Insofar as software licenses are economically efficient and the proceeds of license sales fall upon as many people as possible you could be right. But if software licenses simply impose economic rent and the lions share of the revenues accrue to a few large corporations, which proceed to put the money in their checking account, its not so clear.
Open-source can also stimulate economic activity through sales of support contracts, new equipment, etc. What a recession does is it keeps people where they are, regardless of the sort of license they have -- they know what they have, they don't want to spend money learning something new, and the license they bought two years ago is still just as good today as it was when they were rich.
The Lock Documents and overlay scrollbars can be turned-off in preferences. Also, the new full-screen features in Mac OS X don't make applications full-screen obligate, you can always work with them in windows. There are naturally a lot of issues with UI consistency when you do this, but this doesn't seem to be a problem for game developers or users.
The problem is this makes mixing much more complicated, and you've reinvented/dev/dsp's ioctl interface. If a client is allowed to alter the DAC rate it'll interfere with any other devices that are trying to play out the interface. All of the sudden all clients wanting to play their sound will need to monitor the output's sample rate (and even better, sample format and encoding) and then reconform what they're writing to the audio hardware in order for it to match with whatever the interface is making that moment. This also significantly complicates keeping sound in sync with picture streams.
As far as he's concerned it's just an Amazon Point-of-Sale -- to the extent that it'll probably be free or heavily subsidized to Prime members.
I bet he's going to do a much better job delivering a quality Android tablet than Samsung or Verizon, however. Amazon is just much better at retailing good consumer experiences, like Apple.
You can manage iPhones (and iPod Touches, and iPads) centrally, I'm sure there are useable Android solutions for that. Both let enterprise develop in house applications without any intervention from the mothership; Apple requires the code be signed but after they give you your certificate you can sign what you please. With iOS 5 we'll now have end-to-end S/MIME so parties can send encrypted party-to-party emails without a broker or giving keys to a mothership or the cloud - again I'm not aware of the Android solutions but they MUST have a GPG or s/mime email reader available at this point.
You should thank your luck stars Carter hired Paul Volcker. I will grant, Mr. AC, that Reagan was much better at trading arms with Iranians than Carter was...
Who knows more about how space movies should be made, an engineer or nonengineer? Invisible lasers, never miss guidence, no sound in space, no fire burning without oxygen.
Those "lasers" are actually firing charged particles. Those never-miss guidance systems use temporal dilation in order to give the guidance system a head start on the target. There's sound in space, that you hear it is just a testament to how LOUD the explosions are. Those fires are plasma fires.
Engineers have no imagination. Oscar Wilde might have said that they know the cost of everything, therefore they think everything is impossible.
You're probably right, the public equities market would work so much better if companies never had to report their financial health in public, could report different numbers to different people, could front run news and insider trade with impunity.
If you want to return to the 1920s, when the only people who knew what the hell they were buying and had access to a real, transparent market were a few hundred people on Manhattan island, you might want to consider hanging around one of the new Chinese exchanges...
Sorry, just to complete the thought: Sony won the Betamax decision, but it didn't help Betamax a whit, because it wasn't positioned for adoption, due to the exact problems MiniDisk would have a decade later -- a closed format, with high barriers to entry and difficult technical limitations. Sony Electronics has always tried to sell integrated products as far down the value chain as physically possible, that's been a part of their strategy as far back as their radios in the 50s, and it's part of their consumer strategy, their pro electronics strategy, their software, up and down, left and right. This is why they use proprietary gozintas, it's a part of their culture and the way they choose to address their markets, and they've done it LONG before they owned content companies. (I should say that this strategy fails sometimes but works some others, its completely valid in certain kinds of environments, home music just isn't one of them at this time.)
Sony thought it had opened up a new use for Beta machines from the Betamax decision, but not because they thought people had the right to time-shift shows, but because they thought people had the right to time-shift shows with Betamax machines. If they could have carved out a judgement that permitted them to own timeshifting and labeled JVC VCRs as Pircay Machines, they would have done it in an instant.
But it wasn't at that time. Or wasn't much, if at all.
I assure you, I, the Sony Pictures employee, am quite aware of the history. Sony bought Columbia and formed Sony Pictures Studios under Peters and Guber in 1989, and bought CBS Records in 1987, years before the MiniDisc was developed; Sony had had join interests with CBS records as far back as the mid-1960s and manufactured the first CD releases in the US for CBS. CBS had Michael Jackson, Streisand, and a broad repertoire of country acts through the 60s to the Sony buyout.
Sony didn't buy the content companies for synergy as much as they bought them for the pure reason that there was a stupendous equity bubble in Japan and the only place where Japanese companies could find affordable properties was in the US. Both purchases at the time were widely understood to be "muggings" of Sony: the Americans (Coca-Cola and CBS pre-Westinghouse, respectively) wanted to cash out at the top of a market, and conned Sony execs into buying these American assets at hilariously inflated prices. Sony paid over $7 billion for both entities, paid hundred of millions of dollars to Peters and Guber and Michael Jackson in order to secure their busines.
Get a Zoom H1 or H4n, they have excellent battery life and the H4n can lay has XLR microphone inputs (and can run phantom power!) if you need that. Sony also makes a PCM-D50 which is more expensive but it has a real gain pot for the microphones and it has better mics than the Zoom onboard ones IMHO -- on the Zoom you can only control the mic gain by hitting buttons, so you hear a big "click" on the recording when you tweak levels.
For any non-trivial function its basically impossible to prove exactly what a computer will do, and once the data leaves the phone to someone's server you can't prove anything. All you have is the company's good word.
Yeah keep it straight. MacArthur was the one who demanded that Truman authorize multiple atomic bombing missions in China during the Korean War; MacCarthy was the one who exposed a Russian soviet spy.
The rabid anti-Chinese/anti-communist pose in American politics is owned by no man, it is decades old, spans generations and represents the finest in American consensus. Horrible, horrible consensus.
You need at least one iOS machine to obtain an iCloud membership; that syncs up all your goodies to your Mac and PC and whatever else, but you must own at least one iOS device.
The problem is that SD cards and large amounts of flash storage won't go down if the cloud goes down, are faster than the network hardware, and are not subject to the data caps that a carrier would put in.
It's only a matter of time before a Google or Apple or Dell, or even a Hulu or Netflix, make a deal to exempt their devices access to their servers from bandwidth caps, in exchange for giving the carriers a better cut of the subscriber or service revenue.
You're arguing that it's normative, preferable to the other available outcomes (the duck's ass outcome in particular), and that Wintel succeded becasue of a position that manifests a moral value, openness. The word did not excape your lips but your argument is a functional value judgement.
Anyway, it was not a wintel hegemony that clobbered apple in the 80's
This is where I'm supposed to sit and let you pretend that people actually were successful selling x86 ISA computers that didn't run MS-DOS and Windows -- the hardware platform was open (GOOD) but none of that openness filtered down to the application developers or end users (BAD). MS leveraged an open platform to sell a closed one, and the combination was the thing people bought, because that was how the market worked. Granted it wasn't in their long-term interest to buy the same OS everyone else did, but adverse selection is a tough mistress, and just because someone could sell other OS's, and other people could buy them and use them, this doesn't dispose of the fact that no one did, and all that openness really didn't benefit anyone but the largest market participants.
And there's really no evidence Android will turn out any different, with an open OS, built to the carrier's orders, selling closed services on locked phones; all the while the fanboys reminding us that people can run cyanogenmod, while at no time realizing that no one does and thus no one enjoys the benefits.
"Openness" is a statement of potential, nothing more. It says almost nothing about what actually is available in the market, or what an end user can do.
It's been interesting to watch people try to recast Wintel as an "open" platform in order to (1) draw unfounded parallels with Android and (2) sweep under the rug the simple fact that the Wintel hegemony was bad for users.
Apple started out by targeting a product to hobbyists and techies. Abandoning those people shows a distinct lack of corporate character. When fashions change as they inevitably do, the loyalists won't be there.
You don't often hear the argument that nichy fanboys are critical to the long-term success of a company -- the hobbyists and techies of the computer market aren't liable to maintain any real brand loyalty, the know too much and their needs aren't mass marketable. Techies want FOSS, but its not a useful selling point.
Sony makes great audio gear; the "hobbyists and techies" of that market are the ones paying $200 for copper wires. Nobody outside of their circle can tell the difference, but they swear that it's a big deal. A lot like platform openness.
He's making rather flaky argument that because Interface Builder can create a re-scaleable window or view, iOS can too.
Android apps actually re-flow their layout properly.
Perhaps you mean "Android developers may re-flow their layout properly." The motivation for making iPad apps distinct is it forces the developer to make a layout for the iPad, instead of Google strategy of releasing a library and praying developers use it and use it properly. I've seen quite a few of these where the border and bars of the app end up in the right place, but button grids or widgets in the middle don't resize, or are anchored to a corner, or container views leave huge margins around them...
Fragments is a good approach but the claim that Fragments exists isn't sufficient to prove that Android apps reflow properly.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not going back, Jim!
Insofar as software licenses are economically efficient and the proceeds of license sales fall upon as many people as possible you could be right. But if software licenses simply impose economic rent and the lions share of the revenues accrue to a few large corporations, which proceed to put the money in their checking account, its not so clear.
Open-source can also stimulate economic activity through sales of support contracts, new equipment, etc. What a recession does is it keeps people where they are, regardless of the sort of license they have -- they know what they have, they don't want to spend money learning something new, and the license they bought two years ago is still just as good today as it was when they were rich.
Don't touch it without an assignment of copyright to a community body and a patent indemnification.
The Lock Documents and overlay scrollbars can be turned-off in preferences. Also, the new full-screen features in Mac OS X don't make applications full-screen obligate, you can always work with them in windows. There are naturally a lot of issues with UI consistency when you do this, but this doesn't seem to be a problem for game developers or users.
I think he means full-screen applications... I haven't seen what they do with multiple monitors, so I'm curious.
The problem is this makes mixing much more complicated, and you've reinvented /dev/dsp's ioctl interface. If a client is allowed to alter the DAC rate it'll interfere with any other devices that are trying to play out the interface. All of the sudden all clients wanting to play their sound will need to monitor the output's sample rate (and even better, sample format and encoding) and then reconform what they're writing to the audio hardware in order for it to match with whatever the interface is making that moment. This also significantly complicates keeping sound in sync with picture streams.
As far as he's concerned it's just an Amazon Point-of-Sale -- to the extent that it'll probably be free or heavily subsidized to Prime members.
I bet he's going to do a much better job delivering a quality Android tablet than Samsung or Verizon, however. Amazon is just much better at retailing good consumer experiences, like Apple.
You can manage iPhones (and iPod Touches, and iPads) centrally, I'm sure there are useable Android solutions for that. Both let enterprise develop in house applications without any intervention from the mothership; Apple requires the code be signed but after they give you your certificate you can sign what you please. With iOS 5 we'll now have end-to-end S/MIME so parties can send encrypted party-to-party emails without a broker or giving keys to a mothership or the cloud - again I'm not aware of the Android solutions but they MUST have a GPG or s/mime email reader available at this point.
Bombardier?
You should thank your luck stars Carter hired Paul Volcker. I will grant, Mr. AC, that Reagan was much better at trading arms with Iranians than Carter was...
Who knows more about how space movies should be made, an engineer or nonengineer? Invisible lasers, never miss guidence, no sound in space, no fire burning without oxygen.
Those "lasers" are actually firing charged particles. Those never-miss guidance systems use temporal dilation in order to give the guidance system a head start on the target. There's sound in space, that you hear it is just a testament to how LOUD the explosions are. Those fires are plasma fires.
Engineers have no imagination. Oscar Wilde might have said that they know the cost of everything, therefore they think everything is impossible.
You're probably right, the public equities market would work so much better if companies never had to report their financial health in public, could report different numbers to different people, could front run news and insider trade with impunity.
If you want to return to the 1920s, when the only people who knew what the hell they were buying and had access to a real, transparent market were a few hundred people on Manhattan island, you might want to consider hanging around one of the new Chinese exchanges...
Sorry, just to complete the thought: Sony won the Betamax decision, but it didn't help Betamax a whit, because it wasn't positioned for adoption, due to the exact problems MiniDisk would have a decade later -- a closed format, with high barriers to entry and difficult technical limitations. Sony Electronics has always tried to sell integrated products as far down the value chain as physically possible, that's been a part of their strategy as far back as their radios in the 50s, and it's part of their consumer strategy, their pro electronics strategy, their software, up and down, left and right. This is why they use proprietary gozintas, it's a part of their culture and the way they choose to address their markets, and they've done it LONG before they owned content companies. (I should say that this strategy fails sometimes but works some others, its completely valid in certain kinds of environments, home music just isn't one of them at this time.)
Sony thought it had opened up a new use for Beta machines from the Betamax decision, but not because they thought people had the right to time-shift shows, but because they thought people had the right to time-shift shows with Betamax machines. If they could have carved out a judgement that permitted them to own timeshifting and labeled JVC VCRs as Pircay Machines, they would have done it in an instant.
But it wasn't at that time. Or wasn't much, if at all.
I assure you, I, the Sony Pictures employee, am quite aware of the history. Sony bought Columbia and formed Sony Pictures Studios under Peters and Guber in 1989, and bought CBS Records in 1987, years before the MiniDisc was developed; Sony had had join interests with CBS records as far back as the mid-1960s and manufactured the first CD releases in the US for CBS. CBS had Michael Jackson, Streisand, and a broad repertoire of country acts through the 60s to the Sony buyout.
Sony didn't buy the content companies for synergy as much as they bought them for the pure reason that there was a stupendous equity bubble in Japan and the only place where Japanese companies could find affordable properties was in the US. Both purchases at the time were widely understood to be "muggings" of Sony: the Americans (Coca-Cola and CBS pre-Westinghouse, respectively) wanted to cash out at the top of a market, and conned Sony execs into buying these American assets at hilariously inflated prices. Sony paid over $7 billion for both entities, paid hundred of millions of dollars to Peters and Guber and Michael Jackson in order to secure their busines.
Get a Zoom H1 or H4n, they have excellent battery life and the H4n can lay has XLR microphone inputs (and can run phantom power!) if you need that. Sony also makes a PCM-D50 which is more expensive but it has a real gain pot for the microphones and it has better mics than the Zoom onboard ones IMHO -- on the Zoom you can only control the mic gain by hitting buttons, so you hear a big "click" on the recording when you tweak levels.
SCMS (the copy protection) was annoying, but it was put on because of the labels, Sony didn't want to limit their product.
Sony is also a label :)
For any non-trivial function its basically impossible to prove exactly what a computer will do, and once the data leaves the phone to someone's server you can't prove anything. All you have is the company's good word.
Yeah keep it straight. MacArthur was the one who demanded that Truman authorize multiple atomic bombing missions in China during the Korean War; MacCarthy was the one who exposed a Russian soviet spy.
The rabid anti-Chinese/anti-communist pose in American politics is owned by no man, it is decades old, spans generations and represents the finest in American consensus. Horrible, horrible consensus.
You need at least one iOS machine to obtain an iCloud membership; that syncs up all your goodies to your Mac and PC and whatever else, but you must own at least one iOS device.
The problem is that SD cards and large amounts of flash storage won't go down if the cloud goes down, are faster than the network hardware, and are not subject to the data caps that a carrier would put in.
It's only a matter of time before a Google or Apple or Dell, or even a Hulu or Netflix, make a deal to exempt their devices access to their servers from bandwidth caps, in exchange for giving the carriers a better cut of the subscriber or service revenue.
Google will probably do just fine, because you need iOS to use the other one.
I never said it was good, did I?
You're arguing that it's normative, preferable to the other available outcomes (the duck's ass outcome in particular), and that Wintel succeded becasue of a position that manifests a moral value, openness. The word did not excape your lips but your argument is a functional value judgement.
Anyway, it was not a wintel hegemony that clobbered apple in the 80's
This is where I'm supposed to sit and let you pretend that people actually were successful selling x86 ISA computers that didn't run MS-DOS and Windows -- the hardware platform was open (GOOD) but none of that openness filtered down to the application developers or end users (BAD). MS leveraged an open platform to sell a closed one, and the combination was the thing people bought, because that was how the market worked. Granted it wasn't in their long-term interest to buy the same OS everyone else did, but adverse selection is a tough mistress, and just because someone could sell other OS's, and other people could buy them and use them, this doesn't dispose of the fact that no one did, and all that openness really didn't benefit anyone but the largest market participants.
And there's really no evidence Android will turn out any different, with an open OS, built to the carrier's orders, selling closed services on locked phones; all the while the fanboys reminding us that people can run cyanogenmod, while at no time realizing that no one does and thus no one enjoys the benefits.
"Openness" is a statement of potential, nothing more. It says almost nothing about what actually is available in the market, or what an end user can do.
It's been interesting to watch people try to recast Wintel as an "open" platform in order to (1) draw unfounded parallels with Android and (2) sweep under the rug the simple fact that the Wintel hegemony was bad for users.
Apple started out by targeting a product to hobbyists and techies. Abandoning those people shows a distinct lack of corporate character. When fashions change as they inevitably do, the loyalists won't be there.
You don't often hear the argument that nichy fanboys are critical to the long-term success of a company -- the hobbyists and techies of the computer market aren't liable to maintain any real brand loyalty, the know too much and their needs aren't mass marketable. Techies want FOSS, but its not a useful selling point.
Sony makes great audio gear; the "hobbyists and techies" of that market are the ones paying $200 for copper wires. Nobody outside of their circle can tell the difference, but they swear that it's a big deal. A lot like platform openness.
I have no idea what IB is...
He's making rather flaky argument that because Interface Builder can create a re-scaleable window or view, iOS can too.
Android apps actually re-flow their layout properly.
Perhaps you mean "Android developers may re-flow their layout properly." The motivation for making iPad apps distinct is it forces the developer to make a layout for the iPad, instead of Google strategy of releasing a library and praying developers use it and use it properly. I've seen quite a few of these where the border and bars of the app end up in the right place, but button grids or widgets in the middle don't resize, or are anchored to a corner, or container views leave huge margins around them...
Fragments is a good approach but the claim that Fragments exists isn't sufficient to prove that Android apps reflow properly.