To sum it up: the Microsoft programmer gets his check at the end of the month no matter what the code quality is, but the Open source programmer only gets reconnaissance if his/her code is high quality and useful.
You know, two can play the FUD game. If Microsoft does not really misunderstand Free Software, but says publicly that they don't understand it, what couldn't Cringely take their claim at face value to fight the FUD back ?
All these people are Slashdotters trying to get SCO to do the final mistake and send invoices, so they can sue SCO for racketeering / extortion / mail fraud.
The G3 will likely be continued, for embedded and video systems (Cube consoles use them, I think).
Apple is visibly trying its hardest to get G5 processors in their laptops. They cannot depend on Motorola anymore, and should they stop getting G4s from them for whatever reason, it would seriously damage their sales, and their credibility in the enterprise market.
What could possibly happen once Motorola sells off its microprocessors division ? Or when / if the lawsuit filed by Apple against Mot' over breachs of contract goes to court ?
PowerBooks are not THAT far apart, price-wise, but they get Video-Out (Mirror and Extended Desktop modes supported) and Sound-In, which iBooks don't have.
Exactly. This is the exact same thing as the "nazi objects for sale on Ebay" case: different laws in various countries colliding over an international service, and a court decision forcing the middle man to apply the local law himself, at his own expense.
Syncing your iTunes collection on your iPod "paints" it with your unique iTMS identifier if you have one. The iPod then uses it to decrypt the AAC files that come from the iTMS, the same way that iTunes uses it to play them on your computer.
iTunes 4.0 could originally share with anyone on the Internet (I still have this version on my Macs, am sharing radio shows recordings this way, legally).
Soon came the 4.01 update, which would just block sharing to non-local (routable) IPs. And quickly after that came iCommune / 401ok, an utility that diverts the sharing service from port 3689 to port 4689, effectively making it accessible from routable IP addresses.
Joe Haldemann has tried to predict what would happen in such a situation, in The Forever Peace. Basically, he depicts a world where developed countries have gotten ahold of technology (nanoforges) that can produce any object given some very raw materials - put in sand, some metal scraps or ore, some oil or oily plants, along with some digitalized blueprint, and get a computer out. He describes how this technology would completely turn the occidental world into a neo-communist society with some capitalist principles still applied (everyone gets a weekly set of tickets that are used at state-controlled nanoforges).
In such a society, brands don't exist anymore, but there's still a form of intellectual "property": for example one character uses up some leisure-tickets to buy what would be an expensive jewel ring to us. The design belongs to some association of jewellers.
But also of importance is that the nanoforges are very, very closely controlled by the State so that the technology doesn't get leaked to the third-world. In your example, you wouldn't be able to copy your friend's laptop, you'd have to get an official authorization in exchange for a hefty number of "nanoforge tickets". This resembles the type of laws the RIAA/MPAA want to impose on copyrighted works, with them granting the authorizations in exchange for money.
Remember that, in the case of 'intellectual property', you'd only be given a temporary right to keep the stereo in your house before returning it to the public domain. It'd not even be yours, technically.
Keep in mind that most laws were written hundreds of years ago. Back then, there was no feasible way to catch law-breakers, so the punishment was extreme in order to deter others from doing the same thing.
The copyright laws, as they were written originally, did not aim to punish filesharers, since it was considered fair-use (you were only physically capable of share with friends and family at the time) and only became illegal through the lobbying of united agents in the 90s.
They aimed at preventing a corporation, or someone with enough power or money, to take a song from an artist, put his name on it and sell it for a profit and not paying anything to the author. This is why the punishment is so high, because it is sized after the profit one would expect from large-scale sale of the intellectual work.
See where we are now... Artists are forced to resign their rights to labels or they're left out of the spotlight, with little to no chance for fame, and even in the best cases their agents make an order of magnitude or six more money than they do.
The copyright law was made so that a corporation couldn't rip off an artist, by taking his/her work and selling it in their place. The $150,000 fine per infringement should only be applicable as a punishment for the WHOLE infringement, as in for ALL the illegally distributed copies of one particular song.
Applying it to each and every filesharer is not even double-dipping, it is n-dipping, and an awful abuse of the law.
It is about time trivial copyright infringements be free of punishment / fine.
The laws in my country don't make this a crime nor even illegal at all.
I find it very wrong that in the US, 60 million people are left stranded in a situation where, basically, a corporation can (and IS) extort a crazy amount of money, for no more reason than doing what is trivial to me.
Laws have been wrong before.
Sorry, you (and Fester) have it wrong. iTunes simply calls the QuickTime API. You can play the iTMS tracks in any other player than uses QuickTime, too. WMP could do this and ply the thracks, for example. You're even free to code one yourself.
What did you expect, frankly ? That Microsoft would welcome Apple's incursion on their turf ? They have been pushing DRM'd WMA and Windows Media Player 9 for some time, and then Apple comes and wreaks their plans with mildly-DRM'd AAC files and iTunes.
No wonder they're worried. That's a loss of control over their customers' habits, one less entry point to leverage their own DRM on PCs, plus it brings Apple in plain view of a LOT of people who wouldn't even know Macs existed otherwise.
Slashdot Mirror
Bah, Linus and RMS can always offer a full refund. To each and every of their "customers". I cannot imagine Microsoft doing that. Ever.
This assumption relies on the hypothesis that all these companies you cited will have enough money to recruit all the quality programmers out there.
Newsflash for Ballmer: even Microsoft cannot hire all of them. And in any case, some of them already have a job.
To sum it up: the Microsoft programmer gets his check at the end of the month no matter what the code quality is, but the Open source programmer only gets reconnaissance if his/her code is high quality and useful.
You know, two can play the FUD game. If Microsoft does not really misunderstand Free Software, but says publicly that they don't understand it, what couldn't Cringely take their claim at face value to fight the FUD back ?
Well, it should get around 1100 * 380 fps. That's 380 fps running at a resolution of 32768x26400 in 32 bits per pixel.
All these people are Slashdotters trying to get SCO to do the final mistake and send invoices, so they can sue SCO for racketeering / extortion / mail fraud.
Not all Macs, just clusters of G5s. The thing's experimental, you know.
Besides, I wouldn't complain about my computer outputting only 7.4 TFlops.
Hardmac.com identifies the chips as PPC7455. There go the Gobi / Mojave theories of MacOpinion and AppleInsider.
This is VERY interesting, could you cite any source ?
The G3 will likely be continued, for embedded and video systems (Cube consoles use them, I think).
Apple is visibly trying its hardest to get G5 processors in their laptops. They cannot depend on Motorola anymore, and should they stop getting G4s from them for whatever reason, it would seriously damage their sales, and their credibility in the enterprise market.
What could possibly happen once Motorola sells off its microprocessors division ? Or when / if the lawsuit filed by Apple against Mot' over breachs of contract goes to court ?
PowerBooks are not THAT far apart, price-wise, but they get Video-Out (Mirror and Extended Desktop modes supported) and Sound-In, which iBooks don't have.
One of the P&F drones was a candidate for the position of mayor in my town. He got 2 votes, out of 14,500 inhabitants. Some say that includes his own.
another way to pretend that reading Slashdot may eventually lead to body movement.
All this scrolling and clicking and typing is a lot of movement for me already, you insensitive clod !
Exactly. This is the exact same thing as the "nazi objects for sale on Ebay" case: different laws in various countries colliding over an international service, and a court decision forcing the middle man to apply the local law himself, at his own expense.
Nice troll, but no cookie.
Syncing your iTunes collection on your iPod "paints" it with your unique iTMS identifier if you have one. The iPod then uses it to decrypt the AAC files that come from the iTMS, the same way that iTunes uses it to play them on your computer.
Or so I think...
iTunes 4.0 could originally share with anyone on the Internet (I still have this version on my Macs, am sharing radio shows recordings this way, legally).
Soon came the 4.01 update, which would just block sharing to non-local (routable) IPs. And quickly after that came iCommune / 401ok, an utility that diverts the sharing service from port 3689 to port 4689, effectively making it accessible from routable IP addresses.
I think it should read:
DROP [...] SOFTWARE!
Joe Haldemann has tried to predict what would happen in such a situation, in The Forever Peace. Basically, he depicts a world where developed countries have gotten ahold of technology (nanoforges) that can produce any object given some very raw materials - put in sand, some metal scraps or ore, some oil or oily plants, along with some digitalized blueprint, and get a computer out. He describes how this technology would completely turn the occidental world into a neo-communist society with some capitalist principles still applied (everyone gets a weekly set of tickets that are used at state-controlled nanoforges).
In such a society, brands don't exist anymore, but there's still a form of intellectual "property": for example one character uses up some leisure-tickets to buy what would be an expensive jewel ring to us. The design belongs to some association of jewellers.
But also of importance is that the nanoforges are very, very closely controlled by the State so that the technology doesn't get leaked to the third-world. In your example, you wouldn't be able to copy your friend's laptop, you'd have to get an official authorization in exchange for a hefty number of "nanoforge tickets". This resembles the type of laws the RIAA/MPAA want to impose on copyrighted works, with them granting the authorizations in exchange for money.
Please excuse the long rambling, it's late here.
Remember that, in the case of 'intellectual property', you'd only be given a temporary right to keep the stereo in your house before returning it to the public domain. It'd not even be yours, technically.
The copyright laws, as they were written originally, did not aim to punish filesharers, since it was considered fair-use (you were only physically capable of share with friends and family at the time) and only became illegal through the lobbying of united agents in the 90s.
They aimed at preventing a corporation, or someone with enough power or money, to take a song from an artist, put his name on it and sell it for a profit and not paying anything to the author. This is why the punishment is so high, because it is sized after the profit one would expect from large-scale sale of the intellectual work.
See where we are now... Artists are forced to resign their rights to labels or they're left out of the spotlight, with little to no chance for fame, and even in the best cases their agents make an order of magnitude or six more money than they do.
The copyright law was made so that a corporation couldn't rip off an artist, by taking his/her work and selling it in their place. The $150,000 fine per infringement should only be applicable as a punishment for the WHOLE infringement, as in for ALL the illegally distributed copies of one particular song.
Applying it to each and every filesharer is not even double-dipping, it is n-dipping, and an awful abuse of the law.
It is about time trivial copyright infringements be free of punishment / fine.
The laws in my country don't make this a crime nor even illegal at all. I find it very wrong that in the US, 60 million people are left stranded in a situation where, basically, a corporation can (and IS) extort a crazy amount of money, for no more reason than doing what is trivial to me. Laws have been wrong before.
Sorry, you (and Fester) have it wrong. iTunes simply calls the QuickTime API. You can play the iTMS tracks in any other player than uses QuickTime, too. WMP could do this and ply the thracks, for example. You're even free to code one yourself.
This way you are not tied to one player.
...film at 11.
What did you expect, frankly ? That Microsoft would welcome Apple's incursion on their turf ? They have been pushing DRM'd WMA and Windows Media Player 9 for some time, and then Apple comes and wreaks their plans with mildly-DRM'd AAC files and iTunes.
No wonder they're worried. That's a loss of control over their customers' habits, one less entry point to leverage their own DRM on PCs, plus it brings Apple in plain view of a LOT of people who wouldn't even know Macs existed otherwise.