I feel that Disney has fallen into the same greed trap that does every large business these days. Often I'll speak of Disney with my parents or grandparents, and it seems that while Walt Disney was still alive and in charge, it was the Google of the day - do no evil.
So, being that I was born in '78, is there anyone that can speak to the glory days of Disney? Was it pure and good while Walt Disney was in charge? And exactly when did it lose it's way?
This is an odd cross between dominating markets. I know that Microsoft wants to own everything you say and do. But don't moves like this scare away serious developers from developing for the platform, as MS might put you out of business eventually?
MS's OS products are a platform for running software - it's unhealthy to try to run over all of the people that produce said software. Apple of course is doing the same thing (Konfabulator, iWorks, etc.) Perhaps I'm not able to understand appropriately where the fine line is between generating competition and driving out the major players in the market.
You'd think after revealing that they compile their software for Windows first now, MS would be nicer to Adobe. No?
No surprise that the Canadian music industry isn't happy with the wording. They pushed for this legislation and got it, so now they will push for harsher legislation. It's like a small child that pushes and pushes a parent to see how far they can get and how much they can get away with.
And just like MS, there will never be any public outcry, because the viewing public neither knows nor cares.
Or there could be no public outcry because so far, their products are good. Just having some modicum of control does not immediately require public outrage. If one is responsible with the control given him, then there is no reason to rally against him. (Note: Google could easily be a her.)
I think that x86 Mac is attempting to threaten Linux. Apple is a very Linux unfriendly company with no moves to support anything that smells like linux.
I wanted OSX because it was 64 bit and Open Source.. I was a sucker, I believed the marketing... OSx's future is 32 bit and not nearly as OpenSource as their drumbeating would suggest.
Um, I doubt that they'll be moving to 32 bit processors. The Pentium D (speculated to be the Mac OSX processor) supports 64 bit:
Processors with Intel EM64T allow platforms to access larger amounts of memory and will support 64-bit extended operating systems.
You're also assuming that OSX will install on white-box hardware, which has never even been suggested. Apple will continue to roll proprietary hardware and software, and will not allow installation of OSX on normal white-box hardware.
Re:Without wishing to sound too fanboyish...
on
Apple Releases WebKit
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
This sucks, because I'm getting such a mixed signal. On the one hand, we have Apple actually giving a s*** about the concerns of the OSS community, and actually being a good corporate citizen, giving back to the community that has given freely to them.
Then you have the other side - Apple's move to Intel pushed by the Pentium D chip and hardware based DRM - Apple getting in bed with Hollywood. You thought Paladium was gonna lock down systems? Sounds like Apple might win the hardware DRM race.
So what is the final word on Apple? I've been contemplating the switch myself but am not really sure where Apple stands. Sue ThinkSecret, give back to KHtml. Sigh...
Unless im mistaken, you would have to have the balance of a PC on your card to use what you are being fingerprinted for, so why not just have cards that don't need to be fingerprinted, and those accounts can only use the paper resources of a library?
Because it's that damn slippery slope. Started out with proper borrowing rights. Then the govn't starts snooping based on what you read. Then you need a SS# to get a library card. Then you need to be fingerprinted to access information on a PC (how is that different than accessing information in a library?)
And when people have accepted that, it's only a matter of time before they accept fingerprints for library cards, or retinal scans, or DNA scans (thinking into the future...)
People give up their rights so slowly that they don't realize the breadth of what they've relinquished over the course of a decade.
Thank you librarians! I'll take my anonymous card now!
YEAH! I just started trolling around Novell's developer websites and they have some really sweet stuff there that I've never heard of! Specifically their open source LDAP implementation in C# is awesome - and compiles in.NET and Mono to boot. Saved me a LOT of work.
What's the true motivation here? Anti-MS? What exactly is the driver behind embracing open source that the EU is so worried about "falling behind" on?
Fact is, there are some closed source apps that are much better than their open source counterparts. Database servers, for one. Oh, MySQL and PostgreSQL are some sweet projects and certainly run a significant portion of the web, but MSSQL and Oracle are just better.
OSS has its place, but it seems that there must be some other motivation behind this aside from a desire to be the first geek on the block to have a Gentoo installation.
PS - I know this sounds a bit flaimbaitish, I'm just trying to understand the motiviation behind the push to all OSS - it seems like a reaction to SOMETHING - MS's abuses of the EU? Non-compliance with settlements in the EU?
I agree, and I think that this also has other advantages:
Easier searching and metadata handling for the MSN search component and eventually WinFS (if it's not in fact vaporware.) Since images will be stored in a zip file, desktop search engines will have the easier ability to maintain metadata on both the office "document" itself as well as all embedded objects therin.
Forces at least a period of incompatability with the likes of OpenOffice (and perhaps right after OpenOffice 2 is released.) However, MS knows that they can't get away from compatability, so going to standards allows them more personal flexibility without having to give up features just to remain proprietary.
This also allows them more opportunity to copy the ideas of other office suites that may adopt
the format as well.
Besides, at this point office is just as ubiquitous as IE is - and maybe even moreso. Although IBM announced support for Firefox, I have yet to see an announcement for wide adoption of OpenOffice.
Instead of hate it and wish it gone, why not work towards this new technology with hopes to use it with fewer worries?
This is a common illustration of the canyon-like divide between the common./er and industry executives. While the parent comment is indeed something that seems totally resonable and based entirely in common logic, for some reason the industry has time and again rallied against innovation that has proven over and over to make it money in the long run.
Without citing the vast library of examples directly related to the current technology push and pull (betamax, DVDs, tape recorders, CDRs) it is often interesting to me just to witness the complete lack of logic employed by the industry. On the one hand you have an industry whos business it is to distribute content, and on the other hand you have the same industry doing its best to shut down, criminalize, and sue out of existance the very distribution channels adopted and eventually preferred by their customers (again, and again, and again.)
So although I am certainly a subscriber to the logic posed by the parent poster, as are most people on/. (or, at least those who post comments), I have yet to be able to come up with a substantial explanation for the vast divide between logic and the industry.
Yahoo is definately taking Google's approach to opening betas to the general population. I think it helps drive adoption by making users feel they're getting the inside scoop.
I don't know much about finances in large businesses, but is 8.6% profit on sales considered good? Or is it just that in the case of Sun, any profit is good?
Agreed - without mandating.xxx for adult content, no one is going to give up WhiteHouse.com or any other cybersquatted domain. Half of the trick of getting people into porn sites is the accidental stumbling upon. And $60 a domain is definately the incentive that porn providers need to switch.
On top of that, parent is right when he states that ISPs won't block the.xxx domains. However, I think it's more than that. Personal firewalls and parental computer aides COULD block.xxx domains, which obviously the illustrious content providers of which we speak try to avoid like the plague.
Yeah, but their cars are gas powered, and more than likely SUVs. It's like the a VP of Marlboro smoking Camels (if they're made by the same company, you still get my point.) The oil cartels of the world will do just about anything to stop something like this from destroying their market. It's like saying DeBeers is a nice company, and stories of worker conditions and death threats against the inventors of artificial diamonds are some "vast conspiriacy." It's all true.
However, I'm hoping that you were being funny or sarcastic, in which case I take this back.
Redefining 'Fair Use' doesn't bother me as much as the current legal campaign to abolish it completely.
And giving up personal freedoms little by little (Patriot Act) instead of all at once is a lot easier for the Amercian public to swallow. However, you've still lost rights in the end.
Slashdot Mirror
I feel that Disney has fallen into the same greed trap that does every large business these days. Often I'll speak of Disney with my parents or grandparents, and it seems that while Walt Disney was still alive and in charge, it was the Google of the day - do no evil.
So, being that I was born in '78, is there anyone that can speak to the glory days of Disney? Was it pure and good while Walt Disney was in charge? And exactly when did it lose it's way?
This is an odd cross between dominating markets. I know that Microsoft wants to own everything you say and do. But don't moves like this scare away serious developers from developing for the platform, as MS might put you out of business eventually?
MS's OS products are a platform for running software - it's unhealthy to try to run over all of the people that produce said software. Apple of course is doing the same thing (Konfabulator, iWorks, etc.) Perhaps I'm not able to understand appropriately where the fine line is between generating competition and driving out the major players in the market.
You'd think after revealing that they compile their software for Windows first now, MS would be nicer to Adobe. No?
First the market is non-existant, then it is over-crowded. In time, it will balance itself out and clear winners will emerge.
"What's it called now?" "Urectum."
There is no way we'll be able to swallow those...
No surprise that the Canadian music industry isn't happy with the wording. They pushed for this legislation and got it, so now they will push for harsher legislation. It's like a small child that pushes and pushes a parent to see how far they can get and how much they can get away with.
Holy crap that's the longest line of +5 Funny mods I've ever seen!
And just like MS, there will never be any public outcry, because the viewing public neither knows nor cares.
Or there could be no public outcry because so far, their products are good. Just having some modicum of control does not immediately require public outrage. If one is responsible with the control given him, then there is no reason to rally against him. (Note: Google could easily be a her.)
And it's comments like yours that demonstrate that the sarcasm gene is not evenly distributed.
He's just mad that his shwartz is small.
Wow. For the first time, a ./ post has actually given me a renewed sense of hope for the future.
Thank you.
You mean like Apple's X11, or Safari and KHtml and the new Apple Webkit?
I wanted OSX because it was 64 bit and Open Source.. I was a sucker, I believed the marketing
Um, I doubt that they'll be moving to 32 bit processors. The Pentium D (speculated to be the Mac OSX processor) supports 64 bit:
You're also assuming that OSX will install on white-box hardware, which has never even been suggested. Apple will continue to roll proprietary hardware and software, and will not allow installation of OSX on normal white-box hardware.
This sucks, because I'm getting such a mixed signal. On the one hand, we have Apple actually giving a s*** about the concerns of the OSS community, and actually being a good corporate citizen, giving back to the community that has given freely to them.
Then you have the other side - Apple's move to Intel pushed by the Pentium D chip and hardware based DRM - Apple getting in bed with Hollywood. You thought Paladium was gonna lock down systems? Sounds like Apple might win the hardware DRM race.
So what is the final word on Apple? I've been contemplating the switch myself but am not really sure where Apple stands. Sue ThinkSecret, give back to KHtml. Sigh...
Thank you - it's a running gag. Although it's most famously remembered for the hand-grenade bit, he says 5 when he means three throughout the movie.
It's just a method they could use *if* a person wants to take a book out anonymously.
Just make sure that there is no CC camera watching you borrow that book...
Unless im mistaken, you would have to have the balance of a PC on your card to use what you are being fingerprinted for, so why not just have cards that don't need to be fingerprinted, and those accounts can only use the paper resources of a library?
Because it's that damn slippery slope. Started out with proper borrowing rights. Then the govn't starts snooping based on what you read. Then you need a SS# to get a library card. Then you need to be fingerprinted to access information on a PC (how is that different than accessing information in a library?)
And when people have accepted that, it's only a matter of time before they accept fingerprints for library cards, or retinal scans, or DNA scans (thinking into the future...)
People give up their rights so slowly that they don't realize the breadth of what they've relinquished over the course of a decade.
Thank you librarians! I'll take my anonymous card now!
2- Hide it as best as possible from customers
.NET and Mono to boot. Saved me a LOT of work.
YEAH! I just started trolling around Novell's developer websites and they have some really sweet stuff there that I've never heard of! Specifically their open source LDAP implementation in C# is awesome - and compiles in
Go Novell!
What's the true motivation here? Anti-MS? What exactly is the driver behind embracing open source that the EU is so worried about "falling behind" on?
Fact is, there are some closed source apps that are much better than their open source counterparts. Database servers, for one. Oh, MySQL and PostgreSQL are some sweet projects and certainly run a significant portion of the web, but MSSQL and Oracle are just better.
OSS has its place, but it seems that there must be some other motivation behind this aside from a desire to be the first geek on the block to have a Gentoo installation.
PS - I know this sounds a bit flaimbaitish, I'm just trying to understand the motiviation behind the push to all OSS - it seems like a reaction to SOMETHING - MS's abuses of the EU? Non-compliance with settlements in the EU?
Besides, at this point office is just as ubiquitous as IE is - and maybe even moreso. Although IBM announced support for Firefox, I have yet to see an announcement for wide adoption of OpenOffice.
Just some thoughts.
Instead of hate it and wish it gone, why not work towards this new technology with hopes to use it with fewer worries?
./er and industry executives. While the parent comment is indeed something that seems totally resonable and based entirely in common logic, for some reason the industry has time and again rallied against innovation that has proven over and over to make it money in the long run.
/. (or, at least those who post comments), I have yet to be able to come up with a substantial explanation for the vast divide between logic and the industry.
This is a common illustration of the canyon-like divide between the common
Without citing the vast library of examples directly related to the current technology push and pull (betamax, DVDs, tape recorders, CDRs) it is often interesting to me just to witness the complete lack of logic employed by the industry. On the one hand you have an industry whos business it is to distribute content, and on the other hand you have the same industry doing its best to shut down, criminalize, and sue out of existance the very distribution channels adopted and eventually preferred by their customers (again, and again, and again.)
So although I am certainly a subscriber to the logic posed by the parent poster, as are most people on
Yahoo is definately taking Google's approach to opening betas to the general population. I think it helps drive adoption by making users feel they're getting the inside scoop.
Nonetheless, cool stuff.
I don't know much about finances in large businesses, but is 8.6% profit on sales considered good? Or is it just that in the case of Sun, any profit is good?
Agreed - without mandating .xxx for adult content, no one is going to give up WhiteHouse.com or any other cybersquatted domain. Half of the trick of getting people into porn sites is the accidental stumbling upon. And $60 a domain is definately the incentive that porn providers need to switch.
.xxx domains. However, I think it's more than that. Personal firewalls and parental computer aides COULD block .xxx domains, which obviously the illustrious content providers of which we speak try to avoid like the plague.
On top of that, parent is right when he states that ISPs won't block the
I greatly await www.google.xxx/images
Yeah, but their cars are gas powered, and more than likely SUVs. It's like the a VP of Marlboro smoking Camels (if they're made by the same company, you still get my point.) The oil cartels of the world will do just about anything to stop something like this from destroying their market. It's like saying DeBeers is a nice company, and stories of worker conditions and death threats against the inventors of artificial diamonds are some "vast conspiriacy." It's all true. However, I'm hoping that you were being funny or sarcastic, in which case I take this back.
Redefining 'Fair Use' doesn't bother me as much as the current legal campaign to abolish it completely.
And giving up personal freedoms little by little (Patriot Act) instead of all at once is a lot easier for the Amercian public to swallow. However, you've still lost rights in the end.