And, when it does get cracked, the story hits the front page of Slashdot and every other major tech news site.
Not that Apple really needs the name recognition, but I suggest there's strong correlation between news saturation and perceived tech and market prominence.
Pardon, I refer to "Thus far it looks a lot like their gaming market is the same as Apple's. That is for people who enjoy playing the same games they played five or six years ago on another platform."
I didn't miss the point of the discussion. I'd simply like to note your last statement goes in a completely different direction itself and seems to jab at a company and a market totally unrelated to gaming.
Except Apple doesn't make games. Well, Chess.app maybe.
Microsoft, however, does. And they develop a major gaming platform.
Which really isn't saying a whole lot, in this case. Trying to compare Sony and Apple about their gaming marketing strategies greatly misses the point, mild attempt at a troll aside.
I certainly agree with you on that. I run nightlys and betas often, but there's still something comforting about a "point-oh" or "final" release.
(I'm really starting to get the feeling we're never going to see a production version of iCab. That browser browser coming out of beta will be as much of a shock as it showing the smiley face.)
While I somewhat understand the point, I am unfamiliar with people who speak of "two fifths after the hour." I'm not sure having additional factors improves timekeeping semantics.
I think the question was whether infringement of one claim is sufficient infringement of the patent, or whether you have to infringe all of them. I too would like this clarification.
I would have expected those who find intellectual property "morally" wrong would prefer public domain rather than retaining copyright.
Protecting againt plagiarism? That is precisely one of the points of intellectual property. If you do not claim any property over ideas, then how could someone be stealing them?
Perhaps you mean that you find the extensive control modern intellectual property laws grant "morally" restrictive. In that case, yes, I agree with you, Creative Commons is an excellent solution for those who wish to allow certain uses of their work while retaining their intellectual property.
We are perfectly capable of securing Windows boxes. It's surprisingly not that difficult. We actually spend more time prepping the Linux boxes, but that may be because the ops team hasn't been deploying them as long.
My argument is that if people have such a hard time becoming effective at one system as it is, they might as well become effective at the pervasive system.
I work with students at a University who have trouble using a machine because the My Computer icon has been moved from its usual location. I had to explain to someone how to type the capital letters in her password.
I realize this is not the majority, but it is a certain population, especially those from a background with little technological exposure (those who public education will theoretically benefit most). Computer classes, at least the basic ones I've been forced through in high school, do not teach true skills. They shuffle you through a few procedures, and that's about it.
I simply feel that the most pervasive environment, Windows, should thus be the one stressed. Do I agree that Windows is the superior choice? Not necessarily. It depends. But, for the time being, it is the most popular.
I work with people who are hesitant to click the My Computer icon because it's been moved from it's top-left corner. I had to explain to someone how to type capital letters.
You apparently have more skill the (sadly) dozen of people I help at my University. Well done.
But it is likely they will encounter Windows in their everyday experiences. If they only know how to use *NIX with X windows manager / desktop environment, will they be able to competently work with a Start menu? Sure, the differences aren't necessarily too prononced, but any hesitation or lack of experience may be considered by a future employer, especially if there is another candidate who grew up with Windows.
That's a very impressive secret to keep under the hood this entire time, when significantly smaller rumors, business deals, releases, patent registrations, and other plans are jumped on so quickly and fiercely.
The product was not necessarily rushed. It means that Apple did not stop testing the system since it went gold. A company that declares its software done and then never tests or upgrades it again is far worse than a company that says "let us fix a few things that somehow slipped by."
Acronym n.
A word formed from the initial letters of a name, such as WAC for Women's Army Corps, or by combining initial letters or parts of a series of words, such as radar for radio detecting and ranging.
World Wrestling Federation -> WWF World Wildlife Foundation -> WWF World Wrestling Entertainment -> WWE Anonymous Coward - AC
The GP has a point about the direct commonality of the cases, but the USPTO FAQ supports my uninformed suspicion that "common words" are legal trademarks.
As a final caveat, a search of USPTO did not turn up TigerDirect's registration of 'Tiger'. For that matter, TigerDirect's page mentions 'TigerDirect', but not 'Tiger'.
Ridiclous. First of all, most big commerical mac apps use CodeWarrior, not GCC/XCode. That includes many Apple applications.
Sure, I'll agree with that. However, open source applications and smaller programs do use GCC/XCode. Also, with XCode 2.0, I wonder if more developers will be persuaded to switch.
We're going to see a speedup across the system, not just from major applications. I'm looking forward to significantly improved X11, Apache, Tomcat, and so on, as I prefer to acquire my own source distributions rather than use Apple's provided binaries. Applications will come later, when the performance benefits of gcc 4.0 become apparent.
Second, very few smaller developers are going to make 10.4-only software for a long time. They will continue to target 10.2/3 and that means GCC 3.x.
You do know that you can build gcc on legacy hardware? I mean legacy hardware. Though you may not receive the benefits of G4 and G5 specific hardware optimization (such as autovectorization), you will still receive the new software-level optimizations.
Further, just because you compile on one OS does not mean your binary will not work on a previous version. Indeed, developers do this often, targeting Jaguar or even 10.1 from a Panther environment. The hardware and chip instruction set does not change, only the available APIs and frameworks. Targeting 10.2/3 does not mean being limited to gcc 3.x. You can still fully benefit from Altivec ready code and SSA optimzed trees without any modifications in the system layer.
Slashdot Mirror
And, when it does get cracked, the story hits the front page of Slashdot and every other major tech news site.
Not that Apple really needs the name recognition, but I suggest there's strong correlation between news saturation and perceived tech and market prominence.
You can listen to audio clips of Linus Torvalds pronouncing the name at http://www.linux.org/info/, towards the bottom of the page.
Pardon, I refer to "Thus far it looks a lot like their gaming market is the same as Apple's. That is for people who enjoy playing the same games they played five or six years ago on another platform."
I didn't miss the point of the discussion. I'd simply like to note your last statement goes in a completely different direction itself and seems to jab at a company and a market totally unrelated to gaming.
Except Apple doesn't make games. Well, Chess.app maybe.
Microsoft, however, does. And they develop a major gaming platform.
Which really isn't saying a whole lot, in this case. Trying to compare Sony and Apple about their gaming marketing strategies greatly misses the point, mild attempt at a troll aside.
I agree. It isn't just for blog ads. But blog ads are a target of the service, so the headline isn't factually wrong, it's simply misleading.
(Blogs are mentioned when you actually click the sign up link.)
If you actually try signing up for the beta, the first option under "Primary purpose of your site:" is blog.
It's not the best headline, but it's not particularly inaccurate. It is Slashdot, after all.
I certainly agree with you on that. I run nightlys and betas often, but there's still something comforting about a "point-oh" or "final" release.
(I'm really starting to get the feeling we're never going to see a production version of iCab. That browser browser coming out of beta will be as much of a shock as it showing the smiley face.)
The iCab 3.0 beta passes, but not 2.9.8. So, to be specific, no production/release browser passes, though several in beta/CVS do.
Or, you know, we still use 5 or 10 minute blocks and just call them 1/20 or 1/10 of an hour.
While I somewhat understand the point, I am unfamiliar with people who speak of "two fifths after the hour." I'm not sure having additional factors improves timekeeping semantics.
I think the question was whether infringement of one claim is sufficient infringement of the patent, or whether you have to infringe all of them. I too would like this clarification.
I would have expected those who find intellectual property "morally" wrong would prefer public domain rather than retaining copyright. Protecting againt plagiarism? That is precisely one of the points of intellectual property. If you do not claim any property over ideas, then how could someone be stealing them? Perhaps you mean that you find the extensive control modern intellectual property laws grant "morally" restrictive. In that case, yes, I agree with you, Creative Commons is an excellent solution for those who wish to allow certain uses of their work while retaining their intellectual property.
We are perfectly capable of securing Windows boxes. It's surprisingly not that difficult. We actually spend more time prepping the Linux boxes, but that may be because the ops team hasn't been deploying them as long.
My argument is that if people have such a hard time becoming effective at one system as it is, they might as well become effective at the pervasive system.
I work with students at a University who have trouble using a machine because the My Computer icon has been moved from its usual location. I had to explain to someone how to type the capital letters in her password.
I realize this is not the majority, but it is a certain population, especially those from a background with little technological exposure (those who public education will theoretically benefit most). Computer classes, at least the basic ones I've been forced through in high school, do not teach true skills. They shuffle you through a few procedures, and that's about it.
I simply feel that the most pervasive environment, Windows, should thus be the one stressed. Do I agree that Windows is the superior choice? Not necessarily. It depends. But, for the time being, it is the most popular.
I work with people who are hesitant to click the My Computer icon because it's been moved from it's top-left corner. I had to explain to someone how to type capital letters.
You apparently have more skill the (sadly) dozen of people I help at my University. Well done.
But it is likely they will encounter Windows in their everyday experiences. If they only know how to use *NIX with X windows manager / desktop environment, will they be able to competently work with a Start menu? Sure, the differences aren't necessarily too prononced, but any hesitation or lack of experience may be considered by a future employer, especially if there is another candidate who grew up with Windows.
By some standards, even current (stable) versions aren't so great. That said, I fully intend to give 5.0 a whirl when it comes out of beta.
I wonder how many blind posters you may find here, as they may have difficulty proving they are not a script.
That's a very impressive secret to keep under the hood this entire time, when significantly smaller rumors, business deals, releases, patent registrations, and other plans are jumped on so quickly and fiercely.
Actually, I have, and they even hang out here. Oddly enough, you often have to browse at -1 to see them.
Likewise, 96% of Slashdot users thought, "Livejournal? WTF?"
An LAN is not sufficient when the virus is transmitted wirelessly.
The product was not necessarily rushed. It means that Apple did not stop testing the system since it went gold. A company that declares its software done and then never tests or upgrades it again is far worse than a company that says "let us fix a few things that somehow slipped by."
World Wrestling Federation -> WWF
World Wildlife Foundation -> WWF
World Wrestling Entertainment -> WWE
Anonymous Coward - AC
Looks like an acronym to me.
http://www.answers.com/acronym
http://www.answers.com/abbreviation
The GP has a point about the direct commonality of the cases, but the USPTO FAQ supports my uninformed suspicion that "common words" are legal trademarks.
As a final caveat, a search of USPTO did not turn up TigerDirect's registration of 'Tiger'. For that matter, TigerDirect's page mentions 'TigerDirect', but not 'Tiger'.
Sure, I'll agree with that. However, open source applications and smaller programs do use GCC/XCode. Also, with XCode 2.0, I wonder if more developers will be persuaded to switch.
We're going to see a speedup across the system, not just from major applications. I'm looking forward to significantly improved X11, Apache, Tomcat, and so on, as I prefer to acquire my own source distributions rather than use Apple's provided binaries. Applications will come later, when the performance benefits of gcc 4.0 become apparent.
Second, very few smaller developers are going to make 10.4-only software for a long time. They will continue to target 10.2/3 and that means GCC 3.x.
You do know that you can build gcc on legacy hardware? I mean legacy hardware. Though you may not receive the benefits of G4 and G5 specific hardware optimization (such as autovectorization), you will still receive the new software-level optimizations.
Further, just because you compile on one OS does not mean your binary will not work on a previous version. Indeed, developers do this often, targeting Jaguar or even 10.1 from a Panther environment. The hardware and chip instruction set does not change, only the available APIs and frameworks. Targeting 10.2/3 does not mean being limited to gcc 3.x. You can still fully benefit from Altivec ready code and SSA optimzed trees without any modifications in the system layer.