Only if you believe Apple's public excuse for Leopard's delay. I don't.
Shifting large numbers of employees around on projects for short periods isn't effective in shortening product cycles. I seriously doubt Apple's claim that it applied the Leopard development team to help deliver the iPhone.
It's more likely that that Leopard simply didn't make internal development milestones and its schedule shifted out. The iPhone excuse is just spin.
As for what I own, I have both an iPhone and Macs. I realize that Apple lies to manipulate its customers and the market just like every other company, though.
Claiming, rightfully, that GPL champions are hypocritical for doing to the BSD community what they insist must not be allowed (and the GPL forbids) is not "missing the boat". It was not central to the discussion, either.
Apparently, GPL true-believers don't believe in treating others as they demand to be treated.
BS. 4 cores on a processor is quad-core. You "techno-types" think you can define terms to suit your prejudices. It doesn't matter at all how many dies are inside the part.
There may be a "perception" that AMD's solutions are elegant and Intel's are not, but that's just retarded thinking among those who don't know any better. If AMD's engineering is so much better then why can't they keep up? What matters is what can be provided at what cost and in what timeframe. Intel has been innovative because it isn't tied down to what armchair, self-important geeks think is the right thing to do. Intel has real engineers working on its parts.
Since when hasn't Intel done something original? If anything, Intel has suffered from too much original thinking.
There is no "you-hate-it-means-you-are-one argument", there is simply an observable correlation and that correlation is sufficiently compelling to some people. The whole concept of "you are one" is flawed as well. Sexual orientation is fluid and nailing down what exactly is homosexuality is not useful except when making it sufficiently narrow so as to enable persecution. When was the last time someone described himself as homosexual just to give himself the benefit of the doubt?
Homosexuality is defined by the attraction, not by the action taken because of it and the notion of sin is irrelevant. Defining homosexuality by conduct only serves to lessen the population of homosexuals and make it more easy to hate them. One's heterosexuality is assumed, after all, not defined by engagement in heterosexual activity. Defining homosexuality differently is hypocritical.
A "GPLv2 or later" license is not a GPLv3 license. In order for such code to be counted as GPLv3, it would need to be relicensed and that would be allowed. Restrictions placed on code under GPLv3 do not apply to "GPLv2 or later" code unless they also exist in GPLv2.
Ignoring the fact that being in an intersection on a red light is not against the law and that the behavior of other drivers is entirely irrelevant, proof that the image was actually taken and unaltered would be nice. More important would be the functioning of the light system itself. It is well known that intersections using photo enforcement frequently short cycle the yellow in order to increase the violation rate. Considering that there are legal minimums for the duration of the yellow phase, I'd consider that extremely interesting.
Make it up in time for what? College isn't a race; you have the rest of your life. Perhaps, if you didn't want to be disappointed, you might have been better off elsewhere.
A high school major and a career are two different things. Specialization has existed in high schools for decades and this is no different. Personally, I don't believe in specialization like this, but there's no reason to call it what it isn't.
"As Linus said, with Itanium Intel threw away all the good bits."
It's a good thing Linus leveraged his considerable processor architecture experience while at Transmeta. Where would they be now had he not provided useful advice like that?
Re:This is relatively benign ...
on
Manhattan 1984
·
· Score: 1
Funny that you assume that this "general idea" is a good one. Infrastructure benefits everyone and elaborate schemes to fund it just cost extra money to implement. You would have a hard time convincing me that a "pay per mile per pound of vehicle" idea is the right one compared to funding the entire system out a general fund. Commercial vehicles have, for a long time, payed taxes to offset their relative wear and tear on the system. Inexpensive shipping costs benefit all of us.
What creates a strong incentive to toll is government corruption and wasteful bureaucracy. Toll roads can't be justified based on economic efficiency in any way. Governments love them because they can put more people on the payroll, line more pockets, and have a revenue source targeted at infrastructure that's actually paying for pork.
Why bother requiring itineraries to be registered when you can just outlaw private ownership of vehicles and force public transportation outright? It would be far easier to issue everyone a card and an account, then force them to swipe in and out as they use mass transit. Taxing per-minute usage of public roads defeats the entire purpose of having roads.
"Unless someone can come up with a fool-proof alternative way of putting up the money *and* ensuring an acceptable level of service. In other words: don't count on it not happening."
For God's sake, that's what government is for. It isn't as though that hasn't been managed in the past in every country in the world. What makes you think we can't possibly fund roads without pay per mile going forward?
"What you *pay* in unimportant."
I see, you work for the federal government. For the rest of us, what we pay *is* important. If gasoline taxes were actually used for what they are collected, and various other taxes were spent on infrastructure rather than bureaucracy, then we might not have this ridiculous "difference" you speak of.
"...taking photos of people driving to make sure they're not driving to [sic] fast, thus saving lives,... are good things"
On the surface that's a true statement. In reality it is not.
First off, at least in many states in the US, a person has a right to face his accuser and his accuser cannot be a machine. Machines would be presumed to be correct unless a malfunction could be demonstrated and it's far too easy to prevent such a demonstration. Furthermore, machines are too easily rigged to generate false accusations. There is ample evidence where, in states that allow photo radar, companies are given financial incentive to cheat on light cycles in order to produce more cases of red lights being run. In a country where we (supposedly) value the presumption of innocence, allowing machines to testify against us is no different than presuming guilt without recourse.
Second, your claim is problematic because it assumes that "too fast" is a known thing. In the US it is customary to set speed limits artificially low and defer to police officers for selective enforcement. Doing so provides an ample supply of "speeders" and makes cases against them easier to argue. Combining this inherent corruption with the inflexible enforcement of an automated system is not a "good thing" but, more to the point, it does not "save lives" as you asserted. All it does is increase revenues for the state.
If such a system could be made foolproof, deliberate manipulation of the system prevented, and the corruption in traffic laws eliminated then I might agree with you. As it stands, it's far more important (to me) to limit government power and intrusion than to give any consideration to questionable claims of life saving. Frankly, there are many things to attack to make our roads safer than to further slow down vehicles. Roads are for getting places, and further limiting their effectiveness while ignoring greater issues (such as cellphone use and alcohol) is essentially throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
You were extraordinarily lucky that it was just the right 3 drives that failed. That is, assuming you really needed the zero down time.;-)
Your point about drives all being from the same batch increasing their likelihood of simultaneous failure is spot-on. Generally speaking, the theoretical odds of simultaneous failure are remarkably small. In reality, the odds are a good deal greater.:-(
"All well and good, but why then do Latitudes and other cheap ones start sounding horrible, creaking when you move them and breaking well before the more expensive Dells do?"
I don't know, I haven't experienced that nor have I worked there in years. However, Latitude is not their cheap notebook brand.
Originally, Inspiron was for home users who wanted new tech fast while Latitude was for businesses who needed longer product cycles. Wherever possible, Latitude and Inspiron models synced up and were, in fact, identical except for the name difference. From year to year that could vary, but there was never a deliberate difference in quality between the two. Latitude had longer product cycles, and higher margins, due to the unique purchasing processes of big businesses. If Latitude were used to compete in retail, it would get laughed out of the market.
Later, when workstation systems decided to offer notebooks, Dell took an existing notebook, slapped a Quadro in it, and charged an extra $1000. Quadro graphics are needed to run workstation class apps; they aren't better, just different. They are the preferred systems for Mac fanboys to compare against, however, as if they were in any way the same.
"I also don't buy that they are often the same machines with a name change; at the very least they are obviously put in a different case: a much cheaper one that isn't as sturdy."
Too bad then. Yes, Dell has a lot more cases now. Originally, Inspiron and Latitude used the same cases. All the differentiation came after I left.
"And as the iBook G3 owners will testify, a better, sturdier case makes all the difference as PCBs and other components do not like being flexed constantly."
I didn't realize that Apple had such huge problems with basic design. I wouldn't call a MacBook Pro a sturdy case considering the $660 repair bill I got after a 12" drop bent the case.
"They are usually also a lot bigger, making me put more doubt on you saying they are the same one the insides. (making things smaller is more expensive) What do they do with the extra space, leave it full of air? To what point? To make the more expensive ones look worth the extra cost?"
I'm not sure what you mean by "they". I've never meant to suggest that all Dell notebooks are the same inside. What I said was that there was a great deal of common componentry and I specifically objected to your claims that Inspirons are of inferior quality and have inferior screens. Those two claims were bullshit.
Some systems are larger because they have more capacity for expansion. Apple does a number of things to make their machines small. They use metal cases for slimness and accept that they may tolerate drops poorly. They sacrifice servicability and expandability. They sole-source components such as power supplies. For those that value the elegance that Apple offers, the extra money and sacrifices are worth it. Dell's customers are much different. First and foremost, Dell cares about customers that buy in units of hundreds or thousands. None of those customers care about the metal case. They do care about ruggedness, though, and when I worked there Dell always came out on top in drop and spill tests. Don't know if they still do since things can change in a year. Dell has definitely gone downhill since Michael retired.
Incidently, I'm 100% Mac now for what it's worth. I keep a Windows box around just in case but it's an HP. I've been Dell-free for over a year so I don't comment on specific models. My last Dell was an Inspiron notebook and it was totally problem free (unlike my MBPs).
Sorry, I can't keep track of which assholes are spewing all the nonsense. Didn't realize you were the one posting the condescending remarks about my physical condition without knowing the first thing about me. Not a big surprise though.
I don't think I'm the only one with valid experience, I just know that anyone that has valid experience, like I do, wouldn't say such idiotic things. If, in fact, you've dealt with obesity and are thin now yet still say what you do, then you are doubly stupid. The only people who deny the existance of metabolic syndrom are those who have no experience with it. Big surprise.
As for running circles, you've proven that you're not only arrogantly ignorant of weight issues but you are a pedantic prink as well. You're welcome to think you're better than me, and it's clear that you do, but be careful what you assume of those you don't know. You know nothing of my physical condition.
While probably not proof of addiction, there are known chemical mechanisms that occur in response to obesity and bad diet that result in increases in appetite. Obese people having greater appetites is a known fact, and that fact is consistently lost on thin people. Sadly, once someone experiences these increases in appetite, the problems continue even if they diet and lose the weight. A person who is skinny but once had weight problems as an adult is likely to have more trouble with appetite than someone who has never been overweight.
Slashdot Mirror
Only if you believe Apple's public excuse for Leopard's delay. I don't.
Shifting large numbers of employees around on projects for short periods isn't effective in shortening product cycles. I seriously doubt Apple's claim that it applied the Leopard development team to help deliver the iPhone.
It's more likely that that Leopard simply didn't make internal development milestones and its schedule shifted out. The iPhone excuse is just spin.
As for what I own, I have both an iPhone and Macs. I realize that Apple lies to manipulate its customers and the market just like every other company, though.
What a load of bullshit.
A USB port consumes 5W when nothing is plugged into it?
Engadget had no evidence to support that claim. They looked at part numbers, that's all, and the part in question was rated at "up to" that speed.
Claiming, rightfully, that GPL champions are hypocritical for doing to the BSD community what they insist must not be allowed (and the GPL forbids) is not "missing the boat". It was not central to the discussion, either.
Apparently, GPL true-believers don't believe in treating others as they demand to be treated.
BS. 4 cores on a processor is quad-core. You "techno-types" think you can define terms to suit your prejudices. It doesn't matter at all how many dies are inside the part.
There may be a "perception" that AMD's solutions are elegant and Intel's are not, but that's just retarded thinking among those who don't know any better. If AMD's engineering is so much better then why can't they keep up? What matters is what can be provided at what cost and in what timeframe. Intel has been innovative because it isn't tied down to what armchair, self-important geeks think is the right thing to do. Intel has real engineers working on its parts.
Since when hasn't Intel done something original? If anything, Intel has suffered from too much original thinking.
There is no "you-hate-it-means-you-are-one argument", there is simply an observable correlation and that correlation is sufficiently compelling to some people. The whole concept of "you are one" is flawed as well. Sexual orientation is fluid and nailing down what exactly is homosexuality is not useful except when making it sufficiently narrow so as to enable persecution. When was the last time someone described himself as homosexual just to give himself the benefit of the doubt?
Homosexuality is defined by the attraction, not by the action taken because of it and the notion of sin is irrelevant. Defining homosexuality by conduct only serves to lessen the population of homosexuals and make it more easy to hate them. One's heterosexuality is assumed, after all, not defined by engagement in heterosexual activity. Defining homosexuality differently is hypocritical.
A "GPLv2 or later" license is not a GPLv3 license. In order for such code to be counted as GPLv3, it would need to be relicensed and that would be allowed. Restrictions placed on code under GPLv3 do not apply to "GPLv2 or later" code unless they also exist in GPLv2.
Stupider? Are you one of those people?
Only a fool would pay 2.50 for a ringtone from AT&T as well. Just because other companies overcharge doesn't make Apple's fees reasonable.
Apple could have, and should have, added the ringtone capabilities for free. Anything else is an insult.
It's an iPod, not iTunes. No justification for assuming that.
I'm sure that will "just work" and VoIP will magically appear.
Ignoring the fact that being in an intersection on a red light is not against the law and that the behavior of other drivers is entirely irrelevant, proof that the image was actually taken and unaltered would be nice. More important would be the functioning of the light system itself. It is well known that intersections using photo enforcement frequently short cycle the yellow in order to increase the violation rate. Considering that there are legal minimums for the duration of the yellow phase, I'd consider that extremely interesting.
The Attorney General doesn't have a courtroom. Those belong to the judicial branch.
How do you consider failing to defeat a candidate "throwing an election"?
Make it up in time for what? College isn't a race; you have the rest of your life. Perhaps, if you didn't want to be disappointed, you might have been better off elsewhere.
A high school major and a career are two different things. Specialization has existed in high schools for decades and this is no different. Personally, I don't believe in specialization like this, but there's no reason to call it what it isn't.
"As Linus said, with Itanium Intel threw away all the good bits."
It's a good thing Linus leveraged his considerable processor architecture experience while at Transmeta. Where would they be now had he not provided useful advice like that?
Funny that you assume that this "general idea" is a good one. Infrastructure benefits everyone and elaborate schemes to fund it just cost extra money to implement. You would have a hard time convincing me that a "pay per mile per pound of vehicle" idea is the right one compared to funding the entire system out a general fund. Commercial vehicles have, for a long time, payed taxes to offset their relative wear and tear on the system. Inexpensive shipping costs benefit all of us.
What creates a strong incentive to toll is government corruption and wasteful bureaucracy. Toll roads can't be justified based on economic efficiency in any way. Governments love them because they can put more people on the payroll, line more pockets, and have a revenue source targeted at infrastructure that's actually paying for pork.
Why bother requiring itineraries to be registered when you can just outlaw private ownership of vehicles and force public transportation outright? It would be far easier to issue everyone a card and an account, then force them to swipe in and out as they use mass transit. Taxing per-minute usage of public roads defeats the entire purpose of having roads.
"Unless someone can come up with a fool-proof alternative way of putting up the money *and* ensuring an acceptable level of service. In other words: don't count on it not happening."
For God's sake, that's what government is for. It isn't as though that hasn't been managed in the past in every country in the world. What makes you think we can't possibly fund roads without pay per mile going forward?
"What you *pay* in unimportant."
I see, you work for the federal government. For the rest of us, what we pay *is* important. If gasoline taxes were actually used for what they are collected, and various other taxes were spent on infrastructure rather than bureaucracy, then we might not have this ridiculous "difference" you speak of.
"...taking photos of people driving to make sure they're not driving to [sic] fast, thus saving lives, ... are good things"
On the surface that's a true statement. In reality it is not.
First off, at least in many states in the US, a person has a right to face his accuser and his accuser cannot be a machine. Machines would be presumed to be correct unless a malfunction could be demonstrated and it's far too easy to prevent such a demonstration. Furthermore, machines are too easily rigged to generate false accusations. There is ample evidence where, in states that allow photo radar, companies are given financial incentive to cheat on light cycles in order to produce more cases of red lights being run. In a country where we (supposedly) value the presumption of innocence, allowing machines to testify against us is no different than presuming guilt without recourse.
Second, your claim is problematic because it assumes that "too fast" is a known thing. In the US it is customary to set speed limits artificially low and defer to police officers for selective enforcement. Doing so provides an ample supply of "speeders" and makes cases against them easier to argue. Combining this inherent corruption with the inflexible enforcement of an automated system is not a "good thing" but, more to the point, it does not "save lives" as you asserted. All it does is increase revenues for the state.
If such a system could be made foolproof, deliberate manipulation of the system prevented, and the corruption in traffic laws eliminated then I might agree with you. As it stands, it's far more important (to me) to limit government power and intrusion than to give any consideration to questionable claims of life saving. Frankly, there are many things to attack to make our roads safer than to further slow down vehicles. Roads are for getting places, and further limiting their effectiveness while ignoring greater issues (such as cellphone use and alcohol) is essentially throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Did God give you a strawberry shortcake?
You were extraordinarily lucky that it was just the right 3 drives that failed. That is, assuming you really needed the zero down time. ;-)
:-(
Your point about drives all being from the same batch increasing their likelihood of simultaneous failure is spot-on. Generally speaking, the theoretical odds of simultaneous failure are remarkably small. In reality, the odds are a good deal greater.
"All well and good, but why then do Latitudes and other cheap ones start sounding horrible, creaking when you move them and breaking well before the more expensive Dells do?"
I don't know, I haven't experienced that nor have I worked there in years. However, Latitude is not their cheap notebook brand.
Originally, Inspiron was for home users who wanted new tech fast while Latitude was for businesses who needed longer product cycles. Wherever possible, Latitude and Inspiron models synced up and were, in fact, identical except for the name difference. From year to year that could vary, but there was never a deliberate difference in quality between the two. Latitude had longer product cycles, and higher margins, due to the unique purchasing processes of big businesses. If Latitude were used to compete in retail, it would get laughed out of the market.
Later, when workstation systems decided to offer notebooks, Dell took an existing notebook, slapped a Quadro in it, and charged an extra $1000. Quadro graphics are needed to run workstation class apps; they aren't better, just different. They are the preferred systems for Mac fanboys to compare against, however, as if they were in any way the same.
"I also don't buy that they are often the same machines with a name change; at the very least they are obviously put in a different case: a much cheaper one that isn't as sturdy."
Too bad then. Yes, Dell has a lot more cases now. Originally, Inspiron and Latitude used the same cases. All the differentiation came after I left.
"And as the iBook G3 owners will testify, a better, sturdier case makes all the difference as PCBs and other components do not like being flexed constantly."
I didn't realize that Apple had such huge problems with basic design. I wouldn't call a MacBook Pro a sturdy case considering the $660 repair bill I got after a 12" drop bent the case.
"They are usually also a lot bigger, making me put more doubt on you saying they are the same one the insides. (making things smaller is more expensive) What do they do with the extra space, leave it full of air? To what point? To make the more expensive ones look worth the extra cost?"
I'm not sure what you mean by "they". I've never meant to suggest that all Dell notebooks are the same inside. What I said was that there was a great deal of common componentry and I specifically objected to your claims that Inspirons are of inferior quality and have inferior screens. Those two claims were bullshit.
Some systems are larger because they have more capacity for expansion. Apple does a number of things to make their machines small. They use metal cases for slimness and accept that they may tolerate drops poorly. They sacrifice servicability and expandability. They sole-source components such as power supplies. For those that value the elegance that Apple offers, the extra money and sacrifices are worth it. Dell's customers are much different. First and foremost, Dell cares about customers that buy in units of hundreds or thousands. None of those customers care about the metal case. They do care about ruggedness, though, and when I worked there Dell always came out on top in drop and spill tests. Don't know if they still do since things can change in a year. Dell has definitely gone downhill since Michael retired.
Incidently, I'm 100% Mac now for what it's worth. I keep a Windows box around just in case but it's an HP. I've been Dell-free for over a year so I don't comment on specific models. My last Dell was an Inspiron notebook and it was totally problem free (unlike my MBPs).
Sorry, I can't keep track of which assholes are spewing all the nonsense. Didn't realize you were the one posting the condescending remarks about my physical condition without knowing the first thing about me. Not a big surprise though.
I don't think I'm the only one with valid experience, I just know that anyone that has valid experience, like I do, wouldn't say such idiotic things. If, in fact, you've dealt with obesity and are thin now yet still say what you do, then you are doubly stupid. The only people who deny the existance of metabolic syndrom are those who have no experience with it. Big surprise.
As for running circles, you've proven that you're not only arrogantly ignorant of weight issues but you are a pedantic prink as well. You're welcome to think you're better than me, and it's clear that you do, but be careful what you assume of those you don't know. You know nothing of my physical condition.
While probably not proof of addiction, there are known chemical mechanisms that occur in response to obesity and bad diet that result in increases in appetite. Obese people having greater appetites is a known fact, and that fact is consistently lost on thin people. Sadly, once someone experiences these increases in appetite, the problems continue even if they diet and lose the weight. A person who is skinny but once had weight problems as an adult is likely to have more trouble with appetite than someone who has never been overweight.