given them a filename.
Even more interesting is that fact it didn't prevent you from making that post.
but nonetheless, this is something people are definitely going to run into occasionally.
Looks like a very embarrassing bug to me. But it's taken 6 months for anyone to spot it. So, surprising though it may seem, the chances of any one individual ever getting it accidentally are slim.
(Intriguingly the third slash it not necessary. Typing random letters after 2 slashes also tends to crash it. It just takes a few more. It'll be interesting to get the diagnosis of exactly what's going on here.)
And the father said "yes". That is permission, i.e. a license, to produce modified works.
You're confused. Because you're so desperate for licenses to be necessary. But they're not.
A license might contain permissions, but a permission is not a license. When a father gives a son permission to leave the table, that's just permission, it's not a license. If the father created a document to say the son could leave the table any time he liked, only then would it be a license.
"I post code to the internet for others to learn from. If they want to take snippets, then good for them, that's what people do with open source. If they want to use the whole thing, then fine."
you weren't exactly being honest.
Not understanding can cause people to think others are being dishonest. I'm being completely honest. They have permission to do those things. They just don't have a license to do them.
The man replies, "No, it is not. You may have it now, if you would enjoy it. But should you choose to eat it, in the future I may come calling and demand you pay any price I like."
Unfortunately your parable doesn't reflect real life. The man has no such hold over someone who accepts a cookie. Nor do I over anyone who accepts my gift.
If instead he tried to make a business out of selling my recipe, then he's have a problem.
See how it's only people who try to abuse the gift that have a problem.
And how many Air Jordans are sold each year? it would be hard to argue that Air Jordans are in any way "better" than any other sneaker but its the BRANDING that allows them to sell at a premium.
A brand is a promise of quality. Brands can only be maintained over the long term if the customer experience is a good one. If Air Jordans were bad sneakers, they wouldn't have maintained themselves as a desirable brand for 30 years.
Now sneakers aren't my style, so I've never had Air Jordans. But I do buy Camper shoes, even though they are more expensive than the average shoe, because they are comfy, durable and look good. In that order. I can assess any shoe in the shop for how it looks, but the long term comfort and durability is only gaugeable by the brand.
It isn't that a low priced item in a brand diminishes the brand because of the price. It's that a low priced item has to be manufactured cheaply, and that affects it's quality. The evidence for that is that many high priced fashion brands also sell T-Shirts. They are low priced compared to the primary products, but high enough to be well manufactured. And so the low-priced T-Shirts don't hurt the high end product brand.
If you think Apple just chanced upon a desirable brand, and maintain it by fluke, you don't understand how brands work.
It you think they do it by marketing, then you didn't look at my link in the previous post that shows their marketing is a fraction of Samsung's - AND you don't understand how brands work.
Obviously there are lots of "deep" gameplay games that work better with joypad and buttons than touch, and benefit from larger screens. And that's exactly where an Apple TV console would come in. Apple already has the casual mobile games market. This move would let them take the more serious game market too.
The problem is that developing these mobile casual games is basically a lottery where millions play and only a few very lucky people ever actually the big money.
It's a game of skill, not luck.
And how likely is it that people will buy a $430 Apple TV/iPad mini bundle instead of, say, a $350 Wii U console?
No chance whatsoever. But that's not what's going to happen. The Apple TV will undoubtably still be standalone. There's no need to stream the games. Apple TV is an iOS device in itself. The app can run there.
And the games will undoubtably need their input method modifying for Apple TV. Some game types will work worse for being controlled with a controller rather than touch. Some will work better. Some games lend themselves more to touch, some lend themselves more to button presses. Some work just as well with either input type.
As it stands,the Apple TV is quite uninteresting.
However, it's an iOS variant, so all it would take is adding a games controller and giving it access to the iTunes App Store, and it'll become the most interesting console there is. Less powerful than all the others, but an unbeatable range of games from 99c to about $9.99.
That's why Gabe Newell sees it as their biggest threat. And he knows an awful lot more about the business than you do.
Just look at the iPad, tablets certainly weren't new or innovative but it was Apple marketing that made them the "must have" device.
Ironically Samsung's marketing budget dwarfs Apple's marketing budget. It's about 10 times as much.
http://www.asymco.com/2012/11/29/the-cost-of-selling-galaxies/
And yet Apple is more successful than Samsung.
The truth is Apple is successful because, uniquely in the tech business, they value design above everything.
âoeMost people make the mistake of thinking design is what it looks like. Thatâ(TM)s not what we think design is. Itâ(TM)s not just what it looks like and feels like. Design is how it works.â
-- Steve Jobs.
It's not hype.
Just because you don't get it doesn't make it hype.
Like the "simplified" trackpads that Apple innovated and everybody else has adopted that are beautiful because they have no buttons but suck really, really badly for drag-drop or select-single-pixel operations.
They don't suck for either of those things. It's actually easier to do both those things than on a trackpad with separate buttons, because the surface area is greater.
It could be that you don't realise it's a forefinger and thumb operation. Forefinger to point, thumb to click.
Sounds like you were too conservative to get away from the mouse at all. Like any change of input device, it takes a couple of days to get used to.
Nope. A weakness is not the same thing as a vulnerability. Weaknesses are things that already have gone wrong and are already accounted for in market share; vulnerabilities are things that haven't gone wrong yet. Weaknesses don't kill market-dominating platforms; vulnerabilities do. Fragmentation and lack of updates are not new things that are going to suddenly appear and kill Android.
Fragmentation isn't a constant. Android fragmentation is getting worse.
And you seem to think that Android is safe from vulnerabilities because there are many vendors. That's never been true. Multiple vendors didn't save the horse-drawn carriage. It didn't save the portable cassette player. And it's not saving the PC. Something better is what kills products, not a single manufacturer.
The multiple hardware vendor does not in general have any advantage over the singular vendor. MSX didn't beat any of the 80s home computers. Plays For Sure didn't beat iPod. The mass of mobile cassette players didn't beat the Walkman. Symbian didn't beat Apple iPhone.
There are many different stories of product rises and falls, and what you seem to think is an invulnerability, a deciding factor, doesn't stand the test of history.
So the Father gave a license to the second son.
No. He simply gave a gift, and the son was polite enough to ask to modify it. And that was in part because he WASN'T given a license. If he's had a license, he's have felt he had the RIGHT to modify it, and wouldn't have asked.
But he was right. the Father had not given him the right to produce modified versions of the story.
No, his father didn't give him any rights. Just a gift. There's nothing to stop him modifying a gift to suit him better. It's no breach of copyright or anything else to go through a book and white out "leopard" when it occurs and replace it with "lion". But he doesn't have the right to copy and distribute such modifications. That wasn't the gift.
Apple's been selling iPhones in China since the iPhone 3. And yes, they sell the iPhone 5. Your rumour link is about a new model, not the already existing models.
Android is vulnerable because of fragmentation. And the very things you describe make that worse. It's also vulnerable because users are frustrated with the lack of software updates for existing phones.