A combination. You need to have a login and password, and then you need to know the secret URL (which I guess would have been mailed to the applicants in the fullness of time).
So they can be pretty sure that if person X's letter was viewed, it was viewed by person X or someone who knows the password of person X.
Yes, that's correct. Looking through a powerful telescope is looking back in time, and when we see something that's a billion light-years away, what we see is a billion years old.
And if anyone in that galaxy a billion light-years away is looking in our directions, perhaps they'll see what I looked like when I had hair.
No (except the obvious, ebay) because Apple sells computer systems. They don't sell hardware or software, they sell bundles. hardware and the The value is that they work well together.
This is quite a bit different from a software company that bullies hardware companies into paying a per-machine cost (whether or not that machine has their software on it) for the priviledge of installing their software on any machines.
So your question is really: if Apple did their hardware unbundled, would it cost less? Who knows.
If the iTunes Music Store was the only download music store, and they used a proprietary format, then that would be one thing. As it is, the apparently barrier to entry in the downloadable music business is so low that music stores are springing up all over the place (the local radio station now has their own music store where you can download the music from their playlists). MP3 players are for sale at half the stores in the mall.
Nobody is forcing you to use anything from Apple; there are viable competitors in every one of their markets. Nobody is paying an "Apple tax" to buy a computer that doesn't have iTunes installed on it...
No, but only because I was 3,000 miles from home and my flight wasn't until the next day...
I was at a well-known software shop. A senior tech lead tried to put me through my paces: implement lookup for a singly-linked list, then insert, then delete, etc. I thought maybe it was just a warmup, but he kept asking more CS1-ish algorithms and coding questions. Then the next guy continued on the same way, and it went on all day. After an hour or two I felt no urge to work there. After all, it did say clearly on my resume that my previous jobs were teaching the graduate-level course in data structures and algorithms at a well-known university and hacking compilers (for a private company). If I'd been a little more cocky instead of trying to be polite, I could have told them to simply look up the answers to most of the questions in my on-line lecture notes or assignment solution sets...
Maybe it was a test of my patience. If so, I failed.
A quick Google turns up an interesting story from his undergraduate days at Harvard, when he ran a web site that required that users use the same password on his web site as on their university accounts. Tsk, tsk.
I disagree, all the coders (kernel) are known. All the commercially available products are with registered companies. If I sell you a linux system, you can sue me.
You did not understand what I wrote. There is no central defining entity. Sue the developers, and the code is still unencumbered. Sue the distributors, run them all out of business, or just buy them out -- and the code is still free. Nobody owns linux and nobody can stop its distribution. The only hope that someone like MS has is to make it illegal to run it.
Let's face it; Linux probably violates some patents. It's hard to imagine how it couldn't -- patent-grubbing companies patent every imaginable little thing. I am probably violating a patent right now by using both hands to type on a keyboard connected by a computer.
The usual defense against patents is to obtain patents of your own, and everyone agrees not to sue each other ad infinitum (usually). Linux hasn't gone this way -- although it does get some protection, of course, from interested corporate sponsors like IBM. Linux's primary defense to date has been the lack of a defining central entity to sue. This is a different tactic -- not going after the linux providers, but simply pointing out that running linux may be legally questionable in some contexts. If MS claims 228 patent violations, they get 228 tries to make their claim stick -- and just one could be enough to be a real problem.
Plus, I wonder about whether or not he was harvesting information from people hooking up.
Not me. I'm not wondering about that at all. I think it's fairly safe to say that such folks are in it more for what they can get via sniffing than the $1/hour.
Well, it's got two PCI-X slots, which is as fast as most available peripherals can go anyway.
Maybe you can't put your own super-duper graphics card in it but with built-in AGP 8x, gigabit ethernet, SCSI, and SATA, most people won't need anything more.
If you RTFA, you'll see that what is being recognized is primarily Lucas's pioneering work in special effects: ILM, Pixar, Lucas Sound, etc. The man might not know how to direct his way out of a paper bag, and his ear for dialog went deaf about twenty years ago, but he has created some wonderful tools for other directors/writers to use. He deserves something for that.
... or an emate (remember them? They were a kind of Newton with a keyboard in a notebook format for the education market).
Most computer users have gotten very used to the windows/mac/gnome/kde/cde/etc way of doing things. Sure, they all look different, but I'll bet you can figure out the basics and successfully get general user-level stuff after a little aclimitization. It's all the same ideas in different skins.
The Newton interface is different. Whether you love it or hate it, it's still interesting to see that there are other ways of doing things.
...so you have something to check to see (subjectively) if their was distortion in the final product.
Yes, if you're willing to eyeball everything. Personally, I prefer to let a computer do that sort of thing. (And courts like journals because they remove some layers of subjectivity.)
What I should have written was "recorded" instead of "created". Nothing is going to stop musicians from making music. However, in order to record music and get it to the outside world you need to record, package, and distribute it somehow. This makes it possible to hear and learn about musicians who live on the other side of the world, for example, instead of just the ones perform at the local coffeehouse.
It isn't racist to look at someone from a group that has blown up over 3,000 civilians and say "out of my country..."
It is if you make your decisions about whether they're in the group based on their appearance! The vast majority of people of any race are not terrorists.
If you can tell, simply by looking, whether a person is a terrorist, you have a unique and valuable talent. The FBI would love to talk to you!
Well, I'm not convinced. My commute is different every day due to construction (OK, now you know I live in Boston) and trucks double-parked and new pot-holes, sanitation trucks doing random things... In short, the route is extremely variable and requires a lot of attention.
I'm not saying that a computer couldn't deal with all this information -- it probably would do very well. However, I suspect that getting the information into the system (where's the crazy woman with the shopping cart right now? Is that dog going to run out into the street?) would be the stumbling block.
I don't think your model is quite right. How the music gets to the market does matter. If it can't be marketed why would it be created? (Studio time ain't free.) Whether it can be used to make money matters a lot to the artists -- if they can't make a living off it, they'll need to spend more time doing other things. (Even starving artists need to eat.)
It is as if you are arguing that theatres have nothing to do with music, so who cares if a few corporate conglomerates own all of them and never let anyone else perform there?
It might be more practical to reduce the problem to a simpler one by sticking RDID tags in all the books, but this is research and the point is to do something new. A robot that can find books on the shelf is one step closer to a robot that can find anything you want in a jumble of stuff. A robot that can find RFIDs is 1990's technology...
Slashdot Mirror
So they can be pretty sure that if person X's letter was viewed, it was viewed by person X or someone who knows the password of person X.
And if anyone in that galaxy a billion light-years away is looking in our directions, perhaps they'll see what I looked like when I had hair.
This is quite a bit different from a software company that bullies hardware companies into paying a per-machine cost (whether or not that machine has their software on it) for the priviledge of installing their software on any machines.
So your question is really: if Apple did their hardware unbundled, would it cost less? Who knows.
If the iTunes Music Store was the only download music store, and they used a proprietary format, then that would be one thing. As it is, the apparently barrier to entry in the downloadable music business is so low that music stores are springing up all over the place (the local radio station now has their own music store where you can download the music from their playlists). MP3 players are for sale at half the stores in the mall.
Nobody is forcing you to use anything from Apple; there are viable competitors in every one of their markets. Nobody is paying an "Apple tax" to buy a computer that doesn't have iTunes installed on it...
forcing you to use anything from Apple?
Let me guess... the pages that match just happen to point to advertisers?
Sort of... I think you accidently left a "might" in there. And I'm not sure about the "gift-related" part either.
I was at a well-known software shop. A senior tech lead tried to put me through my paces: implement lookup for a singly-linked list, then insert, then delete, etc. I thought maybe it was just a warmup, but he kept asking more CS1-ish algorithms and coding questions. Then the next guy continued on the same way, and it went on all day. After an hour or two I felt no urge to work there. After all, it did say clearly on my resume that my previous jobs were teaching the graduate-level course in data structures and algorithms at a well-known university and hacking compilers (for a private company). If I'd been a little more cocky instead of trying to be polite, I could have told them to simply look up the answers to most of the questions in my on-line lecture notes or assignment solution sets...
Maybe it was a test of my patience. If so, I failed.
A quick Google turns up an interesting story from his undergraduate days at Harvard, when he ran a web site that required that users use the same password on his web site as on their university accounts. Tsk, tsk.
You did not understand what I wrote. There is no central defining entity. Sue the developers, and the code is still unencumbered. Sue the distributors, run them all out of business, or just buy them out -- and the code is still free. Nobody owns linux and nobody can stop its distribution. The only hope that someone like MS has is to make it illegal to run it.
The usual defense against patents is to obtain patents of your own, and everyone agrees not to sue each other ad infinitum (usually). Linux hasn't gone this way -- although it does get some protection, of course, from interested corporate sponsors like IBM. Linux's primary defense to date has been the lack of a defining central entity to sue. This is a different tactic -- not going after the linux providers, but simply pointing out that running linux may be legally questionable in some contexts. If MS claims 228 patent violations, they get 228 tries to make their claim stick -- and just one could be enough to be a real problem.
Not me. I'm not wondering about that at all. I think it's fairly safe to say that such folks are in it more for what they can get via sniffing than the $1/hour.
as most available peripherals can go anyway.
Maybe you can't put your own super-duper graphics card in it but with built-in AGP 8x, gigabit ethernet, SCSI, and SATA, most people won't need
anything more.
How could Sun settle? IANAL but it seemed like they would easily win an appeal (in a courthouse anywhere but Rochester).
And how could the editors post this story without more details about the settlement? What a tease. Now I have to know.
Does anyone ever think about anything else?
So I see.
Most computer users have gotten very used to the windows/mac/gnome/kde/cde/etc way of doing things. Sure, they all look different, but I'll bet you can figure out the basics and successfully get general user-level stuff after a little aclimitization. It's all the same ideas in different skins.
The Newton interface is different. Whether you love it or hate it, it's still interesting to see that there are other ways of doing things.
Yes, if you're willing to eyeball everything. Personally, I prefer to let a computer do that sort of thing. (And courts like journals because they remove some layers of subjectivity.)
What I should have written was "recorded" instead of "created". Nothing is going to stop musicians from making music. However, in order to record music and get it to the outside world you need to record, package, and distribute it somehow. This makes it possible to hear and learn about musicians who live on the other side of the world, for example, instead of just the ones perform at the local coffeehouse.
It is if you make your decisions about whether they're in the group based on their appearance! The vast majority of people of any race are not terrorists.
If you can tell, simply by looking, whether a person is a terrorist, you have a unique and valuable talent. The FBI would love to talk to you!
I'm not saying that a computer couldn't deal with all this information -- it probably would do very well. However, I suspect that getting the information into the system (where's the crazy woman with the shopping cart right now? Is that dog going to run out into the street?) would be the stumbling block.
It is as if you are arguing that theatres have nothing to do with music, so who cares if a few corporate conglomerates own all of them and never let anyone else perform there?
It might be more practical to reduce the problem to a simpler one by sticking RDID tags in all the books, but this is research and the point is to do something new. A robot that can find books on the shelf is one step closer to a robot that can find anything you want in a jumble of stuff. A robot that can find RFIDs is 1990's technology...