Furthermore, if you put up a Kazaa share or a Windows file share or an FTP server full of MP3s, I can grab music just as quick as my bandwidth and your bandwidth will allow. With MyTunes, at best I can grab music from your iTunes share as fast as I can listen too it.
Yes, but the user did not put up a Kazaa or Windows file share, they shared a stream of their music, safe in the knowledge that nobody would copy it! What if they don't want their music to be copied? How do you think the user will feel when people start thanking them for their music collection which they have spent years building up, when, as far as the user was concerned, this wasn't even possible?
Like other people have said, if you want to share music, there are better mediums for doing so! So lets not steal music from people (even if it is only over a LAN) that weren't sharing hard copies of their music to begin with! It's an abuse of trust...
1) This model is good for Apple (hardware over software) because they control both the hardware and software! People like Sony will always make a loss on the hardware, and whatever they do, that won't change, so they focus on making software profitable. Apple already makes a profit on the hardware (iPod), so they can turn their attention to software (iTunes store) once things are sailing smoothly (which Apple would be stupid not to at some point in the future). Sony doesn't have this luxury...
2) This model is bad for Apple because people only buy one iPod, yet they buy many songs. Whatever Apple does, nobody is going to want another iPod, (unless they upgrade the models of course, but even then most users will be happy with their old model), so Apple gets all their profit in one fell swoop. That is if they can't make iTunes store profitable of course (which, like I say above, there is no reason it won't be in the future).
On the off chance this is not a troll, a torrent file is used by BitTorrent to download large files from multiple sources, yielding high bandwidth downloads. BT is available for GNU/Linux, Windows, and MacOS X.
http://bitconjurer.org/BitTorrent/
I think it's a fair point... It's not a widely known network, and indeed, the first time I heard of BitTorrent was on slashdot. If today was the first time the poster had read slashdot, then it doesn't surprise me at all that they do not know what BitTorrent is. Personally, I think it would be a lot more helpful for the poster of the BitTorrent link to put a link to the BitTorrent client download as well, so those not in the know (which is quite substantial) can download the client and improve the network!
Apple do release independent security updates. Just go to www.info.apple.com/ , and look down the download list. At time of posting (26/9/3) the two downloads at the top of the list were security patches. As the patch was so small, it seems Apple decided to piggy back it on 10.2.8 . That would have been fine, of course, if 10.2.8 didn't have the problems it does...
Perhaps Torvalds considers that more of a personal attack.
From the article:
The SMP code was written by a number of Linux people I know well (I did a lot of the SMP IRQ scalability myself, personally), so their claims are just ludicrous
So yeah, considering SCO are trying to claim code Linus wrote is their own, he would be completely within reason to think it's a personal attack... because surely that's what it is!
Was it fine for people with WinXP boxen to join the network when XP was first released?
Just guessing, but I seriously doubt that win XP was installed on the network when it was first released... If security is an issue, you hold out until the first patch! Why let an untamed beast out amoung your well trained flock?
I'd read some thread a while back on another board saying that "Macs are cheaper than PCs". I still can't believe anyone would make that argument. Doesn't being really good in a few areas satisfy the mac people? Do they have to try to spin higher costs as 'lower' (craziest thing I'd ever heard...)
I think that's fair, for what you will be getting!
160GB Serial ATA, SuperDrive (CD-RW, DVD-R), Firewire 800, USB 2, ATI Radeon 9600 Pro...
Plus all the standard things that apple don't actually mention in their specs any more of course. 16 bit sound, gigabit ethernet, and so on.
And that's without the free software. iMovie, iCal, iPhoto, iDvd, etc., (which you may or may not want, so adjust value of system accordingly).
The thing with your comparision, is that you are comparing the G5 processor with the P4 processor. Now try comparing the G5 system to a PC system with a P4 with equivilant specs. Hard drive, DVD writer, latest firewire, gigabit ethernet, etc, and you soon see the PC cost more.
And that's without touting the advantages of Mac OS X and all the other points that have already been made in this thread...
This is Apples advantage and disadvantage. Because they won't sell you anything less than top quality in their pro line... And that costs!
I personally did not agree with the list that this game site provided. Not due to personal opinion of the games themselves as such (although this probably didn't help in my overall dissatsifaction with the list) but because of what the games themselves are and what they stand for.
VI was a landmark game, a breakthrough! It was inspired. It done so many new things, and above all else was so playable. I agree with this coming first!
VII just oodled atmosphere, and VIII was dangerous in it's departure from conventions. It was so different, as to make the series interesting again! Both top games!
However, IX was just a rehash of I - VI. And X was just a mix of VII and VIII. Both bored me, and made me wonder why I was doing the same things I had done in previous games, all over again!
They played like "best of" albums, in game format! And nobody ever says "Hell, 'The Beatles' best of album was actually the best album, because it has their greatest songs. It's Sgt. Peppers, because it is an album that consists of songs written for it, not a compilation of random parts that were never meant to fit together.
That's why I don't like IX or X. It's like pointing at previous games and saying "wasn't that good when that happened". And yes, it was... But I'll play the original where it was more interesting and made more sense, thank you very much!
I remember a gamefaqs poll of the day [gamefaqs.com] that put them in the order of 7, 6, 10, then 8 ahead just ahead of 9, so the listing isn't that absurd.
I think 8 is interesting in how much it divides gamers, a lot of people hate it but a lot love it and think it's one of the best. I think the problem with 9 is that it came out so late in the Playstation's so it got ignored by a lot of people.
The thing you have to realise about polls is the fact that you can't produce an order for the results based on the overall results. What if people that had voted for VII, would have also put VIII in second place?
Indeed, polls can skewer results! If you have say, two very simular answers, and one distinct answer, then people who like the two simular games are going to be split, and vote on one or the other, while fans of the one distinct answer focus all their votes to that one point.
Case in point, what is the best blizzard series?
Startcraft
Diablo
Warcraft
Think about it, Diablo would probably end up the most popular blizzard game. Now ask the question, which game type do you most enjoy from blizzard?
RTS
RPG
And suddenly warcraft and starcraft (which are essientailly the same game) will get a fairer portion of the vote.
Back to your post, I don't think your ordering is fair! If gamefaqs had asked people to put the games in a list from 'best to worst', then I could understand your point, but I think the one made above is slightly flawed (not irrelevant, because it does of course have so relevance to the sort of results we might expect, but shouldn't be taken as "This is the public's opinion").
My 2 cents!
Sure, I'll say it's art, in the same way I'll nod my head and agree when someone tries to convince me that it's a programming language. In my experience, if a person doesn't understand why HTML isn't a programming language, it's not worth my while to explain it, I'll just play along and know the truth. I recon if people start saying it's art, I'll adopt the same aproach. I'm sure there are people who'll flame me for this, but that's thier 2 cents, this, on the other hand, is mine. Mod me as a troll if you like, I just can't sell HTML as a programming language or art.
HTML is not programming language by it's very nature (and I won't waste peoples time explaining this because It's already been done so elsewhere in this forum), but I'm not sure it's an art either, because it is abstract. HTML tells the browser (or your HTML viewer, whatever that may be) what sort of structure you would like your document to be, and the browser renders this. This is the way HTML was designed! People who try to get HTML to view in all browsers exactly the way they wish it to be, are fighting a loosing battle! It's like trying to hammer a nail in with a wrench (yeah, you could get there in the end, but was it worth it...?) . HTML was made abstract by design, and because it looses this rigid-ness, it can be different things to different people, to different browsers, at different times!
And I don't mean this in the 'everybody gets something different from this piece of music' (or painting, or whatever...), because the music or painting that people are interpreting is fundamentally the same, it's just how people view it. This is not true for HTML, because it will change because of the aforementioned points!
Case in point. It's like Da Vinci saying "well, there is this woman painted in shades of brown with a gray-ish background". Some people will hear that, try to picture it and say, "Hey, she's happy", and some people will say "hey, she's sad". It only becomes impressive when he puts this down on canvas and it has the same effect! Anybody can write a structured XML tree on how the Mona Lisa should look... few can paint a Mona Lisa!
Now then, whether programming is art, that's an entrirely different kettle of fish...;-)
Re:Good to see this...
on
Myth II Updated
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
1) It wasn't Bungie that ported this is Mac OS X / Win XP, as the game was sold to Godgames
2) It wasn't even Godgames who done it, it was a bunch of volunteers who operate outside the company. No, this does not mean that Myth is open source, but that a select few can get to it (as far as I can tell... there is little to no information on all the relevant sites)
3) Bungie also isn't porting Halo. Peter Tamte (sp?), who used to work for Bungie, has set up a company (the name escapes me) which is porting the game.
4) If you wipe out Microsoft, you take Bungie with them. Game over man!
Slashdot Mirror
How long until the Spammers write their own 'spam' filter to take care of all this crap filling up their inboxes? Oh, the irony...
Yes, but the user did not put up a Kazaa or Windows file share, they shared a stream of their music, safe in the knowledge that nobody would copy it! What if they don't want their music to be copied? How do you think the user will feel when people start thanking them for their music collection which they have spent years building up, when, as far as the user was concerned, this wasn't even possible?
Like other people have said, if you want to share music, there are better mediums for doing so! So lets not steal music from people (even if it is only over a LAN) that weren't sharing hard copies of their music to begin with! It's an abuse of trust...
Two points about this:
1) This model is good for Apple (hardware over software) because they control both the hardware and software! People like Sony will always make a loss on the hardware, and whatever they do, that won't change, so they focus on making software profitable. Apple already makes a profit on the hardware (iPod), so they can turn their attention to software (iTunes store) once things are sailing smoothly (which Apple would be stupid not to at some point in the future). Sony doesn't have this luxury...
2) This model is bad for Apple because people only buy one iPod, yet they buy many songs. Whatever Apple does, nobody is going to want another iPod, (unless they upgrade the models of course, but even then most users will be happy with their old model), so Apple gets all their profit in one fell swoop. That is if they can't make iTunes store profitable of course (which, like I say above, there is no reason it won't be in the future).
Why is this modded as funny? Surely it should be Score:5, Scary , or some such?
I think it's a fair point... It's not a widely known network, and indeed, the first time I heard of BitTorrent was on slashdot. If today was the first time the poster had read slashdot, then it doesn't surprise me at all that they do not know what BitTorrent is. Personally, I think it would be a lot more helpful for the poster of the BitTorrent link to put a link to the BitTorrent client download as well, so those not in the know (which is quite substantial) can download the client and improve the network!
Apple do release independent security updates. Just go to www.info.apple.com/ , and look down the download list. At time of posting (26/9/3) the two downloads at the top of the list were security patches. As the patch was so small, it seems Apple decided to piggy back it on 10.2.8 . That would have been fine, of course, if 10.2.8 didn't have the problems it does...
From the article:
So yeah, considering SCO are trying to claim code Linus wrote is their own, he would be completely within reason to think it's a personal attack... because surely that's what it is!
160GB Serial ATA, SuperDrive (CD-RW, DVD-R), Firewire 800, USB 2, ATI Radeon 9600 Pro...
Plus all the standard things that apple don't actually mention in their specs any more of course. 16 bit sound, gigabit ethernet, and so on.
And that's without the free software. iMovie, iCal, iPhoto, iDvd, etc., (which you may or may not want, so adjust value of system accordingly).
The thing with your comparision, is that you are comparing the G5 processor with the P4 processor. Now try comparing the G5 system to a PC system with a P4 with equivilant specs. Hard drive, DVD writer, latest firewire, gigabit ethernet, etc, and you soon see the PC cost more.
And that's without touting the advantages of Mac OS X and all the other points that have already been made in this thread...
This is Apples advantage and disadvantage. Because they won't sell you anything less than top quality in their pro line... And that costs!
People seem to miss the big picture some times!
I personally did not agree with the list that this game site provided. Not due to personal opinion of the games themselves as such (although this probably didn't help in my overall dissatsifaction with the list) but because of what the games themselves are and what they stand for.
VI was a landmark game, a breakthrough! It was inspired. It done so many new things, and above all else was so playable. I agree with this coming first!
VII just oodled atmosphere, and VIII was dangerous in it's departure from conventions. It was so different, as to make the series interesting again! Both top games!
However, IX was just a rehash of I - VI. And X was just a mix of VII and VIII. Both bored me, and made me wonder why I was doing the same things I had done in previous games, all over again!
They played like "best of" albums, in game format! And nobody ever says "Hell, 'The Beatles' best of album was actually the best album, because it has their greatest songs. It's Sgt. Peppers, because it is an album that consists of songs written for it, not a compilation of random parts that were never meant to fit together.
That's why I don't like IX or X. It's like pointing at previous games and saying "wasn't that good when that happened". And yes, it was... But I'll play the original where it was more interesting and made more sense, thank you very much!
HTML is not programming language by it's very nature (and I won't waste peoples time explaining this because It's already been done so elsewhere in this forum), but I'm not sure it's an art either, because it is abstract. HTML tells the browser (or your HTML viewer, whatever that may be) what sort of structure you would like your document to be, and the browser renders this. This is the way HTML was designed! People who try to get HTML to view in all browsers exactly the way they wish it to be, are fighting a loosing battle! It's like trying to hammer a nail in with a wrench (yeah, you could get there in the end, but was it worth it...?) . HTML was made abstract by design, and because it looses this rigid-ness, it can be different things to different people, to different browsers, at different times!
And I don't mean this in the 'everybody gets something different from this piece of music' (or painting, or whatever...), because the music or painting that people are interpreting is fundamentally the same, it's just how people view it. This is not true for HTML, because it will change because of the aforementioned points!
Case in point. It's like Da Vinci saying "well, there is this woman painted in shades of brown with a gray-ish background". Some people will hear that, try to picture it and say, "Hey, she's happy", and some people will say "hey, she's sad". It only becomes impressive when he puts this down on canvas and it has the same effect! Anybody can write a structured XML tree on how the Mona Lisa should look... few can paint a Mona Lisa!
Now then, whether programming is art, that's an entrirely different kettle of fish... ;-)
1) It wasn't Bungie that ported this is Mac OS X / Win XP, as the game was sold to Godgames
2) It wasn't even Godgames who done it, it was a bunch of volunteers who operate outside the company. No, this does not mean that Myth is open source, but that a select few can get to it (as far as I can tell... there is little to no information on all the relevant sites)
3) Bungie also isn't porting Halo. Peter Tamte (sp?), who used to work for Bungie, has set up a company (the name escapes me) which is porting the game.
4) If you wipe out Microsoft, you take Bungie with them. Game over man!