...it looks like OSX86 hackers can breathe easy... for now.
Translation: I know that yesterday's story that Apple intentionally disabled Atom processors from working for OSX was completely wrong but I'm going to imply, in an ominous way, that Apple will probably do what they didn't do (which we incorrectly said they did do) because, hey, that's sensational and sensationalism sells baby!!
Sorry, but it would be really nice if summaries tried to keep the editorializing to a minimum. We have reader comments to add all kinds of overblown and baseless opinions. Let's keep the focus of the summary on, you know, the news for nerds, stuff that matters.
Videotron does the same thing. Even though downloading content is (currently) legal in Canada (we pay a tax on storage media). I can download for about half an hour before my entire connection dies, requiring a reboot of my modem. Not throttled - killed.
I know we love to hate AT&T but, good. Those ads are about as obvious a case of copying one's competition and a misleading way with the intent of creating confusing in the marketplace and thereby diluting the competition's brand strength. We can hate AT&T all we want for their crappy service but Verizon is clearly in the wrong here. IMHO.
I wonder how much the RIAA/MPAA and their international brethren had to pay to buy that many countries... I mean, seriously - not a single one of the delegates sitting at the tables is willing to speak up and point out how these concepts are not good for the populace of their country? You know, the people our politicians supposedly represent.
I am so utterly sick and tired of politicians turning their backs on the people they represent and bending low before corporate interests. It's even worse, as a Canadian, when I see my government bend over and take it for FOREIGN corporate interests. Were it at least for the betterment of Canadian corporations, I'd at least be able to justify it as "they're doing what they can to keep our businesses profitable" but when they sell out the people of my country so some corporation in another country can pad their bottom line, it simply infuriates me.
I keep holding out hope that somebody will eventually develop some morals and put a stop to this madness but I know that the money has spoken and thus change is coming.
Perhaps newspaper executives should give their music industry counterparts a call and ask them what their Plan B was - it seems to be working so well for them, after all.
Oh, wait...
Seriously though, 'tis the nature of the beast. The world changes and industries have to adapt or face the risk of fading away into the history books. Companies run by smart people find a way to change with the times and remain relevant. Companies run by short-sighted idiots vanish.
I guess we'll see just how smart the executives at some of these companies are but I suspect I already know what the outcome will be.
I can't wait for some motivated group to deliver a clear message to politicians through a concerted effort to get politicians and their employees cut off from the internet simply by accusing them, three times, of copyright violations. Perhaps, once politicians and their staff are cut off from the online world, they'll begin to realize just how moronic this law is. When a simple accusation carries the weight of punishment, the possibilities of abuse are egregious.
Ah, the days of "innocent until proven guilty" seem like a distant memory now...
Seriously, I understand the cost benefits of going with the lowest quote and all but sometimes it's best to keep things "in house" to ensure quality and accountability. And that applies to companies all the way up to governments. In this case, when dealing with national defense, it especially applies to governments...
Good gawd, that summary is terrible. To say it's not even vaguely accurate is an understatement. The list of what is and what is not allowed is available here.
Copy/pasting for those not interested in downloading the pdf:
What would not be allowed while driving, unless the vehicle is pulled off the roadway or lawfully parked
* Hand-held wireless communications devices such as cell phones, smartphones
* Hand-held electronic entertainment devices such as iPods, or other portable MP3 players, or portable games
* Texting and emailing
* Viewing display screens on devices not required for driving such as a laptop or DVD player
What would be allowed while driving
* Hands-free wireless communications devices with an earpiece or Bluetooth device
* 911 calls
* Pressing the button of a hand-held device to activate hands-free mode for incoming or outbound calls
* GPS units mounted on dashboards
* Collision avoidance systems
* Use by emergency services personnel such as police, fire and ambulance
* Logistical transportation tracking devices used for commercial vehicles
Law enforcement is too complex to be modelled after the rules of a US sports game. Can somebody explain how this idiotic idea came about, the thinking behind it?
If you're a music industry executive who's incapable of rethinking the music industry's failing business model, which do you think is easier - steal an idea from a common past-time or come up with your own idea?
Given that music execs haven't come up with an original idea in decades, the answer should be obvious...
The Mayans were amateurs when it comes to doomsday calendars. We have a doomsday once every 365 days (except on leap years) when our calendar hits December 31.
Oh. Wait. It's not doomsday? It's just the end of the calendar cycle? Oh. Maybe the Mayan calendar's ending is the same thing and not the end of the world...
I think this is totally reasonable - after all, there are costs involved in sending out "free" disks and those costs can add up at a time when companies are feeling the pinch. More importantly, however, I think they should put a smidge of effort into developing a Windows and Mac client to make putting the installer on a CD or USB drive (or SD card) easier to encourage people to download and install with the equipment they already have. Just this weekend, I installed Ubuntu on my hackintosh (shhh, don't tell Apple) and the process was relatively painless because I'm a smart cookie and can figure a lot of things out with some google searching but I can easily see some people having absolutely no clue how to proceed and being turned off because of the difficulty in the process. If they offered a quick "Load Installer on CD/USB" program (would take some programmer, what, ten minutes to write something like that?..), I think they'd get a lot more people giving it a try.
Yes, I know it's easy for people that know computers but if people want casual users to give it a chance, they need to make it dead easy.
To me, this is why an Android phone will never take the #1 sales slot. Android, as a platform may quickly rise in dominance, but the competition, just amongst Android phones, will prevent an individual phone from taking a dominant position. When there's 51 possible choices for someone who's interested in an Android phone, it will result in diluted sales for all 51 phones. That's not to say that some of the better phones won't enjoy strong sales - I'm sure several will - but it is to say that I don't believe they'll compete, on an individual basis, with Blackberry's best sellers nor the iPhone. This, of course, is regardless of the quality of the phones - it's purely an opinion about market forces and the resulting outcome...
Just like all the companies that came out with "the iPod Killer", companies (like Verizon here) just don't get it. It's not about coming out with the "most sophisticated mobile device to hit the market to date from a hardware standpoint." The iPhone wasn't the most sophisticated mobile device from a hardware standpoint when it came out. It's not about the hardware. Yes, the hardware can make several things really stand out but it's about the user experience. Companies continually ignore and overlook that aspect of it and that is why this phone will be cool and mobile geeks will sing its praises but it will not be a serious threat to the iPhone - it's not focusing on the right things.
Sorry, but we've heard "this is the iPod killer" too often and it's the exact same song and dance as this new round of "this is the iPhone killer."
...if you get the latest processor technology and Office 2010 with it, you will love your PC again. It's a dramatic improvement.
Ok, I'm a graphic designer who often works with photoshop files that are 500 meg or larger (files in the 1 gig+ range are not uncommon at all). For me, having a fast processor, a lot of ram, and the other bells and whistles that go along with it will make a "dramatic improvement" because we're talking about a massive file and long processing times for each action I take. When you're using Office - you know, a word processing program, a spreadsheet program, and a presentation program - you shouldn't need the latest and greatest. Sorry, but I just feel that needing the latest and greatest so that you can "love your PC again" when all you're using is an office suite just might be a sign that the office suite is bloated well beyond what is required.
My two cents. They're Canadian cents so take 'em for what they're worth, eh.
Up until recently Apple kept a "gentlemen's agreement" with most major electronics chains that only Apple MP3 players could be stocked and promoted in exchange for not opening an Apple store.
Source? No, really - can you cite a single source for that claim because the only store I've ever been in to that _only_ stocked iPods was an Apple store. Every other store that stocked iPods _also_ stocked other companies' mp3 players. And not just recently - ever since iPods were first introduced it's been this way. iPods may have been given prominent shelf space but that happens to every market leader so that's not unexpected.
So, again, provide a source for you bold claim please.
I would love to see the wording of the questions because, honestly, I cannot imagine why anyone would not want to see ads (assuming you have to see _an_ ad) that is targeted at their interests rather than just any random ad. Now, I understand people wanting their privacy respected and that's why I want to see the questions because, given how lopsided the responses seemed to be, I suspect the questions were phrased in a way that made them more about privacy and less about targeted advertising.
Yes, I realize there is a connection between the two but that's not the point - the poll appears to have been about targeted advertising and not about privacy and, as I said, I can't imagine people not wanting to see ads that are focused on their interests.
Compare Slashdot now to Slashdot from five years ago and try to tell me it's not the cool new thing to hate on Apple. The difference in just five years is night and day. Success makes a company worthy of being hated even when they have nothing to do with the story at hand (same applies to Microsoft and now Google).
Slashdot Mirror
...it looks like OSX86 hackers can breathe easy ... for now.
Translation: I know that yesterday's story that Apple intentionally disabled Atom processors from working for OSX was completely wrong but I'm going to imply, in an ominous way, that Apple will probably do what they didn't do (which we incorrectly said they did do) because, hey, that's sensational and sensationalism sells baby!!
Sorry, but it would be really nice if summaries tried to keep the editorializing to a minimum. We have reader comments to add all kinds of overblown and baseless opinions. Let's keep the focus of the summary on, you know, the news for nerds, stuff that matters.
I know. I know. I must be new here...
Videotron does the same thing. Even though downloading content is (currently) legal in Canada (we pay a tax on storage media). I can download for about half an hour before my entire connection dies, requiring a reboot of my modem. Not throttled - killed.
I know we love to hate AT&T but, good. Those ads are about as obvious a case of copying one's competition and a misleading way with the intent of creating confusing in the marketplace and thereby diluting the competition's brand strength. We can hate AT&T all we want for their crappy service but Verizon is clearly in the wrong here. IMHO.
Please copy the document. Fast. Before "the powers that be" have it removed.
I wonder how much the RIAA/MPAA and their international brethren had to pay to buy that many countries... I mean, seriously - not a single one of the delegates sitting at the tables is willing to speak up and point out how these concepts are not good for the populace of their country? You know, the people our politicians supposedly represent.
I am so utterly sick and tired of politicians turning their backs on the people they represent and bending low before corporate interests. It's even worse, as a Canadian, when I see my government bend over and take it for FOREIGN corporate interests. Were it at least for the betterment of Canadian corporations, I'd at least be able to justify it as "they're doing what they can to keep our businesses profitable" but when they sell out the people of my country so some corporation in another country can pad their bottom line, it simply infuriates me.
I keep holding out hope that somebody will eventually develop some morals and put a stop to this madness but I know that the money has spoken and thus change is coming.
Did he just "think of the children" the pro-piracy side of the copyright debate??? Ok, now that's impressive. :)
Perhaps newspaper executives should give their music industry counterparts a call and ask them what their Plan B was - it seems to be working so well for them, after all.
Oh, wait...
Seriously though, 'tis the nature of the beast. The world changes and industries have to adapt or face the risk of fading away into the history books. Companies run by smart people find a way to change with the times and remain relevant. Companies run by short-sighted idiots vanish.
I guess we'll see just how smart the executives at some of these companies are but I suspect I already know what the outcome will be.
I can't wait for some motivated group to deliver a clear message to politicians through a concerted effort to get politicians and their employees cut off from the internet simply by accusing them, three times, of copyright violations. Perhaps, once politicians and their staff are cut off from the online world, they'll begin to realize just how moronic this law is. When a simple accusation carries the weight of punishment, the possibilities of abuse are egregious.
Ah, the days of "innocent until proven guilty" seem like a distant memory now...
You get what you deserve when you outsource...
Seriously, I understand the cost benefits of going with the lowest quote and all but sometimes it's best to keep things "in house" to ensure quality and accountability. And that applies to companies all the way up to governments. In this case, when dealing with national defense, it especially applies to governments...
Good gawd, that summary is terrible. To say it's not even vaguely accurate is an understatement. The list of what is and what is not allowed is available here.
Copy/pasting for those not interested in downloading the pdf:
What would not be allowed while driving, unless the vehicle is pulled off the roadway or lawfully parked
* Hand-held wireless communications devices such as cell phones, smartphones
* Hand-held electronic entertainment devices such as iPods, or other portable MP3 players, or portable games
* Texting and emailing
* Viewing display screens on devices not required for driving such as a laptop or DVD player
What would be allowed while driving
* Hands-free wireless communications devices with an earpiece or Bluetooth device
* 911 calls
* Pressing the button of a hand-held device to activate hands-free mode for incoming or outbound calls
* GPS units mounted on dashboards
* Collision avoidance systems
* Use by emergency services personnel such as police, fire and ambulance
* Logistical transportation tracking devices used for commercial vehicles
Law enforcement is too complex to be modelled after the rules of a US sports game. Can somebody explain how this idiotic idea came about, the thinking behind it?
If you're a music industry executive who's incapable of rethinking the music industry's failing business model, which do you think is easier - steal an idea from a common past-time or come up with your own idea?
Given that music execs haven't come up with an original idea in decades, the answer should be obvious...
The Mayans were amateurs when it comes to doomsday calendars. We have a doomsday once every 365 days (except on leap years) when our calendar hits December 31.
Oh. Wait. It's not doomsday? It's just the end of the calendar cycle? Oh. Maybe the Mayan calendar's ending is the same thing and not the end of the world...
Yeah.
Nah - it just becomes a hackintosh+.
I think this is totally reasonable - after all, there are costs involved in sending out "free" disks and those costs can add up at a time when companies are feeling the pinch. More importantly, however, I think they should put a smidge of effort into developing a Windows and Mac client to make putting the installer on a CD or USB drive (or SD card) easier to encourage people to download and install with the equipment they already have. Just this weekend, I installed Ubuntu on my hackintosh (shhh, don't tell Apple) and the process was relatively painless because I'm a smart cookie and can figure a lot of things out with some google searching but I can easily see some people having absolutely no clue how to proceed and being turned off because of the difficulty in the process. If they offered a quick "Load Installer on CD/USB" program (would take some programmer, what, ten minutes to write something like that?..), I think they'd get a lot more people giving it a try.
Yes, I know it's easy for people that know computers but if people want casual users to give it a chance, they need to make it dead easy.
To me, this is why an Android phone will never take the #1 sales slot. Android, as a platform may quickly rise in dominance, but the competition, just amongst Android phones, will prevent an individual phone from taking a dominant position. When there's 51 possible choices for someone who's interested in an Android phone, it will result in diluted sales for all 51 phones. That's not to say that some of the better phones won't enjoy strong sales - I'm sure several will - but it is to say that I don't believe they'll compete, on an individual basis, with Blackberry's best sellers nor the iPhone. This, of course, is regardless of the quality of the phones - it's purely an opinion about market forces and the resulting outcome...
But does this process create feedback over communications systems to create cool sound effects as the ship whooshes by?
Sorry. Star Wars geek moment...
Just like all the companies that came out with "the iPod Killer", companies (like Verizon here) just don't get it. It's not about coming out with the "most sophisticated mobile device to hit the market to date from a hardware standpoint." The iPhone wasn't the most sophisticated mobile device from a hardware standpoint when it came out. It's not about the hardware. Yes, the hardware can make several things really stand out but it's about the user experience. Companies continually ignore and overlook that aspect of it and that is why this phone will be cool and mobile geeks will sing its praises but it will not be a serious threat to the iPhone - it's not focusing on the right things.
Sorry, but we've heard "this is the iPod killer" too often and it's the exact same song and dance as this new round of "this is the iPhone killer."
Check the recent campaign donations for all of those politicians. I suspect we'll see some notable opponents of net neutrality on the lists...
Sorry, but only idiots and those who make money from a lack of net neutrality would oppose it.
Wait... Maybe some of those politicians are just idiots...
Wait... Are they trying to say ... that competition is ... good? What a novel idea! Why didn't someone think of that sooner!
sigh...
...if you get the latest processor technology and Office 2010 with it, you will love your PC again. It's a dramatic improvement.
Ok, I'm a graphic designer who often works with photoshop files that are 500 meg or larger (files in the 1 gig+ range are not uncommon at all). For me, having a fast processor, a lot of ram, and the other bells and whistles that go along with it will make a "dramatic improvement" because we're talking about a massive file and long processing times for each action I take. When you're using Office - you know, a word processing program, a spreadsheet program, and a presentation program - you shouldn't need the latest and greatest. Sorry, but I just feel that needing the latest and greatest so that you can "love your PC again" when all you're using is an office suite just might be a sign that the office suite is bloated well beyond what is required.
My two cents. They're Canadian cents so take 'em for what they're worth, eh.
Isn't that the same year the iPod Killer is supposed to be released?
Yeah. That's what I thought. Talk to me when something is actually worth talking about.
Wasn't it the major labels that implored us to think of the artists?
Yeah.
Up until recently Apple kept a "gentlemen's agreement" with most major electronics chains that only Apple MP3 players could be stocked and promoted in exchange for not opening an Apple store.
Source? No, really - can you cite a single source for that claim because the only store I've ever been in to that _only_ stocked iPods was an Apple store. Every other store that stocked iPods _also_ stocked other companies' mp3 players. And not just recently - ever since iPods were first introduced it's been this way. iPods may have been given prominent shelf space but that happens to every market leader so that's not unexpected.
So, again, provide a source for you bold claim please.
I would love to see the wording of the questions because, honestly, I cannot imagine why anyone would not want to see ads (assuming you have to see _an_ ad) that is targeted at their interests rather than just any random ad. Now, I understand people wanting their privacy respected and that's why I want to see the questions because, given how lopsided the responses seemed to be, I suspect the questions were phrased in a way that made them more about privacy and less about targeted advertising.
Yes, I realize there is a connection between the two but that's not the point - the poll appears to have been about targeted advertising and not about privacy and, as I said, I can't imagine people not wanting to see ads that are focused on their interests.
Compare Slashdot now to Slashdot from five years ago and try to tell me it's not the cool new thing to hate on Apple. The difference in just five years is night and day. Success makes a company worthy of being hated even when they have nothing to do with the story at hand (same applies to Microsoft and now Google).