Sometimes - far from always, but sometimes - forks work. Firefox. GCC2.95/EGCS. WordPress. Hell, NeXTStep/OpenStep;).
Almost inevitably, when they do work, it's because the original project has been abandoned, or when it adopts the fork. Accordingly, when a fork is maintained, it must be a top priority to strive to "pay back" to the original project. I approve of any such fork.
Reportedly, they did log the packets over the wire too, but I don't know if the exact format in which they're logged are easily falsifiable. (I would *not* be surprised if the APB turned out to indeed manufacture data in order to clinch these cases, especially when a precedent is being set. )
Yes, it will work, based entirely on the simple fact that if it turns out that the motion sensor thing doesn't work technically or isn't good in the actual games, what you do have is a Gamecube on drugs with excellent networking, an online game store and backward compatibility. What most of us did expect of the Revolution, as it was, was a Gamecube on drugs and at least one of excellent networking, backward compatibility or HD A/V.
Wii isn't a technical prodigy, but it does surpass my expectations of its actual capabilities: what it can do, not how high resolution the graphics of it doing that is. There will be "non-sensor" games, just like there are games on the DS that don't require the pen.
The Wii is reasonably priced (the console *and* the networking; free WiFi, optional Ethernet adapter (which should have been built in but is cheap)), powerful enough and will get a lot of outsider games via Virtual Console even if the normal channel would dry up (which we wouldn't know at this stage).
"The party really does want filesharing (for private use) to be completely legalized - uploading and downloading."
Yep, but they are not pushing a law that says "legalize file sharing", they are pushing laws to make uploading and downloading for private use legal, and many other cases legal as well, such as expired copyrights. In effect, they do want to "legalize file sharing only of older works" on a commercial basis, because they don't have a law saying "legalize file sharing completely", just a bunch of other efforts intended to opening it up quite a bit.
The Pirate Party (henceforth TPP, since PP has some interesting connotations in English) did not get into the Riksdag, no. To get in, you need 4% of the votes. Last time around, in 2002, there was no TPP, and they got 0% of the votes. How is anything above 0% "being keelhauled"?
TPP said "this is going to be a close election, there are about a million people in Sweden sharing files, we can become a tiebreaker by gaining 4%". Making file sharing legal is the best-understood point of their political tenets (as few "intellectual property" institutions as possible, better privacy, reforming the copyright system). I don't fault them for picking exactly what they did to run on, or by the issue they made themselves known by (legalize file sharing). Which isn't the same as saying there weren't problems.
The other day I visited a page listing some Swedish political parties. The one line that described TPP was "They want to make downloading music and movies legal". Depending on how you look on it, it may be technically correct, however it's vastly oversimplified: The TPP reform of copyright includes perpetual and unlimited rights to *private* copies of anything, and shortens the exclusivity of selling the work to a five year duration instead of the author's-life + 70 + whatever-Disney-can-coax-international-law-into years of the current system, which effectively legalizes a lot of file sharing, which by necessity includes both uploading *and* downloading. These issues are hard and complicated. The Man on The Street won't be able to detail copyright law beyond perhaps author's-life + 70, and I don't think a tenth of the population have even heard of the continuous lengthening of the copyright period.
The "regular" parties run using a platter of promises - hundreds of them - where at least two are presented in a reasonable way. The Green Party (once a similar tiebreaker running using a similar philosophy) runs using more advanced stuff like TPP, but the few-words summary here, as expressed by The Man on The Street - "be nice to the environment and give us more family time" - is infinitely more agreeable to, well, most people, than "make downloading music and movies legal", which reeks of "omg plz make everything free kthx!1" rather than the well-thought out proposals behind TPP. This is one factor why TPP didn't make it all the way.
The other factor, then, is that more people found it more rewarding to vote for one of the two blocs (who mostly carry full political agendas on *all* issues, even the aforementioned Green Party) or on other small parties.
You could argue that the pie-in-the-sky chance that they would ever reach 4% was abysmal, but if they hadn't been so optimistic about it, I am positive that a lot of supporters would just have given up, saying "we're not going to make it anyway, why bother?". TPP didn't get its way, but I find it hard to deem them a failure. From 0 to sub-1% of above five million votes in less than 10 months is astounding work.
Serving up well marked-up content in combination in finely-crafted CSS and inobtrusive JavaScript enables serving to the lowest common denominator (say: mobile phones, Lynx) *and* enhancing the experience of those who aren't the lowest common denominators (say: reasonably modern browsers). This is hugely successful. It's very obvious to me that this is the way it's supposed to be. This services a diverse user base in the best way possible: useful extra functions for those that are able to use them, frugal, content-centered versions for the rest.
That well-engineered solutions also offer easy ways to fade in and out content is an effect (pun not intended), not a noteworthy goal in itself. There is a culture among "wanna-be-Web 2.0" sites to do this, and when the functionality is there, it doesn't bug me. Discussion2 in particular offers virtually no effects whatsoever, just a very useful function of reading comments nearly instantaneously with less strain on the server and client. It works exactly how I imagined it would work, and my two complaints is that its JavaScript semantics are somewhat muddled and that CmdrTaco is even for a second *considering* launching it without pitch-perfect IE support.
IE may be ass to code for - trust me, I know. I would rather have 90% of the world use Firefox, Safari or Opera than IE. But IE's JavaScript backend support (excluding debugging facilities) is still fairly good. What's more, not supporting IE because "they only make up a quarter of our visitors" while we were having problems getting Firefox up to the around 10% (+/-4%) worldwide that it has today is nothing less than offensive, a slap in the face of all us who do this for a living and base our "support every browser" argument on the fact that it's the way it should be, not that "our side is better and should be winning". Yes, it's hard work. Suck it up. Make it work. There's no excuse.
Scalable Aqua is implemented in Leopard (Mac OS X 10.5) and looks more or less the same, like the "fake high-resolution screenshots" in the media product shots. Aside from the fact that Leopard's iTunes build will probably ship with scalable graphics to fit in, this has nothing to do with that effort. I don't think Scalable Aqua is vector-based either (my money's on some kind of mipmap), but it *could* be through PDFs.
While on the subject of those scrollers, I don't like how they made everything look "Graphite". If I selected "Aqua" in my color scheme, I expect Aqua and not dull grey.
As I posted in a sibling comment, the previous two Q1 quarters, there was a newly introduced iPod as well: iPod mini in 04 and iPod shuffle in 05. No such thing this year, only a 1GB nano mid-quarter. It is a different development like you say, but considering that, it's within the margin as far as I'm concerned.
There is a downwards curve here but it has nothing to do with actual popularity decline, just with timing and new models.
Very late Q1 04, iPod mini was released, very late Q1 05, iPod shuffle was released. No new iPod has been released since the 5G ("video") iPod almost a year ago, and the only thing to up sales a bit has been a 1GB iPod nano in the middle of Q2 06 and a small iPod shuffle price drop.
Having the other three quarters not reach holiday quarter level is the norm and pretty much the only way you can beat that is by releasing new products directly following the holiday quarter. This year they didn't, and so they declined. This isn't rocket science, and it doesn't point towards or prove an overall continuing decline.
Yes, because obviously all movies are based on books.
It's probably true that most movie adaptations of books can be proven to be worse than the book, since telling a compelling story in a movie is completely different than telling a compelling story in a book, and very few people, or even teams, can do both well, but offering up that all movies are based on books is a bit too strong for me. Some of my favorite movies are those that weren't books to begin with, like the Matrix trilogy and the Austin Powers trilogy, and I suspect I'm not alone in this.
Not really, just prop the sensor bar up about the distance away that the glasses are supposed to feel like. (If they are supposed to feel like a 70" TV at 4 meters away, just put it 4 meters away, and so on.)
Things I'm willing to agree with: Laptop drive == worse than 3.5" drive (in capacity and drive speed). RAM cap. No Core 2 Duo.
"Has no video card": It has a built-in video card, which isn't half bad. It's not anywhere near top of the line, but it's certainly not crap. (HD playback, halfway decent framerates.) If you're worrying about not being able to fit more than 2GB of RAM in it, you won't be having problems with performance due to siphoning memory.
"Doesn't include a keyboard or mouse": You mean, unless you configure it with them?
The perfect box would be something Shuttle-sized with iMac-scale performance and hard drives, sure. But I'm not holding my breath, and I'm not expecting it to cost significantly less than the iMac anyway.
It's nice how the submitter manages to slip up in *two* languages. The name of the newspaper is Göteborgs-Posten, Göteborg being the Swedish name for Gothenburg.
That's just the thing: if Maynor did say that, it was ridiculously unprofessional of him. He's of course entitled to his own opinion, but it's not a wise move to connect it to coverage regarding the exploit because it lowers his credibility - "is he just out to zing Apple?" - especially since the other comments by Maynor in that article are technically correct and his description of drivers ring true. But the other side of the coin, as you say, is that Krebs made it up, which would have been ridiculously unprofessional of *him*.
The ads from the network Daring Fireball is using are paid by a flat fee, so Gruber has no vested interest in getting "impressions" (of which I think he already gets plenty). Claiming that it's a whoring move for ad moolah (if that's what you did) is wrong - the alternative would be a long drawn-out back-and-forth, and I have a feeling we'd all bore of that very quickly, because we're already in midst of such a circus. That said, for your reasons, I wouldn't want to be Johnny Cache right now, but I can't say he didn't set this one up himself either.
It's the thorough lack of details and crummy reporting mixed with derogatory comments that makes it hard to discern if there is an exploit to speak of at all. I know I'd have nothing to worry about if the guys would have presented their exploit neutrally (without shit-flinging Mac users for "being smug"), been detailed in exactly what the target of the attack is (they can do that without revealing details on the exact nature of the exploit) and told us that they're working with Apple to resolve it (because I don't believe for a second that Apple would tell them to put a sock in it rather than work to fix the issue). You know, the way these things are done professionally. But perhaps it's too easy to cast blame, especially since a number of reporters aside from Ellch and his collaborator have been reporting different facts.
Unless you meant running OS X and XP on a PC, they weren't first.
The XOM (XP on Mac) solution created to win a contest hosted by onmac.net was ready in March, some guys at Microsoft reportedly had it working before that (old MSDN weblog entry - I'll see if I can dig it up) and Boot Camp surfaced in early April. Granted, XOM wasn't particularly smooth, but they weren't first.
Slashdot Mirror
And if they take the red pill?
Sometimes - far from always, but sometimes - forks work. Firefox. GCC2.95/EGCS. WordPress. Hell, NeXTStep/OpenStep ;).
Almost inevitably, when they do work, it's because the original project has been abandoned, or when it adopts the fork. Accordingly, when a fork is maintained, it must be a top priority to strive to "pay back" to the original project. I approve of any such fork.
You kids and your special .fx.
I've had it! I'm switching to .ff!
Next up: Tautologies are tautologies!
Reportedly, they did log the packets over the wire too, but I don't know if the exact format in which they're logged are easily falsifiable. (I would *not* be surprised if the APB turned out to indeed manufacture data in order to clinch these cases, especially when a precedent is being set. )
Apple may take their time, but let's not pretend Microsoft is all that nimble.
Yes, it will work, based entirely on the simple fact that if it turns out that the motion sensor thing doesn't work technically or isn't good in the actual games, what you do have is a Gamecube on drugs with excellent networking, an online game store and backward compatibility. What most of us did expect of the Revolution, as it was, was a Gamecube on drugs and at least one of excellent networking, backward compatibility or HD A/V.
Wii isn't a technical prodigy, but it does surpass my expectations of its actual capabilities: what it can do, not how high resolution the graphics of it doing that is. There will be "non-sensor" games, just like there are games on the DS that don't require the pen.
The Wii is reasonably priced (the console *and* the networking; free WiFi, optional Ethernet adapter (which should have been built in but is cheap)), powerful enough and will get a lot of outsider games via Virtual Console even if the normal channel would dry up (which we wouldn't know at this stage).
"The party really does want filesharing (for private use) to be completely legalized - uploading and downloading."
Yep, but they are not pushing a law that says "legalize file sharing", they are pushing laws to make uploading and downloading for private use legal, and many other cases legal as well, such as expired copyrights. In effect, they do want to "legalize file sharing only of older works" on a commercial basis, because they don't have a law saying "legalize file sharing completely", just a bunch of other efforts intended to opening it up quite a bit.
The Pirate Party (henceforth TPP, since PP has some interesting connotations in English) did not get into the Riksdag, no. To get in, you need 4% of the votes. Last time around, in 2002, there was no TPP, and they got 0% of the votes. How is anything above 0% "being keelhauled"?
TPP said "this is going to be a close election, there are about a million people in Sweden sharing files, we can become a tiebreaker by gaining 4%". Making file sharing legal is the best-understood point of their political tenets (as few "intellectual property" institutions as possible, better privacy, reforming the copyright system). I don't fault them for picking exactly what they did to run on, or by the issue they made themselves known by (legalize file sharing). Which isn't the same as saying there weren't problems.
The other day I visited a page listing some Swedish political parties. The one line that described TPP was "They want to make downloading music and movies legal". Depending on how you look on it, it may be technically correct, however it's vastly oversimplified: The TPP reform of copyright includes perpetual and unlimited rights to *private* copies of anything, and shortens the exclusivity of selling the work to a five year duration instead of the author's-life + 70 + whatever-Disney-can-coax-international-law-into years of the current system, which effectively legalizes a lot of file sharing, which by necessity includes both uploading *and* downloading. These issues are hard and complicated. The Man on The Street won't be able to detail copyright law beyond perhaps author's-life + 70, and I don't think a tenth of the population have even heard of the continuous lengthening of the copyright period.
The "regular" parties run using a platter of promises - hundreds of them - where at least two are presented in a reasonable way. The Green Party (once a similar tiebreaker running using a similar philosophy) runs using more advanced stuff like TPP, but the few-words summary here, as expressed by The Man on The Street - "be nice to the environment and give us more family time" - is infinitely more agreeable to, well, most people, than "make downloading music and movies legal", which reeks of "omg plz make everything free kthx!1" rather than the well-thought out proposals behind TPP. This is one factor why TPP didn't make it all the way.
The other factor, then, is that more people found it more rewarding to vote for one of the two blocs (who mostly carry full political agendas on *all* issues, even the aforementioned Green Party) or on other small parties.
You could argue that the pie-in-the-sky chance that they would ever reach 4% was abysmal, but if they hadn't been so optimistic about it, I am positive that a lot of supporters would just have given up, saying "we're not going to make it anyway, why bother?". TPP didn't get its way, but I find it hard to deem them a failure. From 0 to sub-1% of above five million votes in less than 10 months is astounding work.
Meanwhile, I've had it with these motherfucking lasers on this motherfucking chip.
Serving up well marked-up content in combination in finely-crafted CSS and inobtrusive JavaScript enables serving to the lowest common denominator (say: mobile phones, Lynx) *and* enhancing the experience of those who aren't the lowest common denominators (say: reasonably modern browsers). This is hugely successful. It's very obvious to me that this is the way it's supposed to be. This services a diverse user base in the best way possible: useful extra functions for those that are able to use them, frugal, content-centered versions for the rest.
That well-engineered solutions also offer easy ways to fade in and out content is an effect (pun not intended), not a noteworthy goal in itself. There is a culture among "wanna-be-Web 2.0" sites to do this, and when the functionality is there, it doesn't bug me. Discussion2 in particular offers virtually no effects whatsoever, just a very useful function of reading comments nearly instantaneously with less strain on the server and client. It works exactly how I imagined it would work, and my two complaints is that its JavaScript semantics are somewhat muddled and that CmdrTaco is even for a second *considering* launching it without pitch-perfect IE support.
IE may be ass to code for - trust me, I know. I would rather have 90% of the world use Firefox, Safari or Opera than IE. But IE's JavaScript backend support (excluding debugging facilities) is still fairly good. What's more, not supporting IE because "they only make up a quarter of our visitors" while we were having problems getting Firefox up to the around 10% (+/-4%) worldwide that it has today is nothing less than offensive, a slap in the face of all us who do this for a living and base our "support every browser" argument on the fact that it's the way it should be, not that "our side is better and should be winning". Yes, it's hard work. Suck it up. Make it work. There's no excuse.
Scalable Aqua is implemented in Leopard (Mac OS X 10.5) and looks more or less the same, like the "fake high-resolution screenshots" in the media product shots. Aside from the fact that Leopard's iTunes build will probably ship with scalable graphics to fit in, this has nothing to do with that effort. I don't think Scalable Aqua is vector-based either (my money's on some kind of mipmap), but it *could* be through PDFs.
While on the subject of those scrollers, I don't like how they made everything look "Graphite". If I selected "Aqua" in my color scheme, I expect Aqua and not dull grey.
As I posted in a sibling comment, the previous two Q1 quarters, there was a newly introduced iPod as well: iPod mini in 04 and iPod shuffle in 05. No such thing this year, only a 1GB nano mid-quarter. It is a different development like you say, but considering that, it's within the margin as far as I'm concerned.
There is a downwards curve here but it has nothing to do with actual popularity decline, just with timing and new models.
Very late Q1 04, iPod mini was released, very late Q1 05, iPod shuffle was released. No new iPod has been released since the 5G ("video") iPod almost a year ago, and the only thing to up sales a bit has been a 1GB iPod nano in the middle of Q2 06 and a small iPod shuffle price drop.
Having the other three quarters not reach holiday quarter level is the norm and pretty much the only way you can beat that is by releasing new products directly following the holiday quarter. This year they didn't, and so they declined. This isn't rocket science, and it doesn't point towards or prove an overall continuing decline.
Yes, because obviously all movies are based on books.
It's probably true that most movie adaptations of books can be proven to be worse than the book, since telling a compelling story in a movie is completely different than telling a compelling story in a book, and very few people, or even teams, can do both well, but offering up that all movies are based on books is a bit too strong for me. Some of my favorite movies are those that weren't books to begin with, like the Matrix trilogy and the Austin Powers trilogy, and I suspect I'm not alone in this.
Not really, just prop the sensor bar up about the distance away that the glasses are supposed to feel like. (If they are supposed to feel like a 70" TV at 4 meters away, just put it 4 meters away, and so on.)
If you generate buzz especially to attract ad impressions, it's more "whoring" than "buzz generation". :)
Things I'm willing to agree with: Laptop drive == worse than 3.5" drive (in capacity and drive speed). RAM cap. No Core 2 Duo. "Has no video card": It has a built-in video card, which isn't half bad. It's not anywhere near top of the line, but it's certainly not crap. (HD playback, halfway decent framerates.) If you're worrying about not being able to fit more than 2GB of RAM in it, you won't be having problems with performance due to siphoning memory. "Doesn't include a keyboard or mouse": You mean, unless you configure it with them? The perfect box would be something Shuttle-sized with iMac-scale performance and hard drives, sure. But I'm not holding my breath, and I'm not expecting it to cost significantly less than the iMac anyway.
It's nice how the submitter manages to slip up in *two* languages. The name of the newspaper is Göteborgs-Posten, Göteborg being the Swedish name for Gothenburg.
That's the first time I've heard someone ask "where is it" about something on a map site. Just zoom out.
That's just the thing: if Maynor did say that, it was ridiculously unprofessional of him. He's of course entitled to his own opinion, but it's not a wise move to connect it to coverage regarding the exploit because it lowers his credibility - "is he just out to zing Apple?" - especially since the other comments by Maynor in that article are technically correct and his description of drivers ring true. But the other side of the coin, as you say, is that Krebs made it up, which would have been ridiculously unprofessional of *him*.
The ads from the network Daring Fireball is using are paid by a flat fee, so Gruber has no vested interest in getting "impressions" (of which I think he already gets plenty). Claiming that it's a whoring move for ad moolah (if that's what you did) is wrong - the alternative would be a long drawn-out back-and-forth, and I have a feeling we'd all bore of that very quickly, because we're already in midst of such a circus. That said, for your reasons, I wouldn't want to be Johnny Cache right now, but I can't say he didn't set this one up himself either.
Yes, they probably will.
It's the thorough lack of details and crummy reporting mixed with derogatory comments that makes it hard to discern if there is an exploit to speak of at all. I know I'd have nothing to worry about if the guys would have presented their exploit neutrally (without shit-flinging Mac users for "being smug"), been detailed in exactly what the target of the attack is (they can do that without revealing details on the exact nature of the exploit) and told us that they're working with Apple to resolve it (because I don't believe for a second that Apple would tell them to put a sock in it rather than work to fix the issue). You know, the way these things are done professionally. But perhaps it's too easy to cast blame, especially since a number of reporters aside from Ellch and his collaborator have been reporting different facts.
Unless you meant running OS X and XP on a PC, they weren't first.
The XOM (XP on Mac) solution created to win a contest hosted by onmac.net was ready in March, some guys at Microsoft reportedly had it working before that (old MSDN weblog entry - I'll see if I can dig it up) and Boot Camp surfaced in early April. Granted, XOM wasn't particularly smooth, but they weren't first.